Scriptural Basis for Mary's Assumption

[justasking4]

No. All we know about Mary is NOT in the Scriptures. There are other writings such as the Protevangelion of James and the Infancy Gospels about her among other things. These may not be inspired books or necessary belief for salvation, but it doesn’t mean they’re untrue.

Haven’t these writings been condmened as false “gospels”?
Were they not written centuries after the 1st century?

We can and do rely on sources outside scripture about her. Including what has been orally taught about her - such as that she was assumed into heaven!

Each doctrine or claim must stand on its own. The canon of Scripture was determined on far more solid grounds. Many of the claims of that the catholic church makes about Mary are not based on Scripture but on speculations. In fact notice this quote from pope Pius in 1950 about her assumption in Munificentissimus Deus --"And, since it was within His power to grant her this great honour, to preserve her from the corruption of the tomb, we must believe that He really acted in this way

If you read further on in this document, he does not base it on any of this on Scripture (he actually says as much) but on “revelation” that he claims to have gotten. Since there are no facts to back his claim up, all you really have is speculation. This is what false teachers do.

 

[Milliardo]

We should go to the Scriptures on this issue for a number of reasons.
1- It is the Scriptures alone that are inspired-inerrant.
2- All that we know about her is found in the Scriptures.
3- The Scriptures never speak of her in the way your church does.
4- Since the Scriptures never speak specifically of her in this way, then you have no scriptural facts to back this claim up.
5- Many of the claims that your church makes about her are contrary to what the scriptures teach about humanity. For example we know that all men and women born of human parents are fallen in sin. Romans 5:12. To deny that Mary did not sin or was kept from sin is to call the Scriptures a lie.

This doctrine should be rejected on these grounds alone.

Early Christianity was never confined to Scriptures alone, so in the first place your notion has no basis. For 400 years before the Bible was compiled, early Christians relied on various manuscripts that they deemed as Scripture. This would include such writings as those now found in the Bible, to writings that were excluded in the Bible. So please tell us here why we should only be confined to Scripture when early Christianity was never confined to Scripture alone.

 

[zemi]

Oh, yes we have The thing no one will accept it unless he is already predisposed to reject it.

Then please show me any of these titles that are specifically applied to her by name?

I’m sorry if I stated it wrong. I meant we have Scriptural basis for it just as we have for the Trinity. Would you be open to accepting it if it was so?

1. As for your premise - that is obviously not true. To take a very basic example: We know that no one has produced Mary’s body or her relics. That is simply a FACT. A FACT not found the Scriptures. Are you denying that fact?

Just because you don’t have the body or a relic of someone doesn’t mean they were assumed into heaven. We don’t have the body or relics of all kinds of people in Scripture either. Should we assume they were assumed also?

Justasking4, that was not the point AT ALL now… The point was we have FACTS about Mary that are not in the Scripture! I was now discussing only that we have FACTS outside it. I was making no assumptions (pun not intended) about Mary’s assumption NOW. Your answer is not consistent with what my answer responded to.

Your assumption is not true.

It is you who is making the assumption about her not me.

Look above. I was talking about the facts we have, not about absence of her relics meaning her assumption…

1. Neither your conclusion is logically valid. You are begging the question…
   That is precisely what I ask you. I am asking you in other words “Why should we go to the Scriptures”? You answer by assuming the thing that is in question…

I consider logical fallacy not an answer to my question. I’m still waiting for it.

We should go to the Scriptures on this issue for a number of reasons.
1- It is the Scriptures alone that are inspired-inerrant.
2- All that we know about her is found in the Scriptures.
3- The Scriptures never speak of her in the way your church does.
4- Since the Scriptures never speak specifically of her in this way, then you have no scriptural facts to back this claim up.
5- Many of the claims that your church makes about her are contrary to what the scriptures teach about humanity. For example we know that all men and women born of human parents are fallen in sin. Romans 5:12. To deny that Mary did not sin or was kept from sin is to call the Scriptures a lie.

This doctrine should be rejected on these grounds alone.

