The Magnificat -- What Can We Learn From It?

[Axion]

Thanks Bubba,
As far as the assumption being a tradition of your church I will say you are correct. Here is a great article on the subject for anyone who is interested.

The "article" is a load of anti-catholic junk. It either negligently or purposefully misrepresents the Early Fathers and the History of the Doctrine:

1. Far from being "only adopted" in 1950, the Assumption has been a central part of Catholic, Orthodox and Oriental teaching for at least fifteen centuries.

2. Epiphanius of Salamis is not taking about the Assumption when he says no-one knows whether Mary died. He is talking about whether Mary was taken into heaven without passing through death, or whether she died and was resurrected before being assumed into heaven - an issue which is still a matter of debate in the Church.

3. The idea that Pope Gelasius ever condemned the Doctrine of the Assumption is nonsense. No one is on record as condemning the doctrine of the Assumption. In fact the feast of the Assumption on 15th August was made a public holiday throughout the Empire in 600 AD. Gelasius condemned a bundle of heretical works, which included heretical accounts of the Assumption and other doctrines. This does not mean that everything recorded in the heretical writings is therefore declared heretical! Otherwise events such as the crucifixion, also recorded in such documents would have been declared heretical beliefs as well. In fact the Church preserved non-heretical transitus accounts of the Assumption.

4. Gnostics would hardly invent stories of the Assumption of Mary as the "article" alleges, since the body and therefore a bodily assumption were considered totally unclean by Gnostics. The last thing they would have taught was a bodily assumption.

As far as the Trinity, you are right, there is no word in the Bible that says trinity. But when reading the Bible you see three distinct Deities from the very beginning to the end. It is very easy to see that the three Deities are one Deity, by reading the scriptures.

Really? Then why does this not convince the Unitarians, "Oneness" Christians, LDS, Jehovahs Witnesses, Arians, Gnostics, Adoptionists and other bible-as-authority groups, who do not see the Trinity so clearly set out in the Bible as you claim?

If we were to hold a council of the churches today it would be easy to reformulate what the early church saw in this manner, by using the scriptures.

The arguments we've had on this board regarding the incarnation of Christ, with large numbers of "bible christians" denying the completeness of the incarnation disprove your claim.

These two doctrines do not even belong in the same breath. One is verifiable and proven to be true through scriptures, the other is based on graduted theory that started in the fifth century.

Untrue on all counts. Regarding the 5th century, this is the date of the earliest known surviving parchment describing the Assumption. It is by no means the earliest date for belief in the Assumption.
Both the doctrine of the Trinity and of the Assumption are validated and defined by church tradition. Validation can be found for both in scripture, but neither can be proved beyond argument solely from scripture. Many have used and still use scripture to argue that Jesus was not fully God, or is not fully God and fully man, or that the Holy Spirit emanates from God but is not God.

 

[SolomonVII]

The idea of duality of body and soul has been both gnostic, and an idea of Descartes in its more modern philosophical format.
It is not Christian and it is not according to the Nicene Creed to quote:

...
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

For Dominicans, especially the importance of the body has been stressed. Many Protestants as well place a similar importance on the body with their doctrines of the body being the temple of God.

Before death or after, for Catholics -or any other Christian really- to believe that somebody as central to the Christian message as Mary has been bodily assumed into the eternal does not go beyond the scope of Christian belief. To pronounce such a belief as heretic not only demonstrates a lack of knowledge of Christianity, but also reveals an anti-Catholic bigotry.

Contained in the stories of Elijah and Enoch are the scriptural ideas of people being bodily assumed into heaven. The roots of these stories reach further into the legends and myths of an archaic past that the similar stories about the body of Mary being assumed into heaven ever do. And yet there is no apparent controversy over the authenticity of these. Apparently, the reformation wars are being carried out with Mary herself now serving as the main battlefield.

