Scriptural Basis for Mary's Assumption

[Good_Fella]

Major problems with this being interpreted as Mary.

Justasking4, please read my Reply #82 concerning the woman in Revelation 12. The argument that she is the Church or Israel has its flaws. Most Catholic scholars concede that the woman in Revelation 12 is Mary, the mother of Jesus. I agree with them.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[justasking4]

Justasking4, please read my Reply #82 concerning the woman in Revelation 12. The argument that she is the Church or Israel has its flaws. Most Catholic scholars concede that the woman in Revelation 12 is Mary, the mother of Jesus. I agree with them.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

Are you aware that no one of any standing in the 1st eight centuries of church history ever used this passage for Mary?
The major problem with using this passage is that Mary in the gospels is never depicted this way either.

 

[Good_Fella]

The mere fact a church defines something as true doesn’t make it so. The reason that we believe the HS is God because we have support from the scriptures that this is the case. Its not because your church says so.

How do you know what is and isn’t true in the scriptures? Do you arrive at the truth by interpreting the texts according to your liking? Keep picking and choosing what you want to believe in; that’s why Protestantism is a divided house.

Christ did not just give the church just the scriptures but teachers who are to teach them correctly to the members of Christ.

The teachers who interpret the scriptures correctly are Peter and the apostles and their successors, the pope in union with the college of bishops. The apostolic tradition protects the Church from falling into grave errors. Of course, you prefer not to believe that.

Without the Scriptures we would know the HS is God or the way of salvation. Without the scriptures we would not be able to grow in respect to salvation. See I Peter 2:2

You say that “without” the scriptures we would know the Holy Spirit is God. Yet you also say elsewhere that the scriptures provide excellent support for the belief in the divinity of the Holy Spirit. I don’t follow. Anyway, the Catholic Church refers to the scriptures when declaring dogmas. The scriptures do serve to help us better understand the Faith given to us through the apostles, but they alone are not sufficient. The divisions in the Protestant tradition attest to this fact.

What do you mean by sacraments?

The seven Sacraments of the Catholic Church which were given to us by Christ and initially administered by the apostles as shown in the New Testament. This is a different issue with Protestants. Perhaps you can do a search on it.

If this is true, then why did they write down the accounts of Christ i.e. the gospels? Why did Paul write letters which the churches considered important and evenually called them scripture?

To establish and preserve Church unity and a single identity as the People of God. Also, in response to heretical teachings which had sprung up and for pastoral guidance. But the apostles and their successors had sole custody of the truths contained therein. The faithful had to accept what the apostles and the ordained elders were preaching in light of what they had eventually put down in writing. They were warned not to pay heed to the false teachers who had corrupted their doctrines. The oral tradition alone could not last because the apostles would eventually die and the Church would expand too far and wide. One thing is certain, the authors of the sacred texts had no intention of putting a book together for publication and public use.

The problem with the cults is that they don’t take the contexts into their understanding of scripture nor how words and phrases are used elsewhere in Scripture. They use just those verses that they think supports their belief and ignore those that don’t. They particularly do a bad job with the doctrine of God i.e. the Trinity.

I agree. The Protestant reformers did the same thing. How do they know which of them put the scriptures into proper context? They couldn’t agree with each other on many essential doctrines. Which of them could lay claim to apostolic authority? None of them. It all boils down to begging the question when doctrines are formed based on scriptures outside the Magisterium of the Catholic Church and the apostolic Tradition.

Huh? If you look at the various passages your church uses for this you won’t see this.

You mean to say that you refuse to see this. I clearly do.

We know its true because this is what the scriptures teach and not because your church says so on its authority alone.

Again, you are speaking in hindsight, and you are begging the question. The Bible does not explicitly tell us that the Holy Spirit is God or a Person in the Holy Trinity. You are looking at the Bible with a preconceived notion as you always do.

It may teach it but that doesn’t mean its true. The claim for her assumption must either be grounded in scripture (it is not) or have historical evidence from the 1st century that tells who saw her assumed. Again there is none.

