Scriptural Basis for Mary's Assumption

[guanophore]

who say’s that the truth was divinely revealed to the people who recorded it? they do and that is enough for you? wow

The Catholic Church was given the authority by Jesus to bind and loose. Part of that duty was to define what is divine revelation, and what is not. If you do not believe this happened, then the contents of the Bible you are using is of no use to you. The Church, through the divine revelation and guidance of the HS, sorted through the 500 different letters and gospels floating about and determined which 27 would become the NT. Jesus promised that he would preserve His church from error, that He would send His spirit to guide us into all truth, and yes, His promise is enough for me.

 

[guanophore]

unfortunatly the C.C didn’t record these events, even if I gave you a 1000 examples you would say they were all A.C.

I have to admit, you have taken a rather anticatholic stance. Please substantiate that the Catholic Church did not record the events around the publication of the bible for common use. Please do so using reputable sources.

Because you alone except the historical evidents of the c.c.

revmarty, you have no idea what I will accept in the way of testimony or not, and are making erroneous assumptions AGAIN! I just posted a link to an historical reference called the Protoevangelium of James. This is not considered a document of the Catholic Church, yet it does shed light on the culture of the time.

of course they encourage you to read it, but they have convinced you it’s not reliable, so read to your hearts content.

Who are “they”, revmarty? Who is encouraging Catholics to read the bible? Who are the “they” that have “convinced” us it is not reliable? Please provide sources for these assertions, or stop making them.

 

[Church_Militant]

unfortunatly the C.C didn’t record these events, even if I gave you a 1000 examples you would say they were all A.C. Because you alone except the historical evidents of the c.c.

Cop out! Bring it, don’t sing it RM.

of course they encourage you to read it, but they have convinced you it’s not reliable, so read to your hearts content.

Yeah sure…This is just rhetorical propaganda.

I bet I know the Word of God better than you do and if you took the time to peruse my posts, and the threads that I open you’ll quickly see that you’re dead wrong here.

You’re pretty long on rhetoric and short on proofs.

 

[Mannyfit75]

This is an absurd thing to say! All the Apostles and disciples (the 72 He sent out) were Jews, and so were the 3000 added on Pentecost! God preserved for Himself a remnant out of Israel. The book of Revelation has to be taken along with all the OT prophesy where God promises to bring salvation to the world through Israel.

3:1 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? 2 Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews are entrusted with the oracles of God. 3 What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God?
Rom 3:1-3

This is one of the things Jesus means when He says “salvation is of the Jews”.

Isa 37:31-32
31 And the surviving remnant of the house of Judah shall again take root downward, and bear fruit upward; 32 for out of Jerusalem shall go forth a remnant, and out of Mount Zion a band of survivors. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will accomplish this. "

Do you think I know that? Of course I do. But what I am referring to is that the majority of the Jewish nation rejected Jesus as the Messiah. As a result of them rejecting the truth Messiah, the Jews were slaughtered by the Roman Emperor and their Temple was destroyed in 70 AD. When an entire nation reject God’s Only Son, there is great consequence.

During the Jewish Rebellion against Pagan Rome, millions of Jews were killed. This was the worst mass killing until Hitler’s killing of 6 million Jews.

When I said “entire Jewish nation” rejected Jesus as their Messiah, I mean the majority.

It will take only time when they will recognized that Jesus is the Messiah.

 

[revmarty]

revmarty, for most of history, the "simpliest people of the would (sic) " could not read. Neither was there any printing press so that bibles could be widely disseminated. There are no lies and errors in the church teaching.

It is against the forum rules to defame the faith, so it behooves you to choose your language differently if you wish to remain.

remember Martin Luther,
“Unless I am convinced by proofs from Scriptures or by plain and clear reasons and arguments, I can and will not retract, for it is neither safe nor wise to do anything against conscience. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen.” Not much has changed in 480 years hey.

It is a relief to see that you admit you are simple minded. In fact, the holy scriptures were never meant to be separated from the sacred oral tradition which produced, protected, and promulgated them. The church has always taught this, long before the reformation

.

Ouch!!!
you forgot perverted?
you do dribble

This seems to be a hypocritical salutation coming from you, revmarty. If you wish to be a blessing, it might be more appropriate to start with some basic courtesy. Try having some dialogue without insulting us, and maybe you will present a better blessing.

you are right sorry, I was just doing what I,ve seen all the long term members do to the non.C’s.

 

[revmarty]

Cop out! Bring it, don’t sing it RM.Yeah sure…This is just rhetorical propaganda.

yeah right that’s just C. Rhetoric.

I bet I know the Word of God better than you do and if you took the time to peruse my posts, and the threads that I open you’ll quickly see that you’re dead wrong here.

mine is bigger than yours is that where we are now, seriously CM,

 

[guanophore]

remember Martin Luther,
“Unless I am convinced by proofs from Scriptures or by plain and clear reasons and arguments, I can and will not retract, for it is neither safe nor wise to do anything against conscience. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen.” Not much has changed in 480 years hey.

I think quite a bit has changed, revmarty. Luther believed in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, Holy Orders, and in venerating the Blessed Virgin. He had went to Mass every day, and prayed his rosary too, even after he fell away.

Ouch!!!
you forgot perverted?
you do dribble

This seems like a discourteous remark…

No, I did not 'forget" to insert the word “perverted” when I reminded you that the Catholic Church penned, preserved, and promulgated the scripture. The scriptures originated from Catholicism. Luther took out some of the books that he didn’t like, and others separated the scripture from the Sacred Tradition from which it emerged. That is how perversion happens. The Scripture and the Apostolic authority go together.

you are right sorry, I was just doing what I,ve seen all the long term members do to the non.C’s.

I have also seen and participated in uncharitable acts by Catholics here. I am not defending it, but we need to avoid getting sucked into negativity.

 

[Good_Fella]

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

CWT, I’m relatively new here myself. So can anyone give me a “scriptural basis”
for the martyrdom of the apostles Peter and Paul in Rome? I think not, for the scriptures
do not record their deaths, or the deaths of any of the apostles for that matter except James
the son of Zebedee [Acts 12:2). We learn of the martyrdom of Peter and Paul from a letter
that was written by our third Pope, Clement of Rome, who was ordained by St.Peter himself:

‘Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours; and when
he at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due him. Owing to envy, Paul
also endured the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity…
and suffered martyrdom under the prefects.’ ["The First Epistle to the Corinthians]

The deaths of St.Peter and St.Paul were not recorded in the scriptures because all
scriptural records came to an end with the ascension of Jesus and the commission of
the Apostles. Any following record would have been deemed superfluous or ant-climatic
by the authors of the sacred texts. Moreover, the deaths of the apostles, not unlike the
Assumption of Mary, would not have been recorded because they had no direct bearing on
our salvation. The authors of the New Testament were concerned strictly with Jesus, the
importance of his teachings and deeds, and the merits of his death for all humanity.
We would still be saved regardless of whether the apostles were martyred or Mary was
taken up to heaven after her dormition.

Now there is implicit scriptural evidence that Peter would be martyred, but likewise there
is implicit scriptural evidence that Mary was taken to Heaven body and soul like her Son,
but by his divine power - not hers. [Jn 21:18; Rev 12:1-5; Gen 3:15] I suggest you read these
passages translated from the Latin Vulgate.

Meanwhile, the Gospel writers were not indifferent towards the profound significance of Mary
in God’s plan of salvation. Please reflect upon these words of our Blessed Mother: “Hail, full of
grace, the Lord is with you.” [Lk 1:28] “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the
Most High will overshadow you.” [Lk 1:35] “And how does this happen to me, that the mother
of my Lord (Mother of God) should come to me?” [Lk 1:43] “Most blessed are you among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.” [Lk 1:42] “The Mighty One has done great things for me and holy is His name!” [Lk 1:49] When the wine ran short, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.”…His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.” [Jn 2:3-5] These passages alone imply that Mary was taken to Heaven after her death, where she precedes the glory we will share with her Son, our Lord. And it is in Heaven where she intercedes for us in the presence of her beloved Son, just like she interceded for the guests at the wedding feast.

Indeed, there is more scriptural evidence for the Assumption of Mary than there is for the
martyrdom of St.Peter, although we have a historical record of the apostle’s death in Rome.
Well, with regard to historical evidence for the Assumption, as with the martyrdom of Peter
and Paul, we have to turn to Tradition and the prevalent beliefs circulating among the faithful.

Mary’s bodily assumption is a long-standing teaching of the early Church. It’s celebration in August dates back to the late third century in Palestine. The setting of a Feast Day for a doctrine is a sign of a long-standing belief among the community of the faithful. Christians believed in the Nativity of the Messiah, but the Feast of the Nativity celebrated on December 25 was not set until 354 AD by Pope Julius 1. But scripture makes it clear that a child was born for us. Anyway, Christians believed that Mary’s Assumption took place from the time of the apostles, as they believed in the birth of Christ. They were aware of the contents of a text, before it was written, attributed to Joseph of Arimathea, ‘The Passing of Mary’. According to this text, Thomas was the only witness of the Assumption. Ironically, the other apostles refused to believe him until they arrived to the empty tomb, where only her girdle remained. In 400 AD, the Emperor Marcian asked the Patriarch of the See of Jerusalem to bring the remains (relics)
of Mary to Constantinople for veneration. (Peter’s remains are at the Basilica in Rome today.) The Patriarch told him that her remains could not be found.

The Gospel of Thomas is an apochryphal book, but it is historically valuable and confirms
what the Christians in Palestine believed, because they could not find the remains of Christ’s mother. The book may not have been divinely inspired, but neither was the Epistle of Clement.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[pete_29]

mine is bigger than yours is that where we are now, seriously CM,

Protestants always tell me how the Bible is the literal word of God and it should be followed to the letter, but it amazes me how few actually practice what they preach. Jesus says in 3 different Books that the broken and Blessed bread is His Body and that the Wine is His Blood. Jesus does not say these are symbols but that they are the Real Thing. John chapter 6 clearly states that His Body and Blood are Real Food and Real Drink. Why don't you believe what Jesus says. Protestants tell me that no man can forgive sins, which is partial truth, but didn't Jesus give authority to St. Peter and the Apostles by telling them that whatever they bind or loose on Earth will be bound or loosed in Heaven, or was Jesus just trying to make them feel important. There are approximately 33,000 Protestant denominations on this planet. Do you know why? Because there are 33,000 different interpretations of the Bible. One by each denomination. I believe that Jesus gave authority to Peter, the Rock, to oversee the Church, as is witten in the Bible. I believe that Papal succesion can be found in Acts. Since the Apostles appointed a successor to replace Judas. It seems to me that someone to succeed Peter would be a logical development. Don't get me wrong. I know that Protestants love the Word of God. We Catholics could learn much from you on that account, but to me Jesus surely would have set up a Hierarchy to oversee His Church so that it wouldn't fall into chaos. I may be mistaken, but many of your posts seem very angry. I pray that you find the Peace that Jesus meant us all to have.

 

[BrianH]

‘Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours; and when
he at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due him. Owing to envy, Paul
also endured the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity…
and suffered martyrdom under the prefects.’ "The First Epistle to the Corinthians]

The deaths of St.Peter and St.Paul were not recorded in the scriptures because all
scriptural records came to an end with the ascension of Jesus and the commission of
the Apostles. Any following record would have been deemed superfluous or ant-climatic
by the authors of the sacred texts. Moreover, the deaths of the apostles, not unlike the
Assumption of Mary, would not have been recorded because they had no direct bearing on
our salvation. The authors of the New Testament were concerned strictly with Jesus, the
importance of his teachings and deeds, and the merits of his death for all humanity.
We would still be saved regardless of whether the apostles were martyred or Mary was
taken up to heaven after her dormition.

Now there is implicit scriptural evidence that Peter would be martyred, but likewise there
is implicit scriptural evidence that Mary was taken to Heaven body and soul like her Son,
but by his divine power - not hers. [Jn 21:18; Rev 12:1-5; Gen 3:15] I suggest you read these
passages translated from the Latin Vulgate.

Meanwhile, the Gospel writers were not indifferent towards the profound significance of Mary
in God’s plan of salvation. Please reflect upon these words of our Blessed Mother: “Hail, full of
grace, the Lord is with you.” [Lk 1:28] “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the
Most High will overshadow you.” [Lk 1:35] “And how does this happen to me, that the mother
of my Lord (Mother of God) should come to me?” [Lk 1:43] “Most blessed are you among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.” [Lk 1:42] “The Mighty One has done great things for me and holy is His name!” [Lk 1:49] When the wine ran short, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.”…His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.” [Jn 2:3-5] These passages alone imply that Mary was taken to Heaven after her death, where she precedes the glory we will share with her Son, our Lord. And it is in Heaven where she intercedes for us in the presence of her beloved Son, just like she interceded for the guests at the wedding feast.

Indeed, there is more scriptural evidence for the Assumption of Mary than there is for the
martyrdom of St.Peter, although we have a historical record of the apostle’s death in Rome.
Well, with regard to historical evidence for the Assumption, as with the martyrdom of Peter
and Paul, we have to turn to Tradition and the prevalent beliefs circulating among the faithful.

Mary’s bodily assumption is a long-standing teaching of the early Church. It’s celebration in August dates back to the late third century in Palestine. The setting of a Feast Day for a doctrine is a sign of a long-standing belief among the community of the faithful. Christians believed in the Nativity of the Messiah, but the Feast of the Nativity celebrated on December 25 was not set until 354 AD by Pope Julius 1. But scripture makes it clear that a child was born for us. Anyway, Christians believed that Mary’s Assumption took place from the time of the apostles, as they believed in the birth of Christ. They were aware of the contents of a text, before it was written, attributed to Joseph of Arimathea, ‘The Passing of Mary’. According to this text, Thomas was the only witness of the Assumption. Ironically, the other apostles refused to believe him until they arrived to the empty tomb, where only her girdle remained. In 400 AD, the Emperor Marcian asked the Patriarch of the See of Jerusalem to bring the remains (relics)
of Mary to Constantinople for veneration. (Peter’s remains are at the Basilica in Rome today.) The Patriarch told him that her remains could not be found.

**The Gospel of Thomas is an apochryphal book, but it is historically valuable and confirms
what the Christians in Palestine believed, because they could not find the remains of Christ’s mother. **The book may not have been divinely inspired, but neither was the Epistle of Clement.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

Well, you brought up about 30 things I can argue with, let’s start at the end. What exactly are you saying about the Gospel of Thomas? Are you saying the Gospel of Thomas teaches the Assumption of Mary? Of course it does not. As far as the Passing of Mary, you will admit I am sure that is 300-400 years after the fact?

 

[Good_Fella]

remember Martin Luther,
“Unless I am convinced by proofs from Scriptures or by plain and clear reasons and arguments, I can and will not retract, for it is neither safe nor wise to do anything against conscience. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen.” Not much has changed in 480 years.

A human conscience can easily be corrupted by one’s own rationalizations.

Even so, a human conscience is not greater than the authority of will of God. Our
father, Abraham, had his conscience tested, remember? Abraham was
prepared to sacrifice his only son, Isaac, against his conscience because he
believed God actually wanted him to kill his son.

The primacy of conscience rationalization espoused by Luther is just that - a rationalization
to appease his troubled conscience.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[JoeyWarren]

When I said “entire Jewish nation” rejected Jesus as their Messiah, I mean the majority.

What you might really mean is the Judaic Nation which indeed housed the majority of the Jewish Nation?

 

[Calvinator]

Gracious mercy! Have you never heard of the TRINITY!?!?!

Anyway, that is off topic. Are you the reincarnation of someone who recently got banned?

The word “Trinity” won’t be found in scripture but certainly the concept of the Trinity is there.

What have I said thus far that is even close to a bannable offense?

 

[Calvinator]

Wrong. You need to read through the Catechism of The Catholic Church. I’ve never seen a better topical Bible study.Concerning what?

CM,

You misunderstood my post.

One of the Catholic posters said that your church only teaches that which Jesus and the apostles taught. I was commenting that your church has never said Jesus or the apostles said anything outside that which we have recorded in scripture.

If I am wrong, I would appreciate you defining for me which apostle taught the doctrine of the assumption or the immaculate conception.

 

[zemi]

CM,

You misunderstood my post.

One of the Catholic posters said that your church only teaches that which Jesus and the apostles taught. I was commenting that your church has never said Jesus or the apostles said anything outside that which we have recorded in scripture.

