John Pipers "The Passion of Christ"

[OpusDei]

New_Life:

Ok. Let’s start off real simple then. Could you show where in the Bible (solid exegesis please) is Mary’s bodily assumption taught? Also, can you provide a few early church fathers who taught and believed that Mary was bodily assumed into heaven? That shouldn’t be too difficult. I mean, Roman Catholicism claims that this particular doctrine is a part of the gospel of Jesus Christ, right? So, where is it?

Excerpts taken from ‘Unabridged Christianity’ by Fr. Mario Romero

1. The NT clearly shows that it is possible for the faithful to experience bodily resurrection before the 2nd Coming of Christ. Matt 27:52-53: Tombs were opened, and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised…
2. In the 2nd Book of Kings we read that the Prophet Elijah was taken up (assumed) into heaven body and soul.
3. In the Book of Genesis we read that Enoch was taken up (assumed) into heaven.
4. In the Book of Revelation we read about St. John’s description of a vision that he had of heaven, including the “woman clothed with the sun…she gave birth to a son, a male child, destined to rule all nations with an iron rod.”
5. Early Christians such as St. Epiphanius of Salamis (375 AD), Quodvultdeus (450 AD), and Andrew of Caesarea (550 AD) saw this “woman” in heaven as the Blessed Virgin Mary, assumed into heaven body and soul, with her Son, Jesus
6. St. Gregory of Tours wrote of her Assumption in his Eight Books of Miracles (580 AD)
7. St. John Damascene did the same in his Second Homily on the Dormition of Mary (745 AD)

 

[DianJo]

New_Life:

Ok. Let’s start off real simple then. Could you show where in the Bible (solid exegesis please) is Mary’s bodily assumption taught? Also, can you provide a few early church fathers who taught and believed that Mary was bodily assumed into heaven? That shouldn’t be too difficult. I mean, Roman Catholicism claims that this particular doctrine is a part of the gospel of Jesus Christ, right? So, where is it?

No, it is not part of the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is A teaching of the church. It was something that everybody knew and took for granted at the time, it was a widely known and accepted teaching understood by everyone and attested to by the apostle John since he was appointed to care for her by Jesus.

This teaching (devotion) does not go against anything said about her in the Bible and it does not distract from what is God’s alone because we do not worship her. I will look up what the church fathers say about it and refer you (I’m at work right now and can’t do it now). There will probably be referrals on the main CA page. I could re-type all the teaching but that would be inefficient. Go to the main CA home page, Library, Mary & the Saints and all the teaching is there and explained beautifully. The post previous to this gives some excellent biblical examples as well as early writings.
Sorry to be pessimistic, but this probably won’t suffice, will it?
You certaily don’t have to agree but at least you know that it’s not fiction.

 

[DianJo]

Just so you know, the verse in 1st. Timothy that I just quoted is sometimes used by more liberal scholars to argue that 1st. Timothy was not even written by Paul because they would argue that the book of Luke did not exist yet. Others argue that it is a quote of the OT, though I think the argument for this being the case is quite weak. The case for it being a quote of Luke 10:7 is quite a bit more compelling IMO.

kenThat quote of Luke 10:7 was quoted in Luke but attributed to Jesus, so Paul’s usage of it would’ve been that he was quoting Jesus not Luke since Luke hadn’t written anything yet?

I think this poor thread got hijacked!!

 

[DianJo]

quijote:

As I recall, there were many extra-biblical books floating around during the first few centuries (like the gospel of Thomas, the gospel of Peter, etc…) and there was no agreement by all Christians on which books were truly inspired and which were not. Along comes the councils of Hippo and Carthage (394AD? 398AD?) and the question was settled.

I have read claims of an earlier council in Rome and something done by Pope Damasus, but I have not been able to double check it.

Cheers.

The Canon of Scripture was defined at the Council of Rome in 382 AD, Pope Damascus presiding. Later the New Testament was defined, I think around 400 AD. SEE ANOTHER TRACT - HISTORY OF THE BIBLE.

 

[II_Paradox_II]

That quote of Luke 10:7 was quoted in Luke but attributed to Jesus, so Paul’s usage of it would’ve been that he was quoting Jesus not Luke since Luke hadn’t written anything yet?

Paul was quoting Luke who was quoting Jesus. Since he said that “the scriptures say” he can’t have been quoting Jesus directly because Jesus isn’t scripture.

As for the comments about the liberal scholar, my point was that some scholars have argued that Paul didn’t write 1st Timothy and they cite this quote of Luke 10:7 as an example. Since they assume that Luke was written after Paul died (as you do), they argue that Paul cannot have written 1st Timothy because the book didn’t exist yet to quote.

Of course, I’d disagree with their presupposition that Luke was written after Paul died.

I think this poor thread got hijacked!!

that we do agree on…


ken

 

[DianJo]

As for the comments about the liberal scholar, my point was that some scholars have argued that Paul didn’t write 1st Timothy and they cite this quote of Luke 10:7 as an example. Since they assume that Luke was written after Paul died (as you do), they argue that Paul cannot have written 1st Timothy because the book didn’t exist yet to quote.

Point taken, there is disagreement. Now I see where you were coming from! Thanks!

 

[New_Life]

Here is my challenge, as posted in a previous post to DianJo:

New_Life:

Could you show where in the Bible (solid exegesis please) is Mary’s bodily assumption taught? Also, can you provide a few early church fathers who taught and believed that Mary was bodily assumed into heaven?

You responded:

OpusDei:

Excerpts taken from ‘Unabridged Christianity’ by Fr. Mario Romero

1. The NT clearly shows that it is possible for the faithful to experience bodily resurrection before the 2nd Coming of Christ. Matt 27:52-53: Tombs were opened, and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised…

I agree that Matthew says “many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised” (v. 52, ESV) during the time of Jesus’ death and resurrection. According to my knowledge, Mary had not experienced death before this event but was alive and well before and immediately after Jesus’ death and resurrection (she does see the risen Lord). So, what does this have to do with the alledged bodily assumption of Mary?

Is it “possible for the faithful to experience bodily resurrection before the 2nd Coming of Christ”? I’m not sure who you define as “the faithful,” but if you are specifically referring to those who Scripture plainly shows received the mircale of resurrection, then I see no objection. But again, I’m not asking for evidence that God can and has resurrected people; what I’m asking for is direct Scriptural teaching that Mary was bodily assumed into heaven. So far, this first attempt has fallen short.

OpusDei:

1. In the 2nd Book of Kings we read that the Prophet Elijah was taken up (assumed) into heaven body and soul.
2. In the Book of Genesis we read that Enoch was taken up (assumed) into heaven.

The Scriptures plainly teach that these men were taken up to heaven (Gen. 5:24 cf. Heb. 11:5; 2 Kings 2:1,11,12). I’m not asking for proof that God took someone into heaven bodily; I’m asking for Biblical proof that Mary was bodily assumed into heaven. These 2nd and 3rd attempts have failed to substantiate Rome’s claim.

OpusDei:

1. In the Book of Revelation we read about St. John’s description of a vision that he had of heaven, including the “woman clothed with the sun…she gave birth to a son, a male child, destined to rule all nations with an iron rod.”

Even if I grant the premise that this nameless “woman” in Revelation 12:1-17 is referring to Mary (which I do not for several Biblical reasons), how does it follow that these verses show (or even hint) that this “woman” was bodily assumed when no indication of the means of her appearance in heaven is given? Looks like another attempt at proving Rome’s doctrine from Scripture has failed.

Continued on next post…

 

[New_Life]

5. Early Christians such as St. Epiphanius of Salamis (375 AD), Quodvultdeus (450 AD), and Andrew of Caesarea (550 AD) saw this “woman” in heaven as the Blessed Virgin Mary, assumed into heaven body and soul, with her Son, Jesus.

How the Church Fathers interpreted the identity of the women in Revelation 12 is not much of a concern at this moment (though we can look at this further if you’d like, for many of the Church Father’s viewed the woman in Rev. 12 as being “God’s people”). I would like to see those quotes where those Christians teach that in Rev. 12, Mary was “bodily assumed” into heaven. Note: we have now left the Scriptures in search of the bodily assumption of Mary in tradition.