There is enough implicit scriptural evidence that the Assumption is true. You choose to reject it. It is a matter of faith.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[KofC660]

Hi,
I’m new here, can anyone give me a Scriptural Basis for the Assupmtion of Mary?

There is none.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

While not explicit in Scripture, there are passages which imply bodily assumption (Elijah, et. al).

And of course, the fact that something is not explicit in Scripture does not mean that it is not true. Scripture itself does not say that ‘all truth’ is found in Scripture alone; quite the contrary. We are told that not only did Jesus say and teach much more than is contained in the gospels, that in addition He will send the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth. Not “to guide you into creating a book”. Not “to guide you so that whenever you have a disagreement with what the Church teaches you can leave and do your own thing”. So long as authentic oral tradition does not contradict Scripture–and this does not-- and has been given us by the Church through the authority of the Holy Spirit who guides us and Christ who establishes us–who dares deny it?

 

[guanophore]

These Scriptures actually go against the assumption of Mary, if God thought it was important to mention Enoch or Elijah why would he not mention his Mother, I mean wouldn’t he want us to know that she was in Heaven both body and soul?

Most of the NT had been written already during Mary’s lifetime. The one book that was definitely written later was Revelation, in which John describes the Queen of Heaven.

Those bodies that left the grave after the Resurrection of Christ were already dead; I believe that Mary was still alive.

The fathers tell us that she was placed in the tomb, and when they went back, her body was gone. In the East, they call it the “dormition” or “Falling asleep” of Mary. They speak of it as if she had “barely” passed. The truth is that there were no recorded eyewitnesses, and the disciples assumed that, since her body was gone, her Son had come for her.

Once again if God thought it was important enough.

Only Jesus can know how important to Him his mother is.

It may be fitting, but no Scriptural evidence.

I suspect the discples were very protective of Mary, especially after what happened to Jesus. They may have taken great pains to keep her secreted and safe. Most especially after the earnest persecutions began. Saul was ravaging the Church.

Acts 8:1 And at that time there was raised a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all dispersed through the countries of Judea, and Samaria, except the apostles. 3 But Saul made havock of the church, entering in from house to house, and dragging away men and women, committed them to prison.

I feel sure they did not want Jesus’ mother to be among the victims!

They might have downplayed her presence and omitted mentions of her. Especially if she were still alive at the time of the writings.

The bottom line for me is that it isn’t a salvation issue, I will not be condemned to hell because I don’t believe in the assumption. I think that Mary was a wonderful woman, blessed among any woman then or now. I think her example of obedience should be an example to us all.

Embarrassed, maybe. The salient issue with regard to salvation is the rejection of the Apostolic Authority. Jesus says that people that reject those He sent, reject Him,a nd those who reject HIm, reject His Father. So, if you are rejecting of the Apostolic teaching and authority, you risk rejection of the only source of your salvation, Jesus.

 

[guanophore]

The “early church” is not the same as the NT church as put forth in the NT. The NT did not teach such doctrines and practices as: Mary being sinless, her immaculate conception, assumption, prayed to, queen of heaven. A list could easily be made to show the vast difference between the NT church and roman catholic church in other areas also.

You are right, justasking, a list can be made that shows differences between the NT church, early church, and RCC. The problem is that there was no “RCC” for the first thousand years. Until the split with the EAstern Orthodox, the “early” church was all one. It is also a problem for those who reject the Apostolic Teachings that the Eastern Orthodox, who also do not accept the RCC, share all the same Apostolic Teachings (except the role of the Pope). So, if the same teachings are present, and it is not a “Roman” phenomenon, how do you explain it?

 

[guanophore]

Just because something is claimed to have “developed over time” or ancient does not mean its true. Think about how late this idea of her assumption appears. Almost 400 years and there are no eyewitness documents from the 1st century to support it. All this is is speculation.

It is only speculation for those who reject the promise of Jesus to lead His church into all truth. It is only speculation for those who reject the Apostolic Authority appointed by Jesus to teach in His name. It is only speculation for those who reject the power of the HS to reveal the truth to God’s people. But for those who accept the Power of God, it is a celebration!

 

[Good_Fella]

Are you aware that no one of any standing in the 1st eight centuries of church history ever used this passage for Mary?
The major problem with using this passage is that Mary in the gospels is never depicted this way either.

