Divisions

[BreadOfLife]

Yes even the devil can twist scripture, and he has many children. But your church is your god and you wont leave just like the SDA whose church is there god and they wont leave

That's because YOU are totally ignorant of what Christ's Church is.

You see my Biblically-ignorant friend - Jesus EQUATED His very SELF with His Church (Acts 9:4-5).
His Church is referred to in Scripture as the FULLNESS of Christ (Heb. 1:22-23) and the Pillar and foundation of Truth (1 Tim. 3:15).

It's not Christ OR His Church, Einstein.
They are INDIVISIBLE . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Did the Orthodox church 'splinter' also? But they're not Protestant, right? Are they a 'man-made mess'?
They claim to be the 'Original Tree' also, and I don't think they even allow a Catholic to partake of their Eucharist. Can your Churches both be the 'Original Tree' ?

They ARE part of the Original Tree.
The Orthodox once belonged to the Catholic Church - NOT the other way around.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Just put the apostate Catholic on ignore.

Absolutely.
When your arguments fail - that's your last refuge . . .

 

[tabletalk]

They ARE part of the Original Tree.
The Orthodox once belonged to the Catholic Church - NOT the other way around.

'Are part of' and 'once belonged' do not go together, methinks.
They should be called a Protestant, man-made mess, per your statements.

 

[mjrhealth]

That's because YOU are totally ignorant of what Christ's Church is.

You see my Biblically-ignorant friend - Jesus EQUATED His very SELF with His Church (Acts 9:4-5).
His Church is referred to in Scripture as the FULLNESS of Christ (Heb. 1:22-23) and the Pillar and foundation of Truth (1 Tim. 3:15).

It's not Christ OR His Church, Einstein.
They are INDIVISIBLE . . .

No its because we all know what Christs church is its not yours as said in the bible..

Act 7:47 But Solomon built him an house.
Act 7:48 Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet,
Act 7:49 Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest?
Act 7:50 Hath not my hand made all these things?
Act 7:51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.
Act 7:52 Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:
Act 7:53 Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.

speaks so much of religion doesnt it,,

Stiffnecked

 

[epostle]

Pelagianism is a belief in Christianity that original sin did not taint human nature and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without special divine aid.

Stupid? Nice pejorative there. What do you hope to achieve by its use

Sorry to disappoint you but I do believe that original sin DID taint human nature.

It seems that the last few times you have replied or quoted me, you are looking for a fight. Your definition of Pelagianism is only half true. Sorry, but the Encyclopedia Britannica gives a more complete explanation, supporting what I said about the heresy.

"...Celestius, a disciple of Pelagius, denied the church’s doctrine of original sin and the necessity of infant Baptism.

Pelagianism was opposed by Augustine, bishop of Hippo, who asserted that human beings could not attain righteousness by their own efforts and were totally dependent upon the grace of God. Condemned by two councils of African bishops in 416, and again at Carthage in 418, Pelagius and Celestius were finally excommunicated in 418; Pelagius’ later fate is unknown.

The controversy, however, was not over. Julian of Eclanum continued to assert the Pelagian view and engaged Augustine in literary polemic until the latter’s death in 430. Julian himself was finally condemned, with the rest of the Pelagian party, at the Council of Ephesus in 431. Another heresy, known as Semi-Pelagianism (q.v.), flourished in southern Gaul until it was finally condemned at the second Council of Orange in 529.
Pelagianism | religious history​

Sorry to disappoint you but I do believe that original sin DID taint human nature.

Yes, Original Sin is a doctrine you borrowed from us. It has developed over time, and has never changed its essence.

Since more and more Protestant communities are denying the doctrine of original sin, you should take a poll and find out how divided you guys are, since this thread is about division.

Please, Marksman, think before resorting to childish posturing against me.
Your aim is off.

 

[BreadOfLife]

No its because we all know what Christs church is its not yours as said in the bible..

Act 7:47 But Solomon built him an house.
Act 7:48 Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet,
Act 7:49 Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest?
Act 7:50 Hath not my hand made all these things?
Act 7:51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.
Act 7:52 Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:
Act 7:53 Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.

speaks so much of religion doesnt it,,

Stiffnecked

Uhhhhh, no.
It speaks of unrepentant and disobedient Jews in context.

