The Assumption of Mary

[Zeek]

What I deny my friend is that she is called Mary the Mother of G-d....that is something you have added because of the doctrine you have been taught....anyway you can easily prove me wrong by quoting any Scripture that says Mary is the Mother of G-d.
​

Historically whenever the Jews would write out the scriptures, they sang the verses and replaced all references to God, as Adonai which means Lord.
Assuming you understand that since you omit the o in God, it is rather along the same lines.
For them it was fear of blasphemy to even say the name, so singing it was impossible and so they replaced God with Lord....and Elizabeth is Jewish, so she said Lord, and not God.
But she was referring to God because she was filled with the Holy Spirit.

I'm afraid that is incorrect...I don't know where you get your information.
The Jews NEVER replaced all references to G-d with the word Adonai...what they did was when YHVH (Yahweh or Jehovah) was written, they copied it exactly as written...to do less would be to alter the Word of G-d...but when it came to reading aloud the word YHVH they would substitute it with the word Adonai. When I am with Orthodox Jews, and even secular Jews, I tend to use the word HaShem (the name) as even using the word Adonai can seem unrighteous outside of a religious function.

When you look at the Greek, you see a distinction between the word Kurios and Theos...Kurios was not a substitution for Theos....as I have shown before using the Hebrew, no written word was ever substituted, so your argument is invalid.

Do you just make this stuff up as you go along?

Psalm 34:1 I will bless the LORD at all times;
His praise shall continually be in my mouth.

2 My soul will make its boast in the LORD;
The humble will hear it and rejoice. 3 O magnify the LORD with me,
And let us exalt His name together.

Psalm 69:30 I will praise the name of God with song
And magnify Him with thanksgiving.



Its not my fault you have a corrupted translation.
The version i use is rather old.
Magnify the Lord with me?
Thats a new one....very new.

Oh I see...it's the old 'corrupted translation argument now'

In Hebrew the word 'magnify' comes from translating the root word 'gadal'...it can also mean 'promote', which in this day and age I think gives a better sense of the intent....so how you reason that I use a corrupted translation is worrying.

Mary was foreknown in the mind and plans of G-d....but she was neither sinless nor pre-saved.


According to the Greek the Greeting from the Angel meant previously graced in a manner unlike us, which has never been used again, she was.

Scholars had to tear apart its actual verb and adjective meaning because the word is too unique.
She had a condition of where she had been a finished product of grace when Gabriel met her. It was unique to her this special priviledge.
And it goes beyond 'highly favored' too...
But thats the best the English can come up with.

I think I understand what you are saying....and it could well be that we have lost something in translation regarding the depth of grace and favour that G-d placed on Mary, and the complete uniqueness of her calling.

See Judges 5:24 "Most blessed of women is Jael, The wife of Heber the Kenite; Most blessed is she of women in the tent.

Try reading what has become known as the Beatitudes.

Matthew 5:1 When Jesus saw the crowds, He went up on the mountain; and after He sat down, His disciples came to Him. 2 He opened His mouth and began to teach them, saying,

3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
5 “Blessed are the gentle, for they shall inherit the earth. 6 “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied. ..................

Really? See above explanation.
The Greeting is unique to Mary and it goes beyond having graces.
It essectially is giving her the graces that save as a past condition, a present condition and a future condition as though Christs death had already merited it to her.

Now you've lost me. Mary was not pre-saved or sinless....in her unique position, her Son was also her Saviour.

AND you cannot deny it, because Elijah stood in the glorified body , and Moses when Peter, James and John saw them with Jesus.

HOW?

God works out side of time.
Stop putting Him in human boxes.

So are you confident that both Moses and Elijah had ressurected bodies, and that what happened wasn't part of a vision that Peter, James and John were granted to see?

It's funny so telling me not to put G-d in human boxes....because so much of what I disagree with amongst my Catholoic and Orthodox friends relies almost wholly on man-made boxes.

I don't think any other person that has ever lived could have been given the gift and the responsibility that Mary had....to carry the Saviour in her womb, to give birth to Him, and to have charge over Him in His most vulnerable and formative years....That is truly amazing, that is why every generation should recognize what a blessed woman she was.
She is not some fictional Queen,we don't need to place on her man-made titles to demonstrate her position...Scripture doesn't, the Apostles don't and neither should we.

Your failure to understand the OT - does not negate her exalted position in Heaven.

I guess I'm a bit thick sometimes.

Luke 14:7 And He began speaking a parable to the invited guests when He noticed how they had been picking out the places of honor at the table, saying to them, 8 “When you are invited by someone to a wedding feast, do not take the place of honor, for someone more distinguished than you may have been invited by him, 9 and he who invited you both will come and say to you, ‘Give your place to this man,’ and then in disgrace you proceed to occupy the last place. 10 “But when you are invited, go and recline at the last place, so that when the one who has invited you comes, he may say to you, ‘Friend, move up higher’; then you will have honor in the sight of all who are at the table with you. 11 “For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”



SO you are accusing her of exalting herself?

You simply dont comprehend the variety of grace God had on Mary and it was not common.

Grace caused her to speak as such.
Even the babe in the womb leapt at her voice.

If she was doing evil by her speaking, there would have been a comment to it.
Its in scriptures and it was said for the purpose of our understanding her exalted position.

She was exalted, and envy of that wont change her position with God.

I really don't know what you mean about envy...who's envious and why?

No I am not accusing Mary of exalting herself....that has to be a daft question....I am trying to show that others(those that initiated these doctrines) have exalted her to a position she cannot possible hold, and in doing so have created a different Mary to the woman described in Scripture....one that emerges from the futility of darkened minds...eg. Bad teaching, poor theology, unbiblical reasoning.

Matt 10: 37 “He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.

Mary - and i dont think i do much else but waste my time here honestly, was unlike us.
The grace variety she received was unlike ours.
AS the first Christian - she believed in our Savior perfectly and before anyone else and remained faithful.

That in itself shows Christ didnt have to have a problem with His Mother.... because she didnt disbelieve in Him, hence your scripture is out of context.


That verse suggests if you leave Him because of family, then you love them more.
To simplify things.

__________________

Now my friend...I don't want you to feel you are wasting your time here...and if you do, I'm sure you are free to dis-engage at any time...I won't be offended, honest. If you produce a good argument, I will give it my utmost consideration...but if you produce weak arguments and shaky facts, then I will say so...surely that is fair?

What I was trying to show you by using this verse (and it would need to be by the revelation of the Spirit) was how we can still put others before G-d....even His mother.

 

[MamaZ]

Is Mary a unique creation, are you a unique creation, is Paul a unique creation, is anyone a unique creation, or are they all persons interchangeable ?

Could anyone have done what Jonah did, or did God call Jonah in particular ?
Was Jonah replaceable ?

Replaceable? Jonah did as God commanded once God had to put him in the belly of a fish. We are all unique. I am sure your calling in the Lord is not the same as my calling is in the Lord. But it is the Lord who is to be glorified and the person with the calling

 

[Thekla]

Replaceable? Jonah did as God commanded once God had to put him in the belly of a fish. We are all unique. I am sure your calling in the Lord is not the same as my calling is in the Lord. But it is the Lord who is to be glorified and the person with the calling

Exactly; and it was through her humility and the fulfillment of her calling that God is glorified.
"... he who humbles himself will be exalted."

 

[sheina]

Exactly; and it was through her humility and the fulfillment of her calling that God is glorified.
"... he who humbles himself will be exalted."

God is glorified because He is God...not through the humility of any man, woman or child.

Isaiah 42:8 I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.

"The Lord our God is but one only living and true God; whose subsistence is in and of himself, infinite in being and perfection, whose essence cannot be comprehended by any but himself;...." (The Philadelphia Confession of Faith, The Baptist Association at Philadelphia, Sept. 25, 1742)

 

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

The Assumption of Mary Reviewed

This is a most excellent article debunking the Assumption of Mary. In fact, the author is a former Eastern Orthodox.

The argument that her remains have not been found has already been brought up in this thread as a defense to her supposed assumption. But...

Argument #3: The No Body Fallacy

Argument: No one knows where the body of the Virgin Mary is, therefore it must have been assumed.

Dilemma: By this line of thinking, any person whose body has not been found must have been bodily assumed. Many murder victims' have yet to have their bodies found...are we going to tell their families that they must not be found because they've been bodily assumed into heaven? Mozart was buried, but to this day no one knows where, and his body has not been found - are we to assume Mozart was bodily assumed into heaven? Should any person of antiquity whose remains have yet to be found be automatically identified as having been bodily assumed? This is simply fallacious thinking.

 

[Studious One]

The Assumption of Mary Reviewed

This is a most excellent article debunking the Assumption of Mary. In fact, the author is a former Eastern Orthodox.

The argument that her remains have not been found has already been brought up in this thread as a defense to her supposed assumption. But...

Argument #3: The No Body Fallacy

Argument: No one knows where the body of the Virgin Mary is, therefore it must have been assumed.

Dilemma: By this line of thinking, any person whose body has not been found must have been bodily assumed. Many murder victims' have yet to have their bodies found...are we going to tell their families that they must not be found because they've been bodily assumed into heaven? Mozart was buried, but to this day no one knows where, and his body has not been found - are we to assume Mozart was bodily assumed into heaven? Should any person of antiquity whose remains have yet to be found be automatically identified as having been bodily assumed? This is simply fallacious thinking.

Excellent point!

One could carry that further concerning Melchizedek. Hebrews tells us that Melchizedek was without beginning or ending. (meaning there are no records telling who his parents were) Now, I have traced my father's lineage back to 1405 in Leichestershire, England. But on my mother's side, I cannot find anyone beyond my grandfather. Since there is no record of his father's birth and death, am I to assume that my great-grandfather is Melchizedek? LOL

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

From the pen of Rev. William Weedon; the rest of the Homily can be found here: Weedon's Blog: Homily for St. Mary, Mother of Our Lord (2010)



12 August 2010

Homily for St. Mary, Mother of Our Lord (2010)

​

The artists get it right. When you see the Blessed Virgin holding her Child, you will notice that she tends to be looking either at Him or right at you, and with her hand she gestures toward Him. Mary is not about Mary. Mary is all about your Jesus...

 

[laconicstudent]

The Assumption of Mary Reviewed

This is a most excellent article debunking the Assumption of Mary. In fact, the author is a former Eastern Orthodox.

The argument that her remains have not been found has already been brought up in this thread as a defense to her supposed assumption. But...

Argument #3: The No Body Fallacy

Argument: No one knows where the body of the Virgin Mary is, therefore it must have been assumed.

Dilemma: By this line of thinking, any person whose body has not been found must have been bodily assumed. Many murder victims' have yet to have their bodies found...are we going to tell their families that they must not be found because they've been bodily assumed into heaven? Mozart was buried, but to this day no one knows where, and his body has not been found - are we to assume Mozart was bodily assumed into heaven? Should any person of antiquity whose remains have yet to be found be automatically identified as having been bodily assumed? This is simply fallacious thinking.

That's a terrible argument. Most people whose bodies haven't been found aren't major Christian figures. Comparing the body of the Theotokos to someone's grandfather or even Mozart is patently absurd. I seem to remember another person's body disappearing (this one in the Bible) being fairly significant to Christian theology.... hmm?

 

[Studious One]

That's a terrible argument. Most people whose bodies haven't been found aren't major Christian figures. Comparing the body of the Theotokos to someone's grandfather or even Mozart is patently absurd. I seem to remember another person's body disappearing (this one in the Bible) being fairly significant to Christian theology.... hmm?

Arguing that the body of Mary was assumed into heaven is a terrible argument in light of the Scriptures.
Arguing that Mary is a perpetual virgin is a terrible argument in light of the Scriptures.
Arguing that Mary is CoMediatrix is a terrible argument in light of the Scriptures.
Arguing that Mary is the queen of heaven is a terrible argument in light of the Scriptures.
Arguing that Mary is full of grace is a terrible argument in light of the Scriptures.
Exalting Mary above her human status as mother is a terrible argument in light of the Scriptures.
Praying to Mary is a terrible argument in light of the Scriptures.

By the way, Peter, James, John, Paul, and other Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ are Christian figures who were responsible for thousands upon thousands being saved. Yet no claims of them being assumed at all.

Hmmmmm

 

[laconicstudent]

Arguing that the body of Mary was assumed into heaven is a terrible argument in light of the Scriptures.
Arguing that Mary is a perpetual virgin is a terrible argument in light of the Scriptures.
Arguing that Mary is CoMediatrix is a terrible argument in light of the Scriptures.
Arguing that Mary is the queen of heaven is a terrible argument in light of the Scriptures.
Arguing that Mary is full of grace is a terrible argument in light of the Scriptures.
Exalting Mary above her human status as mother is a terrible argument in light of the Scriptures.
Praying to Mary is a terrible argument in light of the Scriptures.

By the way, Peter, James, John, Paul, and other Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ are Christian figures who were responsible for thousands upon thousands being saved. Yet no claims of them being assumed at all.

Hmmmmm

So says Studious One, therefore it must be true.

Sorry, but not everyone reads Scripture and comes to the same conclusions as you do, but when I quote Scripture on these subjects, I am routinely ignored, so I no longer bother.

 

[Studious One]

Please give us the Scripture that states that Mary was bodily assumed into heaven.
Please give us the Scripture that states that Mary is a perpetual virgin.
Please give us the Scripture that states that Mary is CoMediatrix.
Please give us the Scripture that states that Mary is the queen of heaven.
Please give us the Scripture that states that Mary is full of grace.
Please give us the Scripture that states that Mary is the dispenser of grace.
Please give us the Scripture that states that Mary is to be exalted.
Please give us the Scripture that states that Mary is most holy.
Please give us the Scripture that says Mary is blessed above women.

You have shared some Scripture in this thread, but none of which you have shared reveal any of the above claims.

I'll be waiting for those Scriptures.... but I won't hold my breath.

 

[laconicstudent]

Please give us the Scripture that states that Mary was bodily assumed into heaven.
Please give us the Scripture that states that Mary is a perpetual virgin.
Please give us the Scripture that states that Mary is CoMediatrix.
Please give us the Scripture that states that Mary is the queen of heaven.
Please give us the Scripture that states that Mary is full of grace.
Please give us the Scripture that states that Mary is the dispenser of grace.
Please give us the Scripture that states that Mary is to be exalted.
Please give us the Scripture that states that Mary is most holy.
Please give us the Scripture that says Mary is blessed above women.

You have shared some Scripture in this thread, but none of which you have shared reveal any of the above claims.

I'll be waiting for those Scriptures.... but I won't hold my breath.

Neither would I, I've gone through the cycle of

1. Give us the Scripture.

2. Ok *links Scripture*

3. Where's the Scripture?

4. Its right there. *links again*

5. I don't see it. I guess this proves that X is unscriptural.

6. But I just posted it. This is the third time! *links again futilely*

7. NO SCRIPTURE FOR X I WIN!!!

Too many times.

 

[Studious One]

No matter how many times you claim you posted the Scripture that proves the claims, it is clearly obvious that you have done no such thing.

 

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

There is nothing in scripture to validate such beliefs regarding Mary.

 

[Zeek]

Neither would I, I've gone through the cycle of

1. Give us the Scripture.

2. Ok *links Scripture*

3. Where's the Scripture?

4. Its right there. *links again*

5. I don't see it. I guess this proves that X is unscriptural.

6. But I just posted it. This is the third time! *links again futilely*

7. NO SCRIPTURE FOR X I WIN!!!

Too many times.

LS... if and when you give any Scripture to back up a point...it might just be that it isn't conclusive....because I promise you that if I ever see anything that is clearly demonstrated through Scripture....then that is the authority that causes me to sit up and think, and reconsider and search out other Scriptures to see if it really is the case. I think all of us on these threads would do that.

I'm waiting for the day when one on my Catholic or Orthodox brethren come back at me, not with their Church apologetics...but actually confess that they never saw things quite that way....and that the point I was making might even have some merit....not because I said it....but because Scripture convinced them...even in the face of what they have been taught.

Never give up...always live in hope.

 

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

LS... if and when you give any Scripture to back up a point...it might just be that it isn't conclusive....because I promise you that if I ever see anything that is clearly demonstrated through Scripture....then that is the authority that causes me to sit up and think, and reconsider and search out other Scriptures to see if it really is the case. I think all of us on these threads would do that.

I'm waiting for the day when one on my Catholic or Orthodox brethren come back at me, not with their Church apologetics...but actually confess that they never saw things quite that way....and that the point I was making might even have some merit....not because I said it....but because Scripture convinced them...even in the face of what they have been taught.

Never give up...always live in hope.

Amen Zazal. Well said, brother.

 

[laconicstudent]

No matter how many times you claim you posted the Scripture that proves the claims, it is clearly obvious that you have done no such thing.

Thank you for making my point.

There is nothing in scripture to validate such beliefs regarding Mary.

It is obvious from Scripture that Mary was ever-virgin, and is now Queen of Heaven.

LS... if and when you give any Scripture to back up a point...it might just be that it isn't conclusive....because I promise you that if I ever see anything that is clearly demonstrated through Scripture....then that is the authority that causes me to sit up and think, and reconsider and search out other Scriptures to see if it really is the case. I think all of us on these threads would do that.

I've quoted Scripture many times, but the truth of Sola Scriptura is that nobody is really interested in Scripture unless it is being used to agree with them.

I'm waiting for the day when one on my Catholic or Orthodox brethren come back at me, not with their Church apologetics...but actually confess that they never saw things quite that way....and that the point I was making might even have some merit....not because I said it....but because Scripture convinced them...even in the face of what they have been taught.

Um, ok?

Never give up...always live in hope.

I do, but I'm not wasting my time by quoting Scripture any longer. Despite what the people who deride the Theotokos and the saints say, they really aren't interested.

 

[MamaZ]

No where do we see in scripture that Mary is queen. Nor do we see where she was forever virgin. In fact scripture shows us differently.

 

[Zeek]

Originally Posted by Studious One

No matter how many times you claim you posted the Scripture that proves the claims, it is clearly obvious that you have done no such thing.
​

Thank you for making my point.

You do not seem to realise that if you had provided Scripture in context that conclusively proved the claim you were making we would have no choice but to believe it and be obedient to it....it carries the weight and authority of G-d....Jesus backed up everything He said with Scripture, and corrected others when they had obviously strayed from the thrust of its teaching, placing their own emphasis, teaching and interpretation on obeying what it contained.

Originally Posted by DiligentlySeekingGod

There is nothing in scripture to validate such beliefs regarding Mary.
​

It is obvious from Scripture that Mary was ever-virgin, and is now Queen of Heaven.

Neither things are obvious at all...Mary was a virgin, she had Jesus, and was therefore a virgin no longer, even leaving out the strong possibility that the other brothers and sisters mentioned were also produced by her. As for Queen of Heaven...we have been down that road many times...it is merely a man-made concept based loosely around two inconclusive Scriptures and never found in Apostolic teaching, or amongst the prophetic writings....but obviously the scant Scriptural evidence more than satisfies your thirst for truth....as it is united to the teachings you happily subject yourself to...(it's a form of slavery).

Originally Posted by Zazal

LS... if and when you give any Scripture to back up a point...it might just be that it isn't conclusive....because I promise you that if I ever see anything that is clearly demonstrated through Scripture....then that is the authority that causes me to sit up and think, and reconsider and search out other Scriptures to see if it really is the case. I think all of us on these threads would do that.
​

I've quoted Scripture many times, but the truth of Sola Scriptura is that nobody is really interested in Scripture unless it is being used to agree with them.

Sola Scriptura seems to be a term used by people in the Catholic and Orthodox traditions to try and make it offensive to use solid scriptural arguments against some of their unbiblical teachings...they don't want people to see that Scripturally they are at times out in left field....it is a subtle form of brain-washing through perjurative declaration.

If you have a think about it, Jesus would have been accused of being an exponent of Sola Scriptura as well....so we are in good company.

Originally Posted by Zazal

I'm waiting for the day when one of my Catholic or Orthodox brethren come back at me, not with their Church apologetics...but actually confess that they never saw things quite that way....and that the point I was making might even have some merit....not because I said it....but because Scripture convinced them...even in the face of what they have been taught.

Um, ok?
​

​

Originally Posted by Zazal

Never give up...always live in hope.

​

I do, but I'm not wasting my time by quoting Scripture any longer. Despite what the people who deride the Theotokos and the saints say, they really aren't interested.

Two things....

1.Quoting Scripture is never a waste of time and is an absolute necessity at times, without trying to go overboard about it....so even if you strongly disagree with all of us that agrue against some of the things you say....never stop using Scripture, because even if you think it doesn't teach us, it might teach you...and there are always people reading these threads that find it the most persuasive point in any argument or discussion.

2. None of us deride Mary the mother of the L-rd, or those Saints that have died in the L-rd, many martyred for their faith....that is an unfair accusation. We are constrained by Scripture to draw the line at venerating and praying to them, as in Jesus we find our All-Sufficiency, our Shepherd, our Great High-Priest....and the Author and Finisher of our faith.

 

[billybtennessee]

All of us who use scripture as the final authority know that none of the claims made about Mary can be justified. The RCC and OC people do not accept the scripture as final authority. Both call scripture 'canon', yet it does not stop them from continuing to believe what they do.

They also believe in 'replacement theology'. These last days will show how correct all this is. Almighty God will allow people to follow deception, but Almighty God will not/has not changed.