CHALLENGING mary's assumption

[Pixie_Dust]

Yeah, the bible does’nt deny pink elephants either. So? Think about that

You’re deliberately missing my point. :tsktsk: Why it is so important to you to deny that God would do for Mary what He’d done for other people whose lives were exemplary is beyond me. We’ve demonstrated from Scripture that people have been physically taken up to Heaven by God. We know from Scripture that Mary was specially chosen by God to bear the Word Incarnate in her womb.

What do you make of 1 Thess 4:17? What does that verse mean to you?

I believe veneration of relics is a practice that started closer to the year 1000

You didn’t answer my question.

 

[Goth_Catholic]

Offcourse, if you believe in Sola Ecclesia, it only matters what the church tells you despite contradictory evidence.

Contradictory evidence? Really. Did you find the body of the Blessed mother then?

And the source is Really the Dormition, Pseudo Apostle Paul, another Gnostic Forgery that parralells the condemned Gnostic Forgery Transitus Beatae Mariae of Pseudo Melito.

The assumption is of Gnostic origin, not Christian.

2 Pet 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.

The assumption is only destructive to those who limit the power of Christ to a single (and incomplete) book. It is insulting to even suggest that the Theotokos is not worthy of the same honor bestowed upon Elijah. The last verse in John states “And there are many other things with Christ did…”

 

[Bible_Student]

[hello Bible Student,

I appreciate what seems to me to be a sincere approach to Mary from a biblical perspective from you. I noticed a couple of misconceptions about your understanding of the Catholic view of Mary and I think if I interject the theology that the Catholic church has developed that perhaps you haven’t learned yet may help.

The theological correction is in regards of your statement of Mary’s glory coming from the Father. No creature receives glory from God.

When Jesus asks the Father to Glorify Him He reveals His divinity.The purpose of creation is to glorify God. Catholic’s are devoted to Mary because she most perfectly fulfills this purpose. Catholic devotion to her is a means for us to fulfill that same purpose as creatures. When we glorify Mary we lose who she is and the closeness of Christ she offers humanity is diminished.

Sorry if I was long winded.

Peace

Hi Benedam,
I am surely not the one to call you long winded Unfortunately perhaps many have had to suffer from my tendencies to perhaps say too much.
Thanks for the theological position, as it does help me to gain a better understanding of the Catholic position. I stand corrected in implying that Catholics seem to suggest Mary’s glory as coming from the Father. Perhaps there is little difference between us in how God’s glory is manifest in the believer as I too believe it is His abiding presence in the heart of the believer and we, who are created by Him and for Him only reflect that glory as we are brought closer.
Gospel of John 17:17-24 a segment of Jesus' longest prayer in the Bible:

"Sanctify them by Your truth. Your Word is truth. As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth. I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: "I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me. Father, I desire that they also whom You gave Me may be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory which You have given Me; for You loved Me before the foundation of the world.

My first point is revealed by the Holy Spirit through Mary’s words in scripture. Mary said by inspiration of the Holy spirit. " My soul magnifies the Lord" This is exactly what Catholic devotion to Mary is based on. We are taught Christ most fully through Mary’s eyes. It is through her discipleship that He is made closer to us. She is Christ close to us because she is the person who manifests Him not only to us but to the whole world. This is a unique and exclusive role in the plan of salvation. A role shared by all Christians but exemplified and personified even in Mary I believe your fear of a kind of a false deification of Mary by some is a healthy one, and the Church is quick to stamp out disordered worship.

Perhaps I do not understand where this teaching is derived,

"We are taught Christ most fully through Mary’s eyes

The Bible teaches that,"Faith comes from hearing and hearing by the Word of God - Romans 10:17 so not seeing this teaching either in the Bible or the early Church Fathers is very problematic for me and perhaps anyone else wanting to live out their faith in the purity that it was delivered to us by the Apostles. So I must disagee with you on the plan of Salvation as having any co-dependency on Mary. We certainly can both agree that she was chosen by God to bear His Son and the human part of the dual nature of Christ was from Mary. That is both a historic and a “necessary part” in setting up the “plan of redemption” but clearly the Bible teaches that our redemption is through Christ alone as does the early Church. I believe it is an error to assume otherwise.
1 Timothy 2:5-8:

For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time, for which I was appointed a preacher and an apostle–I am speaking the truth in Christ and not lying–a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth. I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting;

May God Bless, pat

 

[RevDrNorth]

The assumption is only destructive to those who limit the power of Christ to a single (and incomplete) book. It is insulting to even suggest that the Theotokos is not worthy of the same honor bestowed upon Elijah. The last verse in John states “And there are many other things with Christ did…”

Yes…certainly Mary would not have been (was not) the only one bodily assumed into heaven. Once we get passed that issue (biblically) it becomes easier to also realize that this was believed quite early on by the church.

