CHALLENGING mary's assumption

[onenow1]

HI, Pat and All
Has eveyone noticed in all the posts how the catholic side, is of a positive thought, and the other mostly negative. We all quote verses which tells us there should be no contridiction of thought in scripture, Jesus was human and divine and Mary was the God bearer,[Incarnation.] Jesus rose from the dead with his body, the body that developed in his mother’s womb. God favored Mary, Jesus honored Mary and he is God.Mary was the most honored in all of scripture as God bearer.

Anyway the point is we are all going to have bodies in heaven and I for one, thank Mary for that yes !

2Cor. 12:2-4 “I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know–God knows. And I know that this man–whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows–was caught up to Paradise”

Matt.27:52, the tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised
Verses to think on.

Peace, OneNow1

 

[Bible_Student]

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.

Hi Manny,
Okay, I wasn’t sure if you read every post or just the ones addressed to you - no harm done in providing the link, but to answer your questions from my studies on Revelation I believe it is both Spiritual and prophetic. Take for example the 7 Eastern churches that John mentions, Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea. If you look at them from the historical context there is no record of the prophesies ever being fulfilled that anyone is aware of but yet the promises of Christ to their archetypes I believe still holds. So some do hold to the historical contexts, which are sometimes very liberally interpreted against the backdrop of literal history. I myself reject it for many reasons, some beyond the scope of a single post. I also reject a preterist view of Revelation, since the earliest witnesses to John’s imprisonment on Patmos put him there during the reign of Domition, well after the fall of Jerusalem to the Roman army. So in answer to your questions, I hold to a Futurist/Spiritual viewpoint with respect to John’s prophecy. Out of all the books of the Bible the study of Revelation’s symbology pretty much brings you through almost every book in the Bible.

So in conclusion I believe the male child that is brough forth by the woman is Christ who is born in us (the Church) (e.g. we must all be born again - as Jesus said to Nicodemus)

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

I didn’t so the woman of Rev 12:1 is “the Church”. I will say, however, that the spiritual analogy of the Church is very much likend to Mary - as the Church should remain a pure and spotless Virgin presented as a bride to Christ. It is at the last trump that the Church gives birth to those made new by the promise and become a newborn creation in Christ.
1Cor 15:51-54:

Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed-- in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.”

And of course I would be remiss if I neglected the author of Revelation himself. John the Apostle states this…
1John 3:1-3:

Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us, that we should be called children of God! Therefore the world does not know us, because it did not know Him. Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is. And everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself, just as He is pure.

Hence, there is further exegetical support that the woman is the Church. The child then, that the Church is pregnant with, is now resting spiritually within her mother’s womb waiting to come to full term. When Christ returns, at the end of this age, those who trust and obey, shall truly be born again, not to corruption but to immortality; not born as in our Adamic and sinful nature but born into the nature of Christ. We shall be made anew - although it has not yet neeb revealed to us what we shall be like John states, we shall be made like Him. Because we are His, we can surmise if we are joined to His body spiritually, we will also be joined to His body in the immortal sense. Christ is head of that body and union but we shall be fully purified and sanctified by the grace of God to live with Him eternally. The hope is so great there is none that can fathom the riches of the depths of God’s love for us.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Bible_Student:

So in conclusion I believe the male child that is brough forth by the woman is Christ who is born in us (the Church) (e.g. we must all be born again - as Jesus said to Nicodemus)

Since you acknowledge that the child is Jesus then you can’t deny that woman is Mary then?

 

[Bible_Student]

Since you acknowledge that the child is Jesus then you can’t deny that woman is Mary then?

Hi Manny,
I don’t think I acknowledged that? I stated that the Church brings forth Christ. In other words as the Christian grows in grace, they become more Christlike. I’m not talking anbout a physical event that happened 2000 years ago that is already past, I’m talking about a Spiritual event that has been happening for 2000 years, continues to happen that, when brought to completion by God, will bring in the incorruptibe offspring of the Church - the sons and daughters of God and the bride of Christ.
In Christ, Pat

 

[justasking4]

Quote:
Originally Posted by kaycee
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

Mannyfit75
The Catholic Church has not defined if she had pains or not. I believe she did suffer pain.

Kaycee makes an excellent point in regards to giving more evidence that Mary was a sinner since this pain in child birth was a result of a curse made by God on all women who are sinners that birth children.

