CHALLENGING mary's assumption

[Bible_Student]

and her holy body amid blessings, she through whom light rose over the world [or her holy body from which light shone forth for all the world, dwells among those who enjoy the repose of the blessed

]. Phil P

Hi Phil,
Thanks for replying but I’m very much unconvinced since that’s a pretty big jump to get to assumption as compared to Christ’s Assumption- especially since it would appear the author is speaking somewhat metophorically. So if she was assumed into heaven who else then enjoys the repose of the blessed that has also done the same? Weren’t there many saints and martyrs that had fallen asleep in Christ that we could say were enjoying the repose of the blessed?
Pat

 

[PatienceAndLove]

Hi Phil,
Thanks for replying but I’m very much unconvinced since that’s a pretty big jump to get to assumption as compared to Christ’s Assumption- especially since it would appear the author is speaking somewhat metophorically. So if she was assumed into heaven who else then enjoys the repose of the blessed that has also done the same? Weren’t there many saints and martyrs that had fallen asleep in Christ that we could say were enjoying the repose of the blessed?
Pat

Christ was not assumed. Christ ascended.

 

[Joero]

So if she was assumed into heaven who else then enjoys the repose of the blessed that has also done the same? Weren’t there many saints and martyrs that had fallen asleep in Christ that we could say were enjoying the repose of the blessed?
Pat

What PhilVaz mentioned was the belief of the early christians with respect to the theological assumption by St. Ephipanius of Salamis about the fate of the Blessed Virgin Mary either she died in a normal death or was killed due to persecution of christians at that time. I quoted part of PhilVaz post shown below so that one can understand what you are quoting about the previous post of PhilVaz!

Two early references to the Assumption are:

St. Epiphanius of Salamis (c. 377) : “….either the holy Virgin died and was buried; then her falling asleep was with honor, her death chaste, her crown that of virginity. Or she was killed, as it is written: ‘And your own soul a sword shall pierce’; then her glory is among the martyrs and her holy body amid blessings, she through whom light rose over the world [or her holy body from which light shone forth for all the world, dwells among those who enjoy the repose of the blessed]. Or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and He can do whatever He desires; for her end no one knows….” (Panarion 78:23, PG 42:737).

Timothy of Jerusalem (c. 400 AD) : “…some have supposed that the Mother of the Lord was put to death with a sword and won for herself a martyr’s end. Their reason lies in the words of Simeon, ‘And your own soul a sword shall pierce.’ But such is not the case. A metal sword, you see, cleaves the body; it does not cut the soul in two. Therefore, the Virgin is immortal to this day, seeing that He who had dwelt in her transported her to the regions of her assumption [or to the places of His ascension, or into the regions high above].” (In prophetam Simeonem, PG 86:245).

Some late date this “Timothy, a priest from Jerusalem” however between the 6th and 8th centuries.

Phil P

 

[paarsurrey]

sorry guys for being a little “upfront”, but i am a Protestant attending a catholic school. i hear that catholics teach that “mary assended body and soul to heaven before she died”.

hmmmm, where do catholics get this idea from? i mean, as far as i am concerned, the Bible never mentions this. and, isnt that the only source of christian knowledge?

at the moment, i totally disagree with this teaching. but, no one at school has been able to argue their beliefs to me (they all thought it was taught in the bible). please, i am open to debate, i want to know the reasons why catholics believe this so that i am not simply blindly denying this teaching.

Hi

As per Holger Kersten, a German Scholar, in his Book “Jesus Lived in India”, a summary of which could be accessed:
sol.com.au/kor/7_01.htm

This article is a summary of Kersten’s exhaustive research into Christ’s travels after the Crucifixion, his arrival in India with the Mother Mary and finally his death and entombment in Kashmir.

The historian Mullah Nadini (1413) also recounts a story of Yuz Asaf who was a contemporary to King Gopadatta, and confirms that he also used the name Issar, ie. Jesus. There is also much historical truth in the towns and villages of Northern India to prove that Jesus and his mother Mary spent time in the area. For instance, at the border of a small town called Mari, there is nearby a mountain called Pindi Point, upon which is an old tomb called Mai Mari da Asthan or “The final resting place of Mary”. The tomb is said to be very old and local Muslims venerate it as the grave of Issa’s (ie Christ’s) Mother. The tomb itself is oriented East-West consistent with the Jewish tradition, despite the fact it is within a Muslim area. Assuming its antiquity, such a tomb could not be Hindu either since the Hindus contemporary to Christ cremated their dead and scattered their ashes as do Hindus today.