The Orthodox do not make it dogma since it is not encessary for salvation but they do beleive in the dormition.

Protestant objections to this doctrine really do not make too much sense in light of both of those facts. Before Protestants say, it was not important enough to mention her assumption in the bible so it did not occur…you really do not want to go there. St. Paul makes no statement about the virgin birth (his writings make up most of the NT). Do you really want to say (as Bishop Spong) did that had it really occurred and not simply been a literature device used by the Gospel writers that surely Paul would have mentioned it. In other words, the absence of the assumption in the bible does not mean it did not happen (and it in fact was believed early on).

Rev North

 

[Bible_Student]

Early Church fathers on Mary and the only listed assumptions.
Papias (c. 120 AD):

mentions, “Mary the mother of our Lord” but does not mention the assumption. – fragment in Eusebius 1.155

Ignatius (c. 105 ):

mentions Mary as well yet nothing of the assumption,
“There is one Physician who is possessed of both flesh and spirit, … both of Mary and of God. 1.52

“Jesus Christ …. Descended from David and He was also of Mary.” 1.70

Justin Martyr (c. 150):

He became man by the virgin, in order that the disobedience, which began with the serpent, might receive its destruction in the same manner in which it derived its origin. For Eve, who was a virgin and undefiled, having conceived the word of the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death. But the virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced the good tidings to her that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her.” 1.249

Irenaeus (c. 165):

When Mary urged Him on to the wonderful miracvle of the wine and was desirous to partake of the cup of emblematic significance before the proper time, the Lord restrained her untimely haste, saying, ‘Woman, what have I to do with you? Mt hour has not yet come.” He was waiting for the hour that was foreknown by the Father. 1.443
Mary the virgin is found obedient, saying, “Behold the handmaiden of the Lord; be it unto me according to your word”. In contrast, Eve was disobedient. For she did not obey when she was still a virgin…. Having become disobedient, she was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race. 1.455
So if Eve disobeyed God, yet Mary was persuaded to be obedient to God. In this way, the cirgin Mary might become the advocate of the virgin Eve. 1.547
For this reason, the Law considers a woman who is bethroed to a man to be the wife of him who had bethroed her. This is so even though she was yet a virgin. This indicates the reference from Mary back to Eve. 1.454

Clement of Alexandria (c.195):

As it appears, many even down to our own time regard Mary, on account of the birth of her child, as having been in the perpetual state, although she was not. For some say that, after she brought forth, she was found, when examined, to still be a virgin.

Tertullian (c.197):

Enoch was no doubt taken up, and so was Elijah. Nor did they experience death. It was most certainly postponed. They are reserved for the suffering od death, that by their blood, they may extinguish the Antichrist. Even John underwent death, although there had prevailed an unfounded expectation concerning him that he would remain alive until the coming of the Lord. 3.227,228
Was anything, again, concealed from John, the Lord’s most beloved disciple …. Whom He commended to Mary as a son in His own place?
A certain mother of the company exclaimed, “Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You!" But the Lord said, “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!" Now He had in precisely similar terms rejected His mother and His brothers, while preferring those who heard and obeyed God. His mother, however, was not there present with Him on that former occasion, therefore He did not deny that He was her natural son. On hearing these words the second time, He once again transferred the blessedness (as He had done before) away from the womb and the breasts of His mother to His disciples. 3.393

Origen c.240:

Some say. basing it on a tradition in the ‘Gospel according to Peter, as it is entitled, or the spurious Protoevangelium of James, that the brothers of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that her body might not know intercourse with a man after she conceived by the Holy Spirit who overshadowed her. And I think it is harmony within reason that just as Jesus was the first fruit among men of the purity that consists in chastity, so was Mary among women. For it was not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first fruit of virginity. 9.424

Lactantius (c.320):

