The assumption of Mary

[Mathetes007]

homer:

When Enoch and Elijah were taken up to Heaven, the Bible recorded it. With Elijah it was recorded in some detail. (See Genesis 6:24 and 2 Kings 2:1 18.)

The Scriptures do give us direct details on some of the assumptions. As you mentioned, Enoch’s translation is recorded in Genesis 5:24 (not 6:24), Wisdom 4:10, 11, Ecclesiasticus 44:16, 49:14, and Hebrews 11:5. Elijah’s translation is detailed in 2 Kings 2:1, 11, 13, Ecclesiasticus 48:1, 4, 9, 10, and 1 Maccabees 2:58. Paul describes another assumption in 2 Corinthians 12:2-4. Then we also have the explicit assumptions of the two prophets in Revelation 11:3-13.

In addition to these explicit statements, the Scriptures give us details regarding other assumptions that were not explicitly recorded. For example, Jewish tradition holds that Moses was also assumed into heaven. We hold that the assumption of Moses is possible based on Jude 9: “But Michael the archangel, when contending with the Devil, he argued about the body of Moses—he dared not bring a judgment of blasphemy, but said, ‘Let the Lord rebuke you!’” Interestingly enough, Jude actually quoted these lines from an apocryphal source known as the Assumption of Moses. Now as to why both sides wanted the body of the deliverer makes sense only if Moses’ body was to be assumed sometime after his death. Exodus reveals that Moses did not enter the Promised Land and that God buried his body; we are also told that his body is not to be found to this day (Deuteronomy 34:1-7). Paul further explains that death reigned from Adam until Moses’ time (Romans 5:14). Considering that Moses appeared at the Transfiguration along with Elijah, whom Scripture informs was assumed into heaven, it would seem to imply that he was assumed as well (Matthew 17:1-8; Mark 9:2-9; Luke 9:28-36; 2 Peter 1:16-18).

Furthermore, we also have the possible glorifications that occurred in Matthew 27:52, 53. We are told that these resurrected saints entered the “holy city” which in the New Testament means heaven (Revelation 11:2; 21:2, 10; 22:19). Afterwards, they were revealed to many. This seems to be the earliest understanding from the Fathers. We have the following fragment from Melito of Sardis [died ca. AD 177]: “He who rose from the place of the dead, and raised up men from the earth–from the grave below to the height of heaven. This is the Lamb that was slain; this is the Lamb that opened not His mouth. This is He who was born of Mary, fair sheep of the fold” (On Faith, V)

Then there’s the enigmatic king of Salem that is said to continuously live. Melchizedek, king of righteousness, who the Scriptures describe as not “having end of life, but having been made like the Son of God, he remains a priest in perpetuity . . . But there it having been witnessed that he lives” (Hebrews 7:1-4, 8).

Finally, we have the case of Mary. As previously mentioned, John presupposes the Assumption in Revelation 12. Furthermore, as in Moses’ case, Mary’s body was also not to be recovered by the faithful Christians of the first Century or even now.

 

[Mathetes007]

homer:

The Assumption of Mary was officially declared to be a dogma of the Roman Catholic faith in 1950. This means that every Roman Catholic is required to believe this doctrine without questioning it…On what is based the idea of the assumption of Mary?

Yes Homer you are correct. In 1950, the Holy Spirit guaranteed the truth of the Assumption through the charism of infallibility granted to the Church (Deuteronomy 17:8-12; Matthew 16:17-19; 18:17; Ephesians 4:3, 4; 1 Timothy 3:15; 2 Peter 1:20; 1 John 4:6). When the Holy Spirit teaches, guides, and protects, we are not at liberty to contradict Him as He brings only truth (John 14:16, 17, 26; 16:13; 2 Corinthians 3:16-18; 1 John 5:7; Revelation 2:7). When God speaks, we must assent. To call God’s truth a lie would be a grave sin. And sin against the Spirit of God is not to be taken lightly (Matthew 12:31, 32; Ephesians 4:29, 30; Hebrews 10:26-31). God sometimes has a funny way of separating those who hear His voice from those that are hardened to the truth (John 10:16). To those that are spiritually blind, God’s ways are foolishness (1 Corinthians 1:18, 21-25; 2:14).

 

[Mathetes007]

homer:

The teaching of the Assumption originated with heretical writings which were officially condemned by the early Church.

Sorry Homer, but there exists documentation outside of the apocryphal assumption narratives, commonly known as ‘Transitus’ literature, that supports the dogma. The belief originated with John the Apostle.

