Mary ascended bodily?

I think its an old wifes tale (so its probably true) that Christ means "the annointed one".

In the Bible Yeshua was annointed twice - both by an unnamed woman - but the bible says where-ever Christianity is taught so will what this woman did. If Christ means annointed then Christ could not have been Christ without the woman. I think Mary got a gift of Myrrh - an annointing for the dead.

Can Christ be Christ without the annointing?

There is something interesting about Sarah's tent. I feel somehow that this is the first Church. Genesis Ch 24 v67.

Net

[ January 30, 2003, 04:51 AM: Message edited by: Netcurtains3 ]

 

Carson,

Thank you for posting Ott. You have now proven yourself that I spoke the truth when I said that Ott identified the source of Assumption as being in the Transitus.

I note you highlighted. For instance the bit about how the trannsitus represents contemporary belief. I do not deny that. Someone had to believe it in order to wite it. The question is whether it is a historically accurate belief. And as Ott says it is an apocryphal writing.

Besides this is the fact that the fact of popular piety can actually work AGAINST the RC position. You may note in the quote form Ott that phrases like "Ps-Augustine" appear. This refers to Pseudo Augustine, a forgery, a document falsely attributed to Augustine which was used to support the Assumption. It was redily accepted as real even though it is fake precisely because of popular piety. Let it simply be said that this is not the only forgety used to support the Assumption. The important point is that popular piety is nota guarantor fo truth since popular piety can accept (and in this case did) forgeries in order to validate itself. So popular belief does not mean true belief. It just means popular.

I also note something you did not highlight, that Ott calls the patristic grounds for the belief to be speculative. Looking at the specifics, one can see that I was truthfull in representing in the line of argument used.

a) shows that this speculative idea is based on another, the immaculate conception, or at least one variety of that belief, as there were competing version of the IC for a very long time.

b) follows the line of "we think it is only fitting that it should happen, tehrefore it happened.

c) same as b)

d) (participation in the body of Christ) see above

In short no evidence. There is ony a series of questionable assumptions that are held together by a non sequitur line of reasoning.

We would do well perhaps to observe the thoughts of Tertullian in this regard:

"But if we choose to apply this principle so extravagantly and harshly in our capricious imaginations, we may then make out God to have done anything we please, on the ground that it was not impossible for Him to do it. We must not, however, because He is able to do all things, suppose that He has actually done what He has not done. But we must inquire whether He has really done it ... It will be your duty, however, to adduce your proofs out of the Scriptures as plainly as we do...(Tertullian, Against Praxeas, ch. X and XI).

I note a few other things in closing. No one denies that the Transitus is indeed a documentdeclared hereticl by no fewer than 2 Popes. This needs to be addressed since it is very strange that Popes would seem to be unaware of the fact tat they wer condemning the foundation of a supposed apostolic assumption. Another silence is that of Epiphianus. His statement that no one knows the end of Mary must be explained by RCs. How is it that one who lived so close to the apostlkes should be unaware of such an allegedly apostolic tradition. The silence of histiory generally needs to eb adressed in fact. How do we expain that the ONLY evidence for an allegedly apostolic doctrine for some 600 years should be an apocryphal and heretical document?

At any rate Carson I thank you for validating my posts. A show of integrity on your part it is, and appreciated.

 

Hi Latreia,

There is one telling historical proof for Mary's assumption. That is the negative historical proof for Mary’s Assumption.

It is easy to document that, from the first, Christians gave homage to saints, including many about whom we now know little or nothing. Cities vied for the title of the last resting place of the most famous saints.

Rome, for example, houses the tombs of Peter and Paul, Peter’s tomb being under the high altar of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. In the early Christian centuries relics of saints were zealously guarded and highly prized. The bones of those martyred in the Coliseum, for instance, were quickly gathered up and preserved—there are many accounts of this in the biographies of those who gave their lives for the faith.

