CHALLENGING mary's assumption

[atheist1]

Before the bible was writen, the catholic church had 300 years of tradition, stories, repeated by beleivers, about Mary. Later the Church diceided which were sound, like the immaculate conception and the assumption through the inspirition of the Holy Spirit and spoken throu the Pope

But with the Assumption there is literally no evidence anyone believe in such a thing until around the year 400(?).

I find it interesting that Catholics seemingly disparage the scriptures, or at least many Catholics here on the forum seem to, but yet assume the god, the one that couldn’t get the written word quite right, somehow infallibly preserved “oral tradition” which is at best a nebulous concept.

 

[guanophore]

But with the Assumption there is literally no evidence anyone believe in such a thing until around the year 400(?).

This is not true. Prayers to the Mother of God have been included in liturgies from the time of her assumption. Of course, before she died, they just went down the road and asked for prayer.

The Marian doctrines emerged to refute heresies, and the term Theotokos is very early in the Gk. liturgy.

I find it interesting that Catholics seemingly disparage the scriptures, or at least many Catholics here on the forum seem to,

I find it interesting that you would come in here with a username like this, and find fault with Catholics! Give me one example of a Catholic “disparaging” scripture.

but yet assume the god, the one that couldn’t get the written word quite right, somehow infallibly preserved “oral tradition” which is at best a nebulous concept.

You are wrong, atheist. The Holy Scripture is inspired by God. It is without error, and most perfectly “right”. The Catholic Church produced, protected, preserved, canonized, and promulgated the Scriptures. You will find no disparagement of them in Catholicsm. The Catholic Church teaches that ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ.

I can understand why someone who does not believe in “god” would not believe that God could preserve His word.

 

[Good_Fella]

But with the Assumption there is literally no evidence anyone believe in such a thing until around the year 400(?).

I find it interesting that Catholics seemingly disparage the scriptures, or at least many Catholics here on the forum seem to, but yet assume the god, the one that couldn’t get the written word quite right, somehow infallibly preserved “oral tradition” which is at best a nebulous concept.

Did the Catholic Church disparage the Scriptures when the doctrine of the Holy Trinity was defined as dogma?

Since you’re an atheist, we don’t expect you to believe in the Assumption either.

PAX:harp:

 

[Mannyfit75]

i hear that catholics teach that “mary assended body and soul to heaven before she died”.

She did not ascended. She assumed. Jesus ascended. Mary was assumed into heaven by God himself. This goes in line with the Eastern Tradition of Christian tradition that she died and raised from the dead by her son and then assumed.

 

[Jimzz12]

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.

You can always look at it from a regular working stiff kind guy’s point of view.
Every guy out there loves his mom and would do anything he can for her.
Jesus wasn’t gonna let his dear old ma’ get wrapped up in the whole business of sin and vice and dying. I know if I were Jesus I wouldn’t and that’s for dang sure.

Then you can look at it from traditional word of mouth kinda thing.
It’s said that she traveled away from Israel. Many monastic Orthodox say they even know the spot where she was assumed. They keep it secret for the most part.

The Bible is a complex thing. It really is the Word of God. It is born anew everytime I read it after prayer and I’m in a state of grace. There is so much in there. But not everything is evident.

Once you are granted the grace to know a little about a mystery like Mary’s Assumption… it’s amazing how the whole new world opens right up.

I myself am just beginning to understand so much… This week I was thrown for a loop when I read the lines: “Mary is the throne of God”

I was little confused at first. It doesn’t say that in the Bible, and then I realized it didn’t have to. Mary is the mother of Jesus. She would have held Him as a child. Even when He was a child He was God, that is, Lord of all Creation – a King of All. In this way of thinking I came around and saw Mary as propping up giving a seat to the Child Jesus Who is King of All – hence Mary, she is the Throne of God. Her arms provided the throne.

Another one that threw me was comparing the incident of the burning bush to that of Mary and the conception of Jesus. The Father spoke from a bush… as Jesus spoke from his mother’s womb. One could even argue that the unquenchable purifying fire surrounding the Father purified a spot in creation for His Mother Mary. Whether or not we can understand the whole of what’s going on in these comparisons really is not important. What is important is there is soooo much that is contained in the Bible that isn’t apparently obvious on the surface level without God giving us moments of clarity in His Grace.

