Did Mary ascend?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Joseph_Smith
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Joseph_Smith

Guest
The Assumption of Mary (that she arose body and soul into Heaven after death). This was declared by Pope Pius the Twelvth in November, 1950.—Nowhere taught in Scripture. The Apostle John, to whom Christ commended His mother while He was on the cross, and who lived about 70 years after the crucifixion, who wrote five books of the New Testament, and in whose house Mary lived until she died, isn’t it strange that he never mentioned such a miracle? Because it never happened.
So this is what if not writen by the apostle paul who indeed lived with and cared for mary for all these many years.
Strange is it not that it took 1950 years for this new age teaching to find it way into the chruch. As it is not in scripture at all.
 
Joseph_Smith said:
The Assumption of Mary (that she arose body and soul into Heaven after death). This was declared by Pope Pius the Twelvth in November, 1950.—Nowhere taught in Scripture. The Apostle John, to whom Christ commended His mother while He was on the cross, and who lived about 70 years after the crucifixion, who wrote five books of the New Testament, and in whose house Mary lived until she died, isn’t it strange that he never mentioned such a miracle? Because it never happened.
So this is what if not writen by the apostle paul who indeed lived with and cared for mary for all these many years.
Strange is it not that it took 1950 years for this new age teaching to find it way into the chruch. As it is not in scripture at all.
Click to expand...
And what makes you think the Apostle John did not write about it? Perhaps it was lost and God knew we would figure it out from the dozens of people who witnerssed it and did pass their stories on. Did everything John write land in the Bible? If you say “yes”, I am afraid I am going to have to ask you to prove this.

What about what he told other people?

This is the essential problem with “Bible only” theology. It places limits on God. As well as unrealistic constraints on men.
 
Joseph_Smith said:
The Assumption of Mary (that she arose body and soul into Heaven after death). This was declared by Pope Pius the Twelvth in November, 1950.—Nowhere taught in Scripture. The Apostle John, to whom Christ commended His mother while He was on the cross, and who lived about 70 years after the crucifixion, who wrote five books of the New Testament, and in whose house Mary lived until she died, isn’t it strange that he never mentioned such a miracle? Because it never happened.
So this is what if not writen by the apostle paul who indeed lived with and cared for mary for all these many years.
Strange is it not that it took 1950 years for this new age teaching to find it way into the chruch. As it is not in scripture at all.
Click to expand...
You clearly havnt read Rev 11:19 onwards…🙂
 
Moreover, I think you are mistaken by the definition of “assume.” The Blessed Mother did not rise herself, but was taken up by God. Moreover, the doctrine of such an Assumption can be found much earlier in the Church; however, it was not fully defined until 1950. In other words, just because it was not fully defined does not mean it was part of Christian Tradition much earlier.
 
Please do not assume catholic are christians. Christians have a new birth experence from what i have heard catholics do not.
 
A Christian is a follower of Christ…how do Catholics not fit such a definition? And such a new birth comes through the sacrament of Baptism.
 
Wow, you are attacking Our Lady aren’t you? I always find it really scarey when I read stuff like this; what would Jesus think of these venomous attacks on his mother???

Did you know that The feast of the Assumption is most probably the oldest among all the feasts of Mary properly so called?

New Advent has this to say on the history of Mary’s assention- The corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century. It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite. If we consult genuine writings in the East, it is mentioned in the sermons of St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others. In the West, St. Gregory of Tours (De gloria mart., I, iv) mentions it first. The sermons of St. Jerome and St. Augustine for this feast, however, are spurious. St. John of Damascus (P. G., I, 96) thus formulates the tradition of the Church of Jerusalem:

St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened, upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven.
Today, the belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is universal in the East and in the West; according to Benedict XIV (De Festis B.V.M., I, viii, 18) it is a probable opinion, which to deny were impious and blasphemous.

newadvent.org/cathen/02006b.htm

Perhaps this makes the documental source of the belief a little clearer for you. If nothing else it might proffer an idea of the discrepency between real history and the selective hate you have been taught. If you consider yourself Christian, you will understand the concept of charity- try to be nice.
🙂
 
Well until you can show me in the writing of the apostles Mary accended you really do not have a leg to stand on. And the fact is it is a mythical teaching and all made up. And christians are a whole lot more then followers of Christ. But First and for most we are born again into the Kingdom of God by a actually salvation experence the baptism that is spoke of is a spirtual baptist. Not holy water that cost 17 cents. We are born into the living waters of Christ spirit. Remember the woman at the well and the living waters Christ spoke of. That is how you get baptisted by recieving the living waters of christ spirit. Not literal waters like you wash your hands with.
 
Joseph_Smith said:
Well until you can show me in the writing of the apostles Mary accended you really do not have a leg to stand on. And the fact is it is a mythical teaching and all made up. And christians are a whole lot more then followers of Christ. But First and for most we are born again into the Kingdom of God by a actually salvation experence the baptism that is spoke of is a spirtual baptist. Not holy water that cost 17 cents. We are born into the living waters of Christ spirit. Remember the woman at the well and the living waters Christ spoke of. That is how you get baptisted by recieving the living waters of christ spirit. Not literal waters like you wash your hands with.
Click to expand...
34The eunuch asked Philip, “Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?” 35Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus. 36As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, "Look, here is water. Why shouldn’t I be baptized?"38And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him. 39When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord suddenly took Philip away, and the eunuch did not see him again, but went on his way rejoicing. 40Philip, however, appeared at Azotus and traveled about, preaching the gospel in all the towns until he reached Caesarea. -Acts 8
 
The peace of Christ be upon you my friend, pax tecum.
Joseph_Smith said:
Well until you can show me in the writing of the apostles Mary accended you really do not have a leg to stand on.
Click to expand...
Ok fair enough.
And the fact is it is a mythical teaching and all made up.
Click to expand...
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. I would suggest that further serious study (ie avoiding Jack Chick and Loraine Bottner) might lead you to a different conclusion however. 🙂
And christians are a whole lot more then followers of Christ. But First and for most we are born again into the Kingdom of God by a actually salvation experence the baptism that is spoke of is a spirtual baptist. Not holy water that cost 17 cents. We are born into the living waters of Christ spirit. Remember the woman at the well and the living waters Christ spoke of. That is how you get baptisted by recieving the living waters of christ spirit. Not literal waters like you wash your hands with.
Click to expand...
Thank you for enlightening me. 🙂

I am impressed with your obvious faith my friend. It is admirable that you have come here with the intention of enlightening us and defending what you see as true Christian beliefs. However, you have been mislead in what you see as truth, if you hang around a while and engage objectively with the people here you might discover some of the wonderful truths of a life lived fully in Christ Jesus.

God Bless and keep you always.
 
For Apostolic support, check Rev 12:1-5 (which was written by the Apostle John):
A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. Then another sign appeared in heaven; an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on his heads. His tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth so that he might devour her child the moment it was born. She gave birth to a son, a male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron sceptre. And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne.
 
Joseph_Smith said:
Please do not assume catholic are christians. Christians have a new birth experence from what i have heard catholics do not.
Click to expand...
This coming from a guy whose handle is that of the false Mormon prophet.

You’ve heard, you’ve heard. Have you actually asked? Or do you just hate the Mary of the Bible so much?
 
Well…until you can show me
in the writing of the apostles
Click to expand...
that Mary was not ***assumed ***[the proper term and context]
you really do not have a leg to stand on.
Click to expand...
We have writings, we have the New Testament given to us by the Church the Church that Jesus founded. The New Testament writings that tell us that Mary was “full of grace”. The same scriptures that tell us that Mary was the “Mother of my Lord” and the same Mary that “all generations” woud call “blessed” The one for whom the “Almighty has done great things”

Apostolic ?..Yes I believe that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark Luke and John are exactlly that
 
Joseph_Smith said:
Please do not assume catholic are christians. Christians have a new birth experence from what i have heard catholics do not.
Click to expand...
What you’ve heard is wrong. You’ve been brainwashed or are reading the wrong material!

Re Mary’s assumption, just because something isn’t explicitly shown in the bible doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen!

**John21:25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.
**

Don’t you think Jesus would have taken His own mother into heaven instead of letting her rot in the grave?? And she was assumed, she didn’t ascend.

God bless you,
a catholic Christian!
 
nkelly said:
What you’ve heard is wrong. You’ve been brainwashed or are reading the wrong material!

Re Mary’s assumption, just because something isn’t explicitly shown in the bible doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen!

