Mary and the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin

[MoreCoffee]

If you keep pooling your collective ignorance about the dogma of the assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary you will soon have an ocean of ignorance to water ski upon and to swim in, beware of the sharks and jelly fish

 

[Arsenios]

Obviously, I would have been better off not to use the word "normal"--which is married couples having sex--but should just have said what I meant.

Her decision to not know a man happened early...

That is why she questioned the Angel when he said she would conceive...

"How can I conceive when I am not knowing a man?"

You will notice the Angel did not give her anything but respect with his reply...

Unlike all others who question the prophesy of an angel, mind you...

I mean, you are an angel, and you go to a couple who are betrothed to be married, right? So you say, OK - I will tell her that she will have a cute little boy baby. She will be happy to hear that she will have a child, right? And she is an early teen... I mean, if anyone comes to a betrothed to be married young woman and tells her she will have a child, the very last thing that one will ever find is a woman who replies: "How can I conceive when I am not knowing a man?" About to be married means about to know a man, right? It would not even be news... But she knew her commitment to her total reservation to God even at that early age... And when the Angel told her she would conceive without knowing a man, she immediately consented to conception without knowing a man, and ONLY to conception without knowing a man - "According to Thy word..." she said... Meaning ONLY according to thy word...

That is why the widower and elder Joseph had agreed to marry her, so that she could have a celibate marriage and help him with the rearing of his children and running his household - But mostly the maintaining an already established life of prayer and total consecration to God... The Angel encounter came later... And with the celibacy matter primary, and then she shows up pregnant, he decided to back off from the marriage, knowing it wasn't him who caused it, and knowing how young and perhaps mistaken they both had been... Until, of course, he had the dream... He was a pious and holy man himself... And he immediately knew from the dream that he was stepping into something really big in this celibate marriage, and he consented to it, and got them out of there to Egypt when warned in another dream to do so...

This account has been in the Church from the beginnings - Kept in oral tradition... All Apostolic Churches understand Her this way...

Much of it probably came through her second "son", John the Evangelist, who perhaps wanted it kept oral...

Perhaps there were still forces wanting blood for what had happened...

Not all is known, nor does it need to be...

But the very obviously true feature of this account is that she birthed God, and that Her Son was ONLY-Begotten, and she is the Blessed Virgin, and not the FORMER Blessed Virgin... And beyond that, She is the New Eve, as is Christ the New Adam...
And She is a figure of the Woman pursued by the Dragon in Revelation...

What I am saying here is nothing new to Historic Christianity...


Arsenios


Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

The doctrine of salvation...because you aren't baptizing them into Christ. You're just getting them wet and then lying to their parents that their infants are in Christ.
There is no scripture that says "Baptizing an unrepentant infant saves them and places them into Christ." You just make it up as an assertion and think if you push the lie long enough it will become true.

The Bible says we are Baptized into Christ...

And records Christ saying:
"Suffer the little children to come unto Me...
For of such as these is the Kingdom of the Heavens..."

So where is the heresy? Our faulty Baptism???

Baptism in water?

When Baptism in Water is everywhere in the New Testament?

Keep shooting those blanks in the dark!

That's perhaps enough, Menno...

It is hard to not get all judgmental when you disagree with someone on an important topic...

Please keep me in your prayers...


Arsenios

 

[MennoSota]

The Bible says we are Baptized into Christ...

And records Christ saying:
"Suffer the little children to come unto Me...
For of such as these is the Kingdom of the Heavens..."

So where is the heresy? Our faulty Baptism???

Baptism in water?

When Baptism in Water is everywhere in the New Testament?

Keep shooting those blanks in the dark!

That's perhaps enough, Menno...

It is hard to not get all judgmental when you disagree with someone on an important topic...

Please keep me in your prayers...


Arsenios

Arsenios, which verse are you clinging to that says humans water baptize other humans into Jesus?
The verses you are plucking about Jesus comments regarding children have zero reference to baptism thus you are weakening your position on infant baptism by trying to shove a square peg into a round hole.

 

[atpollard]

But the very obviously true feature of this account is that she birthed God, and that Her Son was ONLY-Begotten, and she is the Blessed Virgin, and not the FORMER Blessed Virgin...

Scripture also claims that the son of Mary is God ... [John 10:30 NASB] 30 "I and the Father are one."