1. Yes. Agreed!!! But their interpretation outside the RCC are fallible!
2. I addressed that in my previous post. It’s not true if you don’t ignore the facts. Tradition and writing of the Church Fathers are not canonical but that doesn’t mean they are not true! It means they are not maybe NECESSARY for salvation but… Do accounts of historians have to be in the canon to be true?!
3. Agreed. The Scriptures never speak for themselves. It is your interpretation that speaks. The fact is that only the Church that Jesus built upon Peter has the right to interpret them. Not you, not me.
4. And where is that claim of yours in the Bible so that I can check up to see if it is backed up by the Bible?
5. No. Only your interpretation of Scripture contradicts what the RCC teaches.

Friend, I honestly don’t agree you stand for your interpretation of Rom 5:12… Please, stay on the topic and read this for your answer:

biblechristiansociety.com/2min_apologetics.php?id=19

scripturecatholic.com/mary_qa.html#allhavesinned

Your thoughts after reading it?

 

[LilyM]

justasking4:

Haven’t these writings been condmened as false “gospels”?
Were they not written centuries after the 1st century?

No - not essential enough to be part of scripture or required belief, doesn’t mean they’re false. Any more than the Didache, Clement’s letter to the Alexandrians or any of the other early writings that were read IN LITURGY alongside the Gospels and Epistles.

The Protevangelion was written prior to 150, so it’s early evidence indeed of belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity. The Marian doctrines have been around for longer than the Canon of the Bible in any event

 

[Good_Fella]

Can you give me a couple of examples?

To call Mary the mother of Jesus, but not the “Mother of God” is to diminish the person of Jesus as well as his mother, for it is a denial that Jesus is truly and fully God.

It was by responding to the Nestorian heresy in the 5th century that the formal definition of Mary invoked as Mother of God was given at the Council of Ephesus in 431AD. Patriarch Nestorius had preached, like fundamentalists today, that Mary was not the mother of God, being just the mother of Jesus’ physical body, which was then indwelt by the divine Word. His preaching was condemned as heresy, for the Gospels tell us that the Word did not ‘unite’ with a man, but was ‘made’ man. According to Nestorius, there were two persons occupying one body: one divine and the other human. Mary was the mother of only the human Jesus. Fundamentalists today say the same heretical thing about Mary, although it is a fundamental Christian belief that Jesus is one person with two “natures”, a fully divine nature and a fully human one. Mary gave birth to one person, Jesus, who is called both the Son of God and the Son of man: divine and human.It was through Mary that our Lord acquired his human nature without diminishing or discarding his divine nature, which was retained in the Incarnation. Mary bore someone who was both divine and human, an so she is also the mother of the person with a divine nature: the Son of God. [Cf. Jn. 1:14] To say that Mary is not the Mother of God is to say that Jesus was not divine, but only human (Arianism) or that there were two distinct persons occupying our Lord’s body (Nestorianism). Our preoccupation with Mary helped us define the hypostatic union in Christ; yet Protestants charge she only serves to distract our attention away from him.

At the Incarnation, through the activity of the Holy Spirit, God the Word to “flesh” and “full humanity” from the Virgin Mary in union with his divine nature. If this were not the case, then Jesus could not have been our true Saviour. Moses or Mohammad could have been sacrificed by the Father just as well for our salvation. Jesus is one person with one consciousness, both fully God and fully man, who truly is both Son of God and Son of Mary (Son of man).

We find explicit scriptural support for the title “Mother of God” in the Gospel of Luke. Mary’s cousin, Elizabeth, proclaims:

“WHO AM I THAT THE MOTHER OF MY LORD (YHWH) SHOULD COME TO ME?”

Justask4it, I thought the bible was your only source of divine revelation, yet you ignore or reject this verse about Mary. I think you quote scripture (like Satan) only to serve your own wishes.

By the way, this verse also supports belief in the Assumption of Mary, for as St.Augustine said, our Lord would never allow the body of his Mother to see corruption.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[justasking4]

I’m sorry if I stated it wrong. I meant we have Scriptural basis for it just as we have for the Trinity. Would you be open to accepting it if it was so?

There are excellent grounds on Scripture to believe in the Trinity.

Justasking4, that was not the point AT ALL now… The point was we have FACTS about Mary that are not in the Scripture! I was now discussing only that we have FACTS outside it.

I have read it and its like a lot of what i read in support of this doctrine. It speculates and is not well grounded.

 

[justasking4]

To call Mary the mother of Jesus, but not the “Mother of God” is to diminish the person of Jesus as well as his mother, for it is a denial that Jesus is truly and fully God.

