Mary's assumption into Heaven and the Rapture

[ChadS]

If they climb Jacob’s ladder and look up, they just might see Mary for who and what she is in the order of grace.

PAX

:heaven:

I don’t know. I think you underestimate the protestant aversion to anything Marian. In fact I think the protestant understanding of Mary is best expressed as a series of negatives.

She was not pure.
She was not sinless.
She was not a virgin (other than at the birth of Jesus).
She was not assumed bodily into heaven.
She no different than you or I.

While most protestants would agree that Mary had to cooperate with God by giving her “yes,” if however she had said “no” then I think they would say God would’ve continued to look around for somebody else to bear Jesus. Catholics, I believe, would see far more serious ramifications for salvation history if Mary had said “no.”

I understand that there are high church Lutherans, Anglicans, and Episcopalians who will say they believe what Catholics believe about Mary, but I would still argue that for the vast majority of protestants their beliefs are going to be a lot closer to the negatives listed above than most things taught by the Catholic Church.

ChadS

 

[Muzhik]

I don’t know. I think you underestimate the protestant aversion to anything Marian. In fact I think the protestant understanding of Mary is best expressed as a series of negatives.

She was not pure.
She was not sinless.
She was not a virgin (other than at the birth of Jesus).
She was not assumed bodily into heaven.
She no different than you or I.

While most protestants would agree that Mary had to cooperate with God by giving her “yes,” if however she had said “no” then I think they would say God would’ve continued to look around for somebody else to bear Jesus. Catholics, I believe, would see far more serious ramifications for salvation history if Mary had said “no.”

Then these Protestants (who believe in “Only Scripture”) don’t know dog poop about Scripture.

Both Joseph and Mary trace their genealogy back to King David. However, Joseph came from the Davidic line through King Jeconiah, which was cursed. Mary descended through Solomon, who was not cursed, so the legal right to the throne of David passed through her. Unfortunately, under Mosaic law, daughters were prohibited from inheriting property or title.

EXCEPT …

In Numbers 27, we read about the five daughters of Zelophehad, who had no sons. This meant when the Land of Canaan was divided up, these daughters would not get any of the land. Moses placed the question before G_D, who told Moses the daughters’ claim was just. So if a man did not have any sons, only daughters, then the daughters would inherit everything (including titles, like King of Israel). Since Mary had no brothers, the inheritance of the title came through her. In addition, G_D said that the daughters must marry someone from their own tribe so that the properties are not diluted among different tribes. Mary fulfilled this requirement by marrying Joseph. So Mary inherited title and was able to pass that on to Jesus, her only son (who was NOT of Joseph’s biological line).

So if Mary had said no (which G_D would have known she would do) G_D would have had someone else already set up who met these conditions: a direct descendant of David who was an only child and a single daughter, who would have to marry another descendant of David through the cursed line. Why bother, when He had already set up conditions that satisfied these conditions with Mary and Joseph. As it was written in the Book of Esther (who is a type of Redeemer Queen, as is Mary):

Even if you now remain silent, relief and deliverance will come to the Jews from another source; but you and your father’s house will perish. Who knows—perhaps it was for a time like this that you became queen?” Esther 4:14

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Both of them were prophets.

Elijah, Enoch, and Moses exist in some form of transfigured state, but they do not gloriously exist body and soul in Heaven (Mt.17:1-13). They couldn’t possibly, because Jesus is the first-fruit of the resurrection. Also, the gates of Heaven were closed until our Lord opened them. All the other saints, except Mary, must wait until the Last Day for the redemption of their bodies now that our Lord has been raised from the dead and ascended into Heaven.

For by a man came death, and by a man the resurrection of the dead. And as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive. But each in turn: Christ, the first-fruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.
1 Corinthians 15, 21-23
*

PAX*

:heaven:

I’m more confused about the “how” than the “why.”

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Then these Protestants (who believe in “Only Scripture”) don’t know dog poop about Scripture.

Both Joseph and Mary trace their genealogy back to King David. However, Joseph came from the Davidic line through King Jeconiah, which was cursed. Mary descended through Solomon, who was not cursed, so the legal right to the throne of David passed through her. Unfortunately, under Mosaic law, daughters were prohibited from inheriting property or title.

