Mary ascended bodily?

At least I can say that I have read the other side. I have read the RC commentaries, the Church Fathers. I am not closed minded as you are. The sad fact here is that you, like so many cults, refuse to even read the other side of the story. You are know only one side of the coin, and that is all that you care about--right or wrong.
DHK</font>[/QUOTE]DHK,

So now you know what I've read? I'm impressed, since I have not once discussed this with you. I think we call that "rashness."

How about realizing that I was protestant for 18+ years before I became Catholic, and that I studied both sides of the table before becoming Catholic.

But that's not going to be a satisfactory answer for you; it never is. Not until I BECOME DHK will you ever be satisfied.

Grant

 

I'm done with this thread.

Grant

[ January 27, 2003, 05:18 PM: Message edited by: GraceSaves ]

 

I am not a mind-reader Grant. As you can see my original post was to Thessalonians, not to you. When you jumped into this discussion at the top of the previous page you made some innacurate assertions which would indicate to me that you have not read Baptist or Protestant history. The bulk of Protestant history, as you very well know, does not consider the Catholic church the one true church, that it started with Peter, or that it even existed in the first century. To deny that there were gruops of believers outside of the Catholic Church, that were not Protestant (as Thessalonians did) is just pure foolishness. There have been many groups that have existed outside the Roman Catholic church both berfore the Reformation ever started, and before the Catholic came into existence in the fourth century. Simply because you disagree does not make you right.
DHK

 

First off, that logic doesn't make any sense. The ability for Mary to make the statement represented by CARSON'S post is contengent upon her being there. Since she was not, she DID not. The point you are comparing is rediculous because WHAT Jesus DID say is for ALL, what CARSON (that's big because it was him I was talking to)is 'imagining' Mary would say, would be for the ears of her Son.

My point on this matter is not FOR you. It was posed to CARSON. Thanks.

What exactly are you wanting me to admit? That Mary's so called ability to reach God for us depends upon the TRUE Advocate and Redeemer? Well since Jesus, who IS God, and IS the Word, and HE inspired the Bible writers to pen ALL those verses I pointed out, it would stand to reason that JESUS is the ONLY Advocate and Redeemer. Mary DID NOT have ANY part in the Redepmtive work that Jesus has done. Mary DID NOT have any part in the bridge that Jesus has built between man and God.

Intercessory prayer is a MAN praying to GOD for another MAN. It is not a MAN praying to a dead person expecting that dead person to 'appease' God and convince Him that He should answer your prayers. That is as honest as it gets. Praying to the dead is NOT the same as praying TO GOD.

It is not in any way apart from Christ that she is any of these things???? Firstly apart from Christ she is nothing. Secondly she is NOT any of those things. She is a woman. Since I cannot prove that she IS NOT in heaven right now with Scripture, I will concede that she could be there, but she is NOT like God. She is not all knowing, and she does not have the ability to 'hear' the prayers of people. Only God is omnipotent.

Who said anything about blasphemy? Being a co-laboror doesn't make us co-bosses. The RCC is saying that Mary is a CO-redeemer/advocate. REDEEMER. That in itself is IMMPOSSIBLE. Mary did NOT do any redemptive work, HOW could she be a redeemer?

YES!!! WE ARE NOT ADVOCATES! Do you know what that word means? Considering that the word is only in there ONE time, and it is referring to Jesus, that makes it impossible for us to assume, decide, rationalize, or PROVE, that ANYONE other than Him is an advocate to God.

I don't have to think hard before I answer it, it is so simple. Jesus is the 'Cornerstone' the one the builders rejected, the foundation of the church is made of layers. HE is the Cornerstone. THE MOST IMPORTANT STONE.

Again, no hard thought needed, Jesus said that as long as He was IN the world He was the light, and He passed to men this 'light' when He gave them the Great Commision. 'We' are now the light of the world, not because we are GOD, or in any way CO-Light's, or equal, but because we are His reflection. Like the Moon and the Sun. Simple as that.

Firstly, we are not advocates, therefore we are not mediators. We are praying for people in an act of love, making INTERCESSION for others. Again this prayer (even in 1 Tim) is from MAN to GOD. There is NO further 'mediator/advocate' needed. We can come BOLDLY to the Throne of Grace. BOLDLY! All by our selves. Don't need to confess to someone else to receive forgiveness, don't need to pray to a dead person to get Jesus to hear us, we can go BOLDLY to the Throne of Grace.

You differ from most Catholics I have talked to then, especially CARSON who has espoused Mary to her own Son and places her as the "Queen of Heaven" and since Jesus is the "King of Kings" that makes her RIGHT THERE ON THE SAME THRONE.

Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

There's Jesus

Act 6:5 And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch:
Act 6:8 And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people. *faith* pistis- faith, assurance, belief. (whoever translated those verses to say 'grace' doesn't know Greek)

There's Stephen.

