Assumption of Mary


#1

#1 Assumption of Mary

My brothers and sisters in Christ, I am not questioning either your holy hearts (which God has given you) or your righteousness (you are the righteousness of God in Christ), but that which is OUTSIDE of you: traditions; words: specifically, words about Marianology - and about her Assumption into Heaven.

Some maintain that Mary was assumed into Heaven - and rest on Revelation 12
"A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; and she was with child; and she cried out, being in labor and in pain to give birth." Rev 12:1,2

If you examine the individual parts of this Scripture, and understand them biblically, you will understand very clearly that this woman is not Mary, but the Heavenly Jerusalem.

People have said on this forum that you and I are Mary’s children - well, not according to reality, whereof Paul spoke:

"But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother.
For it is written,
“REJOICE, BARREN WOMAN WHO DOES NOT BEAR;
BREAK FORTH AND SHOUT, YOU WHO ARE NOT IN LABOR;
FOR MORE NUMEROUS ARE THE CHILDREN OF THE DESOLATE
THAN OF THE ONE WHO HAS A HUSBAND.” **Gal 4:26, 27 **

What can I say to substantiate this?
Only the words that filled God’s heart, which He then spoke in Psalms:

"Indeed, of Zion it will be said, “This one and that one were born in her, and the Most High himself will establish her.” Psalm 87:5

And if you want to know that Jerusalem is related to or called Mt. Zion, only read,

“But you have come to ***Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the Heavenly Jerusalem *** (the Mother of us all), and to myriads of angels…” Heb 12:22

So, ***Mt. Zion ***upon which Jerusalem is built (Jerusalem is a city on a hill) is called ‘her’. God spoke on this wise extensively through the Prophets, calling Jerusalem of old a “slut”; unfaithful to Him.

Where else can you find Jesus being born out of Mt. Zion/Jerusalem, as is protrayed in Rev 12?
In Daniel 2, we see that Jesus was taken out of a certain Mountain:
“Inasmuch as you saw that a stone (Jesus) was cut out of the mountain (what Mountain? Mount Zion) without hands…” Daniel 2:45

So, Mt. Zion/Jerusalem Gal 4:26 gave birth to the stone Dan 2:45, Jesus, and Jerusalem is also the mother of us all Gal 4:26, who are referred to in the following verses of Revelation 12, in verse 17

“So the dragon was enraged with the woman, and went off to make war with the rest of her children, who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus.” Revelation 12:17

Well, let’s understand what the crown of 12 stars that Jerusalem wear is, then.

Rev 21:12 speaks of the gates of New Jerusalem, wherein her 12 gates are being guarded by 12 angels, which 12 angels correspond to the “crown of 12 stars” which she is wearing in Rev 12:1, 2.

Why do I think the stars in Rev 12 are speaking of angels in Rev 21:12?

In the Bible, stars always speak of “sons of God”.
"Wait a second, only Christians are sons of God."
No, the Scriptures say, “As many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God.” - and angels are led by the Spirit of God; for this reason, the Bible calls them sons of God.

When they fell from their proper position to take wives for themselves of the daughters of women:

“And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day” Jude 1:6
+
"…that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose." Gen 6:2

So, that proves that angels are the sons of God, but how can you understand, Biblically, that sons of God are often symbolically referred to as “stars”?

Well, for one, the sons of God (who are humans) will shine as the stars of heaven:

“Those who have insight will shine brightly like the brightness of the expanse of heaven, and those who lead the many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever.” Daniel 12:3

As for angelic beings being shown as sons of God, you can read:

“When the morning stars sang togetherAnd all the sons of God shouted for joy?” Job 38:7

And the symbolic sons of God who will fall away (the end cannot come unless there first comes a falling away 2 Th 2:3; 1 Tim 4:1) :

“It grew up to the host of heaven and caused some of the host and some of the stars to fall to the earth, and it trampled them down” Daniel 8:10

And of sons of God who have fallen away…
“These are the men …wandering stars…” Jude 1:12, 13
These men, who had been given the Spirit, went off course, and are now wandering… but were MEANT to be sons of God, and are therefore referred to as stars.