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

Category mistake here. Jesus willingly suffered the pain of sin not for His own but for all of mankind.

 

[Bible_Student]

In rebuttal to the post
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2642689&postcount=349
guanophone writes:

I was not speaking of the pagan reference to the goddess, but to the Christian use of the term for Mary as the Queen of Heaven. That reference is based in the image in the book of Revelation. I have never advocated that the image has a single reference. It seems plain to me that it could be interpreted as Israel, or the Church, for that matter.

Hi Guanophone,
Actually it might be good to research this a little more. Do you know exactly when the title, “Queen of heaven” came into being in the Roman or Eastern Church? A 4th century work by Epiphanius of Salamis, who wrote the ‘Panarion’ in 375 AD, also known as Adversus Haereses (Latin for Against Heresies) mentioned a paticular heresy that had crept into the church - which at that time was condemned. I don’t know if it was squelched immediately or if it continued well past the 4th century but it sounds as if there are some pretty direct parallels to the way they were celebrating this as a Christian rite and the way the Ephraimites of Israel celebrated with cakes made to the Queen of heaven back in Jeremiah’s day. As stated Epiphanius condemed it as a heresy and I only mention it because it has some uncanny parallels to Jeremiah and I’m trying to understand the history behind this better than I currently do. Until now had never read Epiphanius so I don’t know his standing within the Catholic (more likely the Eastern Catholic) Church. It does appear that there is documentation out there that helps in regard to that particular effort but that it is not always easy to find.
Panarion 79:1 by Epiphanius of Salamis states::

“Some women decorate a sort of bench or rectangular litter, spreading a linen cloth over it, on an annual feast day, placing on it a loaf and offering it up in the name of Mary; then all communicate in that loaf . They tell us that certain women, come here from Thrace, from Arabia, make a loaf in the name of the Ever-Virgin, assemble together in one selfsame place and carry out quite irregular actions in the name of the Blessed Virgin, undertaking to do something blasphemous and forbidden and performing in her name, by means of women, definitely priestly acts…”

I think the key takeaway from this, if Epiphanius is a reliable documenter and was considered orthodox back in the 4th century, would be to realize that even as pagan rites crept into Israel as noted in the OT, even though they were chosen by God, so too the Christian Church has also had to defend itself against pagan heresies, such as gnosticism, etc that had a very nasty habit of creeping into its body of believers. It might be why from the time of Justin Martyr on, which was just after the Apostolic age, why so many apologists seem to write volumes against heresies, and why they were always on guard to keep the Church pure and orthodox relative to the faith once delivered by the Apostles.

 

[onenow1]

HI,
in REV. 12, It would be a mistake I think, not to recognize a double meaning here. John is using the imagery of three persons in Rev. 12: the woman,>Mary> the lamb,>Jesus> and the dragon > Satan, this I believe is John’s full meaning.

Luke 2:34 and Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother, “Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is spoken against (and a sword will pierce through your own soul also), that thoughts out of many hearts may be revealed.”

Simeon expresses the pain Mary will endure for her" Yes "toGod.

Peace, OneNow1

 

[Bible_Student]

HI, Pat and All
Has eveyone noticed in all the posts how the catholic side, is of a positive thought, and the other mostly negative. We all quote verses which tells us there should be no contridiction of thought in scripture, Jesus was human and divine and Mary was the God bearer,[Incarnation.] Jesus rose from the dead with his body, the body that developed in his mother’s womb. God favored Mary, Jesus honored Mary and he is God.Mary was the most honored in all of scripture as God bearer.

Anyway the point is we are all going to have bodies in heaven and I for one, thank Mary for that yes !

2Cor. 12:2-4 “I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know–God knows. And I know that this man–whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows–was caught up to Paradise”

Matt.27:52, the tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised
Verses to think on.

Peace, OneNow1

Hi OneNow,
Actually, with a few pleasant exceptions, such as yourself, my perception of the thread was just the opposite - debate was unwelcome. But, if you perceive me as being negative, please understand that I am not trying to be negative at all and only careful to deseminate everything in a truthful manner according to Holy Scripture and the earliest traditions. If I am wrong about something I’ll be the first one to post a retraction - I can guarantee you that. But, on the same token, I believe all truth is God’s truth - is it not? If some questionable doctrine were to creep into my own Church I’d want to research it relative to God’s Word and would be remiss in my Christian duty if I did not do that. So what I’m trying to understand here is to discover what was from the earliest days & what was not. I can emphatically say I find no empirical evidence to these as early claims. I do not do this to be critical of Mary - perish the thought, as this would be improper to the very woman who bore my Lord and Savior, was called blessed, was indwelled by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, and was a living testimony among the Apostles, as well as the good doctor Luke in his Gospel account. The reason I do this is to test what is originally true to Apostolic Christian faith, that which may have crept in as error, and which does not belong there. I believe God loves the truth as He said, “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life”. Jesus also told the woman at the well that “The Father is looking for those who will worship Him in Spirit and in Truth.” Also I am not saying God couldn’t have raised Mary (God can certainly raise whomever He pleases to) but whether there is early tradition that says He did that is debateable. From the debate so far I don’t believe there is. Also the earliest exegesis of Rev 12 alludes to the Church and not Mary - that is clear to me. It seems many have put stock in Rev12 as the scriptural proof and it clearly is problematic both theologically (for Catholics) and historically in light of the earliest writings of the Church Fathers.

All that said, the primary focus of Salvation to me should be on Jesus Christ and focusing more on the saints, that are only saved by the grace of God, seems at times to supercede and take away from the Gospel. It is this which I find troubling. Maybe I am not understanding your perspective on this or why it appears it is so critical to your dogma. I’m sure if we’re talking about our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, instead of defending dogma and things of a secondary nature, we would find that we share much more in common relative to our belief system as Christians. I’m sure there is little difference between us on the major points relative to salvation, as it is my hope here that we, who believe in the atonement and resurrection, all desire to walk in the truth of God’s revelation and be with Him on that day that He calls us home. In closing this verse sums up the way I look at all of this, to borrow from another member’s signature verse:
1Thess 5:21:

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

 

[onenow1]

Hi, Pat

Originally Posted by onenow1
Why did Jesus choose Mary ?

Pat when I asked this question, I should have been more explicit.
Why did God choose this method when he could have done this without Mary ?

My answer: is in. Genesis 3:14 The LORD God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, cursed are you above all cattle, and above all wild animals; upon your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life.
15 >I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed;< he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”

I see a battle between Jesus and Satan, the Woman and Satan.

In your answer with Luke that is not the why, Pat that is an explination of how.

Peace OneNow1

P.S. Your posts are accurate Pat and i mean no offense.

 

[Bishopite]

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.

Good points here Just because a person has pain doesn’t mean they are in sin. And you’ve nailed it on the head, the effect of orignial sin wasn’t to have pain in childbirth, but an increase in pain. Golly, I’m a man but anything the size of an infants head passing through the birth canal would have had to ALWAYS be painful. I saw my children being born and my wife (as all women) endured pain because the childs head is much greater in size than the birth canal; it’s a matter of physics. If Adam passed a large size kidney stone before the fall, I’m sure he would still cry out in pain, ouch! and it wouldn’t be sinful to do so.

 

[onenow1]

Hi, Pat

Quote= BibleStudent,All that said, the primary focus of Salvation to me should be on Jesus Christ and focusing more on the saints, that are only saved by the grace of God, seems at times to supercede and take away from the Gospel. It is this which I find> troubling.

Paraphrasing St,Bernard of Clairvaux. Is it better to honor Mary too much or to little ? If one is a sin which would be more forgiveable in the eyes of God ?He thought it would be better to be guilty of honoring her too much as Christ will forgive a person for honoring his Mother[if indeed it were a sin, which it is not.]

Opinion: To even imply Jesus did not gIve the grace of sinlessness
when it was possible for Him to do so, I think would be to accuse Him of sin against the Commandment Honor your Father and Mother. We know Christ did not sin, so I place Her right next to Jesus in heaven. Methinks the church got it right

Peace,in Christ Brother,
Bob, Alias OneNow1

 

[Bishopite]

