Mary ascended bodily?

[Carson Weber]

Hi Helen,

You wrote, "Did Mary ascend bodily? Not before about 1950, no!"

It's interesting that the conglomeration of Eastern Orthodox, who were separated from the Catholic Church definitively in 1054 A.D., believe this truth.

Gregory of Tours witnesses to the Assumption circa. 575-593 A.D. in his Eight Books of Miracles (1:4), "[T]he Apostles took up her body on a bier and placed it in a tomb; and they guarded it, expecting the Lord to come. And behold, again the Lord stood by them; and the holy body having been received, He commanded that it be taken in a cloud into paradise: where now, rejoined to the soul, [Mary] rejoices with the Lord's chosen ones..."

It was a Vatican pronouncement trying to keep their theology together when it was becoming unravelled.

Actually, the primary reason Pius XII declared this dogma was to foster Marian devotion. It was a proactive (far from a defensive) decision on his part.

And, don't even get me started on all of the private revelation that has confirmed this truth of public revelation.. private revelation, that if you are dead set against this dogma, you must disregard. As a child of God, I have faith in this dogma and rejoice in the truth that my spiritual mother sits at the right hand of the Lord of hosts, interceding for me with her maternal love and concern.

I love Mary with a child's heart. She is my Queen, my maternal advocate, the spouse of the Holy Spirit, who implores for divine grace before the heavenly throne of the Trinity. Praised be Jesus Christ, now and forever, for pouring forth his glory into the New Tabernacle of the New and Everlasting Covenant.

Mary is an eschatological sign of what will happen to each of us, the Church, when our salvation is complete. We will enjoy the Vision of God in eternal splendour, sharing fully in the glory of the Saints, that glory which we now taste here on Earth as true saints, growing as we are in the life of the Spirit.

God bless,

Carson

[ January 25, 2003, 10:31 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

[thessalonian]

posted January 25, 2003 11:35 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It should be noted that just because something is not in the Bible it is not necessarily untrue."

Oh, but it is quite implicit in the Bible. They of course will not see what I am about to show you but it is there, more so than there wonderful Sola Scriptura Dogma which noboby really knows what that means. "well it doesn't really mean sola, it just means sola prima or something like that".

Here goes.

Have you ever noticed the parrellel's Luke draws between the Ark of the Covenant and Mary. Look in Luke 1 and 2 Sam 6. In 2 Sam 6 david says

2 Samuel 6:9
So David was afraid of the LORD that day; and he said, "How can the ark of the LORD come to me?"

Sound familiar?

In Luke 1 Elizabeth says "How is it that the Mother of my Lord should come to me".

Just a coicidence you say. Well, in 2 sam 6 David does something odd. He LEAPS and dances before the ark. Now the word for leap is rarely used in scripture. But there is one place. In Luke 1 John the Baptist leaps before Mary as Elizabeth made the statement about. So I got lucky with two.

Here is the third:

In 2 Sam 6 the Ark stays with Obemedon for 3 months and he was blessed. How long does Mary stay with Elizabeth. Good guess and elizabeth I am quite sure was blessed in the time with Mary's help and with a new son that was to announce the savior of the world.

Now what does that have to do with the assumption (not ascention as some have tried to distort this doctrine in to something it is not, it happened by the power of God, not Mary's power)?

Well some early Church father's (such as Augustine) noted this verse with regard to the assumption (which is mentioned in some of the ECF writings and so is nothing new, no new invention of 1960 as some would claim)

Arise, O Lord to your resting place you and the ARK OF YOUR MAJESTY.

Now they will cry foul at this. But you Catholics will see.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[thessalonian]

Latreia, You said:

"Helen's point, and it is accurate, is that, believed or not, it did not in any sense happen until the RCC proclaimed it in 1950. "

Well did you know that the dogma of the Trintity, which baptists ascribe to was not a declared dogma until the council of Nicea. So therefore according to your and Helen's logic it must be false. SOla Fide and Sola Scriptura cause you even bigger problems.

What you do not understand is the way dogma's are declared. They are not something new but rather something that has always been believed that comes under attack by some group. The Church then studies it, more clearly defines it and then says that it must be believed by the faithful. It is not new doctrine, but has always been taught throughtout the history of the Church. That the dogma of the assumption was taught prior to 1960 is quite apparent from the history of the Rosary. You see one of the meditations of the Rosary is the assumption and this dates back to around 1200 so we know it was at least commonly believed back that far since the Rosary has been a common prayer since then.

Blessings.

 

[BobRyan]

The Catholic argument that you can not prove Mary was "not bodily assumed into heaven after her death" from scripture, appears to have merrit until you look into the details.

What IS the argument FOR her being bodily assumed? All the ones I have read ARGUE the case from the Catholic error that "She was sinless like Christ".

So lets ask the question again - CAN non-Catholics show FROM Scripture that the REASONS given for WHY Mary should-have-been / must-have-been bodily assumed into heaven after her death - are "in error"??

The answer is unquestionably - YES!

The Catholic argument for the assumption is so blatantly based on the SINLESS nature of Mary, that once you establish the SINFUL nature of Mary from scripture - the ENTIRE Catholic argument for her assumption - evaporates.

Even Catholics must admit that IF you discover that mary IS a sinner - and HAS a sinful nature like ALL mankind - THEN the arguments that are LEFT for her "assumption" are null.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[GraceSaves]

Bob,

Tell me that you didn't spend all day thinking about that.

I've been trying to say forever that you cannot seperate Marian dogma and have them stand on their own. It's an intricate network of beliefs that come together to form one unity. Of course the Queen of Heaven belief doesn't make sense with the Assumption, and the Assumption without the Immaculate Conception.

But saying you can "prove" any of the above false is not possible. If you could, it would have been done already. And things that are PROVEN are not argued, and it's clear that it's still being argued here.

God bless,

Grant

 

[FearNot]

I haven't read everything since my last post, but had to reply. No Mary did not bring about Jesus's public ministry. If you remember when Jesus was yet a child He spoke to the relious teachers/leaders. Remember the rest of His family had left and did not notice He was not with them. He started His ministry without Mary being in the picture at all.

Secondly, I would still like to see Scripture stateing Mary was brought to heaven any other way than she died. Other wise, it would be just man's invention.

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi FearNot,

You wrote, "No Mary did not bring about Jesus's public ministry. If you remember when Jesus was yet a child He spoke to the relious teachers/leaders."

The Finding in the Temple was not part of Jesus' public ministry. It was an event from his childhood, and just about every Biblical scholar will tell you that Jesus' public ministry began around the age of 30.

Secondly, I would still like to see Scripture stating Mary was brought to heaven any other way than she died. Other wise, it would be just man's invention.

So, basically you're saying that for something to be a historical truth, it must be recorded in the Bible?

God bless,

Carson

 

[Acts 1:8]

(Forgive me from deviating slightly from the topic)

Praying to Mary overwhelmingly goes against the consensus of scripture. No where in any of the 66 books of the Bible is there any evidence of anyone correctly praying to anyone other than God the Father. This covers a timeframe from the creation of the Earth untill after Christ's death - thousands of years. Christ never taught it. Paul never taught it. Peter never taught it. John never taught it. The idea of praying to Mary to these men would have been absolutely opposed.

Think about it.. can you imagine someone asking Paul if its ok to pray to Mary? Can you imagine what his answer would be? I'm sorry, I've read the Bible and It's laughable to imagine him answering by saying, "Sure, its ok to pray to lots of people other than God. As long as its a tradition, and Oked by an infalible Pope, its perfectly ok"

Yet what do we see? The worship and prayer given to mary consumes Catholics so much that they even go to the length of building little statues of her and placing them in thier churches? This is a modern day form of idol worship. It's an UnGodly tragic error. I honestly feel sorry for people that think praying to her is ok.

[ January 26, 2003, 04:04 PM: Message edited by: AdoptedByGod ]

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by AdoptedByGod:
Praying to Mary overwhelmingly goes against the consensus of scripture. No where in any of the 66 books of the Bible is there any evidence of anyone correctly praying to anyone other than God the Father.

AdoptedByGod, let me preface this response by saying that I am 'Protestant', and that I don't say this to you with an antagonistic spirit: I have been in solid Pentecostal and Baptist churches all my life - but I am quite concerned by your posts. Repeatedly, you make objections that carry little weight, because if you spent 10 minutes to investigate what the official Catholic response is to your objection, you would quickly see that you are setting up strawman after strawman. As a fellow Protestant (who is looking at Catholicism), I must admit that your posts are, for me personally, having the opposite effect of what you are probably hoping for. For me, you are simply reaffirming and demonstrating that the typical Protestant doesn't even understand what they are arguing against when they argue against the Catholic Church.

About praying to saints specifically, I too used to have very strong objections - until I simply read some Catholic literature on the subject. Did you know "pray" simply means to "ask"? In older English, it was even used that way (e.g. I pray thee, please pass thy potatoes hither). So when you say "No where in any of the 66 books of the Bible is there any evidence of anyone correctly praying to anyone other than God the Father", you quickly see that is not true. Paul repeatedly "asks" others for help and to pray for him. In the Psalms, David "asks" the righteous of earth and heaven to praise the Lord. The elders in Rev 5 have vials of the prayers of the saints. How did they get these if prayers go directly to God? And if I ask you to pray for me, am I worshipping you? Of course not.

I'm not arguing *for* praying to saints in heaven. Personally, I have never done it. But I am beginning to understand why some do, and my previous strong objections are definitely not so strong.

But above all, I hope to impress on you that if you want to have any "pro-protestant" effect on me, you better start making objections against the real Catholic Church, not the Catholic Church that only exists in the minds of many Protestants.

Brian

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Adopted,

You wrote, "No where in any of the 66 books of the Bible is there any evidence of anyone correctly praying to anyone other than God the Father."

I wouldn't be so bold as to make such a blanket statement. Jesus, before he died and was resurrected, conversed with two "dead" people at the Mount of Transfiguration: Moses and Elijah.

As a Christian, when I ask Moses and Elijah to pray for me, I'm simply having a conversation with them, like Jesus did. In effect, I'm imitating my Lord.

Now who would have thought?? Jesus prayed to the dead!

God bless,

Carson

 

[Ben W]

No Jesus had a conversation with them, He did not pray to them. That is clearly twisting scripture.

As far as Mary Ascendidng Bodily to heaven, that has no scriptural basis either.

The point people need to realise when speaking with a catholic on theological matters is that they hold the tradition of the Catholic church in the same regard as scripture. To put it simply, if the pope says something is to be done or believed, then it has to be.

Resultingly it is difficult to reason with a Catholic in the way you might with another Christian from another denomination. However sometimes when you encourage a Catholic to look carefully at exactly how the Papacy has conducted themselves over history, sometimes there is hope of them seeing that tradions and edicts are not neccesaraly right. This one certainley is not, It is simply more reinforcment for the way Mary is viewed in the church.

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Ben,

You wrote, "No Jesus had a conversation with them, He did not pray to them. That is clearly twisting scripture."

What do you consider prayer to be, if not a conversation?

[Catholics] hold the tradition of the Catholic church in the same regard as scripture.

Yes, you are correct. Considering that the first epistle of the New Testament (probably 1 Thess)wasn't penned until 20 years after the Ascension of Jesus Christ, the very first Christians only had Tradition.

when you encourage a Catholic to look carefully at exactly how the Papacy has conducted themselves over history, sometimes there is hope of them seeing that tradions and edicts are not neccesaraly right.

Would we make the same conclusion of Old Testament Israel? Sometimes I wonder if Protestants - who take the sinfulness of various Pontiffs as evidence that they were wrong in teaching doctrine - have ever read the Old Testament and considered how much God's truth is not contingent on his messenger's holiness.

God bless,

Carson

 

[Netcurtains3]

Abraham only had one child - Isaac. However, if we read the WHOLE story it appears he actually had two children, it was SARAH who only had one child. Thus when Abraham went to kill Isaac in actuallity it would have been SARAH who would have lost everything not Abraham. Sarah was the main parent as Abraham had another child he had to share his love with.

The great trees of Mamre is where Sarah is buried - but what are the great trees of Mamre? Is sarah still there?

Protestants tend to over concentrate on the least significant character in the tale - Abraham.

Net.

[ January 26, 2003, 05:52 PM: Message edited by: Netcurtains3 ]

 

[Bible-belted]

thessalonian,

I am aware of the coimparison that is made between the Asssumption and the Trinity. It is a spurious comparison. There is a mountian of biblical evidence, direct exegetical evidence, for the Trinity. None whatsoever for the Assumption.

Furhter, you imply that Baptists are inconsistent in accepting the Trinity and not the Assumption. If we were RCs that would be true, but we're not. We affirm Nicea becuase it conforms to Scripture, not because a council promulgated it. Likewise we reject the Assumption because it does not conform to Scripture. Scripture, either way, is the standard. We are thus being consistent.