So, I think there is no possibility of Mary assuming to heaven with her physical and mortal body, when she is buried in Murree , a health resort near Islamabad, Capital of Pakistan.

Thanks

 

[Gamera]

Paarsurrey, we know that Moses’ body was assumed into heaven after he died (Jude 9). So why couldn’t Mary’s have been? Assumption doesn’t mean the person didn’t die. Even if it were true that there were a grave for Mary, that still wouldn’t disprove the assumption of her body into heaven.

 

[paarsurrey]

Paarsurrey, we know that Moses’ body was assumed into heaven after he died (Jude 9). So why couldn’t Mary’s have been? Assumption doesn’t mean the person didn’t die. Even if it were true that there were a grave for Mary, that still wouldn’t disprove the assumption of her body into heaven.

Hi

I think these are all human misconceptions, neither Moses got assumed nor Mary or anybody else, this is just a superstition. Why to believe in such things, it neither serves humanity nor religion?

Thanks

 

[PhilVaz]

Student << So if she was assumed into heaven who else then enjoys the repose of the blessed that has also done the same? Weren’t there many saints and martyrs that had fallen asleep in Christ that we could say were enjoying the repose of the blessed? >>

Well, what we have so far…

Enoch, Elijah, Moses (possibly, based on Jude and apocryphal writings like The Assumption of Moses), Jesus, and Mary.

St. Epiphanius clearly refers to the body of Mary (possibly) enjoying the repose of the blessed: “…and her holy body amid blessings, she through whom light rose over the world” or “her holy body from which light shone forth for all the world, dwells among those who enjoy the repose of the blessed…” He doesn’t refer to the bodies of other saints in this way.

As for Jesus ascending to heaven, actually it is only mentioned twice in the Bible: Luke 24:51 and Acts 1:9-11. What makes the belief stronger are the early Creeds that confirm this: “He ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father.” But I’ll grant it’s a little more explicit in the Bible than Mary’s assumption.

As for other saints, well as a matter of fact God has chosen to preserve some of these saints bodies from corruption. So I get to toss this in again: The Incorruptibles shows that God can and does physically preserve the body of holy people from corruption. These are living miracles and documented in the various books by Joan Carroll Cruz. That’s what we believe God did for Mary, and took her up as well.

As for St. Epiphanius not being early enough, or not convincing enough, you have to remember all the following stem from the fourth century AD:

(1) Council of Nicaea and the definitions of Christ being fully God (“of one substance with the Father”)
(2) the full canon of Scripture at the Councils of Hippo/Carthage (393/397/419), slightly earlier by St. Athanasius (367), but later (fifth century) confirmed by Popes Innocent, Boniface
(3) the doctrines on Mary: divine maternity (Theotokos or Mother of God), perpetual virginity, and discussions about her sinlessness and her end
(4) in the fifth century is where we get the fuller doctrine of Christ and the Trinity (Ephesus and Chalcedon), plus more discussions on Mary

The doctrines on Christ, the canon of the Bible, the doctrines on Mary were all developed, believed, defined, and handed on by the same bishops, the same Fathers, in the same one holy Catholic Church. So it is not a stretch to believe the Church got it right on God, on Christ, on God’s Mother, on God’s Scriptures. If we accept the Trinity and the New Testament canon, we should accept what that same Church teaches on Mary. That’s the basic logic and it makes sense.

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

paar << This article is a summary of Kersten’s exhaustive research into Christ’s travels after the Crucifixion, his arrival in India with the Mother Mary and finally his death and entombment in Kashmir. >>

Huh? Whaaa? That calls for another thread. I think I have some “new age” DVD’s from Amazon on this stuff. Funny interesting kooky stuff, but not very historical. Some of them try to “fill in” the 18 “missing years” of Jesus life. Others try to detail events after his crucifixion. Christians believe Jesus was crucified, risen, and ascended 40 days later. He didn’t have time for India, Australia, or New York for that matter. Sure, there are a lot of books out there that claim this kind of stuff, but you won’t find it taken seriously by any of the Jesus scholars.

Does N.T. Wright or John P. Meier or John Dominic Crossan have a chapter on these travels to India? I don’t think so. Those are your top three “historical Jesus” scholars from the conservative, moderate, and liberal wings of scholarship. They say nothing about this stuff.