[Bible_Student;2666443]
Actually, with a few pleasant exceptions, such as yourself, my perception of the thread was just the opposite - debate was unwelcome. But, if you perceive me as being negative, please understand that I am not trying to be negative at all and only careful to deseminate everything in a truthful manner according to Holy Scripture and the earliest traditions. If I am wrong about something I’ll be the first one to post a retraction - I can guarantee you that. But, on the same token, I believe all truth is God’s truth - is it not? If some questionable doctrine were to creep into my own Church I’d want to research it relative to God’s Word and would be remiss in my Christian duty if I did not do that. So what I’m trying to understand here is to discover what was from the earliest days & what was not. I can emphatically say I find no empirical evidence to these as early claims.
**
What do you condsider “early church?”
That Mary’s assumption isn’t found specifically in the earliest of times of the Catholic church prior to the fourth century isn’t a problem. The early church was first of all being pursecuted so it was very difficult to develop any Christian doctrine outside the starting point which is Christology as the early disputes were over who Jesus was in relation to the Father and Son, hence the word Trinity (homoousius) was born. Disputes about Mary weren’t even started until after Christianity was allowed as a legal religion.
However the “Place of Dormition” (which the Eastern Orthodox follow) and “The Tomb of Mary” both in Jerusalem one near Mt Sion both point to the earliest devotions to Mary’s assumption.
And it is interesting that no where does any early Christian leader or group write about where Mary is buried, being the early Chirstians honored the dead as the catecomes in Rome attest.
But what I do find very interesting is the position you take?

It seems you require any believable doctrine to be in the earliest times, yet in all deference, you really don’t hold to that position in all doctrines just on the assumption of Mary. If you were consistant on ALL early church doctrine, you would accept those that were?
Why do you require an early teaching on Mary, yet not follow all of the other teachings which have a plethora of evidence within the early church?

I do not do this to be critical of Mary - perish the thought, as this would be improper to the very woman who bore my Lord and Savior, was called blessed, was indwelled by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, and was a living testimony among the Apostles, as well as the good doctor Luke in his Gospel account. The reason I do this is to test what is originally true to Apostolic Christian faith, that which may have crept in as error, and which does not belong there. I believe God loves the truth as He said, “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life”. Jesus also told the woman at the well that “The Father is looking for those who will worship Him in Spirit and in Truth.” Also I am not saying God couldn’t have raised Mary (God can certainly raise whomever He pleases to) but whether there is early tradition that says He did that is debateable. From the debate so far I don’t believe there is. Also the earliest exegesis of Rev 12 alludes to the Church and not Mary - that is clear to me. It seems many have put stock in Rev12 as the scriptural proof and it clearly is problematic both theologically (for Catholics) and historically in light of the earliest writings of the Church Fathers.

Apocolyptic writing has polyvalent language so that the woman can mean, a woman, church or Israel. Would you agree that much of scripture also has miltiple meanings?

Again, why not accept the other doctrines clearly taught within the early church?

And it IS imparitive to understand all theological truths like the Marian dogmas simply because they affirm who Jesus is.
Did you know that the dispute over the theotokos (Mary as the mother of God) was over who Jesus was?
Some that denied the theotokos denied Jesus’ divinity saying Mary was simply the mother of Jesus’ the human; this was very problematic, being Mary is the mother of Jesus the person. And that Jesus’ personhood being 100% man and 100% were in question. Mary as the mother of God cleared up who Jesus was as did the Catholic council of Chalcedon 451 which developed the hypostatic union. All Marian dogmas are Christological in essence for they all point to Christ and confirm His diety and don’t at all take away from Christ. God gives us love but love isn’t measured in quantity because it is imeasurable and infinite for when we receive Gods love He doesn’t loose any of His after giving us that love. We also don’t loose any love when we give it to others. God has no less glory when He shares His glory with others, so when we give honor to His family how is it that anything is taken away from Him?

 

[Bishopite]

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

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

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?

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.

But what about all of the other patristic evidence on docrine NOT accepted by you?

 

[Bishopite]

[Calvinator;2664829]
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?

By giving better clarity to a truth about Mary; by giving better clarity to a once for all revealed truth, that’s the purpose.
The same purpose was served when the Catholic council of Nicea 325 AD defined Jesus’ relationship to the Father, the Father’s to the Son, The Son to the Spirit, and the Spirit to the Father and Son. That there were three persons of the Godhead not just one but how they are one in essence in substance (homoousious) and giving a clearer picture to who Jesus is; 100% God and 100% man and that they coexist together as one God.

Then in 451 AD at the Catholic council of Chalcedon, the church again defined the Hypostatic union, the two natures of Jesus.
Just as the Trinity was a development of Christian theology because of a controversy within the church, so to was the hypostatic union of Jesus. It is simply giving a better and more defined picture of clarity of a once for all divinely revealed truth.

After the Trinity was defined, the theological question then arose as to how Jesus is God, but how much of God is He? Is he more God than man, is He God with a separate human and divine nature, or does Jesus have just a divine nature? The Catholic church gave clarity and orthodoxy to the other heterodox beliefs.

Dogmatizing of the assumption of Mary is done on the same principle as was the hypostatic union; Jesus is part of the God head, and yet a man, but He is both God and man with two natures, one divine, one human.

Mary is the mother of Jesus a person both God and man. Mary is His mother and the mother of a person (not just a nature) therefore Mary is the mother of God (the second person of the Godhead–theotokos).
Mary was conceived without sin so it is also fitting that God would assume her into heaven either before or shortly after her earthly death and it is not a problem that Mary’s assumption was defined in 1950 no more than that the Trinity was defined in 325; both give clarity to that which had been once for all revealed.

 

[Calvinator]

By giving better clarity to a truth about Mary; by giving better clarity to a once for all revealed truth, that’s the purpose.
The same purpose was served when the Catholic council of Nicea 325 AD defined Jesus’ relationship to the Father, the Father’s to the Son, The Son to the Spirit, and the Spirit to the Father and Son. That there were three persons of the Godhead not just one but how they are one in essence in substance (homoousious) and giving a clearer picture to who Jesus is; 100% God and 100% man and that they coexist together as one God.

Then in 451 AD at the Catholic council of Chalcedon, the church again defined the Hypostatic union, the two natures of Jesus.
Just as the Trinity was a development of Christian theology because of a controversy within the church, so to was the hypostatic union of Jesus. It is simply giving a better and more defined picture of clarity of a once for all divinely revealed truth.

After the Trinity was defined, the theological question then arose as to how Jesus is God, but how much of God is He? Is he more God than man, is He God with a separate human and divine nature, or does Jesus have just a divine nature? The Catholic church gave clarity and orthodoxy to the other heterodox beliefs.

Dogmatizing of the assumption of Mary is done on the same principle as was the hypostatic union; Jesus is part of the God head, and yet a man, but He is both God and man with two natures, one divine, one human.

Mary is the mother of Jesus a person both God and man. Mary is His mother and the mother of a person (not just a nature) therefore Mary is the mother of God (the second person of the Godhead–theotokos).
Mary was conceived without sin so it is also fitting that God would assume her into heaven either before or shortly after her earthly death and it is not a problem that Mary’s assumption was defined in 1950 no more than that the Trinity was defined in 325; both give clarity to that which had been once for all revealed.

So, in your opionion, it is as important to accept the assumption of Mary as it is the Trinity? I just don’t get that.

I don’t understand how the assumption clarifies anything about Christ.

 

[Calvinator]

But what about all of the other patristic evidence on docrine NOT accepted by you?

The thread is on the assumption, not “all the other patristic evidence” on doctrine not accepted by me. I don’t mean to be snotty with you but these threads constantly drift off in a thousand different directions.

 

[agangbern]

The Church teaches so. Therefore the teaching must be true because it is written in 1Tim 3:15 that the Church is the pillar and mainstay of the truth.

 

[guanophore]

So, in your opionion, it is as important to accept the assumption of Mary as it is the Trinity? I just don’t get that.

I don’t understand how the assumption clarifies anything about Christ.

It clarifies His Divine intention to share His heavenly dwelling with us, body, soul and spirit. His assumption of Mary demonstrates what he plans for all of us!

 

[Bishopite]

So, in your opionion, it is as important to accept the assumption of Mary as it is the Trinity? I just don’t get that.

I don’t understand how the assumption clarifies anything about Christ.

My opinion is yes it is as important to accept both. Is it in your opinion as important to accept the Trinity as it is Jesus’ hypostatic union?
The assumption of Mary clarifies to the rest of us Jesus’ propitiation and resurection for our behalf for just as Jesus’ death and resurection was applied to Mary before she was immaculately conceived, so she also received the resurection of the body; giving hope for and a promise all of the elect who will one day also receive the resurection of their bodies because of Jesus’ propitiation and resurection.

 

[Bishopite]

The thread is on the assumption, not “all the other patristic evidence” on doctrine not accepted by me. I don’t mean to be snotty with you but these threads constantly drift off in a thousand different directions.

Fair enough. I’ll save it for another time.