The Assumption of Mary

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

We do know the Scriptures, Zazal

Including those about Mary

Mary isn't mentioned after the Book of Acts.

 

[Thekla]

Mary isn't mentioned after the Book of Acts.

Neither are most of the apostles.

 

[Zeek]

We do know the Scriptures, Zazal

Including those about Mary

My dear Thekla, I don't doubt it for a moment ...but there is knowing and knowing...As I have said regarding the theme of this thread, I don't really have a problem if people believe Mary's dead body was taken by the L-rd...but I do have a problem with the other things that might be attached to this dogma...namely her sinlessness and the whole Queen of Heaven thing.

Her assumption is really based on some traditional teachings I suspect with a large dose of religious speculation...some traditional teachings are mostly speculation but harmless/neutral, while others conflict directly with Scripture and the Apostles doctrine (sound doctrine).

 

[Thekla]

My dear Thekla, I don't doubt it for a moment ...but there is knowing and knowing...As I have said regarding the theme of this thread, I don't really have a problem if people believe Mary's dead body was taken by the L-rd...but I do have a problem with the other things that might be attached to this dogma...namely her sinlessness and the whole Queen of Heaven thing.

Her assumption is really based on some traditional teachings I suspect with a large dose of religious speculation...some traditional teachings are mostly speculation but harmless/neutral, while others conflict directly with Scripture and the Apostles doctrine (sound doctrine).

If I can just reiterate, the meaning of "queen of heaven" is that Christ is King of heaven -- it is an ancient identifier.

Also, just in case, "sinless" is a comparative with other human beings (it is not an absolutist state, nor at all a comparison to Christ).

 

[sheina]

Queen of Heaven in Scriptures:

Jeremiah 7:18 The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.

Jeremiah 44:17 But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem: for then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil.

Jeremiah 44:18 But since we left off to burn incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, we have wanted all things, and have been consumed by the sword and by the famine.

Jeremiah 44:19 And when we burned incense to the queen of heaven, and poured out drink offerings unto her, did we make her cakes to worship her, and pour out drink offerings unto her, without our men?

Jeremiah 44:25 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, saying; Ye and your wives have both spoken with your mouths, and fulfilled with your hand, saying, We will surely perform our vows that we have vowed, to burn incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her: ye will surely accomplish your vows, and surely perform your vows.

Queen of heaven in Scriptures is an idol worshipped by the Jews in Jeremiah's day. Is Mary an "idol"? The Scriptures never call Mary by this title. It is not an "ancient identifier"...except in your "traditions".

 

[Hairy Tic]

In 2 Chronicles 15:2, we read that God was with Asa. That must mean that Asa's mother must be the mother of God.

Because I am His, God is with me, so my mother (whose name is Anna) must be the mother of God.

My wife also has God with her, so her mother (whose name is Ida) must be the mother of God.

That is where your logic concerning Mary leads.

## This confuses:

• God was with Asa - more correctly, "The LORD [is] with you" - which is a phrase describing a connection between God & - in this instance - a 9th-century king of Judah
  

with

• the meaning of a Hebrew name that means "God [is] with us"

Emmanu-el is a sentence-name, like many names in that culture. Not all series of words are names; "God [is] with us" is not a name in Psalm 46 - even though the words are no different. "God [was] with" a lot of OT people. That is what the English translation says - the Hebrew does not. In Isaiah 9.6 OTOH, it is a name.

"God is with" someone in both verses. Your argument relies on this: that the same English words correspond to the same Hebrew words. The trouble is, that they do not.

2 Chronicles 15:2 And he went out to meet Asa, and said unto him, Hear ye me, Asa, and all Judah and Benjamin; The LORD [is] with you, while ye be with him; and if ye seek him, he will be found of you; but if ye forsake him, he will forsake you.

The Hebrew for "God [is] with us" in Isa.9.6 is

• Emmanu-El

The Hebrew for"The LORD [is] with you" in 2 Chronicles 15:2 is:

• Yahúwah`imakem

Source: p.106 of this PDF: http://www.bayithamashiyach.com/Interlinear_2_Chronicles.pdf

The fact that the phrase God or JHWH; they are not the same even in Hebrew, let alone English] is with you" occurs in both phrases when they turned into English, does not mean that the Hebrew so translated is the same in both passages. It clearly isn't. Nor does it mean that "God is/was with X" is always a name - let alone a reference to the Messiah; any more than a shopping list with the word "bread" on it, is a reference to Jesus the Bread of Life.

A - somewhat frivolous - example: "whisky" is from the Gaelic "uisge beatha", "water of life" - does it follow that the "water of life" promised here:

• Rev 21:6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
• Rev 22:1 And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
• Rev 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

- is whisky ? It does not - even though the Greek & the English yield the same sense when translated into Gaelic.

A promise of

• a fountain of whisky
• a river of whisky
• free whisky

is an offer no Scotsman could refuse - the drawback is, that although the English words translate the Gaelic name of what is called whisky in English, whisky is not intended. Revelation is not, alas, referring to malt liquor; nor is it suggesting that the Marriage Supper of the Lamb will include the produce of the distillery.

No phrase in 2 Chronicles 15.2 is used as a name - "Emmanu-El", by contrast, is used in that way. Having been used as a name in the Messianic passage Isaiah 9.6, it passed into the usage of the Church, as a title for Jesus, Messiah & God Incarnate, the Son of Mary of Nazareth. Which is why the CC uses it as a title of Christ in her worship.

"God [was] with Joseph" - but no one would call Joseph son of Jacob a woman, let alone the Mother of God. The objection based on 2 Chronicles 15.2 shatters on that by itself, quite apart from the counter-arguments. But it does not follow, that because "God is with us"is not always a name, that it can never be, & never is, used as a sentence name; & cannot be used as a name of Jesus, the Divine Son of Mary of Nazareth.

In the Person of Jesus, "God is with us" - He bears the name Emmanuel, because it is supremely & most really true of Him; not only because of what He does, but because of Who He is. Since Isaiah 9.6 is traditionally taken as a reference to Jesus - who is God in the flesh, God made a man - the mother of that man is the mother of God. The angel Gabriel, who is "sent from God", says to Mary, "The Lord is with thee". it is very hard to believe that St.Luke did not at least intend an allusion both to Isaiah 9.6, & to some of the other passages - such as Judges 6 - in which the same greeting, or the same phrase, appears.

In no way is there any implication in the Catholic use & understanding of the phrase "Mother of God" that she is a Divine being. A goddess Mary would not be the mother of a man - which Jesus certainly is. She is called Mother of God, because He, Who is eternally God the Word, entered into time and became man as well. Men have mothers, He is like us in all things but sin, therefore, He too had a mother. He did not cease to be the Eternal Word of God, therefore, He Who is Jesus of Nazareth is the same individual as Him Who is the Eternal Word of God. Therefore, Mary, the mother of the man Who is God, is rightly called Mother of God. Not because his Godhead is from her - it is not ! - but because His Sacred Humanity, which is the Sacred Humanity of the Eternal Wordmade flesh for our salvation, is from her.

The title Mother of God, & the reality that is her being Mother of God, is a fence around and a foundation for the Incarnation - her privileges, & this most of all, which is the greatest of them, are from Him, for Him, & to Him. That does not make what He has done in her & for her & through her any less worthy of praise & admiration; she does not become less radiant in holiness, nor does her fullness of grace cease to be enormous, for existing only in relation to Him. Of course she does - what does not ?

Verbally identical phrases do not always function in the same way. The seventh-century Philistine king Sharru-lu-dari of Ashkelon has a name meaning "May the king [live] for ever" - but the meaning of the name is not a reference to Nehemiah 2.3 - let alone a reference to the Coronation Anthem sung since 1727 at the coronation of every British monarch; even though it contains that phrase. Yet many Christians - & others - take phrases from two different cultures, & treat them as though the identity of words were evidence or proof that they were to be understood in the same sense in.

Mary gave birth to Christ's humanity, not His divinity.

## We know that she did not give birth to His Divinity - & so does the Church. She gave birth not to a nature, but to a person. Without something - such as a person - to be the nature of, a nature is an abstraction. She was not the mother of an abstraction, but of a Person, the Uncreated Divine Person Who is the Word Who is eternally with the Father. The Word, through whom all things were made, took up our human nature into Himself, thereby becoming one of us, not in a metaphor, but in fact. If He did not become "one of us", IOW a man, He has nothing to do with us, and we are still in our sins. His Virginal Conception in the womb of His Mother Mary, is the guarantee that He is of the same human nature as we are, just as He is of the same Nature as His Father & the Holy Spirit. Which is one of the grounds for His being Mediator with the Father for us; He is a stranger to neither, but intimately united with both.

The Son of God was with God in the beginning, so Mary cannot be the mother of God. Christ's divinity did not need to be born, it already existed before the world began. How can Mary be the mother of something that existed thousands of years before she was even born herself?

## An author who decides to write himself into his own story, doesn't become two people: he stays who he was, the difference being not in him, but in his story. He is still totally who he is - yet he has manifested his presence in a new way, by becoming one of his own characters. The whole life of creation is a story composed by God. And once upon a time, once upon a place - specifically, Nazareth, towards the end of the reign of Herod the Great - became a character in His own story.

And because He did so as a man, for other men, He became one of them in every way, sin alone excepted. Men are born live, from the womb, after a period of gestation; so was He. And the man born was Jesus of Nazareth. The Eternal Word is without beginning - Jesus of Nazareth, in so far as He is man, has a beginning in time.

Humans are persons, who are by nature human. In the God-man born of Mary, the Person is that of the Eternal Word; in this Person are two Natures, one human (shatred with other men), one Divine (which is the Nature of the Father & Holy Spirit also).

I do believe in the Incarnation. I preach it. Scripture says God sent His Son. This reveals that His Son existed prior to the virgin birth.

There is no flaw in my theology. It is in agreement with the Word of God.

 

[Hairy Tic]

If I can just reiterate, the meaning of "queen of heaven" is that Christ is King of heaven -- it is an ancient identifier.

Also, just in case, "sinless" is a comparative with other human beings (it is not an absolutist state, nor at all a comparison to Christ).

## The same is true of "Panagia", (= "All-holy"), "most powerful", "omnipotent", & so on; when applied to her, they are limited by being used of one who is a creature - they do not mean that she is infinite in these qualities.

"All-holy" =///= Author of all holiness/the One in Whom all Holiness is infinitely realised; that, can be true only of God; it means she is as holy as a mere creature can be; that she is totally holy, that nothing in her is not holy; not that all Holiness is in her; for that too can be true only of God.

 

[Hairy Tic]

Queen of Heaven in Scriptures:

Jeremiah 7:18 The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.

Jeremiah 44:17 But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem: for then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil.

Jeremiah 44:18 But since we left off to burn incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, we have wanted all things, and have been consumed by the sword and by the famine.

Jeremiah 44:19 And when we burned incense to the queen of heaven, and poured out drink offerings unto her, did we make her cakes to worship her, and pour out drink offerings unto her, without our men?

Jeremiah 44:25 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, saying; Ye and your wives have both spoken with your mouths, and fulfilled with your hand, saying, We will surely perform our vows that we have vowed, to burn incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her: ye will surely accomplish your vows, and surely perform your vows.

Queen of heaven in Scriptures is an idol worshipped by the Jews in Jeremiah's day. Is Mary an "idol"? The Scriptures never call Mary by this title. It is not an "ancient identifier"...except in your "traditions".

## 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.

So He will not give His Glory to Jesus - who comes centuries later. So Revelation 5.12 is in error: Jesus cannot be given glory, because the Glory of the Lord is not for giving.

God forbid that anyone should be convinced by such reasoning - but it is no more daft than the attempts people make to incriminate the veneration of Mary, Queen of Heaven, by quoting parts of those two chapters.

Jesus is called "Saviour", "Lord", "holy":

• Zeus was called "Saviour"
• Baal = "Lord", the Lord, being the weather-god Hadad AKA Ramman
  
• "holy" is a very common adjective for gods
• The goddess Inana was put to death & her body was hung on a spike for three days before her resurrection - here is the whole poem:

Inana's descent to the nether world: translation

If the world lasts long enough, just about every title applicable to Jesus Christ will be used for others before it is used of Him. Which is what happened.

By your reasoning, the attacks upon Baal-worship in the OT show that Jesus is not to be worshipped; that it is idolatry & blasphemy & false worship to do so. How is the reasoning that leads to such a conclusion different from the reasoning of those who use Jeremiah 7 & 44 as objections to the Catholic Christian understanding & use of the title "Queen of Heaven" ?

As for 7.18: how is that applicable to Catholic practice or belief ? What cakes do we give her ? What drink-offerings do we pour to any god ?

If that verse does not apply to what we do - shouldn't that be a warning light, to suggest that maybe the rest of those verses are also inapplicable to Catholic practice & belief ?

 

[Hairy Tic]

Galatians 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

It was the body that was made in the womb, not the divinity. Christ always had His divinity, for He was with the Father from the beginning.

.

 

[Hairy Tic]

Of course, all this denial of Christ's divinity was refuted about 1,500 years ago at the Third Ecumenical Council, at which Nestorius (who would agree with some people here about the Theotokos) was cast out, condemned as a heretic.

## This arguing does have one virtue - it makes one take a second look at ideas, and connections between them, that otherwise one might not think about much. So that at least is gained.

I want to get back to the Assumption

 

[Hairy Tic]

Honestly, Sarcalogos, I think it is the former.

## That would be compatible with a lot of heresies:

• Ebionitism
• Docetism
  
• Adoptionism
• maybe Modalism
• Manicheeism, of a kind
  
• Arianism
  
• Apollinarianism

Without a true Incarnation, there can be no true Crucifixion, so no true Atonement - it becomes a myth. Take away the Crucifixion, and the Resurrection evaporates like mist. Take the Resurrection away, & the Ascension, the hope of the Second Coming, & the Last Judgement all collapse in ruin.

The New Testament ? It becomes a delusion, all of it.

Nothing is left standing, nothing whatever, if the Incarnation is not a true and real fact. Take away the birth of God the Word from a woman, by the power of the Holy Spirit & not of man - & the Incarnation is a word, not a reality.

The NT doesn't add the elements of the Incarnation together, but it supplies them, so others are able to add them together, integrate them, & to draw the conclusions from the result. Conclusion: Mary is the Mother of the One Who is God and Who became Man as well - she is therefore not the mother only of a man, but of a man Who is God. Which means she is "Mother of God".

 

[cajunhillbilly]

I agree hairy tic. So I have no problem referring to Mary as Mother of God.

 

[Hairy Tic]

Yes, Sola Scriptura is indeed found in Scripture.

2 Timothy 3:14-17 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

The Word of God makes one perfect... thoroughly furnished. This clearly reveals that the Word of God is all one needs in matters of faith, doctrine and practice.

The assumption of Mary, however, is not taught in Scripture.

##
I always thought that God Alone made men perfect. Why is the Bible being elevated to parity with God ? If Mary cannot make us anything, because only God can - which is what you argued a while back: how can a book make anyone perfect ?

Or do you deny that the Bible is not God ? It would be very interesting indeed to know the answer to this. Do you believe that God created the Bible; or that it co-existed with Him from all eternity; or that it is an alternative manifestation of Christ; or something not mentioned. ? If the Bible is all we need, & if Jesus is all-sufficient, either the Bible is identical with Jesus, or it replaces Him. Or, is an alternative form of the Holy Spirit - is the Holy Spirit the Bible ? A belief in the eternity of a created Bible would be a Christian equivalent of a Muslim belief about the Koran. That is what the Bible seems to be for many people: a Koran - & a Church, & just about everything else. The passage was a reasonably good description of the Old Testament. Of course, by that reasoning, the NT is no more inspired than the posts on this board. Since the Church teaches it is inspired, something is wrong with the use of 2 Timothy 3:14-17 to prove that "Sola Scriptura is indeed found in Scripture".

Presumably, the thoroughly furnished man of God would have included 1 Enoch, & other ancient writings, in the OT; just as St.Jude did. It is not clear that all the Apostolic churches used those books alone which are in the 39-book Protestant canon. If the OT canon had been a fixed quantity for all the Apostolic churches, with identical contents and limits, the later uncertainties are hard to account for.

SS works only if the complete 27 book canon of the NT was admitted in its entirety to be sacred & inspired & canonical Scripture, fully on an equality with the OT, in the first century. That the complete 27-book canon of the NT was not admitted in its entirety to be sacred & inspired & canonical Scripture, fully on an equality with the OT, in the first century, is shown by the debates as to what if anything did count as part of a NT canon. SS is an unhistorical retrojection of a later stage in the Church's history back to an earlier stage - it's as sound historically as to think that the Apostles used type-writers would be.

The reason it grew up is that when the first Protestants thought of it, they took for granted - having no reason not to, that they were aware of - that the NT canon of 1530 familar to them, was also familiar to the Apostles: because as that time, materials for the history of canon were insufficiently well known; as was the history of the canon itself. Which is a very understandable mistake - but a mistake even so.

The logic of some Catholic-bashing positions suggests the following, which is put together using the mode of reasoning a certain type of Protestantism frequently employs in its polemic against Rome:

-------------
​

A Church that takes seriously the saying "Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda", & that is prepared to act as at first Luther did, when he consigned four NT books to an appendix in the NT, cannot treat the canon of either Testament as beyond need of reformation. It is highly probable that if the Church was not infallible in recognising thosse books; & if it was apostate; that godlier men, more fully reformed from Popery than the first Protestants were, should give serious consideration to purging the canon of the books and part of books that are tainted by Romish apostasy.
​

A Church that is reformed from "Romanism" is acting with great folly, if it accepts the Word of God from the enemy of Christ. Nothing less than a reformation, root and branch, from all the abominations of Rome, including the Bible, will suffice. True faith needs no Bible. Only Romish reasoning permirts redormed Churches to continue to use & to justifying what it has received from Rome. Luther, Calvin, Zwungli, Bucer, Cranmer, Hooper, Myconius, Oecolampadius, Stephanus & the rest were not sufficiently reformed, and therefore not really Christian - they could not be, because they stood near to Rome. Their judgements upon what counts as Scripture, & their interpretation of it, is therefore vitiated by the root of apostasy remaining in them.

If the Canaanites were not smitten with a judicial blindness, despite their sins, and the Romanists were (as Calvin & others have said in their commentaries on 2 Thessalonians) and if it is evil to borrow from the nations (as the Israelites & thus the Church was forbidden to); far more is it a sin to borrow from Rome the Bible it used. Yet Protestantism has done so. Its sin is greater than that of Israel. It is therefore a great sin for Protestants to use the Bible: by so doing they are borrowing from the heathen, or rather from those who are worse than heathen.

The Old Testament was done away in Christ, its Fulfilment, since it is part of the old law - & He promised the gift of the Spirit; not a fresh body of Scripture. In all likelihood, the New Testament of books - is the New Testament in [His] Body and Blood not good enough ? - the mention of which is based on no sure warranty of Scripture, should be listed among the "Roman Catholic Heresies and Inventions" written of by a Calvinist author in 1962. If God had wanted His Church to have a New Testament of 27 writings, & had meant it to be sacred & inspired, he should have said so. He did not - therefore it is not needed in the Church.

-------------
​

If such reasoning works against other doctrines (& it is supposed to work against several pre-Protestant ones) - it works against this one. An argument cannot be employed when it is thought useful against Catholic belief, only to be dropped like a hot potato when its force threatens - say - Evangelical Protestant belief.

 

[Hairy Tic]

It doesn't matter if you had a signed document by the POTUS saying we are to baptize infants. Neither he, nor the ones you listed above would be correct. Scripture reveals belief in Christ is a necessity prerequisite for baptism. "If thou believest, thou mayest."

Even the Catholic Bible, the Douay Rheims, states that belief is a prerequisite. So, since belief is a prerequisite to baptism as the Douay Rheims states, it stands to reason that neither Paul, nor Peter would have baptized anyone without that one first asserting that he or she indeed believed in Christ.

And infants certainly have no way of telling us what it is they believe until they first learn to talk.

There were no infants baptized in those households mentioned in the Bible.

## That all newly-Christian households would have not one single infant in them, is simply incredible. Especially since children are mentioned in the NT letters, as well as the gospels. So, these uniformly infantless households must have:

• been gay
• practiced abortion
• consisted of infertile spouses
  
• consisted of bachelors or spinsters or both

Which would suggest that the first two at least are not necessarily sinful. To say "[t]here were no infants baptized in those households mentioned in the Bible" is, by implication, an argument for other practices Baptists object to. It is unlikely they wish to go down that road.

Does this mean that believer's baptism, of persons who were infants when the households of which they were members were converted, can never have happened ? Not in the least. Infant baptism is the usual practice among Catholics & Anglicans, without excluding baptism of adult converts. And there may well have been variations in practice from area to area; not all the churches were purely Gentile. It is the Baptist position that cannot allow variation in practice; & not the position held by those of us - Catholic, Orthodox, Calvinist, Anglican, etc. - who defend the lawfulness of infant baptism.

As for belief - infants believe, not by their own act, but as part of the covenantal community; the conscious act, is that of the Church. It might be nice to get back to the titular subject of this thread - we seem to be talking about everything except that. Just an idea.

 

[Lee52]

It might be nice to get back to the titular subject of this thread - we seem to be talking about everything except that. Just an idea.

In deed. Anything that brings our focus away from Christ is anti-Christ and therefore counterproductive to bringing Christ to a lost world. We are merely image bearers of Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit. It is immaterial to salvation through Christ what happened to the physical body of Mary. Mary was an instrument of God to assist in the bringing forth of the Word of God made man: Immanuel.

God is sovereign and could have made Himself in the form of man without Mary. That He chose to use her as a conduit does nothing to elevate her to any status other than a vessel used by God to accomplish His purpose. Which, BTW, is what He does with each of us that surrender ourselves to Him, to be used of Him........

Lee

 

[patricius79]

It seems to me that the evidence of the assumption of Mary is questionable, at best. Why believe this? What possible benefit to salvation does this belief have?

Also, why is it considered to be "blasphemous" to deny that this happened?

because it is certain on the same grounds by which the N.T. Canon is certain

 

[WarriorAngel]

My dear Thekla, I don't doubt it for a moment ...but there is knowing and knowing...As I have said regarding the theme of this thread, I don't really have a problem if people believe Mary's dead body was taken by the L-rd...but I do have a problem with the other things that might be attached to this dogma...namely her sinlessness and the whole Queen of Heaven thing.

Her assumption is really based on some traditional teachings I suspect with a large dose of religious speculation...some traditional teachings are mostly speculation but harmless/neutral, while others conflict directly with Scripture and the Apostles doctrine (sound doctrine).

In the OT which God set up the kingdoms on earth - the Queen Mother sat at the right hand of the King.
The Mother is the Queen.
Should Mary be less to our King?



The word κεχαριτωμένη, (kecharitōménē), here translated as "full of grace", admits of various translations. Grammatically, the word is the feminine present perfect passive voice participle of the verb χαριτόω,[2] charitóō, which means "to show, or bestow with, grace" and, in the passive voice, "to have grace shown, or bestowed upon, one". The form of the verb is intensive, hence the translations "full of grace".[3]


Hail Mary - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The point is that word was never used for any other at any other time, and the past tense usage signifies God already had graced her, is gracing her and will continue to grace her.
And the grace of remitting sin as we obtain through baptism, is key to understanding she was without sin...due the graces bestowed on her prior to God even creating her...


As with Henoch and Moses and Elijah, it is no wonder why God did not grant she see corruption which is of the devil's making that all flesh sees corruption by decay.

 

[WarriorAngel]

In deed. Anything that brings our focus away from Christ is anti-Christ and therefore counterproductive to bringing Christ to a lost world. We are merely image bearers of Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit. It is immaterial to salvation through Christ what happened to the physical body of Mary. Mary was an instrument of God to assist in the bringing forth of the Word of God made man: Immanuel.

God is sovereign and could have made Himself in the form of man without Mary. That He chose to use her as a conduit does nothing to elevate her to any status other than a vessel used by God to accomplish His purpose. Which, BTW, is what He does with each of us that surrender ourselves to Him, to be used of Him........

Lee

AND yet HER soul doth magnify the Lord...
See Luke 1

He is magnified in her...so this takes nothing away from Him - but is more the glory for Him - He is not constrained to human perceptions and demands.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Queen of Heaven in Scriptures:

Jeremiah 7:18 The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.

Jeremiah 44:17 But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem: for then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil.

Jeremiah 44:18 But since we left off to burn incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, we have wanted all things, and have been consumed by the sword and by the famine.

Jeremiah 44:19 And when we burned incense to the queen of heaven, and poured out drink offerings unto her, did we make her cakes to worship her, and pour out drink offerings unto her, without our men?

Jeremiah 44:25 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, saying; Ye and your wives have both spoken with your mouths, and fulfilled with your hand, saying, We will surely perform our vows that we have vowed, to burn incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her: ye will surely accomplish your vows, and surely perform your vows.

Queen of heaven in Scriptures is an idol worshipped by the Jews in Jeremiah's day. Is Mary an "idol"? The Scriptures never call Mary by this title. It is not an "ancient identifier"...except in your "traditions".

Yah if you were God an intended Your Mother to have this honor and not some falsey - this would inflame you too.

 

[sheina]

Yah if you were God an intended Your Mother to have this honor and not some falsey - this would inflame you too.

Well, I'm not God, Mary is NOT my mother, and Mary is not the Queen of Heaven.