Now that you see that sons of God are called stars, that angels are a class of children of God, you can see that the sons of God in Rev 21:12 are the stars in Rev 12:1, 2 so you could see that the woman is not Mary but the Heavenly Jerusalem.

#2 Sinless Mary
People say that Mary was sinless: if this were true, there would be no need for the sword (Jesus, the Word Heb 4:12) to penetrate her own soul Luke 2:34,35.

The sacrifices given to the Israelites could never take away their sins **Heb 10:4 **- and Mary, being born of sinful parents, being born into the first Adam, was born into sin:
“For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.” 1 Cor 15:22

And Mary was born in the first Adam, as the new birth was not available at the time she was born, therefore she was born into spiritual death and sin, though she was a chaste woman, as also other saints in the old testament were, including Enoch, who God loved so much that he took into Heaven, Elijah, Elisha, Moses, Daniel, Job, Noah, and many more (these are just names off the top of my head.)

“Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me.” Psalm 51:5

  • speaking of the state of every human being.

I would love to be Catholic, because I would love to enjoy the sacraments, but I cannot submit my faith to something God has not set forth as truth.


#2

Daniel, you have just posted one the most twisted bits of n-C interpretation I have ever seen. I couldn’t disagree more…:shrug:

Here’s some articles from my own Catholic blog.
Reasons Why I Believe in The Blessed Virgin Mary’s Assumption

The Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

These are from the online library here at CAF.
**
Immaculate Conception and Assumption

Mary: Full of Grace**


#3

dan << I would love to be Catholic, because I would love to enjoy the sacraments, but I cannot submit my faith to something God has not set forth as truth. >>

I don’t have a response to your biblical arguments at this time, others might. But I like to link my articles on the Assumption / Immaculate Conception:

The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary (based on Juniper Carol, etc)

The Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God (based on Juniper Carol, Bishop Ullathorne, etc)

Covers the whole history, some of the biblical arguments, some of the historical arguments for/against, and the final decisions of the Church.

Note also that some “Christians” have problems with the Trinity from the Bible and history (they are called Arians or Unitarians). Other “Christians” have problems with the New Testament, the Gospels, or certain epistles, as not inspired, or not genuine, or containing “mistakes” (they are called modernists, liberals, or to some – “biblical scholars”). They use the same kind of logic, interpreting various texts by private interpretation or various scholarship, and even going beyond the texts to get at the real truth about the “historical Jesus.”

There has to be some authority to reign in all this speculation and/or private interpretation. That authority is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. The same authority that finally decided on the Trinity, the canon of the New Testament, and the Marian doctrines.

Phil P


#4

It’s twisted (to YOU) because it disagrees with your thoughts; not because it disagrees with Scripture.

Those are some nice links you have, and they hold pretty good arguments according to “reason”; however, Scripture is above reasoning; it is fact in and of itself - and the Scriptures I listed that make me believe what I believe have yet to have been addressed.

Very simply, the world is not Catholic, but God’s, and His truth will stand for ever.


#5

Well, brother, the truth is in the Scriptures, just read it for yourself… “Come, let us reason together…” Is 2 (God speaking)


#6

dan << Well, brother, the truth is in the Scriptures, just read it for yourself… “Come, let us reason together…” Is 2 (God speaking) >>

Yes, and if we were doing this in person, I would ask you “where do you think you got the Scriptures?” and I wouldn’t budge on that question until you give me a satisfactory and correct answer. :thumbsup: I’ll cut to the chase. :stuck_out_tongue: The correct answer is: the Catholic Church. That’s how we know “the truth is in the Scriptures.”

THEN we can move to the Marian doctrines. As I said, people make what they think are strong arguments against the Trinity, or against any doctrine you can name. According to you, we are at a standstill with such people. They believe the Trinity is not taught in the Scriptures (they are called Arians or Unitarians), and others do (they are called orthodox). Both consider themselves “Christians” and believe “the truth is in the Scriptures.” Hence we are stuck, there is no way to resolve who is right according to you.