What did the council mean when with this title?

It was by responding to the Nestorian heresy in the 5th century that the formal definition of Mary invoked as Mother of God was given at the Council of Ephesus in 431AD. Patriarch Nestorius had preached, like fundamentalists today, that Mary was not the mother of God, being just the mother of Jesus’ physical body, which was then indwelt by the divine Word. His preaching was condemned as heresy, for the Gospels tell us that the Word did not ‘unite’ with a man, but was ‘made’ man. According to Nestorius, there were two persons occupying one body: one divine and the other human. Mary was the mother of only the human Jesus. Fundamentalists today say the same heretical thing about Mary, although it is a fundamental Christian belief that Jesus is one person with two “natures”, a fully divine nature and a fully human one. Mary gave birth to one person, Jesus, who is called both the Son of God and the Son of man: divine and human.It was through Mary that our Lord acquired his human nature without diminishing or discarding his divine nature, which was retained in the Incarnation. Mary bore someone who was both divine and human, an so she is also the mother of the person with a divine nature: the Son of God. [Cf. Jn. 1:14] To say that Mary is not the Mother of God is to say that Jesus was not divine, but only human (Arianism) or that there were two distinct persons occupying our Lord’s body (Nestorianism). Our preoccupation with Mary helped us define the hypostatic union in Christ; yet Protestants charge she only serves to distract our attention away from him.

 

[Milliardo]

What did the council mean when with this title?

It simply means that Mary is mother of God the Son, Jesus Himself. It is connected with the Trinity, in which we acknowledge Jesus to be the Second Person of the Trinity. It is also connected to Elizabeth’s proclamation in Luke 1:43. So as you can see, the title has Biblical basis.

 

[guanophore]

I believe Jesus, the Son of man, was conceived and born without
original sin, but he died on the cross on account of it.

You believe Jesus died on the cross because He had no original sin?

Enoch and Elijah were taken from this world by escaping death, but they were with sin, even before Jesus had died for their redemption.

Since we know that no sin can exist in heaven, where do you imagine they went? And, why did God preserve them from death, the wages of sin?

Just because Enoch and Elijah were taken up does not mean that Mary was. What you need for her assumption are eyewitnesses or Scripture. As you may know Scripture never records any such thing of her.

Apparently these are YOUR needs, justasking, not the needs of those who can believe without seeing. Jesus said to His Apostles that those who hear them, hear Him. This teaching has been handed down to us through the Apostolic Succession, so we receive it just as we would from Christ Himself.

Again you speculate. Mary is never said in Scripture to be without sin. In fact since she was born of human parents she was born with a sin nature.

This is not a speculation, justasking, but a teaching handed down to us from the Apostolic Authority that Jesus set up. According to the teaching, this is what it means to be “full of grace”. Such a person has no room for sin, original or otherwise. This is why the fathers wrote about her as the New Eve. She was created spotless, as Jesus created the first Eve. However, she was obedient, and not rebellious.

You can say this but there is no Scriptural support for it.

I wouldn’t say “none”. It is scarce, I agree. Jesus promised that all who believed in Him would be raised. He wanted His mother with Him, so he raised her, just like He did lazarus, but she now has a glorified body. We will all get glorified bodies at the resurrection (if we persevere in faith), and that is why we call Mary “our hope”. She represents the hope that is available to us all.

i’m not sure i completely understand you here. If you are asking do you have Scriptural or historical grounds to believe that Mary was taken to heaven the answer is no. The burden of proof is on your church to give you Scriptural reasons to beleive this. It has failed to do so for the mere fact it never claims it of her. Secondly, it has also failed historically to do so.

What you are doing is taking the rebellious stand that the Jews took against Jesus, demanding a “sign”. You reject the authority that Jesus apointed to teach His truth. Most of the NT was written before Mary’s death, so it does not make sense that there would be any reference to it. We don’t need “proof” since we have this handed to us by a reliable source, just like we have the Trinity, and the Canon of the NT. These were all passed on to us by the authority of the Apostolic Succession. What is odd is that you seem to accept the Tirinity, and the Canon, but …?

If the Apostolic Authority cannot be trusted, then how can you believe the Bible you have is authentic?

