Scriptural Basis for Mary's Assumption

[Good_Fella]

It may be confirmation for those of us who believe, but to unbelievers, it is a satanic apparition, a vision of demons designed to lead the faithful astray. The fact that she says “Jesus is Lord” seems to have no impact…
Thanks for the link.

Yes! The last three words Satan would ever pronounce if he managed to overcome the nausea and declare them. You’re welcome. The vision is wonderful and awesome.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Blake2]

jgkjhlhj

 

[Calvinator]

Correction. Here is the complete link address:

http.//www.medjugorjevideo.com/assuit.html

Sorry. GF

Midjugorje isn’t approved by your church is it?

 

[LilyM]

The apparition of Our Lady in Assuit, Egypt was witnessed by a large multitude of people and captured on video. This is strong evidence for the Assumption of Mary. Here is the link. See and judge for yourselves. You will notice that the apparition of Mary momentarily transforms into an illuminated cross. Throbbing lights that illuminated entire churches accompanied the apparition and drew the crowd before Mary appeared above a church.

http.//www.medjugorjevideo/assuit.html

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

Is this a church-approved apparitin? It is against forum rules here at CAF to discuss apparitions that aren’t.

 

[Good_Fella]

Is this a church-approved apparitin? It is against forum rules here at CAF to discuss apparitions that aren’t.

LilyM, the apparitions of Mary in Assiut have been approved by the Coptic Orthodox Church. Have no fear.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Good_Fella]

Midjugorje isn’t approved by your church is it?

Medjugorje is still under investigation by a national Commission set up through the intervention of the Vatican. The former Cardinal Ratzinger relieved the local bishop of his responsibility to lead the inquiry because he felt the bishop had acted too hastily in condemning the visionaries’ claims. But Assiut and Medjugorje are two different cases. The Coptic Church has approved the events in Egypt.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Markway]

You say “Mary was blessed - but that’s not holy.” I recall Mary’s cousin Elizabeth declaring, “MOST BLESSED ARE YOU AMONG WOMEN, AND BLESSED IS THE FRUIT OF YOUR WOMB.” (Luke 1:42) Do you also mean that Jesus was only blessed but not holy?

You say that Mary was given a gift, but that this gift does not make her more than Jesus’ earthly mother. Are you suggesting that Jesus was not divine (Arian heresy) or that Mary was just the mother of the human person in Jesus and not the mother of the divine person in Jesus (Nestorian heresy)? Jesus was one person with two natures, one divine and the other human. Mary gave birth to one person with two natures. She is mother of the divine and human Jesus. His divinity makes Mary the Mother of God.

Several eminent Church Fathers of the Patristic period taught that the Assumption of Mary was real. Writings began to emerge as early as 370 AD with Epiphanius reflecting a long-standing belief in the Assumption among Catholics. These Church Fathers confirmed this belief among the faithful: ‘sensus fidelium’.

Catholics do not believe that Mary has a share in God’s authority, but we do believe that she sits at the right hand of her Son as mediatrix and advocate to the Church. She presents our supplications and petitions to her divine Son in heaven with him. Please see my Reply#268. Mary’s role as Queen Mother is prefigured in this biblical passage in 1Kings. At the wedding feast in Cana Jesus could not refuse his mother’s intercession on behalf of the guests, and so he performed his first miracle prematurely because of her solicitation.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

The Bible says that Jesus was Blessed, but it also says that He is God, and that God is Holy. Actually Christ at least appears to reject being called “Holy”, but that’s another issue. The point is that in no part of scripture is Mary called Holy. I do become indignant when people appear to be poised to reroute things that belong to God to a human, a sinner in need of a saviour as are we all.

I don’t really have a problem with Mary being “assumed”, it’s that this seems to be one building block in a doctrinal edifice to enlarge Mary to some sort of equality with Christ. Will someone deny this? If they will I will shut up on this topic. Just say that she cannot do any of the things that Jesus can, and that will be the end of it for me.

The scriptural references to Mary, (so-called) in Revelation are convincing, but then so was Hal Lindsey. Personally, I’ve always felt that Ronald Reagan was the anti-christ, but there you go, everyone has an opinion.

 

[Pax]

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.

 

[Good_Fella]

The Bible says that Jesus was Blessed, but it also says that He is God, and that God is Holy. Actually Christ at least appears to reject being called “Holy”, but that’s another issue. The point is that in no part of scripture is Mary called Holy. I do become indignant when people appear to be poised to reroute things that belong to God to a human, a sinner in need of a saviour as are we all.

I don’t really have a problem with Mary being “assumed”, it’s that this seems to be one building block in a doctrinal edifice to enlarge Mary to some sort of equality with Christ. Will someone deny this? If they will I will shut up on this topic. Just say that she cannot do any of the things that Jesus can, and that will be the end of it for me.

The scriptural references to Mary, (so-called) in Revelation are convincing, but then so was Hal Lindsey. Personally, I’ve always felt that Ronald Reagan was the anti-christ, but there you go, everyone has an opinion.

