Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Salvation

First, you dont know what I believe, so you should probably stop trying to guess at it.

Second, only half of the Bible is about the Son.

Third, you still did not provide scripture that she is sinless or that she was assumed into Heaven, which you should have at the ready if you are going to make the assumption that both are true.

Fourth, we shared the Apostle’s Creed at the Methodist Church I attended, and Mary is mentioned as having given birth to Jesus, nothing else. So I fail to see how mentioning someone in a creed means they were assumed, unless that is what you were wanting it to mean the whole time.

Fifth, the fact that Mary “took a back seat willingly in obedience to God” has absolutely nothing to do with whether she was sinless or assumed into Heaven, it is just a red herring.

You basically just put down four irrelevant topics.


50 posted on 08/15/2010 6:08:23 PM PDT by Raider Sam (They're on our left, right, front, and back. They aint gettin away this time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies ]


To: Raider Sam

That’s why so many protestants engage in shameful practices like birth control and abortion. It’s difficult to find specific condemnations, so you’re dependent upon pastor billie bob, or someone like Robert Schuler to give you the answer... wow...


59 posted on 08/15/2010 6:19:43 PM PDT by 0beron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]

To: Raider Sam

Anyone taking up the New Testament and reading it through can see how fragmentary an account of events it gives not only of our Lord’s life on earth but especially of the history of the early Church. Peter is the “star” of the first half of Acts, but he abruptly disappears and we read nothing further about him. About Paul’s career prior to his arrest in Jerusalem we get just a sketchy account if twenty years of activity. and it leaves us —again—hanging about what happens to him. If he tells us nothing about the ultimate fate of Peter and Paul, is it surprising that he says nothing about the end of mother of the Lord?

Some will say that the story of the Assumption of Marry was a pious invention, but others will say they same about the first two chapters of the Gospel of Luke, which tells of marvels much more wondrous. From a certain perspective, each is an embellishment of the essential story, which —they think-is told by ‘ Mark.” It is only on the authority of the Church that we say that this is not the case. From my perspective, the same Church that guarantees the canon is the one that guarantees the truth of the Assumption. I simply do not believe that true Christianity is what can be stitched together by reading the Bible.


127 posted on 08/15/2010 8:24:09 PM PDT by RobbyS (Pray with the suffering souls.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson