Mary ascended bodily?

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by GraceSaves:
DHK,

I'm sure your historians are 100% unbiased, being a "History of the Baptists." I mean, what would I be thinking?

Yours aren't biased, but mine are. That point is crystal clear.

Now, if only it had any weight to it.

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

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by GraceSaves:

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.

No, I said what I have read. I stated that very clearly. Ever since this discussion began I have been challenging you to read the other side of the story: histories written by non-Catholic sources. If you had done so this discussion would have ended a full page ago. Now you are being hypocritical in inferring that you already have when in the previous posts you have been leading us along that you have not. That is deceptive. Either you have read works like Thomas Armitage and Philip Schaff or you haven't. Which is it? Either you have read Baptist history and Protestant Church history or you have not, which is it? Who is being deceptive here??
DHK

 

[GraceSaves]

I'm done with this thread.

Grant

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

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by GraceSaves:

Considering the Catholic Church is the original Church, founded by Jesus Christ, I'd say he's pretty accurate, actually.

Your view of history, if in agreement with Thessalonians, is not only shallow, it is blind, one-sided, unobjective, with a failure to look at other secular and non-Catholic resources.
DHK</font>

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

 

[3AngelsMom]

Originally posted by thessalonian:
[QB]AngelMum:

"I must point out that in reference to the above statement, I'm going to assume that you were just being funny, because the thing is, Mary, was NOT in the room when He said that. She was still 'without'."

What difference does it make whether she was in the room when he said it or not. Doesn't "let it be done unto me according to your word" mean that she did the will of the father. I guess the statement doesn't apply to you either since you weren't in the room.

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.

"So, if you were kidding, and really even if you aren't, it is quite obvious that Mary was not there to say "Amen, preach it Son!" It is a nice thought though."

What's your point. I don't see it.

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

I The claim that Mary is a 'Co-Redemptrix' with Jesus:
The claim that Mary is 'co-advocate' with Jesus:

Hmmmm. The point you miss in it all is that Mary's co-redemption, co-advocacy, depends completely on and is through the son. That is the part you will never be honest about admitting.

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.

And you will never be honest and say that your prayers are in a manner of speaking being an advocate and participating in the redemption of another soul.

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 or on her own that she is any of these things.

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.

Paul says we are co-laborers with Christ. Is this blasphemy to you also?

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?

"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)."

Jesus is the Advocate but does that deny our advocacy?

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.

Jesus is the foundation of the Church. 1 Cor 3:11. Does that mean that apostles and prophets are not the foundation of the Church? Think hard before you answer that one.

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.

Jesus is the light of the world, so are Christians the light of the world? Once again think hard.

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.

"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 one mediator 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)."

When reading the Bible it is always good to read the verses before and after the verse in questoin. In particular 1 Tim 2:1-4 implies heavily that because Jesus is the one mediator, we can interceed for others through him.

Timothy 2:1-4
First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men,
for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.
This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

In a sense we can mediate with him by praying for others to him. Or asking others prayers. That is what we do when we pray to Mary asking for her prayers "PRAY FOR US SINNERS" we say. Get it. That is what she does for us. She obtains the graces of her son for us.

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.

Co in all of these cases does not mean equal with or another or anything like that. It means with and through.

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.

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."

Full of grace means without sin because if we are full of grace, then there is no room for sin. Only three people are said to be full of grace in scripture. Stephen at his martyrdom (in some translations, even some protestant), Mary, and Jesus.

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.

"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)."

Gee, the Mary wasn't in the room theory was good up above why isn't it here? Guess you use the arguement that works rather than worry about being consistent.

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.

All I have time for right now. Perhaps more later.

I should hope so.

 

[Acts 1:8]

Originally posted by GraceSaves:


Considering the Catholic Church is the original Church, founded by Jesus Christ, I'd say he's pretty accurate, actually.

God bless,

Grant

Grant,
Even if Catholics could trace thier roots all the way back to Peter, it would mean nothing. After false doctrines and man-made traditions kept slowly seeping into the Church Christ founded, the end product that resulted (the RCC)was so radically different that it is no longer that same church. Thats how the great deceiver works -he puts a little twist on something, and waters down something else and gradually, step by step, he leads people so far away from the truth that they are hoplessly lost. Evidence of this can be seen in these posts...It takes some of the Catholic posters an entire essay, including quotes from earlier Catholic tradition and doctrine just to explain a simple verse. The RCC does not even resemble the early church depicted in Acts. I guarantee you that Paul and Peter didn't run around placing little statues of Mary in the churches and command people to petition her. Given the history of neverending change in the RCC, its obvious that it doesn't contain truth.