Phil P

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

Why to believe in such things, it neither serves humanity nor religion?

Because it’s true?

 

[Joero]

This article is a summary of Kersten’s exhaustive research into Christ’s travels after the Crucifixion, his arrival in India with the Mother Mary and finally his death and entombment in Kashmir.

Thanks

Christ’s travels after the crucifixion? Well, I can understand you, paarsurrey. Our holy Bible would not really fit to your holy Koran and your histories. So sorry!

Hi

I think these are all human misconceptions, neither Moses got assumed nor Mary or anybody else, this is just a superstition. Why to believe in such things, it neither serves humanity nor religion?

Thanks

The n-Cs christians would not believe either, much more yourself !

 

[guanophore]

Hi Grad Student,
My understanding is that the Bible clearly only indicates that Jesus Himself was born sinless. (Rom 3:20-24; 1 John 1:8) Perhaps my problem with the above logic on the assumption of Mary is better stated by substituting Jesus Name into what you have said above concerning Mary.
"The Father truly loved the Son, so why would He allow Jesus to suffer death, death on a cross?
You see this is an argument I have heard from unbelievers and yet you, as a Christian, say pretty much the same about Mary.

There is a distinct difference,however. The two had very different vocations in life. Jesus came to give his life as a ransom for us, Mary did not. Mary was called to be the Mother of God, and He is bone of her bone, and flesh of her flesh. He would not take any flesh that was taintes with original sin. The Divine One cannot co-exist substantially with sin.

We could go on and mention Peter, James, Paul, Polycarp, Ignatius and more that Jesus clearly loved. Did they suffer? Did they not die - in all cases very painful deaths?

I think you are missing the point. The wage of sin is death, and if Mary did not sin, then she did not pay the wage.

Are we who are called by His Name today also not called as Christians to walk with Him in our own generation? And, if so, even to suffer and die for our faith in Him if need be rather than deny His all encompassing grace that bought us and redeemed us?

This is a good point. Catholics believe that Mary is only the firstfruit, and that we will all eventually be assumed into heaven as she has been.

Isn’t it also true that this was not considered dogma by the Catholic Church until 1950 and that the very earliest mention of the assumption of Mary by a Church figure was by Gregory of Tours in 590 A.D who mistakenly based it on the appocryphal, Transitus Beatae Mariae, which was originally condemned by the Catholic Church more than a hundred years before this?

No, there are earlier references, and we can see from the prayers preserved in the divine ligurgy that this belief has been held from the time of Mary’s death. In 1950 the Pope declared a beleife that has always been held.

Though there are no specifics mentioned on Mary’s death there appears a strong plausible implication that Mary died at Ephesus and was probably buried not that far from the apostle John. (His tomb being mentioned and recorded in Eusebius Book III, Ch 1.)

This is not what we are taught by Apostolic Tradition.

But as far as Mary death goes it’s all highly speculative at best as there is no early writing about her death that has survived the centuries. For such an important figure one can assume someone in the early church must have written about her death - certainly no one said anything about an assumption.

They did, but they used the term “dormition”. The truth is that no one really knows what happened. They opened the tomb, and her body was not in it any more, so they thought her Son came for her. If you think that the Apostolic Tradition is “speculation”, then your canon is in question also, because it came from the same source.

I hope you see my point for as a Christian I think it’s vital and important to stick to what we know to be truth and ensure that we are not just swept away by overly zealous emotions. I can be zealous too and have to remind myself always to temper everything with honest knowledge or the lack thereof.

The Apostolic Tradition does not proceed from someone “swept away by emotions” but from the Divine Revelation. You have part of that revelation in the scriptures, and another part resides elsewhere. Since most Protestants don’t know about that portion of the Deposit of Faith, they discount it. However, those of us that know about it are aware that it is true, and that, in sticking to it, we have honest knowledge.

But here is where, as a Christian I certainly do fear anyone adding anything further to the Gospel of our Lord.

You will need to fear your own tradition, then, because Sola Scriptura is not taught in the Bible, or by the Apostolic Traditions. It is an error.

 

[guanophore]

Even if it were true it would only amount to a historical fact containing nothing of importance beyond the Gospel of Christ. But here is where, as a Christian I certainly do fear anyone adding anything further to the Gospel of our Lord.