 

[Calvinator]

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+

Jay,

You may not have seen my earlier request but I would like to see a quote from Calvin that illustrates his belief in the assumption.

I know he is often used as an example of a reformer who believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary but a more precise reading of his commentaries reveals that he believed that it is impossible to fully deduce from scripture whether or not Mary and Joseph had intercourse.

 

[guanophore]

Quote:

1. Yes. Agreed!!! But their interpretation outside the RCC are fallible!

What interpretations are you referring to? Your church has never infallibly defined any verse of the Bible.

This is not the case, justasking. In pronouncing the Marian dogmas as infallible, the Church affirms that the words “Hail, full of grace” is a way of saying that Mary had no original sin.
justasking4;2395819:

What facts do you have about outside of scripture?

We have a souce of divine guidance in the magesterium of the church.

On what grounds are these fathers making these claims about Mary if they are not in Scripture?

On the inerrant authority of apostolic and sacred tradition.

Nonsense. The Scripture never claims this about only one church can interpret the Scriptures.

Indeed it does, justasking. Jesus only established One Church. There is only One Faith, One Baptism. And he placed Peter over that Church, and instructed him to feed the sheep. He gave him the Keys of the Kingdom. This is the authority established by Jesus.

I have already made my case that only the Scriptures alone are inspired-inerrant. If the Scriptures don’t teach it, its not binding. What is not grounded in Scripture is not binding.

No, you have not made a case. You have asserted your personal opinion, which happens to be contrary to the teaching of Christ and the Apostles. If you refuse to accept the authority that Jesus appointed over His church, that is between you and He.

Quote:
Friend, I honestly don’t agree you stand for your interpretation of Rom 5:12… Please, stay on the topic and read this for your answer:

This verse has everything to do with the claims your church makes about her. If your church is right about Mary not being a sinner, then this verse is a lie.

No, you are just not understanding it correctly. But this is the fallout of rejecting Apostolic Authority. The scriptures were never meant to be separated from the teachings and teachers from which they emerged. By separating yourself from their source, it is more likely that their meaning will be misunderstood.

On what grounds are these fathers making these claims about Mary if they are not in Scripture?

On the grounds of Sacred Tradition, which you have rejected as an infallible source of divine revelation.

 

[jburgherr]

It never ceases to amaze me that Protestants continuously say…"where is that in scripture…if its not in scripture, its not so (or binding). They seem to readily accept the Bible as infallible (which indeed it is), but they don’t seem to understand why and how it became “THE BIBLE”. It was so because the Catholic Church, with and through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, using its apostolic authority, declared it to be authoritative and heavenly inspired.

Protestants seem to accept the Catholic Church’s ability to infallibly define the Canon of the Bible, but unable to infallibly define anything else,(Like the assumption of Mary, or Mary’s perpetual virginity).

Either the Catholic Church has the authority to teach infallibly or it doesn’t. If it doesn’'t, then ALL OF THE BIBLE IS SUSPECT.

 

[Markway]

Hi Markway,

please read this article:

catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9205fea2.asp

hope that answers a lot of your questions! Please, share your thoughts then.

God bless!

Read the piece, a pretty fair piece of work. I didn’t come here to fight or argue, quite the opposite, but I do feel obligated to give voice to the truth, my responsibility as a Christian. You may be right and I wrong, but here’s the deal.

It’s never a good idea to argue from silence. I know that the Bible does not hold everything that was said or done, the story ends rather abruptly in fact. Most Protestants hold that the Bible is the only authority. I do not accept that, but am dogmatic that any other source must supplement, not conflict with the Bible.

I have a degree in European History, but Biblical History, archeology, etc is more of a by-line to me. My read on the first 200 years or so after the crucifixion, is that the Church was far from united in it’s beliefs. Just coming to terms with what they had experienced took time for the apostles. The understanding of the Trinity was not immediate. What’s more, there was a lot of “creative writing” that took place. Just look at The Gospel of Judas, stories about Lillith, stories about Mary’s childhood etc, that only the “Church of Dan Brown” accepts. So just finding a document isn’t real impressive by itself. Read the Nag Hammadi joke-O-Rama about Mary, Jesus, etc? Not real impressive.

Why weren’t stories of Mary’s assumption included in the Bible if the Church believed, or agreed on this?

