CHALLENGING mary's assumption

[Bible_Student]

Originally Posted by Pixie Dust:

First of all, it is not MY personal private interpretation. It is the interpretation that has been taught in the Church for 2000 years. How old is your interpretation?

AS PROMISED IN MY LAST POST TO PIXIE

These are some quote by the early Church Father’s including St. Paul, which would infer our mother is Christ’s Church and not Mary.
Saint Paul:

The Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.

Clement of Alexandria:

The mother draws the children to herself; and we seek our mother, the Church. E, 2.214.

He generated us from our mother – the water of baptism.
E), 2.439.
Tertullian:

… along with the provision that our lady mother, the Church, from her boutiful breasts, and each brother out of his private means, provides for your physical needs in prison.
W 3.693.

Therefore blessed ones, whom the grace of God awaits, you ascend from that most sacred bath of your new birth and spread your hands for the first time in the house of your mother, together with your brethren.
W, 3.679

Nor, is even our mother, the Church passed by.
W3, 682)

Cyprian:

Cyprian, to the martyrs and confessors in Christ our Lord and in God the Father, everlasting salvation. I gladly rejoice and am thankful, most brave and blessed brethren, at hearing your faith and virtue, by which the Church, our mother, glories.
W 5.287

We begin to be gathered into the bosom of the Church, our mother.
W 5.388

And an exposition of Revelation 12 by -
Hippolytus c. 225 AD Treatise on Christ and Antichrist.:

1. **By the woman then clothed with the sun," he meant most manifestly the Church, endued with the Father’s Word,**143 whose brightness is above the sun. And by the “moon under her feet” he referred to her being adorned, like the moon, with heavenly glory. And the words, "upon her head a crown of twelve stars," refer to the twelve apostles by whom the Church was founded. And those, “she, being with child, cries, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered,” mean that the Church will not cease to bear from her heart144 the Word that is persecuted by the unbelieving in the world. “And she brought forth,” he says, "a man-child, who is to rule all the nations; "by which is meant that the Church, always bringing forth Christ, the perfect man-child of God, who is declared to be God and man, becomes the instructor of all the nations. And the words, “her child was caught up unto God and to His throne,” signify that he who is always born of her is a heavenly king, and not an earthly; even as David also declared of old when he said, "The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou at my right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool."145 "And the dragon," he says, "saw and persecuted the woman which brought forth the man-child. And to the woman were given two wings of the great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent."146 That refers to the one thousand two hundred and threescore days (the half of the week) during which the tyrant is to reign and persecute the Church,147 which flees from city to city, and seeks conceal-meat in the wilderness among the mountains, possessed of no other defence than the two wings of the great eagle, that is to say, the faith of Jesus Christ, who, in stretching forth His holy hands on the holy tree, unfolded two wings, the right and the left, and called to Him all who believed upon Him, and covered them as a hen her chickens. For by the mouth of Malachi also He speaks thus: "And unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in His wings."148

More to follow …

 

[PhilVaz]

Very good, it is not either/or but both/and. Mary is a type or symbol of the Church, our mother. Check St. Ambrose, and St. Augustine.

“Well [does the Gospel say…]: married but a virgin, because she is the type of the Church, which is also married but remains immaculate. The Virgin [Church] conceived us by the Holy Spirit and, as a virgin, gave birth to us without pain. And perhaps this is why holy Mary, married to one man *, is made fruitful by another *, to show that the individual churches are filled with the Spirit and with grace, even as they are united to the person of a temporal priest.” (St. Ambrose of Milan, Expositio in Lucam 2:7, PL 15:1635-36)

Phil P**

 

[Bible_Student]

You know quite well what Catholics believe in that regard, so I won’t bother to answer, other than to say your implication makes no sense to me.

There’s really no need to get offended Voci as the question was rhetorical and not a dig. Please remember what initiated my response to you was your post about how you could not see Christ as the atonement for man’s sin - a concept I believe the Roman Catholic Church holds. So I actually was somewhat mystefied by your 1rst response & wanted to be sure I understood you. Remember your quote was as follows:

VociMike:

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.

I was trying to communicate to you why the dual nature of Christ & the atonement go hand in hand, a theological concept I’m not aware the Roman Catholic Church repudiates.
Just as in Adam all mankind fell and received the curse of sin & death (your doctrine of original sin) so in Christ is the atonement & our curse paid for in full.
Saint Paul's letter to the Galatian Church 3:13:

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us–for it is written, “CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE”–

Again in my previous post, which you seemed to allude was heretical or flawed at best I posted 2 quotes from Holy Scripture in order to back up that theological concept. They were:
St. Paul 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.

St Paul 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.

In previous posts I also quoted these:
Romans 5:6-11 Christ in Our Place:

For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. And not only that, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.

Death in Adam:

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned-- (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many.

The point being without the dual nature of Christ, we would still be under the curse of the law.
Isaiah the Prophet 700 BC - Chapter 53:4-6:

Surely He has borne our griefsAnd carried our sorrows;
Yet we esteemed Him stricken,Smitten by God, and afflicted.
But He was wounded for our transgressions,He was bruised for our iniquities;
The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,And by His stripes we are healed.
All we like sheep have gone astray;We have turned, every one, to his own way;
And the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.

So neither was Isaiah heretical when by the Holy Spirit He prophesied the above many centuries before the crucifixion of Jesus.

I’ve think I’ve done my best to clear up any confusion that you may have had about what I was trying to say. Is there anything here with which you still disagree?

May God provide us all with the gift of His Wisdom, for all wisdom belongs to Him anyway.
pat

 

[PatienceAndLove]

Tcould not see Christ as the atonement for man’s sin - a concept I believe the Roman Catholic Church holds.

Chris is the Pascal Lamb who took away our sins, just as the lamb used at Yom Kipper to atone for the sins of the Jews.

There is an interesting discourse on this in Lamb’s Supper, Bible_Student- you might find it interesting

 

[Bible_Student]

Chris is the Pascal Lamb who took away our sins, just as the lamb used at Yom Kipper to atone for the sins of the Jews.

There is an interesting discourse on this in Lamb’s Supper, Bible_Student- you might find it interesting

Hi PatienceAndLove,
Yes, I quite heartedly agree with you. God often utilized a physical representation of Christology in the Old Testament. I believe that is why when the Berean’s searched the Scriptures, they saw how all these things alluded to Christ, came to Faith and became Christians.

Ministering at Berea
Doctor Luke c.50 AD in Acts 17:10-12:

Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. Therefore many of them believed, and also not a few of the Greeks, prominent women as well as men.

May God Bless, pat

 

[justasking4]

Can you write me in points as I asked you elsewhere your criteria for holding a theological belief in something? List them, please.

1. Start with scripture since it alone is inspired-inerrant
   2- Study the context within scripture when making claims that somethings is grounded in scripture
2. Word meanings. What do the words mean and how are they used in context
3. Compare Scripture with Scripture. Are there other passages that also speak to the same issue.
4. Consult commentaries.

These are just some of the methods i use.

 

[justasking4]

Then don’t believe it. Since your standard is your own interpretation of scripture, you should have no problem with another’s interpretation of scripture. We see it quite clearly, so…shrug

I don’t.

 

[theguidedheart]

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.

In revelation Mary is seen in Heaven, many of the writers throughout the history of the Church have seen this as one evidence of her being body and soul in Heaven, but also consider this:

Typology is a matter of authentic Christianity, it can even be shown as evident in Peter’s writings when he talks of Noah and flood as typology for baptism - well in the same way, Mary has always been seen as the Ark of the OT - and in the Psalms there is a passage about the Ark being taken to Heaven to sit with Jesus on his throne (I am paraphrasing from memory of course, I’m sure someone else can provide the exact verse here or I will look for it if you PM me… )

Peace, good luck finding the answers - I had trouble with this myself as a convert, and then I prayed about, the very next day I came across the evidence I needed,thanks be to God.

chris

 

[justasking4]

theguidedheart;2636454]In revelation Mary is seen in Heaven, many of the writers throughout the history of the Church have seen this as one evidence of her being body and soul in Heaven,

Are you aware that for centuries this was not the case? If Mary is the woman in Revelations then this is going to cause a number of problems for the catholic church in regards to other aspects of the marian doctrines.

but also consider this:

Typology is a matter of authentic Christianity, it can even be shown as evident in Peter’s writings when he talks of Noah and flood as typology for baptism - well in the same way, Mary has always been seen as the Ark of the OT - and in the Psalms there is a passage about the Ark being taken to Heaven to sit with Jesus on his throne (I am paraphrasing from memory of course, I’m sure someone else can provide the exact verse here or I will look for it if you PM me… )

Peace, good luck finding the answers - I had trouble with this myself as a convert, and then I prayed about, the very next day I came across the evidence I needed,thanks be to God.

chris

Have you studied the scriptures and seen the support that is given for the marian doctrines? Take the idea of her being the Ark. If this were the case, then we should expect to see the apostles teaching this and yet there is not one shred of evidence from their writings that this is the case. They never speak of her in this manner.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Actually, since oral tradition spoke of Mary as “The ark”, and oral tradition comes from the apostles, it is quite likely that they did indeed teach exactly that. Do you know every word of what every apostle taught that you can prove that they ‘did not’ preach this? Compare as well with the fact that oral tradition also gives us the full bodied, Spirit guided revelation which is only IMPLICIT in Scripture, about the Trinity. Mary as the Ark is also IMPLICIT in Scripture.

