Scriptural Basis for Mary's Assumption

[justasking4]

This:

*Besides that, I could actually use your premise against you since your very premise is not in the Scripture. *
Not sure what you are saying here. Can you clarify?

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?

 

[Jaypeeto4]

A couple of the posters on this thread are being, frankly, ridiculous in some of their questions, like “Where does scripture call Mary a queen, by name?” or like “Where does scripture call Mary the ark, by name?” This kind of questioning is asinine.
Scripture is not written in the form of a catechism.
Scripture doesn’t call God a Trinity, by Name, either.
The Trinity doctrine is STILL true, because it is prayerfully DEDUCED FROM the scriptural data.

The same holds true for the Marian doctrines.
The apostles didn’t HAVE to call Mary, by name, a queen for her to be a queen. The fact is, in scripture, the Mother of the Davidic King IS THE QUEEN-MOTHER, period. And since Jesus IS the TRUE and FINAL Davidic King, it thus follows that Mary his mother IS the Queen Mother. Type and antitype, you know.

The same way with the Ark of the Covenant typology.
AGAIN,
the original Ark of the Covenant contained within it:

1. the staff of the HIGH PRIEST AARON.
2. a jar of the Manna (Bread) from Heaven.
3. the Law of Moses the Lawgiver.

Mary, the new Ark of the Covenant,
carried in her womb:

1. The TRUE and FINAL High Priest, Jesus Christ.
2. The TRUE Bread From Heaven, Jesus Christ.
3. The TRUE giver of the spiritual Law, JESUS CHRIST.

The type and antitype match each other perfectly.
I expect cultists like the silly Jehovah’s Witnesses to dispute these things, but not professing Christians.

As for the Assumption not being directly stated in scripture, SO WHAT??? It is NOT a mere manmade belief.
It is the case that most, nearly all of the New Testament, was written while Mary was probably still living with John the Beloved Disciple. So why would an assumption that hadn’t occured yet even be mentioned? Yet Matthew records the BODIES of many holy ones being raised after Jesus’s crucifixion and resurrection, and we KNOW that God didn’t resurrect these people’s bodies only to kill them again. That would be morbid and macabre.

John, in his Revelation, DOES point to Mary as being in heaven when he speaks of the polyvalent symbol of The Woman Clothed With The Sun. This “Woman” gives birth to the Christ Child, for crying out loud. So it IS Mary he sees in heaven. But the symbol stands for MORE than merely Mary herself. Mary, the purest woman to ever walk this earth, the Handmaiden Of The Lord, is a symbol of EVERYTHING HOLY that Ancient Israel was corporately called to be but failed to be, and she stands for everything the CHURCH is called to be: holy, pure as a virgin,
yet a mother of many children (through preaching the New Birth and baptism and the holy sacraments), she wears a crown of twelve stars on her head, symbolizing both the 12 apostles AND the twelve tribes of Israel. Mary is used by John as a symbol of both Israel and the Church.

Nobody in the early church, nobody, ever claimed that Mary was lying in a tomb somewhere. And I’m talking about the church as far back as those who were taught directly by the Apostles.
Yet the entire early church (including Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, who died around 165 A.D.) referred to Mary as the New Eve.

No Roman Pope ever foisted these beliefs on the Christian people. They were there from the beginning. Scripture, CORRECTLY INTERPRETED by those with the competence to do so, DOES support these beliefs. Not only that, but the Apostles and those they trained to preach, EXPOUNDED on the scriptures and gospel truths for SEVERAL decades all over the enormous Roman empire, east and west, before they died. THAT is where the Oral Tradition (not mere traditions of mere men) comes from, from the THOUSANDS of sermons preached from the time Christ was resurrected till the day Saint John the Apostle died around A.D. 100. And those the apostles trained to preach and teach continued preaching and teaching all over the empire for several decades after the apostles died.
Catholic doctrine can be traced back right back to these times.
We do not teach “lies,” and we do not teach the mere “traditions of men.”

God bless,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

 

[guanophore]

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

Well, since He IS the way, the truth, and the life, I presume He was speaking of Himself.

I didn’t say that. Since the Scriptures never call Mary many of the titles your church gives her, nor should we.

You have faulty reasoning, justasking. Where in the scriptures does it say we should never say anything about anyone that is not written there? On the contrary…

Phil 4:8
… brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.

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.

Very well, then that brings us back to Jesus being a liar.

If everything written in scripture is inspired and inerrant (which I think we both agree is true) Then His words to preserve his Church in all truth are also true. Therefore, whatever they bind on earth is bound in heaven.

We find the Mother of Our Lord to be true, honorable, just, pure, lovely, and gracious. The manner in which she brought the fruit of her womb into the world is excellent. She is praise (honor) for a sword has pierced her own heart also. And we prefer to think about these things.

justasking4:

i dont’ deny the natures of Christ.

Then you can say with the third century Christians “Hail Theotokos”?

 

[zemi]

Not sure what you are saying here. Can you clarify?

I’ll try to. In one of your previous posts you said:

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

So I assumed that

A.) We must have those titles in the Scripture if we are to have grounds for an immaculate conception / assumption (that follows from it)

It can be further assumed from that

B.) We have to have something first in the Scripture to have grounds for it.

Ok then.

Now:

If the statement B:

1.includes itself then it also has to be found in the Scripture
2. doesn’t include itself then that means that it is not afterall true that B —> contradiction —> end of reasoning

Consequently:

My question is where do you have “B” in the Scripture? Or you can try and show directly where do we have the point A in the Scripture.

Therefore I gave you the question (which concerns point A actually):

*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?”
*

God bless

Your turn

 

[justasking4]

Part 1

A couple of the posters on this thread are being, frankly, ridiculous in some of their questions, like “Where does scripture call Mary a queen, by name?” or like “Where does scripture call Mary the ark, by name?” This kind of questioning is asinine.

If they are asinine then you should be able to answer them with ease. If you can’t they are not asinine but a glaring weakness in these doctrines.

Scripture is not written in the form of a catechism.
Scripture doesn’t call God a Trinity, by Name, either.
The Trinity doctrine is STILL true, because it is prayerfully DEDUCED FROM the scriptural data.

 

[justasking4]

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

Yet the entire early church (including Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, who died around 165 A.D.) referred to Mary as the New Eve.

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

No Roman Pope ever foisted these beliefs on the Christian people. They were there from the beginning.

They were not there from the beginning. If they were, they would be in the Scriptures.

Scripture, CORRECTLY INTERPRETED by those with the competence to do so, DOES support these beliefs.

Where has your church offically-infallibly interpreted these scriptures?

Not only that, but the Apostles and those they trained to preach, EXPOUNDED on the scriptures and gospel truths for SEVERAL decades all over the enormous Roman empire, east and west, before they died. THAT is where the Oral Tradition (not mere traditions of mere men) comes from, from the THOUSANDS of sermons preached from the time Christ was resurrected till the day Saint John the Apostle died around A.D. 100.

Do you know where i can see these sermons that were preached by the apostles that are not in the scriptures?

And those the apostles trained to preach and teach continued preaching and teaching all over the empire for several decades after the apostles died.
Catholic doctrine can be traced back right back to these times.
We do not teach “lies,” and we do not teach the mere “traditions of men.”

If the apostles truly did teach that Mary was immacualtely conceived, assumened into heaven, to be prayed to, etc, why do we not see these things in the scriptures?

God bless,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

 

[justasking4]

I’ll try to. In one of your previous posts you said:

So I assumed that

The titles your church uses point to something. The trinity as we know is not mentioned specially by name in Scripture. However we have excellent grounds to believe in it because there are many passages in scripture to support the doctrine. When we apply the same principle to the marian doctrines, we find no such support from the scriptures. Mary in the scriptures is presented as a humble woman, the mother of Jesus, married with other children, a sinner like us, in doubt about the mission of Christ. Nowhere in scripture do we find any of these exalted claims for her.

 

[guanophore]

If they are asinine then you should be able to answer them with ease. If you can’t they are not asinine but a glaring weakness in these doctrines.

The weakness is Sola Scriptura, which will always, eventually, result in doctrinal error.

It is true a person can deduce from scripture the doctrine of the Trinity. What cannot be done in the same manner are doctrines for Mary.

I happen to agree with you on this point. I think it would be very difficult, using scripture alone, to understand the Marian Doctrines.

{/COLOR=“darkred”]Then you agree that they never taught that she was some kind of queen?

You know, I am not sure. I wasn’t there, and I know all of it did not get written down. That is where I trust in the Magesterium to guide me. Don’t you ever wonder what Jesus told the Apostles for 40 days after his resurrection?

The apostles used quite a bit of OT scripture to support their teachings. Never do they do this with Mary. They never teach that she was a queen, immaculate conception, prayer to her etc.

We have writings from the Apostolic succession that do. I think in the early church, the nature of Jesus was not questioned like it was a couple hundred years later, first with Arius, then by Nestorius. The Marian doctrines emerged out of defense against heresy. They were taught and believed before that, but not defined on a grand level.

If its not in scripture, its a doctrine of men.

Ah. That is what I thought you meant. So, can you show us where it says that in scripture?

