Mary and the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin

[atpollard]

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.

OT :taz: IO

 

[atpollard]

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

Do not take my lack of participation as ignoring it. If I post there, I will likely be a lightning rod for threadcrapping. So I will happily read without posting.

 

[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.

The only point I was seeking to establish accords with the Great Commission of Christ to His 12...

Because it is not the writings that disciple the nations, printed word to isolated mind...

But Paul says "Be ye imitators of me imitating Christ..." or words to that effect...

Early Christians and indeed Christians today were and are discipled eyeball to eyeball in the Love of God...

This Faith is not passed God to Book to whoever has their very own Bible...

Christianity took over the world under persecutions in conditions where the co-equivalent cost of a single Book of the Bible would be thousands of dollars...

Illiterate individuals could not afford the LXX, for instance...

This Faith is DISCIPLED and not taught from Cliff Notes for exams...

Look - Try this: Put away your Bible and disciple your children in the Christian Faith...

If you are Menno, you cannot do so -

You can only tell them that until God arrives in their lives and saves them, they are condemned to hell...

Once that happens, then they can begin their repentance from evil...

Until it happens, they might just as well go on ahead and become axe-murderers if they can get away with it from local authorities, if that's what they want to do...

The Holy Books were brought for the sake of establishing the Services of the Faith...

There is a second century letter from a person who travelled from England to the Holy Land, and all the Churches along the way did the same Services...

What the Churches provided was the discipling of the nations, leading men, women and children to the Father through Christ in the Holy Spirit...

And the living of those Services was and is the structural means of the discipling of the Faith...

The point of the passage I cited is that it is the Traditions that are to be incorporated into one's being, and these by both word and by epistle...

But by word is better, face to face, shown how, not merely addressing issues arising and their correction by very pastoral epistles...

Those epistles are not theological treatises, but an illustration of the MEANS of Apostolic correction of erring directions in a Church...

Enough for now...

The other Apostles also established Churches, but wrote far fewer epistles that found their way into the NT...

And most were not specifically directed to single Churches...


Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

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

Totally relevant... It establishes her stance...

Look - Let's say your daughter is about to get married -
She is engaged/betrothed to her husband to be,
And is looking forward to having children right away...
and an angel comes to her and tells her she will have a baby...

I should think her reply would NOT BE
"How can that be? For I am not knowing a man..."
Can you not see how inappropriate that reply is?
About to marry...
Why would she say: "For I am not knowing a man..."

By worldly standards, that reply, in that particular context, is totally crackers...

UNLESS, you see... UNLESS...

Unless she meant that she is betrothed as a woman committed to God to the exclusion of carnal marital relations...

That is the ONLY way her response to the Angel CAN make sense...

And it does...


Arsenios

 

[MennoSota]

Totally relevant... It establishes her stance...

Look - Let's say your daughter is about to get married -
She is engaged/betrothed to her husband to be,
And is looking forward to having children right away...
and an angel comes to her and tells her she will have a baby...

I should think her reply would NOT BE
"How can that be? For I am not knowing a man..."
Can you not see how inappropriate that reply is?
About to marry...
Why would she say: "For I am not knowing a man..."

By worldly standards, that reply, in that particular context, is totally crackers...

UNLESS, you see... UNLESS...

Unless she meant that she is betrothed as a woman committed to God to the exclusion of carnal marital relations...

That is the ONLY way her response to the Angel CAN make sense...

And it does...


Arsenios

Do you know what a conspiracy theory is...because you have created a doozy.

 

[Albion]

Totally relevant... It establishes her stance...

No, it doesn't. The "stance" you are talking about concerns her virginal status at the time of the Annunciation, that's all. It says nothing about her future relations with her husband.

 

[Josiah]

Some seem unaware that the Assumption of Mary and the Perpetual Virginity of Mary are two DIFFERENT views. And that neither is the dogma of Credobaptism.


But the interesting thing is this whole thread is in response to my saying to atpollard that he rejects the dogma of the Assumption of Mary but holds that the "burden of proof" lies with the Catholics to substantiate it true (and he demands this be done with the words we find in the Bible) and is NOT the task of those who don't teach ti to prove it false. And yet with Credobaptism, he reverses his rubric, demanding we prove it false (and with the words found in the Bible).

 

[MennoSota]

Some seem unaware that the Assumption of Mary and the Perpetual Virginity of Mary are two DIFFERENT views. And that neither is the dogma of Credobaptism.