The two prophets Enoch and Elijah have been taken up into some remote place so that they might attend to our Lord when He comes to judgment. 7.302

 

[dcdurel]

We certainly can both agree that she was chosen by God to bear His Son and the human part of the dual nature of Christ was from Mary. That is both a historic and a “necessary part” in setting up the “plan of redemption” but clearly the Bible teaches that our redemption is through Christ alone as does the early Church. I believe it is an error to assume otherwise.
\quote]

The bible clearly says we can share in that redemption.
1 Tim 4:16 "Take heed to thyself, and to thy teaching. Continue in these things; for in doing this thou shalt save both thyself and them that hear thee."

Thus, by teaching doctrine, the word of God, Timothy was able to save himself and those who heard him. We can also pray for people to be converted and thus be saved.
In the same way Mary can pray for us to turn to Jesus and be saved.

St. Paul writes, “But whether we are afflicted,** it is for** your comfort and salvation”

Thus, when Paul suffers in union with Jesus, then this can be directed to the salvation of others. In the same way we can pray and fast for others, for their salvation. And Mary suffered as Paul did and united her sufferings with Jesus for the salvation of others.

This is nothing new. It has always been in the bible.

 

[LilyM]

I believe veneration of relics is a practice that started closer to the year 1000

you couldn’t be more wrong if you tried.

The account (written 150 AD) of the martyrdom of Polycarp of Smyrna (himself a disciple of John the Apostle don’tcha know) describes his post-martyrdom remains being very carefully gathered up, preserved, and held to be ‘more precious than gold’.

Sure sounds like veneration of relics to me - 850 YEARS before you think it started!

 

[kaycee]

You’re deliberately missing my point. :tsktsk: Why it is so important to you to deny that God would do for Mary what He’d done for other people whose lives were exemplary is beyond me. We’ve demonstrated from Scripture that people have been physically taken up to Heaven by God. We know from Scripture that Mary was specially chosen by God to bear the Word Incarnate in her womb.

What do you make of 1 Thess 4:17? What does that verse mean to you?

Text that describes the rapture.

You didn’t answer my question.

Are you asking me If God should have assumed Mary into heaven?

I am not sure what any of us thinks has any bearing on what God actually does.

I am sorry, but I cannot reasonably agree that doctrine can be based on WWJD.

 

[kaycee]

The assumption is only destructive to those who limit the power of Christ to a single (and incomplete) book. It is insulting to even suggest that the Theotokos is not worthy of the same honor bestowed upon Elijah. The last verse in John states “And there are many other things with Christ did…”

Again, your not dealing in facts at this point. What WE think, is not a basis for doctrine, especially doctrine made binding upon the person for salvation.

The facts are that no one knew anything about an “assumption” until 500 years after the crucifiction. The first instances of an assumption story were introduced by Gnostic forgeries. Those are the facts

 

[Bishopite]

Hi Bishopite,

I consider the early Church era to be the one which was in place before it became “politically correct” to be a Christian. And the one before whereby Church leaders became synomous with worldly political power.

I see but perhaps I’m not seeing what you are? You are saying that the early church went from the first century to the what century?

 

[Goth_Catholic]

Again, your not dealing in facts at this point. What WE think, is not a basis for doctrine, especially doctrine made binding upon the person for salvation.

The facts are that no one knew anything about an “assumption” until 500 years after the crucifiction. The first instances of an assumption story were introduced by Gnostic forgeries. Those are the facts

I think this was said before but WHAT IS FAITH IF IT MUST BE BASED ON FACTS

 

[RevDrNorth]

Again, your not dealing in facts at this point. What WE think, is not a basis for doctrine, especially doctrine made binding upon the person for salvation.

The facts are that no one knew anything about an “assumption” until 500 years after the crucifiction. The first instances of an assumption story were introduced by Gnostic forgeries. Those are the facts

That is not true. St. John Damascene mentions Empress Pulcheria (5th century) sought the Patriarch of Jerusalem (Juvenal) who was at the Council of Chalcedon, in order to obtain relics. The Patriarch said that according to ancient tradition, she was assumed into heaven. Written sources date from around 6th century. Remember we are dealing with a much earlier tradition and this oral issue is how much of scripture was transmitted. Mark was not copying the words of Christ but relating what Peter had told him, etc.