As is the resurrection of the Lord Himself, the assumption of Mary is an article of Catholic faith. It is scripturally supported, and also supported by the traditions of the Christian community dating back to the times when people had first hand knowledge of the apostles. But no amount of scripture and no amount of tradition, will ever be able to absolutely prove any article of Christian faith. Nevertheless, the reasoning behind this idea remains theolgically sound.

In sum, the Magnificat does not support the idea that Mary is God, nor does any major Christian faith group believe this either. Yet Mary is worthy of praise nonetheless. It would be unscriptural to deny this.
Old Testament writings alluding to the Magnificat forewhadow Mary and the miraculous birth of Jesus in the prayer of Hannah, and again allude to the blessedness of God's lowly handmaiden being transformed into a queen, even the celestial queen of Heaven as is proclaimed in Revelation.

All we as Christians ever need for redemption is Jesus, yet God in all his glory has provided us with so much more. The Holy Spirit has been poured forth into the lives of all Christians, for the benefit of all of humanity. In the verses of the Magnificat of Mary, the abundance of God's grace overflows in her blessedness for the benefit for all who find it befitting to give her praise for all that God has given her.

 

[That guy...]

Just a Random thought...(sorry to go off topic lol) to be honest I'm not sure that woman in Revelation refers to mary in particular. I beleive that the child is jesus and it makes sense in that way because mary was the earthly mother of jesus, but there are also other factors to consider; her being clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet with a crown of 12 stars. I think those symbols (or whatever) don't quite match up with the woman being mary and may mean something else. I mean the woman might not be a physical woman but more of a symbol who knows? I havn't quite got my head around it yet and I'm constantly asking God for guidance but hey I'm learning lol! if anyone has any thoughts on that I'm open. (sorry for going off track again lol) Nate

 

[Catholic Evangelist]

Just a Random thought...(sorry to go off topic lol) to be honest I'm not sure that woman in Revelation refers to mary in particular. I beleive that the child is jesus and it makes sense in that way because mary was the earthly mother of jesus, but there are also other factors to consider; her being clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet with a crown of 12 stars. I think those symbols (or whatever) don't quite match up with the woman being mary and may mean something else. I mean the woman might not be a physical woman but more of a symbol who knows? I havn't quite got my head around it yet and I'm constantly asking God for guidance but hey I'm learning lol! if anyone has any thoughts on that I'm open. (sorry for going off track again lol) Nate

Have you seen the image of Guadalupe? Shes standing on a moon, "clothed" with the sun, and as for the 12 stars, her shirt is embroidered with them.
I think that this woman mainly refers to Mary. After all, she was a Jew.

 

[SumTinWong]

Have you seen the image of Guadalupe? Shes standing on a moon, "clothed" with the sun, and as for the 12 stars, her shirt is embroidered with them.
I think that this woman mainly refers to Mary. After all, she was a Jew.

That was human made image, what does it prove?

If and this is a big if, this woman is Mary as you say than why is she in pain during child birth when it has been a belief by the CC that she didn't have any pain during childbirth? Either she did or did not have the pain.

Sorry but it makes more sense that this woman is Israel. If it was Mary why wouldn't John the person whom Jesus gave Mary into his care say that it was her? He could have easily said, I saw Mary with her feet on the moon and the... But he didn't. Why?

The child is obviously Jesus the Christ. As far as the woman goes there a great many theories out there. Victorinus said this is "the ancient church of fathers, and prophets, and saints, and apostles" (Ante-Nicene Fathers, VII, 355). Some writers have said that this woman is a representative of Israel which the Christ came from. Others like Lenski interpret it as the Israel of both testaments. There are others that say that this woman is a representation of the Church.

 

[Axion]

Just a Random thought...(sorry to go off topic lol) to be honest I'm not sure that woman in Revelation refers to mary in particular. I beleive that the child is jesus and it makes sense in that way because mary was the earthly mother of jesus, but there are also other factors to consider; her being clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet with a crown of 12 stars. I think those symbols (or whatever) don't quite match up with the woman being mary and may mean something else. I mean the woman might not be a physical woman but more of a symbol who knows? I havn't quite got my head around it yet and I'm constantly asking God for guidance but hey I'm learning lol! if anyone has any thoughts on that I'm open. (sorry for going off track again lol) Nate

This comes up a lot. Basically Mary is the clearest and most obvious interpretation of the Woman of Rev 12 - and she is the first thought that comes to most people shown the passage, who have not been pre-primed with other explanations.