I am aware of the historicla clams made in terms of dogmas. But in this case they are wrong, as even RC scholars recognise. No one in the first century believed in the Assumption. That the RCC makes a claim that is so easily falsifiable is a measure of how far from teh truth it has fallen and how it has grown in arrogance.

 

[Netcurtains3]

anyway - to cut a long story short, I'm right and you're wrong.

Net.

 

[thessalonian]

Latreia,

The oneness pentecostals (Protestants) would argue with you that the Trinity is so obvious. The Trinity is not probable by the Bible though I would agree that you can provide evidence for it. It is a matter of faith and it is a Tradition whether you want to admit it or not. It is ultimately knowable by faith. I like how you ignored the Sola Fide, Sola Scripture arguements. These were even more my point since you and I would agree on the Trinity. That was certainly the easy way out of this dilema for you. Where is your mountain of evidence for Sola Scriptura?

As far as none whatsover for the assumption, did you happen to read my post about the Ark of the Covenant. I posted it twice in this thread so that it would be easy for you to find. Now you may say na na boo boo your wrong about this AOC Mary stuff, but I don't see it that way. Sorry. And the AOC parrellel goes along way toward giving biblical evidence for alot of other Marian dogma so study it well.


"Furhter, you imply that Baptists are inconsistent in accepting the Trinity and not the Assumption. If we were RCs that would be true, but we're not. We affirm Nicea becuase it conforms to Scripture, not because a council promulgated it."

It is only your opinion that a council promulgated it. I provided you with the scriptural evidence.

"Likewise we reject the Assumption because it does not conform to Scripture. Scripture, either way, is the standard. We are thus being consistent."

Correction, it doesn't fit your view of what scripture says. That is the whole problem with all of this denomination stuff. Each one claims it's beliefs as "THE WORD OF GOD" and yet they contradict other denominations. From my standpoint, your Church is just another pastor looking to make a living off of the word of God. It has been proven that it can be done many times over, without truth.

"I am aware of the historicla clams made in terms of dogmas. But in this case they are wrong, as even RC scholars recognise."

Perhaps you could back this up. Which ones? Father McBrien? Ray Brown? I can provide you with a list of 10 baptist scholars who think Peter was the head of the 12 Apostles. What do you think of that?

" No one in the first century believed in the Assumption."

Hmmmm. Now you would have a difficult time proving this. Do you have a poll of all the first century Christians? You have yet to prove that everything was written down in the Bible.

" That the RCC makes a claim that is so easily falsifiable is a measure of how far from teh truth it has fallen and how it has grown in arrogance. "

Easily in your mind. You haven't done much to prove anything yet. The historical evidence has been presented by others. I will do a search on my ECF CD and see if I can find some more.

Blessings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[3AngelsMom]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
The question is - do you read the narrative with the eyes of faith through the power of the Spirit - or do you read the narrative with carnal eyes?

God bless,

Carson

Through the Power of the Spirit:

Mat 12:46 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his MOTHER and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.
Mat 12:47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy MOTHER and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
Mat 12:48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my MOTHER? and who are my brethren?
Mat 12:49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my MOTHER and my brethren!
Mat 12:50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and MOTHER.

God Bless!

 

[BobRyan]

Thess -
The oneness pentecostals (Protestants) would argue with you that the Trinity is so obvious. The Trinity is not provable by the Bible though I would agree that you can provide evidence for it. It is a matter of faith and it is a Tradition whether you want to admit it or not.

The fallacy of that argument lies in the reality of how bible-believing Christians today are able to successfully dialoge with sola-scriptura groups and convince them that the Trinity IS a doctrine of scripture.

A classic case is the Jehovah's witnesses who claim that the Trinity can only be proven via Catholic Tradition. Each time you see a JW convert to a mainline Christian denomination it is WITH the associated Bible study that SHOWS the trinity IN Scripture.

"Doctrines" are "proven" -- NOT by finding "TULIP" in the Bible, or by finding God-is-Omniscient IN the bible -- but by finding the teachings that show that such is the case even though they do not use the "label".

Where is your mountain of evidence for Sola Scriptura?

It begins with Acts 17:11 "They studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things -- told to them by the Apostle Paul - - were SO".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Bible-belted]

Thessalonian,

Oneness pentecostals are irrelevant to the issue. You are trying to argue that acceptance of the trinity is contingent on accepting the authoirty of councils. I pointed out that this is not so. The fact is that many people accept the Trinity for reasons having nothing to do with councils, and everything to do with the mountains of evidence for the Trinity oin Scripture. Regardless of whether that evidence is accepted by oneness folks, it is undeniable that the evidence exists. That cannot be said for the Assumption. No direct exegetical evidence exists for the assumption. Scripture is compleely silent on the end of mary. No one can reasonable deny that.

