Eastern Orthodox Christians and the Immaculate Conception?

[dvdjs]

I think it will take a lot of time. Just look at the relationship between the Oriental Orthodox and the Chalcedonian Churches. Statements have been made that Chalcedonian Christology is compatible with miaphysite Christology, and yet there are no signs of any impending union.

In this situation the problem is compounded by the fact that whatever statements have been made, a finding of a Ecumenical Council holds otherwise. Fortunately that problem does not apply to the Catholics and EOs.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Vico;8842028]

There are many categories of dogma. Munificentissimus Deus includes the dogma de fide in the definition, I suppose that is what you are referring to as definite, and that is exactly what I posted also. The portion of Munificentissimus Deus outside of that is free opinion, but my point was that it is generally believed to be so. In earlier posts I gave the number of places where the death of the Theotokos is mentioned.

ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/p12munif.htm

Thank you Vico and others who have posted the dogtrine of the assumption.

The air needs to be cleared here, the doctrine gives numerous opinions and teachings from the early Fathers including the scholastic Fathers and saints. From these writings and teachings reveal their opinions of Mary’s assumption, which is not limited to death, bodily incorruptibility, Dormition and tomb.

What needs to be stated here that from these various teachings and traditions no one early church Fathers teaching surpasses all the others, even though each in their own right never conflict with one another from the apostolic faith.

What is evident from the doctrine which is revealed at the conclusion from the document, when the Church proclaims the doctrine of the assumption “combines” all the early Church Fathers teachings, traditions, liturgies, and apostolic revelations is summed up from the doctrine which no traditon, early church father teaching or opinion contradicts ever;

"that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory".

Let us not forget the context of the document when the Church dogamatically proclaimes the doctrine of the Assumption. She does not do it by isolating any one Church Father’s teaching, tradition, liturgy or opinion, she does in a way that unites all the faithful universally.

The document summarizes all the Early Church Fathers this way, before she proclaims the doctrine of the assumption.

1. All these proofs and considerations of the holy Fathers and the theologians are based upon the Sacred Writings as their ultimate foundation. These set the loving Mother of God as it were before our very eyes as most intimately joined to her divine Son and as always sharing his lot.

1. For which reason, after we have poured forth prayers of supplication again and again to God, and have invoked the light of the Spirit of Truth, for the glory of Almighty God who has lavished his special affection upon the Virgin Mary, for the honor of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages and the Victor over sin and death, for the increase of the glory of that same august Mother, and for the joy and exultation of the entire Church;** by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: **

that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.

For one to say the doctrinal “document” contents reveals Mary died for 3 days in a tomb, therefore is the only binding definition of the doctrine of the assumption is deceiving the doctrine and himself.

That is why when you and another poster posted the document, I revealed that the content of the document “appears” to be taken out of context here. Thus I posted the above, because no one contested the document being taken out of context.

Peace be with you

 

[Vico]

…

For one to say the doctrinal “document” contents reveals Mary died for 3 days in a tomb, therefore is the only binding definition of the doctrine of the assumption is deceiving the doctrine and himself.

That is why when you and another poster posted the document, I revealed that the content of the document “appears” to be taken out of context here. Thus I posted the above, because no one contested the document being taken out of context.

Peace be with you

Good commentary. I understand what you intent was to protect the faith. However I made it clear from the start that is was apart from the dogma de fide, but was commonly taught (east and west) that the Theotokos died.

 

[Ubenedictus]

Good commentary. I understand what you intent was to protect the faith. However I made it clear from the start that is was apart from the dogma de fide, but was commonly taught (east and west) that the Theotokos died.

well said, this thread reaveal that amid the cry in the west for unity the east has a cautious approach maybe even fear at time indifference or… I thought it was 2 churches seeking unity, now it seems … I hope the cry for unity is not just a child of the time, doomed to failure like those before it.
Ubenedictus

 

[Hesychios]

For one to say the doctrinal “document” contents reveals Mary died for 3 days in a tomb, therefore is the only binding definition of the doctrine of the assumption is deceiving the doctrine and himself.

