1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Mother Mary??

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by David.Mathews, Mar 14, 2004.

  1. Yelsew2

    Yelsew2 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2004
    Messages:
    602
    Likes Received:
    0
    When Jesus was transfigured, was anyone else transfigured too?

    Don't bother, the record says that Jesus alone was transfigured. It doesn't say that he had an out of body experience, but rather that His whole essence was transfigured, that he because what man is not!
     
  2. Melanie

    Melanie Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2002
    Messages:
    2,784
    Likes Received:
    7
    This is a good qestion aboutthe Assumption of Mary. For those interested ion the catholic stand on this, here is an address
    www://newadvent.org/cathen/02006b.htm
     
  3. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
     
  4. Yelsew2

    Yelsew2 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2004
    Messages:
    602
    Likes Received:
    0
    Briony-Gloriana,
    The "assumption of Mary is only a good question only to those who are willing to believe anything, but not to those who are like the Bereaens, You see, if the Assumption of Mary were valid, every one of the Apostles would have written about it. You see, none of their writings predated the supposed event! And since Mary was an important part of "the community", it would have been noteworthy to write about such an event.

    Such an event would have merited at least one (1) eye-witness report, and we have none! All we have is speculation and conjecture, nothing of historical value. The picture of the "Sepulcre of the Virgin" shown on that website cannot be confirmed as anything but a sepulcre. There is no evidence that it was ever "used" or occupied. No documentation relating to it what ever, just "oral tradition" of what it is.

    What use would God have of that which comes from the earth? From dust to dust! That's what happens to human flesh, it returns to the dust from whence it was taken.

    Do I believe that Mary is in Heaven? ABSOLUTELY! But I do not believe her body of flesh is, for no flesh can enter heaven. Heaven is a spiritual realm, earth is a natural realm, and that is one of the reasons they are separate one from the other.
     
  5. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    The "story" about the assumption of Mary - was invented centuries after her death and goes something like this...

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  6. frozencell

    frozencell Guest

    For those who say that there is no proof of the perpetual virginity of Mary and her assumption, I provide the following. Especially note the part about the whole "where's her grave" thing.

    And here's some Mother of God stuff, too. Please don't have the audacity to say all of these people were liars and had no idea what they were talking about.

     
  7. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    The doctrine of the Assumption is an assumption that assumes a whole lot of assumptions about an assumption that is not in the Bible but is only assumed to be in the Bible. Since we do not rest our case on assumptions we do not believe in the Assumption.

    Such arrogance! The Assumption is assumed. Remeber. We want facts from the Word of God; not assumed assumptions. Thus the position of the Catholic Church is false because it is based entirely on assumptions that are only assumed, and they don't even know where she supposedly was assumed. But the Bible factually tells us that all have sinned all die as a result of sin, assumptions notwithstanding.

    Then who was given the Great Commission in the first four centuries!! :( The Catholic Church did have an origin, but it wasn't with Peter. Try Constantine. His commission wasn't the Great one, but rather a crusade. It wasn't commissioned by the Holy Spirit, but rather by the devil. So much for the Catholic Church.
    DHK
     
  8. frozencell

    frozencell Guest

    DHK,

    I have tried to provide you, and others, with historical factual documents. It is completely impossible to debate anything, no matter the subject, with only one side's sources. I do not use sola scriptura because I don't believe in sola scriptura. I didn't even believe in that as a Protestant. To me, this seems an arrogant stance to take. If you want my side then you must allow for my sources. When I provide sources all I get is told that I am wrong and that "they" are right, without any real back-up. It is getting very tiring to be challenged and then basically ignored because you don't like my sources. Thsi is a very close-minded board that doesn't want any true debate or opinion, but only to pat each other on the back for being a Baptist.

    Your clever word games have gotten you nowhere on your post. You made no attempt to refute anything in the articles which I provided except to nay-say anything that you didn't agree with. Simply saying that I'm wrong is not enough. No attempt to discuss the general acceptance of what the Catholic Church teaches about Mary was attempted by you, especially in the light of what those who lived during her time taught to be true. These two things coorelate perfectly, and instead of being able to face it like a man and refute me, you have decided to simply see how cute you can make a sentence by repeating the word "assumption" 1,800 times.

    Simply, I do not believe in Sola Scriptura. I do not believe Protestants, of any denomination, have the whole Truth. I do not believe that Baptists are correct in everything they teach. I do not agree with you on the sources to use, even the subtle attempt made to get me to agree with the Protestant version of the Bible. I cannot agrue a point if I am ridiculed for using more or different sources than is "approved" by you personally, as they benefit you greatly. I find it redundant and a waste of time to try and make any point as i know I will only face unsubstantiated contradiction.
     
  9. frozencell

    frozencell Guest

    The point I am trying to make is this:

    Some of the vast contributors on this particular board simply just love to hate Catholics. You know who you are. There is no debating with you because you are not on here to learn and discuss, but just to march around in your little internet lynch mob. I am sorry for this, and am praying for your intentions and your souls.
     
  10. Yelsew2

    Yelsew2 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2004
    Messages:
    602
    Likes Received:
    0
    Frozencell,

    You are most deliberatly WRONG! There is no one here that "simply just love to hate Catholics".

    I don't hate even one Catholic. But I certainly do not condone their FALSE DOCTRINES, and will continue to argue against those false doctrines. So get over your pity party and accept the truth about those who refute or argue against False Catholic Doctrines. We are most happy to help you rethink those doctrines and to help you understand why they are false.
     
  11. Gina B

    Gina B Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    16,944
    Likes Received:
    1
    Frozen Cell, I've said it before but I'll repeat it now.
    I try not to bother with debating other religions very often because it's pointless when we don't believe the same thing in what constitues scripture/infallible writings.

    The starting point in any meaningful discussion is going to have to be to either agree to only use the protestant bible as that is something both sides agree is accurate.

    You've made it obvious that you're not willing to do that. In that case, the only debate topic on this board that will have any meaning for you is the subject of what are true writings and what are not.

    There are people here whose intentions are pure. If you find yourself running into someone you truly believe hates you then simply cease interacting with them. Throwing a mini temper tantrum will not help anyone to take you more seriously.

    Gina
     
  12. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    Some years ago the government of Alberta was trying to shut down all private Christian schools in Alberta. During that time a government minister told us plainly that in their philosophy of education "The only absolute is: there are no absolutes."
    Of course the foolish statement made above is an absolute statement in itself.

    Whether discussing theology or education, one must have a foundation, an absolute basis from which to start from. In any discussion here our foundation is not:
    the Book of Mormon,
    Not the Catechism,
    Not the early Church Fathers,
    Not the Magesterium,
    Not Ellen G. White,
    Not Mary Baker Eddy
    Not the Koran
    Not an ecumenical smorgasbord of pick and choose of any of the above.

    The only foundation or standard that we have is the Bible. All our debates/discussions are based on the Word of God. Our doctrines and beliefs are based on the Word of God. We would not call this the Baptist Board if our doctrines came from the Book of Mormon. If you haven't noticed by now I have never tried to defend myself using the Book of Mormon. Why should I? Because my foundation is the Word of God, the Bible, the Scriptures that God has revealed to us. Therefore I have no need to establish doctrine using the Catechism or church fathers or any other source that you may wish to throw at me. If your doctrine is not established on the Word of God, then it is not worth consideration. The only reason we do discuss it is to show the error of false doctrine.

    There are absolutes. They are found in the Bible. Jesus said "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no man comes unto the Father but by me." Jesus is Truth. All Truth emanates from Him. He is our Absolute.
    Truth is not relative. Jesus Christ is the same: yesterday, today and forever. It is timeless, as is Christ.

    1 Corinthians 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
    DHK
     
  13. frozencell

    frozencell Guest

    First, I'm not throwing a pity aprty. Simply stating my feelings and observations.

    Second, thank you Gina for being one of the few Christian objective people on here. You're Christ-like love and charity is much appreciated. I respect you and enjoy your posts, even if I do not agree with all of them. And I do agree that the Protestant Bible is accurate, only that the Catholic Bible is MORE accurate. My point was that I cannot debate a topic with a version of the Bible that is designed not to include Catholic beliefs. I have decide to cease interaction with those that bring out unChristlike qualities in me, not because I'm chicken, but because I feel convicted to uphold a Christ-like attitude in my posts, as few as they may be from this point on.

    Third, you cannot in good conscience say that the Bible is the only true source for historical fact. It's impossible. Of cousre, everything the Bible contains is true and without flaw, but there ARE other resources that are also true to history and can help tell a story.
     
  14. cotton

    cotton New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2001
    Messages:
    128
    Likes Received:
    0
    frozencell;
    Please reconsider; first off, this is a DEBATE board; people are gonna say things that appear hostile. Please don't take it personally.