6. St. Gregory of Tours wrote of her Assumption in his Eight Books of Miracles (580 AD)

1. St. John Damascene did the same in his Second Homily on the Dormition of Mary (745 AD)

I would like to see these passages from these fathers. Might I point out, that if these Fathers do teach that Mary was bodily assumed, I must ask, why isn’t this teaching found in Tradition before the 6th or 8th century? That I’m aware of, no early church father ever taught such a thing.

In conclusion, we have yet to see any positive evidence from Scripture that Mary was bodily assumed into heaven. That’s because the Scriptures don’t teach it. Now, looking at Tradition, this idea probably can be found (as mentioned above - I have yet to read those sources) in the 6th or 8th century. The fact is that no early church father new or taught that Mary was bodily assumed into heaven. If so, what happened to the transmission of Sacred Tradition? And why doesn’t anyone one for about 500 years after Christ even mention it, if it was being handed down, from generation to generation?

 

[New_Life]

Speaking of the bodily assumption of Mary, you said the following:

DianJo:

It was something that everybody knew and took for granted at the time, it was a widely known and accepted teaching understood by everyone and attested to by the apostle John since he was appointed to care for her by Jesus.

That sounds really good, but I have yet to see any evidence for such claims. Scriptures don’t teach it and the early church didn’t even mention it. You claim it was “widely known” and it was “accepted teaching understood by everyone”. Where are you getting this information from? What’s most interesting is that you claim the bodily assumption was “attested to by the apostle John”! John doesn’t mention any of this in Scripture so you must be referring to “Tradition,” and how this belief must have been passed down by John himself. Well, if this is so, I would like to see evidence of this passing down of information, beginning from the early church.

DianJo:

I will look up what the church fathers say about it and refer you (I’m at work right now and can’t do it now). There will probably be referrals on the main CA page. I could re-type all the teaching but that would be inefficient. Go to the main CA home page, Library, Mary & the Saints and all the teaching is there and explained beautifully. The post previous to this gives some excellent biblical examples as well as early writings.
Sorry to be pessimistic, but this probably won’t suffice, will it?
You certaily don’t have to agree but at least you know that it’s not fiction.

I went to the CA website and looked at what they had to say about Mary’s bodily assumption. Unfortunately, no Scripture was presented which taught such a doctrine, nor did I find any early church fathers mentioned who believed it. I looked at **OpusDei **resopnse above (his first 3 points were mentioned in CA’s discussion of the bodily Assumption of Mary) and responded accordingly. So far, this doctrine does seem to be absent from early Christianity.

 

[OpusDei]

New_Life:

In conclusion, we have yet to see any positive evidence from Scripture that Mary was bodily assumed into heaven. That’s because the Scriptures don’t teach it. Now, looking at Tradition, this idea probably can be found (as mentioned above - I have yet to read those sources) in the 6th or 8th century. The fact is that no early church father new or taught that Mary was bodily assumed into heaven. If so, what happened to the transmission of Sacred Tradition? And why doesn’t anyone one for about 500 years after Christ even mention it, if it was being handed down, from generation to generation?

I disagree with your notion that the Assumption of Mary was not accepted until the 6th Century. The Trinity was note defined until Nicea in 325; does that mean it wasn’t accepted until that time? Does it pass your test as being Scriptural, not being implicitly defined in the Bible? The Divinity of the Holy Spirit was not defined until 381 in Constantinople. Yet you believe it, right?

My mentioning of various other biblical figures being assumed points to the argument that if Elijah, Enoch and others were assumed; would Jesus deny the same honor to His own mother? I don’t think so. And oral tradition bears this out. The practice of honoring relics of saints dates to the earliest Christians; where are Mary’s?

You seem to be selective in your acceptance of oral Traditions of the Catholic Church. You do, after all, accept the Tradition of the Trinity, the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, the two natures of Christ and, of course the Canon of Scripture; which are not implicitly defined in Scripture. Why not Marian doctrine?

As to earlier Church Fathers, I will find some. However, what is your definition of early? 100 AD? 200? 300? Be careful of your answer, you may knock out some of the very things YOU believe!

God bless!

 

[New_Life]

OpusDei:

I disagree with your notion that the Assumption of Mary was not accepted until the 6th Century.
The Trinity was note defined until Nicea in 325; does that mean it wasn’t accepted until that time? Does it pass your test as being Scriptural, not being implicitly defined in the Bible? The Divinity of the Holy Spirit was not defined until 381 in Constantinople. Yet you believe it, right?

The doctrine of the Trinity affirms the clear Biblical teaching of the distinct personhood and Deity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Though the Bible doesn’t mention the word “Trinity,” the verses which teach this truth are all over the place in Scripture. Also, the early Church recognized this truth as well, since they constantly affirmed the deity and distinct personhood of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (we can look at their quotes if you’d like). But the Bible doesn’t even talk at all about Mary being bodily assumed into heaven (neither implicitly or explicitly), nor do the early church fathers - no one! Your comparing the bodily assumption of Mary with the doctrine of the Trinity is, quite simply, ridiculous.

OpusDei:

My mentioning of various other biblical figures being assumed points to the argument that if Elijah, Enoch and others were assumed; would Jesus deny the same honor to His own mother? I don’t think so. And oral tradition bears this out. The practice of honoring relics of saints dates to the earliest Christians; where are Mary’s?

But that argument is baseless. It simply does not follow that if Elijah and Enoch were assumed then Mary must necessarily be bodily assumed too! Where is this evidence in Scripture or early tradition? Let me illustrate: Elijah and Enoch were sinners, then of course it must follow that Mary was a sinner. Don’t agree? I didn’t think so. This type of logic simply does not hold. God did many things for many people in the Old and New Testaments, it simply doesn’t follow that he then must have done those particular things for Mary as well.

Continued…

 

[New_Life]

OpusDei:

You seem to be selective in your acceptance of oral Traditions of the Catholic Church. You do, after all, accept the Tradition of the Trinity, the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, the two natures of Christ and, of course the Canon of Scripture; which are not implicitly defined in Scripture. Why not Marian doctrine?

I accept the Trinity because the Bible plainly teaches it, along with the divinity of the Holy Spirit, and the hypostatic union of Christ. The Canon wasn’t given by the Roman Catholic church, God lead the early church to recognize his inspired word. Marian doctrine is simply not taught in Scripture (explicitly or implicitly) and comparing that with the Trinity or Deity of Christ is a sad thing to see.

OpusDei:

As to earlier Church Fathers, I will find some. However, what is your definition of early? 100 AD? 200? 300? Be careful of your answer, you may knock out some of the very things YOU believe!
God bless!

Such a doctrine, if it were true, would clearly be evidenced by the early church (let’s say up to 500 AD) - I mean, wouldn’t such an amazing tradition be attested to by the early church fathers? But whatever you can find within the first 1000 years after Christ would be helpful.

 

[hlgomez]

New Life,

I have a question for you. In your responses, you are always saying “the early Church has… blah, blah, blah…” Don’t you realize that you are referring to the Catholic Church? Don’t just be biased with your “historical” assumption because you don’t like Catholicism.

YOU CANNOT DENY THAT WHEN YOU REFER TO THE “EARLY CHURCH” YOU ARE REFERRINGTO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH! Don’t deny that fact!

Also, if you are the Lord, would you just say to your mother, “stay there on earth while I’m up here sitting on my throne.” The Catholic Church has come to that Christ, being in the line of King David, would have his mother the queen be seated at his side. That’s the biblical truth! You read the history of King Solomon, his mother Bathseba, being queen, is seated right next to his throne! Don’t you think Christ the King will also bestow that honor to his Mother, Mary the Queen?

You cannot put your mind in Christ! Honor his mother as He honors her!

God bless,

Pio

 

[OpusDei]

New_Life:

Such a doctrine, if it were true, would clearly be evidenced by the early church (let’s say up to 500 AD) - I mean, wouldn’t such an amazing tradition be attested to by the early church fathers? But whatever you can find within the first 1000 years after Christ would be helpful.

You asked for it:

St. John Damascene (676-754 A.D.): “It was fitting that she, who had kept her virginity intact in childbirth, should keep her own body free from all corruption even after death. It was fitting that she, who had carried the Creator as a child at her breast, should dwell in the divine tabernacles. It was fitting that the spouse, whom the Father had taken to himself, should live in the divine mansions. It was fitting that she, who had seen her Son upon the cross and who had thereby received into her heart the sword of sorrow which she had escaped in the act of giving birth to him, should look upon him as he sits with the Father. It was fitting that God’s Mother should possess what belongs to her Son, and that she should be honored by every creature as the Mother and as the handmaid of God.”

St. Germanus I (715 A.D.): “You are she who, as it is written, appears in beauty, and your virginal body is all holy, all chaste, entirely the dwelling place of God, so that it is henceforth completely exempt from dissolution into dust. Though still human, it is changed into the heavenly life of incorruptibility, truly living and glorious, undamaged and sharing in perfect life.”

St. Andrew of Crete (650-720 A.D.), St. Modestus of Jerusalem, and as mentioned earlier, St. Gregory of Tours all spoke, and or wrote, about the Assumption.

Continued…

 

[OpusDei]

Not early enough for you?

Bishop Theoteknos of Livias (c. 550- 650) delivered one of the most comprehensive early sermons concerning the Assumption: “For Christ took His immaculate flesh from the immaculate flesh of Mary, and if He had prepared a place in heaven for the Apostles, how much more for His mother; if Enoch had been translated and Elijah had gone to heaven, how much more Mary, who like the moon in the midst of the stars shines forth and excels among the prophets and Apostles? For even though her God-bearing body tasted death, it did not undergo corruption, but was preserved incorrupt and undefiled and taken up into heaven with its pure and spotless soul.”

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.

The Byzantine Emperor Mauritius (582-602) established the celebration of the Dormition of the Blessed Virgin Mary on August 15 for the Eastern Church. By the end of the 6th century, the West likewise celebrated the Feast of the Assumption.

I recommend you read *MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS by Pope Pius XII, *which I relied upon for this post. Many more Church fathers are mentioned. This has been a belief of the Catholic Church from its earliest days, if you choose to be blind to it, that is your choice…but history certainly does not support your position.

Peace in Christ

 

[hlgomez]

Brother New Life,
I have so many things to tell you about our holy mother Mary that I am not able to write everything here. But before I go on, I want to tell you that Mary, being the mother of God, is your mother too. You may disagree with me on that but that’s the real truth for every Christians. Don’t underestimate her role in Christianity, lest you wake up one day and realize that you are attacking the mother of our Saviour, your mother too (being the brother of our Lord as you may claim).
I will show you Biblical examples that point to Mary’s especial role in salvation history. I want you to pray with your heart for enlightenment, since all this are Biblical references to Mary as understood by the Catholic Church (and Orthodox Church as well) but so many Protestants doesn’t know and misunderstood.
To start, let’s clarify first about Mary’s being the mother of Jesus. Mary is rightly called “Mother of God” since there is no separation of the two natures of Christ. Jesus human nature is in hypostatic union with his divine nature. Agree? That’s Catholic tradition whether you like it or not. They can’t be separated, for if we say otherwise, we are identifying two Jesus. Jesus has two natures, human and divine, but only one person.* *Elizabeth’s use of “Mother of my Lord” (in Hebrew, Elizabeth used “Adonai” which means Lord God) is the equivalent of “Holy Mary, Mother of God” which Catholics pray in the Rosary. Mary is not just the Mother of Jesus’ human nature - mothers are mothers of persons, not natures.

(continued on next…)

 

[hlgomez]

*Mary is also called the “Ark of the New Covenant.” How can that be? Well, we knoe in the OT that *the ark of the Old Covenant was made of the purest gold for God’s Word (the Ten Commandments). In the NT, Mary is the ark of the New Covenant and is the purest vessel for the Word of God made flesh. There is a great parallelism of Mary with the Ark of the old covenantLuke’s conspicuous comparison’s between Mary and the Ark *. *

For Jesus who is God to dwell within Mary the Ark, Mary had to be conceived without sin. *For Protestants to argue otherwise would be to say that God would let the finger of Satan touch His Son made flesh (if Mary is said to be with sin). * This is incomprehensible.

2 Sam. 6:7 - the Ark is so holy and pure that when Uzzah touched it, the Lord slew him. This shows us that the Ark is undefiled. Mary the Ark of the New Covenant is even more immaculate and undefiled, spared by God from original sin so that she could bear His eternal Word in her womb.

Described by Samuel underscores the reality of Mary as the undefiled and immaculate Ark of the New Covenant. In those verses, Mary (the Ark) arose and went / David arose and went to the Ark. There is a clear parallel between the Ark of the Old and the Ark of the New Covenant.