You make my point. Since the assumption of Mary is never hinted at or mentioned, it is not an apostolic doctrine.

I believe you only think that because you are going on the partial revelation, which is all you have with the scripture.

That God can raise the dead is not in question. What is in question is Mary supposed assumption into heaven. For that there is no such evidence in Scripture. Without scirpture all you have is speculations of men.

So, if all instruction from God ended when the scripture was written, then how did the councils meet, the first century of the church, and define and explain/proclaim the truths of the faith? How was the canon formed? Without the teaching of the Apostolic Succession, you would not even have your NT, which is what you think is the final authority. It was the Sacred Tradition (which you reject) that identified and preserved that for you.

If all Sacred Tradition is a “speculation of men” then you have to throw out your NT.

Is Mary ever referred to like this in the gospels?

Actually a better understanding is that this is a reference to Israel. see Genesis 37:9-11

Did Mary ever sin?

See my previous comment about this being Israel.

part 2 to follow

 

[guanophore]

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

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

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

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

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

They were not there from the beginning. If they were, they would be in the Scriptures.

Not necessarily, since not all of the teachings are in the scripture. However, even if there were things that came up centuries later, Jesus guaranteed that they would be guided into all truth. Are you calling Him a liar?

Where has your church offically-infallibly interpreted these scriptures?

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

Do you know where i can see these sermons that were preached by the apostles that are not in the scriptures?

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

If the apostles truly did teach that Mary was immacualtely conceived, assumened into heaven, to be prayed to, etc, why do we not see these things in the scriptures?

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

 

[justasking4]

Well, since He IS the way, the truth, and the life, I presume He was speaking of Himself.

This is what the NT scriptures are about. Notice that Jesus never taught that Mary was immaculate conceived, to be prayed to, or queen of heaven. The NT does not teach such things.

You have faulty reasoning, justasking. Where in the scriptures does it say we should never say anything about anyone that is not written there?

No. It is men that can lie. Jesus and His apostles warned that false teachers would come into the church and deceive many.

If everything written in scripture is inspired and inerrant (which I think we both agree is true) Then His words to preserve his Church in all truth are also true. Therefore, whatever they bind on earth is bound in heaven.

I agree with the first half. The second part is where the problem lies. Leaders-teachers in the church can and have taught falsely. Its happened in the catholic church as it has in protestant churches.

We find the Mother of Our Lord to be true, honorable, just, pure, lovely, and gracious. The manner in which she brought the fruit of her womb into the world is excellent. She is praise (honor) for a sword has pierced her own heart also. And we prefer to think about these things.

Then you can say with the third century Christians “Hail Theotokos”?

Thinking about Mary like this is appropiate. Making her out to be something that the sciptures don’t teach about her is a false teaching.

 

[Texan_in_DC]

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

May I ask why you do not want historical tradition on this matter?

 

[Texan_in_DC]

Hi,
Thanks for the direction. I found the articles very interesting. As I mentioned in my meet and greet message, I have been looking into the apparitions of Mary for quite some time now. I suppose what I find disturbing about them is that some of the messages seem to me to fly right in the face of the Bible. The titles of Co-Redemptrix and Co-Mediatrix as well as Advocate, all claimed by the apparition, seem to be contrary to what the Bible teaches - that these titles should belong to Jesus alone. What is the final authority, the Bible, Tradition, or the Magisterium of the Church? How do we determine the truth when, say for instance, tradition and the Bible contradict each other? Do you have any thoughts or direction along these lines?

In His Love;

CWT

Can you please define Co-Redemptrix and Co-Mediatrix for us, I am sure that your definition will alarm us as well.

 

[guanophore]

The titles your church uses point to something. The trinity as we know is not mentioned specially by name in Scripture. However we have excellent grounds to believe in it because there are many passages in scripture to support the doctrine. When we apply the same principle to the marian doctrines, we find no such support from the scriptures. Mary in the scriptures is presented as a humble woman, the mother of Jesus, married with other children, a sinner like us, in doubt about the mission of Christ. Nowhere in scripture do we find any of these exalted claims for her.

Mary was not a sinner like the rest of us. She, as the New Eve, was created just like the first Eve, free from original sin.
You are proceeding from a false assumption, that everything that is true is in the scripture, and this is not the case. We do find some seeds of these doctrines in scripture, although you are right that there are not as many as there are for the Trinity. The way you describe Mary are accurate representations of what we find in scripture, but you are also leaving out a number of other verses that are more “exalted”. Luke 1:52 he has …exalted those of low degree;

Mary herself praises God, saying that He has “exalted the lowly”. She states “all generations shall call me blessed”. Elizabeth cries out "Blessed are you among women and Why does the Mother of My Lord come to me?

