The Assumption of Mary

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Hello Mark,

I think the point of view you have stated probably has more to do with what was initially in place in the early days of the Church generally, than what takes place now, and celebrating the lives of faithful men and women who have gone to be with the L-rd is a reasonable thing to do in the sight of G-d...it was when these things developed and wandered into the realms of religious fantasy that disagreement occured.

Personally I can see that it is possible that Mary was air-lifted into Glory, but I think that such an occurance would have caused ripples that would have been picked up in the teachings and accounts left by the Apostles, so my only honest option is to put it on the back-burner of vague possibilities.

The other thing that makes me seriously doubt its occurance is that it has become part of main-stream Catholic dogma, amongst which I am discovering practices and teachings that are so unbiblical I am spiritually stunned at times....therefore it does nothing to weaken my personal convictions regarding the theory of Mary's assumption...especially as I also believe that Catholic doctrine painted itself into a corner when they realised certain repercussions that must occur in their doctrine of her sinless perfection, which I presume the Lutheran communion do not accept.

No, we do not accept the immaculate conception. Scripture tells us that Christ "died for all". Had Mary been sinless, then this would not be a true statement,

To disprove the doctrine of Mary's assumption, one only need go to the Word of God.


There is not one human being who has risen from the grave since Christ's ascension, nor will there be one to rise from the grave until that trump sounds that heralds the Lord's coming in the clouds to wake those who are asleep and to call His body into the clouds to be with Him.

It must also be noted that the common belief in the Catholic church is that Mary died sometime between 30 and 60 A.D. and that the Apostles went to her tomb one day and found it empty. Upon finding it empty, they began the doctrine of the assumption.

Now, if such an event actually happened, surely the Apostles would have spoken of such an event in their letters to Ephesus, Corinth, Thessalonica, and other Churches. They did not.

Conveniently, the doctrine did not arise until years after the Apostles had all died so the Apostles could not refute the false claim of her assumption.

It is the same with many of the Marian doctrines found within the Catholic church. They arose years after the last book of the Bible was written. So those who knew Mary, who walked with Mary, could not defend the truth against their ungodly doctrines.

Convenient, eh?

I disagree. Scripture neither proves nor disproves this.

 

[laconicstudent]

She doesn't. She only talked to the people in her lifetime on earth. She no longer talks to people.

That clearly is not the case, from the number of miraculous visions that have occurred, even in the past century.

 

[Zeek]

Originally Posted by Studious One

Mary..... only talked to the people in her lifetime on earth. She no longer talks to people.
​

That clearly is not the case, from the number of miraculous visions that have occurred, even in the past century.

LS...claiming a miraculous vision, does not authenticate it is from G-d...even if there are millions of them, that is not the criteria for judging either their authenticity or their genesis. If the Catholic religion has become susceptible to these sort of visitations, and judges them as authentic, even when the message and the message bearer are at variance to the Gospel preached by the Apostles...don't you think deceiving spirits are going to promote this kind of activity?

For example...

Paris, France: The Holy Mother appeared to a nun in 1830 and asked her to fashion a medal to commemorate the Immaculate Conception.

What the apparition is doing, is confirming a non-biblical doctrine...in fact it is a blasphemous doctrine because there was only ever One without sin...but naturally the effect it will have on those that have been taught this doctrine will be to strengthen their understanding, and close their hearts and minds to the word of G-d that could release them from the power/control behind such destructive doctrines.

 

[Zeek]

Regarding the possible assumption of Mary, I was under the rather ignorant assumption )) that it simply meant her body might have been taken by G-d....however having looked further into it, on several sites, including Catholic ones, I find my assumption on her assumption was incorrect, and many have gone way beyond the vaguest of possibilities and see it as a physical resurrection, which as Studious One correctly points out is utterly inconceivable.

Below is a careful summary, that can be found at:

What is the Assumption of Mary?

The Bible does record God “assuming” both Enoch and Elijah into Heaven (Genesis 5:24; 2 Kings 2:11). Therefore, it is not impossible that God would have done the same with Mary. It is not wrong to believe that God “assumed” Mary into heaven. The problem is that there is no biblical basis for the Assumption of Mary. The Bible does not record Mary's death or again mention Mary after Acts chapter 1. Rather, the doctrine of the Assumption is the result of lifting Mary to a position comparable to that of her Son. Some Roman Catholics go so far as to teach that Mary was resurrected on the third day, just like Jesus, and that Mary ascended into Heaven, just like Jesus. The New Testament teaches that Jesus was resurrected on the third day (Luke 24:7) and that He ascended bodily into heaven (Acts 1:9). To assume the same thing concerning Mary is to ascribe to her some of the attributes of Christ. While the idea of the Assumption of Mary is not heretical in and of itself; in the Roman Catholic Church, the Assumption of Mary is an important step towards why Mary is venerated, worshipped, adored, and prayed to. To teach the Assumption of Mary is a step toward making her equal to Christ, essentially proclaiming Mary’s deity.

 

[laconicstudent]

LS...claiming a miraculous vision, does not authenticate it is from G-d...even if there are millions of them, that is not the criteria for judging either their authenticity or their genesis. If the Catholic religion has become susceptible to these sort of visitations, and judges them as authentic, even when the message and the message bearer are at variance to the Gospel preached by the Apostles...don't you think deceiving spirits are going to promote this kind of activity?

For example...



What the apparition is doing, is confirming a non-biblical doctrine...in fact it is a blasphemous doctrine because there was only ever One without sin...but naturally the effect it will have on those that have been taught this doctrine will be to strengthen their understanding, and close their hearts and minds to the word of G-d that could release them from the power/control behind such destructive doctrines.

Well, I'm glad we have you here to correct the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church in these matters.

 

[Studious One]

The Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church needs correcting

 

[MamaZ]

Well, I'm glad we have you here to correct the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church in these matters.

Not actually correct but to speak truth as we are comissioned to do.

 

[Zeek]

Well, I'm glad we have you here to correct the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church in these matters.

You can say what you like, I am part of the body of Messiah, and no one has carte blanche to teach un-biblical doctrine and think they can fool all the people all the time...The Bible only teaches One Body, and it isn't based in any single location despite what you might have been taught....

It occurs to me that many people make an idol of the Church institution they belong to, and dare not think for themselves beyond the box they have willingly confined themselves to....When a Church institution or any of their leaders seem to carry more authority than Scripture, which can only be discerned according to their teaching, it would be reasonable to wonder if there was something rather nasty lurking in the wood-shed.

If I am wrong in anything I have said, and I have not grasped Scripture properly, then I am open to correction, even from the newest Believer in Jesus, and I hope I am open enough to hear G-d in what is said, and to check it out against Scripture, or discuss it with other Believers that don't have an agenda they must stick to.

We are all in it together, and we should strive to seek the best for each other, even when it means conflict in certain areas because of poor doctrine or teaching that has more holes than a fishing net.

Ephesians 4:1 Therefore I, the prisoner of the Lord, implore you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called, 2 with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love, 3 being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.

 

[Zeek]

Not actually correct but to speak truth as we are comissioned to do.

Precisely MamaZ ....sometimes the Spirit compels, sometimes He constrains...argument for arguments sake is pretty futile, but contending for the truth even/especially amongst ourselves is vital.

 

[laconicstudent]

The Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church needs correcting

Wrong.

"And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

--Matthew 16:18

 

[Studious One]

Wrong.

"And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

--Matthew 16:18

Hate to break the news to you, but Peter did not start the Catholic church. The Catholic church was, and is, separate from the True Churhc.

 

[Dylan Michael]

Wrong.

"And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

--Matthew 16:18

Not to mention:

When they had eaten, Jesus said to Simon Peter, 'Simon son of John, do you love me more than these others do?' He answered, 'Yes, Lord, you know I love you.' Jesus said to him, 'Feed my lambs.' A second time he said to him, 'Simon son of John, do you love me?' He replied, 'Yes, Lord, you know I love you.' Jesus said to him, 'Look after my sheep.' Then he said to him a third time, 'Simon son of John, do you love me?' Peter was hurt that he asked him a third time, 'Do you love me?' and said, 'Lord, you know everything; you know I love you.' Jesus said to him, 'Feed my sheep.

Gospel according to St. John, Chapter 21, verses 15-17

 

[laconicstudent]

Hate to break the news to you, but Peter did not start the Catholic church. The Catholic church was, and is, separate from the True Churhc.

Yeah... I know that God started the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. But I'm glad you agree with me that the Church is free from error by God's grace.

 

[Studious One]

Yeah... I know that God started the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. But I'm glad you agree with me that the Church is free from error by God's grace.

You are wrong. God did not start the Catholic church. He started His Church... which has nothing whatsoever to do with that which is called the Catholic church today.

 

[laconicstudent]

You are wrong. God did not start the Catholic church. He started His Church... which has nothing whatsoever to do with that which is called the Catholic church today.

What are you talking about?

 

[Studious One]

What are you talking about?

I didn't expect you would understand.

 

[laconicstudent]

I didn't expect you would understand.

When you are cryptic and refuse to clarify yourself, that is the best you can expect, yes.

 

[Dylan Michael]

You are wrong. God did not start the Catholic church. He started His Church... which has nothing whatsoever to do with that which is called the Catholic church today.

But his church is The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

 

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

But his church is The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

The Church is not a building or a particular church or denomination. According to Scripture, the Universal Church is the body of Christ—all those who have placed their faith in Jesus Christ for salvation (John 3:16; 1 Corinthians 12:13). It is made up of all believers in Christ from the day of Pentecost (Acts chapter 2) until His return. In Scripture, the Church (all those who are truly saved) is called “one body in Christ” in Romans 12:5, 1 Corinthians 1:17, 1 Corinthians 12:27, Ephesians 4:12; 6:23, Colossians 1:24, and Hebrews 13:3.

 

[laconicstudent]

The Church is not a building or a particular church or denomination. According to Scripture, the Universal Church is the body of Christ—all those who have placed their faith in Jesus Christ for salvation (John 3:16; 1 Corinthians 12:13). It is made up of all believers in Christ from the day of Pentecost (Acts chapter 2) until His return. In Scripture, the Church (all those who are truly saved) is called “one body in Christ” in Romans 12:5, 1 Corinthians 1:17, 1 Corinthians 12:27, Ephesians 4:12; 6:23, Colossians 1:24, and Hebrews 13:3.

I'm afraid I think you are interpreting Scripture incorrectly in this case.