Are you sure that the Gospels never depict Mary as the woman in Revelation 12 ? Please reflect on the following verses:

Jesus calls Mary “woman” as she is called in Genesis 3:15. Just as Eve was the mother of the old creation, Mary is the mother of the new creation. Her offspring will crush the serpent’s skull. Both the serpent and the dragon personify Satan. (Jn 2:4; 19:6)

Luke emphasizes Jesus is with his mother Mary. The Magi prostrate themselves before both of them when paying Jesus homage. The woman is depicted with her child. Mary is presented as the Queen Mother, ‘Gebirah’. (Mt 2:11)

The angel Gabriel tells Mary “the child will be called holy, the Son of God.” (Lk 1:35) Mary is presented as the mother of Jesus, who is God. Since Mary is the Mother of God, she must be in Heaven together with her Son.

Mary’s ‘fiat’ is “let it be done according to thy word.” (Lk 1:38) Mary is the perfect model of Christian faith in God, and so she has received her eternal crown and is worthy of our veneration. Jesus will give the faithful unto death the crown of life. Jesus gave Mary, his mother, the crown of life because of her faithfulness. (Rev 2:10)

When Jesus uses the title “woman” (‘gnyai’) it is a title of dignity and respect. (Jn 2:4; 19:26) Jesus honored his mother by taking her to Heaven body and soul after she passed away. Her place of honour is revealed in Revelation 12. Our Lord wishes that we honour her along with Him, for we are his brethren and she is his mother and our mother. (Jn 19:26)

Rev 12:17 illustrates the meaning of John 19:26. The “woman’s” offspring are those who follow Jesus, his brethren.

The Gospel teaches us that Mary our mother intercedes for us and helps us to do the will of her Son. She tells us to do whatever he tells us. Her intercession at the wedding feast compelled our Lord to perform his first miracle on our behalf. (Jn 2:3) Now she exercises her intercessory role in Heaven next to her Son. She is the most significant person in God’s plan of salvation in the service of her Son. She cannot fulfill her appointed role while laying in a tomb. Jesus allows his mother to intercede for us, and he responds to her requests. (Jn 2:7; Ps 45:9; 1Kings 2:17-20; Neh2:6)

Mary prophetically proclaims, “From now on all generations will call me blessed, for the Almighty has done GREAT THINGS for me, and holy is his name.” (Lk 1:48-49) Revelation 12 shows us what great things it pleased God to do for Mary.

If Mary was as insignificant as you make her out to be, the Gospels would not contain these verses in conjunction with numerous other texts from the Old and New Testaments.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[fellowChristian]

More on the Assumption of Our Blessed Mother Mary

newadvent.org/cathen/02006b.htm

Don’t you think based on the merit of her Son,Mary would be assumed?

Remember,nothing is impossible for God:thumbsup:

And remember not everything was written down about Jesus.

John 21:

25And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.

 

[Good_Fella]

Are you aware that no one of any standing in the 1st eight centuries of church history ever used this passage for Mary?

They certainly had the woman in Revelation 12 in mind:

“The Virgin Mary, being obedient to his word, received from an angel the glad tidings that she would bear God.”
[Irenaeus 189 AD]

“For Luke, in the inspired Gospel narratives, delivers a testimony…to Mary, the Mother of God, and gives this account with reference to the very family and house of David.”

"It is our duty to present to God, like sacrifices, all the festivals and hymnal celebrations; and first of all the feast of the Annunciation to the Holy Mother of God, to wit, the salutation made to her by the angel, “Hail full of grace!”
[Gregory the Wonderworker 262 AD]

“We acknowledge the resurrection from the dead, of which Jesus Christ our Lord became the firstling; he bore a body not in appearance but in truth derived from Mary the Mother of God.”
[Peter of Alexandria 324AD]

“While the old man Simeon was thus exultant, and rejoicing with exceeding great and holy joy, that which had before been spoken of in a figure by the prophet Isaiah, the holy Mother of God now manifestly fulfilled.” [Methodius 305 AD]