That is why when you and another poster posted the document, I revealed that the content of the document “appears” to be taken out of context here. Thus I posted the above, because no one contested the document being taken out of context.

Peace be with you

Actually, I am sure most people will agree that the entire document was intended to GIVE context to the one-paragraph definition.

In other words, the interpretation of the Supreme Pontiff’s short definition should, if anything, refer directly to the context he himself gives it, which happens to be the traditional belief that she died, was buried, and was resurrected.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Actually, I am sure most people will agree that the entire document was intended to GIVE context to the one-paragraph definition.

In other words, the interpretation of the Supreme Pontiff’s short definition should, if anything, refer directly to the context he himself gives it, which happens to be the traditional belief that she died, was buried, and was resurrected.

I don’t know what a “Supreme Pontiff” is? So I would have to disagree with you on that matter.

The Bishop of Rome, however; as a brother among equals includes his writings with the Early Church Fathers. But it is the Pope “united” with all his brothers (magisterium) who settles the matter “infallibly” after the proclamation;

“that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory”.

This dogma unites all of the teachings, liturgies, opinions, homilies in every age of the Church Fathers, regarding the Assumption of the blessed Virgin Mary.

 

[GaryTaylor]

And here I thought the Assumption would be the easiest of the teachings.

I don’t see this glaring difference in either Church.

You guys ever read this? First time I came across this. Dates to the 6th century.

The Account of St. John the Theologian
of the Dormition of the Holy Mother of God

“And the Lord, speaking to His mother, said: Mary. And she answered and said: Here am I, Lord. And the Lord said to her: Grieve not, but let thy heart rejoice and be glad; for thou hast found grace to behold the glory given to me by my Father. And the holy mother of God looked up, and saw in Him a glory which it is impossible for the mouth of man to speak of, or to apprehend. And the Lord remained beside her, saying: Behold, from the present time thy precious body will be transferred to paradise, and thy holy soul to the heavens to the treasures of my Father in exceeding brightness, where there is peace and joy of the holy angels,-and other things besides. And the mother of the Lord answered and said to him: Lay Thy right hand upon me, O Lord, and bless me. And the Lord stretched forth His undefiled right hand, and blessed her. And she laid hold of His undefiled right hand, and kissed it, saying: I adore this right hand, which created the heaven and the earth; and I call upon Thy much to be praised name Christ, O God, the King of the ages, the only-begotten of the Father, to receive Thine handmaid, Thou who didst deign to be brought forth by me, in a low estate, to save the race of men through Thine ineffable dispensation; do Thou bestow Thine aid upon every man calling upon, or praying to, or naming the the name of, Thine handmaid. And while she is saying this, the apostles, having gone up to her feet and adored, say: O mother of the Lord, leave a blessing to the world, since thou art going away from it. For thou hast blessed it, and raised it up when it was ruined, by bringing forth the Light of the world. And the mother of the Lord prayed, and in her prayer spoke thus: O God, who through Thy great goodness hast sent from the heavens Thine only-begotten Son to dwell in my humble body, who hast deigned to be born of me, humble as I am, have mercy upon the world, and every soul that calls upon Thy name. And again she prayed, and said: O Lord, King of the heavens, Son of the living God, accept every man who calls upon Thy name, that Thy birth may be glorified. And again she prayed, and said: O Lord Jesus Christ, who art all-powerful in heaven and on earth, in this appeal I implore Thy holy name; in every time and place where there is made mention of my name, make that place holy, and glorify those that glorify Thee through my name, accepting of such persons all their offering, and all their supplication, and all their prayer. And when she had thus prayed, the Lord said to His mother: Let thy heart rejoice and be glad; for every favour and every gift has been given to thee from my Father in heaven, and from me, and from the Holy Spirit: every soul that calls upon thy name shall not be ashamed, but shall find mercy, and comfort, and support, and confidence, both in the world that now is, and in that which is to come, in the presence of my Father in the heavens.”

