CHALLENGING mary's assumption

[Bible_Student]

There is an important distinction here. Jesus was not assumed, he ascended. He went into heaven under His own power because He is God!

Thank you guanophone. Yes, clearly I was in error in regard to that. I apologize for the slip up.

guanophore:

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.

Honesty I really don’t know Mary’s place in heaven but am inclined to believe it is a place of honor. So who knows, you could be right but you could also be wrong as well. Whatever the Father decides is more than good enough for me, since that decision is not even Jesus’, never mind our own to make, as He so stated:
Matthew 20:23
ait illis calicem quidem meum bibetis sedere autem ad dexteram meam et sinistram non est meum dare vobis sed quibus paratum est a Patre meo

guanophore:

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

This we can agree on as long as it is not our work but the work of the Holy Spirit working through us and for us - for there is no work of my own that I could ever bring into His presence that is acceptable to God. Just as I have no righteousness of my own but only that which has been imputed to me by God who bought me by the blood of His precious Son of whom I owe a debt of gratitude I can never repay - but that’s okay because His love rescued me and I am eternally His.

May God Bless You, pat:thumbsup:

 

[Joero]

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

About the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Jesus stated it impliedly (meaning it is an implicit statement).
In Rev. 3: 21 Jesus stated “To those who win the victory I will give the right to sit beside me on my throne, just as I have been victorious and now sit by my Father on His throne”.

As we have remembered when Jesus was still here on earth in His preaching mission, a mother of the two Apostoles of Jesus (James - the greater & John) asked Jesus a favor that her two sons will sit on the right and on the left of Jesus when He is King, but Jesus Christ refused for it would be the will of the Father to choose who will sit on His right and His left (Matt.20: 20-23).

From this point of view a bible reader knows that Jesus Christ is the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords (basing from Rev. 19: 13 > Rev. 19:16 > Rev. 17: 14 > John 1: 29, 36)

As a King, there could be a queen ! (although not necessarily in some cases). But if you read Psalms 45: 9 it speaks of a queen whose integrity and honour so loved and adored by people.(This particular passage never happened in any of king David"s wife ! A question may arise on who this particular passage is referred to?)

Well, it refers to the Blessed Virgin Mary, nothing else !

 

[guanophore]

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

Jesus did speak about dying and rising from the dead. He spoke of the temple of His body, which he prophesied would be torn down, and that he would rebuild in three days. Jesus is not recorded as having spoken of the assumption of Moses, but that does not mean he never did, since many things He said and did are not recorded. It was a common faith of His time, and Peter would not have written about it if Jesus had not affirmed it.

 

[guanophore]

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?

Your interpretation of this verse is a common Protestant misunderstanding. Jesus was quoting the Psalm, and applying it to Himself. Jesus is God, and could not be “separated” or forsaken by the divinity of which He is a substantial part. To assert as much is the same as saying Jesus is not divine in His nature.

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.

I think this disagrees with Scripture, so I will continue to trust in God’s Holy Word.

Jesus is God’s holy Word. Human beings do not have two natures as Christ does. He has a divine nature and a human nature. In him, the two are fused into one person. This is not the same way that the Spirit indwells humans.

Scripture also disagrees with the assumption that Mary is only the firstfruit. Jesus Himself, the husbandman & True vine, is the first fruit

I did not claim that Mary is the only firstfruit. She is, however, the very first Christian. She occupies a unique position in the Kingdom because He chose her to be His mother.

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.

You say this because you have rejected the Apostolic Tradition as a substantive source. Therefore, the Fathers and the teachings of the church are not compelling evidence for you.

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.

Well, my apologies if that is the case. I must have had stompalot on my brain!

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?

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)

Then we are not in disagreement!

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

I agree that the HS will not contradict the Holy Scriptures. Catholocism, as the author of the New Testament, is totally consistent with the scriptures. Those that do not understand Catholicism, or misinterpret the scriptures, think there are contradictions where there are not.

 

[Bible_Student]

Your interpretation of this verse is a common Protestant misunderstanding. Jesus was quoting the Psalm, and applying it to Himself. Jesus is God, and could not be “separated” or forsaken by the divinity of which He is a substantial part. To assert as much is the same as saying Jesus is not divine in His nature.

Obviously, I believe Christ is Divine as the second person of the Holy Trinity. But my assertion is still correct. I’ll use your second answer to explain what I meant.