Isaiah 40:8
The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God stands forever."

1 Peter 1:25
but the word of the Lord stands forever. And this is the word that was preached to you.

John 1:1
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

 

[Johnv]

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.

 

[BobRyan]

Thess
"worshipping at her altars"

Bob, could you post a picture of one of these altars to Mary that we Catholics have. In 40 years as a Catholic I have never seen one so perhaps you could help me out. Otherwise I will just chalk it up to overexuberent Catholic bashing by another anti-catholic.

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.

"Enraptured by the splendor of your heavenly beauty and impelled by the anxieties of the world, we cast ourselves into your arms, Oh Immaculate Mother of Jesus and our Mother....we adore and praise the peerless richness of the sublime gifts with which God has filled you above every other mere creature, from the moment of conception until the day on which after your assumption into heaven. He crowned you Queen of the Universe. Oh crystal fountain of
faith, bathe our hearts with your heavenly perfume. Oh Conqueress of evil and death, inspire in us a deep horror of sin which makes the soul detestable to God and the slave of hell. Oh well-beloved of God, hear the ardent cries which rise up from every heart in this year dedicated to you. Then tenderly, Oh Mary, cover our aching wound; convert the wicked, dry the tears of the afflicted and the oppressed. Comfort the poor and humble. Quench hatred,
sweeten harshness, safeguard the flower of purity and protect the Holy Church. In your name resounding harmoniously in heaven, may they recognize that all are brothers...Receive, Oh sweet Mother our humble supplications and above all, obtain for us that on that day, happy with you, we may repeat before your throne that hymn which is sung today around your altars. You are beautiful Oh Mary. You are Glory Oh Mary. You are the joy, you are the Honor of
our people." - Pope Pius XII, celebration of the Marian Year in Rome, 1950

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

IN Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Grant
You either need to take the stance that Moses was assumed into heaven, or stop using it in your arguments. If you believe it, then state it. You can't straddle the fence on the issue and yet use it in your defense at the same time. That's not proper scholarship.

If you're not sure that he was assumed into heaven, then don't use that as some sort of theological weapon.

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

 

[BobRyan]

Grant
You either need to take the stance that Moses was assumed into heaven, or stop using it in your arguments. If you believe it, then state it. You can't straddle the fence on the issue and yet use it in your defense at the same time. That's not proper scholarship.

If you're not sure that he was assumed into heaven, then don't use that as some sort of theological weapon.

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

 

[BobRyan]

Neal I must point out something here. I am a Baptist and up until now I have been fully convinced of Baptist doctrine. But if you read a history written from a Protestant perspective, aren't you just as guilty as the RC who reads RC historians? Aren't both going to be biased to some extent? To me, reading a Protestant viewpoint is no more objective than reading a RC viewpoint.

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

 

[BobRyan]

JohnV said
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.

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

 

[BobRyan]

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

 

[DanPC]

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.

 

[thessalonian]

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.

 

[Bible-belted]

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.

 

[Acts 1:8]

Originally posted by thessalonian:


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".

Thanks.

Thess,
I went to http://www.catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp and the site explains how Catholics regard the immaculate conseption of Mary. Interestingly they use the same analogy you did of a man being kept from falling into a pit, but regardless, The idea that mary was kept from original sin is a FAR stretch of anything taught in scripture. The explanation below is utterly rediculous. They've applied there own bias "full of grace" interpretation to Luke 1:28...

Luke 1:28 KJV "And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women."

Quote
"When discussing the Immaculate Conception, an implicit reference can be found in the angel’s greeting to Mary. The angel Gabriel said, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you" (Luke 1:28). The phrase "full of grace" is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. This word represents the proper name of the person being addressed by the angel, and it therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.

The traditional translation, "full of grace," is more accurate than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of "highly favored daughter." Mary was indeed a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for "daughter"). The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning "to fill or endow with grace." Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates a perfection of grace that is both intensive and extensive. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit, and was only as "full" or strong or complete as possible at any given time, but it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence to have been called "full of grace."

From:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/strongs/1043776033-7576.html

charitoo {khar-ee-to'-o}
1) to make graceful
a) charming, lovely, agreeable
2) to peruse with grace, compass with favour
3) to honour with blessings

Eph 1:6 uses the same exact word when describing the rest of believers....

 

[BobRyan]

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

 

[3AngelsMom]

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.

 

[Carson Weber]

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