Now this is where it get’s fun. Just as you borrowed flesh from your mother, but not your father, you owe allegiance to your mother until the day she dies when that flesh is yours. Our flesh contains sin. The flesh of the body Jesus on the otherhand does not. He is still alive. He has never lost his flesh because it doesn’t contain sin. God is by definition sinless. Jesus borrowed this flesh from his mother Mary, and likewise she provided Jesus with sinless flesh from he own body that is likewise sinless out of the neccessity that logic provides. If her flesh is then sinless, dying for her a normal sinful human death isn’t called for. She is instead assumed into Heaven to be with her Son, who is of Her flesh. I know many protestant traditions teach that Jesus never borrowed flesh from Mary, but instead used her as a recepticle or whatever. I find this idea of using a human being, reducing her to the status of a mere object or tool, when every woman has an intrinsic value unique created by God quite revolting. It would be beyond sinful, eggregiously sinful, for God to treat any man, woman, or child in such a way. The consequence is that Jesus was Mary’s son, given her flesh, nourished by her blood, nursed on her milk, caressed by her hand, and kissed on the forehead by her lips. If one is to accept the divine incarnation of Jesus the Son of the Father, one must in logic and faith accept Mary as Sinless Mother.

Good work on asking the questions like this. Non-Catholics like you make amazing Christians and even better… amazing Catholic priests. If you continue to seek the fullness of truth you’ll be granted the grace by God to understand this or that. The key is obedience to what you know to whatever authority has been put over you in your life by God. Be good to your parents and teachers and boss. God teaches us when we are obedient — even obedient when it’s requires being treated unjustly.

I hope that helps more than it harms.
Vivat Iesu.

 

[August_Ambrose]

This is true, but it is also true that the Catholic Church is not Roman, and that the Roman Rite had not yet developed a the time of the Assumption.

The Roman Catholic Church is called Roman because it is in the City of Rome. It is the Latin Rite not the Rome Rite. Tradition is the stories told by each generation about the assumption of Mary, it wasn’t a issue of faith until later, thats okay isn’t it?

 

[August_Ambrose]

You can always look at it from a regular working stiff kind guy’s point of view.
Every guy out there loves his mom and would do anything he can for her.
Jesus wasn’t gonna let his dear old ma’ get wrapped up in the whole business of sin and vice and dying. I know if I were Jesus I wouldn’t and that’s for dang sure.

Then you can look at it from traditional word of mouth kinda thing.
It’s said that she traveled away from Israel. Many monastic Orthodox say they even know the spot where she was assumed. They keep it secret for the most part.

The Bible is a complex thing. It really is the Word of God. It is born anew everytime I read it after prayer and I’m in a state of grace. There is so much in there. But not everything is evident.

Once you are granted the grace to know a little about a mystery like Mary’s Assumption… it’s amazing how the whole new world opens right up.

I myself am just beginning to understand so much… This week I was thrown for a loop when I read the lines: “Mary is the throne of God”

I was little confused at first. It doesn’t say that in the Bible, and then I realized it didn’t have to. Mary is the mother of Jesus. She would have held Him as a child. Even when He was a child He was God, that is, Lord of all Creation – a King of All. In this way of thinking I came around and saw Mary as propping up giving a seat to the Child Jesus Who is King of All – hence Mary, she is the Throne of God. Her arms provided the throne.

Another one that threw me was comparing the incident of the burning bush to that of Mary and the conception of Jesus. The Father spoke from a bush… as Jesus spoke from his mother’s womb. One could even argue that the unquenchable purifying fire surrounding the Father purified a spot in creation for His Mother Mary. Whether or not we can understand the whole of what’s going on in these comparisons really is not important. What is important is there is soooo much that is contained in the Bible that isn’t apparently obvious on the surface level without God giving us moments of clarity in His Grace.

Now this is where it get’s fun. Just as you borrowed flesh from your mother, but not your father, you owe allegiance to your mother until the day she dies when that flesh is yours. Our flesh contains sin. The flesh of the body Jesus on the otherhand does not. He is still alive. He has never lost his flesh because it doesn’t contain sin. God is by definition sinless. Jesus borrowed this flesh from his mother Mary, and likewise she provided Jesus with sinless flesh from he own body that is likewise sinless out of the neccessity that logic provides. If her flesh is then sinless, dying for her a normal sinful human death isn’t called for. She is instead assumed into Heaven to be with her Son, who is of Her flesh. I know many protestant traditions teach that Jesus never borrowed flesh from Mary, but instead used her as a recepticle or whatever. I find this idea of using a human being, reducing her to the status of a mere object or tool, when every woman has an intrinsic value unique created by God quite revolting. It would be beyond sinful, eggregiously sinful, for God to treat any man, woman, or child in such a way. The consequence is that Jesus was Mary’s son, given her flesh, nourished by her blood, nursed on her milk, caressed by her hand, and kissed on the forehead by her lips. If one is to accept the divine incarnation of Jesus the Son of the Father, one must in logic and faith accept Mary as Sinless Mother.

