CHALLENGING mary's assumption

[kaycee]

The Assumption is also implied in Revelation 12:1

1 And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars**. And being with child, she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered.**

If this is Mary, She was not immaculate or without sin and needed a savior.

As a result of sin, when God punished Eve, He told her, Gen 3:16 To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children.

Rev 12 And being with child, she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered

 

[LilyM]

If this is Mary, She was not immaculate or without sin and needed a savior.

As a result of sin, when God punished Eve, He told her, Gen 3:16 To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children.

Rev 12 And being with child, she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered

So the fact that Jesus was in pain means he was in sin too? Pain does not equal sin. People all the time take on the pain of others’ sins.

Not even pain of childbirth means sin. Childbirth was never painless - notice Genesis says INCREASE - as in there was pain before but now there is more - not GIVE you pain - which it would say if there had been none previously. So some pain accompanies all childbirth, sinful and sinless.

 

[Mannyfit75]

If this is Mary, She was not immaculate or without sin and needed a savior.

As a result of sin, when God punished Eve, He told her, Gen 3:16 To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children.

Rev 12 And being with child, she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered

The Catholic Church has not defined if she had pains or not. I believe she did suffer pain.

Jesus himself suffer the pains of the Cross. Does it make him a sinner because he was suffering? Nope.

 

[kaycee]

377 is the date of the first source. Which is earlier than the canon of the Bible (which you’re more than happy to accept) in any event.

By the way, a small lesson in scripture history for the benefit of the poster claiming pre-approval of the canon. You ignore the fact that Acts, Revelation and the non-Pauline Epistles AREN’T anywhere endorsed explicitly as scripture - in other words about a third of the NT.

You also ignore that other writings - the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas and Clements Letters off the top of my head - were read in liturgy at this time right alongside the Gospels and Paul’s letters. In other words they too were considered to be scripture.

Back to our regularly scheduled programming …

Written to decieve? You claiming to be able to read the mind of those writers now? Which two Popes condemned it? When and where? Quotes and sources please.

My entire comment was directed at the Patristic evidence about Mary’s assumption, NOT the canon. Sorry for the ambiguity.

The first mention of it is by Epiphanius in 377 A.D. and he specifically states that no one knows what actually happened to Mary. He lived near Palestine and if there were, in fact, a tradition in the Church generally believed and taught he would have affirmed it. But he clearly states that ‘her end no one knows.’

 

[Mannyfit75]

Your patristic sources about Mary are from the 6th century or later. 500 years after the supposed “facts”

**Many of the quotes by 6th century Fathers about Mary’s assumption are related directly to Gnostic writings, Transitus Beatae Mariae (pseudo Melito), the Dormition (pseudo-John). **

These are Gnostic forgeries written to decieve. The Transitus was condemned by 2 Popes!

Gnostic writings, NOT Christian tradition is the source of the assumption of Mary.

These aren’t. The Assumption is based on the Eastern Christian tradition of Dormition of Mary. They held this tradition since the beginning.

 

[guanophore]

It is not true that we don’t find patristic discussion of the canon until roughly the same time that we find evidence supporting the assumption. First, Peter clearly indicates that Paul’s writings are in fact scripture and Paul seems to believe that the gospels are in fact scripture. The discussion of the NT canon is contained within the texts of the NT. Further, Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna discuss the gospel in the early to mid second centure.

Since Paul wrote his letters before the gospels were written, how to you substantiate that he believes this? When he speaks about the gospel, he is speaking about that which is proclaimed by the Apostles.

In any case, there were hundreds of writings that had to be examined prior to the close of the canon. THe same authority that decided what books belonged in it, and which did not, affirms the Assumption of Mary. How is it you can accept their authority on one theologically essential matter, and not the other?

I know that Justin Martyr discusses the OT canon so it is simply false to say that there isn’t patristic support for the cannon up until the time period that we first discover evidence that supports the assumption of Mary.

Right. It would be better to specify NT canon.

To me it is not convincing, at all, to quote 2Thess 2:15 and say “See, Paul was obviously teaching all the extra-biblical things we Catholics believe” when there is no evidence to support such a claim.

This is one of the very first letters of the NT written. There was no NT at the time! When Paul writes about “scriptures” he is speaking of the OT.

The issue that you have, and many of you continue to ignore is that you can’t show what Paul meant by “tradition” in 2Thess 2:15.

