• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Mary ascended bodily?

N

Netcurtains3

Guest
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 ]
 

Bible-belted

New Member
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.
 

Carson Weber

<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
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... :confused:

in Christ,

Carson
 

Bible-belted

New Member
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:

But if some think us mistaken, let them search the Scriptures. They will not find Mary’s death; they will not find whether she died or did not die; they will not find whether she was buried or was not buried ... Scripture is absolutely silent [on the end of Mary] ... For my own part, I do not dare to speak, but I keep my own thoughts and I practice silence ... The fact is, Scripture has outstripped the human mind and left [this matter] uncertain ... Did she die, we do not know ... Either the holy Virgin died and was buried ... Or she was killed ... Or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and He can do whatever He desires; for her end no-one knows.’
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.
 
N

Netcurtains3

Guest
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 .
 

Bible-belted

New Member
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.
 

Bible-belted

New Member
Originally posted by Netcurtains3:
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.
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
Carson Writes --
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.
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"...


On Nov. 1, 1950, Pope Pius XII solemnly proclaimed as a divinely revealed truth
that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever-virgin Mary, on the completion of
her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heaven."

By the fifth century, August fifteenth was kept at Jerusalem as the
Commemoration of the Mother of God.




In the sixth century the feast of Mary's Falling Asleep spread throughout the
East.


Finally in the eighth century the day was celebrated as the Assumption of the
Blessed Virgin Mary.

Before the Council of Ephesus there had been one
liturgical feast of Mary, the feast of the
Purification, and that was celebrated only in certain
parts of the Eastern Church. But after Ephesus the
feasts began to multiply.

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.
!!!!! :confused:

It was "fitting" that Jesus should have
rescued his mother from the corruption of the flesh, and
so he "must have" taken her bodily into heaven. By the
middle of the seventh century four separate Marian feasts
were observed in Rome: the Annunciation, the Purification,
the Assumption, and the Nativity of Mary.

At the end of
this century the feast of the Conception of Mary began in
the East, but it remained unknown in the West until the
eleventh century. Andrew of Crete (d. 740) wrote a hymn
to Mary, calling her "alone wholly without stain."

To Western ears this riieant conceived without sin (the
Immaculate Conception), but to Eastern ears, which had a
different understanding of Original Sin, it meant only
freedom from mortality and general human weakness.

- p.873, "Catholicism," McBrien, 2nd ed, Harper and Row,
(1981).

OTHER WRITINGS:

There is a writing called the, "Dormitio Virginis" which implies that Mary died
at Jerusalem about 48 AD. Though this testimony is far from certain, it is more
plausible than the rival legend that the Blessed Virgin accompanied St. John to
Ephesus and died there after 67.

Juvenal, bishop of Jerusalem in the fifth century, informed Empress St.
Pulcheria that Mary had died at Jerusalem in the presence of all the apostles
save Thomas. She had been buried in Gethsemane, but when her tomb was opened
three days later for Thomas's benefit, it was found empty. From this and
certain miraculous signs the apostles concluded to Mary's assumption.

ARCHEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE:

Near the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem

132. The Tomb of the Virgin

As for the Tomb of Mary the following explanation may be
given.

When Theodosius [a pilgrim who left a detailed itinerary
from 530 AD] describes the Valley of Jehoshaphat he says
that it is where Judas betrayed the Lord and also that
there is there a church of St. Mary the mother of the Lord
(ecclesia domnae Mariae matris Domini).

The Anonymous of Piacenza [an Italian pilrim from 570 AD]
came down the Mount of Olives into the Valley of
Gethsemane, saw the place where the Lord was betrayed, and
found in the same valley "a basilica of St. Mary which,
they say, was her house in which she was taken from the
body."


Yet another source of the sixth century, the Jerusalem
Breviary also mentions her sepulcher in connection with
the basilica of St. Mary.


Arculf [A Frankish bishop and pilgrim 670 AD] describes
the Church of St. Mary in the Valley of Josaphat as built
in two stories, both round, in the lower of which is
"the'empty sepulcher of St. Mary in which for a time she
rested after her burial."


According to these references the church, with these
traditions attaching to it, existed in the sixth and
seventh centuries and must have been built earlier,
perhaps in the fifth century.

This earlier Byzantine church was in ruins when the
Crusaders came. They not only rebuilt the church but also
built beside it a large monastery, the Abbey of St. Mary
of the Valley of Jehoshaphat.

The digging of trenches in this area in 1937 uncovered
some mosaic floors and an inscription with crosses,
reading "Tomb of Kasios and Adios," probably sixth century
in date, and also later pavements and masonry of the time
of the Crusader reconstruction of the church.


The present church...is known as the Church of the Tomb of
Mary or, simply, the Tomb of the Virgin. In it the
underground crypt is still that of the church of the Abbey
of St. Mary.


- 106-107, "The Archeology of the New Testament," Jack
Finegan, Princeton Univ Press, (1969).
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
 

Carson Weber

<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
Being a bad typist (as no doubt you've observed, certainly I have "sic-ened" Carson with it)

Certainly.
laugh.gif
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
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. !!!!! :confused:
[/b]

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

IN Christ,

Bob
 

Acts 1:8

New Member
Originally posted by Carson Weber:
Let's have a beer.
love2.gif
Ahhh let a person talk long enough and you inevitably learn things about them. This explains many of your posts Carson. Perhaps after we throw back a few beers Carson can explain why the virgin Mary and Wonder-Woman are actually the same person


(just kidding Carson, you slosh, hehee)
 
Top