 

[Markway]

It never ceases to amaze me that Protestants continuously say…"where is that in scripture…if its not in scripture, its not so (or binding). They seem to readily accept the Bible as infallible (which indeed it is), but they don’t seem to understand why and how it became “THE BIBLE”. It was so because the Catholic Church, with and through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, using its apostolic authority, declared it to be authoritative and heavenly inspired.

Protestants seem to accept the Catholic Church’s ability to infallibly define the Canon of the Bible, but unable to infallibly define anything else,(Like the assumption of Mary, or Mary’s perpetual virginity).

Either the Catholic Church has the authority to teach infallibly or it doesn’t. If it doesn’'t, then ALL OF THE BIBLE IS SUSPECT.

This is an interesting assertion, but wasn’t it The Church, not the Roman Catholic Church that assembled to select what was truly inspired for inclusion in the Bible? They did not choose to include documents concerning Mary’s assumption, eternal virginity, etc (by the way, why is the eternal virginity important to RC’s?) Was this because they felt that it was unimportant, unclear, false, or nonexistant?

As to the Bible being suspect, a case could be made that God acted to preserve and shape the Bible. While the Bible may not contain everything, it contains everything a person needs to know to be saved.

 

[Good_Fella]

I have read it and its like a lot of what i read in support of this doctrine. It speculates and is not well grounded.

If you were one of the Gospel authors, why would you include the Assumption of Mary, when you would first have to convince people that Jesus had actually risen from the dead and ascended into heaven? Mary’s Assumption is not necessary for our salvation, but salvifically sufficient, for her Assumption points towards the promise of our own future Resurrection from the dead. We must not question why God would will that Mary’s Assumption not be included “in writing” in the Gospels or elsewhere in the New Testament. Yet we can rightly infer that Mary’s Assumption is a real event by reflecting on the Spirit of the Word manifested in the biblical verses we have already cited. Divine revelation is not the content of a practical and empirical science, so why do you keep insisting like any rationalist, “Show me the facts! Facts, facts, and nothing more (faith) but facts!” This thread has become a circular argument. I sometimes wonder if you have read all the objections against your arguments.

I did not call you any names, but described your behaviour. It reminds me of someone.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Mannyfit75]

Read the piece, a pretty fair piece of work. I didn’t come here to fight or argue, quite the opposite, but I do feel obligated to give voice to the truth, my responsibility as a Christian. You may be right and I wrong, but here’s the deal.

It’s never a good idea to argue from silence. I know that the Bible does not hold everything that was said or done, the story ends rather abruptly in fact. Most Protestants hold that the Bible is the only authority. I do not accept that, but am dogmatic that any other source must supplement, not conflict with the Bible.

The Catholic Church affirms Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and Magisterial Authority speak as Voice of Jesus “He who hears you, hears me.” There is no conflicting doctrine find in the Catholic Church regarding the teaching of Jesus Christ, especially doctrines concerning the Blessed Virgin Mary.

I have a degree in European History, but Biblical History, archeology, etc is more of a by-line to me. My read on the first 200 years or so after the crucifixion, is that the Church was far from united in it’s beliefs. Just coming to terms with what they had experienced took time for the apostles. The understanding of the Trinity was not immediate. What’s more, there was a lot of “creative writing” that took place. Just look at The Gospel of Judas, stories about Lillith, stories about Mary’s childhood etc, that only the “Church of Dan Brown” accepts. So just finding a document isn’t real impressive by itself. Read the Nag Hammadi joke-O-Rama about Mary, Jesus, etc? Not real impressive.

Those are Gnostic Gospels (not worthy to be called Gospels) rejected by the Early Church which is the Catholic Church. St. Ireneaus condemned it as well as St. Justin Martyr, these men are the Early Church Fathers. Though they are fallible men they give witness to the Early Christian Church concerning the divinity of the Messiah, Jesus Christ. This is another topic of discussion. So we will not dwell there.

Why weren’t stories of Mary’s assumption included in the Bible if the Church believed, or agreed on this?

They are implied. I believe Revelation 12:1 “the woman clothed with the sun” implies Mary assumption and her Queenship in Heaven.

She earns her queenship because of her relationship with her son Jesus Christ who is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. In the Davidic Kingdom, Jewish kings have there mothers as Queens. Since Jesus inherited this kingdom, he is the king and he likewise give Mary, his mother the queenship.