Phil P


#7

One more point after reading your post again, there is no problem with believing those texts you cite have both a fulfillment in the Church (or Israel) AND in Mary, the mother of God and mother of the Church. It is not either/or, but BOTH/AND. In fact, many of the Fathers (at least from St. Ambrose forward I believe) had such a dual interpretation. The truth is in the Scriptures: Mary is a type of the Church.

From a Calvinist theologian Max Thurian (at the time Protestant, 20 years later he became a Catholic):

Mary, the Daughter of Zion, the virgin of Israel, the Dwelling of God, and the Ark of the Covenant! These titles serve to indicate that Mary is the place where God’s final visitation of His people is taking place. Already the prophet had united the symbols of the woman and the dwelling in speaking of Israel whom God would visit and dwell in (cf. Jeremiah 31:3-6; Isaiah 62:5,11,12). The fusion of these two images, the Daughter of Zion and the Dwelling of God, used by the messianic prophet is complete in the symbolism relating to the Church in the last time, when the people of God (of whom Mary is the type) shall be renewed (Rev 21:1-3). The new Jerusalem, the transfigured Church, is thus indicated at the same time by these images of the holy city, the young woman betrothed, the Tabernacle, and the Holy Tent which sheltered the divine Presence in the desert. Moreover, in the book of Revelation our vision is directed to the double symbol of the Temple and the Woman, the dwelling-place (or New Ark of the Covenant) of God our Savior.

“Then God’s temple in heaven was opened and the ark of the covenant was seen within his temple…and a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun…” (Rev 11:19; 12:1).

Mary, who is the embodiment of the Church, the Daughter of Zion, and the Dwelling of God on the day of the Incarnation, will take her place once more in the heart of the people of God, and after having been the Ark of the Covenant by bearing the Son of God, she will be like any member of the mystical Body of His Son, the Church, the Dwelling of God, who bears Him spiritually in her heart. But, because of her unique vocation as the Mother of God, she will remain the privileged type of the Church, the symbol of a virginal motherhood which the Church will have to re-live without ceasing in its ministry as Mother of the Faithful.

Thus Mary, the Mother of the Lord, who has borne the physical body of Christ and is the dwelling of God and the Ark of the Covenant, remains the figure of motherhood for the Church; as a spiritual mother, the Holy Church gives birth to the members of the Body of Christ, the faithful, by her own life, by the Word of God and the Sacraments of His Presence. And they in their turn become temples of the Holy Spirit, and find in Mary the example which encourages them in that purity of heart and of body which, having been redeemed, belong henceforth only to God; they bear God with them and witness to His glory which dwells in them in fullness.

(see Thurian, Mary: Mother of All Christians [Herder, 1964], chapter 4 “Dwelling of God”, pages 42-55).

The truth is in the Scriptures, brother, and Max Thurian knew that. A little deeper in the Scriptures. :thumbsup:

Phil P


#8

Wasn’t there actually a time the church did not want the people to even have the Scriptures for themselves, despite the fact that it is through abiding in Jesus’ words alone that a person could become sanctified?

I do not think that we are stuck; I think that we MUST have unity Psalm 133 in order to have eternal life; and this will come by being of the same mind: love and truth, so I am trying to join you, but first ask you not to make me believe the things I am convicted by Scripture are not true. :smiley:


#9

Mary is *part *of the church - and she is NOT the new Eve. If Jesus is the last Adam, why on earth would Mary, his mother, be the new Eve? Eve was taken out of Adam when he was put into a deep sleep; the church, the bride, was taken out of the side of Jesus when he was put into a deep sleep (when He died).

If you want to know Jesus’ feelings towards flesh and blood (mother and sister, etc.,), listen to His words. Jesus never told people to do anything He Himself didn’t practice:

"Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.

But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?

  • And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! *

For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother. Matt 12:47-50

I know Mary was obedient to God, for this reason alone, He continued to call her ‘mother’, because she was a disciple of His.

“If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” Luke 14:26

His thinking is clearly seen in John

“Jesus saith unto her, ‘Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.’” John 2:4

She had interrupted Jesus, and was not right; nevertheless, Jesus was given grace to perform the miracle. His hour had not yet come, and yet His mother did not discern this. He called her ‘woman’, meaning he was talking to her in a way to separate Himself from her, just as He did when satan used Peter to cast a stumbling block in front of Him, just not to the same degree.