If I am wrong, I would appreciate you defining for me which apostle taught the doctrine of the assumption or the immaculate conception.

Well, these are 2 different things, aren’t they?

1. what Jesus + his apostles taught
2. what Jesus + his apostles taught and is written in the Bible

The Catholic Church teaches that the divine revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle.

I believe as the RCC and you (I believe) that God has said everything in his Word. However:

CCC 66:

“The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ.” **Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.
**

Does that sound unreasonable to you? You would have I think some problems if yes…

 

[clmowry]

Marian dogma has one purpose and one purpose only. To help draw others to Christ.

If it’s distracting to you, then leave it alone.

It’s quite helpful to millions.

Chuck

Hi All
While reading some of the replies on this thread something occurred to me. We are spending allot of time on something that has nothing to do with Salvation. Mary might have been assumed to Heaven, I can see why Jesus would do that. I can also see that if Jesus thought it was important enough to our Salvation he would have made it known to us. One thing that satin want us to do is to loose our focus on Christ. It is things like this that get our focus off of Christ.

 

[Calvinator]

Well, these are 2 different things, aren’t they?

1. what Jesus + his apostles taught
2. what Jesus + his apostles taught and is written in the Bible

The Catholic Church teaches that the divine revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle.

I believe as the RCC and you (I believe) that God has said everything in his Word. However:

CCC 66:

“The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ.” **Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.
**

Does that sound unreasonable to you? You would have I think some problems if yes…

It’s your number two that I have an issue with.

In the case of the assumption it is impossible to start with scripture and come up with the doctrine, at least not without the aid of tradition.

There doesn’t appear to be any evidence of a belief in the assumpton for centuries after the death of the apostles.

Your church can’t tell us which apostles taught this doctrine or where it was taught or even how it was taught. Epiphinaius speculates about what happened to Mary in 377 AD but seems unaware of an apostolic traidion regarding the assumption.

I just don’t see the evidence for the assumpton as being very compelling.

As far as the boldened portion of your quote, I’m not sure you and I would understand it the same. Things can certainly become clearer over time but I don’t think they can develop the way in which I see Catholic doctrine developing.

 

[zemi]

It’s your number two that I have an issue with.

In the case of the assumption it is impossible to start with scripture and come up with the doctrine, at least not without the aid of tradition.

There doesn’t appear to be any evidence of a belief in the assumpton for centuries after the death of the apostles.

Your church can’t tell us which apostles taught this doctrine or where it was taught or even how it was taught. Epiphinaius speculates about what happened to Mary in 377 AD but seems unaware of an apostolic traidion regarding the assumption.

I just don’t see the evidence for the assumpton as being very compelling.

As far as the boldened portion of your quote, I’m not sure you and I would understand it the same. Things can certainly become clearer over time but I don’t think they can develop the way in which I see Catholic doctrine developing.

But I think you have to agree that also NT books are the result of a spoken tradition first.

I asked someone these question previously, I would like to know your take on it: Have you looked into what the RCC teaches about Mary as

1. the New Eve
2. the Queen Mother
3. ark of the Covenant

Have you really (!) examined the Scriptural basis for each of those points? Until I have personally done it, I also saw no big deal about all those claims about Mary.

Do you want to talk about Scriptural basis of assumption? Ok. But look let’s look at Mary first.

My question I’d like to ask you is in the bold.

God bless!

 

[Calvinator]

But I think you have to agree that also NT books are the result of a spoken tradition first.

I asked someone these question previously, I would like to know your take on it: Have you looked into what the RCC teaches about Mary as

1. the New Eve
2. the Queen Mother
3. ark of the Covenant

Have you really (!) examined the Scriptural basis for each of those points? Until I have personally done it, I also saw no big deal about all those claims about Mary.

Do you want to talk about Scriptural basis of assumption? Ok. But look let’s look at Mary first.

My question I’d like to ask you is in the bold.

God bless!

Yes, I have read various Catholic apologists take on the New Eve, Queen Mother and the ark of the covenant.

 

[zemi]

Yes, I have read various Catholic apologists take on the New Eve, Queen Mother and the ark of the covenant.

Do you agree that Mary is at least one of these?