EXCEPT …

In Numbers 27, we read about the five daughters of Zelophehad, who had no sons. This meant when the Land of Canaan was divided up, these daughters would not get any of the land. Moses placed the question before G_D, who told Moses the daughters’ claim was just. So if a man did not have any sons, only daughters, then the daughters would inherit everything (including titles, like King of Israel). Since Mary had no brothers, the inheritance of the title came through her. In addition, G_D said that the daughters must marry someone from their own tribe so that the properties are not diluted among different tribes. Mary fulfilled this requirement by marrying Joseph. So Mary inherited title and was able to pass that on to Jesus, her only son (who was NOT of Joseph’s biological line).

So if Mary had said no (which G_D would have known she would do) G_D would have had someone else already set up who met these conditions: a direct descendant of David who was an only child and a single daughter, who would have to marry another descendant of David through the cursed line. Why bother, when He had already set up conditions that satisfied these conditions with Mary and Joseph. As it was written in the Book of Esther (who is a type of Redeemer Queen, as is Mary):

Eh. Not so sure about the “only child” part.

 

[Good_Fella]

I’m more confused about the “how” than the “why.”

Meaning?

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Meaning?

How did it happen? Does this verse mean that the Bible supports reincarnation? I’m confused.

 

[Good_Fella]

How did it happen? Does this verse mean that the Bible supports reincarnation? I’m confused.

Reincarnation?

 

[Muzhik]

Eh. Not so sure about the “only child” part.

Do you mean about Mary being the “only child”? Simple. If Mary had any brothers – younger OR older – then the title (King of Israel) would have passed to the oldest of the brothers. Mary could not have passed along that title to Jesus, because Mosaic law is clear: daughters inherit ONLY when there are no male heirs.

If Mary had sisters, I’m not sure how the title bit would go. But there we have other roles for Mary, such as The New Eve. Some of these roles and titles are weakened or don’t make sense if she had sisters that could have the titles applied to them, too. G_D wants to keep things simple: if making Mary an only child simplifies the entire issue, then He’s not going to bring in other heirs if He doesn’t have to.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Do you mean about Mary being the “only child”? Simple. If Mary had any brothers – younger OR older – then the title (King of Israel) would have passed to the oldest of the brothers. Mary could not have passed along that title to Jesus, because Mosaic law is clear: daughters inherit ONLY when there are no male heirs.

If Mary had sisters, I’m not sure how the title bit would go. But there we have other roles for Mary, such as The New Eve. Some of these roles and titles are weakened or don’t make sense if she had sisters that could have the titles applied to them, too. G_D wants to keep things simple: if making Mary an only child simplifies the entire issue, then He’s not going to bring in other heirs if He doesn’t have to.

She may have had a sister.

 

[Muzhik]

She may have had a sister.

OK. I’ll bite. Where’s the scriptural evidence that indicates the possibility that Mary had a sister or even two? You can use extra-Scriptural writings, too, if you want, like the Protoevangelium of James.

If you cannot find any such evidence, then the speculation is worthless. One may as well speculate on what the outcome of WW2 would have been if Eleanor Roosevelt could fly.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

OK. I’ll bite. Where’s the scriptural evidence that indicates the possibility that Mary had a sister or even two? You can use extra-Scriptural writings, too, if you want, like the Protoevangelium of James.

If you cannot find any such evidence, then the speculation is worthless. One may as well speculate on what the outcome of WW2 would have been if Eleanor Roosevelt could fly.

In John’s list of the women at the cross, he mentions “his mother’s sister.”

 

[Muzhik]

In John’s list of the women at the cross, he mentions “his mother’s sister.”

No, he doesn’t. That is how the translators have chosen to interpret the Aramaic word that refers to a close family relationship.

Two factors at work here: first is that Aramaic at the time did not have fixed and firm words for expressing family relationships as we do in English. The word that gets translated as “brother” is also the word used for a cousin, especially if the two are close. Likewise, chances are “his mother’s sister” refers to a cousin of Mary. It’s the same bugaboo that confuses people when they read about “the brothers of Jesus.” A chapter or two later on, these same people are described in a way that makes it clear that these are not brothers as we use the term, but cousins.