Good work on asking the questions like this. Non-Catholics like you make amazing Christians and even better… amazing Catholic priests. If you continue to seek the fullness of truth you’ll be granted the grace by God to understand this or that. The key is obedience to what you know to whatever authority has been put over you in your life by God. Be good to your parents and teachers and boss. God teaches us when we are obedient — even obedient when it’s requires being treated unjustly.

I hope that helps more than it harms.
Vivat Iesu.

I believe, help me in my unbelief
faith is a supernatural gift of God, pray for the faith and you will recieve

 

[Good_Fella]

I myself am just beginning to understand so much… This week I was thrown for a loop when I read the lines: “Mary is the throne of God”

I was little confused at first. It doesn’t say that in the Bible, and then I realized it didn’t have to. Mary is the mother of Jesus. She would have held Him as a child. Even when He was a child He was God, that is, Lord of all Creation – a King of All. In this way of thinking I came around and saw Mary as propping up giving a seat to the Child Jesus Who is King of All – hence Mary, she is the Throne of God. Her arms provided the throne.

Mary certainly served as Christ’s throne when the Magi came to adore him and prostrated themselves while she was cradling the infant Jesus in her arms. Such precious arms blessed with having made physical contact with God in a loving embrace. I can’t imagine those arms ever having decayed in the tomb.

 

[Joero]

All catholics who were participating in this thread have given all their supports either biblically or by the words of mouth spoken by the early christians before the appearance of the bible.about the assumption of the BVM. Hence, the non catholics still could not accept the truth about it.

Here is a link of a life after death experience and you may investigate the veracity of it because this particular person happened to see the BVM in heaven.

freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1535210/posts

 

[Good_Fella]

All catholics who were participating in this thread have given all their supports either biblically or by the words of mouth spoken by the early christians before the appearance of the bible.about the assumption of the BVM. Hence, the non catholics still could not accept the truth about it.

Here is a link of a life after death experience and you may investigate the veracity of it because this particular person happened to see the BVM in heaven.

freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1535210/posts

Joero, I read the link, and although this is off topic, I must question the veracity of what the priest claims to have actually experienced. In hell the demons are themselves being punished. They have no privilege to delight in torturing human beings. Nor have the demons been granted the authority to torture in God’s name. Hell isn’t God’s torture chamber. What tortures the damned in hell is the realization of the truth in all its constant intensity of how they had offended God. The degree of intensity differs in measure according to which level the souls in hell and purgatory are consigned. If what the priest did experience is true, then I can see the demons torturing the damned souls in hell through verbal accusations that serve as a reminder to the souls of their transgressions. I can picture the demons taking delight in whispering their charges on account of their vanity which persists in hell even among the damned souls as is apparently evident in their disputes with each other. But if the damned souls are tortured by realizing the truth, then there can no longer be any vanity in them unless it takes vanity for one to feel he is being punished.

PAX :harp:

 

[Jimzz12]

The Roman Catholic Church is called Roman because it is in the City of Rome. It is the Latin Rite not the Rome Rite. Tradition is the stories told by each generation about the assumption of Mary, it wasn’t a issue of faith until later, thats okay isn’t it?

I just finished another one of Pope Benedicts XVI’s books. He talks about how the whole church is Roman Catholic – every rite that is united under Rome is Roman Catholic.

An interesting historical note is that the term Roman Catholic originally started as a derogatory pejorative in Scotland in the 19th century amongst the followers in the tradition of Calvin and Zwingli. We now embrace the term. It’s funny how the Church has the way to absorb even the very worst and make it hers.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

Dear OP,

There are many reasons to question the historic veracity of the Assumption.

1. Not mentioned by any of the apostles (the so-called scriptural support listed above by other posters cannot be considered good historical evidence)
2. Not mentioned by any of the disciples of the apostles (eg Clement, disciple of Paul).
3. Not mentioned in any of the thousands of pages of writings of the ECFs for the first 400 hundred years of church history, and then only in an obscure Ethiopian document).
4. Not mentioned in the first comprehensive history of the Church by Eusebius, written in the Third Century. Eusebius is generous in accepting fiction, including an account of King Agbar considered by most scholars to be myth.