Jesus is God’s holy Word. Human beings do not have two natures as Christ does. He has a divine nature and a human nature. In him, the two are fused into one person. This is not the same way that the Spirit indwells humans.

So yes, we can agree on this doctrine wholeheartedly. He is both God and man and, as both, Jesus could take on becoming the curse and become the atonement for man (as Scriptire clearly states) - in other words paying the debt for sin, which was death! The one you and I both deserve but whereby “Jesus paid it all”. So to be clear, Jesus was not just parroting Psalm 22 - clearly this was prophetic fulfillment.
** 1 Cor 15:21-23**
For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming.
And 1 Cor 15:45-47
And so it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual. The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven.

Your interpretation of this verse is a common Protestant misunderstanding.

Ah, yes now I see understand the implication I must have glossed over in the last few posts but please bear with me as I guess I wasn’t aware till now that Catholics alone claim to have a complete lock on both truth and scriptural exegesis.
The New Covenant - Jeremiah 31:31-34
“Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah-- not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”
Romans 11:22-25
And who is the house of Israel? It is the natural branches as well as the branches grafted in to be cultivated.
Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who are natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree? For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.

May God Bless, Pat

 

[Teeliumtrozzle]

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.

Marys Assumption is mentioned in the Bible.
REVELATIONS 12:1-5!!

 

[VociMike]

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?”

This belief would seem to destroy the concept of the Trinitarian God. Here we have God taking unto himself the sins of the whole world, and God unable to bear even looking at the sins of the whole world. The contradiction in these two actions is breathtaking.

 

[Bible_Student]

Marys Assumption is mentioned in the Bible.
REVELATIONS 12:1-5!!

Hi Tee,
I believe the Woman of Revelation 12 is the Church of Christ and not Mary. Certainly it has nothing to do with confirming the assumption of Mary, by which we would really have to twist the Scriptures quite painfully in order to arrive at that conclusion.
Rev 12:1
Now a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a garland of twelve stars. Then being with child, she cried out in labor and in pain to give birth.
There is a Biblical precent to this symbology
**Gen. 37:9-11: **
Then Joseph dreamed still another dream and told it to his brothers, and said, “Look, I have dreamed another dream. And this time, the sun, the moon, and the eleven stars bowed down to me.” So he told it to his father and his brothers; and his father rebuked him and said to him, “What is this dream that you have dreamed? Shall your mother and I and your brothers indeed come to bow down to the earth before you?” And his brothers envied him, but his father kept the matter in mind.

So it would appear that Jacob understand the symbolic nature of Joseph’s dream very quickly, and identified the sun as himself, the moon as Rachel, and the eleven stars as Joseph’s brothers.

As did St. Paul in Galatians 4:21-27 whereby he spoke of the two covenants (Gen. 21:8-21; Is. 54:1)​

Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar-- for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children-- but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written:

“Rejoice, O barren,
You who do not bear!
Break forth and shout,
You who are not in labor!
For the desolate has many more children
Than she who has a husband.”

I believe that St. Paul is making the distinction between the heavenly Jerusalem, (which comes about by Christ - producing many sons and daughters), and the old physical Jerusalem, (which was born of the Mosaic covenant, and the law).
Those spiritually reborn by the labor of His Church are the saints to which St. Paul refers to. The heavenly Jerusalem is therefore representative of the spiritual Israel and spiritual Israel has always been a metaphor of His holy Church. That is why the Church is sometimes called the “holy mother Church” by the Early Church Fathers.

May God Bless, pat

 

[Mannyfit75]

Hi Tee,
I believe the Woman of Revelation 12 is the Church of Christ and not Mary. Certainly it has nothing to do with confirming the assumption of Mary, by which we would really have to twist the Scriptures quite painfully in order to arrive at that conclusion.

The interpretation isn’t incorrect neither does the interpretation that the woman in Revelation 12:1 is Mary is incorrect. In the literal sense we can identify the male child whom the woman gave birth to is Jesus Christ. Who is the Mother of Jesus? Mary. Therefore, the woman in Revelation 12:1 is Mary.

 

[kaycee]

The interpretation isn’t incorrect neither does the interpretation that the woman in Revelation 12:1 is Mary is incorrect. In the literal sense we can identify the male child whom the woman gave birth to is Jesus Christ. Who is the Mother of Jesus? Mary. Therefore, the woman in Revelation 12:1 is Mary.

Sorry, the early church saw the women as Israel. Twelve stars, twelve tribes.