Is this not presumtuous of you? How do you know in which ways God wants to use Mary to glorify Himself in His kingdom?
Perhaps you have not use for the Blessed Mother in your own life. When you stand before His throne, with His mother there beside Him, you can tell him about it. Better yet, don’t wait! Tell Him now!

The author of Hebrews states we should be, “looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.” Heb 12:2 - There is no need for us to follow anyone but Christ Himself. He alone is the Way, the Truth and the Life and no man may come unto the Ftaher except by Him. Him alone! All of us, Mary included, owe our deepest thanks and gratitude (in Greek that is eucharisto) to God our Father and His Son, Jesus Christ. We are to worship God and Him alone! Even as great a saint as Paul would not allow anyone to kneel before Him but tore his clothing crying ‘we are but men as you’, when they tried to deify him and Barnabas (Acts 14:14).

That same author also reminds us that we are “surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses” (12:1). These are what the Catholics call the communion of saints (as stated in the Nicene creed). These are all the holy men and women that have gone before us. How is it they are able to surround us and be witnesses?

Nobody is deifying Mary or the Saints. Why did Paul say these things?

1 Cor 4:16
16 I urge you, then, be imitators of me.

1 Cor 11:1
1 Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.

We do need examples and role models. You have become a victim of the “just jesus and me” mentality. If God did not want us to have examples and imitate the holy men and women, why did He create a Body? We are members one of another, and that does not stop when someone sheds the body of flesh.

I think we need to be very prudent as Christians, as Paul inferred in Gal.1:6 & not wander too far off from the foundations of the Gospel Christ delivered to the apostles. We are called to worship the Father in Spirit and Truth & the Gospel is free and simple so that any and every child of God can hear it and receive it into his or her heart.

May God Bless You, Pat

We are more in agreement than not. Catholics do respect the fourndations of the of the faith delivered to the Apostles. We are just aware that not all of those foundations were written down in scripture.

 

[TraditionalCath]

Hi Phil,
Thanks for replying but I’m very much unconvinced since that’s a pretty big jump to get to assumption as compared to Christ’s Assumption- especially since it would appear the author is speaking somewhat metophorically. So if she was assumed into heaven who else then enjoys the repose of the blessed that has also done the same? Weren’t there many saints and martyrs that had fallen asleep in Christ that we could say were enjoying the repose of the blessed?
Pat

Christ was not assumed into heaven. He ascended into heaven. The Blessed Virgin was assumed into heaven.note the difference between assumed and ascended? see this:

it’s also necessary to keep in mind what the Assumption is not. Some people think Catholics believe Mary “ascended” into heaven. That’s not correct. Christ, by his own power, ascended into heaven. Mary was assumed or taken up into heaven by God. She didn’t do it under her own power. catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp

 

[guanophore]

Hi Phil,
Thanks for replying but I’m very much unconvinced since that’s a pretty big jump to get to assumption as compared to Christ’s Assumption- especially since it would appear the author is speaking somewhat metophorically.

There is an important distinction here. Jesus was not assumed, he ascended. He went into heaven under His own power because He is God. Mary is a creature, she had to be taken into heaven by Her son. This is what we mean when we speak of the Assumption.

So if she was assumed into heaven who else then enjoys the repose of the blessed that has also done the same? Weren’t there many saints and martyrs that had fallen asleep in Christ that we could say were enjoying the repose of the blessed?
Pat

Indeed! However, none of them has the place in Heaven that Mary does. Some of these people, we know who they are, but there are many that we do not.

Let us all pray and work so that we may be among them one day!

 

[guanophore]

Hi

I think these are all human misconceptions, neither Moses got assumed nor Mary or anybody else, this is just a superstition. Why to believe in such things, it neither serves humanity nor religion?

Thanks

It serves humanity and religion to embrace the Divine Deposit of Faith that has been revealed to us by the One True God. The assumption of Moses and Mary are part of that deposit of faith. It does not serve to deny them.

 

[paarsurrey]

The assumption of Moses and Mary

Hi

But JesusYeshuaIssa never mentioned it from his mouth, nor did GodAllahYHWH revealed this on JesusYeshuaIssa. Must be some scribe had mentioned it from his own imagination, that does not make it a pillar of one’s faith.

Thanks

 

[Bible_Student]

: guanophore

Is this not presumtuous of you? How do you know in which ways God wants to use Mary to glorify Himself in His kingdom?
Perhaps you have not use for the Blessed Mother in your own life. When you stand before His throne, with His mother there beside Him, you can tell him about it. Better yet, don’t wait! Tell Him now!