The early Catholic Church seems to have been an heir to the Marian doctrines right from the Apostles. From the earliest days, Mary was seen as the Mother of God, Temple of God, Ark of the Covenant, the New Eve, Advocate, and others. In addition, many of the Fathers referred to Mary in body and soul as the “all holy,” “ever-virgin,” “stainless,” “immaculate,” “incorrupt,” etc. Although not all the Fathers used these words in the same sense, they seemed to have inherited the titles early on. Later development would define precisely what these titles of Our Lady meant. For example, a few Fathers may have implied that Mary sinned. However, this didn’t stop them from referring to her as “all holy” or “immaculate” as was the custom. One of the problems was that the Church at this time had not yet clearly defined it’s doctrines on grace, justification, original sin, and others which clouded how Mary could be considered sinless yet not divine and in need of the Savior for salvation. Some of these ancient titles and roles of Mary can be traced to the Scriptures themselves. Some of them become explicit beginning with the Fathers of the second century.

The same is true of the Assumption. This teaching met obstacles of its own. For one, the only Scriptural book that contains the icon of the Assumption, the book of Revelation, was a deuterocanonical writing. Some of the Fathers expressly rejected the book until the issue of the canon was resolved by later councils in the fourth and fifth centuries. Secondly, the Fathers spent most of their energies primarily fighting heretical teachings regarding the Trinity (Father, Son, and Spirit). Other issues they dealt with were fighting the Jews, pagans, and atheists. And it was only indirectly, while defining Christological dogma, that Marian dogma also began to develop and unfold.

 

[Mathetes007]

Apart from the apocryphal writings you mention, there are other witnesses to the Assumption. Let’s begin with a few selections. Gregory Thaumaturge [AD 213-275] may have several references that imply knowledge of the Assumption. In his “First Homily on the Annunciation to the Holy Virgin Mary,” referring to Mary as the Ark says, “Come, then, ye too, dearly beloved, and let us chant the melody which has been taught us by the inspired harp of David, and say, “Arise, O Lord, into Thy rest; Thou, and the ark of Thy sanctuary.” For the holy Virgin is in truth an ark, wrought with gold both within and without, that has received the whole treasury of the sanctuary. “Arise, O Lord, into Thy rest.” Then in his “Second Homily on the Annunciation to the Holy Virgin Mary,” he states, “and by her means are we called sons and heirs of the kingdom of Christ. She is the ever-blooming paradise of incorruptibility, wherein is planted the tree that giveth life, and that furnisheth to all the fruits of immortality.” Mary can only be the “paradise of incorruptibility” that furnishes “fruits of immortality” if she posses the quality of incorruptibility and immortality herself. Lastly, we are informed that Mary has been set as a throne on high: “Thy praise, O most holy Virgin, surpasses all laudation, by reason of the God who received the flesh and was born man of thee. To thee every creature, of things in heaven, and things on earth, and things under the earth, offers the meet offering of honour. For thou hast been indeed set forth as the true cherubic throne. Thou shinest as the very brightness of light in the high places of the kingdoms of intelligence.”

Methodius of Olympus of the third century [martyred AD 311] seems to strongly suggest knowledge of the Assumption although he does not explicitly state it. After citing Isaiah 6:1-9, in regards to the throne of God “high and lifted up,” he writes “these are the proclamations made beforehand by the prophet through the Spirit. Do thou, dearly beloved, consider the force of these words. So shalt thou understand the issue of these sacramental symbols, and know both what and how great this assembling together of ourselves is…All things truly are plain to them that understand, and right to them that find knowledge. For, behold, as a throne high and lifted up by the glory of Him that fashioned it, the virgin-mother is there made ready, and that most evidently for the King, the Lord of hosts” (Oration concerning Simeon and Anna, II). Further in the work, he refers to Mary as “the living ark of God” when taking up the topics of the Ark of the Covenant and Queen (ibid, V). Then he discusses other types of Mary in Scripture. “The golden pot also, as a most certain type, preserved the manna contained in it, which in other cases was changed day by day, unchanged, and keeping fresh for ages. The prophet Elijah likewise, as prescient of thy chastity, and being emulous of it through the Spirit, bound around him the crown of that fiery life, being by the divine decree adjudged superior to death. Thee also, prefiguring his successor Elisha, having been instructed by a wise master, and anticipating thy presence who wast not yet born, by certain sure indications of the things that would have place hereafter, ministered help and healing to those who were in need of it, which was of a virtue beyond nature; now with a new cruse, which contained healing salt, curing the deadly waters, to show that the world was to be recreated by the mystery manifested in thee; now with unleavened meal, in type responding to thy child-bearing, without being defiled by the seed of man, banishing from the food the bitterness of death; and then again, by efforts which transcended nature, rising superior to the natural elements in the Jordan, and thus exhibiting, in signs beforehand, the descent of our Lord into Hades, and His wonderful deliverance of those who were held fast in corruption. For all things yielded and succumbed to that divine image which prefigured thee” (ibid, IX). Note that Elijah, found superior to death, is said to be a type of Mary. The writer is obviously making a connection. Why else would Methodius mention the fact if it was not relevant to Mary? Everything else he stated about the other types all had a fulfillment in Mary and applied to her. Furthermore, Methodius ends the chapter by stating that among other things those who were delivered from death (held fast in corruption) pale in comparison to Mary.

During this same time period, Christians were hiding out in the Roman Catacombs. Their professions of faith and beliefs can be found in their artwork and inscriptions. One of the oldest paintings in the catacombs reveals the Virgin Mary elevated above the apostles. Truly, a picture is worth a thousand words. Anyway you look at it, the early Church’s view of Mary is not your own.

 

[Mathetes007]

Ephrem the Syrian [ca. 306-373] in some of his writings appears to be implying knowledge of the Assumption also. For example, in Hymn XI, Ephrem states that “the Son of the Most High came and dwelt in me, and I became His Mother; and as by a second birth I brought Him forth so did He bring me forth by the second birth, because He put His Mother’s garments on, she clothed her body with His glory.” As the Son put on human flesh, so the Mother was clothed with glory. Again he says in Hymn XII, “the Babe that I carry carries me, saith Mary, and He has lowered His wings, and taken and placed me between His pinions, and mounted into the air; and a promise has been given me that height and depth shall be my Son’s.” In yet another hymn he states, “that Gabriel came in unto my low estate, he made me free instead of a handmaid, of a sudden: for I was the handmaid of Thy Divine Nature, and am also the Mother of Thy human Nature, O Lord and Son! Of a sudden the handmaid became the King’s daughter in Thee, Thou Son of the King. Lo, the meanest in the house of David, by reason of Thee, Thou Son of David, lo, a daughter of earth hath attained unto Heaven by the Heavenly One!” (Hymn IV).

The most ancient recorded Marian apparition in Church history is probably that of Gregory Thaumaturge (the miracle or wonder worker) who lived in the third century [AD 213-275]. This story is related by Gregory of Nyssa [AD 335-394], in his work Life of St. Gregory Thaumaturge (PG 46, 909-912). In this account, we are told that two personages appeared to Gregory during a sleepless night when he was contemplating theological doctrine. The first personage was John the Apostle whom we are told appeared “as if in human form.” Oddly enough, the Mother of the Lord is described as appearing “in [the] shape of a woman, but more than human.” This is surely an odd detail for Gregory to include in his account of the event. Apparently, he must have thought it was a point to be noted. John is described as appearing in human form although it leaves open the possibility that he was not actually in this form at all (“as if”). In stark contrast, Mary is described as more than human. This implies that her body encompasses and yet surpasses the human form. This is what we believe will take place when our body is glorified after the pattern of the Resurrected Savior (Romans 8:11, 23; 1 Corinthians 15:35-55; 2 Corinthians 3:18; 5:1-10; Philippians 3:20-21; 2 Peter 1:3-4; 1 John 3:2, 3). This is what we believe also happened to Mary’s body prior to her entrance into heaven (Revelation 12:1).

We also have a homily of the fourth century attributed varyingly to John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, and Amphilochius of Iconium. The homily records that Mary “has not been lifted up to heaven” but rather has instead “drawn the Lord down to earth”(Clavis Patrum Graecorum 4677: PG 62.763-770). At first glance, it appears that the writer of this homily expressly rejects the notion that Mary was assumed. However, a closer examination reveals that the author may be implying the exact opposite. The writer seems to be utilizing the language found in Romans 10:6-7 and Ephesians 4:8-10 which refer to Christ’s Ascension.

Additionally, in the Arabic document entitled the “History of Joseph the Carpenter,” [fourth century] the author modifies the words spoken to Joseph in Matthew 1:20-21 with Revelation 12:5. The author therefore acknowledges Jesus and Mary as the protagonists of Revelation 12.

Epiphanius [AD 377] states: “How will Holy Mary not possess the kingdom of heaven with her flesh, since she was not unchaste, nor dissolute, nor did she ever commit adultery, and since she never did anything wrong as far as fleshly actions are concerned, but remained stainless?” (Panarion, 42:12).

Quodvultdeus [AD 395], disciple of Augustine, stated in regards to Revelation 12 that no one “is ignorant of the fact that the dragon was the devil. The woman signified the Virgin Mary” (De Symbolo, 3).

 

[Mathetes007]

John of Thessalonica [AD 610-649] in his work, “The Dormition of Our Lady, the Mother of God and Ever-Virgin Mary,” states that “after the third day, they opened the sarcophagus to venerate the precious tabernacle of her who deserves all praise [Mary], but found only her grave-garments; for she had been taken away by Christ himself, who bestowed glory on his immaculate Mother Mary Theotokos, will also bestow glory on those who glorify her” (The Dormition of Our Lady, 14).

Theoteknos of Livias [contemporary of John] also asserts the Assumption in his “An Encomium on the Assumption of the Holy Mother of God.” Theoteknos states that Mary was “taken up in glory to heaven along with her soul, which was so pleasing to God” (An Encomium on the Assumption, 3). “And even though the God-bearing body of that holy one did taste death, it was not corrupted; for it was kept incorrupt and free of decay, and it was lifted up to heaven with her pure and spotless soul. . .” (ibid, 4). Again he says that, “the assumption of the body of the holy one, and her ascension to heaven, took place on the fifteenth day of August, which is the sixth day of the month of Mesore” (ibid, 5).

In “An Encomium on the Dormition of our Most Holy Lady, Mary, Mother of God and Ever-Virgin,” Modestus of Jerusalem [died AD 634] concludes his work by saying, “for this reason, then, and because she is the glorious mother of Christ, our God and Savior, who bestows life and immortality, she was raised to life by him, to share his bodily incorruptibility for all ages. He raised her from the grave and took her to himself, in a way known only to him. So to him be glory and power, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, now and always and for ages of ages! Amen” (An Encomium on the Dormition, 14).

Andrew of Crete [AD 660-740] wrote three sermons pertaining to the Assumption of Mary. In his “On the Dormition of our Most Holy Lady, the Mother of God, Homily III, Andrew informs us that “no tomb can contain [Mary], for corruptible things cannot hide the body of a queen. Hades has no power to hold [Mary], for the forces of slavery cannot capture a royal soul” (On the Dormition of our Most Holy Lady, Homily III, 8).

Germanus of Constantinople [AD 650-742] wrote two homilies on the Assumption. In the first homily, Germanus states: “’You live in beauty’ as Scripture says, and your virginal body is all holy, all pure, all the dwelling-place of God. As a result, it is also a stranger to all dissolution into dust. It has been changed, in its humanity, to the highest incorruptible life; it is preserved and supremely glorified. Its life ended, it remains unsleeping, since it was impossible for what was God’s vessel, the living temple of the all-holy godhead of the Only-begotten, to be conquered by the lethal confinement of a tomb” (On the Most Venerable Dormition of the Holy Mother of God, Homily I, 5).

Like Andrew of Crete, John of Damascus [AD 675-753] wrote three homilies on the Assumption. In addition, he also wrote odes on the Assumption called the “Canon for the Dormition of the Mother of God.” In Ode 4 we find the following statement: “Taking you to heaven, O Mother of God, covering your holy and receptive, God-welcoming body with their many-splendored wings, angelic hosts surrounded you, shielding you with radiant modesty.”

Theodore the Studite [AD 759-826] also contributed to the Assumption literature with his “Encomium on the Dormition of Our Holy Lady, the Mother of God.” Theodore says, “today she who was heaven on earth is wrapped in a cloak of incorruptibility; she has moved to a better, more blessed dwelling-place…rising anew in his home, she is radiant with the dignity of immortality. Today that ark of holiness, wrought with gold and divinely furnished, has been lifted up from her tabernacle on earth and is borne towards the Jerusalem above, to unending rest…” (Encomium on the Dormition of Our Holy Lady, I)

For more patristic citations go to cin.org/users/jgallegos/assumed.htm .

 

[Mathetes007]

homer:

In 495 A.D., Pope Gelasius issued a decree which rejected this teaching as heresy and its proponents as heretics. In the sixth century, Pope Hormisdas also condemned as heretics those authors who taught the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary. The early Church clearly considered the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary to be a heresy worthy of condemnation. Here we have “infallible” popes declaring something to be a heresy. Then in 1950, Pope Pius XII, another “infallible” pope, declared it to be official Roman Catholic doctrine.

In the ‘Gelasian’ Decree, which is considered to be the decree of the Council of Rome, the Pope gave forth the canon of Scripture (exactly as we have it today including the deuterocanonicals). During this time, some Christians did not recognize Hebrews, the letters of Peter, John and Jude, and the book of Revelation. The Council was also trying to stop the circulation of forgeries (such as the apocryphal literature) in the Christian communities. The Council named the works of early Christian writers which were recommended for reading for the faithful (such as Cyprian and Basil). It also lists those books which were to be considered apocryphal (citing about 62 of them). Among these is the “liber qui appellatur Transitus sanctae Mariae” (the book entitled the Passing of Holy Mary). The book was condemned because of its fanciful and apocryphal nature. The Council did not address the issue of the Assumption at all nor did it refer to it. The same Council referred to the works of Tertullian yet the Council was not condemning the belief in the Trinity (which appears in Tertullian’s writings in Latin “trinitas”] for the first time in Christian history). Pope Hormisdas in the sixth century reaffirmed the decree issued by the Council of Rome.

Here are a few details regarding the Transitus book which may explain why the writing was condemned. The first issue is that the Council condemned only one specific book (“liber”) and not the entire corpus of assumption narratives. Unfortunately, we cannot determine which one was specifically addressed by the Council of Rome.

The oldest Transitus story, dated to the later part of the fifth century, is a Syriac fragment located in the British Library (known as S 1). However, this apocryphal story contradicts the received dogma concerning the Assumption. Mary’s body is said to have been taken up into heaven and buried under the tree of life. Her soul was not re-united to her body.

Then there’s the Greek accounts of the Assumption. There are two main versions. The first Transitus Mariae is attributed to John the Evangelist (known as G 1). The second contains somewhat different material (known as G 2). G 1 contains fanciful information involving the Apostles with the burial of Mary prior to the Assumption. G 2 has Jesus present at the burial and has Him escorting Mary’s body to paradise. Both contain contradictory and fanciful details. Additionally, Gnostic tendencies have been detected in the writings.

The story of the Assumption abounds in all of the ancient Christian languages. It is difficult to determine with certainty the date of each writing. It appears that the belief in the Assumption was widespread. The problem is that the details differ greatly in the accounts. It appears that these apocryphal narratives were written in an attempt to fill in the gaps regarding the details surrounding the truth of the Assumption. As previous posts indicate, the Church only defined that Mary was assumed body and soul into heaven. This is the essence of the dogma. It gave no further details, even regarding Mary’s death (or lack thereof).

The Council of Rome condemned the apocryphal writings because they contained error. To assume that the Council was isolating and condemning the belief of the Assumption is to go beyond the intent of the decree.

 

[Emmaus]

homer,

Catholics are not Scripture Alone people. So to expect them to prove all their doctrines by Scripture alone unreasonable since they do not agree with your premise. On the other hand, Catholics are not unscriptural or antiscriptural. The fact that something is not explicity in Scripture in the word you would like to see, does not necessarily mean it is not true. The docrtine of the Assumption does not contradict any Scriptural doctrine. It is based Sacred tradionion and interpretations of certain Scriptural passages which are implicit rather than explicit. Those passages have already been cited in other responses.

Contrary to the contention that Marian doctrines detract attention and honor from Jesus, they are in fact intrinsically linked to Christological doctrines, and in fact support and buttress the Christological doctrines.

The doctrine of the Assumption of Mary is nothing less than an affirmation of God’s promise of the Resurrection to all the faithful in Christ. For those who believe that at the second coming of Christ, the dead shall be raised and the living faithful be caught up into the clouds to be with Jesus, and believe in the assumptions of Enoch and Elijah in scripture, this can hardly be a difficult doctrine to accept.

 

[Katholikos]

Eric Goodrich:

As a Lutheran, I don’t have a problem with the teachings of the Assumption. It is a good tribute to the Mother of Christ. If it was a significant event, however, I think it would be in the Bible. I know that you point to the Revalations of John, but as I believe, this is a vision of the end of the world and of heaven, a look into the future, not proving that Mary is there right this minute.

As far as the Catholic Church believes, Mary was conceived without original sin and remained a virgin her entire life. Although Mary is not mentioned much in the New Testament (as I PRAY you all agree that she is not by ANY Means the central character) I have a difficult time believing that she did not have a family with her Joseph after the birth of Jesus. Would her having children as a married woman be a sin? I think that honoring her husband and her marriage would almost certainly mean that she would have had more children.