Hal Lindsay was convincing only to non-Catholics. I would not compare his ludicrous works with centuries of expertise Catholic biblical scholarship. In the Catholic Church, theological speculation must be in accord with the Three Pillars: Sacred Scriptures, Sacred Tradition, and the teachings of the Sacred Magisterium. Nothing is accepted as mere “opinion”. Here we differ from Protestants, who pick and choose whatever they want to believe in and leave it at that.

If I may add, in Eph 1:1; Phil1:1, and Col 1:2 the word “saints” in Hebrew is ‘qaddiysh’, which means “holy ones”. So Mary is called holy, since she is the greatest saint of all.

In 2 Sam 6:7, the Ark of the Covenant is so holy and pure that when Uzzah touched it, the Lord slew him. The Ark is undefiled. Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, is even more undefiled and immaculate; she was spared from original sin by God so that she could bear the Holy Offspring. The fruit of her womb made Mary holy like the Ark in which the Lord dwelled. Jesus is the “enmity” between Mary, the new Eve, and Satan. (Gen 3:15)

As King David leapt for joy before the Ark of the Covenant, so did John the Baptist leap for joy in Elizabeth’s womb at the sound of Mary’s words. ( 2 Sam 6:16; Lk 1:41)

“You, therefore, must BE PERFECT AS YOUR HEAVENLY FATHER IS PERFECT.” [Mt 5:48]

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[guanophore]

The Bible says that Jesus was Blessed, but it also says that He is God, and that God is Holy. Actually Christ at least appears to reject being called “Holy”, but that’s another issue. The point is that in no part of scripture is Mary called Holy. I do become indignant when people appear to be poised to reroute things that belong to God to a human, a sinner in need of a saviour as are we all.

Well, don’t become easily offended by appearances. God had decided to share His divine nature with human beings.

Col 1:12-14
12 giving thanks to the Father who has qualified us to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in the light. 13 He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, 14 in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins.

We are partakers of the saints in the light. There are different uses of the word “holy”. One use is something that is set apart for a specific use, such as sacred vessels. Such was Mary. It is also used to describe a person who is being made into the image of Christ. Mary is holy in both senses of the word. She was the very first Christian, and was blessed both because she bore Him in her womb, and because she heard the word of God, and obeyed it.

I don’t really have a problem with Mary being “assumed”,

That is very Catholic of you!

it’s that this seems to be one building block in a doctrinal edifice to enlarge Mary to some sort of equality with Christ. Will someone deny this? If they will I will shut up on this topic. Just say that she cannot do any of the things that Jesus can, and that will be the end of it for me.

I think you are right on with this. I think Mary exemplifies the life that Christ wants for all of us, to be raised up with Him, seated with Him in the heavenly places. Our lives sanctified to His use, pure vessels, in whom He can create Himself for the benefit of the world.

The scriptural references to Mary, (so-called) in Revelation are convincing, but then so was Hal Lindsey. Personally, I’ve always felt that Ronald Reagan was the anti-christ, but there you go, everyone has an opinion.

I wondered that too, when he determined that catsup could be served on the lunch menus at school, and counted as a vegetable serving.

 

[NonDenom]

Hi CWT, see this articles:

catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0105sbs.asp

Hi All
I read through these articles and have to make a few points.

Several Bible passages offer implicit evidence that Mary was assumed into heaven. Both Enoch and Elijah were assumed into heaven (Heb. 11:5, 2 Kgs. 2:11).

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?

Also, in Matthew 27:52-53 one can read about saints whose bodies left the grave after the Resurrection of Christ.

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

Belief in the assumption of Mary is simply the belief that God granted her this gift early, as he appears to have done for others in Matthew 27:52-53.

Once again if God thought it was important enough.

The Scriptures also promise that those who suffer with Christ will be glorified with him (Rom. 8:17),

This is correct, After He comes again. 1Th 4:16 With a shout of command, with the archangel’s call, and with the sound of God’s trumpet, the Lord himself will come down from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first.

so it is fitting that she whose heart was pierced through her Son’s suffering would receive her glorification in a unique manner.

It may be fitting, but no Scriptural evidence.

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.

 

[justasking4]

This is not true.

If you compare the earliest writings of the early church you very quickly see that they taught the very same beliefs that the Catholic Church does today.

Not just the New Testament, but things like the Didache and the the letter of St. Ignatius of Antioch to the church at Smyrna. When you read these things and compare them to modern n-C teachings, you discover that modern n-C Christianity bears far less resemblance to the real New Testament era church than they propagandize.

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.

 

[justasking4]

Mark, let me make this clear to you. The majority of Catholics are poorly catechesis. Many of them do not know know how to defend Marian doctrines. The Catholics who have studied their faith and Marian doctrine understand it in finite terms.