Scripture also claims that Jesus was the "only begotten" son of God:

[Jhn 1:14, 18 NASB] 14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. ... 18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained [Him.]
[Jhn 3:16, 18 NASB] 16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. ... 18 "He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
[1Jo 4:9 NASB] 9 By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him.​

... the bible appears to contain no verse that claims Jesus was the "only begotten son of Mary".

The words "Blessed" and "Virgin" do not appear together in any scripture verse, so there is no specific mention of a "Blessed Virgin" in the God breathed word.
The word "virgin" is used in the New Testament to refer to Mary prior to and at the time of Jesus' birth, but none after that:

[Mat 1:23, 25 NASB] 23 "BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD AND SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL," which translated means, "GOD WITH US." ... 25 but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.
[Luk 1:27, 34 NASB] 27 to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the descendants of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. ... 34 Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I am a virgin?"​

The remaining appearances of the word "virgin" in the New Testament do not refer to Mary:

[Act 21:9 NASB] 9 Now this man had four virgin daughters who were prophetesses.
[1Co 7:28, 34, 36-38 NASB] 28 But if you marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Yet such will have trouble in this life, and I am trying to spare you. ... 34 and [his interests] are divided. The woman who is unmarried, and the virgin, is concerned about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how she may please her husband. ... 36 But if any man thinks that he is acting unbecomingly toward his virgin [daughter,] if she is past her youth, and if it must be so, let him do what he wishes, he does not sin; let her marry. 37 But he who stands firm in his heart, being under no constraint, but has authority over his own will, and has decided this in his own heart, to keep his own virgin [daughter,] he will do well. 38 So then both he who gives his own virgin [daughter] in marriage does well, and he who does not give her in marriage will do better.
[2Co 11:2 NASB] 2 For I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy; for I betrothed you to one husband, so that to Christ I might present you [as] a pure virgin.​

The problem with accepting traditions just because they are old is that Arianism and Pelegianism are as old or older than the writings of Jerome that put forth the case for the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. So too is the tradition of the preeminence of the bishop of Rome based on the words on Christ in Matthew 16:18. So we Protestants are forced to greatly subordinate all traditions as mere tools to assist in comprehension, to Sola Scriptura as the ONLY yardstick by which to judge truth against.

Scripture states that Mary was a virgin when Christ was born ... it is silent on her virginity after that.
Scripture states that Joseph and Mary were married.
Scripture states that Jesus had brothers.
Scripture states that Jesus was sinless and that outside of Jesus ALL HAVE SINNED.
Scripture is silent on the birth of Mary, except for her genealogy.
Scripture states that Jesus was assumed into heaven ... it is silent on the death or assumption of Mary.

 

[atpollard]

:focus:

THIS TOPIC IS "Mary and the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin" (so let's try and focus on something related to Mary.)

THIS TOPIC IS NOT "BAPTISM" (so let's argue about Baptism in the Baptism topic that already exists).

 

[Josiah]

The RCC dogma of the Assumption of Mary - just like the Anabaptist d0ogma of Credobaptism - is NOT taught in the Bible.
NEITHER is taught in the Bible.
This is obvious and undeniable.
Catholics admit this (being more honest, with greater integrity here?)
Baptists don't.



But of the two dogmas (neither taught in the Bible), the Assumption of Mary has other things going for it, whereas Credobaptism has NOTHING else going for it, making the Assumption of Mary perhaps more valid.

The Assumption of Mary was widely embraced from the Early Church, the dogma of Credobaptism can't be traced back more than to the late 16th Century and have never been embraced by a majority of Christians, ever.

For over 1000 years, the Assumption of Mary was accepted by all Christians (albeit not as dogma), Credobaptism has never been accepted by every Christian or even a majority of Christians (especially not Calvinists)

The Anabaptist invention of Credobaptism actually specifically and directly contradicts the teachings of all Christians since at least the year 100 AD . We find NO direct teaching against it until about 400 years ago.


But yes, I agree with both Baptists and Catholics, neither dogma is taught in Scripture. It's just that the Assumption of Mary has other things going for it while Credobaptism doesn't.




To the issue of the thread...