Please give me some biblical backup that she remained a virgin until her death and that Mary and Joseph had no children.

Hail Holy Queen, by Scott Hahn, Ph.D. (a Presbyterian minister, biblical scholar, and theologian who is now Catholic)

 

[Emmaus]

homer:

The teaching of the Assumption originated with heretical writings which were officially condemned by the early Church.
In 495 A.D., Pope Gelasius issued a decree which rejected this teaching as heresy and its proponents as heretics. In the sixth century, Pope Hormisdas also condemned as heretics those authors who taught the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary. The early Church clearly considered the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary to be a heresy worthy of condemnation. Here we have “infallible” popes declaring something to be a heresy. Then in 1950, Pope Pius XII, another “infallible” pope, declared it to be official Roman Catholic doctrine. (Mary Ann Collins: Mary Worship?)
On what is based the idea of the assumption of Mary?

Now, now homer,

You are excited and confused. Pope Gelasius did not condemn the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary. What he did was condemn a list of books, that some were proposing as Scripture, as apocrypha and not scripture. Among them was “Transitus Mariae”, which speaks of the Assumption. Gelaius did not condemn all the content of these apocryphal books, but rather the assertion that they were scripture. He was protecting the integrity of the Canon of the New Testament, which benefit from and accept based on Sacred Tradional, which comes from the Catholic Church. Every Protestant accepts at least one Tradition of the catholic Church and that is the canon of the New Testament. The New Testament did not come with a table of contents, that was discerned by the Catholic Church under the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

As for Pope Hormisdas, sorry I can’t find the connection at all. He may also have condemned the same books as apochyphal rather than scripture. There are many of these books still extant. They are of mixed quality as far as content, none are scripture. But we know of them because of the records kept by the Church. Of course when you take information out of context, misquote or giving you the benefit of the doubt, misunderstand, you do yourself and others a disservice.

 

[Little_Mary]

Eric Goodrich:

As a Lutheran, I don’t have a problem with the teachings of the Assumption. It is a good tribute to the Mother of Christ. If it was a significant event, however, I think it would be in the Bible. I know that you point to the Revalations of John, but as I believe, this is a vision of the end of the world and of heaven, a look into the future, not proving that Mary is there right this minute.

As far as the Catholic Church believes, Mary was conceived without original sin and remained a virgin her entire life. Although Mary is not mentioned much in the New Testament (as I PRAY you all agree that she is not by ANY Means the central character) I have a difficult time believing that she did not have a family with her Joseph after the birth of Jesus. Would her having children as a married woman be a sin? I think that honoring her husband and her marriage would almost certainly mean that she would have had more children.

Please give me some biblical backup that she remained a virgin until her death and that Mary and Joseph had no children.

This may not be what you asked for but it is certainly something to think about. During the time that Jesus was on earth, it was customary in those days for the eldest son to care for his mother in the event that she was widowed. If the eldest son could not do it, then the next eldest did and so on. However, when Jesus was dying on the cross, He gave His mother to John. If Jesus really did have siblings, this would have been a huge slap in the face to his brothers. (John 19:26-27): "When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother ‘Woman, behold your son’ Then he said to the disciple ‘Behold your mother’ And from that hour the disciple took her into his home."

 

[corkybob]

homer:

There is no biblical reference to the assumption of Mary. The Gospel of John was written around 90 A.D., which is more than 100 years after Mary was born. (Surely Mary was more than ten years old when Jesus was conceived.) If Mary had been supernaturally assumed into Heaven, wouldn’t John (the disciple that Mary lived with) have mentioned it? When Enoch and Elijah were taken up to Heaven, the Bible recorded it. With Elijah it was recorded in some detail. (See Genesis 6:24 and 2 Kings 2:1 18.)

The Assumption of Mary was officially declared to be a dogma of the Roman Catholic faith in 1950. This means that every Roman Catholic is required to believe this doctrine without questioning it. The teaching of the Assumption originated with heretical writings which were officially condemned by the early Church.
In 495 A.D., Pope Gelasius issued a decree which rejected this teaching as heresy and its proponents as heretics. In the sixth century, Pope Hormisdas also condemned as heretics those authors who taught the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary. The early Church clearly considered the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary to be a heresy worthy of condemnation. Here we have “infallible?popes declaring something to be a heresy. Then in 1950, Pope Pius XII, another “infallible?pope, declared it to be official Roman Catholic doctrine. (Mary Ann Collins: Mary Worship?)
On what is based the idea of the assumption of Mary?

Then where is her body? The early Church did have a cult of the saints. She was the greatest saint, and Churches were held in regaurd by whose relics were in there altar. There are no Churches that claim Mary’s body.

Pax
John

 

[prodromos]

Guys,

Homer isn’t listening

 

[SPH1]

All four Gospels, including that of John, end with Mary and all of the apostles still alive. So cannot mention the Assumption there.

At the end of Acts, Paul, Peter and most of the apostles are still alive. So, probably, is Mary.

The only book which could refer to the Assumption would be Revelation. By then, pretty much everyone is dead. Yet John does make reference to the Assumption, in Rev. 12. - the “woman.”

 

[jimmy]

Homer

The Gospels are about Jesus, they are not about Mary.

 

[Kinsman]

arnulf:

John himself tells us that many, many other things happened which are not recorded in his gospel, so it is not particularly remarkable that the assumption of Mary is not mentioned there.
QUOTE]

John was referring to Christ’s earthly ministry and the “signs” which testified to whom He was/is, God the Son and Israel’s Messiah. This passage in Scripture gives absolutely no support to the so-called bodily assumption of Mary. Notice, John said Jesus performed other signs in the presence of his disciples. In other words, they were eyewitnesses (cf. 1 Pet. 1:16; 1 Jo. 1:1). That is hardly the case with Mary’s bodily assumption into heaven.

This is what makes Christianity unique among all other “religions” on earth. Our Scriptures contain the reports of real historical events by eyewitnesses. Men and women who were actually there! That is not the case with the doctrine regarding Mary’s bodily assumption. This doctrine bears no historical proof.

Others here argue that “it only makes sense.” That Jesus would want to have His mother in heaven with Him. But the true Christian faith is not based on what “makes sense” to men, but what God has accomplished among men through Christ and what He has revealed concerning Him in Scripture. The Bible does not teach that the Creator of this world came into this world in order to gain a mother from His own creation, and then take her back with Him that He might exalt her in heaven. Such an idea is well rooted in pagan religions and the fables surrounding their finite gods. But no hint of this idea is found in God’s written Word which reveals the only true, infinite God and creator of this universe and His redemptive purposes for mankind.

Others here claim the bodily assumption of Mary should be believed because it’s tradition and Paul taught traditions were to be held to (1 Cor. 11:2; 2 Tim. 2:15). But Paul, in context, was referring to what he orally taught them concerning Christ and the faith while in their presence on his previous missionary journeys. This in no way gives credence to a doctrine developed by men born long after its claimed event. A dubious occurrence which has absolutely no eyewitnesses, no historical backing, and no Apostolic support. This is totally incongruent with the nature of the true Christian faith which is based on historical facts.

No, according to the silence and teachings of Scripture, Mary is not in heaven. She, like all who have since died in Christ, is waiting the “first resurrection” (Rev. 20:5-6;1 Cor. 15:22-23). At that time Mary will be bodily resurrected and will receive her reward along with the rest of us who have believed and eagerly wait Christ’s return. Mary was an obedient vessel that the Son might be born into this world as a Man (the God-Man, Jesus Christ), to be a substitutionary sacrifice for man’s sins. Scripture takes her no further, nor should we (Gal. 5:9).

 

[bengal_fan]

Kinsman:

Mary was an obedient vessel that the Son might be born into this world as a Man (the God-Man, Jesus Christ), to be a substitutionary sacrifice for man’s sins. Scripture takes her no further, nor should we (Gal. 5:9).

actually, and this is a protestant speaking, scripture does take her futher in calling her “blessed amongst women” and “full of grace” (this having never been used to describe another person before). and that “all generations” would call her “blessed”. so scripture does give her an extremely high place of honor. but you are right when you say there is no blatant evidence of the assumption, just some scripture which could be interpreted that way and the historical tradition which has said it to be so. now, if you want eyewitness accounts or blatant scripture you are not going to get it, but you can’t say there is nothing to support the doctrine when there is scripture which could lead to this interpretation and early church fathers held to it also. my point is that both sides have a point.

 

[Tony_Ivins]

I may have missed it, but isn’t the Assumption akin to a type of Rapture most Protestants believe in? My point is the Blessed Mother is a creature like us, so death is her natural conclusion. If she is assumed into Heaven after death, couldn’t that be considered a rapturelike concept, something which we all hope to obtain someday?

I’m taking on faith that someday, hopefully, I too will be raised after death and since I believe the Blessed Mother has been there done that, it gives me a great comfort.

