The Assumption of Mary

[Mannyfit75]

With respect to Revelation 12, even if the woman does represent Mary, how does it show her assumption. Yes the sign appears in Heaven but the woman doesn’t remain there. When the dragon is thrown down to earth he pursues the woman which would indicate that she was not in Heaven since the dragon could not return to Heaven. The earth protects the woman showing that she is on earth after the vision in Heaven.

I do not deny that it is possible that Mary was assumed into Heaven. I cannot accept that it is something that must be accepted as dogma.

Carl, let’s look at the context of Revelation 12:1-5, provided you look at this with an open mind. I’ll use the Douay Rheims Bible since it is much older than the King James Bible.
Revelations Chapter 12 verse 1 to 5:

1 And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars: And being with child, she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered. 3 And there was seen another sign in heaven: and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads, and ten horns: and on his head seven diadems: 4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to be delivered; that, when she should be delivered, he might devour her son. 5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod: and her son was taken up to God, and to his throne.

Let me note that the Church has not officially made an statement nor do the Early Church Fathers acknowledge the woman as Mary. However, there have been written commentary by some priests who believe the woman to be Mary.

However, we can use reasoning or logic to conclude the woman can also be Mary.

Let us go to verse 1-, it reads:

1 And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars: And being with child, she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered.

First we see a sign. Notice this sign does reflect the prophecy made by Isaiah 7:14.

It reads,

14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel.

The original Hebrew translation of Isaiah 7:14 has the word woman.

Therefore the **Lord Himself **shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

יד לָכֵן יִתֵּן אֲדֹנָי הוּא, לָכֶם–אוֹת: הִנֵּה הָעַלְמָה, הָרָה וְיֹלֶדֶת בֵּן, וְקָרָאת שְׁמוֹ, עִמָּנוּ אֵל

The Hebrew word for young woman is [ha-almah] as oppose to the word virgin which is bethulah.

From this verse, we clearly see that John can relate the woman in Revelation 12:1-5 as Mary, the Mother of Jesus.

Let us go verse 5:

It reads:

** 5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod: and her son was taken up to God, and to his throne.**

We know that the Messiah Jesus is the King of Kings, and the Lord of Lords. He will also inherit of the kingdom of David, which will last forever. The verse later states was taken up to God. This sounds amazingly like the Ascension of the Lord, and it reads later, to his throne. Sounds like Son of Man sitteth at the Right Hand of God, the Father. So we can conclude that the child here is Jesus. Who gave birth to Jesus? Mary, who the daughter of Israel. The other interpretations of the woman can be viewed as the Church and Israel. Those interpretations are also correct.

 

[SyCarl]

Carl, let’s look at the context of Revelation 12:1-5, provided you look at this with an open mind. I’ll use the Douay Rheims Bible since it is much older than the King James Bible.

Let me note that the Church has not officially made an statement nor do the Early Church Fathers acknowledge the woman as Mary. However, there have been written commentary by some priests who believe the woman to be Mary.

However, we can use reasoning or logic to conclude the woman can also be Mary.

Let us go to verse 1-, it reads:

1 And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars: And being with child, she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered.

First we see a sign. Notice this sign does reflect the prophecy made by Isaiah 7:14.

It reads,

14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel.

The original Hebrew translation of Isaiah 7:14 has the word woman.

Therefore the **Lord Himself **shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

יד לָכֵן יִתֵּן אֲדֹנָי הוּא, לָכֶם–אוֹת: הִנֵּה הָעַלְמָה, הָרָה וְיֹלֶדֶת בֵּן, וְקָרָאת שְׁמוֹ, עִמָּנוּ אֵל

The Hebrew word for young woman is [ha-almah] as oppose to the word virgin which is bethulah.

From this verse, we clearly see that John can relate the woman in Revelation 12:1-5 as Mary, the Mother of Jesus.

Let us go verse 5:

It reads:

** 5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod**: and her son was taken up to God, and to his throne.

We know that the Messiah Jesus is the King of Kings, and the Lord of Lords. He will also inherit of the kingdom of David, which will last forever. The verse later states was taken up to God. This sounds amazingly like the Ascension of the Lord, and it reads later, to his throne. Sounds like Son of Man sitteth at the Right Hand of God, the Father. So we can conclude that the child here is Jesus. Who gave birth to Jesus? Mary, who the daughter of Israel. The other interpretations of the woman can be viewed as the Church and Israel. Those interpretations are also correct.

Manny:
I do try to keep an open mind on things and as I said, I do not deny that the Assumption is possible. I cannot accept it as required dogma.

But with respect to Revelation 12, we must look beyond the first 5 verses. In verse 6 the woman flees into the wilderness to a place prepared for her. Why would this be necessary if she was safely in Heaven.

Going on to verses 7-9 we see the war in Heaven and the dragon being cast down to earth as there was no place left in Heaven for he and his angels. Then in verses 13-16, we are told that the dragon persecuted the woman and she was taken to the wilderness. The dragon tried to sweep the woman away with a flood but the earth opened and swallowed it.

These verses show the woman, not in Heaven, but on earth. That is why I don’t think Revelation 12 supports the Assumption since the passage ends with the woman being sheltered on earth, not in Heaven.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Manny:
I do try to keep an open mind on things and as I said, I do not deny that the Assumption is possible. I cannot accept it as required dogma.

But with respect to Revelation 12, we must look beyond he first 5 verses. In verse 6 the woman flees into the wilderness to a place prepared for her. Why would this be necessary if she was safely in Heaven.

This verse as many Catholic scholars, and theologians concerns Mary, and Joseph fleaing to to Egypt to escape King Herod. We know from the Bible, King Herod order the killing of male infants ages 2 and under.

Going on to verses 7-9 we see the war in Heaven and the dragon being cast down to earth as there was no place left in Heaven for he and his angels. Then in verses 13-16, we are told that the dragon persecuted the woman and she was taken to the wilderness. The dragon tried to sweep the woman away with a flood but the earth opened and swallowed it.

No disagreement there. I would interpret this passage was Israel escape out of Egypt since it mention parallels like the passage of the parking of the Red Sea.

These verses show the woman, not in Heaven, but on earth. That is why I don’t think Revelation 12 supports the Assumption since the passage ends with the woman being sheltered on earth, not in Heaven.

If you read the verse again it said, a great sign appeared in heaven. The sign is the woman who is pregnant with child. How did she get there? She assumed.

Revelation itself is not cronology in order. It contains elements of varies events in regard to the entire message of the Book of Revelation which is mainly about God’s redemption and victory over sin, death, and Satan. Indeed, she was shelter.

I **would not be convince the woman is Mary if the male child is not Jesus. However, I am convince the male child is Jesus **because he will rule all nations, and he was taken up to God and to his throne. Unless you can find a verse in the passage that denies this male child is Jesus, then I can say the woman is not Mary.

 

[bpbasilphx]

** Some n-C I came across said unless I gave a biblical quote he isn’t changing his mind that I have been misled by my Church**

As I said about this very issue ono another blog. we are not bound by sola scriptura, so we don’t have to give scriptural proof-texts for the Assumption/Dormition. That’s playing by THEIR rules, not by ours.

Rather, it’s up fo your friend to quote scripture that DIS-proves it.

 

[Kimella]

“Rather, it’s up fo your friend to quote scripture that DIS-proves it”

That’s a good pt. I’ll give that to him.

DIS=this?

 

[ChangingHeart]

Using Revelation 12 to try to support the Glorious Assumption is playing the Protestant game of, “I have a doctrine, and I’ll manipulate Scripture however I need to in order to support it.” As Catholics, we need to show more integrity than that.

Is the woman Mary? I certainly believe so, especially given verse 17. How does that support the Glorious Assumption, though? It doesn’t!

As long as Scripture doesn’t contradict the Glorious Assumption, Protestants can NOT make the claim that it violates Scripture.

When casually mentioning the doctrine when talking to Protestants, if they bring the doctrine up, again, as I mentioned in my last post, debunk Sola-Scriptura.

Some further advice, however, would be to clarify that we do NOT believe that Mary ASCENDED to Heaven by her own power, but that she WAS ASSUMED into Heaven by GOD’S Power. It may seem petty that I’m saying that, but you’d be shocked how many Protestants erroneously believe that the Catholic Church teaches that Mary ascended into Heaven.

From there, show that God has been known to do that type of thing, and use the example of Elijah. (2 Kings 2:11)

Seriously, though, drop the Revelation 12 argument, because even as a Catholic who firmly believes in the Glorious Assumption, Revelation 12 doesn’t work in supporting it.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Using Revelation 12 to try to support the Glorious Assumption is playing the Protestant game of, “I have a doctrine, and I’ll manipulate Scripture however I need to in order to support it.” As Catholics, we need to show more integrity than that.

Is the woman Mary? I certainly believe so, especially given verse 17. How does that support the Glorious Assumption, though? It doesn’t!

As long as Scripture doesn’t contradict the Glorious Assumption, Protestants can NOT make the claim that it violates Scripture.

When casually mentioning the doctrine when talking to Protestants, if they bring the doctrine up, again, as I mentioned in my last post, debunk Sola-Scriptura.

Some further advice, however, would be to clarify that we do NOT believe that Mary ASCENDED to Heaven by her own power, but that she WAS ASSUMED into Heaven by GOD’S Power. It may seem petty that I’m saying that, but you’d be shocked how many Protestants erroneously believe that the Catholic Church teaches that Mary ascended into Heaven.

From there, show that God has been known to do that type of thing, and use the example of Elijah. (2 Kings 2:11)

Seriously, though, drop the Revelation 12 argument, because even as a Catholic who firmly believes in the Glorious Assumption, Revelation 12 doesn’t work in supporting it.

Priests talk about it, Catholic Apologists claim the woman in Revelation 12 claim the woman is Mary.

Even Mary herself said to Bruno. “I am the Virgin of Revelation.” (The Virgin of Revelations, an approved Marian at Apparition at Tre Fontane (1947). Source: theotokos.org.uk/pages/approved/appariti/trefonta.html

 

[Rightlydivide]

Priests talk about it, Catholic Apologists claim the woman in Revelation 12 claim the woman is Mary.

Even Mary herself said to Bruno. “I am the Virgin of Revelation.” (The Virgin of Revelations, an approved Marian at Apparition at Tre Fontane (1947). Source: theotokos.org.uk/pages/approved/appariti/trefonta.html

Great…how am I supposed to argue with a ghost? I mean really? If I say I saw a ghost of the Virgin Mary and she said to believe the Bible only…what can anyone do?

 

[Mannyfit75]

Great…how am I supposed to argue with a ghost? I mean really? If I say I saw a ghost of the Virgin Mary and she said to believe the Bible only…what can anyone do?

She was a transfigured like Moses and Elijah when they converse with Jesus.

Here is an account:

At about three twenty he was disturbed by the children shouting for their lost ball, but as he helped with the search, the youngest, Gianfranco, promptly went missing himself. Bruno discovered him in a small cave or grotto, smiling, with hands joined as he knelt and repeated the words, “Beautiful Lady! Beautiful Lady!” Bruno could not make anything out, and so called first to Isola, and then to Carlo, who both came and saw the “Beautiful Lady.” All three children were entranced, and oblivious of his shouts. He became frightened after he was unable to lift them, and called out angrily into the empty cave. Finally, in desperation, he cried out, “God help us!”

At this, Bruno saw two transparent hands which touched his face and wiped his eyes, causing him pain. Then, he saw a tiny light in the cave which grew more luminous, as he felt an interior sensation of great joy. Finally he saw a beautiful woman, with a motherly but sad expression, wearing a green mantle over a white dress, and with a rose-colored sash around her waist.

In her hands she held an ash-gray book close to her breast, while at her feet he could see a crucifix which had been smashed, on top of a black cloth. She called herself the “Virgin of the Revelation,” and spoke to Bruno slowly and rhythmically for about an hour and twenty minutes; he could remember every word afterwards, it was like a recording he could replay time and time again. But the children only saw her lips move and heard nothing.

Our Lady revealed herself thus: “I am she who is related to the Divine Trinity. I am the Virgin of Revelation. You have persecuted me, now is the time to stop! Come and be part of the Holy Fold which is the Celestial Court on earth. God’s promise is unchangeable and will remain so. The nine First Fridays in honor of the Sacred Heart, which your faithful wife persuaded you to observe before you walked down the road of lies, has saved you.”

theotokos.org.uk/pages/approved/appariti/trefonta.html

Bruno was extremely Anti-Catholic and a Seven Day Adventist. I believe the Virgin was carrrying the Bible in her arms.

 

[Rightlydivide]

She was a ghost. She was a transfigured like Moses and Elijah when they converse with Jesus.

Here is an account:

I don’t buy it. Besides the word used in Revelation for appeared is optanomai
Even if the person was Mary, and I do not think it is, all it says is appeared. Besides the woman is pregnant and yelling, I doubt Mary went to heaven that way.

 

[po18guy]

Is the assumption of Mary Scriptural? Some n-C I came across said unless I gave a biblical quote he isn’t changing his mind that I have been misled by my Church. He says ONLY the Bible can lead you to ALL TRUTH. Any experts out there? Need help!

“All Truth” usually means their pastor, whom they often believe implcitly. In effect, their pastor is their Pope. Ask where Christ used a “bible”. Ask where He commanded the Apostles to write a bible. Ask where the bible says it is the sole rule of faith.