“But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men.” Mark 8:33

Can you not see that you, too, are “savouring not the things that be of god, but the things that be of men.”? A mere man loves his mother; a disciple of God’s mother are those who obey their Father in Heaven: obedience is “in the family”: all others, whether by blood relation or religious affiliation, have nothing to do with them. Mary was a humble, obedient disciple; for this reason, Jesus called her, ‘mother.’


#10

dan << Wasn’t there actually a time the church did not want the people to even have the Scriptures for themselves, despite the fact that it is through abiding in Jesus’ words alone that a person could become sanctified? >>

No, that is incorrect. Quote something other than Dave Hunt, Jack Chick, or Loraine Boettner, and I might believe you on the point. This is an historical question, so you need to cite reputable historical scholars. There is no time where “the church did not want the people to even have the Scriptures for themselves.” I would suggest Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church by Henry G. Graham (here is a short review). The author was a Protestant, but became Catholic. An excerpt from the book here. A little of his biography here.

If abiding in Jesus’ words alone we become sanctified, how do we know what Jesus’ words are? Again, we are back to the authority of the Church, the trustworthiness of the Church, what the Scriptures call “the pillar and ground [or foundation] of the truth.” That is, the Church of the living God (1 Tim 3:15). From the Church, we get the full canon of the Scriptures. From the Church we know the Scriptures are true.

dan << I do not think that we are stuck; I think that we MUST have unity Psalm 133 in order to have eternal life; and this will come by being of the same mind: love and truth, so I am trying to join you, but first ask you not to make me believe the things I am convicted by Scripture are not true. >>

We are indeed stuck. What if your conviction by Scripture is wrong? You haven’t answered my two questions:

(1) How do we know “the truth is in the Scriptures” ? WHY should we believe “the truth is in the Scriptures” ? Where do you think you GOT those Scriptures?

(2) How do we resolve disputes between so-called “Christian brothers” who disagree in their interpretation of the Scriptures?

These are very basic questions that must be answered before we go attacking (or analyzing) the Catholic (and Orthodox) Marian doctrines.

Both (1) and (2) have good Catholic answers based on the Bible and history (the Fathers, the Councils, the Popes, etc), but I do not think have Protestant fundamentalist or evangelical answers. At least I haven’t seen any.

To go back to the topic of the thread, Mary is a type of the Church. All the texts you apply to the Church (or Israel, or Zion, etc) can equally apply to Mary, the mother of God and mother of the Church.

Phil P


#11

dan << Mary is part of the church - and she is NOT the new Eve. If Jesus is the last Adam, why on earth would Mary, his mother, be the new Eve? Eve was taken out of Adam when he was put into a deep sleep; the church, the bride, was taken out of the side of Jesus when he was put into a deep sleep (when He died). >>

I’ll answer this first part. Mary is the New Eve for the following reasons:

The similarity and contrast between Mary and Eve

Mary is the Second or New Eve. Mary is, on the one hand, a replica of Eve in her purity and integrity before the Fall (i.e. sinless), on the other hand, the antitype of Eve, in so far as Eve is the cause of corruption, and Mary the cause of salvation.

St. Ephrem (c. 330) teaches: “Mary and Eve, two people without guilt, two simple people, were identical. Later, however, one became the cause of our death, the other the cause of our life” (Op syr II, 327). St. Justin Martyr (c. 100 - 167) was perhaps the first to invoke this beautiful antithesis:

“While still a virgin and without corruption, Eve received into her heart the word of the serpent and thereby conceived disobedience and death. Mary the Virgin, her soul full of faith and joy, replied to the angel Gabriel who brought her glad tidings: ‘Be it done to me according to thy word.’ To her was born He of whom so many things are said in the Scriptures.” (St. Justin, Dial Tryph Jud 100; cf. St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Adv haer III:22:4; Tertullian, De carne Christi 17).