IT is not an “issue” for those of us that have inherited the Traditions. we know where they came from, and what they mean. It is only an “issue” for those that reject them.

 

[kaycee]

These aren’t. The Assumption is based on the Eastern Christian tradition of Dormition of Mary. They held this tradition since the beginning.

Yes, the “dormition”, another forgery attributed to the Apostle John. It follows very closely to the Transitus (pseudo Melito) which was condemned by Pope Gelasius in 490 and again in 520.

 

[Bible_Student]

My Response to OneNow Cont’d

If Jesus had brothers why were they not with Mary at the cross ?

I could surmise they were just as fearful as the apostles but that is conjecture. We do know, however, that James, the brother of our Lord, was not a believer until after the resurrection when Jesus appeared to him.
"St. Paul's letter 1Cor15:3-8:

For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.

St. Paul's letter to the Galatian Church:

Contacts at Jerusalem see Acts 9:26-31 also
(cf. Acts 9:26-31)
Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. (Now concerning the things which I write to you, indeed, before God, I do not lie.)

Weren’t there others that were blessed and assumed into heaven ?

I only know of two Enoch and Elijah that the Bible indicates did not die but were translated. Certainly no other eye witnesses from the Bible or from the Apostolic age has corraborated any further assumptions concerning this.
Hebrews 11:5-6:

By faith Enoch was taken away so that he did not see death, “and was not found, because God had taken him”; for before he was taken he had this testimony, that he pleased God. But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.

"2Kings 2:1-2:

Elijah Ascends to Heaven
And it came to pass, when the Lord was about to take up Elijah into heaven by a whirlwind, that Elijah went with Elisha from Gilgal. Then Elijah said to Elisha, “Stay here, please, for the Lord has sent me on to Bethel.”

Jesus says blessed are they that hear the word of God and obey.

Yes, brother! Very blessed indeed are all they who hear the Word of God and obey.
"Romans 10:17:

So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Peace, OneNow1

Yes, indeed for all here on this forum I wish the peace that surpasseth understanding through Jesus Christ, our Lord.
Phillippians 4:4-7:

Rejoice in the Lord always. Again I will say, rejoice!
Let your gentleness be known to all men. The Lord is at hand. Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known to God; and the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.

In Christ, pat

 

[Calvinator]

Nope, here are Patristic sources to prove you wrong.((continue))

Look again at the dates for the sources you posted. Even Epiphanaius’ quote, which I’m not sure what that one proves is relatively late but the others are from the 6th, 7th, and 8th centuries.

 

[guanophore]

Your patristic sources about Mary are from the 6th century or later. 500 years after the supposed “facts”

**Many of the quotes by 6th century Fathers about Mary’s assumption are related directly to Gnostic writings, Transitus Beatae Mariae (pseudo Melito), the Dormition (pseudo-John). **

These are Gnostic forgeries written to decieve. The Transitus was condemned by 2 Popes!

Gnostic writings, NOT Christian tradition is the source of the assumption of Mary.

It is true that the quotes of the fathers are “late”, however, given the Church’s rabid defense against false doctrine at the time, why is it that we find no writings against this teaching? Why did the church continue to believe and teach it, but not the other “gnostic” heresies? There are many Christian truths accurately taught in gnostic writings. Not all the contents of the gnostic literature is heretical. This happens to be one example of truth found in them.

One of the ways we know this is that all the other gnostic misconceptions were vigorously refuted.

 

[guanophore]

If this is Mary, She was not immaculate or without sin and needed a savior.

As a result of sin, when God punished Eve, He told her, Gen 3:16 To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children.

Rev 12 And being with child, she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered

You are comparing apples and chickens, kaycee. Of course Mary needed a savior, she said so herself! It has nothing to do with being immaculate, or being without sin. Jesus expects you not to sin, also!

The pain of childbirth is a consequence of original sin. Mary’s pain was not physical, but spiritual. WHy did Mary find favor with God even before the HS overshadowed her? How can she do this? It did not come from herself, but by the grace of God. God chose her flesh to create the flesh of His own dear Son. He did not use flesh tainted by the stain of original sin.

 

[guanophore]

If this is Mary, She was not immaculate or without sin and needed a savior.

As a result of sin, when God punished Eve, He told her, Gen 3:16 To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children.

Rev 12 And being with child, she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered

You are comparing apples and chickens, kaycee. Of course Mary needed a savior, she said so herself! It has nothing to do with being immaculate, or being without sin. Jesus expects you not to sin, also!