There IS NOT a verse that says that Mary was full of anything. There is one that said she was great with child, but I don't think that fits here.

Try this on for size, this isn't an argumentive statement. It is a 'side note' that Mary was not there, and even if she was, SHE would not have taken up stones EVEN if she was sinless, because she would have seen the nature and attitude of Christ and known that He did not want this woman stoned. Her absence is not the point. I guess you avoid the point of JESUS BEING THE ONLY SINLESS ONE, by skipping over the meat and arguing over the gravy.

I should hope so.

 

This is one of those things that I, a former Catholic, have an issue with. While the Bible says that only one has ascended (Jesus), there are OT examples of people being taken up to Heaven. So whether or not Mary COULD HAVE is biblically vague. But whether or not she DID is absent, and I assume that she did not. But my view is by no means certain.

 

By the way - I appreciate the way all the Catholics on this board (generally speaking) are dealing with differences in views. (I have been on another board recently where a very different approach is being taken by the Catholic members there).

First of all, your response about "catholic bashing" is very informative. You claim that for me to assert that Catholic have altars to Mary - is Catholic bashing "as if" claiming such a thing "is bad" for Catholics.

I accept your view - that such a thing IS "bad for catholics". Now lets see WHO is claiming it.

The post about "Mary's Altars" has already been quoted in this section under "Maryiolotry" and "Prayers to the Dead, Communion of Saints" - but here it is again.

Instead of some "mean-spirited Protesting Catholic" making this up - it is the Pope himself asserting it.

IN Christ,

Bob

 

In the book of Jude - the Apostle uses the information recorded in the "Assumption of Moses" as "fact" when describing Michael disputing with Satan over the Body of Moses - after Moses' death.

I take that to be an "endorsement" of the "Account" by the Apostle. By referencing that specific event - and appealing to IT as fact - I accept that the Apostle was endorsing the fact of the event - and so - I accept it. Moses was bodily assumed into Heaven - resurrected and taken to heaven.

The result then is that NEITHER Moses NOR Elijah are "dead" in Matt 17 and so it is NOT a case of "Conjuring the dead". It is NOT an example for Christians to follow of communicating with the dead and causing them to appear to us. It is in fact communicating with two saints that are NOT dead - as one never did die and the other was bodily assumed into Heaven.

And I merely point out that IF we have NO apostolic NT author making any such reference to an event or a book connected with Mary's being assumed into heaven.

Which means that the strongest evidence we have for bodily assumption into heaven after death (besides the case of Christ) is for Moses not Mary. AND it eliminates the grounds for a "Christian Seance" by those claiming to simply be "Following Christ's example".

In Christ,

Bob

 

In the book of Jude - the Apostle uses the information recorded in the "Assumption of Moses" as "fact" when describing Michael disputing with Satan over the Body of Moses - after Moses' death.

I take that to be an "endorsement" of the "Account" by the Apostle. By referencing that specific event - and appealing to IT as fact - I accept that the Apostle was endorsing the fact of the event - and so - I accept it. Moses was bodily assumed into Heaven - resurrected and taken to heaven.

The result then is that NEITHER Moses NOR Elijah are "dead" in Matt 17 and so it is NOT a case of "Conjuring the dead". It is NOT an example for Christians to follow of communicating with the dead and causing them to appear to us. It is in fact communicating with two saints that are NOT dead - as one never did die and the other was bodily assumed into Heaven.

And I merely point out that IF we have NO apostolic NT author making any such reference to an event or a book connected with Mary's being assumed into heaven.

Which means that the strongest evidence we have for bodily assumption into heaven after death (besides the case of Christ) is for Moses not Mary. AND it eliminates the grounds for a "Christian Seance" by those claiming to simply be "Following Christ's example".

In Christ,

Bob

 

Well you have to quote either a Catholic nor non-Catholic historian. I like quoting Catholic historians when making a point to a Catholic member of the board - just to help with getting to a "level" of objectivity. But I will take a non-Catholic historian's quote of a Catholic source as well.

IN Christ,

Bob

 

The Biblical argument AGAINST Mary being assumed into heaven is not "Nobody could have been raised and then taken bodily to heaven". Rather the argument from scripture AGAINST Mary being taken to heaven is BASED on the argument that the RCC makes FOR Mary being bodily assumed into Heaven.

The RCC claims that BECAUSE Mary was SINLESS like Christ - the LIKE Christ she MUSt have been raised and taken bodily to heaven. The Bible argument against that is that Mary was human - a sinner, one with a sinful nature - and needed "God My Savior" just as much as we do --- therefore the PREMISE for her being taken bodily to heaven is made null.

