Mary is Alive?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Truthstalker
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Now you ask? Why Am I post Revelation 12? Because in the early verse it said, “1 And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.”

This woman, Mary appear in heaven. How do you suppose she got there? She was assumed! When John wrote the Book of Revelation. Mary had already left the earth and was taken up into heaven Body and Soul by her son.

Now I have show you both from Scripture and History that Mary Assumption is Biblically Supported. You on the other hand had not show proven from Bible that she did not assumed. You just claim that since it is not in the Bible, it can’t be believe.

You may not accept this intepretation but you are free to believe that. You do believe that we ought to interpret the Bible ourselves. I interpret it that the woman is Mary, and if you don’t believe it Sola Scriptura doctrine falls apart.
 
Hi Manny.

Excellent posts! 👍

I don’t know if you mentioned this (I just skimmed over them) but some Protestants claim that the woman represents the Church or Israel. However, if the child in question *is *Jesus, then the woman cannot be the Church since the Church didn’t exist until Pentecost, and it cannot be Israel since the Jews rejected Jesus (“He came into his own and his own received him not”- John 1:1). Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that the woman is Mary.
 
Grace is not holiness, and can not be equated with a complete lack of sin.

Grace is the favor of God, and His bestowment on men is the one thing that is higher than anything else on earth… to know Him, and therefore to know yourself.

For someone to have grace is to experience the movement of God in one’s heart. And anyone who has experienced that will understand that when God moves, He does so in a way that makes you feel like you are an important, or highly favored person by God.

Of course Mary would be blessed among women, God moved in her and revealed Himself to her. The same as any other woman in history to whom God has revealed Himself. And any other woman to whom grace has been given will also be considered blessed among women.

BA
BA,

Your definition of grace is very shallow. You need to read Aquinas. For one thing, one cannot have grace and sin at the same time in the same place. To be full of grace is to be empty of sin. Grace is also the power to obey. I’m making a butchery of this, but His favor is more than a smile, more like a tidal wave, less of a pat on the hand and more of a lightning bolt. Power to change. Forgiveness and cleansing of sin.

I am surprised, perhaps I should not be, that you emphasize an experience of grace, one based on sensation rather than truth. Experience does not bring us to understanding as much as the Holy Spirit does. Something seems to be seriously wrong with the way you approach how you gain knowledge: first you abandon Scripture as a basis for theology and now you are advocating some subjective experiential basis. God sometimes makes me feel like a bug on a windshield, and I thank HIm, and at other times, like his beloved child, and I thank HIm, and sometimes He is silent, and I thank Him, but always He speaks, as He has always spoken, through the creation that declares the glory of God, through His Word,and through His people. What is, is, whether I feel it or not.

You severely underestimate the power of grace that God can bestow on someone. Only one person in history gave birth to Christ, raised Him, and was with Him at the cross and in the upper room. You cannot say that every woman has equally been so faithful to Him or so blessed. God rewards faithfulness, yes? Are you saying that what Mary went through is the same as anyone else goes through? To whom much is given, much will be required. Much was given to Mary in the gift of her Son. God also rewards faithfulness. Do you say what she should be rewarded should be little?

I don’t know, John. I am only considering Catholicism. I have not yet joined the Catholic Church. But reading posts like yours only tend to drive me closer to Catholicism, to realize that what it is saying is richer and fuller and more meaningful, more significant and truer and more beautiful than the poverty of what passes for much Protestant theology. It’s like some come peddling stale bread crumbs to people who are enjoying a great feast.

It is really strange, John. You seem to be vehemently denying the fact that a number of people who have posted on this thread claim to know Mary, to have met her. You have not challenged that at all. Catholics are testifying as to how they know her. Are they all liars or lunatics or do they perhaps tell the truth, John? If Jesus has this idea (the one the Catholics are so keen on) about what His Mother is allowed to do and how she should be honored, and He is Lord, should you object and not honor her the way He desires you to?
 
In an effort to steer the thread back to the original topic (whether someone has seen Mary or not), I offer my personal experience:

In the winter of 1996 I was in the RCIA program to enter the Catholic Church, and I (and the other candidates and our sponsors) had to go to St Augustine to attend a ceremony led by the bishop (I forget what the ceremony is called). Well, I worked the night shift as a security guard, then drove the hour and a half to St Augustine for the ceremony. In the afternoon after the ceremony ended, I drove home and tried to get a few hours shuteye before going to work that night. As you can imagine, I was pretty tired. On the job, I spent most of the time just sitting at a desk watching the security cameras, so I decided to pray the rosary. During this time, out of the corner of my eye I thought I saw the image of a woman dressed the way Mary is often depicted in religious art, and she was kneeling in prayer. This only lasted for a second, and I attributed it to fatigue and the power of suggestion (i.e. praying the rosary, the Church ceremony earlier that day). However, when I related this to my RCIA class a week or so later, several of my fellow candidates insisted that I had seen Mary. Go figure…
 
Hi Manny.

Excellent posts! 👍

I don’t know if you mentioned this (I just skimmed over them) but some Protestants claim that the woman represents the Church or Israel. However, if the child in question *is *Jesus, then the woman cannot be the Church since the Church didn’t exist until Pentecost, and it cannot be Israel since the Jews rejected Jesus (“He came into his own and his own received him not”- John 1:1). Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that the woman is Mary.
They will claim that but literally speaking did the nation of Israel gave birth to Jesus? We are talking about individual characters in the Book of Rev. Mary, the male child, Satan, and Archangel Michael.
 
Without the need to post the rest of the apostles on this matter, James, Peter, Jude and John all hold to the same tenet of concerning shallowness and non shallowness.
The fact that I responded to your allusion that the essence of Christianity is sociology… your lengthy response is indicative of the inestimable darkness that obviously permeates your mind.

Are you actually willing to debate this?

BA
 
I am surprised, perhaps I should not be, that you emphasize an experience of grace, one based on sensation rather than truth. Experience does not bring us to understanding as much as the Holy Spirit does. Something seems to be seriously wrong with the way you approach how you gain knowledge: first you abandon Scripture as a basis for theology and now you are advocating some subjective experiential basis.
I appreaciate your lengthy dissertation, but I chose the above quoted portion to respond to.

I am not at all a sensationalist… I am a seeker of truth, probably more than anyone here. My response to your statement about Mary’s sinlessness was an elucidation of Luke 1:28… and why Mary was called “blessed among women”.

As I said in my response… Grace is not a sensational experience (like the ones referred to by Maryologists)… but rather God, revealing Himself to you. The only way to have a right perspective on anything is for God to reveal Himself to you, not in some emotional or sensual manner, but by His light.

I reject your claim that I fail to consult scripture as a basis for theology… Any enlightenment from God that one receives should correspond perfectly with His inspired Word.

So, to keep the post on subject… what evidence scripturally is there that Mary should or would be experienced? I have asked the question before without a repsonse… so I eagerly await your proof from the Holy Scripture.

BA
 
That was a typo on my part.
I was just messin’ with you. We all do it.
Nor no one can here witness that Jesus Christ risen. How can you prove out outside Scripture?
There is ample proof from scripture that Jesus rose from the grave, beside the fact that if He didn’t rise again… we would have no hope of eternal life, and Christianity would be nothing more than a system of religion.
The writings of the ECF and it is an early Christian belief that Mary assumed. You have not proven historically that she did not assumed.
Again, I don’t have to… I didn’t bring up the subject, the Catholic church did. I won’t believe it just because another man says it’s so.

ECF’s are not infallible… Peter was not infallible, he made a mistake and I have proven that in another thread (Galatians 2: 11 and 12)
You objection to Mary is similiar to those non-Believers who claim to find Jesus bone. Could those be truly the bones of Jesus? Your claims proves the same with Mary.
Those non-believers are attempting to disprove the resurrection because they are convicted concerning their non-belief.

I am not trying to disprove Mary’s resurrection… I am simply pointing out the fact that there is not one shred of evidence that she was ever assumed… neither is there one allusion to her assumption in the scriptures… literally nor figuratively in prophecy.

If there is not a basis to believe something, why would anyone cling to such a teaching?

It is obvious that those who cling to Mariology are those who are seeking a mysical experience… Satan is always willing to oblige those people.
You believe she was not assumed, therefore you believe just because it is not in the Bible, she did not.
If it is in the Bible… I will believe it. Otherwise, my faith will survive without the mysticism of Marion apparitions.
Earlier you claim historically that there is historical proof text to support Mary’s assumption. So did you back tract on your claim?
WHAT???

I never stated that there was historical evidence to support Mary’s assumption. So, no. I didn’t back track.

BA
 
I appreaciate your lengthy dissertation, but I chose the above quoted portion to respond to.

I am not at all a sensationalist… I am a seeker of truth, probably more than anyone here. My response to your statement about Mary’s sinlessness was an elucidation of Luke 1:28… and why Mary was called “blessed among women”.

As I said in my response… Grace is not a sensational experience (like the ones referred to by Maryologists)… but rather God, revealing Himself to you. The only way to have a right perspective on anything is for God to reveal Himself to you, not in some emotional or sensual manner, but by His light.

I reject your claim that I fail to consult scripture as a basis for theology… Any enlightenment from God that one receives should correspond perfectly with His inspired Word.

So, to keep the post on subject… what evidence scripturally is there that Mary should or would be experienced? I have asked the question before without a repsonse… so I eagerly await your proof from the Holy Scripture.

BA
How could you have missed it, O great seeker of truth? The responses are before your eyes. However, you fail to respond to much that has been posted. This indicts your claim and makes it seem amazingly hollow. You ignore evidence - not for the first time - and claim none has been presented.
 
How could you have missed it, O great seeker of truth? The responses are before your eyes. … You ignore evidence - not for the first time - and claim none has been presented.
Please, point me to the post where you have so kindly quoted the portions of scripture that I asked for.
However, you fail to respond to much that has been posted. This indicts your claim and makes it seem amazingly hollow.
Ahhhh, the great CAF fallback when a Catholic has nothing left to say… Here’s an idea, go to “Start”… then click on “Turn off Computer”. 🙂

BA
 
bibleapologis:
I was just messin’ with you. We all do it.
We do. We are only human.
There is ample proof from scripture that Jesus rose from the grave, beside the fact that if He didn’t rise again… we would have no hope of eternal life, and Christianity would be nothing more than a system of religion.
Yes, Some pagan historians and Jewish Josephus mention Jesus in his writings.
Again, I don’t have to… I didn’t bring up the subject, the Catholic church did. I won’t believe it just because another man says it’s so.
Let’s not then.
ECF’s are not infallible… Peter was not infallible, he made a mistake and I have proven that in another thread (Galatians 2: 11 and 12)
Peter did not speak in terms of moral and faith nor was he speaking in his office as the Pope. Opinions are not infallible. In the Council of Jerusalem, Peter spoke with authority and at that time he spoke from his office as the Prince of the Apostle.

But that is another subject. Let not go there.
Those non-believers are attempting to disprove the resurrection because they are convicted concerning their non-belief.
Like you who do not believe Mary assumed. I have shown you by historical evidence and Biblical evidence that Mary assumed. Look at the writings I wrote about the Rev 12.
I am not trying to disprove Mary’s resurrection… I am simply pointing out the fact that there is not one shred of evidence that she was ever assumed… neither is there one allusion to her assumption in the scriptures… literally nor figuratively in prophecy.
I have already show it to you unless you completely ignore my post from the Scripture concerning the woman clothed with the sun in Rev 12.
If there is not a basis to believe something, why would anyone cling to such a teaching?
It is obvious that those who cling to Mariology are those who are seeking a mysical experience… Satan is always willing to oblige those people.
Why would Satan promote Mary, the Mother of the Lord speak of the woman assumed into heaven? Satan hate Mary more than any of us. She gave birth to the Messiah and Jesus we know destroyed our death.

When Non-Catholic Christians used the Satan with Mary. I think that argument falls apart. How could Satan be with Mary who gave birth to God, the Son? I would also reframe from connecting Satan in this context because it show complete disrespect to the Catholic faith.

FORUM RULE states;
#7 Non-Catholics are welcome to participate but must be** respectful of the faith **of the Catholics participating on the board.
If it is in the Bible… I will believe it. Otherwise, my faith will survive without the mysticism of Marion apparitions.
Alter Call is not in the Bible.
I never stated that there was historical evidence to support Mary’s assumption. So, no. I didn’t back track.
Another typo on my part. I tried to edit that part because I double check on it and noted that you did not stated about any regarding historical evidence.
 
Please, point me to the post where you have so kindly quoted the portions of scripture that I asked for.
MannyFit posted an entire page of Scripture and Early Church Fathers (if these guys were already “off the rails” then we can’t trust the canon of the New Testament either, since we get both our understanding of Mary and the canon of the New Testament from the same bunch of guys) showing the Early Church’s beliefs about Mary, and scriptural support for our beliefs about Mary.

Did you even bother to read it?
 
MannyFit posted an entire page of Scripture and Early Church Fathers (if these guys were already “off the rails” then we can’t trust the canon of the New Testament either, since we get both our understanding of Mary and the canon of the New Testament from the same bunch of guys) showing the Early Church’s beliefs about Mary, and scriptural support for our beliefs about Mary.

Did you even bother to read it?
BA just ignore it. He called ECF not infallible. He is right. It is not the issue of infallibility. It is the issue that early Christiansd held the belief that Mary assumed into heaven.

Tell that to the St. Polycarp and St. Ignatius, who are the Disciples of John, the Apostles.
 
The fact that I responded to your allusion that the essence of Christianity is sociology… your lengthy response is indicative of the inestimable darkness that obviously permeates your mind.

Are you actually willing to debate this?

BA
/chuckle

The verses speak for themselves. It is not I who is in darkness if you can’t believe the very words of Jesus and the apostles. 👍

For someone who is sola scriptura you sure do disagree with Christ and the apostles and god breathed scripture on love and charity. 😦

Peace and God Bless
Nicene
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top