The pain of childbirth is a consequence of original sin. Mary’s pain was not physical, but spiritual. WHy did Mary find favor with God even before the HS overshadowed her? How can she do this? It did not come from herself, but by the grace of God. God chose her flesh to create the flesh of His own dear Son. He did not use flesh tainted by the stain of original sin.

My entire comment was directed at the Patristic evidence about Mary’s assumption, NOT the canon. Sorry for the ambiguity.

The first mention of it is by Epiphanius in 377 A.D. and he specifically states that no one knows what actually happened to Mary. He lived near Palestine and if there were, in fact, a tradition in the Church generally believed and taught he would have affirmed it. But he clearly states that ‘her end no one knows.’

All the more reason why, if it were a false doctrine, it would have been vigorously refuted by the fathers.

 

[guanophore]

Yes, the “dormition”, another forgery attributed to the Apostle John. It follows very closely to the Transitus (pseudo Melito) which was condemned by Pope Gelasius in 490 and again in 520.

Although there is a writing called the Dormition, he is not referring to that, but the Apostolic Teaching residing in the Orthodox Tradition about the assumption of Mary. Mary lived in Ephesus with John, and it was there, in the East, that she ministered to her children (all who believed in her Son) and was most well known to the disciples. From the Apostolic Churches starting there in the East we find the earliest references to Jesus taking His mother, body and soul, to heaven. This teaching did not come to Rome until later, as it made it’s way West. So, don’t take the word of any Roman Catholics on this point of Christian Doctrine. Go over there to the Eastern forum, and try out this slander on our Orthodox brethren!

 

[Calvinator]

Since Paul wrote his letters before the gospels were written, how to you substantiate that he believes this? When he speaks about the gospel, he is speaking about that which is proclaimed by the Apostles.

1 Timothy 5:18 18 For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.”

Luke 10:7 7 And remain in the same house, eating and drinking what they provide, for** the laborer deserves his wages. **

Paul clearly says Luke 10:7 is scripture.

Peter calls Paul’s writings scripture when in 2Peter 3:16 he says
2 Peter 3:16 16 …as he (PAUL) does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

In any case, there were hundreds of writings that had to be examined prior to the close of the canon. THe same authority that decided what books belonged in it, and which did not, affirms the Assumption of Mary. How is it you can accept their authority on one theologically essential matter, and not the other?

I agree that there were books that had to be examined, but that isn’t my point. We at least see the early church trying to discern what is and what isn’t scripture while it is quite a while before we see a discussion of the assumption taking place.

Right. It would be better to specify NT canon.

But the early church was at least discussing the canon and we have evidence of that. When looking for evidence of the assumption the evidence doesn’t appear on the scene for quite some time.

This is one of the very first letters of the NT written. There was no NT at the time! When Paul writes about “scriptures” he is speaking of the OT.

As shown above, Paul apparently had an idea that the gospel of Luke was scripture.

IT is not an “issue” for those of us that have inherited the Traditions. we know where they came from, and what they mean. It is only an “issue” for those that reject them.

How do you know Paul, or any of the apostles for that matter, ever taught anything about the assumption? Earlier you quoted 2Thess 2:15 but as far as I know your church has never declared exactly what it is Paul was referring to.

 

[guanophore]

1 Timothy 5:18 18 For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.”

Luke 10:7 7 And remain in the same house, eating and drinking what they provide, for** the laborer deserves his wages. **

Paul clearly says Luke 10:7 is scripture.

Paul took this from the OT, as did Jesus. It was included in the gospel of Luke long after Paul wrote letters to Timothy.

I agree that there were books that had to be examined, but that isn’t my point. We at least see the early church trying to discern what is and what isn’t scripture while it is quite a while before we see a discussion of the assumption taking place.

I have no arguement with that. What I am saying is that the same authoritative body that decided about the scriptures is the one that proclaimed the assumption of Mary.

But the early church was at least discussing the canon and we have evidence of that. When looking for evidence of the assumption the evidence doesn’t appear on the scene for quite some time.

Same thing with the hypostatic union of Christ. You are trying to make the case that, because it was not written in the NT, it was not believed. The Apostles creed is not written there either, but it has been recited in the liturgy since the first century.

As shown above, Paul apparently had an idea that the gospel of Luke was scripture.

I think not. It was written after he wrote his letters.

How do you know Paul, or any of the apostles for that matter, ever taught anything about the assumption?