Jeremiah 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

Genesis 22:18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.

Isaiah 9:6-7 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

Micah 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Sorry, the early church saw the women as Israel. Twelve stars, twelve tribes.

Jeremiah 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

Genesis 22:18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.

Isaiah 9:6-7 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

Micah 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

They did but the St John, the Apostle, say the woman is Mary. Why else did he address Mary as woman in His Gospel?

 

[paarsurrey]

Jesus did speak about dying and rising from the dead. He spoke of the temple of His body, which he prophesied would be torn down, and that he would rebuild in three days. Jesus is not recorded as having spoken of the assumption of Moses, but that does not mean he never did, since many things He said and did are not recorded. It was a common faith of His time, and Peter would not have written about it if Jesus had not affirmed it.

Hi

In stead of believing so many assumptions of Moses, Mary and Jesus, in my opinion it would be more rational that we believe that these were the misconceptions/assumptions of the scribes only. I think you would probabley agree with me.

Thanks

 

[kaycee]

They did but the St John, the Apostle, say the woman is Mary. Why else did he address Mary as woman in His Gospel?

Where in his Gospel are you referring?

 

[Bible_Student]

This belief would seem to destroy the concept of the Trinitarian God. Here we have God taking unto himself the sins of the whole world, and God unable to bear even looking at the sins of the whole world. The contradiction in these two actions is breathtaking.

Hi Voci,
It’s obvious you didn’t read the entire post. Do you not yourself believe in the dual nature of Jesus Christ? That He was both God and man?

 

[Mannyfit75]

Where in his Gospel are you referring?

John Chapter 2 verse 1-5

And the third day, there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee: and the mother of Jesus was there. 2 And Jesus also was invited, and his disciples, to the marriage. 3 And the wine failing, the mother of Jesus saith to him: They have no wine. 4 And Jesus saith to her: Woman, what is that to me and to thee? my hour is not yet come. 5 His mother saith to the waiters: Whatsoever he shall say to you, do ye.

26 When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son. 27 After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own. 28 Afterwards, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, said: I thirst. 29 Now there was a vessel set there full of vinegar. And they, putting a sponge full of vinegar and hyssop, put it to his mouth. 30 Jesus therefore, when he had taken the vinegar, said: It is consummated. And bowing his head, he gave up the ghost.

John 19:26-30

In the Gospel of John, he called Mary woman like in the verse which I quoted.

Since Revelation 12:1 was also written by John, he identify the woman in Revelation 12:1 as Mary. We know this to be true because the male child whom she gave birth to is Jesus Christ. You cannot deny that mere fact.

Who literally gave birth to Jesus? Mary did therefore, Mary is the woman in Revelation 12:1.

 

[Bible_Student]

The interpretation isn’t incorrect neither does the interpretation that the woman in Revelation 12:1 is Mary is incorrect. In the literal sense we can identify the male child whom the woman gave birth to is Jesus Christ. Who is the Mother of Jesus? Mary. Therefore, the woman in Revelation 12:1 is Mary.

Hi Manny,
Great name or handle by the way! Are you a Red Sox Fan?
So, I guess I didn’t realize you were a literalist and were interpreting Revelation 12 literally. I’m not sure as a Roman Catholic, however, you really want to go down that path of logic. For by associative principle you identify Mary as the woman of Rev 12:5 then you must also identify Mary as the woman of Revelation 12:13-17 or completely destroy the unity of context in Rev 12 altogether. But as long as you are okay with identifying Mary as the woman “of” Revelation chapter 12 then it should follow that one should be able to use your hypothesis to solidify the “yes” position that Mary definitely did give birth to other children as Jesus had bloodline siblings from her. We then can utilize your thesis in order to win over the hearts and minds of all those affirming the negative as to this forum’s thread on, “Did Jesus have Siblings?”
Revelation 12:13-17 Continued.
The (Same) Woman Persecuted
Now when the dragon saw that he had been cast to the earth, he persecuted the woman who gave birth to the male Child. But the woman was given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness to her place, where she is nourished for a time and times and half a time, from the presence of the serpent. So the serpent spewed water out of his mouth like a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away by the flood. But the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed up the flood which the dragon had spewed out of his mouth. And the dragon was enraged with the woman, and he went to make war with the rest of her offspring, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Just wanted you to be aware of the road you are headed down if you exegete 12:5 in that manner.

May God Bless, pat

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Hi Manny,
Great name or handle by the way! Are you a Red Sox Fan?
So, I guess I didn’t realize you were a literalist and were interpreting Revelation 12 literally. I’m not sure as a Roman Catholic, however, you really want to go down that path of logic. For by associative principle you identify Mary as the woman of Rev 12:5 then you must also identify Mary as the woman of Revelation 12:13-17 or completely destroy the unity of context in Rev 12 altogether. But as long as you are okay with identify Mary as the woman “of” Rev 12 then one can use this position to solidify the position that Mary definitely did give birth to other children as Jesus had bloodline siblings from her. We then can utilize your thesis in order to win over the hearts and minds of all those affirming the negative as the thread, “Did Jesus have Siblings?”
Revelation 12:13-17 Continued.
The (Same) Woman Persecuted
Now when the dragon saw that he had been cast to the earth, he persecuted the woman who gave birth to the male Child. But the woman was given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness to her place, where she is nourished for a time and times and half a time, from the presence of the serpent. So the serpent spewed water out of his mouth like a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away by the flood. But the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed up the flood which the dragon had spewed out of his mouth. And the dragon was enraged with the woman, and he went to make war with the rest of her offspring, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Just wanted you to be aware of the road you are headed down if you exegete 12:5 in that manner.

May God Bless, pat

The “other offspring” as the verse plainly says, are “those who have kept the commandments of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ” - in other words, YOU as a Christian are mentioned here as the offspring of Mary. (Talk about making the Bible relevant for someone personally!) It’s quite logical, really. When we become adopted into the Heavenly Family, God is our Father, Jesus is our Brother, Mary is our Mother. I fully accepted this truth LONG before I had any inkling that God would make me Catholic. In fact, I was defending this teaching to another non-Catholic while** in the same breath** saying, “Now, I’m not about to become Catholic, but…” And God just LAUGHED and called me Home to Rome.

 

[kaycee]

John Chapter 2 verse 1-5

John 19:26-30

In the Gospel of John, he called Mary woman like in the verse which I quoted.

Since Revelation 12:1 was also written by John, he identify the woman in Revelation 12:1 as Mary. We know this to be true because the male child whom she gave birth to is Jesus Christ. You cannot deny that mere fact.

Who literally gave birth to Jesus? Mary did therefore, Mary is the woman in Revelation 12:1.

And THAT has significance?

 

[Bible_Student]

The “other offspring” as the verse plainly says, are “those who have kept the commandments of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ” - in other words, YOU as a Christian are mentioned here as the offspring of Mary. (Talk about making the Bible relevant for someone personally!) It’s quite logical, really. When we become adopted into the Heavenly Family, God is our Father, Jesus is our Brother, Mary is our Mother. I fully accepted this truth LONG before I had any inkling that God would make me Catholic. In fact, I was defending this teaching to another non-Catholic while** in the same breath** saying, “Now, I’m not about to become Catholic, but…” And God just LAUGHED and called me Home to Rome.

O’ I see - so you intepret “she bore a male child of” in Rev 12:1-5 literally but you interpret “the rest of her offspring” in Rev allegorically?
You know I’m usually okay with poetic licence but it would appear this is just plain isogetical instrumentation of the Scriptures in order to fit ones pre-conceptions. The Bible isn’t a jello mold but the very Word of God from which we (if we read it for all it is worth) yeilds great truths, astonishing truths. Perhaps someone else might buy in but the ol’ switcheroo doesn’t really work for me Pixie.

 

[Gamera]

O’ I see - so you intepret “she bore a male child of” in Rev 12:1-5 literally but you interpret “the rest of her offspring” in Rev allegorically?
You know I’m usually okay with poetic licence but it would appear this is just plain isogetical instrumentation of the Scriptures in order to fit ones pre-conceptions. The Bible isn’t a jello mold but the very Word of God from which we (if we read it for all it is worth) yeilds great truths, astonishing truths. Perhaps someone else might buy in but the ol’ switcheroo doesn’t really work for me Pixie.

Pixie isn’t pulling “the old Switcheroo,” she is referring to the plain words of Scripture: “Then the dragon was angry with the woman and went off to make war on **the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus.” (Rev. 12:17). **

How is it “the Old Switcheroo” to accept at face value what the Bible says? Mary is the mother of Jesus, to Whom she gave birth, and also the mother of all of us who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus. It’s right there verse 17 in black and white.