As usual - CONTEXT is never your friend . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

'Are part of' and 'once belonged' do not go together, methinks.
They should be called a Protestant, man-made mess, per your statements.

No, because they don't reject doctrines as much as it is a matter of leadership.

 

[tabletalk]

Another ignorant diatribe brought to you by our historically-bankrupt friend, Taken.
YIKES . . .

EVERYTHING that is taught in these "prepared books", as YOU call them, is verified by Scripture.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is THE "prepared book" that our children learn from has every paragraph backed up with Scriptural support, accompanied by quotations from the Early Church and the Church Councils.

ANYBODY wishing to research ANY teaching can go directly to the verses listed in the footnotes.
They will find that EVERY doctrine listed is substantiated by Scripture.

So, you really should do YOUR homework before responding . . .

Is there Scripture substantiation for The Dogma of the Assumption?
If so, please list the verses which clearly prove this infallible declaration.

 

[mjrhealth]

Uhhhhh, no.
It speaks of unrepentant and disobedient Jews in context.

As usual - CONTEXT is never your friend . . .

What it say, there is nothing new under the sun, now we having unbelieving, unrepentant religious people. Nothings changed...

 

[epostle]

Is there Scripture substantiation for The Dogma of the Assumption?
If so, please list the verses which clearly prove this infallible declaration.

Let's level the playing field. Is there Scripture substantiation that every practice, devotion and doctrine must be substantially found in scripture to be valid? No, there isn't any. It's a man made Protestant tradition. Your premise is not in the Bible but you demand we play by your rules.
***
Jesus ascended by His own power, but Our Lady was assumed by the power of her Son’s victory over death.
Catholics believe that all Catholic and Christian doctrines must be in harmony with Scripture and must not contradict it. Some doctrines are able to be supported only indirectly, implicitly, or by deduction from other related Bible passages, but all Catholic doctrines have scriptural support in some sense. We also believe in sacred tradition, itself always in harmony with Scripture. Sometimes (as in the present case), a doctrine is “stronger” in tradition.

I agree that there is no direct “proof” of Mary’s Assumption in Scripture, but there is strong deductive and analogical evidence. The deductive argument has to do with the “consequences” of Mary’s Immaculate Conception: a doctrine more directly indicated in Scripture (e.g., Lk 1:28).

Bodily death and decay are the result of sin and the fall of man (Gen 3:16-19; Ps 16:10), so it stands to reason that an absence of actual and original sin would allow for instant bodily resurrection. It’s as if Mary goes back to before the fall (for this reason the Church fathers call her the “New Eve”).

Jesus’ resurrection makes possible the universal resurrection and redemption of our bodies as well as souls (1 Cor 15:13-16). Mary’s Assumption is the “first fruits,” sign, and type of the general resurrection of all (created) mankind; she exemplifies the age in which death and sin are conquered once and for all:

1 Corinthians 15:17-26

The analogical argument is a second line of approach: biblical examples that have strong similarity in important respects to Mary’s bodily Assumption. Here are five such analogies:

2 Kings 2:1, 11:
2 Corinthians 12:2-3
1 Thessalonians 4:16-17
Hebrews 11:5
Revelation 11:11-12

In three of these instances, the person didn’t die (in one the person even came back); in two they died first. The Church hasn’t declared whether Mary died or not. All of these events occur by virtue of the power of God, not the intrinsic ability of the persons.

Jesus ascended by His own power, but the Blessed Virgin Mary was assumed by the power of her Son Jesus’ victory over death. Hers was an “immediate resurrection.” One day all who are saved will be bodily resurrected. Mary was the first after Jesus’ resurrection: quite appropriately (and even, I submit, “expected”), since she was Jesus’ own Mother.
http://mcn.aod.org/2016/10/catholics-believe-marys-bodily-assumption/

for further reading:

Bodily Assumption of Mary (John Saward: Protestant) [edited in 1994; Facebook]

Bodily Assumption of Mary (Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman) [edited in 1994; Facebook]

Bodily Assumption of Mary (Archbishop Fulton Sheen) [edited in 1994; Facebook]

Assumption & Immaculate Conception: Part of Apostolic Tradition (vs. James White) [June 1996]

Mary’s Assumption: Brief Explanation, with a New (?) Biblical Parallel [3-1-07]

Mary’s Assumption vs. Material Sufficiency of Scripture? [4-22-07]

Mary’s Assumption & “Reformer” Heinrich Bullinger [4-6-08]

Mary’s Assumption & Historic Protestantism [6-30-08]

Immaculate Conception and Assumption: Why Defined So Late? [2-1-09]

11 Bible Passages & Mary’s Assumption [2009]

Defending Mary (Revelation 12 & Her Assumption) [5-28-12]

Is Mary’s Assumption Able to be Inferred from Scripture Alone? [8-14-15]

Bible on Mary’s Assumption [2015]

Mary’s Death
“Armstrong vs. Geisler” #7: Mary’s Assumption [3-1-17]
*
Armstrong vs. Collins & Walls #6: Assumption, Queen Redux [10-19-17]
*
Biblical Arguments in Support of Mary’s Assumption [National Catholic Register, 8-15-18]

 

[epostle]

MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS​

DEFINING THE DOGMA OF THE ASSUMPTION

November 1, 1950

1. The most bountiful God, who is almighty, the plan of whose providence rests upon wisdom and love, tempers, in the secret purpose of his own mind, the sorrows of peoples and of individual men by means of joys that he interposes in their lives from time to time, in such a way that, under different conditions and in different ways, all things may work together unto good for those who love him.(1)
Footnotes:
1. Rom 8:28

About half of the 48 footnotes are scripture references.
Munificentissimus Deus (November 1, 1950) | PIUS XII

 

[brakelite]

Catholic logic....Jesus is God...Jesus is the Son of God...therefore Mary must be God. Explains everything.

 

[tabletalk]

Let's level the playing field. Is there Scripture substantiation that every practice, devotion and doctrine must be substantially found in scripture to be valid? No, there isn't any. It's a man made Protestant tradition. Your premise is not in the Bible but you demand we play by your rules.
***
Jesus ascended by His own power, but Our Lady was assumed by the power of her Son’s victory over death.
Catholics believe that all Catholic and Christian doctrines must be in harmony with Scripture and must not contradict it. Some doctrines are able to be supported only indirectly, implicitly, or by deduction from other related Bible passages, but all Catholic doctrines have scriptural support in some sense. We also believe in sacred tradition, itself always in harmony with Scripture. Sometimes (as in the present case), a doctrine is “stronger” in tradition.

I agree that there is no direct “proof” of Mary’s Assumption in Scripture, but there is strong deductive and analogical evidence. The deductive argument has to do with the “consequences” of Mary’s Immaculate Conception: a doctrine more directly indicated in Scripture (e.g., Lk 1:28).

Bodily death and decay are the result of sin and the fall of man (Gen 3:16-19; Ps 16:10), so it stands to reason that an absence of actual and original sin would allow for instant bodily resurrection. It’s as if Mary goes back to before the fall (for this reason the Church fathers call her the “New Eve”).

Jesus’ resurrection makes possible the universal resurrection and redemption of our bodies as well as souls (1 Cor 15:13-16). Mary’s Assumption is the “first fruits,” sign, and type of the general resurrection of all (created) mankind; she exemplifies the age in which death and sin are conquered once and for all:

1 Corinthians 15:17-26

The analogical argument is a second line of approach: biblical examples that have strong similarity in important respects to Mary’s bodily Assumption. Here are five such analogies:

2 Kings 2:1, 11:
2 Corinthians 12:2-3
1 Thessalonians 4:16-17
Hebrews 11:5
Revelation 11:11-12

In three of these instances, the person didn’t die (in one the person even came back); in two they died first. The Church hasn’t declared whether Mary died or not. All of these events occur by virtue of the power of God, not the intrinsic ability of the persons.

Jesus ascended by His own power, but the Blessed Virgin Mary was assumed by the power of her Son Jesus’ victory over death. Hers was an “immediate resurrection.” One day all who are saved will be bodily resurrected. Mary was the first after Jesus’ resurrection: quite appropriately (and even, I submit, “expected”), since she was Jesus’ own Mother.
http://mcn.aod.org/2016/10/catholics-believe-marys-bodily-assumption/

for further reading:

Bodily Assumption of Mary (John Saward: Protestant) [edited in 1994; Facebook]

Bodily Assumption of Mary (Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman) [edited in 1994; Facebook]