1. The woman is the Mother of Jesus. Who is the mother of Jesus?
2. All the other figures in the vision are individuals, not collective entities. Why would this one figure of the woman break the pattern?
3. In Isaiah seven we see another instance of the sign of a young woman (virgin) with a child being of importance. Everyone accepts this instance of the sign of the Woman and Child being Mary and Jesus, so why the problem with the parallel vision in Revelation 12?
4. The crown of 12 stars can be seen as both a representation of the 12 tribes of Israel and the 12 Apostles of the Church, Mary being a link between the old and new covenants. It also symbolises the heavenly crown that is granted to those who endure, and Mary's queenly crown as Mother of the King.

 

[Catholic Evangelist]

That was human made image, what does it prove?

It is hardly a human image-have you heard the story of Juan Diego?

In fact, the very individual fibers of his shirt are colored. There is no way we can replicate something like that, even in the 21st century. The image appeared in the 16th.

 

[SumTinWong]

It is hardly a human image-have you heard the story of Juan Diego?

In fact, the very individual fibers of his shirt are colored. There is no way we can replicate something like that, even in the 21st century. The image appeared in the 16th.

Sure I have heard the story. Back in 1990 the Pope beatified a man, Juan Diego, who seems to never have existed. In 2002 he was even canonized. It was to him suposedly that Mary appeared in 1531, magically imprinting her image on his mantle(cloth covering, like a cape). This image is now known as Our Lady of Guadalupe.

But people close to the date of the apparition are silent about the supposed visit. Imagine that. Mary herself shows up and leaves an imprint on a mantle and no one writes it down? Even the first Mexican bishop a known critic of novel images, who was said to have recieved it and built a church for the miraculous cloak, left no trace of documentation on it. He did provide bequests for his other foundations, so why not this one? Is it possible to believe that he would have made all these other provisions and leave out one that included the BVM?

Toribio de Montolina, a famous historian of the sixteenth century, wrote a record of the dedication and devotion to Mary does not even mention this incident, the mantle, or Juan Diego for that matter. No other sixteenth century history of the country's religion mentions it or him either. The earliest mention of the apparition occured in 1648, 117 years after the fact, in a meditation by a Fransiscan named Miguel Sanchez who said he was relyng on oral tradition since there was no written record of the apparition.

Out of the blue a document appeared in 1649. The document which was flowery at best was written in teh local language (Nahuatl) and supposedly composed shortly after Juan Diego died in 1548. Experts in sixteenth century Mexico have long treated this as a forgery (Juan Bautista Munoz in the 18th and Joaquin Garcia Icazbalceta in the 19th centuries respectively). Three modern specialists in the language post date it to Sanchezs' writing because it depends on his writing (Lisa Sousa, Stafford Poole, The Story of Guadalupe). Finally the Cambrige historian Brading calls the last investigation "a devistating criticism of the received linguistic and textual foundations of the tradition." (D.A. Brading, Mexican Phoenix, 2002).

What is remarkable actually beyond all that is that Mary is supposed to have appeared to this illiterate Mexican peasant, wearing European clothes. If you look at European iconography you will see a resemblance. Here is another kicker. The very title that is given to Mary comes from a shrine in Spain, Guadalupe, and contains sounds that a Mexican peasant who spoke Nahuatl could not make.

Anyway yes I have heard of it, but I deny that it was a miracle in anyway based on the evidence of which I have read.

Here is a picture page for all those who are interested. Make sure you read the story and count how many probablies, could be-s, and possiblies are in this story.

 

[Axion]

But people close to the date of the apparition are silent about the supposed visit. Imagine that. Mary herself shows up and leaves an imprint on a mantle and no one writes it down? Even the first Mexican bishop a known critic of novel images, who was said to have recieved it and built a church for the miraculous cloak, left no trace of documentation on it. He did provide bequests for his other foundations, so why not this one? Is it possible to believe that he would have made all these other provisions and leave out one that included the BVM?

You seem to swallow every bit of rubbish put out by anti-catholic polemicists. Even when it is out of date. Are you really trying to argue that the most famous apparition in the History of the Americas never happened? That Juan Diego never existed? So what happened? Somebody went out in 1640 and made up the whole story - and no-one noticed??? Please! Imagine the preposterousness of such an event. Someone in 1640 says "100 years ago the Virgin appeared here and a great pilgrimage site developed, miracles happened - and oh yes - here is a miraculous image on a Tilma which has been venerated here 100 years". And everyone accepted this statement, although no such thing ever occurred? What nonsense! We know from modern experience that Marian Apparitions occur several times a century on average. So why invent one - even if it were possible?

Toribio de Montolina, a famous historian of the sixteenth century, wrote a record of the dedication and devotion to Mary does not even mention this incident, the mantle, or Juan Diego for that matter. No other sixteenth century history of the country's religion mentions it or him either. The earliest mention of the apparition occured in 1648, 117 years after the fact, in a meditation by a Fransiscan named Miguel Sanchez who said he was relyng on oral tradition since there was no written record of the apparition.

I do get weary of people who try to argue from silence as much as anti-catholics do. Constantly they say "Why have you no original written surviving eyewitness records from 100 AD rome or 1500AD Mexico that say x." So our earliest surviving written record of the apparition dates from 1648. Our earliest surviving copy of the gospels dates from 350 AD. 350 years after the fact. Does this mean Jesus was an invention?

In fact the sanctuary is referred to long before 1640 in the Acts of the Chapter of the Cathedral of Mexico for the years 1568 and 1569; requests for indulgences and privileges; concessions of grace from the Holy See starting with Pope Gregory XIII and the testimony of Jesuits concerning Our Lady of Guadalupe

Out of the blue a document appeared in 1649. The document which was flowery at best was written in teh local language (Nahuatl) and supposedly composed shortly after Juan Diego died in 1548.

No. the written account is based on the Nican Mopohua, a Nahuatl verse account attributed to the Indio writer Antonio Valeriano (1520-1606), about whose authorship, today, the best scholars have no doubts. The poem is distinctly Indian in a way that no-one could forge who was not deeply aware of Nahuatl idioms and their view of the cosmos. A worldview almost vanished in 1640. Again it is most unlikely that in New Spain in 1600 anyone would try to forge a document in Nahuatl, a dying language of peasants. If anyone were founding a great shrine, the account would be in Spanish.

The recently discovered Codex 1548, dating from that year also refers to the events a full 100 years before the 1647 account.
http://www.interlupe.com.mx/13-e.html

What is remarkable actually beyond all that is that Mary is supposed to have appeared to this illiterate Mexican peasant, wearing European clothes. If you look at European iconography you will see a resemblance. Here is another kicker.

Thinner and thinner. Is Mary really wearing "European clothes" of the period?

This looks more like a simple shift and shawl, familiar to women worldwide, and totally unlike european dress of 1540s.

 

[SolomonVII]

Just a Random thought...(sorry to go off topic lol) to be honest I'm not sure that woman in Revelation refers to mary in particular. I beleive that the child is jesus and it makes sense in that way because mary was the earthly mother of jesus, but there are also other factors to consider; her being clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet with a crown of 12 stars. I think those symbols (or whatever) don't quite match up with the woman being mary and may mean something else. I mean the woman might not be a physical woman but more of a symbol who knows? I havn't quite got my head around it yet and I'm constantly asking God for guidance but hey I'm learning lol! if anyone has any thoughts on that I'm open. (sorry for going off track again lol) Nate

From Post 60:
...
Whereas Mary begins the Magnificat by referring to herself as the lowly servant, and Jesus understands himself to be the Suffering Servant of Isaiah, in these verses Mary now brings up the whole of Israel as God’s servant. Herein lies a need for discernment. Who is Israel?