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

GaryTaylor;8849467]And here I thought the Assumption would be the easiest of the teachings.

I don’t see this glaring difference in either Church.

The doctrine of the assumption consumes them all. This is a good example of how the Chair of Peter works. The Orthodox Catholic faith since Pentecost has always expressed “unity” with the Chair of Peter and his successors in the popes.

What is enlightening is the fact that unity with the Popes allows each Church “tradition” in language, culture, liturgy, theology to be expressed from each ones own community. So that by this diversity united completes the apostolic teaching, “thou many members occupying different ministeries are all one body in Christ”, in one faith, one baptism, one Lord, when all are holding to the apostolic teachings and Traditions.

You guys ever read this? First time I came across this. Dates to the 6th century.

The Account of St. John the Theologian
of the Dormition of the Holy Mother of God

I think I have read variations of it, but this is the first time viewing it in complete written format.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The doctrine of the assumption consumes them all. This is a good example of how the Chair of Peter works. The Orthodox Catholic faith since Pentecost has always expressed “unity” with the Chair of Peter and his successors in the popes.

What is enlightening is the fact that unity with the Popes allows each Church “tradition” in language, culture, liturgy, theology to be expressed from each ones own community. So that by this diversity united completes the apostolic teaching, “thou many members occupying different ministeries are all one body in Christ”, in one faith, one baptism, one Lord, when all are holding to the apostolic teachings and Traditions.

I think I have read variations of it, but this is the first time viewing it in complete written format.

I agree, you know what becomes another issue of the two churchs is confusion in the East thinking of Liturgy and West thinking of Mass. Really when we look at these aspects there’s difference all the way around due to the change’s in Hymns, Prayers, Music and preference. However, what remains consistant is the Sacrament of the Liturgy. Thats the focus. Not that we, through time devoloped a Gregorian Chant, and the Beauty of the Byzantine Liturgy which in essense is then the entire Mass. These all extend to the time of the Church when they were allowed to build great Basillica’s and Eastern Churchs and use pipe organs etc,etc, etc. All great and well and fine.

The point to me always comes back to that early church of immediately after Christ and those 300-years. Thats where I remain focused. Their in this realm we see no difference in the churchs. It simple doesn’t exist. There has always been culture, ethnic variance etc. This is just normal. Can we actually expect all cultures to concede to exactly what we believe in this aspect? Sure in the Sacrement of the Liturgy, but the rest? Its a very cultural aspect.

We all made human mistakes in different areas of the Apostolic Churchs. I’m sure thats all it comes down to. We can’t not expect this. Its happened Biblically throughout. There’s no better example than King David. We are dealing with human beings.

We also can’t overlook the fact that the church of Rome in many regards has through time been given the opportunity to continue to place in perspective Oral/Written Tradition. Unfortunate many other Apostolic Churchs have been under persecution. Russia just came out of persecution. So we need to really look at and understand what is being said and how it coincides with as early as we can date tradition both written and oral, and how its coincides with scripture and history.

Change doesn’t come easy, look how long the civil rights movements took in the USA, hundreds of years, and abortion with Roe vs Wade is already moving to the 1/2 century mark. Its another civil rights attrocity. And this is just the interior USA. We now are talking unity of thinking in the World-Wide Church in threads as these.

I believe in that regard the effort has to be the foward push. None of us may live to see this, in fact we probly won’t. But we owe it to mankind to unite the Churchs, its the only aspect with constantly brings civil out of savage.

Theirs a thousand years of fustration in this regard aside from the diabolic disorientation which would chose to never see the Churchs united. Thats what leads to climatic fustration on these threads, how could it not exist? Somehow this one has been slightly different, I don’t know how, I can’t pin it down, but I feel it. Yet it exists not in unity but in honest observation of the truth, and to be able to proceed in charity. We must admit once thats lost, minds are closed by fustration, hurt etc. And its just normal. So there’s a respect that has to be granted before any progress can be made. Truth is I see no dividing issues in what we’ve discussed here. Not that there are not any, I don’t see them in this regard though.