It seems that you are deliberately looking away from the way God lifted up Mary.

 

[BrianH]

May I ask why you do not want historical tradition on this matter?

Maybe because in the volumes of books that can take years to read…no one mentions it for…300 or 400 years:
The tradition that cannot say where, when, or who witnessed it?
From the Catholic Encyclopedia

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. The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century.

 

[mercygate]

Actually the threads sort of appalled me. I have never placed much importance or had much interest in Mary, (except at Christmas) but had assumed that Catholics had an early tradition of her death etc. History is a huge area, and when studying for the Clergy, Mary is not emphasised, being an important but peripheral figure, at least in non Catholic divisions.

Getting sleepy… deal is I thought that Catholics had more to base the belief on. The links seemed to indicate that it just grew like Topsy…

It doesn’t grow like Topsy. The earliest prayer to her is in a mid-3rd century liturgy – around 250 A.D. That prayer contains the phrase “mother of God” – a doctrinal formulation not made dogma until the 5th Century. Mary’s importance arises from the struggle against heresies that denied the humanity or the divinity of Christ.

Palatable to Pagans? Piffle.

 

[zemi]

The titles your church uses point to something. The trinity as we know is not mentioned specially by name in Scripture. However we have excellent grounds to believe in it because there are many passages in scripture to support the doctrine. When we apply the same principle to the marian doctrines, we find no such support from the scriptures. Mary in the scriptures is presented as a humble woman, the mother of Jesus, married with other children, a sinner like us, in doubt about the mission of Christ. Nowhere in scripture do we find any of these exalted claims for her.

Ok. Now, can you get back to my question and answer my question found in the bold in this reasoning?

I’ll try to. In one of your previous posts you said:
justasking4;2391356:

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

So I assumed that

A.) We must have those titles in the Scripture if we are to have grounds for an immaculate conception / assumption (that follows from it)

It can be further assumed from that

B.) We have to have something first in the Scripture to have grounds for it.

Ok then.

Now:

If the statement B:

1.includes itself then it also has to be found in the Scripture
2. doesn’t include itself then that means that it is not afterall true that B —> contradiction —> end of reasoning

Consequently:

My question is where do you have “B” in the Scripture? Or you can try and show directly where do we have the point A in the Scripture.

Therefore I gave you the question (which concerns point A actually):

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?”

God bless

Your turn

If not, you would have to seriously reconsider (i.e call off and not use it anymore) your kind of reasoning:

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

God bless, my friend

 

[justasking4]

The weakness is Sola Scriptura, which will always, eventually, result in doctrinal error.

Can you give me an example of this?

I happen to agree with you on this point. I think it would be very difficult, using scripture alone, to understand the Marian Doctrines.

 

[guanophore]

No. It is men that can lie. Jesus and His apostles warned that false teachers would come into the church and deceive many.

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

I agree with the first half. The second part is where the problem lies. Leaders-teachers in the church can and have taught falsely. Its happened in the catholic church as it has in protestant churches.

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

Find me in the scripture where it states that it contains ALL of Divine Revelation.

Find where it says that, if something is not written within, it should not be believed.

Find me two words together that are these: “faith alone”

Thinking about Mary like this is appropiate. Making her out to be something that the sciptures don’t teach about her is a false teaching.

You are making an erroneous assumption. The Scriptures to not contain ALL truth. They are truth, but there is truth to be found outside them as well. The Divine Deposit of Faith has two strands, Sacred Writings, and Sacred Traditions.

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

 

[justasking4]

Mary was not a sinner like the rest of us. She, as the New Eve, was created just like the first Eve, free from original sin.

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

You are proceeding from a false assumption, that everything that is true is in the scripture, and this is not the case.

I have no problem believing Mary was blessed. Scripture teaches that. Again, we should not go beyond what the scriptures teach about her. It is totally unnecesssary for the mere fact Jesus alone is sufficent for all that we need or desire.

 

[LilyM]

The 2 natures of Christ is well supported by the scriptures.

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

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

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

On the contrary, He had to stay around after the Resurrection for 40 days to teach still more! And even so, there are points such as the significance of the Eucharist (whether it’s symbolic, consubstantiation or transubstiation) that are not really made truly plain. A pretty glaring omission, don’t you think!

The methods that the church used to discover the canon were sound.

They are the same methods used to discover all of the Church’s doctrines, including Mother of God and the other Marian doctrines!

Actually a better understanding is that this is a reference to Israel. see Genesis 37:9-11

See my previous comment about this being Israel.

You know full well that the woman can and does mean multiple things - Israel as well as the church itself. So it’s equally valid that it refer to Mary.