“The Father bears witness from heaven to his Son; the Holy Spirit bears witness, coming down bodily in the form of a dove; the archangel Gabriel bears witness, bringing the good tidings to Mary; the Virgin Mother of God bears witness.”
[Cyril of Jerusalem 350 AD]

“Though still a virgin she carried a child in her womb, and the handmaid and the work of his wisdom became the Mother of God.” [Ephraim the Syrian 351 AD]

“The Word begotten of the Father from on high…is he who is born in time here below of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God.”
[Athanasius 365 AD]

“What is greater than the Mother of God? What more glorious than she whom Glory itself chose?” [Ambrose of Milan 377 AD]

“Hail to you forever, you virgin Mother of God, our unceasing joy, for unto you do I again return…Wherefore we pray you, the most excellent among women, who boast in the confidence of your maternal honours, that you would unceasingly keep us in remembrance…”
[Methodius 305 AD]

"The Lord said to his Mother, ’ Let your heart rejoice and be glad, for every favour and every gift has been given to you from my Father in heaven and from me and from the Holy Spirit’ "
'The Falling Asleep of Mary 400 AD, John the Theologian]

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Good_Fella]

There is none.

Hi, I’m new here. Is there any scriptural basis that the Assumption of Mary did not happen?

Did you say that this basis is the fact there is nothing explicitly mentioned about the Assumption?

What is the scriptural basis for this assumption?

The Bible alone is not sufficient.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Good_Fella]

Stop my posts if I offend you. I have only quoted what Catholics have told me, and have asked why Mary has been elevated by the Church in ways that are not written down by ANY early Church writers.

“At that time, the Saviour coming from the Virgin, the Ark, brought forth his own Body into the world from that Ark, which was gilded with pure gold by the Word, and without by the Holy Ghost; so that the truth was shown forth, and the Ark was manifested…And the Saviour came into the world bearing the incorruptible Ark, that is to say His own Body.”

St.Hyppolytus [c.170-c.236 A.D.]

“And indeed it was wholly fitting that so wonderful a mother should be ever resplendent with the glory of most sublime holiness and so completely free from all taint of original sin that she would triumph utterly over the ancient serpent. To her did the Father will to give his only-begotten Son…and to give this Son in such a way that he would be the one and the same common Son of God and of the Blessed Virgin Mary.”

Apostolic Constitution, ‘Ineffabilis Deus’, Pope Pius lX, 8 December 1854: Dogma of the Immaculate Conception

“The Ark would be the type and image of Christ: for if we look back to the way of the Incarnation of the Only-begotten, we shall see that it is in the temple of the Virgin, as in an ark that the Word of God took up His abode. For in him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, as the Scripture saith. But the testimonies in the Ark were the Word of God, and the wood of it were imperishable, and with pure and choicest gold was it beautiful within and without.”

St.Cyril 315-387 A.D.]

“Thus…some have employed the words of the psalmist,‘Arise, O Lord, into your resting place; you and the ark, which you have sanctified,’ and have looked upon the Ark of the Covenant, built of incorruptible wood and placed in the Lord’s temple, as a type of the most pure body of the Virgin Mary, preserved and exempt from all the corruption of the tomb and raised up to such glory in heaven.”

Apostolic Constitution ‘Munificentissimus Deus’, Pope Pius Xll, 1 November 1950: Dogma of the Assumption.

“If anyone does not agree that Mary is the Mother of God, he is at odds with the Godhead.”

St.Gregory of Nanzianz ( 330-389 A.D.)

Canon 1: “If anyone does not confess that God is truly Emmanuel, and that on this account the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God (for according to the flesh she gave birth to the Word of God become flesh by birth), let him be anathema.”

The Ecumenical Council of Ephesus (431 A.D.) Dogma of Mary invoked as Mother of God, ‘Theotokos’

On a final note, I would like to share with you the most complete ancient prayer to our Blessed Mother which has been historically preserved. This prayer indicates that the Church had already believed in the Assumption by the middle of the third century. The Church would not have invoked the Mother of God if it had been believed she was laying in the tomb.

We fly to your patronage, O holy Mother of God
Despise not our petitions in our necessities
But deliver us from all dangers, O glorious and ever Virgin.