But the interesting thing is this whole thread is in response to my saying to atpollard that he rejects the dogma of the Assumption of Mary but holds that the "burden of proof" lies with the Catholics to substantiate it true (and he demands this be done with the words we find in the Bible) and is NOT the task of those who don't teach ti to prove it false. And yet with Credobaptism, he reverses his rubric, demanding we prove it false (and with the words found in the Bible).

How does one go about proving your utterly silent in scripture doctrine is false when you have no scripture to support it in the first place?
Every instance of baptism found in the Bible supports baptism of confessing believers. There is not one instance showing a non-believer who has not confessed Christ as Lord being baptized.
Any rational human can understand this. Yet...

 

[Josiah]

Every instance of baptism found in the Bible

Yup, there are some who seem unaware that the dogma of the Assumption of Mary is not identical to the dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary or Credobaptism. Amazing.

Every instance of baptism found in the Bible supports baptism of confessing believers. There is not one instance showing a non-believer who has not confessed Christ as Lord being baptized.

Even if this were true, so what? You reject your own premise that we MUST do whatever is exampled in the Bible and are FORBIDDEN to do what is not. Your posting on the internet proves it.

But it's not true. We have presented you with cases of people being baptized in the Bible and asked you where it says they FIRST stated they chose Jesus as their personal Savior and you can't find it. Your premise - one you yourself reject - doesn't hold.




.

supports baptism of confessing believers. There is not one instance showing a non-believer who has not confessed Christ as Lord being baptized.
Any rational human can understand this. Yet...[/QUOTE]

 

[Arsenios]

Well the Bible was not written in Arabic and the apostles did not speak Arabic.

Matthew wrote in Aramaic and Greek

There is perhaps the last of the Churches in Syria that still to this day worships in Aramaic...
They produced 2 more martyrs during the recent civil war...
That Church proclaims the virginity of the Mother of God...

You are going to extremes and I never said Mary was raped!
Your example of one not drinking until...
then afterwords becoming a drunk
is a false analogy,
going to extremes

I was simply illustrating in English the normal middle-eastern way of using the term "until" in this manner...

I never said you were arguing for Mary being raped - That is silly...

The point here is that the betrothal was arranged so that she COULD live in concealment...
You are right, marriages in Jerusalem are consummated...
Young women need to marry...
This betrothal was arranged to be a celibate marriage because she was already committed to virginity in prayer...

THEN came the Annunciation of the Angel Gabriel...
And God's purpose was revealed...
And She consented on condition of the preservation of her virginity [that's clear from the Bible, yes?]...
And Joseph consented through a dream...
And the child was thereby concealed in a family...
But Herod was coming to kill ALL the children in ALL families in Jerusalem...
And the family warned in a dream then fled to Egypt...
Which further CONCEALED the identity of the Child...

That is how God inserted and concealed the Christ-Child behind enemy lines for the Salvation of mankind...
And He remained concealed until the End drew near...
Until His Time had Come...

They did not take all that long to kill Him once they found out Who He was...


Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

Do you know what a conspiracy theory is...because you have created a doozy.

Christianity is STILL an undercover operation...

Makes the CIA look like kids playing in the sand-box!

Which they ARE, I might add...


Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

No, it doesn't. The "stance" you are talking about concerns her virginal status at the time of the Annunciation, that's all. It says nothing about her future relations with her husband.

My brother, it was not an acknowledgement that she had NOT YET had sexual relations...

It reflected Her commitment to virginal purity and her life in prayer...

It was Her placing HER REQUIREMENT in order for Her to consent to this pregnancy...

Notice, for instance, that She suffered NO CONSEQUENCE for this question from the Angel...

Unlike all the other "slow believers"...

She was no slow believer...

She was committed to a life of virginity...

Even in Her betrothal to the elder Joseph...

The Angel had to explain HOW She would conceive...

ONLY THEN did She consent...

And THEN ONLY IF it happened according to the Angel's words...

THAT is HOW virginal She was already committed to remain...

Not even God could get Her to consummate the marriage...

Not even if She were to have a Holy Child...

NO SEXUAL RELATIONS...

THAT is the MEANING of the Annunciation...

A VERY major Feast Day in the Apostolic Church...

She wasn't a virgin because she hadn't yet had sexual relations...

She IS a Virgin according to Her very Person...


Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

How does one go about proving your utterly silent in scripture doctrine is false when you have no scripture to support it in the first place?
Every instance of baptism found in the Bible supports baptism of confessing believers. There is not one instance showing a non-believer who has not confessed Christ as Lord being baptized.
Any rational human can understand this. Yet...

A very reasonable understanding...

Yet...

The Apostolic Church for 2000 years baptizes 40 day old infants...

You see, neither does the Bible forbid Baptism of infants...


Arsenios

 

[MennoSota]

A very reasonable understanding...

Yet...

The Apostolic Church for 2000 years baptizes 40 day old infants...

You see, neither does the Bible forbid Baptism of infants...


Arsenios

It doesn't forbid because humans should have known better.
The Apostles simply figured the church would follow their practice of only baptizing confessing believers. They never imagined the heresy of infant baptism would be introduced by a silly follower a few generations down the road.

 

[Albion]

You see, neither does the Bible forbid Baptism of infants...

Arsenios

True, and it strongly suggests that they (children from infancy up to 6, 8, 10 yo or whatever the particular Anabaptistic congregation wants to decide for itself
represents the age accountability) were baptized.

 

[MennoSota]

True, and it strongly suggests that they (children from infancy up to 6, 8, 10 yo or whatever the particular Anabaptistic congregation wants to decide for itself
represents the age accountability) were baptized.

No it doesn't. There is no suggestion at all. You are projecting onto the text.

 

[RichWh1]

There is perhaps the last of the Churches in Syria that still to this day worships in Aramaic...
They produced 2 more martyrs during the recent civil war...
That Church proclaims the virginity of the Mother of God...

Declaring perpetual virginity without evidence is adding speculation to truth.

I was simply illustrating in English the normal middle-eastern way of using the term "until" in this manner...

What is written is that she had not known Joseph until she gave birth to her first born son.
That indicates that Jesus was her firstborn Son. The implication being that she had other sons and daughters as Scripture states.

I never said you were arguing for Mary being raped - That is silly...

Your example of a man who never drank until.... makes you sound as though I would have said he was a drunk and that is what your post inferred

The point here is that the betrothal was arranged so that she COULD live in concealment...

There is nothing in Scripture that indicates that Mary DID live in concealment! Just innuendo and conjecture.

You are right, marriages in Jerusalem are consummated...
Young women need to marry...

This betrothal was arranged to be a celibate marriage because she was already committed to virginity in prayer...

You know this how? Where do we read that Mary was already committed to virginity? More conjecture

THEN came the Annunciation of the Angel Gabriel...
And God's purpose was revealed...
And She consented on condition of the preservation of her virginity [that's clear from the Bible, yes?]...

No it is not clear from the Bible that she consented only upon conditions! More conjecture

And Joseph consented through a dream...
And the child was thereby concealed in a family...

Previous to this, Joseph had discovered that Mary was with child and wanted to put her away (divorce her) then the angel told Joseph to NOT put her away rather take her to be your wife because that which is in her is of H S

But Herod was coming to kill ALL the children in ALL families in Jerusalem...
And the family warned in a dream then fled to Egypt...
Which further CONCEALED the identity of the Child...

Concealing the Christ Child is not the same as remaining a virgin
Joseph fled into Egypt so the Child would not be murdered. That is in Scripture. The rest of your conjecture and innuendo are not.

That is how God inserted and concealed the Christ-Child behind enemy lines for the Salvation of mankind...
And He remained concealed until the End drew near...

God protected the child by telling Joseph to leave and go into Egypt, where the Christ Child would be safe.

We need to keep Scripture in its proper context and exegete the Scriptures nit read into them.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Albion]

No it doesn't. There is no suggestion at all. You are projecting onto the text.

Feel better now just to be verbally stamping your feet?

There's no projection involved. Rather, it is a matter of interpretation, and if it is that...then the conclusion that children were involved is much more credible than that they were not. So, that's not a matter of projection.

 

[MennoSota]

Feel better now just to be verbally stamping your feet?

There's no projection involved. Rather, it is a matter of interpretation, and if it is that...then the conclusion that children were involved is much more credible than that they were not. So, that's not a matter of projection.

There is nothing to interpret. You are asserting from complete silence in scripture. You are projecting your church dogma on to scripture rather than receiving church dogma from scripture.
You cannot interpret something that does not exist.

 

[Albion]

There is nothing to interpret. You are asserting from complete silence in scripture.

That is not at all true. Plus, you had the scripture references given to you before. In sum, you're just wasting everyone's time now with this kind of repetition.