The opening poster wants to define Baptist Dogmas HIS way and limit discussion to the Baptist dogmas he is willing to discuss. Frankly, I permit that in debate. So I agreed. Especially since he had refused -over and over for months - to give substantiation for any of these Baptist dogmas he presented; nice to FINALLY after months, get a discussion that he flat out said he would NOT discuss. So, I agreed to stick to the ONE he would discuss. I agreed to HIS definition. And what happened? He states he will not discuss HIS topic that he gave HIS definition of. Hum.


It's interesting he started this thread rather than address His baptist dogmas (or even just the ONE he said he'd be willing to discuss IF we accepted HIS definition - which we did). Interesting because it proves my point. The burden of proof lies with the one with the position, not those who don't hold to it. He wants those who do NOT teach a view to present a Scripture that states the view is wrong (a SILLY epistemology) but where is his verse, "Mary was NOT assumed into heaven." Where is his verse, "Mary had lots of sex and did not remain a virgin?" Nope. He wants the Catholics to show that the Assumption of Mary is TRUE (I think confident they don't have a Scripture that confirms it, which they don't CLAIM they do). Evidently forgetting HE doesn't have a verse that says, "Only those who have previously in chronological time have proven they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior may be baptized." He calls out the Catholics for what he himself does. Ironically. Matthew 7:3 immediately comes to mind.



.

Let us be clear. Paedobaptism is never taught in scripture. It is a heresy brought in after the Apostles died.

Credobaptism is never taught in Scriptures (as you and atpollard have proven). It is an opinion first taught after all the Apostles had been died for 1,500 years, invented by the very radically synergistic Anabaptists.


Again, you didn't read a WORD of the post you CLAIM to be responding to. Because nowhere in the thread is your dogma of Anti-Paedobaptism even mentioned. And I agreed that BOTH the ancient, mostly ecumenical view of the Assumption of Mary is not taught in the Bible, just like the very late, very limited Anbaptist invention of Credobaptism. Same/same in that regard. It's just that Credobaptism has nothing going for it, whereas the Assumption 0f Mary does. And of course, Catholics are honest about theis dogma not being taught in the Bible whereas Baptists aren't.



What is important about this thread is that atpollard makes my point. It's interesting he started this thread rather than address His baptist dogmas (or even just the ONE he said he'd be willing to discuss IF we accepted HIS definition - which we did). Interesting because it affirms the point he otherwise denied: The burden of proof lies with the one with the position, not those who don't hold to it. He wants those who do NOT teach a view to present a Scripture that states the view is wrong (a SILLY epistemology) but where is his verse, "Mary was NOT assumed into heaven." Where is his verse, "Mary had lots of sex and did not remain a virgin?" Nope. He wants the Catholics to show that the Assumption of Mary is TRUE (I think confident they don't have a Scripture that confirms it, which they don't CLAIM they do). Evidently forgetting HE doesn't have a verse that says, "Only those who have previously in chronological time have proven they had chosen Jesus as their personal Savior may be baptized." He calls out the Catholics for what he himself does. Ironically. Matthew 7:3 immediately comes to mind.




.

 

[atpollard]

If you keep pooling your collective ignorance about the dogma of the assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary you will soon have an ocean of ignorance to water ski upon and to swim in, beware of the sharks and jelly fish

Part of that is the fault of the Catholic Church (Roman and Eastern) since the cure for "ignorance" is "information" and those with the truth are hoarding it.

Even if they refuse to listen, you could state the truth (for the silent readers) and refuse to argue about it.

Setting aside the Immaculate Conception and Perpetual Virginity, what would lead you to believe that Mary was assumed? Obviously her assumption is not recorded in scripture, so when and where is it first written down?

... Or do Catholics still just pass it on by word of mouth as an ancient Church rumor mill?

[If your rumor mill is anything like our church rumor mill, it can be counted on to be 99% wrong 100% of the time. The last thing that was "brought to my attention" was that one of our Elders had quit to start a Church in Tampa because he wasn't at service the Sunday that the Pastor was away. So I was amused and wanted to know what the real story was to shut down ugly gossip. I told Tyrone the rumors of the week was about him and he laughed when he heard it. He was at a service in Tampa when the Pasor was away, because an old friend of his was visiting from out of state and was the guest speaker at that church on that Sunday. The Pastor knew all about it because they had spoken about it before he agreed to lend moral support to his friend. So I am wary of "oral traditions" ... have you ever played "Telephone"?]​

 

[atpollard]

What is important about this thread is that atpollard makes my point. It's interesting he started this thread rather than address His baptist dogmas (or even just the ONE he said he'd be willing to discuss IF we accepted HIS definition - which we did).