Papal Infallibility is another area which needs address from reading this thread, however, thats not the context of this thread. To me this is what seems to be the real issue that divides.

Peace

 

[Hesychios]

And here I thought the Assumption would be the easiest of the teachings.

I don’t see this glaring difference in either Church.

The problem is that officially your church supports the Orthodox traditional understanding (as made clear in the bull by Pope Pius), but many Roman Catholics are attempting to set aside important aspects of the traditional understanding, with the claim that the church admits it’s ok to do so.

Why do your coreligionists want to have the right to think the BVM did not die? What are they trying to do?

What point is there in denying the historical reality of her death? What is wrong with admitting the truth of the history of the BVM and recounting the story entirely as given to us by the Apostles? Why not accept the account whole and entire?

Why accept part of the Apostles testimony and deny the rest?

Why do you and other Roman Catholics defend this practice among your coreligionists of dismissing traditional teaching and shifting the emphasis?

I would very much like to see an explanation of this thinking.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The problem is that officially your church supports the Orthodox traditional understanding (as made clear in the bull by Pope Pius), but many Roman Catholics are attempting to set aside important aspects of the traditional understanding, with the claim that the church admits it’s ok to do so.

Why do your coreligionists want to have the right to think the BVM did not die? What are they trying to do?

What point is there in denying the historical reality of her death? What is wrong with admitting the truth of the history of the BVM and recounting the story entirely as given to us by the Apostles? Why not accept the account whole and entire?

Why accept part of the Apostles testimony and deny the rest?

Why do you and other Roman Catholics defend this practice among your coreligionists of dismissing traditional teaching and shifting the emphasis?

I would very much like to see an explanation of this thinking.

Actually MIchael I usually try to bring it back to that area of teaching, to me my belief would be no different than yours here. Its a good question nevertheless. In some regards as to the Pope in this time frame we are left with only his words, which often times are not as clearly defined as we would like, or at least not from what I have seen thus far. So when Pope Pius left a variance to view the Dormition, I really have no depth of thought to the other side of his thinking but what I mentioned earlier. Unfortunately I believe exactly as you do here so I would have to do in-depth research in that regard. For anything in that aspect which I have spoken on in this thread is very light research. And only a window into what he could have possibly been thinking.

 

[Hesychios]

Actually MIchael I usually try to bring it back to that area of teaching, to me my belief would be no different than yours here. Its a good question nevertheless. In some regards as to the Pope in this time frame we are left with only his words, which often times are not as clearly defined as we would like, or at least not from what I have seen thus far. So when Pope Pius left a variance to view the Dormition, I really have no depth of thought to the other side of his thinking but what I mentioned earlier. Unfortunately I believe exactly as you do here so I would have to do in-depth research in that regard. For anything in that aspect which I have spoken on in this thread is very light research. And only a window into what he could have possibly been thinking.

Actually, I am not asking about what the Pope thought. It is clear that whatever he may have wanted to think, when confronted with the overwhelming patristic evidence he had to give a nod to the early church tradition of her death, burial and resurrection and he did, citing many patristic affirmations of this within the Bull itself. I sympathise with him.

But I am asking why a faction of Roman Catholics want to have the freedom to believe that the BVM did not in fact die. What does it matter if they are free to believe that Pope John Paul II did not die, or the moon is made of green cheese (or not), or whether the earth is flat or hollow? Why insist on it, why fight for it?

Then why do other Roman Catholics seem to say “that’s ok, you believe what you want - I’m ok, you’re ok” or “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it”.

http://www.transfiguration.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Icon_Dormition_02-300x225.jpg

Why dissect the early tradition of the church and say “I want to believe this part, but I don’t want to have to believe that part” ? Why pick around so hard for a loophole? Strange.

If you don’t know and I don’t know, then who here does know?

