Scriptural Basis for Mary's Assumption

[Church_Militant]

Thanks, I’ll have to read through at least some of the thread in the next few days.

You’re quite welcome. Feel free to PM me if you have any questions or just want to discuss what you find there.
Pax tecum,

 

[Zooey]

No one can reasonably doubt that the Virgin Mary’s soul is now in heaven; Jesus Christ would not have it otherwise: “A great portent appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars…And she gave birth to a son, a male child, who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron” (Rev. 12, 1-5). .

Have any of you people arguing against the assumption, ever bothered to wonder why on earth the presence of a woman in Heaven would be considered “a great portent”, if all it meant was that somebody made it into Heaven??

---

what is wrong with you reading the Bible for yourself and believing what it say’s?

:tsktsk: Now, now, laddie, dinnae ruffle your feathers so. We all know that you never expected to find so many here, who know their Bibles so well…

you know their is a good reason the catholic church tried to conceal the word of God from everyday man,

Never happened. Try proving otherwise.

you see they knew that even the simplest of people would see their lies and errors when compared to the truth of the Bible.

Simple person that I am, I can sure see **your **errors, Marty.

that is why so many died and suffered to bring the bible to mankind and from under the control of the Church. and once it was out there what could do?

Names, dates, sources…

oh now we need to say that scripture is not reliable alone or are they saying you and I can not be trusted to read it and understand it with our simple minds,

Aye, been noticing that about ye, laddie.

Bless you

likewise…

 

[justasking4]

Would it be fair to say you agree that Mary is

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

Since the titles you use above about her are never mentioned in Scripture, you don’t have grounds for an immaculate conception nor assumption.

 

[Church_Militant]

Since the titles you use above about her are never mentioned in Scripture, you don’t have grounds for an immaculate conception nor assumption.

You’re dead wrong on his #3

Moreover, there are many terms and titles that exist in modern Christianity that are not in scripture…you really do not want to push that point, do you?

 

[guanophore]

When I wrote that your church has never defined a single word of the apostles or Jesus for that matter outside of what is written in scripture I meant quite literally that your church has not said that Paul or Peter taught the doctrine of (for exmaple) the assumption at such and such church in this document. You guys say that this is an apostolic teaching (which I guess means your church believes it was taught by the apostles) but there is no evidence of it for quite some time after the death of the apostles.

As far as scriptural support for the Trinity vs scriptural support for the immaculate conception or the assumption I woiuld have to say that the evidence for the Trinity is light years ahead of that for the two Marian doctrines that have been mentioned in this thread, namely the assumption and the immaculate conception.

You are right, I don’t see any reason to accept your church as infallible and therefore I reject some of what it teaches so in the end, I reject it’s authority.

What heresies did the immaculate conception or the assumption help put an end to?

There is an article here on CAF:

catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp

The major influence in the development of this doctrine was Nestorianism (which taught that Mary was not really Jesus’ mother, but only gave birth to His flesh). In order for Jesus to be fully human, he had to draw all of his humanity from Mary. Since He was also God, he could not therefore be composed of any flesh tainted by sin. Therefore, they reasoned, Mary must have been created like Eve (since she is also the New Eve) in a state of grace, free of original sin. Maybe one of the catechists here can do a better job on this than I .

Here is a link to Nestorianism and relation to the Mother of God:

catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9409hotm.asp

 

[Randy_Carson]

what is wrong with you reading the Bible for yourself and believing what it say’s? you know their is a good reason the catholic church tried to conceal the word of God from everyday man, you see they knew that even the simplest of people would see their lies and errors when compared to the truth of the Bible. that is why so many died and suffered to bring the bible to mankind and from under the control of the Church. and once it was out there what could do? oh now we need to say that scripture is not reliable alone or are they saying you and I can not be trusted to read it and understand it with our simple minds,

Bless you

Sorry, Marty.

If it weren’t for Catholic monks working in their scriptorium(s) copying the Bible by hand for nearly 15 centuries, you wouldn’t even have a Bible today.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[zemi]

Since the titles you use above about her are never mentioned in Scripture, you don’t have grounds for an immaculate conception nor assumption.

You’re dead wrong on his #3

Moreover, there are many terms and titles that exist in modern Christianity that are not in scripture…you really do not want to push that point, do you?

justasking4,

Church Militant is absolutely right on this… do you really want to go into this…? Confucius once said “Give man a rope and he’ll hang himself” I’m afraid that we would maybe see here what he meant by that. Your argument would simply hang itself if we were to accept the premise in your argument.

Besides that, I could actually use your premise against you since your very premise is not in the Scripture. Therefore I could ask you “Where in the Scripture do you have mentioned that since the titles I used above are never mentioned in Scripture, I don’t have grounds for an immaculate conception nor assumption?”

Any answer?

 

[guanophore]

The Scriptures never say such a thing about Mary. So it would not be true to say these things about her.
Since the titles you use above about her are never mentioned in Scripture, you don’t have grounds for an immaculate conception nor assumption.

What you are denying here is the authority that Jesus left to His Apostles. You are saying that

1. Jesus lied to them
2. They forsook Him
3. or that the HS is too weak to keep the promise that was made.

You are also using a faulty logic. BY this logic, we could say…

The scripture never talks about the United States of America, therefore, we cannot ever say God Bless America.

 

[zemi]

No, it probably would not be fair to say that I believe Mary to be the new Eve, the ark, or the queen mother…at least not in the way you understand them to be true. I don’t think you and I will ever agree (unless you becom reformed in your theology or I become Catholic in mine) exactly what the three items mean.

Let me ask you a question, and this is what it boils down to. Do you think you would accept either the IC or the assumption without your church binding it upon your conscious? In other words, the your church didn’t throw it’s authority behind these two dogmas, would you accept them?

The problem is that one of us believes in the authority Jesus gave to the RCC and the other not, we both know this rub very well.

Your question has a deeper level in it. You’re not asking me actually whether I believe some doctrine because my Church binds something upon me. It goes one step further. The question is whether I believe Jesus gave all this binding authority to the Church to teach the truth. Yes I believe it. Here we differ.

But let’s say we’re in the year 1949 and you’re asking me whether I believe in Mary’s Assumption. I think it’s a good illustration of what you are asking me (hope so ). Given that I had the knowledge I have know I would have to say that it sounds perhaps very convincing and reasonable yet I’m not in any way obliged to believe it and therefore I would be open to believe it or not. Just as nobody “forces” you or me today to believe the apparitions

No, it probably would not be fair to say that I believe Mary to be the new Eve, the ark, or the queen mother…at least not in the way you understand them to be true.

How am I being selective? I just don’t see the evidence. The ark was not assumed into heaven and I don’t believe Mary was either. If I stop short of accepting your church’s authority I don’t see any reason to believe that Mary was assumed into heaven.

I don’t doubt that the gospel of Luke parallels Mary and the ark but it is the limits of these parallels that I question. I doubt that there are many theologians outside of your church that accept the IC or the assumption and certainly very few that accept it only based on the gospel of Luke.

I agree with you that those parallelisms is just one clue. But a very strong one. The clues converge. No one as far as I know claims that “Mary = The Ark of New Covenant ----> therefore Assumption”

I’d like to ask you one thing as well. Let’s not roam too much and stay close to Mary as the New Ark. In what is your underdstanding of Mary as the New Ark different than I (RCC) believe? You agree with the parralelisms. So I guess she either IS or IS NOT the New Ark. Well, she can’t be both (I’m not jumping to conclusion that therefore she must have been assumed!)

 

[Jaypeeto4]

There is no one “clincher” argument in favor of the Assumption.
It is more like a coalescing of many different things from many different angles which, taken together, lead to the conclusion that Mary’s body is not on this earth.

Just like there is no one, single “clincher” argument in favor of the universe being approximately 15 Billion years old. But there is a coalescing of scientific factors from many different scientific disciplines that, taken together, point to one conclusion, namely, that the universe is about 15 billion years old.

There is nothing in scripture which would make Mary’s assumption “unprecendented” either. In fact, in Matthew’s gospel account of the crucifixion of Jesus, Matthew relates that the tombs of many Holy People were opened and the BODIES of many (Old Testament) saints were raised and were even seen in the holy city of Jerusalem. Nobody seriously believes that once thus resurrected, God put these holy people to physical death again so, the only logical conclusion is that their resurrected bodies were taken into heaven, like Mary’s.

God bless,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

 

[zemi]

There is no one “clincher” argument in favor of the Assumption.
It is more like a coalescing of many different things from many different angles which, taken together, lead to the conclusion that Mary’s body is not on this earth.

Just like there is no one, single “clincher” argument in favor of the universe being approximately 15 Billion years old. But there is a coalescing of scientific factors from many different scientific disciplines that, taken together, point to one conclusion, namely, that the universe is about 15 billion years old.

Precisely so.

BTW, I think NASA’s figure for the age of the universe was 13.73±0.15 billions of years last year

 

[justasking4]

What you are denying here is the authority that Jesus left to His Apostles. You are saying that

1. Jesus lied to them
2. They forsook Him
3. or that the HS is too weak to keep the promise that was made.

huh? How does this follow?

 

[justasking4]

QUOTE=Church Militant;2390588]You’re dead wrong on his #3

Where in Scripture is she ever referred to as a queen by name? What apostle ever uses a title of her in this way?

Moreover, there are many terms and titles that exist in modern Christianity that are not in scripture…you really do not want to push that point, do you?

What other titles do you have in mind?