Since John 21:25 says that Jesus did many more things which were not written down, does that make them false, since they were not written? Or does that make the NT, blessed as it is, essentially the Cliffs Notes of the life of Christ? I think the Apostle Thomas was the archtype of the “bible Christian”, since he demanded proof before he would believe. Ah, but “Blessed are those who have not seen, and have believed”

Christ’s peace.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I don’t buy it. Besides the word used in Revelation for appeared is optanomai
Even if the person was Mary, and I do not think it is, all it says is appeared. Besides the woman is pregnant and yelling, I doubt Mary went to heaven that way.

I know you don’t believe it. The Apparition was meant for a Catholic. I don’t expect you to believe approved apparition. I personally believe in it as well as that Jesus visited St. Faustina in Poland in 1930s and gave her the message of Divine Mercy and the Divine Mercy chaplet said on the rosary. It’s a very Christ center prayer.

Anyways, the pregnant woman gave birth to Jesus. Mary is the Mother of Jesus. So she is Mary. Also the male-child went to God and to his throne. He is a male-child which can be interpreted as Jesus because the male child rule with an iron rod. This male child will rule all nations. Unless you deny the male child as Jesus, then I would have no reason that the woman is Mary. I have said times, and time and again.

The Book of Revelation has both a symbolic and literal sense of interpretation.

I will give you want our Christian tradition says concerning Mary.

Our Eastern Tradition shows that Mary died naturally and fully accepted her faith so she can imitate her son by dying. She did died willing, and was resurrected by her Son. Then by God’s power, she was assumed into heaven body and soul.

The Apostle came to find her tomb empty.

 

[Rightlydivide]

appeared does not mean assumed. The Greek word for appeared is optanomai
and it does not mean assumed

You would have to ignore this verse if this woman was Mary

Rev 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

How can her seed, have the testimony of Jesus and actually be Jesus?

 

[Mannyfit75]

appeared does not mean assumed. The Greek word for appeared is optanomai
and it does not mean assumed

Of course it said appeared. One can conclude that she assumed because if she was to be in heaven, and how she got there, she would have to be taken up into heaven by God.

How can her seed, have the testimony of Jesus and actually be Jesus?

This verse refers to all who have been baptized in Christ, Christians. Since by our baptism we have been made brothers and sisters in Christ. Mary would be our spiritual mother. So when Mary assumed into heaven, Satan to this day continue to persue us by tempting us to sin and cause us to sin.

 

[Rightlydivide]

The word appears 58 times and this is the breakdown:

see 37, appear 17, look 2, show (one’s) self 1, being seen 1

Nothing about the verse says the woman was assumed into heaven.
I

 

[Rightlydivide]

Of course it said appeared. One can conclude that she assumed because if she was to be in heaven, and how she got there, she would have to be taken up into heaven by God.

No, do you believe that no one is in heaven right now? Do Catholics not believe that people are in heaven?
I am pretty sure you and do not advocate soul sleep.
Why does someone in heaven have to be assumed?
That makes no sense.

 

[Mannyfit75]

The word appears 58 times and this is the breakdown:

see 37, appear 17, look 2, show (one’s) self 1, being seen 1

Nothing about the verse says the woman was assumed into heaven.
I

Have you read the relations I put between Revelation 12:1-5 and Isaiah 7:14? If you read that, perhaps you can understand why we believe the woman in Revelation 12:1-5 is Mary. I mean you can try to word the passage anyway you like but I am convince the woman is Mary.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Of course it said appeared. One can conclude that she assumed because if she was to be in heaven, and how she got there, she would have to be taken up into heaven by God.

This verse refers to all who have been baptized in Christ, Christians. Since by our baptism we have been made brothers and sisters in Christ. Mary would be our spiritual mother. So when Mary assumed into heaven, Satan to this day continue to persue us by tempting us to sin and cause us to sin.

So you believe this already took place? Do you think Revelation 12 is in the past or in the future?

 

[Mannyfit75]

No, do you believe that no one is in heaven right now? Do Catholics not believe that people are in heaven?
I am pretty sure you and do not advocate soul sleep.
Why does someone in heaven have to be assumed?
That makes no sense.

I believe there are angels in heaven, souls of the saint, Mary with both her body and soul, and God. I don’t think heaven is empty. The assumption is our end, Mary’s assumption is what will become of us because in the Last Days, when we are resurrected, judged by God by our deeds, and if we are find to be righteous in God, we will be glorified and we ourselves will be assumed into heaven like Mary. We’ll be raptured as most of your Protestant brothers would say.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Have you read the relations I put between Revelation 12:1-5 and Isaiah 7:14? If you read that, perhaps you can understand why we believe the woman in Revelation 12:1-5 is Mary. I mean you can try to word the passage anyway you like but I am convince the woman is Mary.

Yes, I have read the whole thing.
So Mary is in pain in heaven? Crying? Catholics believe people are up in heaven crying?
I do not think you guys do.