 

[dvdjs]

… when confronted with the overwhelming patristic evidence … the early church tradition of her death, burial and resurrection …

why a faction of Roman Catholics want to have the freedom to believe that the BVM did not in fact die. What does it matter if they are free to believe that Pope John Paul II did not die, or the moon is made of green cheese (or not), or whether the earth is flat or hollow? Why insist on it, why fight for it?

Why dissect the early tradition of the church and say “I want to believe this part, but I don’t want to have to believe that part” ? Why pick around so hard for a loophole? Strange.

If you don’t know and I don’t know, then who here does know?

This is maddening. You have presented little of nothing of the history of the development of the thinking of the church on this matter. So let’s start at the beginning, with what is acknowledged as the earliest extant consideration of the matter:

Epiphanius (c. >310 - 403 AD)

St. Epiphanius of Salamis, in a digression typical of his Medicine Chest …:

"But if some think us mistaken, let them search the Scriptures. They will not find Mary's death; they will not find whether she died or did not die; they will not find whether she was buried or was not buried. ... Rather, Scripture is absolutely silent [on the end of Mary] because of the extraordinary nature of the prodigy, in order not to shock the minds of men.

"For my own part, I do not dare to speak, but I keep my own thoughts and I practice silence. For it may be that somewhere we have found hints that it is impossible to discover the death of the holy, blessed one. On the one hand, you see, Simeon says of her, 'And your own soul a sword shall pierce, that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed' (Luke 2:35). On the other hand, when the Apocalypse of John says, 'And the dragon hastened against the woman who had brought forth the male child, and there were given to her an eagle's wings, and she was carried off into the wilderness, that the dragon might not seize her' (Rev 12:13-14), it may be that this is fulfilled in her.

"However, I do not assert this absolutely, and I do not say that she remained immortal; but neither do I maintain stoutly that she died. ...."

Twelve chapters later Epiphanius returns briefly to the problem of Mary’s end:

"....either the holy Virgin died and was buried; then her falling asleep was with honor, her death chaste, her crown that of virginity. Or she was killed, as it is written: 'And your own soul a sword shall pierce'; then her glory is among the martyrs and her holy body amid blessings, she through whom light rose over the world. Or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and He can do whatever He desires; for her end no one knows...."

The testimony of Epiphanius is crucial for two reasons. Before Ephesus he alone deals expressly with the problem at issue; and he knows the Holy City and its traditions as few others of his time. It is the more regrettable, therefore, that his witness is so vague that several interpretations of his thought are possible. As a defensible exegesis I submit three points.

1. How did Mary end her life? Epiphanius does not know. There are three possibilities: natural death, bloody martyrdom, deathless immortality. Of these, it is illegitimate to exclude any, illegitimate to impose any.
2. In any event, the end of Mary’s life on earth was worthy of God and in harmony with her dignity and holiness.
3. Epiphanius’ importance lies in this, that he has posed the problem and allowed us to glimpse the possible solutions.

It is not difficult to see in him the first theologian of the Assumption, in the sense that he had an intuition of the mystery and was fascinated by it.

philvaz.com/apologetics/AssumptionMaryJuniperCarolMariology.htm
See also: * On the dormition of Mary: early patristic homilies*, edited by Brian Daley

Do you have evidence for an earlier, existing tradition - that somehow had completely escaped Epiphanius? Or do you want to have the freedom to believe that the BVM did in fact die? Why do you make unsupported claims about the tradition of the early church?

And most importantly, what does it matter anyway? While some fascinating albeit mutually exclusive stories evolved over the centuries, they are not part of the the Eastern liturgical tradition, which instead focuses on the triumph over death - the “deathless dormition” and the translation, at that time, to heaven. That is the critical matter of faith: the issue of death is moot. And that perspective is not only consistent with contemporary Orthodox liturgical texts, but also with the earliest writings from Palestine.

Why on earth would anyone want ot take a dogmatic stand on this matter?

