Popes Gelasius and Hormisdas reject this notion [the Assumption].
Parker -- I insist you present the writings of these two Popes rejecting the Assumption. Such documents, if authentic, would be life-changing revelations to us Catholics here.
I think it is apparent that haparker cannot comply with your request, but I'm going to insist that he at least make an attempt or admit he cannot comply. We are all getting weary of his grandiose claims of superior knowledge with no evidence to support it.
It does not take a rocket scientist to readily see that it was written by a Gnostic or a Collyridian, and hence condemned.
Unfortunately, it is in Latin. I will wait until Parker translates it for us and gives us the relevant parts to back up his bogus claim that the dogma of the Assumption is condemned in that decree.
Your feet are in the fire now, Parker.
I can provide you a writing from a Christian in the 1st Century talking about faith alone.
And then from every century after that, or it is merely your own interpretation.
I know very well that in Romans 3 the word solum is not in the Greek or Latin text — the papists did not have to teach me that. It is fact that the letters s-o-l-a are not there.
He gives good reasons why he included the word -- because of how German sentences are constructed.
But, I ask you, is the method of constructing a German sentence enough to base your entire theology upon?
The Church does not say one way or the other if she died, merely that when the course of her earthly life was finished, she was taken body and soul into heavenly glory. We are free to believe that she died or that she did not die.
The problem is that the Church's teaching is nothing more than speculative theology; the magisterium has gone well beyond its boundaries to assert something that has no backing in either history or scripture. Hence, the doctrine is entirely baseless.
A German interpretation of the text is quite logical and straightforward; there is no ambiguity in the language itself. (e.g. 'Virgin' in German is 'Jungfrau' which literally means 'young woman') There really no ambiguity in the text.
Why should I? You haven't provided a document that shows a notion that tradition is defined as the Catholic Church describes it. You only cite sources that mention 'tradition' in the context; hence, the points upon this notion is completely baseless.
Well the arguments you cited are coming from the same source I cited (Bill Webster); thanks for using the source.
However, seeing that this document Transitus Mariae is not an official document of the Catholic Church (or an ECF creed or commentary by a member of the Roman Magisterium), one should be quick to point out that this document has no basis for historicity or authority.
Who's feet are in the fire now?
Are you seriously that logically challenged?
All "young women" are virgins? What planet have you been living on? That is why we reject the word "almah" inserted into Isaias 7 and stick with the Septuagint "parthenos".
I've obliterated plenty of such arguments. I recall the perpetrator was Webster, Bugay (beggarsall) and Rudd (bible.ca).
And why are you reading the fathers through the lens of Webster, Bugay and Rudd? Go read it yourselves. You don't need them. You don't want to do the hard work? You only want quick result that favor the Protestant view because you're pre-disposed to the view that Protestantism is right and Catholicism is apostate instead of being neutral?
Usually, if one wants to understand the 'interpretation' properly, then one needs to let the context speak for itself. Even though 'almah' does not specifically have one generic definition, oftentimes the surrounding context determines what the word means.
Not all 'young women' are virgins; however, there would be other words to describe women who are young, but are not virgins. Back in Luther's time (and perhaps today), most young women would not be considered married or harlots because they were not sexually active.
Well, does the Hebrew text say "virgin" or "young woman"?
Remember, the Septuagint, which is cited in the NT, is older than the Dead Sea Scrolls by about 200 years, and older than the Masoretic Texts by about 1000 years.
PS -- Are you really that logically challenged?
The translation can be used as both.
Do you not see how using the erroneous Hebrew texts casts a pall upon the Virgin Birth and is used by the enemies of Christianity for just that purpose?
I was refering you to another post above.
There will always be ambiguity for interpretation with words in any language; however, the context will always win out. This is a rule in hermeneutics that get debated oftentimes because Scholars attempt to ignore the point. Furthermore, you are implicating that Hebrew (as a language) is insufficient for interpretation. Is that what you're pointing out?
We usually are and we are usually right (not individually, but the Church). Good of you to recognize that fact.
They definitely did. Read them for yourself instead of quoting someone who knows little.