If your church wants to 'teach' that Mary, like Elijah, was assumed up into Heaven in a similar manner; go ahead.
But the FACT that you have NO evidence to support this IS noted.
The BIBLE clearly states that those who 'die in Christ' WILL be resurrected at the Last Day.
Why is this not sufficient for you guys in Mary's case?
Y'all'd have more time to 'go ye into all the world' if you quit wasting so much of it talking to her!
To which you responded post #208:
Yes, you are. “If you guys would just leave this poor, dead woman alone, we’d be in MUCH more agreement with y’all!”
“If your church wants to ‘teach’ that Mary, like Elijah, was assumed up into Heaven in a similar manner; go ahead.”
Gee, thanks for your permission. By the way, Elijah did not go into Heaven. Heaven was closed to man until the death and resurrection of Christ. Your welcome for the Bible lesson.
“But the FACT that you have NO evidence to support this IS noted.”
We have evidence - it consistently has been taught by the Church.
“The BIBLE clearly states that those who ‘die in Christ’ WILL be resurrected at the Last Day.”
Yes, and? Are you saying Elijah was not assumed into some other “place”?
“Why is this not sufficient for you guys in Mary’s case?”
Why isn’t sufficient for you that all of the ancient Churches believe in Mary’s assumption?
“Y’all’d have more time to ‘go ye into all the world’ if you quit wasting so much of it talking to her!”
We don’t waste any time on her. About Mary there is never enough.
Notice your use of the words I bolded, in which you say this belief has "evidence" and that it was "consistently taught" by the church and that "all teh ancient churches believed in Mary's assumption". Elsie then replied in post #211:
I merely want to know WHY they 'believe' this; since there is NO evidence for it.
You countered in post #225:
“I merely want to know WHY they ‘believe’ this;”
Every Christian believed it. Not a single one ever expressed any doubt about it that we have even a single record of. The only logical conclusion is that it was true and known to be true.
That was when my interest was peaked, and I posted in #232:
Not so fast...not every Christian believed in the Assumption of Mary. Nor was it a common belief "from the start". In truth:
The idea of the assumption of Mary into heaven after her death is first expressed in narratives of the fifth and sixth centuries. Even though these were never official, they bear witness to the very early belief in a teaching of the Catholic Church which was not formally defined as a dogma (a teaching essential to the Catholic faith) until 50 years ago.
Though it was almost universally believed for more than a thousand years, the Bible contains no mention of the assumption of Mary into heaven. The first Church writer to speak of Mary's being taken up into heaven by God is Saint Gregory of Tours (594). Other early sermons on the Feast of Mary's entry into heaven are those of Ps.-Modestus of Jerusalem (ca. 700).
On May 1, 1946, Pope Pius XII, asked all bishops in the world whether they thought this belief in the assumption of Mary into heaven should be defined as a proposition of faith, and whether they with their clergy and people desired the definition. Almost all the bishops replied in the affirmative.
On November 1, 1950, the Feast of All Saints, Pope Pius XII declared as a dogma revealed by God that "Mary, the immaculate perpetually Virgin Mother of God, after the completion of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into the glory of Heaven".(http://www.wf-f.org/Assumption.html)
You responded in #235:
“Not so fast...not every Christian believed in the Assumption of Mary.”
Yes, they did - unless they were simply ignorant. And the quote you posted in no way gainsays what I said.
“Nor was it a common belief “from the start”.”
Yes, it was. There’s much more evidence for that belief than the reverse.
You and Elsie then went a few more rounds about this "evidence" and you continued to insist that there was plenty of evidence and that everybody who wasn't "ignorant" believed it all along. I responded to your post #235, with post #272:
While it is likely "they" accepted that Mary, the mother of Jesus, died and was buried, I'm specifically talking about the doctrine that she was miraculously assumed into heaven, body and soul. The Catholic Church has never formally defined whether she died or not and NOTHING in Scripture mentions anything about it and, if it is intended by God to be a divinely-revealed belief mandated (essential to the faith) for all Christians, it certainly should have been mentioned, wouldn't you think? Mary died decades before the letters of John were written, yet the Apostle Jesus entrusted the care of his mother to, never gives the slightest hint about this "miracle" happening to Mary. Why not?