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I am waiting for this thread to reach the 500 post mark …

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

This is maddening. You have presented little of nothing of the history of the development of the thinking of the church on this matter. So let’s start at the beginning, with what is acknowledged as the earliest extant consideration of the matter:

philvaz.com/apologetics/AssumptionMaryJuniperCarolMariology.htm
See also: * On the dormition of Mary: early patristic homilies*, edited by Brian Daley

Do you have evidence for an earlier, existing tradition - that somehow had completely escaped Epiphanius? Or do you want to have the freedom to believe that the BVM did in fact die? Why do you make unsupported claims about the tradition of the early church?

And most importantly, what does it matter anyway? While some fascinating albeit mutually exclusive stories evolved over the centuries, they are not part of the the Eastern liturgical tradition, which instead focuses on the triumph over death - the “deathless dormition” and the translation, at that time, to heaven. That is the critical matter of faith: the issue of death is moot. And that perspective is not only consistent with contemporary Orthodox liturgical texts, but also with the earliest writings from Palestine.

Why on earth would anyone want ot take a dogmatic stand on this matter?

I would yeild to your post, that sums up my position, all the while that my questions of Mary’s death, mortality, corruption have not been answered by either Orthodox/ Byzantine.

I would conclude from your excellent post and resource. That although our “faith” is expressed differently from our language, cultures and theology. Neither ones faith **contradict **apostolic Tradition and sacred Scripture. Even though Mary’s death is never revealed from scripture, the ending of a believers life in Christ is definitely revealed in scripture including the resurrection.

I only speak for my myself here, because the Church allows me the freedom to express my Catholic faith in the assumption just as our early Church Fathers once did including the Popes.

I don’t express my Catholic faith in Mary die-ing, I express my faith in the assumption of Mary from the works of God through her, inorder to assume her body, soul into heaven. Mary is not dead, that is the focus and expression of my Catholic faith. Others may express their faith in Mary “died” to lift their faith and express God’s works in this wonderful way, how God raised Mary from death into heaven both body and soul.

One cannot condemn another Catholic when the Church has the freedom to express the assumption of Mary so long as it does not conflict with the doctrine, sacred scripture, sacred Tradition.

I believe the difference is how the expression of faith is made in the assumption of Mary. This difference of faith expressed never justifies nor welcomes criticism, again so long as the expression of faith does not conflict with what is revealed by God.

Good post thank you dvdjs:thumbsup:

 

[Ubenedictus]

I don’t know what a “Supreme Pontiff” is? So I would have to disagree with you on that matter.

The Bishop of Rome, however; as a brother among equals includes his writings with the Early Church Fathers. But it is the Pope “united” with all his brothers (magisterium) who settles the matter “infallibly” after the proclamation;

“that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory”.

This dogma unites all of the teachings, liturgies, opinions, homilies in every age of the Church Fathers, regarding the Assumption of the blessed Virgin Mary.

This will lead us very far from the topic but i thought the real thing is ‘the bishop of rome is the greatest among equal’ and not ’ a brother among equals’, pls am i wrong?
Ubenedictus

 

[GaryTaylor]

This will lead us very far from the topic but i thought the real thing is ‘the bishop of rome is the greatest among equal’ and not ’ a brother among equals’, pls am i wrong?
Ubenedictus

First among equals is the Council term your probly thinking of.

 

[Ubenedictus]

First among equals is the Council term your probly thinking of.

Yeah u got the real words ‘first among equals’ that’s was i was looking for.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

This will lead us very far from the topic but i thought the real thing is ‘the bishop of rome is the greatest among equal’ and not ’ a brother among equals’, pls am i wrong?
Ubenedictus

Gary Taylor gave us the correct wording first among equals. Forgive me if I mispoke when I was referencing as to the writings of all ECF’s writings and the bishop of Rome writings as being equal so as to implicate the Chair of Peter as being primacy united to his brethren to proclaim doctrine “excathedra” from the Chair of Peter as infallible to be without error proves the doctrine of the assumption unites all the ECF’s to the Chair of Peter in the Popes who is the bishop of Rome.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

This thread has introduced the traditional writings of the ECF’s in the assumption, I would like to add a few scriptures that supports our Catholic faith in the assumption of Mary into heaven body and soul.