What the Church professes about the Assumption is based on Scripture and Tradition. Many Catholics here have cited Rev 12:1 as the Assumption, and her queenship. From our Christian traditions, the doctrine developed over time much like an infant does throughout his lifetime. In Church history, we see a development of Christology by defining God as a Trinitarian God, or Triune God. This concept was not used until 300 after Jesus’ death.

The Early Church Fathers, the earliest writings we have about the Assumption of Mary is dated 377 AD. The more indepth of the Assumption is around 600 AD stated by Gregory of Tours.

scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html#tradition-IV

Catholic dogma on the Assumption is not new. It is ancient.

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.

 

[Good_Fella]

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.

In 325 AD the Council of Nicea declared that the Holy Spirit is God,
the third Person in the Holy Trinity. Nowhere in the New Testament
is the Holy Spirit explicitly mentioned as being God. Did the Catholic
Church “speculate” on this occasion? I don’t think you will ever learn.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Axion]

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?

Read Revelation 12. There you will see where Mary is.

God also tells us through His Church.

Once again if God thought it was important enough.

How about Moses? The Ot tells us nothing about his assumption, yet it is referred to in the new Testament in jude and elsewhere. Just as moses appears bodily with elijah at the Transfiguration. So moses assumption is not recorded in the OT at all! Yet it happened.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Any Catholic who disbelieves against the Catholic Church in the Assumption of Mary until their death would die in a state of mortal sin and would go to Hell as a result of such disbelief!

 

[justasking4]

In 325 AD the Council of Nicea declared that the Holy Spirit is God,
the third Person in the Holy Trinity. Nowhere in the New Testament
is the Holy Spirit explicitly mentioned as being God. Did the Catholic
Church “speculate” on this occasion? I don’t think you will ever learn.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

We have excellent support from the Scriptures that the Holy Spirit is God. What you don’t have with many aspects of the marian doctrines is such support either in Scripture or history. What we see in regards to these marian claims is how legends are formed.

 

[justasking4]

Axion;2485023]Read Revelation 12. There you will see where Mary is.

Major problems with this being interpreted as Mary.

God also tells us through His Church.

That doesn’t mean what they say is true.

How about Moses? The Ot tells us nothing about his assumption, yet it is referred to in the new Testament in jude and elsewhere. Just as moses appears bodily with elijah at the Transfiguration. So moses assumption is not recorded in the OT at all! Yet it happened.

We should believe it then if the Scriptures record it.

 

[Good_Fella]

We have excellent support from the Scriptures that the Holy Spirit is God. What you don’t have with many aspects of the marian doctrines is such support either in Scripture or history. What we see in regards to these marian claims is how legends are formed.

Justasking4, you are speaking in hindsight. It is easy to say that the scriptures provide enough support for the belief that the Holy Spirit is God now that the Catholic Church has solemnly defined and declared this truth. If you were unaware of this article of faith and happened to read the Bible before “hearing” what the Church has to say, I doubt you would come up with the same conclusion. The Bible alone is not sufficient. Jesus commanded his apostles to form his Church and to preach the Gospel and purvey the sacraments. He did not tell them to write and distribute bibles, and for a reason. Have you ever heard about “Unitarianism”? This heretical sect believes that there is only one Person in the Trinity: God the Father. The Holy Spirit is just an impersonal spiritual force which emanates from God the Father. This religious group also claims to have “excellent support from the scriptures” for their heretical beliefs. I have read the scriptural passages they refer to and to be honest with you, they do have excellent support from the scriptures. Because Jesus conferred the charism of infallibilty on Peter and his apostles and their successors in the Church episcopacy, we know that what the Catholic Church teaches about the Holy Spirit is true. Likewise, we know what the Church infallibly teaches about the Assumption is true.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[justasking4]

Good Fella;2486966]Justasking4, you are speaking in hindsight. It is easy to say that the scriptures provide enough support for the belief that the Holy Spirit is God now that the Catholic Church has solemnly defined and declared this truth.

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.

If you were unaware of this article of faith and happened to read the Bible before “hearing” what the Church has to say, I doubt you would come up with the same conclusion.

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

The Bible alone is not sufficient.

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

Jesus commanded his apostles to form his Church and to preach the Gospel and purvey the sacraments.

What do you mean by sacraments?

He did not tell them to write and distribute bibles, and for a reason.

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?

Have you ever heard about “Unitarianism”? This heretical sect believes that there is only one Person in the Trinity: God the Father. The Holy Spirit is just an impersonal spiritual force which emanates from God the Father. This religious group also claims to have “excellent support from the scriptures” for their heretical beliefs. I have read the scriptural passages they refer to and to be honest with you, they do have excellent support from the scriptures.

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.

Because Jesus conferred the charism of infallibilty on Peter and his apostles and their successors in the Church episcopacy,

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

we know that what the Catholic Church teaches about the Holy Spirit is true.

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

Likewise, we know what the Church infallibly teaches about the Assumption is true.

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.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella