 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
GordonH
Member
| Joined: | Mon Apr 9th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 16 |
| First Name: | Gordon | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Born Presbyterian, later Baptist with charismatic leanings. |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 13th, 2007 06:17 am |
|
Most evangelicals believe that Enoch was "translated" to heaven without dying. This is not explicitly stated in Scripture and only really comes from the non biblical book of Enoch and Jewish tradition on the subject.
On the other hand they say they don't believe in the assumption of Mary because its not in the bible.
This seems an illogical position and both can't be right.
If the assumption really did happen then it would be unlikely to be recorded in the bible anyway because Mary was still with the apostles for at least the first part of the book of Acts so it not being in the bible is not proof its not true.
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5457 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 13th, 2007 11:30 am |
|
GordonH wrote: Most evangelicals believe that Enoch was "translated" to heaven without dying. This is not explicitly stated in Scripture and only really comes from the non biblical book of Enoch and Jewish tradition on the subject.
On the other hand they say they don't believe in the assumption of Mary because its not in the bible.
This seems an illogical position and both can't be right.
If the assumption really did happen then it would be unlikely to be recorded in the bible anyway because Mary was still with the apostles for at least the first part of the book of Acts so it not being in the bible is not proof its not true.
The Church teaches that Mary was taken into heaven at the end of her earthly life, but has never stated whether or not she died. Eastern Christians refer to the feast as the Dormition ("Falling Asleep") of Mary.
The bible does not tell us how most of the apostles died. Should we assume from that omission that they didn't?
Many Protestant positions are illogical, especially for those who accept Sola Scriptura. How can they accept the Rapture which is not scriptural, but not the Eucharist which is?
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
mrsbmoo
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 341 |
| First Name: | Becky | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | former Methodist. RCA, Presbyterian, Holiness, Wesleyan... Catholic as of June ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 14th, 2007 01:05 am |
|
I think it says Enoch lived so many years and was no more or some equally mysterious phrase. Isn't he presumed to be one of the 2 prohets in Revelation who had not died previously but them are slaughtered by the anti-Christ?
I don't think protestants don't believe in the assumption because it isn't in the Bible but more because they don't feel Mary would have merited it somehow. She isn't considerd to be extraordinary by them.
____________________
Becky
Wife of Michael(called Moo) and stay at home mom to 5 daughters between 13 months and 17
|
|
|
Juan
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | Texas USA |
| Posts: | 247 |
| First Name: | unregister | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | unregister |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 14th, 2007 10:48 am |
|
KJV
Genesis 5:
24And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.
Douay Rheims
Genesis 5
24And he walked with God, and was seen no more: because God took him.
Both the Douay Rheims and the KJV say that God took him.
In addition, St. Paul says that Enoch "should not see death".
Hebrews 11:5
By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.
Sincerely,
Juan
|
|
|
Juan
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | Texas USA |
| Posts: | 247 |
| First Name: | unregister | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | unregister |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 14th, 2007 08:15 pm |
|
Sorry, my previous answer was abruptly cut off as my family called me to leave on an errand.
The Bible seems explicit to me concerning the translation of Enoch. The Bible also seems explicit in explaining why Enoch was translated to heaven:
Hebrews 11 :5 ....for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.
Now it seems to me that this sort of gives us a guideline or Biblical principle. Apparently, God will translate to Himself those who please Him. We know that we all await our translation to heaven body and soul, eventually, in the Resurrection. But apparently, God will translate some to Himself who please Him extraordinarily. Such as, Elijah and Moses ( 4 Kings 2 :11; Jude 1 :9).
Now, if He did this in the past, why would God not do it in the future. After all, God is absolute and does not change. And isn't Scripture clear that Mary pleased God:
Luke 1
28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women....42 And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. 43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44 For behold as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy. 45 And blessed art thou that hast believed, because those things shall be accomplished that were spoken to thee by the Lord.
Additional texts which support the translation of Mary to heaven body and soul are these:
Apocalypse 11 :19 And the temple of God was opened in heaven: and the ark of his testament was seen in his temple, and there were lightnings, and voices, and an earthquake, and great hail.
Apocalypse 12 :1 And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars:
John 17 24 Father, I will that where I am, they also whom thou hast given me may be with me; that they may see my glory which thou hast given me, because thou hast loved me before the creation of the world.
Psalms 131 8 Arise, O Lord, into thy resting place: thou and the ark, which thou hast sanctified.
I guess your next question is "what does the ark have to do with Mary?"
I'll let Scott Hahn answer that:
The most prominent scriptural theme in the liturgical text of the Church when it comes to the feast of the Assumption, which we are celebrating happily today. You can see, if you had a missalette that the reading for the Vigil of the Assumption has some text that at first might seem to be rather odd and out of place. For instance, we had a reading from 1st Chronicles 15. It doesn't mention Mary. All it talks about is how David assembled all Israel and Jerusalem to bring the Ark of the Lord to the place which he had prepared for it. .... And you're thinking, "Why choose this text? There are literally thousands of texts to choose from, why a text about a box? And all of these guys jumping and singing and dancing around a box, and putting it in a tent and then singing and dancing and offering sacrifices and blessing people in the text?"
Kind of unusual. But then for the Responsorial Song in the Vigil Mass from Psalm 132, the responsorial is , "Lord, go up to the place of your rest, you and the Ark of you holiness." Now, this isn't Noah's ark, this is the Ark of the Covenant. We'll get a little bit more into the background in just a minute, but why the Ark of the Covenant, and this is an ancient liturgical tradition. These are texts that have been included in the liturgy of the Assumption as far back as we can trace it, and this is like 7th Century, 6th Century. We can't trace it back much farther than that, but all this historical evidence points to the fact that this has been celebrated from ancient times. So you can't just say, "Well it popped out of nowhere in the 6th and 7th Century," because back then Churches were liturgically hyper- conservative. I mean you didn't just innovate and then say, "Well, we've got a new feast." Then all of a sudden have it catch on in the Church all around the world.
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/ma.html
I hope the helps,
Sincerely,
Juan
|
|
|
Christine Ann
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | An Hours' Drive From Cincinnati, Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 156 |
| First Name: | Christine Ann | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | former Lutheran, Baptist, now Catholic. |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 14th, 2007 09:11 pm |
|
Dear Juan,
Thank you for taking the time to thoroughly explain Mary's Assumption. I didn't know any of what you explained so well. If I understand, Mary, full of grace, is the Ark of the Covenant and she was fully sanctified and "translated" into heaven. This makes it all fall into place...wonderful! The Ark fortold of Mary, or is a "type" of Mary who contained perfectly our perfect Lord? It's really neat to see the scriptures you provided. I've been in a Baptist Church setting for the last 15 years and I still find myself looking to the Bible for verification of things. I guess that's not altogether a bad thing.
Anyway....thank you. The light really went on in my head when I read your Post. I'm grateful.
Christine Ann
|
|
|
Ali
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 6th, 2007 |
| Location: | Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 665 |
| First Name: | Ali | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | JW, finally fully Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 18th, 2007 09:11 am |
|
Christine Ann wrote:Anyway....thank you. The light really went on in my head when I read your Post.
I was, at first, surprised at how often that happened when I first started learning about the Catholic faith 
Ali
|
|
|
Christine Ann
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | An Hours' Drive From Cincinnati, Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 156 |
| First Name: | Christine Ann | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | former Lutheran, Baptist, now Catholic. |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 18th, 2007 09:02 pm |
|
Ali...
Isn't it just amazing!! I just want to study more and more. I'm reading the Catechism now and I'm so excited by it. Sooo much information and quotations by the Saints! And scripture, scripture scripture.... (This probably sounds crazy, but I'm really astounded! 
In His Love,
Christine Ann
|
|
|
Candlemass
Member
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | Hudson, Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 484 |
| First Name: | Mark | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic, AOG, Baptist, non - denominational, Anglican, RCC for life! |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun May 6th, 2007 08:18 pm |
|
cajunrick wrote: GordonH wrote: Most evangelicals believe that Enoch was "translated" to heaven without dying. This is not explicitly stated in Scripture and only really comes from the non biblical book of Enoch and Jewish tradition on the subject.
On the other hand they say they don't believe in the assumption of Mary because its not in the bible.
This seems an illogical position and both can't be right.
If the assumption really did happen then it would be unlikely to be recorded in the bible anyway because Mary was still with the apostles for at least the first part of the book of Acts so it not being in the bible is not proof its not true.
The Church teaches that Mary was taken into heaven at the end of her earthly life, but has never stated whether or not she died. Eastern Christians refer to the feast as the Dormition ("Falling Asleep") of Mary.
The bible does not tell us how most of the apostles died. Should we assume from that omission that they didn't?
Many Protestant positions are illogical, especially for those who accept Sola Scriptura. How can they accept the Rapture which is not scriptural, but not the Eucharist which is?
Not all do, in fact, Hank Hannegraaff has a book out now debunking this "new" doctrine, he also has a very good fictional series to counter the "Left Behind" drivel. That's a good point about Enoch, John MacArthur's commentary notes that the passage makes reference to the apocrypha, but goes on to say that doesn't mean anything?
____________________
"For I the blind who once could see, the bell tolls for me!"
|
|
|
Candlemass
Member
| Joined: | Tue May 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | Hudson, Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 484 |
| First Name: | Mark | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic, AOG, Baptist, non - denominational, Anglican, RCC for life! |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun May 6th, 2007 08:18 pm |
|
You should make it possible for us to delete posts, sometimes double posts are impossible to avoid!
You should make it possible for us to delete posts, sometimes double posts are impossible to avoid! 
Please delete!
Last edited on Sun May 6th, 2007 09:04 pm by Candlemass
____________________
"For I the blind who once could see, the bell tolls for me!"
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5457 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun May 6th, 2007 08:43 pm |
|
Candlemass wrote: You should make it possible for us to delete posts, sometimes double posts are impossible to avoid!
You should make it possible for us to delete posts, sometimes double posts are impossible to avoid!
I have requested that ability from the author of the software. It is not currently available. Just edit the message to say "Please delete" or something like that, and David or I will delete it when we encounter it.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Current time is 02:33 pm | |
|
|
|
|
|