Bodily Assumption of Mary (Archbishop Fulton Sheen) [edited in 1994; Facebook]

Assumption & Immaculate Conception: Part of Apostolic Tradition (vs. James White) [June 1996]

Mary’s Assumption: Brief Explanation, with a New (?) Biblical Parallel [3-1-07]

Mary’s Assumption vs. Material Sufficiency of Scripture? [4-22-07]

Mary’s Assumption & “Reformer” Heinrich Bullinger [4-6-08]

Mary’s Assumption & Historic Protestantism [6-30-08]

Immaculate Conception and Assumption: Why Defined So Late? [2-1-09]

11 Bible Passages & Mary’s Assumption [2009]

Defending Mary (Revelation 12 & Her Assumption) [5-28-12]

Is Mary’s Assumption Able to be Inferred from Scripture Alone? [8-14-15]

Bible on Mary’s Assumption [2015]

Mary’s Death
“Armstrong vs. Geisler” #7: Mary’s Assumption [3-1-17]
*
Armstrong vs. Collins & Walls #6: Assumption, Queen Redux [10-19-17]
*
Biblical Arguments in Support of Mary’s Assumption [National Catholic Register, 8-15-18]

I was responding to BOL's statement: "They will find that EVERY doctrine listed is substantiated by Scripture."
I'll let him reply.

 

[tabletalk]

Catholic logic....Jesus is God...Jesus is the Son of God...therefore Mary must be God. Explains everything.

They do not teach that Mary is God. They do not claim to worship her, or images.
They do claim to worship the Eucharist, which is a physical object (therefore, an idol).

 

[brakelite]

They do not teach that Mary is God. They do not claim to worship her, or images.
They do claim to worship the Eucharist, which is a physical object (therefore, an idol).

True, they do not outright claim Mary is God, but they do attribute to her the attributes of God...perfect sinlessness, which they call 'immaculate', and honour her on that account, which is akin to worship. But sinlessness isn't the only attribute that they give her that belongs only to God...is not Christ the sole Mediator between God and man? Is Mary therefore not elevated to a position that belongs only to the Son of God, thus making her equal to God?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Is there Scripture substantiation for The Dogma of the Assumption?
If so, please list the verses which clearly prove this infallible declaration.

Rev. 12:1
A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.

This Woman is the ONLY being in Heaven in the Book of Revelation describes as having an entire Body - from head to toe.

Revelation was written by John, who also wrote the Gospel of John. In his Gospel, Jesus never refers to His mother as "Mother" - but "Woman" (John 2:4, John 19:25). Many Protestants I've debated say that He called her this out of disrespect. This is an asinine charge because that means Jesus would have been violating God's Commandment about HONORING His Mother.

In Gen. 3:15, we see God telling the serpent that the seed f the Woman would crush his head.
Jesus refers to His mother as "Woman" not only out of profound respect - but out of a sense of prophetic understanding. This is the "Woman" we see in Rev. 12:1 with an entire body in Heaven.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Catholic logic....Jesus is God...Jesus is the Son of God...therefore Mary must be God. Explains everything.

SDA/E.G. White lies . . . Catholics claim that Mary is God.

Where do you get this nonsense - other than in the writings of your failed false prophetess Ellen. G. White??

 

[BreadOfLife]

True, they do not outright claim Mary is God, but they do attribute to her the attributes of God...perfect sinlessness, which they call 'immaculate', and honour her on that account, which is akin to worship. But sinlessness isn't the only attribute that they give her that belongs only to God...is not Christ the sole Mediator between God and man? Is Mary therefore not elevated to a position that belongs only to the Son of God, thus making her equal to God?

Hmmmm . . . more SDA fairy tales.
What a surprise . . .

First of all - we attribute Mary's sinlessness NOT to her - but to GOD alone.
LIE #!.

Secondly - we don't "worship" Mary or ANYBODY other than God.
LIE #2.

Finally - we ask Mary for prayerful intercession - just like YOU do when you ask sinners here on earth to pray for YOU.
LIE #3.

You're OUT . . .

 

[Marymog]

I would rather know Christ, scripture and religion will get no one into heaven, and if you new the truth you would not get so angry..

And the truth will set you free,, yes even you if you desire freedom...

I wish you would know Christ, truth and scripture so you would be free.

I am not angry.....just sad that you deny The Truth.