 

[RobHom]

ok thanks. but all i could find on these links were quotes from other catholics. i couldnt find the actual texts.

Read the information at the link below, and the blue words are further links:

newadvent.org/cathen/02006b.htm

As to the “actual texts” that you can’t find…even if you could find them…they would more than likely be of little help as they would have been written in Greek, Latin, or post Latin Italian. As to quotes from anyone other than “Catholics”…they would be of little value in the issue as their thoughts are not germane to the issue.

This is a “canon”, where the “New Testament” is concerned:

newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm

As opposed to asking “spurious and antagonistic” questions which beg questions to your motives for asking them…why not “educate” yourself by reading the links and accepting the simple fact that while your original beliefs are not important to the answers, because they are irrelevant. You have asked questions, and you are given answers. Accept the information or leave it be.

The simple fact that The Assumption of the Virgin Mary was not detailed in the bible is irrelevant… There are ample ancient writings attesting to it, and further to deny it is to attempt to limit God’s ability to do as he can. Is it not true that with God, all things are possible?

Further, the inability of anyone in contention with an accepted teaching and belief of the Catholic Church to “disprove” the Assumption of Mary…is proof enough that it did happen.

The bible, my friend…is not the final word. And while I cannot find the exact passage I wanted, I might suggest that you read and ponder this one: 2 Thessalonians 2:15. It is significant.

 

[Bishopite]

Actually, since oral tradition spoke of Mary as “The ark”, and oral tradition comes from the apostles, it is quite likely that they did indeed teach exactly that. Do you know every word of what every apostle taught that you can prove that they ‘did not’ preach this? Compare as well with the fact that oral tradition also gives us the full bodied, Spirit guided revelation which is only IMPLICIT in Scripture, about the Trinity. Mary as the Ark is also IMPLICIT in Scripture.

Precisely. It is interesting how many non-Catholics see the typology in the Old Testament when it refers to Jesus, e.g., Moses or Elijah being “types” of Jesus foreshadowing Jesus being the anti-type or fulfillment of the OT type. Yet, interestingly they don’t just look at the OT types of Mary in an ancillary sense, but completely ignore and or deny these OT types that make reference to her, such as you’ve mentioned in her being the “Ark” that held the word of God (Jesus) as the OT type Ark held the word of God the Ten commandments.
As I am a convert, I remember reading my first book on the early church fathers from a Protestant perspective called Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers by Christopher A. Hall. Even though he isn’t arguing for Mary’s assumption, interestingly he makes a small case for her ever-virginity as he reference Ambrose in his “Letter to Bishops.” Ambrose says that the huge and formidable outer Gates in Ezekiel first starting in chapter 40 and go through 44 are gates that no person can pass through these massive gates which also face East (another reference) save the Lord and after He passes no one will pass through them again Ezekiel 44:2. These gates are a type of Mary’s womb as only the Lord (Jesus is Lord) can pass through them and after the Lord passes through them they are shut, she stays ever-virgin. That these Gates face East is another reference and for the life of me I can’t remember why. Jesus rose in the East? Forgive me, I’m having a short term memory lose episode. Anyway, Ambrose is making a link between the Gates in Ezekiel 44:2 being shut for good after the Lord passes through and then they are shut.
I know this isn’t on topic per se, but it is interesting, nonetheless.

 

[RobHom]

What they beleived in 382 is irrelevant. We know what the scriptures teach because we have them. We can study the scriptures and see.

Oh, really…what was believed in 382 is “irrelevant”…and “we know what the scriptures teach because we have them”… Isn’t that a tad “vainglorious”? Ah yes, you can study the scriptures and see… Hmmmm, and your scriptures are the originals? I wonder which of the many “translations” that have mutated over the years from the original is the one you use?

Just because a particular word like Trinity is not found in the scriptures doesn’t mean its not true. We have plenty of passages that demonstrate the truth of the Trinity. What passages in scripture can you point to that says Mary is the New Eve?

You like many protestants seem obsessed about limiting God and his ability to do as he pleases, and seem further obsessed with limiting “truth” to the bible (whatever edition you use) to be the “sole truth”… sadly.

newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

Maybe if you spend a little time…trying not to limit God to one book…and read some of what many ancient writers had to say on the subject…

You may also want to avail yourself of some more free information regarding the Virgin Mary being the “New Eve”…but grab a soda, some chips and get comfortable…there’s a lot of information to read through:

newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm

newadvent.org/library/docs_pa06mc.htm

Keep in mind that many of this information stems from writings that originated very, very shortly after Christ’s Ascension. So, set aside your prejudices and read and learn. Your every question will be answered.

 

[justasking4]

Tantum ergo;2636655]Actually, since oral tradition spoke of Mary as “The ark”, and oral tradition comes from the apostles, it is quite likely that they did indeed teach exactly that.

What evidence do you have for this “oral tradition that comes from the apostles”? Which apostle and where can this be found?

Do you know every word of what every apostle taught that you can prove that they ‘did not’ preach this?

The only thing i know what the apostles taught is in the scriptures. If its not in there then i don’t know. This by the way applies to everyone else.

Compare as well with the fact that oral tradition also gives us the full bodied, Spirit guided revelation which is only IMPLICIT in Scripture, about the Trinity.

There are excellent verses and passages that support this doctrine.

Mary as the Ark is also IMPLICIT in Scripture.

The problem with this method is that you could say the same thing about so many other things. Muhammad for example claimed that he was the advocate that Jesus predicted would come. That to would be an implicit claim. Would you believe that?
i hope not. Saying that Mary is the ark finds no such support in the scriptures. Jesus nor His apostles never taught such a thing.

 

[guanophore]

:confused:

( 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.

Certainly! Now that you know this, your confusion should clear up markedly.

Since the scripture was written by, for, and about Catholics (the NT specifically) should it be surprising that Catholics are most qualfied to exegete?

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

Your post seems to imply that someone other than Catholics have been grafted?

 

[justasking4]

RobHom;2637198]Oh, really…what was believed in 382 is “irrelevant”…and “we know what the scriptures teach because we have them”… Isn’t that a tad “vainglorious”?

How so?

Ah yes, you can study the scriptures and see… Hmmmm, and your scriptures are the originals? I wonder which of the many “translations” that have mutated over the years from the original is the one you use?

Do we need the originals to know what the scriptures teach?

You like many protestants seem obsessed about limiting God and his ability to do as he pleases, and seem further obsessed with limiting “truth” to the bible (whatever edition you use) to be the “sole truth”… sadly.

What i see are catholics making claims about what they think God can do and when i ask for proof that He did do it i get nothing.

newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

Maybe if you spend a little time…trying not to limit God to one book…and read some of what many ancient writers had to say on the subject…

You may also want to avail yourself of some more free information regarding the Virgin Mary being the “New Eve”…but grab a soda, some chips and get comfortable…there’s a lot of information to read through:

newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm

newadvent.org/library/docs_pa06mc.htm

I read quite a lot. Why don’t you read it and correct me?

Keep in mind that many of this information stems from writings that originated very, very shortly after Christ’s Ascension. So, set aside your prejudices and read and learn. Your every question will be answered.

do you study the scriptures? Do you know them deeply?
Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God. Colossians 3:16

 

[guanophore]

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

Well, paarsurrey… I do not agree with you.

1 Cor 1:18-19

18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."

You may think it is more rational to hold ot an opinion that is contrary to the Divine Revelation of the Holy One. However, our faith teaches us that the power of the cross is foolishness to persons such as yourself who are perishing. The assumption of Moses, Enoch, Elijah, and Mary are not speculations as you seem to think. these are the revealed truths of God. Fortunately, your opinion, in comparison to God’s revelation is of very little value.

 

[guanophore]

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.

Revelation is apocalyptic literature, and therefore can be interpreted in a variety of ways. The woman can be seen as Mary, but also Israel, and the Church. All are valid, and appropriate. It is not a conclusive or definitive commentary on the Assumption of the Blessed mother.

 

[guanophore]

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.

Revelation is apocalyptic literature, and therefore can be interpreted in a variety of ways. The woman can be seen as Mary, but also Israel, and the Church. All are valid, and appropriate. It is not a conclusive or definitive commentary on the Assumption of the Blessed mother.

And THAT has significance?

Yes, because if the woman in Revelation that gave birth to the male child is interpreted as Mary, then she is alive in heaven, and is wearing a crown. This is where the idea originated that she is Queen of Heaven, and Queen of Angels and Saints.

 

[Bishopite]

Revelation is apocalyptic literature, and therefore can be interpreted in a variety of ways. The woman can be seen as Mary, but also Israel, and the Church. All are valid, and appropriate. It is not a conclusive or definitive commentary on the Assumption of the Blessed mother.

Yes. Apocalyptic liturature also contains polyvalent language meaning it has multiple meanings, as the woman means the Blessed Virgin Mary in one sense, yet can also mean Israel or the church in another sense.