    Secondly, from my experience, many (if not all) Baptists don't consider themselves Protestant! Protestant churches and Baptist churches vary greatly in traditional beliefs.

    And last but not least, bringing 'historical' Catholic document on the Assumption to the argument has the same effect on Baptists, as "Mein Kampf" would to a Jewish synagogue.

    IT IS ANETHMA(sp?) TO THEM!!!!

    So, my point is if your going to argue with Baptists you have to stick with what they believe is relevant. This is the principle that Paul used "...when I'm with gentiles, I behave as a gentile, when I'm with Jews, I behave as a Jew (to win them over) yada, yada (I'm paraphrasing cause I can't 'member the passage). This is an old rabbinic practice for debate and teaching...stick with what the antagonist/student knows or believes. Its the diversity of the folks here in the 'dungeon' that make this particular forum interesting.

    Thanks,
    Cotton
     
  15. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    #1. Can you point out translation errors in the NASB etc as compared to your Catholic Bible?

    #2. IF what you are saying is that the Apocryphal books are the only ones with Catholic doctrine - please explain.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  16. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    AS for the assumption of Mary.

    The Catholic teaching on the tomb of Mary preceeds the tradition on the assumption of Mary.

    The Catholic argument for the assumption is NOT based on the witnesses testimony as in the case of Christ and Acts 1. Rather it is suggestions that arise centuries later.

    Even Elijah has his translation recorded and written down - before many centuries pass as in the case of Mary.

    Is it really true that "it just wasn't worth mentioning"?

    But the real problem is that the case FOR the assumption of Mary is based on heresy - namely that "Mary was sinless like Christ so she should have been assumed into heaven like Christ".

    Notice that the Marian post given by Frozencell does not actually address the problem.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  17. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    The distinction is "incarnation" vs "proCREATION" - Mary is not the "MOTHER of God" because she did not procreate her offspring as a PERSON - as though the PERSON was procreated.

    If we are not then speaking of the PERSON - then using the phrase "Mary Mother of God" is heresy.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  18. Yelsew2

    Yelsew2 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2004
    Messages:
    602
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good post Cotton, with one exception. Bringing the "historical documents on the "assumption" is not bringing the WORD OF GOD to this board. It is nothing more than adding the opinion of one more person to your own opinion.

    If you do not have the strength of your own position, the facts with which to argue your beliefs, then don't state your belief because it is not your belief but that of another! You cannot argue, convincingly, another's beliefs or opinions. Argue your own beliefs on the issue, not those of long dead people!
     
  19. Living4Him

    Living4Him New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2004
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, there sure are alot of interesting points here. And I would like to add a few myself.

    1. Constantine was not responsible for Catholicism. Ignatius (85-107); A bishop of Antioch, he first coined the term "Catholic". "Catholic" for the universal followers of Christ. Christianity finally became legal during the reign of Constantine with the Edict of Milan in 312 AD. Before this time,Christianity was an illegal religion because the Christians refused to participate in Emperor Worship and they begin to be persecuted in large numbers. Nero was the first emperor to persecute the Christian followers on a large scale. Persecution reached its height during the reign of Diocletian who attempted to systematically eliminate the followers. (Check any secular source on Ancient Roman Religion).


    2. We know that not everything from the beginning of time until the last book of the Bible was written is recorded in the Bible. The Bible even tells us that "Jesus performed many other miracles but these are written that you may believe."

    3. I really don't see how anyone can knock "oral tradition". Moses has been given credit for writing the first five books of the Bible. Are we to suppose that the story of creation and everything else that happened before Moses wrote these down were not talked about?

    4. Some other things to consider for those who reject oral tradition for "scriptures only". A) Cain was worried about being killed by other people after he killed Abel. The Bible doesn't record how these other people came into being. B)Gen. 4:17 states, "And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch." How did Cain get a wife? We have no record of these events. It seems important enough to me to have these events recorded.

    Therefore just because the assumption isn't written down, doesn't mean that it didn't or couldn't have happened.
     
  20. cotton

    cotton New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2001
    Messages:
    128
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, from that standpoint, I suppose Greek or Norse mythology could be real, but I don't believe it is.

    To a Baptist, anything outside scripture (the 66 books) is highly suspect; what you are calling 'historical' evidence and oral tradition came through Rome and as such is alien to them. You'll have about as much luck quoting the Koran.

    Cotton
     
Loading...