 

[justasking4]

justasking4,

Church Militant is absolutely right on this… do you really want to go into this…? Confucius once said “Give man a rope and he’ll hang himself” I’m afraid that we would maybe see here what he meant by that. Your argument would simply hang itself if we were to accept the premise in your argument.

It is your church that is making the claim that she is the queen of heaven. The burden of proof for that claim is yours to bear. Since its not in Scripture, where do we go next? When for example do these exalted titles appear in history?

 

[guanophore]

How is this denying what Jesus promised His apostles? We have the apostles teachings in the NT. I accept these writings as being inspired-inerrant.

And in that NT, we read that Jesus promised never to abandon them, and that He would send His HS to guide them into all truth. Was He lying?

Quote:
You are also using a faulty logic. BY this logic, we could say…

The scripture never talks about the United States of America, therefore, we cannot ever say God Bless America.
justasking4;2391020:

huh? How does this follow?

Your manner of reasoning suggests that, if something does not appear in scripture, it is not true. If Scripture does not call Mary the Mother of God, then neither should we!

Where in Scripture is she ever referred to as a queen by name? What apostle ever uses a title of her in this way?

What other titles do you have in mind?

Here is an example of what I was talking about. Your logic is based on the assumption that, if it is not stated in scripture, then it is not true.

It is your church that is making the claim that she is the queen of heaven. The burden of proof for that claim is yours to bear. Since its not in Scripture, where do we go next? When for example do these exalted titles appear in history?

The title Theotokos means literally “God-bearer.” It is the title used by the Greek fathers from Origen in the early third century, and some even think it can be traced to Hippolytus who died in A.D. 236. (See F. L. Cross, Dictionary of the Christian Church, Oxford University Press [1957]) This term for the Virgin Mary was used increasingly by the early Church, but in the early fifth century it was attacked by Nestorius, who wanted to replace the term Theotokos with Christotokos or “Christ-bearer.”

catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0204fea3.asp

All the titles given to Mary are derived from who Jesus is. If Jesus is really God, then she is the God Bearer (Mother of God). The heresy of Nestorianism, the denial of the divinity nature of Jesus, was already addressed in the third century. Are you bringing it back again?

 

[zemi]

It is your church that is making the claim that she is the queen of heaven. The burden of proof for that claim is yours to bear. Since its not in Scripture, where do we go next? When for example do these exalted titles appear in history?

First - any answer to my previous post?

*Besides that, I could actually use your premise against you since your very premise is not in the Scripture. Therefore I could ask you “Where in the Scripture do you have mentioned that since the titles I used above are never mentioned in Scripture, I don’t have grounds for an immaculate conception nor assumption?”

Any answer? *

 

[justasking4]

And in that NT, we read that Jesus promised never to abandon them, and that He would send His HS to guide them into all truth. Was He lying?

What “truth” was Jesus specifically referring to when He said this?

Quote:
You are also using a faulty logic. BY this logic, we could say…

Here is an example of what I was talking about. Your logic is based on the assumption that, if it is not stated in scripture, then it is not true.
Again i didn’t say that. As i’ve said elsewhere, your church is making the claim about her. It makes claims about her that are not in the scriptures. Since it has no scriptural basis in the inspired-inerrant scriptures, then it does no carry any authority for Christians. It is a doctrine of men.

 

[justasking4]

First - any answer to my previous post?

Which one?

 

[justasking4]

And in that NT, we read that Jesus promised never to abandon them, and that He would send His HS to guide them into all truth. Was He lying?

Quote:
You are also using a faulty logic. BY this logic, we could say…

The scripture never talks about the United States of America, therefore, we cannot ever say God Bless America.

Your manner of reasoning suggests that, if something does not appear in scripture, it is not true. If Scripture does not call Mary the Mother of God, then neither should we!

What other titles do you have in mind?

Here is an example of what I was talking about. Your logic is based on the assumption that, if it is not stated in scripture, then it is not true.

The title Theotokos means literally “God-bearer.” It is the title used by the Greek fathers from Origen in the early third century, and some even think it can be traced to Hippolytus who died in A.D. 236. (See F. L. Cross, Dictionary of the Christian Church, Oxford University Press [1957]) This term for the Virgin Mary was used increasingly by the early Church, but in the early fifth century it was attacked by Nestorius, who wanted to replace the term Theotokos with Christotokos or “Christ-bearer.”

catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0204fea3.asp

All the titles given to Mary are derived from who Jesus is. If Jesus is really God, then she is the God Bearer (Mother of God). The heresy of Nestorianism, the denial of the divinity nature of Jesus, was already addressed in the third century. Are you bringing it back again?

i dont’ deny the natures of Christ.

 

[zemi]

Which one?

This:

*Besides that, I could actually use your premise against you since your very premise is not in the Scripture. Therefore I could ask you “Where in the Scripture do you have mentioned that since the titles I used above are never mentioned in Scripture, I don’t have grounds for an immaculate conception nor assumption?”

Any answer? *