 Luke 1: 49 **The Mighty One has done great things for me, **..52 **He has thrown down the rulers from their thrones but lifted up the lowly. **

1Thessalonians 5: 9 For God did not destine us for wrath, but to gain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, 10 who died for us, **so that whether we are awake or asleep we may live together with him. **

1Corithinians 15: 51 **Behold, I tell you a mystery. We shall not all fall asleep, but we will all be changed, 52 in an instant, in the blink of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. **.. 55 **Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?" **56** The sting of death is sin, **27 and the power of sin is the law.

Mathew 27; 50 But Jesus cried out again in a loud voice, and gave up his spirit. 51 And behold, the veil of the sanctuary was torn in two from top to bottom. 31 The earth quaked, rocks were split, 52** tombs were opened, and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised. **

Acts 8: 38 Then he ordered the chariot to stop, and Philip and the eunuch both went down into the water, and he baptized him. 39 When they came out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord snatched Philip away, and the eunuch saw him no more, but continued on his way rejoicing.

Revelations 11: 7 When they have finished their testimony,…11 But after the three and a half days, a breath of life from God entered them. When they stood on their feet, great fear fell on those who saw them.
12 Then they heard a loud voice from heaven say to them**,“Come up here.” So they went up to heaven in a cloud **as their enemies looked on.

Song of Songs 2: 1 I am a flower of Sharon,a lily of the valley. 2 As a lily among thorns, so is my beloved among women. 3 I delight to rest in his shadow, 4 He brings me into the banquet hall
and his emblem over me is love.

Psalms 45; 10…a princess arrayed in Ophir’s gold comes to stand at your right hand.
14 All glorious is the king’s daughter as she enters, her raiment threaded with gold; 15
In embroidered apparel she is led to the king. 18 I will make your name renowned through all generations; thus nations shall praise you forever.

This prophecy is fulfilled in Luke 1: 46 And Mary said: 16 "My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord; 47 my spirit rejoices in God my savior. 48 **For he has looked upon his handmaid’s lowliness; behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed. 49 The Mighty One has done great things for me, and holy is his name. 50 His mercy is from age to age to those who fear him. 51 He has shown might with his arm, dispersed the arrogant of mind and heart. **

Isaiah 62: 3 **You shall be a glorious crown in the hand of the LORD, a royal diadem held by your God. 4 No more shall men call you “Forsaken,” **or your land “Desolate,” But you shall be called “My Delight,” and your land “Espoused.” For the LORD delights in you,
and makes your land his spouse. 5 As a young man marries a virgin, your Builder shall marry you; And as a bridegroom rejoices in his bride so shall your God rejoice in you.

Psalms 132: 8** “Arise, LORD, come to your resting place, you and your majestic ark**.
9 Your priests will be clothed with justice; your faithful will shout for joy.” 10 For the sake of David your servant, do not reject your anointed.

2 Maccabees 2: 4 The same document also tells how the prophet, following a divine revelation, ordered that the tent and the ark should accompany him and how he went off to the mountain which Moses climbed to see God’s inheritance. 5 **When Jeremiah arrived there, he found a room in a cave in which he put the tent, the ark, and the altar of incense; then he blocked up the entrance. 6 Some of those who followed him came up intending to mark the path, but they could not find it. 7 When Jeremiah heard of this, he reproved them: "The place is to remain unknown until God gathers his people together again and shows them mercy. **

REVELATIONS 11; 19 **Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant could be seen in the temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, and peals of thunder, an earthquake, and a violent hailstorm.
12;1 A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. **

Hebrews 11:1 Faith is the realization of what is hoped for and evidence of things not seen. 2 Because of it the ancients were well attested. 3 By faith we understand that the universe was ordered by the word of God, 3 so that what is visible came into being through the invisible.