The Assumption of Mary

[Thekla]

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.

Perhaps you do not realize that most of the EO here are converts to the EO, who have prayed and studied the Scriptures diligently and are indeed thus led by God to the Orthodox Church.

 

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

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.

In fact, there are absolutely no Scriptures which tell us that Mary was an ever-virgin, let alone she being the 'Queen of Heaven'.

 

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

In his concluding remarks, the author of The Assumption of Mary Reviewed, writes:

"As we have seen, the belief of the Bodily Assumption of Mary did not appear until the fourth or fifth century, and stems entirely from forged documents. Some were falsely attributed to apostles who could not possibly have written them, while others were falsely attributed to Church Fathers who simply did not write them. In fact, the vast testimony of the early Church Fathers are amazingly silent regarding anything about the Virgin Mary being bodily assumed into heaven. From the post-apostolic era on, the Church Fathers wrote on many topics (the Trinity, the Divinity of Christ, the recognized scriptures, etc.), but regarding the bodily assumption of Mary, there are no records. Irenaeus, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and many other early Fathers write nothing about it. Even Eusebius, in his Church History, writes on the death of many of the original apostles, but makes no mention whatsoever of the death of the Virgin Mary. This is all a starch contrast from the comment we heard earlier, which said that "the Church has received from ancient times from the tradition of the Fathers." On the contrary, legitimate patristic writings on the subject did not appear until the 500's AD, and the belief itself did not become an "official" part of the corporate church worship until the fifth or sixth century. Likewise, we have seen that there is no scriptural basis for the bodily assumption, and therefore its entire basis is on the flawed tradition already discussed. Even the supposed sources of this belief are illogical in regards to the scriptural account (not mentioning James the apostle, resurrecting Luke but not Peter and Paul, etc). Both in the absence of the account and the contradiction with the traditions, this belief simply does not hold water when looked to the light of scripture."

I think this is a very good article 'debunking' the Assumption of Mary belief. I especially like what he says here: "If your church calls it dogma, ask why it calls dogma that which came from questionable sources. If your church calls it part of their sacred tradition, ask why something with such a flawed and questionable source is not only declared apostolic, but is said to be on equal with holy scripture. Ask questions, and follow up on this research. Then ask where the true, infallible word of God is: in the God-breathed words of scripture, or the developed beliefs of an individual church?" I can't help but wonder if those who believe in the Assumption of Mary have actually researched the validity of the belief for themselves. That is the question.

 

[laconicstudent]

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.

Of course I don't believe Scripture is the "final authority", and believe in what you label "replacement theology". I like how you throw those out as if they are automatically bad.

 

[billybtennessee]

Right. You believe what your church does. If scripture does not agree with what they teach you, you will accept their teaching regardless of what scripture says.

The only scripture I have seen the RC and OC use in believing Mary forever remained a virgin is Eze. 44:1-6. They are the only ones who see that teaching there, but because they say it, that makes it true. The facts have already been laid out about the assumptioning part, but again, that is what they teach, so you believe it true.

As far as the church replacing Israel in prophecy, well, we will see about that too.

 

[Thekla]

The Scriptures state that Christ was only-begotten.

 

[laconicstudent]

Right. You believe what your church does. If scripture does not agree with what they teach you, you will accept their teaching regardless of what scripture says.

As does everyone, including you.

The only scripture I have seen the RC and OC use in believing Mary forever remained a virgin is Eze. 44:1-6. They are the only ones who see that teaching there, but because they say it, that makes it true. The facts have already been laid out about the assumptioning part, but again, that is what they teach, so you believe it true.

Indeed, there are other Scriptures, but I've shared them enough in this forum.

And "assumptioning" isn't a word.

As far as the church replacing Israel in prophecy, well, we will see about that too.

Oh goodie!

 

[Studious One]

The Scriptures state that Christ was only-begotten.

Only begotten of the Father, not only begotten of Mary.

 

[Zeek]

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.

I did not realise my RCC and OC friends believed in 'replacement theology', it is not something I have encountered here yet....that would make an interesting thread....how people muddle up the role of the Jewish people and the Church...hmmm interesting...but I will not comment until the subject actually comes up from the mouth of my brethren here.

 

[Zeek]

Perhaps you do not realize that most of the EO here are converts to the EO, who have prayed and studied the Scriptures diligently and are indeed thus led by God to the Orthodox Church.

I did not realise that Thekla...but from the lack of weight behind many of the arguments I am surprised to hear you say that.

Through my life I have heard many people claim to have prayed and been led by G-d...but the evidence of their lives demonstrates that what they have believed is sometimes fanciful...I hate to say it, but if you turn on the religious TV channels, many preachers talk about G-d having shown them this or told them that, but the very way they talk, and summon G-d to do their bidding tells me a different story.

By the way I do not hold anything wrong with the Orthodox element of the Body of Messiah....I just believe they need to repent and ditch certain practices to be a more effective witness for Jesus.

 

[laconicstudent]

I just believe they need to repent and ditch certain practices to be a more effective witness for Jesus.

I already did.

Guess where I ended up.

 

[katherine2001]

Right. You believe what your church does. If scripture does not agree with what they teach you, you will accept their teaching regardless of what scripture says.

The only scripture I have seen the RC and OC use in believing Mary forever remained a virgin is Eze. 44:1-6. They are the only ones who see that teaching there, but because they say it, that makes it true. The facts have already been laid out about the assumptioning part, but again, that is what they teach, so you believe it true.

As far as the church replacing Israel in prophecy, well, we will see about that too.

Do you believe that you are eating the body of Christ and drinking His blood when you receive Communion? This is always how it is talked about in the Scriptures. However, most Evangelical churches deny that they are doing this when they take Communion. So the first statement seems to apply to most people who buy into their church's teaching that Communion is a symbol only (which was a totally unknown idea until at least the first 1,500 years of Christianity--it most certainly is not what the Apostles taught).

If Mary had other children, then why did Christ give her care over to the Apostle John? By Jewish law, her children would have been required to care for her. However, she did not have other children and it was her only son's responsibility to make sure that she was cared for, which He did from the cross.

Yes, we will see about the Church being the new Israel. I think a lot of people who have supported Israel at all costs even when Israel is persecuting their brothers and sisters in Christ might be very surprised!

 

[Sarcalogos Deus]

By the way I do not hold anything wrong with the Orthodox element of the Body of Messiah....I just believe they need to repent and ditch certain practices to be a more effective witness for Jesus.

If the Orthodox and Catholic churches did that (Not that I believe we have any practices we need to repent of mind you) we would be little more than a "higher-church" version of Lutherans and Anglicans. Not only that but can you imagine the anarchy that would follow if some in the hierarchy tried to ditch things like: the intercession of the saints, a authoritative teaching authority, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the Papacy, Apostolic succession, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and the 2000 years of theology.

Most of the Laity would never accept it and many of the bishops wouldn't either you would have the equivalent of a civil war between the two factions in both the churches.

 

[Zeek]

If the Orthodox and Catholic churches did that (Not that I believe we have any practices we need to repent of mind you) we would be little more than a "higher-church" version of Lutherans and Anglicans. Not only that but can you imagine the anarchy that would follow if some in the hierarchy tried to ditch things like: the intercession of the saints, a authoritative teaching authority, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the Papacy, Apostolic succession, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and the 2000 years of theology.

Most of the Laity would never accept it and many of the bishops wouldn't either you would have the equivalent of a civil war between the two factions in both the churches.

Hi SD....Yes if one thinks about it, what you state is probably the natural outcome of such a thing.....but you know, its a bit like looking at it from G-ds perspective, because when Jesus mentioned some vitually impossible things such as it 'being easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter Heaven...' the disciples were also incredulous, but the divine response was that with G-d all things are possible.

I am only high-lighting RCC and OC doctrine because that is what these threads discuss....and I can see no other way forward, but to put right what has developed contrary to sound doctrine over hundreds of years....but who will dare believe that Marian doctrine has gotten seriously out of hand, when the Church to whom they have given allegiance declares it as true....in the light of this any Scripture is irrelevant, any argument superfluous.

I haven't had a single person except perhaps my friend Excelsior, say that they can see my point, or they understand why it might be unacceptable....all I get is the official line that the RCC or OC teaches, and that can be found on any web-site....or that I am rude and nasty for pointing out various things. It is almost like being in a dream world where you exist but no one hears you (used to be a nightmare I had as a kid)...and the vast majority of times people are quick to take offence and discuss that, rather than the actual argument in hand.

Oooppps rabbiting on. Catch you later. Ciaou. Zazal

 

[Mark_Sam]

Does the assumption of Mary predate the immaculate conception? Follow me on this:

1. The wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23)
2. Mary was sinless (RC immaculate conception)
C. Therefore, Mary could not die.

Or am I completely way off? Is this syllogism valid?

 

[Zeek]

Originally Posted by Zazal

I just believe they need to repent and ditch certain practices to be a more effective witness for Jesus.
​

I already did.

Guess where I ended up.

Pray tell from whence you came and what made you through in your lot with the Orthodox Church...I'd be very interested how G-d convicted you.

 

[Zeek]

Does the assumption of Mary predate the immaculate conception? Follow me on this:

1. The wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23)
2. Mary was sinless (RC immaculate conception)
C. Therefore, Mary could not die.

Or am I completely way off? Is this syllogism valid?

Er...Jesus was the only sinless person, and He died.

Mary was not sinless...that is a glaring doctrinal error.

 

[Zeek]

Do you believe that you are eating the body of Christ and drinking His blood when you receive Communion? This is always how it is talked about in the Scriptures. However, most Evangelical churches deny that they are doing this when they take Communion. So the first statement seems to apply to most people who buy into their church's teaching that Communion is a symbol only (which was a totally unknown idea until at least the first 1,500 years of Christianity--it most certainly is not what the Apostles taught).

I think for most of us, we are at liberty to be convinced through Scripture for ourselves, without having to be taught what is clearly evident.
When a person is taught anything, they should always check out that it is biblical, otherwise they are open to deception.

The Apostles taught what we call communion in the context of the Passover meal...they were Jewish, the ceremony was Jewish and Jesus used the unleavened bread to symbolise His body given for His people and the cup of blessing and redemption as His blood of a newer Covenant...it was done as a testimony and rememberance of His death and ressurection on our behalf....and done once a year within the context of Passover as far as I am aware.

If Mary had other children, then why did Christ give her care over to the Apostle John? By Jewish law, her children would have been required to care for her. However, she did not have other children and it was her only son's responsibility to make sure that she was cared for, which He did from the cross.

This was not some official or judicial ceremony...Jesus was dying, and the young John, whom many surmised was still in his late teens was commended to Mary, and Mary to Him....it doesn't mean it was to the exclusion of His brothers, so Jewish Law is irrelevant...besides there is something profound in Mary losing a Son and gaining a son...especially as Johns relationship with Jesus was I believe, very much in line with a Father loving his son.

26When Jesus then saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” 27Then He said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” From that hour the disciple took her into his own household.

Yes, we will see about the Church being the new Israel. I think a lot of people who have supported Israel at all costs even when Israel is persecuting their brothers and sisters in Christ might be very surprised!

I think what will be more of a surprise is when Christians wake up to the fact that G-d has not finished with the apple of His eye, the people of Israel....and in these remaining years, the Church has the opportunity to try and right some of the wrongs they have carried out over the centuries in persecuting and demeaning the chosen nation of G-d....rejoice when you see the natural branches which were broken off, grafted back into the Olive tree.

 

[Mark_Sam]

Er...Jesus was the only sinless person, and He died.

Mary was not sinless...that is a glaring doctrinal error.

Maybe, but my point was: do belief in the assumption presuppose the immaculate conception, or have these two doctrines developed independently?

But that's a good question: how could Christ die, being sinless, and the wages of sin is death? But that's another topic. Doesn't Scripture say He was made unto sin, so we, sinners, could be righteous? Untill right about now, I've had an extreme Augustinian view on sin (sin nature=guilt) ...

 

[Studious One]

Maybe, but my point was: do belief in the assumption presuppose the immaculate conception, or have these two doctrines developed independently?

But that's a good question: how could Christ die, being sinless, and the wages of sin is death? But that's another topic. Doesn't Scripture say He was made unto sin, so we, sinners, could be righteous? Untill right about now, I've had an extreme Augustinian view on sin (sin nature=guilt) ...

Not made unto sin, ... made sin.

2 Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

When Christ hung on the cross, He took the sin of mankind upon Himself. He paid the debt of sin with His own life.

But, thank God, He rose again just as He promised.