:slap:

:focus:

THIS TOPIC IS "Mary and the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin" (so let's try and focus on something related to Mary.)

THIS TOPIC IS NOT "BAPTISM" (so let's argue about Baptism in the Baptism topic that already exists).

 

[MoreCoffee]

Part of that is the fault of the Catholic Church (Roman and Eastern) since the cure for "ignorance" is "information" and those with the truth are hoarding it.

Even if they refuse to listen, you could state the truth (for the silent readers) and refuse to argue about it.

Setting aside the Immaculate Conception and Perpetual Virginity, what would lead you to believe that Mary was assumed? Obviously her assumption is not recorded in scripture, so when and where is it first written down?

... Or do Catholics still just pass it on by word of mouth as an ancient Church rumor mill?

[If your rumor mill is anything like our church rumor mill, it can be counted on to be 99% wrong 100% of the time. The last thing that was "brought to my attention" was that one of our Elders had quit to start a Church in Tampa because he wasn't at service the Sunday that the Pastor was away. So I was amused and wanted to know what the real story was to shut down ugly gossip. I told Tyrone the rumors of the week was about him and he laughed when he heard it. He was at a service in Tampa when the Pasor was away, because an old friend of his was visiting from out of state and was the guest speaker at that church on that Sunday. The Pastor knew all about it because they had spoken about it before he agreed to lend moral support to his friend. So I am wary of "oral traditions" ... have you ever played "Telephone"?]​

Until now I've had the good sense not to participate in this thread because it is a bit of a mud wrestling pit for people who know little about the dogma of the assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary and care even less so they wrestle with the mud more than the dogma that they perceive to be their opponent. Personally I don't much care what folk who reject the dogma think about it. I guess if they ask questions and state their perceptions without prejudicial commentary I'd be happy do discuss it but that doesn't happen in CH threads with titles like this one so I left it to slurp and heave as the wrestling went on.If you'd like to discuss the matter in a civil atmosphere then a different thread might be a good place to go.

 

[Josiah]

Until now I've had the good sense not to participate in this thread because it is a bit of a mud wrestling pit for people who know little about the dogma of the assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary

Atpollard (whom I'm genuinely not sure knows the difference between the Perpetual Virginity of Mary and the Assumption of Mary) PASSIONATELY holds that doctrine is accountable - and the "burden of proof" lies entirely with the RCC, to prove this true, and to the level claimed. It is not HIS responsibility to prove it is wrong (although he WRONGLY thinks he shows the PVM unlikely), it's YOUR full responsibility to prove the Assumption of Mary is TRUE - and he requires you do it by the words found in the Bible.


Here's the interesting aspect of this. The whole thread is in response to ME pointing out that HE holds that the burden of proof lies with those who hold to the dogma, NOT with those who don't. He wants me to quote the words of Scripture proving the Anabaptist dogma of Credobaptism is wrong, and I noted why I don't accept it and admitted I had no Scripture that states specifically "No, it is NOT required that one prove in previous chronological time that such has chosen Jesus as their personal Savior BEFORE the biblical prohibition to Baptism is lifted and that one may be baptized but only if fully immersed into and under water." But that's not MY responsibility to do that. I noted his rejection of the Assumption of Mary even though he can't find a single verse that states it is false (in fact, he doesn't even TRY - he just insists it's the Catholics job to prove the dogma correct) .


PERSONALLY, I don't accept EITHER the Assumption of Mary OR Credobaptism dogmatically (nor the PVM since atpollard may not know the difference). They are not affirmed by Scripture. But at least Catholics are honest (and show some integrity) because they don't CLAIM they are expressly taught, Baptists ... well....... Of the 3, I'd give the Perpetual Virginity of Mary the highest validity: It's a couple of centuries older than the Assumption of Mary, more ecumenically embraced, and was at least mentioned (if not expressly affirmed) by an Ecumenical Council. A bit below that would be the Assumption of Mary, which is dogma exclusively in the RCC and that only since 1870. But both are infinitely strongly than Credobaptism with also has no Biblical affimation but also has no history, no connection to the Early Church, no ecumenical Tradition, no Rule of Faith going for it, was universally repudiated for 1500 years and wasn't affirmed until the late 16th Century - and that only by one faith community: the Anabapists (continued today by those who have dropped the "ana" from their name).