Genesis 3:15 (the Protoevangelium)

The literal sense of the passage: Between Satan and his followers on the one hand, and Eve and her posterity on the other hand, there is to be constant moral warfare. The posterity of Eve will achieve a complete and final victory over Satan and his followers, even if it is wounded in the struggle. The posterity of Eve includes the Messiah, in whose power humanity will win a victory over Satan. Thus the passage is indirectly messianic.

The seed of the woman was understood as referring to the Redeemer, and thus the Mother of the Redeemer came to be seen in the woman. Since the second century this direct messianic-Marian interpretation has been expounded by individual Fathers, e.g. St. Irenaeus, St. Cyprian, St. Ephrem, St. Epiphanius, Isidore of Pelusium, St. Leo the Great, etc.

“The knot of Eve’s disobedience was untied by Mary’s obedience. What Eve bound through her unbelief, Mary loosed by her faith.” (Irenaeus, Adv Haer 3:22; PG 7:959-60; Gambero, page 54)

“Adam had to be recapitulated in Christ, so that death might be swallowed up in immortality, and Eve in Mary, so that the Virgin, having become another virgin’s advocate, might destroy and abolish one virgin’s disobedience by the obedience of another virgin.” (Irenaeus, Proof of the Apostolic Preaching 33; Gambero, page 55)

“It is written in the prophet Isaiah…‘Behold a virgin shall conceive in her womb and bear a son…’ [Isa 7:14]…God had predicted that the seed destined to crush the head of the devil would come forth from a woman. In Genesis, it is written: ‘I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your seed and hers. He will crush your head and you will strike at his heel’ [Gen 3:15].” (Cyprian, Book of Testimonies 2:9; PL 4:704; Gambero, page 93)

“Because the serpent had struck Eve with his claw, the foot of Mary bruised him.” (Ephraem, Diatessaron 10:13; Gambero, page 116-7)

According to this interpretation, Mary stands with Christ in a perfect and victorious enmity towards Satan and his following.

Many of the later scholastics and a great many modern theologians argue that Mary’s victory over Satan would not have been perfect, if she had ever been under his dominion. Consequently she must have entered this world without the stain of original sin. Pope Pius IX’s defining bull Ineffabilis Deus approves this messianic-marianic interpretation. It draws from it the inference that Mary, in consequence of her intimate association with Christ, “with Him and through Him had eternal enmity towards the poisonous serpent, triumphed in the most complete fashion over him, and crushed its head with her immaculate foot.”

It is sometimes mentioned at this point that while the Latin Vulgate (i.e. Douay-Rheims translation) indeed reads “she shall crush,” the original Hebrew of Genesis 3:15 reads “he [or it] shall crush” –

“I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.” (Genesis 3:15 Douay-Rheims; Latin Vulgate: inimicitias ponam inter te et mulierem et semen tuum et semen illius ipsa conteret caput tuum et tu insidiaberis calcaneo eius)

“And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” (Genesis 3:15 ASV; the KJV has “it”)

Despite the differences in translation, the early Fathers saw Mary and Christ together crushing the serpent’s head (Gen 3:15; cf. Romans 16:20; 1 Cor 15:22,25; Rev 12:1,17). Other Old Testament women who “crush the head” of enemies should be noted: Jael (cf. Judges 4-5) and Judith (OT book of Judith).

“Beyond general points of correspondence, the common denominator linking together the experiences of Jael and Judith is the violent downfall of God’s adversaries. Both women were chosen to strike down the commanding officer of enemy forces with a lethal blow to the head. The question that immediately presents itself to us is obvious: What possible connections could such brutal details have with the quiet life of Mary? In what specific way was she really like these biblical heroines? …[citing Genesis 3:15] With this promise, God announces far in advance of its fulfillment that the devil’s triumph in the Garden of Eden would eventually end in defeat, with his head being crushed or bruised under the trampling blows of the Messiah and His mother.” (Curtis Mitch, Catholic For a Reason II, page 56)

Do you have better reasons why Mary is not the New Eve along with Jesus the New Adam? Do you have any Fathers that DENY Mary is the New Eve? Do you have any SCRIPTURES that DENY Mary is the New Eve?

Phil P


#12

I would take note of this last point, because it is an indirect nod to His mother; no one can argue that Mary did His will perfectly, and here Jesus makes an indirect reference to her.

She had interrupted Jesus, and was not right; nevertheless, Jesus was given grace to perform the miracle. His hour had not yet come, and yet His mother did not discern this.

What is interesting to note here though is despite His seeming protest, He still obeyed her. Jesus was reluctant then to reveal Himself, yet in the end trusted in Mary’s judgment and obeyed her. So as you can see, Mary actually was able to discern this and guided her Son, as indeed we can see that this was also His Father’s will (or else Jesus could have simply ignored the request).

He called her ‘woman’, meaning he was talking to her in a way to separate Himself from her

Quite a few, I would think, will point out here that this is cultural more than anything else, as in His time that term was rather respectful towards females in general.


#13

And then read Mary’s last recorded words:

"Do whatever He tells you."

Mary here was functioning as mother of the King, the one person who did not require anyone’s permission, including His, to speak. She interceded for the wedding guests, and the result was an abundance of fine wine - check out how many jars, how many gallons.

WOW!


#14

**Genesis 5:24 **

Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him.

**Hebrews 11:5 **
By faith Enoch was taken up so that he would not see death; AND HE WAS NOT FOUND BECAUSE GOD TOOK HIM UP; for he obtained the witness that before his being taken up he was pleasing to God.

Enoch was bodily assumed into heaven without dying. Would God do any less for Mary the Ark of the New Covenant?

2 Kings 2:11-12

11As they were going along and talking, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire and horses of fire which separated the two of them. And Elijah went up by a whirlwind to heaven.

**12Elisha saw it **and cried out, “My father, my father, the chariots of Israel and its horsemen!” And he saw **Elijah no more **Then he took hold of his own clothes and tore them in two pieces.

Elijah was assumed into heaven in fiery chariot. Jesus would not do any less for His Blessed Mother.

1 Thessalonians 4:17

17Then **we who are alive **and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord.

**
2 Thessalonians 2:15 **

15So then, brethren, **stand firm and hold **to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

Scripture Catholic
scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html#the_bvm-VI

We follow Scripture too:shrug: We also believe that nothing is impossible for God.


#15

Nope…you’re dead wrong here too. I’d fire whoever taught you that junk.
Did the Catholic Church Keep the Bible From Being Translated Into the Vernacular Languages?

Do Catholics Read the Bible?

I do not think that we are stuck; I think that we MUST have unity Psalm 133 in order to have eternal life; and this will come by being of the same mind: love and truth, so I am trying to join you, but first ask you not to make me believe the things I am convicted by Scripture are not true. :smiley:

You’re not convicted by scripture, you’re convicted by having been grossly misled by preachers and teachers who use the Bible to mislead you. I know because I was too. My Testimony

That’s precisely why St. James writes in his 3rd chapter, “1] Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, for you know that we who teach shall be judged with greater strictness.”


#16

my main wonder is why the church hasn’t defined whether she died or not and then assumed. ive come to the conclusion that she was still alive, since she was free from sin she would be free from the consequences, e.g. death.

is this thinking in/out of line?


#17

Mary was free from sin - yes and so was Jesus and yet he died. I am not at all sure in my mind whether Mary Died or not but I am inclined to believe that she did. Her lack of sin is the reason I firmly believe that she was assumed.
Not all our belief is founded on Scripture - as Catholics we also look to tradition and this is where Daniel needs explore his question
Peace/Blessings


#18

right, jesus gave himself though.

i would also think that the death from sin wouldnt include death thats inflicted upon you by others, only the freedom of death from sickness and natural age.

of course i guess if we didnt have sin people probably wouldnt be killing each other so its a moot point. lol


#19

Oh, I’m sorry. Your post doesn’t disagree with scripture…Scripture disagrees with your posted interpretation.

