The Assumption of the Blessed Mother

I just can't find that in Bible, and it doesn't make much sense to me. Do you happen to know the verses that belief comes from?

Click to expand...

As always, the Catholic Church does not adhere to the Protestant concept of Sola scriptura, so whether a particular doctrine can be found outlined in Scripture or not is completely irrelevant.

However, you might try these verses:
Rom 15:30, Col 4:3, 1 Thes 5:25, 2 Thes 1:11, 3:1, Eph 6:18-19, and Rev 5:8.

{opens the Pandora's Box again...}

Mary had other children:
Matthew 13:53-58; see also Mark 6:1-3
53 Now it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these parables, that He departed from there. 54 And when He had come to His own country, He taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished and said, "Where did this Man get this wisdom and these mighty works? 55 Is this not the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? 56 And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this Man get all these things?"

Also, could someone explain what this "mystical body of Christ" is?

Personally, I believe that the focus on Mary just draws attention away from Jesus.

This is what Jesus said:
2 Corinthians 12:9
9 And He said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness." Therefore most gladly I will rather boast in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

So why not rest in Jesus alone? The focus on Mary kind of implies that what He did for us was not enough.

Also, is there any secular historical evidence FROM THE PERIOD SHE WAS LIVING that she had this assumption?

Personally, I believe that the focus on Mary just draws attention away from Jesus.

What's truly wonderful about Mary is how any attention given to her is attention given to Christ!  Take the Rosary for example.  The Rosary focuses on the mysteries of the life of Christ.  When one prays the Rosary, that person is seeing events in the life of Christ. 

The Marian proclamations of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption glorify Christ.  How?  By perserving Mary from any stain of sin so that He could come out of a pure womb.  Everyone argues that all have sinned and God couldn't have kept Mary from sinning BUT He did.  God kept her free from sin to glorify His son.  If Christ was coming to visit your home, would you not clean it and try to have it looking its best?  Also, her Assumption.  Who grants eternal life?  GOD!  So by seeing Him granting Mary eternal life, we see Christ exalted for she is partaking in His fruits from His death and resurrection; something we all hope to partake in. 

When I ask any angel or saint for a pray, I know they are praying to God for me and that their prayers are being mediated by Christ our Lord.

I guess I find it funny in this day and age when women need a hero or strong moral figure ~ many overlook Mary.

She always, always leads us to her son in every way.

We've gone into this time and again, but the ancient Tradition of the Church states that Joseph was an older widower with grown children from a previous marriage, who married Mary when she was a teenager, and was more of a guardian than as a conjugal partner.

There is no word for "step-brother" in Hebrew or in Aramaic. Ergo, the "brothers and sisters" spoken of in the Gospels can just as easily be interpreted as "step-brothers" and "step-sistes" as they can be interpreted as blood brothers and sisters.

Protestants, relying on Scripture alone, interpret these passages as being blood kin. Catholics, relying on all other ancient Christian sources in concert with Scripture, interpret them as step-siblings or other close relation, but not as the children of Mary.

James, the Bishop of Jerusalem, is often cited as being one of Jesus' brothers, as in Mark 6:3 and Galatians 1:19. Hegesippus (c. 180 AD) and Eusebius (c. 300 AD) also mention James as "the Lord's brother", but Eusebius (who wrote a history of the Early Church based on primary sources no longer available to us), specifically identifies him as "the son of Joseph", and Hegesippus mentions that James was past the age of eighty when he was martyred in 62 AD. This would make James more than twenty years older than Jesus, and as Luke plainly tells us, Jesus was Mary's "first-born son". Ergo, if Hegesippus is correct, then James had to be a step-brother, unless Joseph was building time machines in his carpenter's shop.

Catholics think Mary was a perpetual virgin. Protestants think she had more children. It's not a salvational issue either way, so frankly, what difference does it make? the only reason I can think of for even bringing it up is to attempt to discredit Catholic belief, by saying "If they're wrong on this count, then they can be wrong on others."

Fortunately, if one looks at the vast collection of early Christian writings from the first four centuries of the Church as a whole, there is more than enough evidence to indicate that Mary remained a virgin her entire life after giving birth to Jesus. The only way you can deny it is to discount some of the evidence because it isn't found in the Bible, and that's not a tactic that will stand up in court.

"I have evidetial proof here, Your Honor, in five different exhibits. However, because the results they indicate don't agree with the way I believe the case ought to turn out, I'd like to dismiss four of them."

I wonder what the judge would say?

Originally posted by VOW
To Aggie:

Save yourself some grief, and DON'T take up that topic with either Andrew or Hobart Schmedly here on the boards.

We are instructed to pray for one another.


Peace be with you,
~VOW

Click to expand...

Pray for each other while we are alive, yes, but where does your belief come from that you can pray for those who have died?  I'm not trying to argue here, I really don't know enough of what catholicism teaches on this subject to argue with it.

Originally posted by Wolseley
We've gone into this time and again, but the ancient Tradition of the Church states that Joseph was an older widower with grown children from a previous marriage, who married Mary when she was a teenager, and was more of a guardian than as a conjugal partner.

Click to expand...

Why isn't this supported by the scriptures if it is the truth.  The Bible says that Joseph didn't have relations with Mary until after Christ was born. 

There is no word for "step-brother" in Hebrew or in Aramaic. Ergo, the "brothers and sisters" spoken of in the Gospels can just as easily be interpreted as "step-brothers" and "step-sistes" as they can be interpreted as blood brothers and sisters.

Click to expand...

The New Testament is written in Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic - and there are words for step-brother and step-sister in Greek.  So if these weren't the half-siblings of Christ, then why isn't that noted in the Greek text? 

Why isn't this supported by the scriptures if it is the truth. The Bible says that Joseph didn't have relations with Mary until after Christ was born.

Click to expand...

Because the Bible was never meant to be a Handbook to Answer All Questions. It is a collection of writings addressed to people who already knew the Faith, and already had heard the answers to these things. Nowhere does the Bible (or the Church) say that "If it isn't written in Scripture, it can be be safely ignored."

The Bible is not a book with magical properties that can answer all questions.

Yes, the Bible states that Jospeh had no relations with Mary until after Christ was born. The Bible also states that Michal, the wife of David, had no children until the day of her death (2 Samuel 6:23). So, tell me, how many children did Michal have after she died?

The New Testament is written in Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic - and there are words for step-brother and step-sister in Greek. So if these weren't the half-siblings of Christ, then why isn't that noted in the Greek text?

Click to expand...

If Christian believers were not actual blood relation to one another, and if Jewish leaders were not actual blood relation to the Christians, why does the Greek text simply call them "brothers" in Acts 21:7 and Acts 22:1 instead of delineating?

The brothers of Jesus are presented as reprimanding Him in John 7:3-4 and Mark 3:21; in Jewish culture, younger brothers never reprimanded an older brother. The only way this could happen is if they were older brothers to Jesus---and Jesus was Mary's first-born. Indeed, Jesus is often called "the son of Mary" in Scripture, but there is no mention of the sons of Mary.

If Mary had other children to take care of her when He died, why does He turn her care over to the Apostle John in John 19:26?

You can go either way with this, Aggie. It just boils down to what you want to believe. The only difference between you and us is that you interpret the Bible in light of itself, while we interpret the Bible and Apostolic Tradition in light of each other.

Your mileage may vary.

VOW, i'm asking your permission to reprint this piece. i'd like to forward it to my family, if you don't mind. it's really beautifully written.

I'm doing reading on this subject right now - I don't want to post anything until I've gotten some more reading done, maybe another day or two...but if I still have more questions or concerns, would you all rather that I post them here or in the other mentioned thread, if it's even still open? Just want to make this discussion as easy aspossible for everyone.

If the "assumption of Mary" is such a momentous event, why don't I see it in Scripture?

VOW, the assumption is an incredibly powerful idea in the RCC. It is one of the mysteries of the rosary. Why wouldn't Scripture mention it? With all the importance ascribed to Mary by the RCC, why wouldn't there be some mention of it in Scripture? Joseph is not declared to be a "mediatrix" by the RCC. It is not essential to know what happened during the childhood of Jesus, yet the RCC says the assumption is a required belief among all its members. What do you make of that?

BTW Wolseley, I have another Mark Twain quote for you:

"[The Bible] has noble poetry in it... and some good morals and a wealth of obscenity, and upwards of a thousand lies."