At times, Israel is the name of the patriarch Jacob, at times Israel refers to the Hebrew nation, at times to God’s first-born Son, and, for Christians, to the whole of the Church. Furthermore, in Hosea, Israel is described as God’s bride.....

In the story of Israel is told the story of redemption, and the atonement of man with God. In Jesus, this at-one-ment with God is achieved. Not Mary, but Jesus alone is both fully human and fully divine. Mary, on the other hand is fully human, and for Catholics at least, perfectly human.

Within Israel in all his (her) rich tradition, God’s plan of atonement is accomplished. His promise is fulfilled, eternally and forever.


To your claim that the woman of revelation is Israel, this is truth in this.

Salvation and redemption through Christ Jesus at Gogoltha was the apex of a generational process that begins with God's covenant with Abraham. Jacob, patriarch of the lineage of Israel, carries on the promise through to the Davidic lineage of royalty, and on through to Mary herself.

So who is Israel? Israel is Mary! Through Mary, God's promise to Abraham and Jacob/Israel is brought to fruition.

Indeed, the fully human branch of this Abrahamic lineage culminates and is fulfilled in the person of Mary. In the person of Mary, the adultress Israel described in Hosea becomes pure and undefiled, as befitting of God's bride and queen. What Christian could possible expect any less from God's betrothed? Surely, Gomer may be loved by God, but as bride of God and Mother of God, this would be a travesty!

With the birth of Jesus, God's plan of redemption is brought to ultimate consumation and fruition, and the regal lineage of Israel becomes betrothed to God, in the person of Mary, Theotokos. God's chosen become God's own family, His own flesh and blood relatives.

Jesus was a real person, and so too must be His mother. Behind the symbolism and metaphor of the Bible and Revelation are real people of flesh and blood, as substantial as you or I. In other words, to the extent that the queen of heaven becomes projected as mere symbol, so too does the person of Jesus become likewise.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Why is it so hard for some to fathom that God would prepare a pure vessel to bring about the salvation of man, provide the Grace necessary to preserve the purity of that vessel not only in this life but taking it whole into the next to avoid the corruption of it from decay? Is it that they think our God could not do it? Or do they think it does not make sense?

Is the picture of her Son carrying His mother into that after-life so horrible? Do such beautiful thoughts really threaten thier understanding of God, Jesus and salvation?

 

[Polycarp1]

Why is it so hard for some to fathom that God would prepare a pure vessel to bring about the salvation of man, provide the Grace necessary to preserve the purity of that vessel not only in this life but taking it whole into the next to avoid the corruption of it from decay? Is it that they think our God could not do it? Or do they think it does not make sense?

Is the picture of her Son carrying His mother into that after-life so horrible? Do such beautiful thoughts really threaten thier understanding of God, Jesus and salvation?

Since nothing short of reporting every post but four in this thread will stop the Mariological hijack, I'll jump in with a response to this:

Given the caveat that it was "preventive therapy" of a mortal by her Savior, who would become her Son -- the extraordinary equivalent of baptismal regeneration done ahead of time and "from the get-go" -- I have no problem with the concept. What I do have is a problem with the dogma -- in what way is my salvation or the spreading of the Gospel or the living of a moral life following Christ's precepts influenced by whether I believe or disbelieve this datum about His mother? If it be the case that there is none, then why ought it be mandated (by Catholicism) as a dogma which it is necessary for salvation to believe? Certainly anyone who honors and respects her is welcome to believe it -- but what of those who do not? Why are they to be counted as among the goats for not buying into this concept?

 

[SumTinWong]

Why is it so hard for some to fathom that God would prepare a pure vessel to bring about the salvation of man, provide the Grace necessary to preserve the purity of that vessel not only in this life but taking it whole into the next to avoid the corruption of it from decay? Is it that they think our God could not do it? Or do they think it does not make sense?

There is nothing hard nor threatening about at all. I think it is a beautiful story, with the key word being story. Why it is hard for us to fathom or except this doctrine is that none of the Apostles mention it in any way. John does not mention the virgin birth or the story leading up to it. He was put in charge of the care Mary and yet he never mentions her assumption, or any of the other "traditions" like the IC. Neither does Mark. Matthew mentions the birth, but skips the magnificat altogether.

Luke's account has a more detailed account of the early years for a lack of a better term. Luke says: "Now many have undertaken to compile an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, like the accounts passed on to us by those who were eyewitnesses and servants of the word from the beginning. So it seemed good to me as well, because I have followed all things carefully from the beginning, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know for certain the things you were taught."

So Luke had been following this story from the beginning and he wanted to make a written record of what transpired. In this record he gives the lineage of Jesus. He tells a more in depth story about the visits from the angel to everyone involved, etc... Now he is writing this to Theophilus so that he can know for certain the things he heard were true. Some will say that the PV and the IC were tradition passed on from these times. Can we say for certain after reading this text that these things are true? No. So to me this lack of mentioning is a big road block in my belief that any of this ever happend the way it is told now.

Is the picture of her Son carrying His mother into that after-life so horrible? Do such beautiful thoughts really threaten thier understanding of God, Jesus and salvation?

No but this is no ordinary Son, this is Jesus the Christ, 100% God 100% man. I have no doubt that he loves His mother and she is there with Him with every other Saint, but I do not need to create a story and call it a doctrine to make it so. You call these thoughts beautiful. I call them pointless. To me the point is not the relationship between mother and Son it is a relationship between God and all of mankind. I have said I respect Mary for what she did, and when I get to heaven I will thank her myself.

So the thought of Jesus taking up His mother into heaven is not a horrible one, it is an unnecessary conclusion to an age old question that I have no reason or will to ask. The thought never comes into my mind, what happend to Mary? I believe God is faithful and just and will do right by all the saints, and that is good enough for me.

 

[Axion]

There is nothing hard nor threatening about at all. I think it is a beautiful story, with the key word being story. Why it is hard for us to fathom or except this doctrine is that none of the Apostles mention it in any way. John does not mention the virgin birth or the story leading up to it. He was put in charge of the care Mary and yet he never mentions her assumption, or any of the other "traditions" like the IC. Neither does Mark. Matthew mentions the birth, but skips the magnificat altogether.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. If every Apostle has to mention everything for it to be church teaching, you are presumably arguing that the virgin birth and the magnificat are doubtful. (Which some critics do, of course).

The fact that John does not mention the Virgin Birth should give some hint of why he does not mention other things in his gospel. He is concerned with a very limited agenda, which is the last period of Jesus's life and His teachings about Himself. He ends with the resurrection, and doesn't even include the Ascension of Jesus. Yet you expect him to include the Assumption, which is far outside the timescale of his Gospel.

As John himself says. 21.25 But Jesus did many other things; if all were written down, the world itself would not hold the books recording them.

In fact in Revelation 12 John does reference the Virgin Mary, crowned in heaven, but this again is part of the greater story of human redemption.

Luke's account has a more detailed account of the early years for a lack of a better term. Luke says: "Now many have undertaken to compile an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, like the accounts passed on to us by those who were eyewitnesses and servants of the word from the beginning. So it seemed good to me as well, because I have followed all things carefully from the beginning, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know for certain the things you were taught."

So Luke had been following this story from the beginning and he wanted to make a written record of what transpired. In this record he gives the lineage of Jesus. He tells a more in depth story about the visits from the angel to everyone involved, etc... Now he is writing this to Theophilus so that he can know for certain the things he heard were true. Some will say that the PV and the IC were tradition passed on from these times. Can we say for certain after reading this text that these things are true? No. So to me this lack of mentioning is a big road block in my belief that any of this ever happend the way it is told now.

Again. This is based on circular reasoning. The gospels never say that they contain everything about salvation history. Luke is telling the story of Jesus and the earliest days of the church. These are his subjects. This is what he is telling all he knows about. Not everything in salvation history! He doesn't even mention everything that happened on the cross. His purpose is to confirm the truth of the accounts of these things that Theophilus has been told. Note that he does not mention the important event of the martyrdom of Paul, whose story he tells in great detail up to his imprisonment in Rome. Pauls end, like Mary's is outside the timescale of the subject he was writing about.

All you are doing is rehearsing the unscriptural protestant doctrine of sola scriptura.

No but this is no ordinary Son, this is Jesus the Christ, 100% God 100% man. I have no doubt that he loves His mother and she is there with Him with every other Saint, but I do not need to create a story and call it a doctrine to make it so. .

Here you are claiming, with no proof at all, that the Church (All the Ancient Churches) have created a story. The same story from the Catholic, Orthodox, Armenian, Syriac, Oriental and Coptic Churches. If this story was created, then where are all the Christians of the time objecting to the invention? These people were dying and being tortured for their faith rather than toast the luck of the Emperor. But you claim that someone decided for some reason to invent stories about the Virgin Mary's Assumption, and sinlessness, and no-one objected? We have major schisms at this time, lasting hundreds of years, over minute issues, yet no-one, anywhere in the world objects when someone (for whatever curious reason) decides to invent the doctrine that Mary Ascended into heaven.

You call these thoughts beautiful. I call them pointless. To me the point is not the relationship between mother and Son it is a relationship between God and all of mankind

The point is that Mary's Assumption into heaven is an earnest and confirmation of the promises of Christ to all who endure with Him. Jesus promised a place at His side. Mary has a place there now. Jesus promised a crown of glory, Mary has that crown.

I have said I respect Mary for what she did, and when I get to heaven I will thank her myself.

No doubt she'll be thrilled.

So the thought of Jesus taking up His mother into heaven is not a horrible one, it is an unnecessary conclusion to an age old question that I have no reason or will to ask. The thought never comes into my mind, what happend to Mary? I believe God is faithful and just and will do right by all the saints, and that is good enough for me.

The question then arises, why deny the historic teaching of the Church on this matter, and claim that it is somehow invented and fraudulent? Such charges speak of more than the claimed disinterest and neutrality.

 

[katherine2001]

Also, the Early Church wrote the New Testament. If she created stories, then how do you know that the events depicted in the New Testament are really happened? How do you know that they weren't "created" too?

 

[SumTinWong]

Actually no one would know about these events today without the written word. Actually that is not really a true statement. The church has handed down these same thoughts from the very beginning as well. But, stories and legends that have been created over time and then meted out as oral traditions are what I do not buy into. We have no proof that John or Paul or even Peter thought or taught these things they are said to be orally handed down. How very conveinient. We do however have written proof of what they did teach and that is what I personally hold to.

The circular question that comes to mind is how do you know that these oral traditions are really as old as they say they are and If they were oral there is no written record, so how do we know that they are genuine?

 

[In Christ Forever]

The fact that John does not mention the Virgin Birth should give some hint of why he does not mention other things in his gospel. He is concerned with a very limited agenda, which is the last period of Jesus's life and His teachings about Himself. He ends with the resurrection, and doesn't even include the Ascension of Jesus. Yet you expect him to include the Assumption, which is far outside the timescale of his Gospel.

As John himself says. 21.25 But Jesus did many other things; if all were written down, the world itself would not hold the books recording them.

In fact in Revelation 12 John does reference the Virgin Mary, crowned in heaven, but this again is part of the greater story of human redemption.

How do arrive at the conclusion that it is "Mary" represented as the Woman?
It indeed shows "her" bearing a manchild that is then caught up to God, but also remember Christ was born through the Holy Spirit and was the Son of God. The woman could represent the Glory of God or even the Holy Spirit. You have to look beyong "names" in the bible and look at who Christ was and what He represented.
I really don't dwell on Mary that much because of the fact that God stated that Christ was His beloved Son, not Mary's, but women[daughters of God] are the ones that give birth to God's children and rear them, so woman are indeed blessed in this way.
Mary Magdalene, at least to me, appears just as important in the bible. I noticed this parallel in Songs that appears to resemble her. Just thought it was interesting. God bless.

matt 26:6 And when Jesus was in Bethany at the house of Simon the leper, 7 a woman came to Him having an alabaster flask of very costly fragrant oil, and she poured [it] on His head as He sat [at the table.] 8 But when His disciples saw [it,] they were indignant, saying, "Why this waste? 9 "For this fragrant oil might have been sold for much and given to [the] poor." 10 But when Jesus was aware of [it,] He said to them, "Why do you trouble the woman? For she has done a good work for Me. 11 "For you have the poor with you always, but Me you do not have always. 12 "For in pouring this fragrant oil on My body, she did [it] for My burial.

Song 1:10 Your cheeks are lovely with ornaments, Your neck with chains [of gold.] THE DAUGHTERS OF JERUSALEM 11 We will make you ornaments of gold With studs of silver. THE SHULAMITE 12 While the king [is] at his table, My spikenard sends forth its fragrance. 13 A bundle of myrrh [is] my beloved to me, That lies all night between my breasts. 14 My beloved [is] to me a cluster of henna [blooms] In the vineyards of En Gedi. THE BELOVED

It is hard for me to picture this as Mary myself, but to those who do, I see no problem with it. It is an awsome vision though. This is either historical of Christ being born, or symbolical of those in Christ who are reborn and resurrected. I am studying on this a bit.
Revelation 12:1 Now a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a garland of twelve stars. 2 Then being with child, she cried out in labor and in pain to give birth. 5 She bore a male Child who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron. And her Child was caught up to God and His throne.

 

[SolomonVII]

Protestants fail to realize that by questioning the dogma painstakingly established by the Church, they are not just questioning the authority of the Church as institution, but they are also questioning the ultimate authority of the Christian teaching itself.
Is there any item of Christian faith, or of God's plan that is non-essential? Is there even a drop of the blood of the Lamb that is not precious and spilled unecessarily?
Old Testament and New Testament, written scripture and oral tradition are all intricately weaved into a complex tapestry that exists as a whole as God's plan of redemption and salvation. The central dogma of the crucifixion of Jesus did not-indeed could not- have arisen in a cultural vacuum. The nature and status of Mary is very much a part of this 'story' and is instrumental in providing context and meaning.

Pulling at this or that loose thread poses a very real danger of unravelling the whole of the weave.

In fact, for the greater portion of the former lands of Christendom, this unravelling is in fact already a fait accompli. People, and not just non-Christians- are constantly asking why did Jesus have to die for our sins. In all sincerity, they have no idea.
Indeed, how could they!
As a singular event, the sacrifice at Golgotha is baffling in terms of how it could effect our salvation. To even begin to start to understand, we need to be supplied with the rest of the story. The role that Mary plays in the rest of the story is central to its meaning.

 

[SumTinWong]

As a singular event, the sacrifice at Golgotha is baffling in terms of how it could effect our salvation. To even begin to start to understand, we need to be supplied with the rest of the story. The role that Mary plays in the rest of the story is central to its meaning.

I personally feel that the written testimony given by the Apostles IS the rest of the story. Adding to it after the fact seems to me to be dishonest. If they had intended anyone to hear such things, if in fact they were taught, they would have included them in the writings. That is my opinion.

To understand what God did for me, I do not have to meditate or even think about Mary beyond what the scripture says. I choose to meditate and think about Jesus the Christ, The Holy Spirit, and God the Father.

 

[SumTinWong]

Anyway I think we have hijacked this thread long enough. I have said what I feel and stand by it. If you all want to continue this in a PM session or whatever, but I am giving the thread back to the OP.