John the Baptist / King David leap for joy before Mary / Ark. So should we leap for joy before Mary the immaculate Ark of the Word made flesh.

continued…

 

[hlgomez]

Luke 1:56 / 2 Sam. 6:11 and 1 Chron. 13:14 - Mary / the Ark remained in the house for about three months.

Rev 11:19 - at this point in history, the Ark of the Old Covenant was not seen for six centuries (see 2 Macc. 2:7), and now it is finally seen in heaven. The Jewish people would have been absolutely amazed at this. However, John immediately passes over this fact and describes the “woman” clothed with the sun in Rev. 12:1. John is emphasizing that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant and who, like the Old ark, is now worthy of veneration and praise. Also remember that Rev. 11:19 and Rev. 12:1 are tied together because there was no chapter and verse at the time these texts were written.

The phrase “full of grace” is translated from the Greek word “kecharitomene.” This is a unique title given to Mary, and suggests a perfection of grace from a past event. Mary is not just “highly favored.” She has been perfected in grace by God. “Full of grace” is only used to describe one other person - Jesus Christ in John 1:14.

Psalm 45:9 - the psalmist teaches that the Queen stands at the right hand of God. The role of the Queen is important in God’s kingdom. Mary the Queen of heaven is at the right hand of the Son of God. That’s why she is body and soul assumed into heaven.

1 Kings 2:17, 20 - in the Old Testament Davidic kingdom, the King does not refuse his mother. Jesus is the new Davidic King, and He does not refuse the requests of his mother Mary, the Queen.

Neh. 2:6 - the Queen Mother sits beside the King. She is the primary intercessor before the King.

continued…

 

[hlgomez]

Again, there are numerous Biblical texts that points to Mary’s especial role. You just have to understand more fully the Catholic Church doctrine so you may be able to comprehend God’s awesome salvation plan which very sadly taken for granted by so many Protestants. They refuse to believe it in fear that they be recognized as having Catholic doctrines in their beliefs. But that’s not going to harm their faith if they just believe. Mary is not against God, nor is she being worshipped by Catholics. She is just honored the way Jesus himself honored her in a perfect way, fulfilling the commandment to “honor thy father and mother.” Remember, Mary and Satan are enemies as well, as foretold in Genesis.

God bless you.

Pio

 

[New_Life]

hlgomez:

New Life,

I have a question for you. In your responses, you are always saying “the early Church has… blah, blah, blah…” Don’t you realize that you are referring to the Catholic Church? Don’t just be biased with your “historical” assumption because you don’t like Catholicism.

YOU CANNOT DENY THAT WHEN YOU REFER TO THE “EARLY CHURCH” YOU ARE REFERRINGTO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH! Don’t deny that fact!

When I speak of the early church I do realize I’m speaking of the Catholic (i.e. universal) Church. I have no problem with that. The reason I differentiate between the “early church” and the “Roman Catholic Church” of today is because they are not identical. Unlike the early church, modern Roman Catholicism has seriously distorted the gospel with man made doctrine. Even still, the gates of hell have not prevailed against Christ’s church, for God has preserved his gospel in the midst of heresy down through the centuries. His true church is his bride, composed of truly regenerated believers (not just a visible organization or institution) who have heard their Lord’s voice and followed him.

hlgomez:

Also, if you are the Lord, would you just say to your mother, “stay there on earth while I’m up here sitting on my throne.” The Catholic Church has come to that Christ, being in the line of King David, would have his mother the queen be seated at his side. That’s the biblical truth! You read the history of King Solomon, his mother Bathseba, being queen, is seated right next to his throne! Don’t you think Christ the King will also bestow that honor to his Mother, Mary the Queen?

You claim this is “biblical truth,” yet the Bible knows no such thing. I’m amazed at how many times you can repeat that claim, yet all you can come up with is God taking Elijah or Enoch! All you have done is appealed to a false premise: “if God did this for so and so, why not Mary?” That’s not exegesis. I can come up with all sorts of interesting teachings if I use that method. That’s not how Christians should handle the word of truth (2 Tim. 2:15).

hlgomez:

Honor his mother as He honors her!

I do. I honor Mary just as the New Testament honors her.