I can say that the assumption is implied because in the Book of Revelation 12:1 said, “a sign in heaven appeared, a woman clothed with the sun.”

We know that this woman give birth to a male-child who was taken up to God and to his throne. This child is Jesus. Since Mary is the Mother of Jesus, the woman clothed with the sun is Mary.

This is further backup by Tradition. The Orthodox Church have what is called the Dormition of Mary, or falling asleep. In this tradition, Mary died and was later taken up into heaven by her son. In the Catholic Church, we have what is called an Assumption which Mary was taken up into heaven.

This doctrine is not new. Indeed, it took about 300 yrs after the fact because the issue in those days was the divinity of Jesus Christ. The Early Christian Church combat Gnosticism, Arianism, and Nectorianism, so defining the nature took presidence over Marian doctrines.

 

[Mannyfit75]

This is an interesting assertion, but wasn’t it The Church, not the Roman Catholic Church that assembled to select what was truly inspired for inclusion in the Bible? They did not choose to include documents concerning Mary’s assumption, eternal virginity, etc (by the way, why is the eternal virginity important to RC’s?) Was this because they felt that it was unimportant, unclear, false, or nonexistant?

It was the Catholic Church. St. Ignatius of Antioch in 110 AD first used the word Catholic Church when he wrote an Epistle to Synmearan
St. Ignatius of Antioch Epistle to Smyrnaeans:

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

As to the Bible being suspect, a case could be made that God acted to preserve and shape the Bible. While the Bible may not contain everything, it contains everything a person needs to know to be saved.

The Catholic Church in 382 AD added 27 NT into Scripture. Pope Damascus called on St. Jerome to translated the Greek Septuagint and the Hebrew Tanakh into Latin, or the Vulgar Language of Latin. This topic is **not within the thread **so if you wish to discuss the canon of Scripure Open a new thread.

 

[Milliardo]

This is an interesting assertion, but wasn’t it The Church, not the Roman Catholic Church that assembled to select what was truly inspired for inclusion in the Bible?

It’s interesting how you try to avoid mentioning the Catholic Church when it concerns who compiled the Bible; why is this so? I wonder what Church you’re even thinking that made the final compilation at the Council of Carthage in 419 A.D.?

They did not choose to include documents concerning Mary’s assumption, eternal virginity, etc (by the way, why is the eternal virginity important to RC’s?) Was this because they felt that it was unimportant, unclear, false, or nonexistant?

Many writings never made it into the final canon; early Christians never assumed them to be unimportant or unclear or false. Conversely, many Christians were unsure of such writings as Jude and Revelation to be inspired, and quite a number never as much as included them in their own canons, yet the Councils of Hippo and Carthage they were included.

 

[Good_Fella]

The Catholic Church affirms Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and Magisterial Authority speak as Voice of Jesus “He who hears you, hears me.” There is no conflicting doctrine find in the Catholic Church regarding the teaching of Jesus Christ, especially doctrines concerning the Blessed Virgin Mary.

They are implied. I believe Revelation 12:1 “the woman clothed with the sun” implies Mary assumption and her Queenship in Heaven

I can say that the assumption is implied because in the Book of Revelation 12:1 said, “a sign in heaven appeared, a woman clothed with the sun.”

We know that this woman give birth to a male-child who was taken up to God and to his throne. This child is Jesus. Since Mary is the Mother of Jesus, the woman clothed with the sun is Mary.

Please read my Reply #31 under the title “Did Our Blessed Mother Die?” The woman of Revelation 12 is most likely Mary, not the personification of the Church or Israel, for all the other figures in this chapter are presented as who they actually are, and Israel and the Church are never represented as a “woman” anywhere else in Revelation. Mary is referred to as “woman” in several other NT verses.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Mannyfit75]

Please read my Reply #31 under the title “Did Our Blessed Mother Die?” The woman of Revelation 12 is most likely Mary, not the personification of the Church or Israel, for all the other figures in this chapter are presented as who they actually are, and Israel and the Church are never represented as a “woman” anywhere else in Revelation. Mary is referred to as “woman” in several other NT verses.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

I check it already. You can also note the parallel between Revelation 12:1 and Isaiah 7:14

Isaiah 7:14

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a Sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel.

1 And a Great Sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.