‘Sub Tuum Praesidium’ (250 A.D.)

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[justasking4]

It is only speculation for those who reject the promise of Jesus to lead His church into all truth. It is only speculation for those who reject the Apostolic Authority appointed by Jesus to teach in His name. It is only speculation for those who reject the power of the HS to reveal the truth to God’s people. But for those who accept the Power of God, it is a celebration!

Not so. Speculation has to do with facts. In this case for this doctrine there are no eyewitness accounts nor Scripture to back it up with. No facts. Even claiming apostolic authority can make something true that is not.

 

[justasking4]

Good Fella;2490769]Hi, I’m new here. Is there any scriptural basis that the Assumption of Mary did not happen?

Did you say that this basis is the fact there is nothing explicitly mentioned about the Assumption?

What is the scriptural basis for this assumption?

The Bible alone is not sufficient.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

That is correct. There is no mention of her assumption in scripture. Not even hinted at.

 

[justasking4]

For some reason i’m unable to respond to your message so i copied and pasted some of it here.

Good Fella;2487369

Originally Posted by justasking4
The mere fact a church defines something as true doesn’t make it so. The reason that we believe the HS is God because we have support from the scriptures that this is the case. Its not because your church says so.
How do you know what is and isn’t true in the scriptures? Do you arrive at the truth by interpreting the texts according to your liking? Keep picking and choosing what you want to believe in; that’s why Protestantism is a divided house.

This is just as much a problem for me as it is for you. Your church has never defined or interpreted what a verse of scripture means. You to do not have an infallible interpreter that has interpreted all the verses of the Scriptures that tell you what they mean.

–justasking4 --Christ did not just give the church just the scriptures but teachers who are to teach them correctly to the members of Christ.
The teachers who interpret the scriptures correctly are Peter and the apostles and their successors, the pope in union with the college of bishops. The apostolic tradition protects the Church from falling into grave errors. Of course, you prefer not to believe that.

Can you show me where the offical interpretations of all the verses or just some of the verses of the Scriptures have been interpreted by pope and bishops can be found?
Without such a source you have no way to tell me or anyone is wrong in how they interpret the scriptures.

 

[justasking4]

fellowChristian;2487998]More on the Assumption of Our Blessed Mother Mary

newadvent.org/cathen/02006b.htm

I checked this out and it makes my case that this is all based on mere speculation. This is a quote from that article–
"Regarding the day, year, and manner of Our Lady’s death, nothing certain is known. The earliest known literary reference to the Assumption is found in the Greek work De Obitu S. Dominae. Catholic faith, however, has always derived our knowledge of the mystery from Apostolic Tradition. Epiphanius (d. 403) acknowledged that he knew nothing definite about it (Haer., lxxix, 11). The dates assigned for it vary between three and fifteen years after Christ’s Ascension. Two cities claim to be the place of her departure: Jerusalem and Ephesus. Common consent favours Jerusalem, where her tomb is shown; but some argue in favour of Ephesus. The first six centuries did not know of the tomb of Mary at Jerusalem.

This is the kind of thing that legends and myths are made of.

Don’t you think based on the merit of her Son,Mary would be assumed?

The question is not what Christ could do but what actually happened and what is the evidence for it.

Remember,nothing is impossible for God:thumbsup:

Not necessarily so. God cannot lie. However in regards to this issue of Mary’s supposed assumption i suppose He could. However we have no evidence He did.

And remember not everything was written down about Jesus.

John 21:

25And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.

That may be. However we don’t know if He did since there is no evidence He did.

 

[LilyM]

This is the kind of thing that legends and myths are made of.

Oh really?

Then tell me what day, month and year was Christ born then? I’ve seen everything from 6AD to about 2BC, and any month between September and April.

What was his lineage? Two different genealogies, even in the Bible itself.

Did the flight to Egypt really happen? If so then why does Luke say that the parents of Jesus went up every year to Jerusalem for Passover? You think they did so from Egypt? And with King Herod still around?

What evidence do we have of his life? No mention of him at all, anywhere, until at least 20 or 30 years after his death.

