Scriptural Basis for Mary's Assumption

[zemi]

i can’t see what you are referring to here. If its my comment that this is the doctrine of men. It is a doctrine of men since it cannot be grounded in the Scriptures. This is the principle that Jesus used when He condemned some of the traditions of the Pharisees.

Exactly. That’s what he condemned.

“in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines human precepts.’”
(Mt 15,9)

But what if it was the Bible that teaches us to adhere to tradition passed on to us through the Church by the Apostles and their succesors preserved from errors by the Holy Spirit (= no human precepts)?! Would that change something?

The Scriptures are not “partial revelation” but a full revelation of all that we need to believe and grow in Christ. To get beyond what the scriptures teach is to speculate and unnecessary. Christ alone is all that you need. You don’t need Mary or the saints. He is sufficent for all your needs.

Ok. So you still don’t know according to this which books are inspired. Yes, yes - I know you claim you believe the councils that decided that. That’s what’s strange

Christ gave the church pastor-teachers to teach the scriptures to the people. Their teachings are to be entriely grounded in them.

You couldn’t say it better! That’s why we believe (along with the Church Fathers) both in the Bible and in the Sacred Tradition!

 

[Calvinator]

But what if it was the Bible that teaches us to adhere to tradition passed on to us through the Church the Apostles and their succesors preserved from errors by the Holy Spirit (= no human precepts)?! Would that change something?

That is the crux of the matter. What exactly is that tradition that is mentioned in the NT? Does it include the IC and the assumption or not?

 

[guanophore]

There is not scriptural grounds for this. In fact she admits she has a Savior in Luke 1:47.

God is her Savior. He created her without original sin, just as He did the first Eve.
justasking4;2391550:

I’m not claiming that all truths are in scripture only that any doctrine that we are to believe must be grounded in scripture.

If you stick around, you will find that all the Catholic Doctrines are grounded in Scripture. The Sacred Tradition and the Sacred Writings are inseparable, and can only compliment, not contradict each other.

When the scripture states that Mary is “full of grace” we understand this to mean “sinless”. Sin cannot exist where the fullness of God’s grace is. It is not possible.

This kind of reasoning opens you up to all kinds of false teachings. Anyone can claim to find “some seeds of these doctrines in scripture” and use it to teach about anything. It is better and wiser to beleive what the scriptures clearly teach than to follow the speculations of men.

I agree with you on this point too. That is why it is so essential not to interpret scripture or teach doctrine apart from the Divine Teaching Authority established by Christ. In no case should the speculations of men be equated with Divine Revelation.

I have no problem believing Mary was blessed. Scripture teaches that. Again, we should not go beyond what the scriptures teach about her.

Again you have not shown where scripture says this.

It is totally unnecesssary for the mere fact Jesus alone is sufficent for all that we need or desire.

If this is true, why did he commission Apostles, and why did He create a Church? But for those gifts, you would not know Christ today. Jesus is the be all and end all of everything, but He deigned that we should all participate in His glory, and His mission. Paul says that we all need each other, and Mary is no exception. She, too, is part of His body.

Again you make an erroneous and baseless assumption that “we should not go beyond what scripture teaches about her”. You have not substantiated that with the scripture, either.

 

[justasking4]

They did warn that. That is why Jesus promised to keep them in all truth. Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom, and Peter passed them on to his successor, and so on,until the present day.

There is no such promise from Christ that His church would not be able to teach error. Notice to that the promise you mention above was not to the church but to His immediate disciples. It was from these disciples-apostles that we have the NT which is the Word of God.

Yes, individuals do err, because the promise of Truth was given to the Church. Individuals can depart from it, as Luther did, by teachings such things as Sola Scriptura, and Sola Fide.

To do so would have required Him to create her directly like He did with adam. Since Mary was born of human parents, she inherited the sin of Adam. See Romans 5:12-18.

 

[justasking4]

If this is true, why did he commission Apostles, and why did He create a Church?