It is agreed upon that Mary ended her life in Jerusalem, or perhaps in Ephesus. However, neither those cities nor any other claimed her remains, though there are claims about possessing her (temporary) tomb. And why did no city claim the bones of Mary?

Apparently because there weren’t any bones to claim, and people knew it. Here was Mary, certainly the most privileged of all the saints, certainly the most saintly, but we have no record of her bodily remains being venerated anywhere.

Hmmm...

in Christ,

Carson

 

Carson,

"And why did no city claim the bones of Mary?"

Good question, but your answer is easily countered. You say that everyone knew that there as no body. But Epiphianus, writing in the late fourth century (that's 2 whle centuries before gregory of Tours and the whole "popular belief" bit), said:

So there is an ginroance here of what you thnk should be common knowledge which needs to be accounted for. While your at it, you should also account for how Jerome was unaware of the Assumption and Isidore of Seville was STILL able to echo Epihianuis so long after the belief was so, as you would have it, popularly held. How could anyone in the 7th century 2 centuries after Gregory of Tours still be able to think Epiphianus was right that Mary could be buried somewhere?

For my part I can explain it. The Assumption was not a widely held belief and what you assume everyone knew no one knew or believed. For that matter it is also easy to simply say that Mary was not fought over fro rlics becuase she was not considered worhty of such as other saints were as yet. The cult of Mary developed over time.

 

We know that it was an incredibly strong "cult" by the time of Mohammed as it is written in the Koran that Christians believe Jesus and Mary are gods. Such beliefs don't normally happen over night.

I think the Koran high-lights why it is wrong to be "bible alone" or "people of the book". If you accept theology simply from a book then how will people move from Islam/Hindu/Jew to Christianity?

Mohammed tried to get us to be "bible alone" Christians - I think Mohammed was wrong .

 

Net,

The Koran dates from teh early 7th century. That's contemporaneous with the feast of the Assumption and so does not add anything to the RC case.

BTW you are here apparnatly using a flase understnding of Sola Scriptura. Please refrain from misrepresenting doctrine.

 

What does BTW mean?

 

Sorry Net. It is short for "by the way".

Being a bad typist (as no doubt you've observed, certainly I have "sic-ened" Carson with it) I try to find short forms.

 

As it turns out - there are a great many characters mentioned in the NT for which we have "no bones" and "no tomb".

It is also significant that many of the NT characters appear after the Gospel stories - but Mary does not appear after the Gospels - certainly not in the venerated - prolific fashion that we find among Catholics. It is hard to imagine a present day Catholic mindset in the NT with NOT ONE mention of Mary having anything to do with the big events of the church following Christ's ascension.

IMAGINE if Mary was living in Maryland today - and then "NO MENTION" of Mary by the RCC today?? I think not! And yet that is EXACTLY what we see in the NT church. The only mention she is given is in the story of Christ - nothing beyond that - AS IF she had no other role in the church outside that story.

And as for "The Tomb of Mary"...

Mariolotry or Marian worship as some view it today - did not appear before the 5th century. But suddenly we see a focus on the tomb of Mary and finally a pronouncement in 1950 about assumption of Mary. (Something you would think - they would have mentioned before that as "official" teaching).

In any case - the RC story is that Mary and Christ were the only TWO (count them TWO) people taken bodily to heaven in the NT after dying and being resurrected and that they are the only TWO (count them TWO) people to be "born sinless" after the fall of Adam.

It is "instructive" that the NT authors never get around to mentioning "number TWO" on either of those counts. And yet it is so blatant in the RCC after the 5th century.

hmmm.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Being a bad typist (as no doubt you've observed, certainly I have "sic-ened" Carson with it)

Certainly.

 

Glad you took that as I intended.

 

Let's have a beer.

 

From the beginning of the sixth
century various churches celebrated Mary's bodily
assumption into heaven. The belief originated not from
biblical evidence nor even patristic testimony, but as the
conclusion of a so-called argument from convenience or
fittingness. !!!!!
[/b]

It is what it is. But in the light of day "it is less confusing".

IN Christ,

Bob