**Those are some nice links you have, and they hold pretty good arguments according to “reason”; however, Scripture is above reasoning; it is fact in and of itself **

  • and the Scriptures I listed that make me believe what I believe have yet to have been addressed.Here again you are wrong. Because the scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit , who is the perfect third person of the Holy Trinity, they are not above reason, they are, (when properly understood) the perfect reason. My articles are not based upon the carnal reasoning of men, but the perfect God given logic of His Spirit and His Word.

Very simply, the world is not Catholic, but God’s, and His

truth will stand for ever.The world should be Catholic.

You’re right though, His fullness of truth has stood for 2,000 years and will indeed stand forever.

Some maintain that Mary was assumed into Heaven - and rest on Revelation 12
"A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; and she was with child; and she cried out, being in labor and in pain to give birth." Rev 12:1,2

I hate to tell you this, but I know of no authentic an d authoritative Catholic teaching that uses this passage to support the Assumption, and I didn’t either. :stuck_out_tongue:

If you examine the individual parts of this Scripture, and understand them biblically, you will understand very clearly that this woman is not Mary, but the Heavenly Jerusalem.

Where in that passage in Revelation 12, does it anywhere even hint that the woman clothed with the sun is the New Jerusalem. I defy you to point it out to me because I know the passage well and it’s simply not there. This is exactly what I meant by how grossly twisted your interpretation is. By all means show me where this idea is even remotely inferred.

People have said on this forum that you and I are Mary’s children - well, not according to reality, whereof Paul spoke:

Here, I’ll refer you back to the passage in Revelation 12 which actually does support this. In verse 17 it plainly says, [FONT=“Palatino Linotype”]"[17] Then the dragon was angry with the woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus. And he stood on the sand of the sea." Her children, Christians. Now, we will readily admit that there multiple meanings and fulfillments to this passage, so that it can and does also apply to the church, but it also plainly shows that Mary is who it speaks of (notice the reference to the flight into Egypt with the infant Jesus!).

"But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother.
For it is written,
“REJOICE, BARREN WOMAN WHO DOES NOT BEAR;
BREAK FORTH AND SHOUT, YOU WHO ARE NOT IN LABOR;
FOR MORE NUMEROUS ARE THE CHILDREN OF THE DESOLATE
THAN OF THE ONE WHO HAS A HUSBAND.” Gal 4:26, 27

Here you quote Galatians 4 but read it in context and see who Paul is writing to. Jewish converts suffering from the teachings of the Judaizers. Here again, the faithful Catholic has no problem with the Word of God, but disagrees with your interpretation of a passage taken out of context.

"Indeed, of Zion it will be said, “This one and that one were born in her, and the Most High himself will establish her.” Psalm 87:5

This verse is clearly a prophecy of the end of the Diaspora and the joy of the Jews (Very evident today) as, at long last, Jewish children are born in their own land.

And if you want to know that Jerusalem is related to or called Mt. Zion, only read,

"But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the Heavenly Jerusalem (the Mother of us all

), and to myriads of angels…" Heb 12:22

So, Mt. Zion upon which Jerusalem is built (Jerusalem is a city on a hill) is called ‘her’. God spoke on this wise extensively through the Prophets, calling Jerusalem of old a “slut”; unfaithful to Him.Yeah… Somebody took out their Bible and mapped it all out for you didn’t they? I have seen that so many times, and it’s terrible. Here’s a link to Hebrews 12 Daniel, and that “mother of us all” stuff is nowhere in that passage either, and especially not in the verse that you cited.

See, this is what is so wrong about so many of the modern post reformation n-C step children. They grab up a Bible and a Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, jump up in their pulpits and teach people grossly twisted interpretations of passages of the Word of God as if they are Holy Spirit inspired gospel truth when in fact, all it is is the twisted interpretations of men. What a shame! Based on what St. James says about teachers, I wouldn’t want to have to account for such teaching and preaching. :eek:

Where else can you find Jesus being born out of Mt. Zion/Jerusalem, as is protrayed in Rev 12?
In Daniel 2, we see that Jesus was taken out of a certain Mountain:
"Inasmuch as you saw that a stone (Jesus

) was cut out of the mountain (what Mountain? Mount Zion) without hands…" Daniel 2:45Here is a link to this chapter of Daniel and in its context, the stone is the Kingdom of God, but not Jesus Himself, (that’s going beyond what is written, as is trying to make the mountain [which is never named in that passage] out to be Mt. Zion) so here again, as a faithful Catholic, I have no problem at all with what the Word of God says, but I have to completely disagree with the twisted interpretation that some one has taught you and that you have accepted as true. Look for yourself Daniel! I’m not doing anything but showing plainly that what you have been taught is not actually in the scriptures that you cited.