.

 

[Arsenios]

What would lead you to believe that Mary was assumed?
Obviously her assumption is not recorded in scripture,
so when and where is it first written down?
I am wary of "oral traditions" ...

Are you wary of this?:

2Th 2:15
Therefore, brethren, be ye standing firm,

Always a good idea in matters of the Faith of Christ, yes?

and holding in power the traditions

Does this wobble you? It did not wobble the early Church...

The differences in their Holy Tradition are almost all but cosmetic...

which ye have been taught,

So you are thinking your Church's rumor mill of old women gossiping???

whether through word, or through our epistle.

Pre-literate peoples have exact memory...

Us post-modern knuckle-dragging i-phone know-it-all computer sloggers...
Have only what is written on paper or on the screens of their devices...

The Bible was written for pre-literates...
Icons speak directly to people who cannot read...
And the Church reads aloud from the Bible in every Service...
Indeed the Services themselves are about 80% from the Bible...
Unlike sermon-dominated Services these days...


Arsenios

 

[atpollard]

Atpollard (whom I'm genuinely not sure knows the difference between the Perpetual Virginity of Mary and the Assumption of Mary) PASSIONATELY holds ...

still an expert on what everyone else knows and believes, I see ... otiose post. ... OTIO :taz:

 

[Tigger]

I prefer to agree with both the assumption and perpetual virginity of the mother of our Lord but under pious opinion and not dogmatically. Biblically I see both Enoch and Elijah being assumed into heaven so there is biblical precedence for it. And the Lord gives His mother over to His disciple during His crucifixion showing to me she had no other offspring to care for her.
When in doubt I side with historic church traditions.

Until now I've had the good sense not to participate in this thread because it is a bit of a mud wrestling pit for people who know little about the dogma of the assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary and care even less so they wrestle with the mud more than the dogma that they perceive to be their opponent. Personally I don't much care what folk who reject the dogma think about it. I guess if they ask questions and state their perceptions without prejudicial commentary I'd be happy do discuss it but that doesn't happen in CH threads with titles like this one so I left it to slurp and heave as the wrestling went on.If you'd like to discuss the matter in a civil atmosphere then a different thread might be a good place to go.

I have to say I kinda agree. As you can see I tried to enter the dialogue objectively 'for lack of a better word' but was pointed 'although graciously' to the nuances of a previous discussion that instigated this thread making me think that ultimately my tack to the subject was off topic to the threads intent. In a perfect world I'd say that that is true but what distraction would it really cause when those that were in the liking of marring each other in the mud could still proceed without trying to entice conscientious objectors from taking up arms? :argue:

 

[Arsenios]

Atpollard (whom I'm genuinely not sure knows the difference between the Perpetual Virginity of Mary and the Assumption of Mary) PASSIONATELY holds that doctrine is accountable - and the "burden of proof" lies entirely with the RCC, to prove this true, and to the level claimed. It is not HIS responsibility to prove it is wrong (although he WRONGLY thinks he shows the PVM unlikely), it's YOUR full responsibility to prove the Assumption of Mary is TRUE - and he requires you do it by the words found in the Bible.


Here's the interesting aspect of this. The whole thread is in response to ME pointing out that HE holds that the burden of proof lies with those who hold to the dogma, NOT with those who don't. He wants me to quote the words of Scripture proving the Anabaptist dogma of Credobaptism is wrong, and I noted why I don't accept it and admitted I had no Scripture that states specifically "No, it is NOT required that one prove in previous chronological time that such has chosen Jesus as their personal Savior BEFORE the biblical prohibition to Baptism is lifted and that one may be baptized but only if fully immersed into and under water." But that's not MY responsibility to do that. I noted his rejection of the Assumption of Mary even though he can't find a single verse that states it is false (in fact, he doesn't even TRY - he just insists it's the Catholics job to prove the dogma correct) .