Rev North

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

How much explicit support is there for the doctrine of the Holy Trinity in scripture? The closest we get is when Jesus says ‘the Father and I are one’ - which isn’t even proof of Jesus’ own divinity if you take it that they are one in a metaphoric sense rather than a literal one.

Genesis 18:2

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Text that describes the rapture.

Hmmm, you mean the Bible does talk about people being taken bodily up to Heaven? You look for this to happen to believers yet you deny that it could possibly have happened to the Mother of God Incarnate.

Are you asking me If God should have assumed Mary into heaven?

I am not sure what any of us thinks has any bearing on what God actually does.

I am sorry, but I cannot reasonably agree that doctrine can be based on WWJD.

WWJD? What Bible verse is that?

 

[onenow1]

HI, Pat and All
Here’s an excerpt from your post to Bishoprite.

In fact John, who looked after Mary according to the Gospel makes no mention of her or the birth of our Lord, as does Luke and Matthew.

In view of the times, I believe the gospels after the ressurection do not mention Mary, because they were protecting her, persecution of Jewish converts was an on going thing of the times…

Further I think Mary was still living when John was writing Revelations, were he incorporates her as the woman clothed with the sun. Just before Jesus died, he said to John behold your Mother.

Stories of Mary in there preaching the gospels, would certainly put her in danger; And I think falls right in line with Rev. 12: 6, The woman herself fled into the desert where she had a place prepared by God. I think it all fits. Of course this is my opinion.

Peace, OneNow1

 

[Penitus]

This thread suffers from the usual problem with Protestants and Mary’s Assumption.

Most Protestants who object to Mary’s Assumption look to Scripture and early Tradition for evidence, finding nothing. Yet there’s a problem with that. Protestants look at two piles of writings:

(1) The Bible
(2) The writings of the early Christians post-NT era.

Since there’s no explicit mention of Mary’s Assumption in either, than it must be a heresy. However, Tradition is not the (2) mentioned above. The Catholic Church doesn’t create her doctrines from the writings of the early Christians, because those writings existed AFTER the Church, just like the Bible. The only difference are that some are inspired and the rest are not.

If you’re a struggling Protestant, my suggestion is to not treat Catholics like they adhere to Sola Early Christian Writings. The Church was doing what she was doing prior to those writings. Because of this, one shouldn’t expect to find every single bit of Catholic teaching in either the Bible or the writings of the Church Fathers.

And granted, none of this proves Mary’s Assumption, but it does provide further discussion without dipping into another sola scriptura thread.

 

[Goth_Catholic]

Kaycee,

Since you obviously rely on the early church fathers as evidence for the correct early Christian doctrines would you also abide by the evidence of their writings on other Marian dogmas?

 

[Goth_Catholic]

Kaycee,

Since you obviously rely on the early church fathers as evidence for the correct early Christian doctrines would you also abide by the evidence of their writings on other Marian dogmas?

 

[Bishopite]

Kaycee,

Since you obviously rely on the early church fathers as evidence for the correct early Christian doctrines would you also abide by the evidence of their writings on other Marian dogmas?

Yes great point:thumbsup:

Why kaycee can conveniently refer to the ECF’s only on the doctrines he accepts and yet ignores those other writings of the ECF’s that contradict his theology? Perhaps he can tell us?

 

[Bishopite]

Text that describes the rapture.

Let’s see, according to you the early church fathers don’t give any evidence of Mary’s assumption until the fifth century, which you conclude isn’t orthodox Christian teaching.
Yet you claim 1 Thes 4:17 speaks of the “rapture,” yet NO early church father, NONE of the reformers and NONE of the classical Protestant denominations ever even mention the rapture, no not even the word. At least we Catholics can show Mary’s assumption mentioned in the early centuries as evidence of its truth.
Your “rapture” doesn’t even show up in any writing (Darby,Schofield) until the mid 1800’s?

***Mary’s assumption is written about as early as the 5th century.

***The rapture is written about in the mid 19th century.

If I these two issues (Mary’s assumption and the rapture) were on trial and evidence was presented to determine which of these two are most likely to be true.
One side presented Mary’s assumption from the Bible and the early church and the other side presented their evidence from the Bible and the early church, any rational and objectively honest jury would conclude that Mary’s assumption had MUCH greater evidence of it being true than the rapture.