I know the ark stuff at least as well as you. And it is not evidence. It is not direct exegetical evidence. It is, at best a series of parallels (not a typology: you use the term paralle but you actually use those parallels typologically without any ground in scripture to do so; it is empty speculation) that are predicated on the prior assumption (pardon the pun) of what needs to be first proven.

The most that can be said is that the Scritures provide precedents for trhe Assumption., That is nto teh same thing at all as direct exegetical evidence.

"It is only your opinion that a council promulgated it. I provided you with the scriptural evidence."

It is not my opinion. It is a fact. Nicea in 325, and a couple of later councils did some fine tuning (most notably Chalcedon). I agree that there is scritural evidence that backs it up. That's why I accept Nicea. But that's not why YOU acept Nicea. YOU accept it because it is an ecumenical council. You would accept it even if the biblical evidence did not exist (as with the Assumption).

"Correction, it doesn't fit your view of what scripture says."

Of course. But that doesn't materially impact my point. Baptists are being completely consistent, contra your assertion. Deal with that.

"Perhaps you could back this up. Which ones? Father McBrien? Ray Brown? I can provide you with a list of 10 baptist scholars who think Peter was the head of the 12 Apostles. What do you think of that?"

Not much. After all the topic is the Assumption. So what some think of Peter being the head of the apostles is hardly relevant. Particulalrly since I can also list you a bunch of protestant scholars who will redily admit that Peter had a proimacy. I don't deny that. Why should I? After all, it is the nature of the primacy tha is at issue, and not one fo the baptust scholars will agree with you as to the nature of a petrine primacy. So prioving that some protestants agree that Peter had a primacy doesn't help you if they don't think that he had a primacy in the way you do.

Look at one of my earlier posts in this thread. I mentioned a histroy of this doctrine, and how it is based on forgeries that were declared as heretical by two Popes. I mentioned Juniper Carol, and Eamon Duffy.

"Hmmmm. Now you would have a difficult time proving this. Do you have a poll of all the first century Christians? You have yet to prove that everything was written down in the Bible."

Now there's a spurious argument. I won't ry to prove a universal negative. I rest on the fact that there is no eivdence to support it and some to deny the assumption.

I can save you some trouble on the ECF search. Check Epiphianus, who said bluntly that of Mary's end no one knows. You might also like to check Isidore of Seville on the matter.

The first ECF to affirm the Assumption is Gregory of Tours, but he based his affirmation on the apocryphal Transitus literature deemd heretical by two Popes. That this is so is affirmed by RC Ludwig Ott in his "Fundamentals of Cathlic Doctrine".

In your post you attempt to change topics and prove points irrelevant to the issue. Please avoid that as it serves only to confuse issues. If you can prove your point, you shouldn't have to resort to such tactics.

3Angelsmom,

To an RC eyes of faith" is often a euphemism for being credulous or gullible.

 

[BobRyan]

NET Abraham only had one child - Isaac. However, if we read the WHOLE story it appears he actually had two children, it was SARAH who only had one child. Thus when Abraham went to kill Isaac in actuallity it would have been SARAH who would have lost everything not Abraham. Sarah was the main parent as Abraham had another child he had to share his love with.

The great trees of Mamre is where Sarah is buried - but what are the great trees of Mamre? Is sarah still there?

Protestants tend to over concentrate on the least significant character in the tale - Abraham.

As it turns out - most nor-Catholics tend to be Bible-based when it comes to the story of Abraham so they "SEE" that in Romans 4 it is Abraham (not Sarah) that the Apostolic focus is placed on and the words are stated "HE is the father of the faithful".

They "see" in Heb 11 that it is "Abraham" not Sarah that is identified in detail and highlighted as a saint.

This is no to say that Sarah is not important, or a saint, or faithful - but we SEE the focus in the NT placed on Abraham and we simply acknowledge the fact.

The same as we SEE no such mariolotry in the NT as we find among our Catholic bretheren in praying to her, worshipping at her altars, ascribing "all power" to her or calling her "sinnless" or Co-redeemer etc.

We simply "see" that in scripture all that is "missing" as a focus of the NT authors.

In Christ,

Bob