This is spelled out in Ephesians 2:19-22

But for those gifts, you would not know Christ today.

To go beyond what the scriptures teach is to open yourself up to false teachings and to rely on vain speculations. That is what you have with much of the marian doctrines.

 

[zemi]

That is the crux of the matter. What exactly is that tradition that is mentioned in the NT? Does it include the IC and the assumption or not?

Don’t get me wrong - I do not base my reasoning on this point at all!

BUT

Do you deny that:

**1. The apostles didn’t know and could’t pass on other things they saw / learned from Jesus? **
(Jn 21,25 - There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.)

**2. John could possibly know some things Mary could told him about herself? (I’m mentioning only him now, he could and I’m sure would pass it on then) **

 

[justasking4]

QUOTE=guanophore;2391388]

part 2 --not sure i cut this correctly. If i missed something please let me know.

Thank you for working on your quotes. You are getting better.
justasking4;2391338:

This is not Scripture but men presenting their own unbiblical ideas.

There was no "bible’ at the time. They were preaching the gospel that was handed on to them from the Apostles.

The Bible is the written representation of the preached Gospel. Not the other way around.

That may be. However, all we have from the apostles are the Scriptures.

Not necessarily, since not all of the teachings are in the scripture.

So you agree that not all catholic teachings are gounded in Scripture?

However, even if there were things that came up centuries later, Jesus guaranteed that they would be guided into all truth. Are you calling Him a liar?

No. I’m not calling Jesus a liar but the false teachers in your church and mine who do teach falsely liars.

Go to the Library link above. On the left side of the page, you will find a list of topics. You can find the official position of the church on there. These are in easy to read tracts, but you can find it in the Catechism, which is free online, and in the official documents of the Church at www.vatican.com

There are several good websites with the writings of the early church fathers. If you don’t find easily with googling, send a pm or post here and we can help you find. We can put reverences in here, but can’t quote whole books or letters.

Thanks for the info. I have read and dicussed with catholics what the church teaches. The teachings of your church are so vast that i doubt anyone in it fully grasp what is there.

Mary outlived many of the Apostles, and some of them were very far away (China and Egypt) when she died, so they would not have received news of her Dormition in time enough to write about it. That is why we don’t see any references until early second century.

Scripture teaches that the wages of sin is death. Romans 5:12;6:23. If Mary was supposedly born or kept from sin, why then did she die?

 

[Calvinator]

Don’t get me wrong - I do not base my reasoning on this point at all!

BUT

Do you deny that:

**1. The apostles didn’t know and could’t pass on other things they saw / learned from Jesus? **
(Jn 21,25 - There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.)

**2. John could possibly know some things Mary could told him about herself? (I’m mentioning only him now, he could and I’m sure would pass it on then) **

1.) Of course the apostles knew things that weren’t passed on.

2.) John probably did pass on information concerning Mary to the church. It’s certainly reasonable to assume so.

 

[Good_Fella]

I personally don’t see any compelling evidence that the assumption of Mary is a historical fact.

What was that?

A historian would tell us the same thing about the resurrection
and ascension of Jesus. Both events concerning Jesus and his
mother, Mary, are a matter of faith, which precludes historical
fact in all genuineness. History can only disprove our beliefs in
the Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus and the Assumption
of Mary by presenting us with the remains of Jesus and Mary.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[BrianH]

What was that?

A historian would tell us the same thing about the resurrection
and ascension of Jesus. Both events concerning Jesus and his
mother, Mary, are a matter of faith, which precludes historical
fact in all genuineness. History can only disprove our beliefs in
the Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus and the Assumption
of Mary by presenting us with the remains of Jesus and Mary.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

If no one mentioned the resurrection of Christ for 300 years after it was supposed to have occured, I would doubt it too. Who wouldn’t? If people wrote volumes on Christ, like they did Mary, and neglected this stunning bit of proof, how could it be believable?