**John21:25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.
**

Don’t you think Jesus would have taken His own mother into heaven instead of letting her rot in the grave?? And she was assumed, she didn’t ascend.

God bless you,
a catholic Christian!
Click to expand...
There are several issues I have with the Assumption which lead me to believe it is more an article of faith that Roman Catholics and others are obliged to believe because it is part of the Magisterium or because of the inertia of tradition than a belief based on reason.

I. The Bible does not clearly support it. The Revelations passage quoted is highly disputable and frankly bad exegesis. The early Church (first 300 years) clearly did not interpret these verses from Revelations as supporting the Assumption of Mary. Moreover, if it happened, why didn’t Paul mention it in any of his letters, some of which were written clearly late enough so that he could comment on it.
  1. External records at the time do not support it. Where is the support of Josephus or other historians at the time? Wouldn’t this be a noteworthy event?
  2. There is no support for this from the Early Church Fathers. According to New Advent, a Catholic website, there are 68 Church fathers, including the good and the great (e.g. Augustine, Jerome, Justin, Ignacius, Ireneas). None of these consents to the assumption of Mary. Indeed, none of these even mentions it! It is incredible to think that such an event was not newsworthy! Those Christian documents at the time of the supposed assumption, such as the Didache or I Clement make no mention whatsoever.
  3. The earliest documentation is over 300 years after the supposed Assumption. What historian would base a belief in such an extraordinary event occurring in the 1st century based on documentation from over 300 years later.
I am no fan of Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism (and I don’t really like the tone of Joseph Smith the poster). However, we should recognise that the testimony for the events surrounding Joseph Smith’s revelations are much better founded from a historical perspective than the assumption of Mary.

I pity those Roman Catholics that try to share their faith with a Non Christian. Accepting the resurrection is difficult enough, but is supported by internal evidence from the bible, external evidence from historians at the time (e.g. Josephus) and the testimony of early Christians beginning in the 1st century.

The assumption has none of the support that the Resurrection has.
 
The way I see it, Christ condemned such as the Pharisees for their letter-of-the-law adherence to the law, coupled with a lack of love and mercy. They had missed the point of the law in the first place.
This is the same interpretation exercise followed by the SS-ists, and it leads to less love for others, not a greater love for Christ. They do not love the Blessed Mother or the Saints that came before them, and they are wound so tightly around the Bible, that they can’t see the living souls through it.
Or as th.e saying goes, they can’t see the forest through the trees
 
Joseph_Smith said:
The Assumption of Mary (that she arose body and soul into Heaven after death). This was declared by Pope Pius the Twelvth in November, 1950.—Nowhere taught in Scripture. The Apostle John, to whom Christ commended His mother while He was on the cross, and who lived about 70 years after the crucifixion, who wrote five books of the New Testament, and in whose house Mary lived until she died, isn’t it strange that he never mentioned such a miracle? Because it never happened.
So this is what if not writen by the apostle paul who indeed lived with and cared for mary for all these many years.
Strange is it not that it took 1950 years for this new age teaching to find it way into the chruch. As it is not in scripture at all.
Click to expand...
the apostle Paul? where does it state in scripture that he cared for Mary? or that she lived with him? was it not John?
 
Joseph_Smith said:
Please do not assume catholic are christians. Christians have a new birth experence from what i have heard catholics do not.
Click to expand...
for you regarding the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin:

catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp

regarding scripture andtradition: catholic.com/library/scripture_tradition.asp

regarding salvation: catholic.com/library/salvation.asp

regarding God and Christ: catholic.com/library/god_christ.asp

regarding Church and Papacy: catholic.com/library/church_papacy.asp
 
No Mary did not ascend into heaven.
Mary was assumed, body and soul, into heaven by the action of her Son as a prefigurement of the resurrection of the body that will occur for all the faithful at the end of time. The doctrine of the Assumption is about Jesus and his saving power, it is not about Mary. She is the first fruit of the resurrection, as is also demonstrated in her being preserved, through the one sacrifice of her Son, free from original sin. His action in these salvific events is a demonstration through His divine power of the efficacy, universality and infinity of His saving Grace. She was the recipient of this saving Grace in her lifetime as evidence for us and promise of hope for us of our redemption, salvation, resurrection, and union with God in eternity. It is not about us, it is not about her, it is about Jesus bringing us into union with the Trinity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top