There are many good explanations for why 5-6 centuries after her death, followers of Marian sects couldn’t find her tomb. Based on historical evidence, the Assumption is not one of them.

 

[Axion]

1. The New Testament only covers events within a certain period. It does not record the deaths of Peter and Paul, for example. This does not mean they did not happen. The New Testament was never intended to be an encyclopedic manual of Christian practice, organisation and belief. The same applies to the Old Testament. Jude refers to the Assumption of Moses - an event not recorded in the OT, yet believed by Jews validated in the New Testament.
2. The Church of the first four centuries was still defining such things as the nature of Jesus and of the Trinity. It was fighting persecutions in which 95% of its documents were systematically destroyed. Not a great deal of energy was directed toward writing about Mary. This is why argument from absence of surviving documentation proves nothing.
3. Where surviving documentation of Mary’s Assumption appears in the record, it is unchallenged. Christians of the early period hotly debated the smallest of innovations. So how would they have allowed a massive alleged invention like Mary’s Assumption to enter the Christian calendar without a murmur? Answer. They wouldn’t. The Assumption must therefore be an ancient Christian teaching which was not disputed.
4. This is borne out by the fact that no-one ever claimed to have physical relics of the Virgin Mary. In an age when possession of the relics of even a minor saint could bring untold wealth and fame to a church or other location, not one place claimed to have the body, or as much as a little finger of Mary. There can only be one reason for this - the same reason there are no relics of Jesus - everyone knew that Mary had been taken bodily into heaven, and that any claim to possess a relic MUST be fraudulent.
5. Why is the Assumption of Mary so incredible? Protestants who challenge it, if they are bible believers must believe in the bodily assumption of Elijah, Enoch and Moses. Yet mary they balk at? Strange.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

1. The New Testament only covers events within a certain period. It does not record the deaths of Peter and Paul, for example. This does not mean they did not happen. The New Testament was never intended to be an encyclopedic manual of Christian practice, organisation and belief. The same applies to the Old Testament. Jude refers to the Assumption of Moses - an event not recorded in the OT, yet believed by Jews validated in the New Testament.

There is much history in the NT. Wouldn’t this be considered significant history?

The Church of the first four centuries was still defining such things as the nature of Jesus and of the Trinity. It was fighting persecutions in which 95% of its documents were systematically destroyed. Not a great deal of energy was directed toward writing about Mary. This is why argument from absence of surviving documentation proves nothing.

Again, this is not a mystery that is difficult to define. It is a historical event.

Where surviving documentation of Mary’s Assumption appears in the record, it is unchallenged. Christians of the early period hotly debated the smallest of innovations. So how would they have allowed a massive alleged invention like Mary’s Assumption to enter the Christian calendar without a murmur? Answer. They wouldn’t. The Assumption must therefore be an ancient Christian teaching which was not disputed.

When it finally entered into history, the cult of Mary had already begun. They were clearly looking for ever-more fantastic stories about Mary. This was one.

1. This is borne out by the fact that no-one ever claimed to have physical relics of the Virgin Mary. In an age when possession of the relics of even a minor saint could bring untold wealth and fame to a church or other location, not one place claimed to have the body, or as much as a little finger of Mary. There can only be one reason for this - the same reason there are no relics of Jesus - everyone knew that Mary had been taken bodily into heaven, and that any claim to possess a relic MUST be fraudulent.
2. Why is the Assumption of Mary so incredible? Protestants who challenge it, if they are bible believers must believe in the bodily assumption of Elijah, Enoch and Moses. Yet mary they balk at? Strange.

What is the likelihood that President Lincoln could be shot in Ford’s theatre and it is only first recorded some 400 years later? This is what you are asking us to believe. .

Why didn’t Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Augustine or any of the others mention, in their thousands of pages of writings, that, “oh, and by the way, Mary the mother of Jesus was assummed into heaven”?

God can do anything, but we also need to be wise as serpents. The dogma of the Assumption is very tenuous history.

 

[atheist1]

This is not true. Prayers to the Mother of God have been included in liturgies from the time of her assumption. Of course, before she died, they just went down the road and asked for prayer.