 

[justasking4]

Arius and Nestorius went much further - they asserted that Christ was in fact two PERSONS, one human and one divine, not as we understand Him to be two natures but inseparably united in one person. They had to call Mary Mother of God to make clear that Christ was one person and Mary mother of the whole person - as your mother is of you (even the half of your DNA which comes from your father and your soul which comes from God).

Thanks for the info.

Then why does John say that much of what Christ taught and said is not written? He only taught for three years at most - you think ANYTHING he said was unimportant, given how much He had to teach in such a short time?

So you cannot be certain one way or the other.

 

[zemi]

Scripture teaches that the wages of sin is death. Romans 5:12;6:23. If Mary was supposedly born or kept from sin, why then did she die?

Dear friend,

I’m sorry but you misunderstand the teaching of the Catholic Church…

The Catholic Church has NEVER taught that Mary died and then was assumed.

In 1950 in MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS Pope Pius XII said:

“Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death.”

It is precisely because of your verse that is very plausible she could have been assumed without dying.

I though you knew this - about her death…

 

[Calvinator]

What was that?

A historian would tell us the same thing about the resurrection
and ascension of Jesus. Both events concerning Jesus and his
mother, Mary, are a matter of faith, which precludes historical
fact in all genuineness. History can only disprove our beliefs in
the Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus and the Assumption
of Mary by presenting us with the remains of Jesus and Mary.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

The issue I have with this is that there is a large gap between the apostles and any evidence supporting the assumption.

I don’t understand the importance of this either. Why make it binding upon the catholic faithful to accept this teaching? Another catholic poster has provided some information regarding the assumption and how it may have been used in supressing a heresy in the church…but I haven’t had a chance to review that yet.

 

[justasking4]

What was that?

A historian would tell us the same thing about the resurrection
and ascension of Jesus.

 

[justasking4]

Dear friend,

I’m sorry but you misunderstand the teaching of the Catholic Church…

Pius the 12th can say this but he has no scriptural or historical evidence for it. Without this all he is doing is speculating.

 

[guanophore]

There is no such promise from Christ that His church would not be able to teach error. Notice to that the promise you mention above was not to the church but to His immediate disciples. It was from these disciples-apostles that we have the NT which is the Word of God.

Exactly! The promise was that upon Peter (This Rock) I will build my church. He promised His Apostles that He would send His spirit, to lead them into all truth. They passed this promise on to others. This is what we call the Apostolic succession. However, this is a topic for another thread.
justasking4;2391577:

Men as individuals and as a group can err.

Indeed, I am listening to an interview with a former Jehovah Witness. However, when the Body gatheres together under the Teaching Authority appointed by Christ, and under the Key of David, that body will not err.

Not so. Only the Scriptures alone are God breathed and inerrant. No church teachings are of this level. If they were, then should be added to the Scriptures.

Show me in the scriptures where it says this? The scriptures are the writings from the Apostolic Tradition, which is on the same level. The two were never to be separated from each other. The Apostles taught orally, and only some of what they taught has been committed to writing. But, this is a topic for another thread.

Are your Traditions inspired-inerrant?

The Sacred Traditions from the Apostolic teaching are. We also have man made traditions that change.

( Jesus sus was able to create His own mother. Why would he not create her perfect? )

To do so would have required Him to create her directly like He did with adam. Since Mary was born of human parents, she inherited the sin of Adam. See Romans 5:12-18.

Now you are limiting God? Is your God so small He cannot do whatever He wants?

Not all have sinned, or fallen short. You are misinterpreting the passage.

 

[zemi]

What was that?

A historian would tell us the same thing about the resurrection
and ascension of Jesus. Both events concerning Jesus and his
mother, Mary, are a matter of faith, which precludes historical
fact in all genuineness. History can only disprove our beliefs in
the Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus and the Assumption
of Mary by presenting us with the remains of Jesus and Mary.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

I agree but I add that interpretation of historical events is not a matter of “proving” something but coming up with the best possible alternative for something.

Not even the ressurection is a matter of pure faith only. It is based on evidence, not on the lack of it. If you think otherwise, I think you haven’t read/heard/seen much of the debates on this

For a great debate on the the historicity of Jesus’ ressurection I reccomend the debate between W.L.Craig and B. Ehrman. Both are world class scolars.

holycross.edu/departments/crec/website/resurrdebate.htm

It’s a bit scholarly. If you want sth easier on this topic, PM me if you want.

OK, let’s get back to the Assumption! Don’t want to derail the thread!

 

[justasking4]

Don’t get me wrong - I do not base my reasoning on this point at all!

BUT

Since we have no written records for this, all you are left with is specualtion. Doctrines and pracitices should not be based on specualtions.

 

[Good_Fella]

QUOTE=guanophore;2391388]
Scripture teaches that the wages of sin is death. Romans 5:12;6:23. If Mary was supposedly born or kept from sin, why then did she die?

 

[Jaypeeto4]

Justasking4 has made so many ridiculous assumptions (pun intended) in this thread that I won’t even bother enumerating them. He asserts that if something is not spelled out in scripture, it is false. This is so very, very asinine that there are no words contemptuous enough to describe such an attitude.

He admits that scriptural data points to the Trinity, but then ASSERTS that the scriptural data DOESN’T point at all to the Catholic Marian doctrines. To which I reply, that is strictly his personal OPINION, based on fundamentalist hatred of Mary, and nothing more. Fundies don’t just disagree with Catholic teachings. They wouldn’t get so upset if they merely didn’t agree. The fact that they get so upset is because, deep down, even if they aren’t consciously aware of it, they have an innate hatred for Mary. How dare we Catholics think a mere sinful woman is a queen whose body God glorified and took into heaven? What good did Mary ever do to deserve such a reward?
All SHE did was get pregnant. No big deal. God used her womb and then cast her aside. This is evidence of a low view of women in general, not just Mary. But they REALLY RESENT the humble Mary being exalted to such a great status by God as a reward for her faithfulness.

In one post he asks which PROTESTANT churches think the way Catholics do about Mary?? He asks the WRONG question.
PROTESTANT churches are NEW churches, less than 500 years old, who were started by bloodthirsty violent men WHO DIDN’T EVEN AGREE WITH EACH OTHER ON MANY SCRIPTURAL ISSUES, who in many cases weren’t even validly ordained men, and who cast aside all historic Christian teaching of the previous 1500 years which they personally didn’t agree with in their private interpretation of scripture, something which scripture itself forbids.
**The very idea **of five or six men in the 16th Century actually believing that the Holy Spirit allowed the whole church to be misled for 1500 years until THEY came along to set things straight, is really tantamount to blaspheming the Holy Spirit by saying that He sat back on his duff and let the whole Christian Church, East and West, go to hell in a handbasket until the 16th century. The idea is too blasphemous to even seriously consider, but this is EXACTLY what we have to believe if we are to give Protestant objectors any credence whatsoever.

The Bible, correctly interpreted, DOES support the Catholic Marian doctrines. The Bible NOWHERE calls Mary a “sinner,” by name, yet the fundies assert that she was. The Bible nowhere states that Mary was NOT assumpted into heaven, yet the fundies insist that to believe that she WAS, is heresy. WHO are these Johnny-Come-Lately private interpreters of scripture who recognize no higher authority than their own personal interpretations, to accuse ANYBODY of heresy and teaching mere man-made teachings. ALL Catholic doctrine is supported scripturally, but some are not directly stated in scripture but rather INFERRED in scripture or DEDUCED FROM, scripture.

I do agree with justasking4, however, that scripture is inspired and inerrant, but not much else can I agree with him on.
And his claim that Catholic doctrines are NOT supported by scripture, is just THAT: a mere CLAIM. His OPINION, and nothing more.

And as for the Assumption, even Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc., all believed in it till the day they died. Even in their private interpretation of scripture, they concluded scripture supported this belief.

Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+