But IF the RC argument had been in TWO parts - (a) that Mary was sinless like Christ and (b) that they have many first century eye-witness accounts of that event (As in the case for Christ) - then by eliminating the One leg of their argument (A) we would not have taken all that they have for Mary's bodily assumption out of play.

However the RC argument does NOT have "B" above - in fact it ONLY has "A". So the Bible case is sufficient to disprove the claim.

In Christ,

Bob

 

JohnV the Biblical point that Christ is the only human worthy to ascend to heaven - and the only one with the power to do so - stands today and will stand for all time.

That in no way invalidates God's claim in scripture THAT HE forgave sinners like Moses, Elijah and Enoch and that HE took Enoch and Elijah bodily to heaven "without seeing death".

They were not worthy by their own righteousness to ascend to heaven (but Christ is - and was the ONLY one who ever would be)..

In Christ,

Bob

 

Didn't the early Church venerate the saints? Didn't they venerate their relics? If so, where was Mary buried as her relics too would have been venerated? I don't remember seeing a strong, credible claim come from anywhere on that issue? Not a biblical argument though.

 

Bob Ryan says:

"JohnV the Biblical point that Christ is the only human worthy to ascend to heaven - and the only one with the power to do so - stands today and will stand for all time.

That in no way invalidates God's claim in They were not worthy by their own righteousness to ascend to heaven (but Christ is - and was the ONLY one who ever would be).."

Bob, could you quit posting straw men. The implication here is that we think Mary ascended to heaven by her own merrits or something like that. This is utterly false and has been answered previously in the thread. First of all the word is assumed, not ascended with regard to Mary. This implys that it was not of her own power or will that she was taken up, body and soul in to heaven, but by the will of God and by his grace and power. Part of this may well stem from your misrepresentation of our belief in Mary's sinnlessness. It would be Pelgianism that she accomplished this on her own and somehow did not need Jesus as a Savior. The fact is that she only accomplished this by the grace of God. It is akin to a man keeping another man from walking in to a pool of mud rather than pulling him out. Grace is the cause of Mary's sinnlessness. Nothing else. Mary says "I rejoice in God my savior".

By the way, do you have some pictures of those altars built to Mary around which we sit around and sacrifice calves and goats and sheep or whatever. I am still waiting for you to back yourself up on that statement.

Thanks.

 

Thesalonian,

Given the way you react to evidence, I don't think it would really matter.

The Assumption isn't about evidence for you as an RC anyway. If the RCC teaches it, right or wrong, you believe it.

The stuff about evidence is just smoke. I give you good evidence from your own scholars that show that the Assumption is based on apocryphal literature declared heretical by 2 Popes, and what do you do? How do you react?

Silence.

It's deafening.

 

Bob to JohnV
"JohnV the Biblical point that Christ is the only human worthy to ascend to heaven - and the only one with the power to do so - stands today and will stand for all time.

That in no way invalidates God's claim in They were not worthy by their own righteousness to ascend to heaven (but Christ is - and was the ONLY one who ever would be).."

Thessalonian to Bob (somewhat confused?)

Bob, could you quit posting straw men. The implication here is that we think Mary ascended to heaven by her own merrits or something like that. This is utterly false and has been answered previously in the thread. First of all the word is assumed, not ascended with regard to Mary. This implys that it was not of her own power or will that she was taken up...

Thess - you missed the entire point of that post. I was responding to JohnV who was asking about the text that says that "NO one has ascended but Christ". There I make the point that Christ alone had the POWER to ascend and Christ alone was sinless - and righteous such that He could ascen on His own merits.

This was in response to the fact that Enoch and Elijah were both taken by God bodily into heaven without seeing death AND to the fact that the book Jude quotes (The Assumption of Moses) indicates that Moses ALSO went to heaven (died, raised and taken to heaven) before the cross.

So in fact Mary could have been assumed into heaven after her death and resurrection BUT the argument the RCC MAKES for that is that she was "SINLESS" like Christ and so like-CHRIST she must/deserve to be raised and bodily assumed into heaven without undergoing decay.

And of course the Bible argument AGAINST that claim for Mary strikes at its very core premise - ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God so ALL are in need of "God my Savior" to BE their Savior. For "HE has come to SAVE His people FROM their SINS".

By the way DID you ever respond to the Pope's statement about those "Altars to Mary"?? Aside from asking for pictures? I am still waiting for you to respond to the papal statement I posted (again).

Thess asks
By the way, do you have some pictures of those altars built to Mary around which we sit .... I am still waiting for you to back yourself up on that statement.

In Christ,

Bob

 

No one but Thessalonian responded to this post, and it took me quite a while to compile all of this information, so I am posting it again.

It is a mountain.

The claim that Mary is a 'Co-Redemptrix' with Jesus:
Job 19:25. For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: (this is, in no doubt, talking about the coming Messiah).
Psalm 19:14. Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O Lord, my strength, and my redeemer. (This passage also, pre-dates the first advent of Christ, making it very clear that David is speaking to the promised Messiah).
Psalm 78:35. And they remembered that God was their rock, and the high God their redeemer. (Again, from Psalms as well, David referring to God as the redeemer).
Isaiah 47:4. As for our redeemer, the Lord of hosts is his name, the Holy One of Israel. (Isaiah is the book of the Messiah. It is where the majority of Messianic prophecies are. Here He is called by 3 names, The Lord of Hosts, The Holy One of Israel, and Our Redeemer).
Isaiah 49:26. And I will feed them that oppress thee with their own flesh; and they shall be drunken with their own blood, as with sweet wine: and all flesh shall know that I the Lord am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob. (Here God is show as the Mighty One, again being called 'One'. The Savior and Redeemer).
Isaiah 63:16. Doubtless thou art our father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not: thou, O Lord, art our father, our redeemer; thy name is from everlasting. (HIS Name is from everlasting. God has ALWAYS been, and in His role as our Father, He has always been the Redeemer).
The word Redeemer does not occur anywhere in the New Testament.

The claim that Mary is 'co-advocate' with Jesus:

There is actually only ONE verse in the WHOLE Bible that says the word 'advocate':
1 John 2: 1. My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: (And here it says that JESUS is the Advocate).

The claim that Mary is a 'mediatrix' with Jesus:
Again, this is a word, not often used, but here are the occurances:
Galatians 3: 19. Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. 20. Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.
1 Timothy 2:5. For there is one God, and {b]one mediator[/b] between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; (I can't help but point out the blatant disregard for this text by this doctrine. It says ONE. Just ONE).
Hebrews 8:6, 9:15, 12:24 all say just about the same thing, that Jesus is the Mediator of the New Covenant.

The claim that Mary was sinless like Jesus:

The following are the only occurances of the words 'without sin' in the whole Bible. The word 'sinless' does not occur in Scripture.
John 8:7. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. (Ok, if Mary was there, she would not have taken up stones, but the point is made that there are NONE without sin).
Hebrews 4:15. For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. 16. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need. (I put in v.16 as well to point out that we are shown here that we can come BOLDLY to the throne of grace, which would remove the need for an advocate to Jesus. The only advocate needed is Christ to get us connected to God).
Hebrews 9: 28. So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation. (This is the last place that the term 'sinless' was applied to ANYONE in the Bible. We see that Christ was offered to bear the sins of many, He will return WITHOUT that sin, because when He returns His work as redeemer will be complete and there will be no more sin).

The claim that Mary was 'assumed' into heaven:

I saw you post that Mary did not ascend, but that she was assumed. Do you mean her WHOLE body was taken to heaven? I did not find anywhere in the Bible where it says that she died, but only the passage in Luke where Jesus tells John to behold his mother, and to Mary to behold her son. Jesus asked him to take care of her and it says that she stayed with him from that day forward.
Considering that she was probably pretty old by the time John finished all of his writings, wouldn't it make sense that she could have very well died at some time AFTER the writings were complete, and therefore it didn't get recorded? Does that give us liberty to 'assume' someone was taken to heaven? Just because it doesn't say that they died? I think that if God was planning (and He plans everything) to take Mary to heaven and give her exalted status, He would have made a point to inspire someone to write it all down.

Your argument that Mary is the 2nd Eve.

Where does it say in the Bible that there should be a 2nd Eve???? You said the evidence was that Jesus called her 'woman'. I know that Christ is the 2nd Adam because Adam was the first created and Jesus the first begotten, but I see no evidence of a 2nd Eve.
The idea that Mary and Jesus are in heaven in a 'married' status, kind of sickens me, so I am going to walk softly here, and throw a few big sticks:

Matthew 15: 28. Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour. (speaking to the woman from Cannan with the demon possessed child).
Matthew 26: 10. When Jesus understood it, he said unto them, Why trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me. (Mary Magdalene is the 'woman' here).
John 20:15. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away. (Again Mary Magdalene).

If the evidence of this doctrine is Jesus calling someone 'woman' then it looks to me that Jesus isn't married to Mary, He has a whole harem!

Also, Jesus does not 'appreciate' the compliment made by someone in regards to His mother:
Luk 11:27 And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, 'Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked'.
Luk 11:28 But he said, 'Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it'.

There is overwhelming evidence that is contrary to this doctrine, and regardless of the 'traditions' passed down, there is ample Biblical support that contradicts these ideas.

This is the Truth from the Word of God, I leave it to you.

God Bless.

 

Hi 3AngelsMom,

I just completed a graduate course on Mary under one of the top Marian scholars in the world. His name is Dr. Mark Miravalle.

As a response, for the sake of my own personal time, I would refer you to http://www.voxpopuli.org/faq.php

God bless,

Carson