I don’t. What I do know is that this teaching, along with the things that Peter and Paul taught has been handed down to us through the Sacred Tradition.

Earlier you quoted 2Thess 2:15 but as far as I know your church has never declared exactly what it is Paul was referring to.

You can find these things in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

 

[kaycee]

**Many of the quotes by 6th century Fathers about Mary’s assumption are related directly to Gnostic writings, Transitus Beatae Mariae (pseudo Melito), the Dormition (pseudo-John). **

This Gnostic Fable did eventually creep into the Church as Peter and Paul warned against.

2Pe 2:1 - But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them–bringing swift destruction on themselves.

There was no defense against it for the first 500 years because it was unheard of until the condemned Gnostic writings appeared .

The Church never taught it as true doctrine until close to 600 AD. Popes Gelasius and Horsmidas did fight against this, but apparently the church brought it in hundreds of years later.

The Transitus (pseudo Melito) is **exclusively **about the assumption. Pope Gelasius condemned this Gnostic forgery in 490. There is not much else that is orthodox Christian truth in these forgeries.

In the sixth century a great change passed over the sentiments and the theology of the church in reference to the Theotokos—an unintended but very noticeable result of the Nestorian controversies, which in maintaining the true doctrine of the Incarnation incidentally gave strong impulse to what became the worship of Mary. In consequence of this change of sentiment, during the 6th and 7th centuries (or later).

 

[Bible_Student]

Well Manny as much as I hate to admit it your Yankees gave us a terrible trouncing, which I’m not sure the Red Sox or myself have fully recovered from yet.
I did want to address Rev 12 one last time, however and perhaps have you weigh in on it, if you are inclined to do so.

The Assumption is also implied in Revelation 12:1

1 And a great sign appeared in heaven: A** woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars**. And being with child, she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered. 3 And there was seen another sign in heaven: and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads, and ten horns: and on his head seven diadems: 4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to be delivered; that, when she should be delivered, he might devour her son. 5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod: and her son was taken up to God, and to his throne.

The woman in this passage appeared in heaven. She has a crown on her head, and she gives birth to a male child who will rule all nations. The child is Jesus. The woman is Mary. One might ask, how did she get into heaven? She assumed.

So I have no doubt that some within the Catholic Church continue to exegete Revelation 12 in this manner but those on this forum have not provided an early exegetical opinion that could substantiate this as an early view of the Church. The earliest exegetical opinion I can find on Revelation 12 is Hippolytus back in 225 AD. (see previous post)
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2634611#post2634611
… and its allusion to Genesis …
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthreaad.php?p=2659211#post2659211
In actuality the opinion you listed for Rev 12 may not even be the majority Catholic opinion, as I also previously stated. See the below link as it would appear Roman Catholic exegete’s would be much more in agreement with Hippolytus, which is also my own opinion, that the woman of Revelation is “the Church” and not “Mary”.
justforcatholics.org/a131.htm

PS: I also want to take this opportunity to thank you very much for serving our country Manny. I appreciate so very much what you and all of the brothers and sisters over there are doing to fight terrorism and win the peace. I believe the men and women over there represent our nation’s very best. You and all your collective brothers and sisters are in my prayers. I thank God, even moreso, that you have an obvious love for Jesus and can be an example of Christ to those around you.
May God Bless you, pat

 

[Calvinator]

Paul took this from the OT, as did Jesus. It was included in the gospel of Luke long after Paul wrote letters to Timothy.

Can you find this exact quote in the OT? If so, where?

When do you think Luke was written? How about 2 Timothy?

Same thing with the hypostatic union of Christ. You are trying to make the case that, because it was not written in the NT, it was not believed. The Apostles creed is not written there either, but it has been recited in the liturgy since the first century.

Isn’t the apostles creed found in the didache?

Anyway, I’m am ***definitely not ***saying that “…because it was not written in the NT, it was not believed”. What I am saying is that there is no mention of it in the NT and that the earliest patristic evidence is quite removed from the first century.

I just don’t see why your church would make it binding upon the conscious of Catholics to believe such a thing. Catholics for many centuries were free to reject that assumption, at least until it was formally declared, were they not? When was the assumption dogmatized, for lack of a better term, …in the mid 20th century? What purpose did it serve?

You can find these things in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

No, you find a list of various doctines and practices of your church but to the best of my knowledge your church has never tried to define a signle word of Jesus that isn’t contained within the scriptures or defined exactly what Paul meant. If you can show me somewhere in the ccc where it defines exactly what Paul meant I would appreciate it.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Well Manny as much as I hate to admit it your Yankees gave us a terrible trouncing, which I’m not sure the Red Sox or myself have fully recovered from yet.
I did want to address Rev 12 one last time, however and perhaps have you weigh in on it, if you are inclined to do so.

So I have no doubt that some within the Catholic Church continue to exegete Revelation 12 in this manner but those on this forum have not provided an early exegetical opinion that could substantiate this as an early view of the Church. The earliest exegetical opinion I can find on Revelation 12 is Hippolytus back in 225 AD. (see previous post)
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2634611#post2634611
… and its allusion to Genesis …
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthreaad.php?p=2659211#post2659211
In actuality the opinion you listed for Rev 12 may not even be the majority Catholic opinion, as I also previously stated. See the below link as it would appear Roman Catholic exegete’s would be much more in agreement with Hippolytus, which is also my own opinion, that the woman of Revelation is “the Church” and not “Mary”.
justforcatholics.org/a131.htm

PS: I also want to take this opportunity to thank you very much for serving our country Manny. I appreciate so very much what you and all of the brothers and sisters over there are doing to fight terrorism and win the peace. I believe the men and women over there represent our nation’s very best. You and all your collective brothers and sisters are in my prayers. I thank God, even moreso, that you have an obvious love for Jesus and can be an example of Christ to those around you.
May God Bless you, pat

I already read those thread which you posted already. The ECF who say the woman is the Church is correct. In a symbolic meaning, but if you read that pasage in literal interpretation the woman is Mary and the male child is Jesus.

Do you deny that the male child is Jesus? Yes or no.

If the male child is Jesus, who gave birth to Jesus?

If you say, Mary, then the woman in Rev 12:1 is Mary.

 

[kaycee]

Although there is a writing called the Dormition, he is not referring to that, but the Apostolic Teaching residing in the Orthodox Tradition about the assumption of Mary. Mary lived in Ephesus with John, and it was there, in the East, that she ministered to her children (all who believed in her Son) and was most well known to the disciples. From the Apostolic Churches starting there in the East we find the earliest references to Jesus taking His mother, body and soul, to heaven. This teaching did not come to Rome until later, as it made it’s way West. So, don’t take the word of any Roman Catholics on this point of Christian Doctrine. Go over there to the Eastern forum, and try out this slander on our Orthodox brethren!

Truth is not Slander! :tsktsk:

The feast of the Dormition, the falling asleep of the Mother of God, became popular throughout the Byzantine Empire between the years 588 A.D. and 602 A.D. The Roman Pontiff, Theodore (642-644) who was an Easterner from Jerusalem introduced it to Rome and the west. The 15th August was fixed for this feast day about 600 A.D. The Orthodox early tradition expresses the belief in the falling asleep of the Mother of God through the Liturgical. texts and the homilies of the early Fathers, especially St. John of Damascene(749 AD). It was also made a formal dogma in the Roman Church by Pope Pius X11 in 1959.

THE LEGEND OF THE FEAST

The legend of this feast has its origin in the early Apocraphal texts. The most famous text is the “Account of John of Thessalonika,” which was written sometime after the fourth century.** The accounts given in the Apocraphal texts were re-written in Patristic and Liturgical texts** and so became the basis of the iconography of the feast, which developed in Byzantine art in the tenth and eleventh centuries. The story recounts that the Mother of God was living in St John the Evangelist’s House, on Mount Zion, in Jerusalem. When it was revealed to her that her life was to end, she wished to see the twelve apostles before she departed from this world. The apostles were miraculously carried on clouds to the Holy City. All were present at her departure from this world except St Thomas. It is also recounted that the Apostle Paul, Dionysious the Aeropagite, Hierotheus and Timothy of Ephesus, James of Jerusalem and Jerotheos of Athens were present. Those who gathered round the Mother of God saw Christ descend from Heaven. He took her soul up with Him in His arms. Led by Peter, the other apostles sang funeral hymns in honour of the Mother of God. They carried her body to the valley of Cedron, close to Gethsemane. Here she was laid in a tomb, especially prepared for her. St Thomas arrived on the third day after the burial. He was anxious to see the Virgin’s body for the last time. When the Apostles opened the tomb they found it empty, but heard an angelic choir, and Mary appeared to them

bai.org.uk/meditation.htm****