No, you are wrong. Mary being in heaven is not synonymous with your belief in the assumption. Your church teaches that Mary was assumed body and soul into heaven…not just her soul.

If you can provide evidence of someone believing this theory of the assumption from the first few centuries of church history I would like to take a look at it.

The Marian doctrines emerged to refute heresies, and the term Theotokos is very early in the Gk. liturgy.

Theotokos has nothing to do with Mary’s assumption though, does it?

 

[Benadam]

A theology isn’t shown to be less true by the historical evidence supporting it nor does it require explicit written expression for it to be worthy of belief. If the Christ Event has taught us anything about how God reveals things we are expected to believe it should be that. That expectation doesn’t find it’s source in the kind of faith entered into by the OT Patriarch’s. Jesus told the unbelieving Jews that if they would have believed Moses they would have believed Him. What is the difference now?

 

[ShellKell]

Good Fella
By reading the Scriptures, we can see why the Assumption must have occurred.

But for some reason they were inspired not to record it in the Scriptures.

:doh2: Did I miss something here?

 

[Good_Fella]

Dear OP,

There are many reasons to question the historic veracity of the Assumption.

1. Not mentioned by any of the apostles (the so-called scriptural support listed above by other posters cannot be considered good historical evidence)
2. Not mentioned by any of the disciples of the apostles (eg Clement, disciple of Paul).
3. Not mentioned in any of the thousands of pages of writings of the ECFs for the first 400 hundred years of church history, and then only in an obscure Ethiopian document).
4. Not mentioned in the first comprehensive history of the Church by Eusebius, written in the Third Century. Eusebius is generous in accepting fiction, including an account of King Agbar considered by most scholars to be myth.

There are many good explanations for why 5-6 centuries after her death, followers of Marian sects couldn’t find her tomb. Based on historical evidence, the Assumption is not one of them.

1. The Bible isn’t a history text book. All the deeds performed by God in salvation history don’t necessarily have to be literally put down in writing. Events such as the Assumption can be perceived by reading the Scriptures in the spiritual sense. Meanwhile the apostles who co-authored the New Testament were inspired to write what the Holy Spirit willed, notwithstanding the fact that none of them witnessed the Assumption firsthand as they had the resurrection and ascension of Jesus.
2. The writings of Paul and Clement, for instance, are occasional letters that do not embody a comprehensive theology. There is much more they had acknowledged and preached that was not put down in writing. Given the themes of their letters and issues of faith they had addressed to particular communities, there was no reason for them to mention the Assumption. Besides, the tradition of the Assumption began as something private among the primitive Jewish Christians in Palestine. By the end of the first century it hadn’t yet spread so far and wide in Christendom. At the time the primary focus was on the universal significance of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ for the entire world.
3. The Assumption is implicitly referred to by the early Church Fathers who perceived Mary as the Mother of God, the new Eve, the new ark of the Covenant, and sinless. The theological implications of these perceptions provide reasons for the Assumption, which Pope Pius cited in his Apostolic Constitution ‘Munificentissimus Deus’ in November 1950. Again, the early Church Fathers orally preached far much more than what they had committed in writing. And what they did write in the extant works we have does not cover everything that was believed and taught in the whole Church. In the late 4th century Epiphanius questioned whether Mary had actually died or been spared death, but he did not question whether the Assumption had actually occurred. This shows that the traditional belief in the Assumption had already spread beyond Palestine in Christendom by that time. Let’s not forget that it took the Church about four centuries to establish the list of Canon and in that period some Church Fathers had consulted apochryphal works in their teachings. Time is of little importance.
4. Eusebius was an ecclesiastical historian. As a bonafide historian he would have violated the principles of his field by writing about an event that wasn’t actually witnessed by reliable individuals. The Assumption isn’t an historical event in the strict sense, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it never happened.

Traditions of Mary’s place of entombment in the area of Jerusalem go back as far as the second or third centuries according to apocryphal works of historical value.

PAX :harp:

 

[Benadam]

:doh2: Did I miss something here?

Well, scriptures do reveal that heaven is structured by the bonds between persons. That Mary is fully Jesus’ mother in as much as Jesus is a fully human person and that the role of Mary is revealed to the Church and retained in her memory (from which scripture also finds it’s source) can also be easily deduced from what scriptures reveal about the way God has ordered things is powerfull if one approaches this as something possible instead of impossible.

 

[Good_Fella]

:doh2: Did I miss something here?

It appears you did whatever it was you missed. :yup: