Assumption of Moses

[the_Assyrian_1]

hi there… its been an interesting read this forum so far…

here is my understanding of the mount of transfiguration…

When someone dies (i.e. Moses) 1 - the Spirit returns to the Father who gave it, 2 - the Soul ascends/descends, 3 - the body decays…

its a question of what you believe about the Soul and whether it is able to exist in heaven because of GOD, scripture says this… and thus Appear to Christ on the mount… this was Moses without the a glorified body but still Moses… This is what I think…

I DONT know of any bodily assumption before Christ (after death I mean), as the kind lady quoted Christ before me saying, ‘no-one has ascended’ something to that effect…

As for Abrahams buzum I believe Christ was Not talking about another parable and that Hell is real. Was making a Point.

Likewise When Jesus Died on the Cross His Spirit returned to God, His Soul descended to the Prisoners in Hades and His body we know what happened to it…

 

[Benadam]

In the light of the Transfiguration the Apostles could see the heights that human life had risen. There are heavens that are not the heaven that the Word comes down to earth from. Remember St Peter wanting to make a shelter for all of them to stay in and Jesus telling him he didn’t know what he was saying. This is because Peter wasn’t recognizing that they were experiencing an elevated state offered by the light of His transfigured body rather than a place that required shelter from the elements.

Obviously the Lord corrected Satan in the debate for Moses’ body and he was assumed body and soul to a state of life that Elijah would be taken up to without experiencing death. It seems to me that Moses’ experience of death would offer greater sanctity.

All five present body and soul with Christ when He Transfigured had yet to witness the eternal Sacrifice that would tear the veil between heaven and earth. None had yet to know the heaven that only God dwelt.

 

[JeanneH]

And that place is heaven, like the Bible says

Again, not necessarily where God lives.

 

[JeanneH]

The “proof” is that no one has ever found or even claimed to have found Mary’s relics. Can you imagine the value of the relics, if they had been found? And there are those who claim to have found things that they know exist - St. Peter, for example, potentially had ten heads. But the only reason for that is that these shysters know that St. Peter’s skull is somewhere on the earth.

No one has ever claimed to have found anything of Mary’s though, and the reason is that even the shysters know that there is nothing here on the earth of hers to be found - she is physically in Heaven.

I don’t deny that Mary is in heaven but not finding any of her remains is a lame excuse. I would suggest an opinion that there are many dead people that remains have not been found but that doesn’t mean that they have been assumed into heaven. Albeit they are not the mother of God.

 

[JeanneH]

You can if you want, the orthodox and early Church belief (not to mention the Jewish belief) is that Elijah and Enoch were assumed into heaven, so I believe that. I also think the OP has made a solid case for the assumption of Moses, not conclusive as was pointed out by NHInsider, but still solid.

So the fact that Michael and Satan were quarreling over Moses body and that God buried it in an unknown place means it was assumed into heaven? I don’t draw that conclusion. It would mean that God lied when he said that he buried Moses in an unknown place.

, his proclamation is affirmed by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit says it is true through the pope, therefore it is true.

I believe I said that but was told what did it matter. The date was 1950 and the Pope was Pope Pius XII

It’s very simple; Jeanne, why do you question a pope’s infallible proclamation?

The honest truth is that I don’t know. The Pope is still only a man even if it is said that he is guided by the Holy Spirit.

That’s not what I said, I said if you interpret Jn 3:13 so strictly that Elijah, Enoch, and possibly Moses couldn’t get into heaven, then you would have to say that “no one has gone up to heaven” because the verse nor the context suggest this fact changes in the future.

I was being facetious.

Jeanne

[/QUOTE]

 

[NotWorthy]

I don’t deny that Mary is in heaven but not finding any of her remains is a lame excuse. I would suggest an opinion that there are many dead people that remains have not been found but that doesn’t mean that they have been assumed into heaven. Albeit they are not the mother of God.

… unless you understand early Christianity. Name Apostle or early saint who’s bones are not claimed to be held by one group or another.

 

[JeanneH]

… unless you understand early Christianity. Name Apostle or early saint who’s bones are not claimed to be held by one group or another.

I don’t believe that I mentioned apostles or saints but people from any time whose bones are lost doesn’t mean they were assumed.

It would be pretty hard to say that above mentioned bones were from the apostles or early saints.

Operative word here “claimed” not proven. I will agree that recent saints bones and bodies are still available to us.

 

[zach_dunn]

I don’t believe that I mentioned apostles or saints but people from any time whose bones are lost doesn’t mean they were assumed.

It would be pretty hard to say that above mentioned bones were from the apostles or early saints.

Operative word here “claimed” not proven. I will agree that recent saints bones and bodies are still available to us.

The point is that early Christians desperately wanted to have an Apostles or Saint’s bones, the fact that people claim to have bones from all of the Apostles and early Saints at least tells us that there bones are out there, and I don’t think all of what these people claim is false. The fact of the matter is that no one claims to have Mary’s bones, no one. Why? Even if a certain group just wanted some fame they could have claimed to have Mary’s bones, but they haven’t because her bones are in heaven.

 

[Benadam]

. The fact of the matter is that no one claims to have Mary’s bones, no one. Why?.

I think you know this already but it should be added. There would be no market for them. The fact that no one tries is because the Assumption of Our Blessed Mother is a universal belief since the beginning of the Church. They know that no one would believe they were her bones.

 

[jmm08]

The literary form is very much that of a parable, however Catholics are free to believe either that Jesus was telling about an actual event or that He was teaching by a parable. (BTW, some of our evangelical brethren are so fixated on the literalist view of Scripture that they insist that ALL the parables are actual accounts of actual events - because otherwise there would be words in Scripture that aren’t literally “true.”)

But the Lazarus who was raised from the dead was not a poor beggar at a rich man’s gate, he was the brother of Mary and Martha of Bethany. So if it IS an actual account, it’s a different Lazarus.

This is a very nice piece of exegesis. I’m impressed!

Yes the two men named Lazarus were different people (unless the poor Lazarus was merely part of Jesus’s parable and not a factual person). No doubt of that at all. I think there is room to consider it was entirely a parable or at least in part factual. Regardless of opinion, I think the Catechism of the Catholic Church #633-634 nails down the concept that Jesus freed those souls to enter heaven sometime between Good Friday and Easter Morning. See CCC #632-637

• From CCC:

633 Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, “hell”—Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek—because those who are there are deprived of the vision of God. Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the redeemer: which does not mean that their lot is identical, as Jesus shows through the parable of the poor man Lazarus who was received into “Abraham’s bosom”: “It is precisely these holy souls, who awaited their Savior in Abraham’s bosom, whom Christ the Lord delivered when he descended into hell.” Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him.

636 By the expression “He descended into hell,” the Apostles’ Creed confesses that Jesus did really die and through his death for us conquered death and the devil “who has the power of death” (Heb 2:14).

637 In his human soul united to his divine person, the dead Christ went down to the realm of the dead. He opened heaven’s gates for the just who had gone before him.
Note that I am not very much educated in Catholic teachings – I did not attend Catholic schools. I haven’t learned the finer definitions of ascended or assumed.

– jmm08

 

[jmm08]

Deuteronomy 34:5-6 “So there, in the land of Moab, Moses, the servant of the LORD, died as the LORD had said; and he was buried in the ravine opposite Beth-peor in the land of Moab, but to this day no one knows the place of his burial.”

Yes Moses died and was buried. But when was the dispute between the archangel Michael and the devil? Perhaps it was after the burial? If so, perhaps then the assumption of Moses’ body was necessary? I don’t know. The NAB preface to Jude to the book “Assumption of Moses” makes me figure that although such a book was not in the canon of scripture the title makes me think Moses body was assumed after the burial. It is merely an opinion and as an opinion I haven’t firmly made up my mind. In part that is why I began this thread – to see what people think.

There are many people who have been buried and then subsequently moved for various reasons. So the fact somebody was buried somewhere is not necessarily the end of the story.

This wouldn’t be the first time I’m wrong about something.

– jmm08

 

[jmcrae]

I don’t deny that Mary is in heaven but not finding any of her remains is a lame excuse. I would suggest an opinion that there are many dead people that remains have not been found but that doesn’t mean that they have been assumed into heaven. Albeit they are not the mother of God.

In cases where no one would be looking for them, it makes sense that some people’s remains would never be found. Are you seriously suggesting that anybody could potentially have “lost” the remains of Mary the mother of Jesus? And it seems as if they lost the remains of St. Peter at one point, but that didn’t prevent people from having “relics” (fake ones) of his - but for some reason no one has ever even attempted to fake Mary’s relics - because they already knew that such a claim would have zero credibility - it was well-known that her relics were already assumed into Heaven.

 

[JeanneH]

In cases where no one would be looking for them, it makes sense that some people’s remains would never be found. Are you seriously suggesting that anybody could potentially have “lost” the remains of Mary the mother of Jesus? And it seems as if they lost the remains of St. Peter at one point, but that didn’t prevent people from having “relics” (fake ones) of his - but for some reason no one has ever even attempted to fake Mary’s relics - because they already knew that such a claim would have zero credibility - it was well-known that her relics were already assumed into Heaven.

I don’t put much store in relics. How does one prove from 2000 years ago that relics are from St. Peter or any one else for that matter? It is much easier with modern saints.,

We believe that Mary was assumed to heaven by faith, and or Tradition.

I am going to play devils advocate here—what about the possibility that the apostles wanted Mary to “rest” privately and without people seeking her relics and was buried where no one would bother her remains. Much like God burying Moses, body. There are many things that happened at that time which were not recorded. Just saying-------

 

[jmcrae]

I don’t put much store in relics. How does one prove from 2000 years ago that relics are from St. Peter or any one else for that matter? It is much easier with modern saints.

You can’t. My point was that, even if they were fake, the fakers still had a market for them, because people still knew that their bodies are on the earth. Not so, in the case of Mary.

We believe that Mary was assumed to heaven by faith, and or Tradition.

Right, but that Tradition is grounded in real human experience - no one has ever thought that Mary’s body was on the earth - there’s no evidence of anyone ever thinking that Mary’s body was on the earth - not even the lowest, most badly educated con man.

I am going to play devils advocate here—what about the possibility that the apostles wanted Mary to “rest” privately and without people seeking her relics and was buried where no one would bother her remains.

There would have still been con men looking to trade off of her fame, if they had thought anyone would believe them.

Look at what happens every time there is an alleged apparition of hers. Even when it’s 99% certain that there is no actual apparition, whole economies spring up with “recordings” of her messages, “pictures” (drawings, paintings, and washed-out photos of the sun supposedly “dancing”) of the apparition suddenly appear in kiosks surrounding the area, all for a “low low price, just to cover expenses.”

 

[Solo1959]

I don’t put much store in relics. How does one prove from 2000 years ago that relics are from St. Peter or any one else for that matter? It is much easier with modern saints.,

We believe that Mary was assumed to heaven by faith, and or Tradition.

I am going to play devils advocate here—what about the possibility that the apostles wanted Mary to “rest” privately and without people seeking her relics and was buried where no one would bother her remains. Much like God burying Moses, body. There are many things that happened at that time which were not recorded. Just saying-------

jmcrae wasn’t proving anything about the veracity of relics. He acknowledged that many may have been faked. And that was his point, that there were no faked relics of Mary. So, faith and/or tradition here is supported by history. Yes, it takes faith to believe.

Jesus called Mary and knew her as, “Mommy.” This is the lady that nursed him, fed him, changed him, raised him. She was with him at his crucifixion. He loved this lady. Our own experience and logic tells us that he would treat her special. She was present at the Pentecost. She clearly had a special place in the church and among the Apostles.

Pretend for a moment that you were Jesus. It’s presumptuous, I know. But, if you had the power and authority, wouldn’t YOU do the same for your mother if you could? How is that so far fetched?

Because of this, and because she was special among the Apostles, and they all knew her and John took care of her, they all knew about what happened to her after her life was completed here on earth. They would have kept relics if they could as they did for others.

…Just a way of thinking about it…

 

[JeanneH]

Pretend for a moment that you were Jesus. It’s presumptuous, I know. But, if you had the power and authority, wouldn’t YOU do the same for your mother if you could? How is that so far fetched?

Yes, I would. I do believe that Mary is in heaven by faith and Tradition.

…Just a way of thinking about it…

Interesting but still Tradition
The fact of the Assumption

Regarding the day, year, and manner of Our Lady’s death, nothing certain is known. The earliest known literary reference to the Assumption is found in the Greek work De Obitu S. Dominae. Catholic faith, however, has always derived our knowledge of the mystery from Apostolic Tradition. Epiphanius (d. 403) acknowledged that he knew nothing definite about it (Haer., lxxix, 11). The dates assigned for it vary between three and fifteen years after Christ’s Ascension. Two cities claim to be the place of her departure: Jerusalem and Ephesus. Common consent favours Jerusalem, where her tomb is shown; but some argue in favour of Ephesus. The first six centuries did not know of the tomb of Mary at Jerusalem.
The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century. It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite. If we consult genuine writings in the East, it is mentioned in the sermons of St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others. In the West, St. Gregory of Tours (De gloria mart., I, iv) mentions it first. The sermons of St. Jerome and St. Augustine for this feast, however, are spurious. St. John of Damascus (P.G., I, 96) thus formulates the tradition of the Church of Jerusalem:
St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened, upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven.
Today, the belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is universal in the East and in the West; according to Benedict XIV (De Festis B.V.M., I, viii, 18) it is a probable opinion, which to deny were impious and blasphemous.

I know, by now you are thinking I am a lost cause and maybe so:shrug:

 

[NotWorthy]

I am going to play devils advocate here—what about the possibility that the apostles wanted Mary to “rest” privately and without people seeking her relics and was buried where no one would bother her remains. Much like God burying Moses, body. There are many things that happened at that time which were not recorded. Just saying-------

I think you are looking at this through the lenses of today and not in the past. The Apostles and early Church revered the bones of those witnessing to Christ. This sounds rather “superstitious” to us, but they used the bones as a way of strengthening the faith of those who were suffering persecution.

Mary’s bones would have been the “Coup d’ grace” of holy relics! So yes, what seems rather macabre to you and me was not looked upon the same way back then.

 

[JeanneH]

I think you are looking at this through the lenses of today and not in the past. The Apostles and early Church revered the bones of those witnessing to Christ. This sounds rather “superstitious” to us, but they used the bones as a way of strengthening the faith of those who were suffering persecution.

Mary’s bones would have been the “Coup d’ grace” of holy relics! So yes, what seems rather macabre to you and me was not looked upon the same way back then.

Thanks to all for putting up with me. I have enjoyed your patience, insights and conversation.

Jeanne

 

[NotWorthy]

Thanks to all for putting up with me. I have enjoyed your patience, insights and conversation.

Jeanne

God bless You, JeanneH! For you persistence has enabled all of us to learn something new!