Hi guanophore,
No, I don’t think so. Did I say God didn’t choose Mary to His glory? Quite the contrary He chose her to give birth to His Son, a great honor indeed. I said Mary is not required for Salvation - that requirement is fulfilled by God’s hand alone. This by no means impunes Mary, who has my deep respect and admiration.
May God Bless, Pat

 

[Bible_Student]

There is a distinct difference,however. The two had very different vocations in life. Jesus came to give his life as a ransom for us, Mary did not. Mary was called to be the Mother of God, and He is bone of her bone, and flesh of her flesh. *He would not take any flesh that was taintes with original sin. * The Divine One cannot co-exist substantially with sin.

If Christ bore all our sins, even to the point whereby the Father could not bear to look at His only Son, as He cried out, "“Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?” or “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?” then I must ask why not? Does not God’s Holy Spirit abide with us even though we are all sinners? And is not God the source of our life in whom we live and move and have our being as Paul stated in Acts 17:28, even though He strives with men during our life time?
Gen 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

guanophore:

I think you are missing the point. The wage of sin is death, and if Mary did not sin, then she did not pay the wage.

I think this disagrees with Scripture, so I will continue to trust in God’s Holy Word.
Romans 3:23
**“omnes enim peccaverunt et egent gloriam Dei.” **
AND Romans 5:12
propterea sicut per unum hominem in hunc mundum peccatum intravit et per peccatum mors et ita in omnes homines mors pertransiit in quo omnes peccaverunt

guanophore:

Catholics believe that Mary is only the firstfruit, and that we will all eventually be assumed into heaven as she has been.

Scripture also disagrees with the assumption that Mary is only the firstfruit. Jesus Himself, the husbandman & True vine, is the first fruit
1 Cor. 15:20-23
nunc autem Christus resurrexit a mortuis primitiae dormientium quoniam enim per hominem mors et per hominem resurrectio mortuorum et sicut in Adam omnes moriuntur ita et in Christo omnes vivificabuntur unusquisque autem in suo ordine primitiae Christus deinde hii qui sunt Christi in adventu eius

guanophore:

No, there are earlier references, and we can see from the prayers preserved in the divine ligurgy that this belief has been held from the time of Mary’s death. In 1950 the Pope declared a beleife that has always been held.

Certianly not by any substantive sources. Don’t get me wrong God can translate anyone He desires into heaven. There just is no compelling evidence that this was the case for Mary. Why would Clement or Ignatius or Origen or Hegesippus or even Eusebius ever have not mentioned it if this belief was always held?

guanophore:

You will need to fear your own tradition, then, because Sola Scriptura is not taught in the Bible, or by the Apostolic Traditions. It is an error.

But did I ever say I believe the only source of Truth from God to man is Scripture? You must be thinking of someone else or casting me into a mold you have already fashioned for me without ever really knowing me. You see I believe also in the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and that He also communicates with us daily. Where you and I differ is that I believe “Iesus Christus heri et hodie ipse et in saecula” - (Heb 13:9) and because His Word is the same always I also believe that the Holy Spirit never contradicts the Word of God but always affirms it. Unfortunately, it would appear that sometimes that is not true in all His churches but instead that excess liberties, cultural whims, earthly power and worldly concerns come into conflict with the Truth of God. I think all denominations unfortunately miss God’s true blessing because of this, including my own. The Bible certainly does have a way of righting the ship however whenever sin sways the ship & is in danger of capsizing it.
May God Bless, pat

 

[Bible_Student]

Christ was not assumed into heaven. He ascended into heaven.

Hi Trad,
Yes, you are 100% correct thank you for pointing out an obvious error on my part and may God bless you.
In Christ, pat

PS: I too believe very much in helping the poor, the homeless, the sick and those in prison and minister to the downtrodden. May God bless your ministry as you walk with Christ on mission to a dying generation by giving them the true nourishment of the Gospel along with the sidedishes of their earthly needs.

 

[Gamera]

If Christ bore all our sins, even to the point whereby the Father could not bear to look at His only Son, as He cried out, "“Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?” or “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?” …

Actually God the Father didn’t forsake Jesus. Jesus was quoting Scripture. Psalm 22 begins “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?” By quoting this verse, Jesus was telling us that the Psalm was being fulfilled. He was dying for us.

The Father never abandoned His Son. He couldn’t.