If I’m missing something something, let me know; I’m still learning.

God Bless

Tony
Convert 1995, Thankful I’m home.

 

[Kinsman]

bengal_fan:

actually, and this is a protestant speaking, scripture does take her futher in calling her “blessed amongst women” and “full of grace” (this having never been used to describe another person before). and that “all generations” would call her “blessed”. so scripture does give her an extremely high place of honor.

The reason she is called blessed amongst women is because only ONE woman born of Adam could ever become the chosen vessel for the Divine to enter humanity. For this reason she is called “highly favored,” the meaning of “full of grace” (grace means "favor). Bottom line, Scripture does not give her honor beyond the highly unique “favor” of being this chosen vessel. The desire of every orthodox, Jewish woman up to the time of His birth. That’s no small honor, but that honor is restricted.

As to some Scriptures that could be interpreted as meaning or hinting to her bodily assumption, sorry, there just are none. One would have to read that fully developed doctrine into a passage (which is called eisegesis), but one could not get that doctrine from that passage (exegesis). Many Catholics view the woman in Rev. 12 as referring to Mary in her exalted, heavenly position. But it’s the “sign” that appears in heaven, not the woman. It’s actually the “male child” she gives birth to that is “caught up to God and to His throne,” while the woman flees to the wilderness to escape persecution by the “dragon” (on earth) for 1260 days (a prophetic sign). Obviously no reference to Mary. Based on the description and context the woman is more likely national Israel (Mary being an Israelite through whom the Messiah was born).

The doctrine is virtually unknown in the early church. The story is first found in some apocryphal writings of the late 4th cen. having titles as “The Passing of Mary,” The Obsequies of Mary, and “The Book of the Passing of the Blessed Virgin.” These writings were condemned as spurious in the decretals attributed to Pope Gelasius at the end of the fifth or beginning of the sixth century (Migne, Patrologiae Latinae, pp. 59, 162). Gregory of Tours (d. 594) was the first orthodox writer to accept the writing as authentic.

The doctrine of the “Assumption” is totally extrabiblical. The problem here is that in order for one to become a Roman Catholic he must believe that doctrine. A nonbiblical event which has no eyewitness account, no historical validity, and no Apostolic support. He is required to believe the words of men not even born at the time that event was suppose to have occured. Like I said, what makes the Christian faith completely unique is that it is based on historical facts and the Word of God Almighty.

 

[mrS4ntA]

The doctrine of assumption is not extrabiblical; it is tightly knotted and closely connected with the rest of Christological doctrines.

“One final faulty assumption often made: that the doctrine of the Assumption is exclusively about Mary herself, without reference to Christ or the Church. But as Pope John Paul II reminds us, Catholic teaching about the Blessed Virgin Mary must be understood in light of the mystery of Christ and of the Church (Redemptoris mater, no. 4). These two basic Marian principles, as we might call them, help us understand the Blessed Virgin’s Assumption …”

the rest from here

As our co-redemptrix and mediatrix of all graces, it is necessary to say that, like her Divine Son, she who is without sin is assumed to her heavenly throne as did her Son.

*"A final point on the Blessed Virgin’s Assumption and us involves the Queenship of Mary. This notion is really a corollary to the doctrine of the Assumption. Like Christ, Mary too was raised bodily to reign in God’s kingdom. Her Son is “King of Kings and Lord of Lords,” so she is “Mother of the Lord” (cf. Luke 1:43) - the “Queen Mother” as it were - sharing now in Christ’s reign. Again, in this she is both a model of the Church and its precursor. As Paul says of all Christians, “If we have died with him, we shall also live with him; if we persevere, we shall also reign with him” (2 Tim. 3:11, 12). Through her glorious Assumption, Blessed Virgin Mary has begun to reign with Christ as all Christians shall at the Resurrection of the Dead.

The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, then, is neither irrelevant, nor irreverent. It is relevant because of what is says about who we are as human beings - beings of body and spiritual soul - and who are called to be - sons and daughters of God who will share in the fullness of divine life with Christ in heaven, a life of body and soul. And it is reverent because it exemplifies Christ’s power in thoroughly redeeming his Mother, a redemption in which we hope to share one day. Until then, as Lumen gentium reminds us, “the Mother of Jesus in the glory which she possesses in body and soul in heaven is the image and beginning of the Church as it is to be perfected in the world to come. Likewise she shines forth on earth … a sign of certain hope and comfort to the pilgrim People of God” (no. 68)."*

In Christ through Mary,
S4ntA.