Second is that the culture of the time allowed you to claim a family relationship that to our ears doesn’t sound truthful. Suppose my uncle Floyd, the used car dealer, had a reputation among the people as an honest man. If I wanted to emphasize my own trait of honesty, I might refer to myself as “Leroy, son of Floyd.” The phrases used in John 19:25 in both the Aramaic and the English are vague, in that John could be talking about “his mother’s sister, AND Mary, wife of Cleopas”, or John could be talking about “his mother’s sister, WHO WAS KNOWN AS Mary, wife of Cleopas”.

We also know Mary didn’t have a sister because just after John 19:26 is the scene where Jesus gives his mother to “the disciple he loves.” If Mary had a sister, she would have gone to live with her instead of being given to some stranger from outside he family.

 

[Good_Fella]

In John’s list of the women at the cross, he mentions “his mother’s sister.”

The Blessed Virgin Mary did reveal her life to Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich, an Augustinian Canoness, in the form of past visions in which an elder sister named Mary Heli did appear. These are private revelations. Though approved by the Church’s temporal authority, these visions aren’t infallibly certain, not being part of the deposit of faith. But what Blessed Anne envisioned is morally certain, since she bore the stigmata.

PAX
:heaven:

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

No, he doesn’t. That is how the translators have chosen to interpret the Aramaic word that refers to a close family relationship.

Two factors at work here: first is that Aramaic at the time did not have fixed and firm words for expressing family relationships as we do in English. The word that gets translated as “brother” is also the word used for a cousin, especially if the two are close. Likewise, chances are “his mother’s sister” refers to a cousin of Mary. It’s the same bugaboo that confuses people when they read about “the brothers of Jesus.” A chapter or two later on, these same people are described in a way that makes it clear that these are not brothers as we use the term, but cousins.

Second is that the culture of the time allowed you to claim a family relationship that to our ears doesn’t sound truthful. Suppose my uncle Floyd, the used car dealer, had a reputation among the people as an honest man. If I wanted to emphasize my own trait of honesty, I might refer to myself as “Leroy, son of Floyd.” The phrases used in John 19:25 in both the Aramaic and the English are vague, in that John could be talking about “his mother’s sister, AND Mary, wife of Cleopas”, or John could be talking about “his mother’s sister, WHO WAS KNOWN AS Mary, wife of Cleopas”.

We also know Mary didn’t have a sister because just after John 19:26 is the scene where Jesus gives his mother to “the disciple he loves.” If Mary had a sister, she would have gone to live with her instead of being given to some stranger from outside he family.

From New Catholic Encyclopedia:
Some authors, comparing John 19:25 with Matthew 27:56 and Mark 15:40, identify, and probably rightly so, Mary the Mother of James the Less and of Joseph in Mark and Matthew with “Mary of Cleophas” in John. As the name of Mary Magdalen occurs in the three lists, they identify further Salome in Mark with “the mother of the sons of Zebedee” in Matthew; finally they identify Salome with “his mother’s sister” in John. They suppose, for this last identification, that four women are designated by John 19:25; the Syriac “Peshito” gives the reading: “His mother and his mother’s sister, and Mary of Cleophas and Mary Magdalen.” If this last supposition is right, Salome was a sister of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and James the Greater and John were first cousins of the Lord; this may explain the discipleship of the two brothers, Salome’s request and their own claim to the first position in His kingdom, and His commendation of the Blessed Virgin to her own nephew.

 

[PRmerger]

1. Elijah and Enoch did NOT ascend to the Kingdom of Heaven in their bodies, the way the BVM did. It is unbiblical and contrary to Catholic Church dogma regarding original sin and Redemption.

Really? I haven’t heard this argument before.

Elijah and Enoch did not ascend to heaven with their bodies? That’s Catholic teaching?

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Reincarnation?

How John came in Elijah’s spirit and power? Get my confusion?

