THE ASSUMPTION OF MARY: Condemned as Heretical by 2 Popes in the 5th and 6th Centuries

christiantruth.com ^ | William Webster

[editor-surveyor]

Sinkspur was a catholic from Texas.

[ronnietherocket3]

The other, more plausible scenario is that IT NEVER HAPPENED!

This is certainly an explanation; however, I have seen no proof that it did not happen.

[CynicalBear]

The concept of purgatory and man having to pay for some of his own sins is blasphemy and denies the sufficiency of the sacrifice of Christ.

Hebrews 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

And we already have been sanctified.

Hebrews 10:10 By God's will we have been sanctified once and for all through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus, the Messiah.

Catholics denigrate what Christ did.

If people want the security that is in Jesus Christ they need to leave that apostate religion called Catholicism and put their faith in Jesus alone.

[ronnietherocket3]

The Holy Spirit inspired the writers of the New Testament in Greek not Aramaic. The words used in Matthew 16:18 are NOT Kepha and kepha. The words used in the only manuscripts available are Petros and petra. Each has a distinctly different meaning.

Peter is a man; it would be very odd to give him a feminine name.

[RegulatorCountry]

He also wrote that no one who could say, I am a Jew, I have always been a Jew, and everyone has always known that I am a Jew, was ever punished by the Inquisition.

Well what on earth was that Marrano thing about then, anyways? Was it just a passing fad among Spanish Jewry, to pretend to be Christian?

You'd think they'd have good reason to do such a thing. Like fear, maybe.

[ronnietherocket3]

Now that right there is funny. Pathetic. But funny. Please explain how it is pathetic?

[Rides_A_Red_Horse]

Many people find Jesus through Mary because she is tender, like a sinless mother would be. Christ is Lord, and he will judge.

---

The Gospels tell of crowds crying out “Son of David, have mercy on us!”

There are no reports of “Mary, talk to your Son for us!”

[CynicalBear]

Have you ever seen proof that aliens didn’t land in area 51?

[Rides_A_Red_Horse]

I find it; shall we say; quite interesting how Catholics can zero in on a ‘street preacher’ and give a pass to the EVIL men that have lead their chosen religion.

---

Many would consider John the Baptist to be something of a “street preacher.” He certainly didn’t follow the ways of the “Big Mother Church” of his day.

How would the modern day Bishops and Cardinals respond to him wandering the desert, wearing rough clothes of hair, eating locusts and honey while preaching repentance?

[NYer]

So show us the original Aramaic text ..

Again, you misunderstood. The problem is that we must get behind the Greek to the Aramaic. Aramaic was the language Jesus and the apostles and all the Jews in Palestine spoke. Most of the New Testament was written in Greek, but not all. Many hold that Matthew was written in Aramaic—we know this from records kept by Eusebius of Caesarea—but it was translated into Greek early on, perhaps by Matthew himself. In any case the Aramaic original is lost (as are all the originals of the New Testament books), so all we have today is the Greek.

We know that Jesus spoke Aramaic because some of his words are preserved for us in the Gospels. Look at Matthew 27:46, where he says from the cross, ‘Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?’ That isn’t Greek; it’s Aramaic, and it means, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’ In Paul’s epistles—four times in Galatians and four times in 1 Corinthians—we have the Aramaic form of Simon’s new name preserved for us. In our English Bibles it comes out as Cephas. That isn’t Greek. That’s a transliteration of the Aramaic word Kepha (rendered as Kephas in its Hellenistic form).

What does Kepha mean? It means a rock, the same as petra. (It doesn’t mean a little stone or a pebble. What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: ‘You are Kepha, and on thiskepha I will build my Church.

When you understand what the Aramaic says, you see that Jesus was equating Simon and the rock; he wasn’t contrasting them. We see this vividly in some modern English translations, which render the verse this way: ‘You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church.’ In French one word, pierre, has always been used both for Simon’s new name and for the rock.

Greek and Aramaic have different grammatical structures. In Aramaic you can use kepha in both places in Matthew 16:18. In Greek you encounter a problem arising from the fact that nouns take differing gender endings.

ou have masculine, feminine, and neuter nouns. The Greek word petra is feminine. You can use it in the second half of Matthew 16:18 without any trouble. But you can’t use it as Simon’s new name, because you can’t give a man a feminine name—at least back then you couldn’t. You have to change the ending of the noun to make it masculine. When you do that, you get Petros, which was an already-existing word meaning rock.

I have already posted this above. Perhaps you missed it. Jesus spoke Aramaic.

[CynicalBear]

>>Peter is a man; it would be very odd to give him a feminine name.<<

Peter was not given a feminine name. Jesus called him Petros which is male. Jesus said the "church" would be built on petra which is feminine. It's very odd that Catholics would try to make Peter feminine by claiming it is he who the "church" is built on.

[ronnietherocket3]

And who said Scripture was the Sole Authority? It is the sole supreme infallible authority as the wholly inspired assured word of God, which even papal ex cathedra statements are not.

Perhaps I should have written I went through a subset of the links provided. The repeated statements "it is written" establish the Infallibility Authority of Scripture. I see no reason to believe it establishes the Sole Infallible Authority of Scripture.

The alternative is the church thru her infallible magisterium being the sole supreme infallible authority, which is why my questions to you in post 825 need to be answered.

I only see one question in post 825 (though it is not the below).

And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus those who dissent from the latter are in rebellion to God.

A better description is that they are stubborn children in need of compassion rather in rebellion against God.

But with over 800 posts in two day then this one certainly has seen the most responses due to RCs trying to defend a tradition of men which has a special psychological content. I dare say a post attacking the deity of Christ or the whole Trinity would see half the responses by RCs.

Can you prove it is a tradition of men?

Well, that makes you an exception, but RCs not only post the most about their church here by far, but they can go so far as saying that there is not and never has been a bit of anti-Protestant bigotry on FR, or that they never see threads of Catholics starting an argument with protestants on FR. Even though they do so!Jesus did not die on the Cross so 21st Christians (Catholic or not) could whine about how they treated on the internet.

[caww]

<<<<<...Mary...they won’t let her through....>>>>>

Of course not.... we have been given all we need,.... God’s full armor, for which she has no power to offer nor anything else this side of heaven. Her work is done.

However.... We as Christians do stand ‘firm’ with the belt of truth,... the breastplate of righteousness,... the gospel of peace, ...the shield of faith,... the helmet of salvation,..and the sword of the Spirit for which Jesus has given us now.

Is He simply not enough for you?.... IS he unable to meet “all” your needs ‘through Him” as he has said he would?...are His hands, that were pierced for you too weak to meet everything that concerns your life all around?....

[ronnietherocket3]

Thus the reason the Holy Spirit had the text written in Greek.

Another explanation for writing it in Greek is that it was the most common language of the Eastern Med.

[CynicalBear]

That was pathetic on several levels. First of all to be that desperate to try to defend an erroneous doctrine begs credulity. Second, if the Holy Spirit thought it was important to the generations God promised to preserve His word for no human would or could have changed that.

[ronnietherocket3]

What verses do y’all use to justify AOM? I have not seen one valid verse.

Rev. 12 has been used frequently on this thread. To date I have yet to see someone explain how it is not Mary.

[ronnietherocket3]

Rev. 12 has been used frequently on this thread. To date I have yet to see someone explain how it is not Mary.

The word it should be replaced by the woman.

[publius911]

Another anti-Catholic thread?

Nah.

Something has to keep the low-self-esteem neurotics entertained...

[ronnietherocket3]

That was pathetic on several levels. First of all to be that desperate to try to defend an erroneous doctrine begs credulity. Second, if the Holy Spirit thought it was important to the generations God promised to preserve His word for no human would or could have changed that.

While I have seen reasonable arguments that making the belief binding is problematic, I have not seen anyone disprove the Assumption. In the original article, one of the quotes (Epiphanius) indicates that the end of Mary's life is mysterious.

The Catholic response to your second comment is that the Holy Spirit preserved indirectly rather than directly.

This is not directed at CB specifically. Prior to commenting that previous Popes had declared the AOM heretical please provide a quote specifically condemning the AOM as heresy. The original article provided quotes condemning as heresy books that mentioned the AOM; however, the quotes do not condemn the AOM specifically.