In what order did the events of his ministry occur? Again, the Gospels differ in chronology and details - even down to the very names of some of the 12!

What exactly happened on Easter Sunday? The Gospels mention ‘women’ v ‘Mary Magdalene alone’, earthquake and angels v Christ himself appearing to Mary, Jesus meeting his apostles in Galilee as opposed to in the still-locked upper room in Jerusalem.

Were the Gospels written by the people they are named after? In fact were ANY of them written by eyewitnesses at all? Or by people with access to eyewitnesses? What evidence do we have that this is the case?

How do we know that the John who wrote Revelation is the same as the John who wrote the Gospel and the same who wrote the letter(s) of John? And the same as the ‘beloved disciple’?

If you applied the same impossibly strict criteria to the Gospels as you do to the doctrine of the Asuumption then it stumps me why you don’t believe HE is just a fable and myth too.

 

[Good_Fella]

That is correct. There is no mention of her assumption in scripture. Not even hinted at.

Why do you keep returning to the beginning of the thread and continue a circular argument? We have alraedy discussed this issue, and both of us have had our say, so let’s leave it at that. But just to refresh your memory, here are a host of verses that support the Assumption, at least implicitly:

Genesis 3:15; 5:24; Heb 11:5; 2 Kings 2:11-12; 1Mac 2:58; Psalm 132:8; 2 Cor 12:2; Mt 27:52-53; Lk1:49 1 Thess 4:17; Rev 12:1.

In 2 Thessolonians 2:15, Paul exhorts us to hold fast to the oral tradition, not just the written texts. Apostolic tradition says that Mary was assumed into heaven. Meanwhile, Mary’s bones were never claimed by the early Church and have not yet been claimed by the Catholic Church, because her body has vanished. The Church would not lose track of the body of the Mother of her Lord. I will side with you, Justasking4, if you can produce Mary’s body and prove it is hers. But I wish you luck, since her body is resurrected and in heaven with her Son’s glorious body. We may have the same experience on the Last Day. Mary has preceded us in virtue of who her offspring is. Why is that hard to believe?

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Markway]

You have a problem with saying that Mary is holy? Scripture says the following about people and holiness:

Mark 6:20 says that John the baptist was a righteous and holy man. So what about Mary?

Mark 8:38 speaks of the Holy Angels. Likewise, Jesus says in Matthew 22:30 that when we are in heaven we will be like the angels.

Luke 1:70 speaks of the holy prophets. So what about Mary?

Per Luke 2:23 scripture says that every male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord.

In Romans, Paul even says that the law is holy. What about Mary?

Paul also says in Romans 11:16 that " If the dough offered as first fruits is holy, so is the whole lump; and if the root is holy, so are the branches." Is Mary one of the branches?

In Romans 12:1 we are exhorted to offer our bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God. Do you think Mary did this?

See also what scripture says in 1 Cor 3:17, 1 Cor 7:14, 1 Cor 7:34, Eph 1:4 and others that talk about holiness. Likewise, study everything you can about sanctification. These apply to us and they apply to Mary, .

I hope this helps.

Yeah, So What About Mary? If the Bible picks these others out, why not Mary?

Jesus actually repudiates His mother and brothers several times because they didn’t believe in His mission and the nature of His person.

My degrees are in Poly Sci and History. In Constitutional Law there is a practice followed by certain Supreme Court Justices, whereby certain justices suppose to find a certain tendency or implied principle in the US Constitution. This then is built up step by logical step, until finally the court “finds” a brand new doctrine that was there waiting to be discovered. The immunity to search and seizure becomes a right to privacy becomes a woman’s right to choose. I pulled "A"s but it was obvious that the justices were looking for support for law that they wanted to “find”.

How not to see the development of the Cult of Mary in similar fashion? In the story of The Christ she plays a minor role, but in the modern RCC, her importance approaches that of Jesus. Jesus taught us how to pray. Where were the saints or Mary then? She did not teach, she performed no miracles, she did not believe in Christ’s mission during His lifetime. CHRIST SAID SO!

“Here are my mother and brothers! For whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother.” Not a big recommendation for Mary and her holiness.