 

[Good_Fella]

How John came in Elijah’s spirit and power? Get my confusion?

Reincarnation is foreign to the Jewish religious mind set, so the expression refers to the Baptist’s function and role that is identified with Elijah’s. Both men were forerunners of Christ. The Jews believed Elijah was spared death and taken bodily into heaven. John couldn’t have been perceived as being Elijah reincarnated if it was believed that the latter didn’t die, not that the Jews believed in reincarnation.

PAX

:heaven:

 

[Good_Fella]

Really? I haven’t heard this argument before.

Elijah and Enoch did not ascend to heaven with their bodies? That’s Catholic teaching?

We read in John 3:13: “No one has ascended into heaven, but he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.” The Catechism states that Mary’s Assumption is a “singular privilege” of hers. Whatever happened to Enoch and Elijah remains a theological opinion. If they were translated to heaven and escaped Sheol, they probably exist in some form of transfigured physical state and not in the fullness of the resurrection.

PAX
:heaven:

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Reincarnation is foreign to the Jewish religious mind set, so the expression refers to the Baptist’s function and role that is identified with Elijah’s. Both men were forerunners of Christ. The Jews believed Elijah was spared death and taken bodily into heaven. John couldn’t have been perceived as being Elijah reincarnated if it was believed that the latter didn’t die, not that the Jews believed in reincarnation.

PAX

:heaven:

While I mostly agree with what you are saying, I would question your statement: “The Jews believed Elijah was spared death and taken bodily into heaven.”

First of all, Heaven, as we know it today, is a Christian concept derived directly from Jesus Christ, who announced the Kingdom of Heaven. To Second Temple Jews, the afterlife was a field of speculation (hence the Saducees and Pharisees animosity.) However the Resurrection of the Body was believed by the Pharisaical Jews. But in the meantime, even in Our Lord’s parables, we hear of the Bosom of Abraham, not Christian Heaven. So it seems doubtful to me, that Elijah was believed to have been taken bodily there by Second Temple Jews. However, he was seemingly taken somewhere. But again, that is speculation, as to whether it was just another place here on earth, or some other unknown place.

But in any event, to Christians, the Gates of Heaven were not opened to ANYONE, before Jesus Christ opened them by His Life, Death and Resurrection. That is Catholic doctrine.

Some will claim the argument “God can do anything” as their reasoning, and so He can. However, when God DOES bend the rules, as in the case of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of the Virgin Mary, it is for Divine reasons relating DIRECTLY to the Incarnation Himself. Those exceptions are important Doctrines of the Church also. But to interpret a few very slight Scriptural passages as requiring these monumental (as they are monumental) exceptions, when many other more likely interpretations are possible, without requiring some sort of major doctrinal exception seems ill advised at least.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

While I mostly agree with what you are saying, I would question your statement: “The Jews believed Elijah was spared death and taken bodily into heaven.”

First of all, Heaven, as we know it today, is a Christian concept derived directly from Jesus Christ, who announced the Kingdom of Heaven. To Second Temple Jews, the afterlife was a field of speculation (hence the Saducees and Pharisees animosity.) However the Resurrection of the Body was believed by the Pharisaical Jews. But in the meantime, even in Our Lord’s parables, we hear of the Bosom of Abraham, not Christian Heaven. So it seems doubtful to me, that Elijah was believed to have been taken bodily there by Second Temple Jews. However, he was seemingly taken somewhere. But again, that is speculation, as to whether it was just another place here on earth, or some other unknown place.

But in any event, to Christians, the Gates of Heaven were not opened to ANYONE, before Jesus Christ opened them by His Life, Death and Resurrection. That is Catholic doctrine.

Some will claim the argument “God can do anything” as their reasoning, and so He can. However, when God DOES bend the rules, as in the case of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of the Virgin Mary, it is for Divine reasons relating DIRECTLY to the Incarnation Himself. Those exceptions are important Doctrines of the Church also. But to interpret a few very slight Scriptural passages as requiring these monumental (as they are monumental) exceptions, when many other more likely interpretations are possible, without requiring some sort of major doctrinal exception seems ill advised at least.

Well, what about Enoch?