The Assumption of Mary

[sheina]

You are going to have to give me the verse reference for "This is not the Roman Catholic Church".

You are going to have to give me a verse that says "it is the Roman Catholic church."

Actually, it was 1054.

How could the RCC have begun in 1054 when you say it began at Pentecost?

"In 1054 there was a formal break between the Western (Roman) and Eastern (Orthodox) church when Pope Leo IX and Michael Caerularius, Patriarch of Constantinople, anathematised each other. This signified a formal split" (A Millennium of Russian Orthodoxy, pp. 20-21).

Really? Because you say so? Of course, that verse was written before schisms, so everyone who called on Christ's name would be part of the Apostolic Church, which still exists today....

No, not because I say so, but because the RCC claims to be the "one true church"

"This is the sole Church of Christ which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Saviour, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care. ... This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him" (Vatican Council II, p. 329).

That verse was written before the RCC even existed....which proves that the RCC was not the church which began at Pentecost. Anyway, you already contradicted yourself by stating that the RCC began in 1054.

 

[laconicstudent]

You are going to have to give me a verse that says "it is the Roman Catholic church."

I never argued it was, you are the one saying it is "Biblical fact that it isn't". Are you now saying it isn't "Biblical"?

How could the RCC have begun in 1054 when you say it began at Pentecost?

I didn't say it began at Pentecost.

"In 1054 there was a formal break between the Western (Roman) and Eastern (Orthodox) church when Pope Leo IX and Michael Caerularius, Patriarch of Constantinople, anathematised each other. This signified a formal split" (A Millennium of Russian Orthodoxy, pp. 20-21).

It seems fairly straight-forward and correct.

No, not because I say so, but because the RCC claims to be the "one true church"

There can't be a one, true Church because the RCC claims to be that church? Huh?

"This is the sole Church of Christ which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Saviour, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care. ... This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him" (Vatican Council II, p. 329).

That verse was written before the RCC even existed....

You haven't proven that yet.

which proves that the RCC was not the church which began at Pentecost.

It would, if you could actually prove it.

Anyway, you already contradicted yourself by stating that the RCC began in 1054.

How have I contradicted myself? I believe I have only said that the RCC began in 1054.

 

[Forrest GOP]

How can you say 'wrong' and just leave it at that?

I don't know, but apparently I just did.

 

[Forrest GOP]

T.L. Frazier is a convert from Fundamentalism to Catholicism. He wrote a great magazine article called "Assumptions About Mary." At one point he states:

"Relics of all the apostles and other New Testament saints emerged very early in Christian history. Churches were built on the graves of the apostles, and their bones were eventually distributed to other churches for veneration.(For an interesting treatment of the subject of relics and the source of the following information, see Joan Carroll Cruz's book Relics (Huntington: Our Sunday Visitor, 1984). Cruz is also the author of the bestseller The Incorruptibles.) The remains of Mary Magdalene, one New Testament saint, are kept in the monastery at Villalata, France, where she is supposed to have died. The remains of Lazarus were originally kept in the church which maintained his tomb on the isle of Cyprus.

Relics became enclosed in large shrines and were the objects of pilgrimages, which could become quite lucrative for the city possessing the shrine (not unlike a city hosting the Olympic Games in today's post-Christian world). Sometimes, through varying traditions or outright greed, two different cities would claim the same relic.

Whether genuine or not, anything which could be said in any way to be connected to the mother of Christ was highly prized because of the strong devotion to her throughout the Church. A piece of green ribbon which is believed to have been worn by Mary as a belt is claimed today by the cathedral of Prato in Italy. For over a thousand years the cathedral of Chartres, France has owned a piece of fine material which is said to be a piece of Mary's veil. The cathedral of Aachen in Germany even claims to possess the shroud that Mary was buried in. Both the ancient cities of Ephesus and Jerusalem claim to have the tomb of Mary, and pilgrimages to both cities have been common.

Yet among all the relics there is not to be found a single one said to be a relic of Mary's actual body. This is especially significant when it is kept in mind how hard the Church at Smyrna worked to obtain the body of Polycarp. If the ante-Ephesian Church believed that Mary rotted and remained in the grave, as I believed, then we should expect to find some mention of the veneration of her remains somewhere in the Church, as we do of the apostles and other New Testament saints. Yet not even the powerful motivator of greed could elicit so much as one attempt at a claim to a relic of Mary's bodily remains. It is almost as though no one dared to claim such a relic out of fear of immediately being accused of fraud--quite understandable if the common belief was that she had been assumed into heaven.

An argument from silence? Yes, but what a profound silence! How is it that in the 400 years before the Council of Ephesus not one Christian was so obliging as to venerate one bone and thus imply belief in something other than what is recounted in the Transitus Mariae literature?

Yet there is the patristic silence as well, I countered. The earliest patristic mention (around 600) of the Assumption in the East is from Theoteknos, bishop of Livias on the left bank of the Jordan, who speaks of the feast of the Assumption of Mary and not of her Dormition (falling asleep). In the West Gregory of Tours is the first Church Father to discuss Mary's bodily Assumption in his In Gloria Martyrum, written about A.D. 590. Usually when talk show hosts speak of the "paucity" of historical evidence for the Assumption, it is this lack of patristic evidence before the sixth century which is being referred to. Evangelicals, though, are unaware of the vast Assumption literature which predates these patristic references. If a few of them are aware of the Transitus, they dismiss it with question-begging epithets and then attempt to reaffirm the charge that there is no historical evidence for the belief in the Assumption before the sixth century!

Evangelicals rarely present the full picture. Investigating my own belief that Mary lay in the grave, I found that the earliest recorded doubt about the Assumption was a comment by Adamnan (625-704). In De Locis Sanctis he describes the two-storied church dedicated to Mary in the valley of Jehoshaphat: "In the eastern portion of [the lower church] is an altar, and at the righthand side of the altar is the empty stone sepulchre of holy Mary, where she was once laid to rest. But how and when or by what persons her holy remains were removed from this sepulchre and where she awaits the resurrection no one, it is said, can know for certain." This one doubt influenced the Venerable Bede, who then echoed it."


I recommend reading the whole article. It is worth the time: Click Here

 

[WarriorAngel]

I have read it many many times, prayerfully and with due consideration.





Ok.




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.

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.

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.

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.




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.

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.

All Believers should honour the role that Mary played....but there are real dangers in going beyond the truth and making dishonest claims out of bad and deceptive theology.



I'm all ears....carry on



What I can say, is what the L-rd taught here:-

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.

Yes both she and Joseph were of Royal lineage, in keeping with G-ds promises:-

Acts 13: 21 “Then they asked for a king, and God gave them Saul the son of Kish, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, for forty years. 22 “After He had removed him, He raised up David to be their king, concerning whom He also testified and said, ‘I HAVE FOUND DAVID the son of Jesse, A MAN AFTER MY HEART, who will do all My will.’ 23 “From the descendants of this man, according to promise, God has brought to Israel a Savior, Jesus




That is not strictly true....if you were obedient to Scripture you would come under the authority of Scripture, and be persuaded by truth...but you give more honour to the teachings of men and the doctrine of your local Church.

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.

 

[Thekla]

“For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

Mary humbled herself ...

 

[MamaZ]

“For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

Mary humbled herself ...

So many people who humble themselves before God. God does the humbling and the exhalting. I don't see God through His testimony in His scripture exalting Mary above what has been written about her. A woman born under the law chosen to be the vessel of God to bring Christ physically into this world as a human being. I don't see God stating she is a queen of anything in the testimony of the scripture.

 

[MamaZ]

How was Mary unlike us?

 

[Thekla]

How was Mary unlike us?

Does God see humans as "interchangeable" ?

 

[Thekla]

So many people who humble themselves before God. God does the humbling and the exhalting. I don't see God through His testimony in His scripture exalting Mary above what has been written about her. A woman born under the law chosen to be the vessel of God to bring Christ physically into this world as a human being. I don't see God stating she is a queen of anything in the testimony of the scripture.

The term "queen of heaven" has been described before; it is an culturally typical way of describing the identity of her son.

Her son is the "King of heaven"; that is what "queen of heaven" means.

You seem to say that the only way God "exalts the humble" is that they are mentioned in Scripture ...

 

[Studious One]

So many people who humble themselves before God. God does the humbling and the exhalting. I don't see God through His testimony in His scripture exalting Mary above what has been written about her. A woman born under the law chosen to be the vessel of God to bring Christ physically into this world as a human being. I don't see God stating she is a queen of anything in the testimony of the scripture.

The Mary of Scripture is not queen of anything. An apparition that calls itself Mary and wants people to serve it is the one the RCc identifies as queen of heaven.

Of course, we know she isn't really queen either.

 

[MamaZ]

Does God see humans as "interchangeable" ?

I guess I don't understand what it is you are asking.

 

[MamaZ]

The term "queen of heaven" has been described before; it is an culturally typical way of describing the identity of her son.

Her son is the "King of heaven"; that is what "queen of heaven" means.

You seem to say that the only way God "exalts the humble" is that they are mentioned in Scripture ...

If one is exhalted to queen of heaven then yes it would be written in His testimony of scripture. Human reasoning then is what puts Mary as queen?

 

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

Jeremiah 7:18 says: "The children gather wood, the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead dough, to make cakes for the queen of heaven; and they pour out drink offerings to other gods, that they may provoke Me to anger." (emphasis added)

 

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

.

 

[Thekla]

If one is exhalted to queen of heaven then yes it would be written in His testimony of scripture. Human reasoning then is what puts Mary as queen?

No, human language - the Scriptures use human language, too.
In fact, the Scriptures use the language/definitions of the time when they are written. In the OT the term "heaven" is used. In the NT, it is "heavens" (the Lord's prayer really says, "Our Father who art in the heavens"). Heaven initially just meant "sky". By the time of the NT, it meant more. For example, the word "anastasis/resurrection" just means "get up/stand up". Now, we understand it much differently.

"Queen of heaven" reflects the use of the terminology in the era and culture of a particular time and place -- just like the language of Scripture is written using the understanding of a particular time and place.

 

[Thekla]

I guess I don't understand what it is you are asking.

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 ?

 

[sheina]

Jeremiah 7:18 says: "The children gather wood, the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead dough, to make cakes for the queen of heaven; and they pour out drink offerings to other gods, that they may provoke Me to anger." (emphasis added)

There are a few more references to the "queen of heaven" in Scriptures and all of them have to do with an idol worshipped by the Jews in Jeremiah's day...NOTHING to do with the biblical Mary whatsoever. The Word of God calls this worship of idols, idolatry.

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 44:20 Then Jeremiah said unto all the people, to the men, and to the women, and to all the people which had given him that answer, saying,

Jeremiah 44:21 The incense that ye burned in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem, ye, and your fathers, your kings, and your princes, and the people of the land, did not the LORD remember them, and came it not into his mind?

Jeremiah 44:22 So that the LORD could no longer bear, because of the evil of your doings, and because of the abominations which ye have committed; therefore is your land a desolation, and an astonishment, and a curse, without an inhabitant, as at this day.

Jeremiah 44:23 Because ye have burned incense, and because ye have sinned against the LORD, and have not obeyed the voice of the LORD, nor walked in his law, nor in his statutes, nor in his testimonies; therefore this evil is happened unto you, as at this day.

Jeremiah 44:24 Moreover Jeremiah said unto all the people, and to all the women, Hear the word of the LORD, all Judah that are in the land of Egypt:

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.

 

[Rhamiel]

you do know that Ba'al means lord right
but yet we still call our God "the Lord"

 

[Thekla]

you do know that Ba'al means lord right
but yet we still call our God "the Lord"

In fact, "kyrie/lord" pretty much means "Mr.".
Yet, we still use the word, and know when it refers to God; we also know kyrie/Mr. Smith down the street is not kyrie/God.

(Lord Jesus Christ/Kyrie Iesou Christe)