[Link H]

Originally Posted by P3chrmd

Mary IS the "handmaid of the Lord"!!!! Lord=Holy Spirit...one God 3 persons!

I don't have my normal Greek-lookup tools on this PC. In English, though, I can't think if any passage where 'handmaid' means 'wife.' Wasn't Hagar Sarai's handmaiden? They certainly weren't married. If a woman is married, she typically isn't a 'maid' anymore either. So I don't see why that word would be used to translate a word meaning 'wife' if that is what you are getting at.

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by P3chrmd

This is becoming one of those discussions where no "good fruits" are coming out of it...so its kind of going round and round in a circle...we have both argued great points for both sides...the statement you just made prooves that we are sort of past the discussion line...we are now into matters of faith! I don't need PROOF that Mary was assumed into heaven...its my faith...just like you have your faith, I have mine! Catholic or Protestant, we disagree about alot of doctorines and dogmas, but the important thing is, is that we are God's children and Jesus loves each one of us...we are all brothers and sisters in Christ and thats what counts! I have my faith you have yours!

Yes, but you claimed the following "Mary was assumed or raptured into heaven...just like Elijah and Enoch, and just like we will be on judgment day!

Well why dont it say it in the bible? Because it happend until after the bible was complete!!!"

From this claim you base a lot of your other beliefs, so it is important. There needs to be proof before something should be considered to be true , or anyone can make any claim and say that its their faith. The Mormons claim Adam and Eve came from a different planet. Can we therefore base other beliefs on this and simply assume its true because its their faith?? Very dangerous ground to be standing on.

There are things in the Bible that haven't happened yet, so that really isn't a good reason to claim that Mary's assumption isn't in the Bible because it happened after it was written. Why would there not be something about Mary being assumed or raptured, especially if it is so important?? You mention Elijah and Enoch , who we KNOW God took, and yet I don't see the RCC praying to them for intercession or elevating them as it does Mary. Why is this?? I'm not sure why the scripture tells us these things about Elijah and Enoch , but surely if it were true of Mary ( who the RCC claims to be so important and necessary to our salvation) then we would have been told of it.

It is true that God loves us and sent His son to provide the way of salvation, but it doesn't make us all brothers. God is a jealous God, and if we elevate another to His position, He will not take it lightly. To believe that there is ANY other name given among men whereby we must be saved, it to call God a liar.

[goldenchild]

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

Sure it does... 2 parts to the Jewish marriage.... 1 betrothal, 2 the marriage and the " taking unto thee thy wife" ( ie. living together, having sexual relations, etc.. those things that were NOT done during the betrothal). A Jewish man and woman would not live together until they were married, and we know that Joseph and Mary lived together.

Originally Posted by St. Augustine via the Summa Theologica

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Consensu Evang. ii): "It cannot be allowed that the evangelist thought that Joseph ought to sever his union with Mary" (since he said that Joseph was Mary's husband) "on the ground that in giving birth to Christ, she had not conceived of him, but remained a virgin. For by this example the faithful are taught that if after marriage they remain continent by mutual consent, their union is still and is rightly called marriage, even without intercourse of the sexes."

Until you can provide something of more substance than simply your word, I will give much more credibility to St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica. This says that they can still be fully married without having sexual relations. This is clear as their are plenty of couples even today who are fully married and go without this type of a relationship(i.e. missionary couples etc.)

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

Matthew 1 20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. 22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. 24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

Okay, thanks. I never said that I didn't believe that they were married. I most certainly do. I was just playing an advocate and trying a hypothesis. Still doesn't require that they had sexual relations.

[goldenchild]

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

I said that the verse sandwiched in between 3 that are specifically mentioned in the NT were messianic, because it was argued it wasn't. So now you go to a Catholic web site ( I know , because I went to several and your answer is word for word from one of them) to find an answer. Why? I can only guess because you had none...

It is most likely a messianic verse, I still don't see it spelled out very well as such, but it most likely is. I already said this, and it doesn't mean anything. Scripture says that we are his brothers and sisters. We are the ones referenced since there are no physical brothers or sisters of Jesus.

[goldenchild]

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

well what would you say if I could show you that the belief in the assumption of Mary was based on writings that one of the Popes listed as ones that no Catholic should believe? Your trust in a teaching of a church that has contradicted itself many many times over the years is all well and good for you, but don't expect those of us who know of these contradictions to trust in said church teachings.

Couldn't be done. This is an infallible teaching of the Church. It will be impossible for you to find an INFALLIBLE source saying such as you claim. But you can waste your time if you wish...

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by goldenchild

It is most likely a messianic verse, I still don't see it spelled out very well as such, but it most likely is. I already said this, and it doesn't mean anything. Scripture says that we are his brothers and sisters. We are the ones referenced since there are no physical brothers or sisters of Jesus.

The RCC says there are no physical brothers, the Bible does not say this. It said that Jesus would be an alien and a stranger to the children of His mother. You need to read this as it is written, not turn it around so that it could support your claim. It IS written that it would be Jesus who would become the stranger and alien, not us. Has Jesus ever been a stranger to us, the believers?? NO. Was Jesus a stranger and alien to His earthly brothers, YES, I have already shown the verses to support this. It does mean something, it means that your belief is flawed because you are turning this verse around to say something it does not say and then using it to support what you claim.

Jesus = stranger and alien to His mother's children does NOT equal
His mother's children = strangers and aliens to Jesus

[goldenchild]

Originally Posted by exo

This statement is laughable. Do you actually claim that the RCC today looks and teaches the same things that the RCC taught in 360AD? . . .

I also find it surprising that you claim that each and every RCC church teaches the same thing. I'd venture to guess that it's actually quite similar to Protestant denominations. There are just as many differing opinions in the Catholic faith.

Well you're venture is incorrect. The Catholic Church has taught the exact same indispensable truths as have been around since the very beginning. Optional practices come and go, but doctrine never changes and it never will.

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by goldenchild

Couldn't be done. This is an infallible teaching of the Church. It will be impossible for you to find an INFALLIBLE source saying such as you claim. But you can waste your time if you wish...

I will be glad to do this.... it will take a few days as we have a church dinner tonight and then my boys band is playing at our church block party tomorrow so I have no free time at the moment. I will post it as a new thread since it is only slightly applicable to this one.

Just a quick question before I spend time on this... do you consider all past Popes to be INFALLIBLE???

[goldenchild]

Originally Posted by exo

Also, I find it interesting that you would say that something like a reformation of a church is absurd (especially considering the vast amount of promises made by the LORD that were directed towards Israel) when you just said, "Yes, but Christ was sent back to make things right...and start his new church and he did." So, you just refuted one of Jesus' purposes that you claimed above.

Of course not. Reformation is always needed. The Catholic Church is always reforming certain practices and corruptions that are going on. What Luther did was not a reformation, it was secession. I don't even believe Luther ever really wanted this to happen, but things got out of control and he went crazy with what he was trying to do. This was during the time of the Catholic-Counter-Reformation. But never ever has the Church changed it's doctrines. Never.

[goldenchild]

Originally Posted by ICTHUS

What? So people were being assumed into Heaven until the 5th Century???

Nope, I don't believe she said that. Mary's assumption didn't take place until after the books were written, because she hadn't died. Of course, the Bible is inspired and does show this teaching as it would happen. John, the disciple with whom Mary lived(and whose books, curiously contain a significant amount of Marian teaching) saw this in a vision.

Originally Posted by ICTHUS

Read it. The author grabs at straws to prove Rome's extra scriptural dogmas. Though I do not have an issue with calling Mary the gebirah (Queen Mother) of Heaven, based on her being the mother of the archetypal Davidic King, I repudiate all Romish elevation of Mary to a level equal with Jesus by calling her a redeemer and a mediator.

That's unfortunate that you believe as you do... Mary should never be elevated to the equal of Jesus and never is except among people who don't understand the Faith. And the teaching of her being mediatrix isn't a official teaching of the Church. She is more like the greatest of all saintly intercessors.

[goldenchild]

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

I'm sure I can go back and find the information I have already posted on statements from the Catholic church that they had no idea how Mary died, or even if she had.

I'm sure you could, the Catholic Church never claims to know how she died. All we know is that she was assumed body and soul into heaven by Jesus after she died.

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by goldenchild

Until you can provide something of more substance than simply your word, I will give much more credibility to St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica. This says that they can still be fully married without having sexual relations. This is clear as their are plenty of couples even today who are fully married and go without this type of a relationship(i.e. missionary couples etc.)

.

Well , scripture says you can't .....

1 Corinthians 7: 1-5 1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. 3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. 4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. 5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency

All the missionary couples I know have " normal" marriages, in other words they have a sexual relationship. God designed it this way and in speaking of marriage He says the following....Genesis 2 18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him....21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

Notice that right now Eve is called woman, not wife.... next verse we see what makes her a wife....

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

A wife is the one who a man leaves his father and mother for, who he cleaves to , and who he becomes one flesh with.

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by goldenchild

Nope, I don't believe she said that. Mary's assumption didn't take place until after the books were written, because she hadn't died. Of course, the Bible is inspired and does show this teaching as it would happen. John, the disciple with whom Mary lived(and whose books, curiously contain a significant amount of Marian teaching) saw this in a vision.
.

Please give me the reference ( Book, chapter, verse ) to where John tells us of this vision, because I have never read any such thing.

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by goldenchild

I'm sure you could, the Catholic Church never claims to know how she died. All we know is that she was assumed body and soul into heaven by Jesus after she died.

This, from all the reading I have done and all I could find, is based SOLELY on noone ever having said they have Mary's relics. Extremely weak thing to base such a doctrine on.

[goldenchild]

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

Yes, but you claimed the following "Mary was assumed or raptured into heaven...just like Elijah and Enoch, and just like we will be on judgment day!

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

Well why dont it say it in the bible? Because it happend until after the bible was complete!!!"

Why don't it say that there is a Trinity? St. John sure spells it out pretty durn clearly in Revelation 12. There we see her body and soul in heaven. But if you wish to be ignorant still there's nothing I can do.

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

From this claim you base a lot of your other beliefs, so it is important.

All of Catholic teaching can be found in Scripture.

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

There needs to be proof before something should be considered to be true , or anyone can make any claim and say that its their faith. The Mormons claim Adam and Eve came from a different planet. Can we therefore base other beliefs on this and simply assume its true because its their faith?? Very dangerous ground to be standing on.

You are proving a point of Catholicism whether you think so or not. First of all, faith does not have to have PROOF. Otherwise it would not be faith. You are acting as the apostle Thomas who did not believe that Jesus had risen because he did not SEE Him. We don't need that. Second, you are right ANY faith can say that their faith is correct simply by saying that they believe it, and even by saying that they have some infallible holy book to fall back on. So far with these two claims Christianity is no different than any other faith. So, how can we know that Christianity is true. Simple for Catholics to understand. I cannot figure out how Protestants can explain it. But, Scripture tells us that the Church is the pillar and foundation of all truth. The Church is the one who spells out to us just what Scripture is telling us. Us Catholics know this and can accept it, because we know that Scripture cannot be twisted to one's own interpretation. Here is a passage that explains this... [/QUOTE]Acts 8:30-31 "Philip ran and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and said, 'Do you understand what you are reading?' He replied, 'HOW CAN I UNLESS SOMEONE INSTRUCTS ME?' So he invited Philip to get in and sit with him." [/QUOTE] The Protestant belief in Sola Scriptura is what has led to the thousands of denominations that there now are, all believing that they are following the word of Scripture. But this cannot be, since there is only one truth, not thousands.

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

There are things in the Bible that haven't happened yet, so that really isn't a good reason to claim that Mary's assumption isn't in the Bible because it happened after it was written. Why would there not be something about Mary being assumed or raptured, especially if it is so important??

You are right. That's why it is in Revelation.

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

You mention Elijah and Enoch , who we KNOW God took, and yet I don't see the RCC praying to them for intercession

Why not? They are saints like any other.

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

or elevating them as it does Mary. Why is this??

Of course her assumption is not the reason why she is to be elevated above the other saints. She is the Queen Mother of all, the Spiritual mother of all and the mother of Jesus. And because Scripture says so. These give plenty reason.

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

I'm not sure why the scripture tells us these things about Elijah and Enoch , but surely if it were true of Mary ( who the RCC claims to be so important and necessary to our salvation) then we would have been told of it.

Who knows? I certainly will not be the one to question God as to why He does what He does in the way that He does.

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

It is true that God loves us and sent His son to provide the way of salvation, but it doesn't make us all brothers. God is a jealous God, and if we elevate another to His position, He will not take it lightly. To believe that there is ANY other name given among men whereby we must be saved, it to call God a liar.

AMEN TO THAT! (wonders where that came from....) Mary certainly is not God.