PERSONALLY, I don't accept EITHER the Assumption of Mary OR Credobaptism dogmatically (nor the PVM since atpollard may not know the difference). They are not affirmed by Scripture. But at least Catholics are honest (and show some integrity) because they don't CLAIM they are expressly taught, Baptists ... well....... Of the 3, I'd give the Perpetual Virginity of Mary the highest validity: It's a couple of centuries older than the Assumption of Mary, more ecumenically embraced, and was at least mentioned (if not expressly affirmed) by an Ecumenical Council. A bit below that would be the Assumption of Mary, which is dogma exclusively in the RCC and that only since 1870. But both are infinitely strongly than Credobaptism with also has no Biblical affimation but also has no history, no connection to the Early Church, no ecumenical Tradition, no Rule of Faith going for it, was universally repudiated for 1500 years and wasn't affirmed until the late 16th Century - and that only by one faith community: the Anabapists (continued today by those who have dropped the "ana" from their name).




.

Good post but needs an editor to revise it for basic coherence...







.

 

[atpollard]

Are you wary of this?:

2Th 2:15
Therefore, brethren, be ye standing firm,

Always a good idea in matters of the Faith of Christ, yes?

and holding in power the traditions

Does this wobble you? It did not wobble the early Church...

The differences in their Holy Tradition are almost all but cosmetic...

which ye have been taught,

So you are thinking your Church's rumor mill of old women gossiping???

whether through word, or through our epistle.

Pre-literate peoples have exact memory...

Us post-modern knuckle-dragging i-phone know-it-all computer sloggers...
Have only what is written on paper or on the screens of their devices...

The Bible was written for pre-literates...
Icons speak directly to people who cannot read...
And the Church reads aloud from the Bible in every Service...
Indeed the Services themselves are about 80% from the Bible...
Unlike sermon-dominated Services these days...

Arsenios

2 Thessalonians was written around AD 51-52, so at the time that was written, the Christians to whom it was written had the Old Testament, James (AD 44-49), Galatians (AD 49-50), Mark (AD 50-60), Matthew (AD 50-60) and 1 Thessalonians (AD 51) as the only writings available. The oral tradition handed to them by the living Apostles was of vital importance to remember and trust. It was so important, in fact, that the Apostles wrote it down in the rest of the books and letters that comprise the Bible and the Early Christians preserved those writings even at the cost of their own lives. Apparently trusting in men to just pass on an oral tradition was not good enough for the Apostles chosen by God, was it?

Is there any reason to hold the fourth century writings of Jerome as being as accurate and unchanged from the lips of the Apostles as the Letters that the Apostles wrote themselves? Thus my question about "when and where" it was first written down.

 

[Josiah]

Is there any reason to hold the fourth century writings of Jerome as being as accurate and unchanged from the lips of the Apostles as the Letters that the Apostles wrote themselves? Thus my question about "when and where it was first written down".

Perhaps more so than some Anabaptist in the late 16th Century inventing Anti-Paedobaptism, Credobaptism and Immersion Only Baptism....


But what's interesting, you want Catholics and Orthodox to show that the Bible teaches the Assumption of Mary (which the OP seems to confuse with the Perpetual Virginity or Mary) because those with the doctrine have the "burden of proof" to show it true..... but you seem to hold to the exact opposite rubric when it comes to the Anabaptist dogmas on baptism that you present.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I have to say I kinda agree. As you can see I tried to enter the dialogue objectively 'for lack of a better word' but was pointed 'although graciously' to the nuances of a previous discussion that instigated this thread making me think that ultimately my tack to the subject was off topic to the threads intent. In a perfect world I'd say that that is true but what distraction would it really cause when those that were in the liking of marring each other in the mud could still proceed without trying to entice conscientious objectors from taking up arms? :argue:

I opened a new thread called Civil discourse - On the Bodily assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary into heaven.

 

[Albion]

Are you wary of this?:

2Th 2:15
Therefore, brethren, be ye standing firm,

Always a good idea in matters of the Faith of Christ, yes?

and holding in power the traditions

Does this wobble you? It did not wobble the early Church...

The differences in their Holy Tradition are almost all but cosmetic...

which ye have been taught,

But traditions and Holy Tradition are two different ideas. We should take care not to run them together in order to try to prove some point about unscriptural beliefs that have been made into dogma by one denomination or another.

 

[Albion]

Her decision to not know a man happened early...

That is why she questioned the Angel when he said she would conceive...

"How can I conceive when I am not knowing a man?"

...which has no relevance when the issue is her relations with Joseph following the birth of Jesus.