So, Mt. Zion/Jerusalem Gal 4:26 gave birth to the stone Dan 2:45, Jesus, and Jerusalem is also the mother of us all Gal 4:26, who are referred to in the following verses of Revelation 12, in verse 17

Yeah… that sums up the gist of your expressed misinterpretation. I’d get away from whoever taught you that though because the Bible does say any of that in the passage that you have cited so far.

“So the dragon was enraged with the woman, and went off to make war with the rest of her children, who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus.” Revelation 12:17

Well, let’s understand what the crown of 12 stars that Jerusalem wear is, then.

Rev 21:12 speaks of the gates of New Jerusalem, wherein her 12 gates are being guarded by 12 angels, which 12 angels correspond to the “crown of 12 stars” which she is wearing in Rev 12:1, 2.

This is twisted all out of the context of the passage here. Again, here is a link to Revelation 21, but nowhere in this passage does it even remotely hint that these 12 correspond to the 12 stars in the Woman’s crown. It’s simply not there Daniel, but if you see it, then by all means show me.

Why do I think the stars in Rev 12 are speaking of angels in Rev 21:12?

In the Bible, stars always speak of “sons of God”.
"Wait a second, only Christians are sons of God."
No, the Scriptures say, “As many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God.” - and angels are led by the Spirit of God; for this reason, the Bible calls them sons of God.

When they fell from their proper position to take wives for themselves of the daughters of women:

“And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day” Jude 1:6
+
"…that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose." Gen 6:2

So, that proves that angels are the sons of God, but how can you understand, Biblically, that sons of God are often symbolically referred to as “stars”?

Here again, you take stuff out of context and twist it to make it fit some man made interpretation that isn’t found in the scriptures there.
(Cont’d) [/FONT]


#20

Well, for one, the sons of God (who are humans) will shine as the stars of heaven:

“Those who have insight will shine brightly like the brightness of the expanse of heaven, and those who lead the many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever.” Daniel 12:3

As for angelic beings being shown as sons of God, you can read:

“When the morning stars sang togetherAnd all the sons of God shouted for joy?” Job 38:7

Yeah, but here again, you force an interpretation onto the passages that is not there. I believe that if the scripture says the stars sang then they really did. Ever read C.S. Lewis?

And the symbolic sons of God who will fall away (the end cannot come unless there first comes a falling away 2 Th 2:3; 1 Tim 4:1)

That refers to an end times apostasy…not angels.

“It grew up to the host of heaven and caused some of the host and some of the stars to fall to the earth, and it trampled them down” Daniel 8:10

Pretty obviously ties into Revelation 12:7-9

And of sons of God who have fallen away…“These are the men …wandering stars…” Jude 1:12, 13
These men, who had been given the Spirit, went off course, and are now wandering… but were MEANT to be sons of God, and are therefore referred to as stars.

The really sad part here is that that passage refers to teachers who wander off course and teach twisted interpretations to guys like you my friend. Stars are used for guidance…a wandering star (comet) will not give correct guidance and will lead men astray.

Now that you see that sons of God are called stars, that angels are a class of children of God, you can see that the sons of God in Rev 21:12 are the stars in Rev 12:1, 2 so you could see that the woman is not Mary but the Heavenly Jerusalem.

Look at how hard you worked to teach all that convoluted error Daniel, yet everyone who reads this thread will look at those linked passages and see that what you posted is not what the Bible really says.

I didn’t have to do anything but post links to the passages. The rest will be the work of the Holy Spirit.

I’ll be praying for God’s Spirit to open your eyes and your heart and set you free from whoever has laid all that on you.:gopray2:


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.