We don't have ANY real knowledge of the day, year, and manner of Mary's death. The dates which are presumed for her death vary between three and fifteen years after Christ's Ascension. As the article I quoted earlier stated, the idea was first expressed in narratives of the fifth and sixth centuries. That doesn't sound like it was ALWAYS by EVERYONE believed, ignorant or not. It wasn't until the TWENTIETH (1946) century that the Catholic Church started to define it as a "proposition of faith" and then on November 1, 1950, the Feast of All Saints, Pope Pius XII declared as a dogma revealed by God that "Mary, the immaculate perpetually Virgin Mother of God, after the completion of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into the glory of Heaven".
I'd like to see all this "evidence" you have that disputes what even Catholic references have to say about the subject. And, again, y'all can believe whatever you want about this, where I object, and I am not alone, is when it becomes MANDATED for all Christians to believe and those who reject it are branded as heretics and mortal sinners for not accepting ALL that the magesterium decides is divinely revealed truth. This isn't a case of "we're" right everyone else is wrong and Catholics find themselves forced to defend a doctrine that they may not even agree with for the same reasons other don't, only they aren't ALLOWED to say so.
You shot back in post #278:
It’s amazing how quickly and often anti-Catholics resort to lies. I never said anything that disputed “Catholic references”. What the Catholic references say is that there is no EXPLICIT scriptural reference and no EXPLICIT historical reference in the first 4 centuries. The earliest references show a complete acceptance of the doctrine and that acceptance could only come if it was known everywhere and for a very long time.
To say anything else about what I said is to lie - outright lie.
I answered back at Post #304:
You are stating something as if it were indisputable fact going back, according to you, from the start of Christianity. The facts do not support this no matter how much one needs to think they do. I asked for the "evidence" you claimed existed "from the start". Do you have writings from the first or second century of early church fathers that support your contention that everyone held that Mary was assumed into heaven body and soul or not? How about the third century? Anyone? So, explain why nobody wrote about such a miracle until five or six centuries later? Explain why the Roman Catholic Church waited until nearly two THOUSAND years later to even begin discussing the idea of whether or not it should be made a doctrine of the Catholic faith? They waited until 1950 to announce it as Divinely-revealed truth? What, God couldn't make up His mind?
There are additional dogmas of the Catholic Church which also can be proven to have had no basis in antiquity, that early Christians did NOT acknowledge nor the slightest reference in sacred Scripture. That really is the gist of my argument. I have nothing against the legitimate Mary. I honor her for the courageous and faithful woman she was and for which she was chosen by God to bear the Messiah. If there had been anything about such a miracle happening in Scripture, I'd have no problem accepting it - I readily believe the miracles that ARE written. But there IS no Scripture nor Apostolic directions about this - only much-after-the-fact declarations that slowly became mandated to be believed by ALL Christians from a hierarchy that has no such power nor authority to make such demands. Believe what you want, I have no desire to tell others what they can or cannot believe and the same consideration should be given to those of us who choose to reject non-scriptural demands of fallible men and, instead, stick to the rule of faith God DID reveal in Holy Scripture.
Which brings us to this response of yours in this post where it appears there has been some selective amnesia where you claim I have made either a "terrible error" or a "terrible lie" because I made the claim that even "Catholic references" (and I gave one of them earlier) dispute the details of Mary's death and disposition afterwards. What you say I can't document, I already did.
It is blatantly obvious to anyone who reads this exchange that some anti-anyone-but-Catholics people will resort to twisted words and convoluted, cherry picked phrases all so that he might rationalize his bigoted hatred of those who reject his church's authority. It IS amazing how quickly and often anti-everyone-who-isn't-Catholic resorts to lies.” It happens all the time. What you claim I did I never did. So, is it an error on your part of an outrageous and deliberate falsehood? We'll let the reader decide.