Okay, I’ll bite.
VI. Mary’s Assumption into Heaven
Gen. 5:24, Heb. 11:5 - Enoch was bodily assumed into heaven without dying. Would God do any less for Mary the Ark of the New Covenant? (WHERE is Mary compared to the Ark of the Covenant in Scripture. Would God do any less for Mary? I have no idea, but that doesn’t give any evidence that God DID. That is an assumption in and of itself).
2 Kings 2:11-12; 1 Mac 2:58 - Elijah was assumed into heaven in fiery chariot. Jesus would not do any less for His Blessed Mother. (So a fiery chariot came down and brought Mary up to heaven, did it? Since that specific incident is mentioned in the Second Book of Kings, and it’s a spectacular event, then why wouldn’t such a spectacular event be mentioned in the Gospels or the Acts of the Apostles if it occurred, since Mary is presumably more important than Elijah?)
Psalm 132:8 - Arise, O Lord, and go to thy resting place, thou and the Ark (Mary) of thy might. Both Jesus and Mary were taken up to their eternal resting place in heaven. (Okay, but SO were Peter, Paul, Andrew, Jude Thaddeus, and the other saints, but NO mention of a bodily assumption is mentioned of the other saints either. As for Mary being the “ark of the covenant” well please see above. Comparing Mary to the Ark of the Covenant was done by future saints, NOT any of the Gospel writers)
2 Cor. 12:2 - Paul speaks of a man in Christ who was caught up to the third heaven. Mary was also brought up into heaven by God. (Of course Mary was brought up to heaven upon her death. So Paul speaks about a man he knew caught up to the third heaven. Was THIS man also assumed body and soul into heaven? Paul himself says that he does not know, but either way Paul makes no mention of Mary being both body and soul in heaven. In fact the second sentence that says "Mary was also brought up into heaven by God is NOT mentioned anywhere in that passage of Corinthians).
Matt. 27:52-53 - when Jesus died and rose, the bodies of the saints were raised. Nothing in Scripture precludes Mary’s assumption into heaven. (Mary was still alive at this point. As for the saints rising out of their tombs, don’t you find it odd that such an event was not recorded anywhere else in history? I was always taught in Catholic schools that this passage referred to the souls of the dead finally getting entrance into heaven. And for that matter, then why weren’t any of the other disciples such as Stephen assumed body and soul into heaven as well?).
1 Thess. 4:17 - we shall be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air and so we shall always be with the Lord. (This speaks of a future event, not the assumption that we celebrate on August 15th)
Rev. 12:1 - we see Mary, the “woman,” clothed with the sun. While in Rev. 6:9 we only see the souls of the martyrs in heaven, in Rev. 12:1 we see Mary, both body and soul. (First of all this does not name Mary as the woman, although it’s not unreasonable to, pardon the pun, make this ASSUMPTION.:rolleyes: That said, if you read the entire passage it is very confusing because it combines what Catholic tradition has taught us to be previous events, such as Satan being cast out of Heaven when Michael’s army defeats Satan and the rebellious angels, with future events such as the woman being given great wings of an eagle to fly away into the desert—Mary never did that. For that matter, if this is a future event, then the woman couldn’t possibly be Mary because Mary has already done this. The Book of Revelation is a very esoteric and symbolic book, hence the popularity of it, especially when trying to predict end times previews. That said, this passage does not verify that Mary was assumed into Heaven, and the passage itself is confusing since Mary fled into Egypt but nowhere is it mentioned that she grew eagle’s wings to get there).
2 Thess. 2:15 - Paul instructs us to hold fast to oral (not just written) tradition. Apostolic tradition says Mary was assumed into heaven. While claiming the bones of the saints was a common practice during these times (and would have been especially important to obtain Mary’s bones as she was the Mother of God), Mary’s bones were never claimed. This is because they were not available. Mary was taken up body and soul into heaven. (Okay but at that point the notion of the Assumption was not an oral tradition. For that matter, if you want to use the notion of claiming the bones of saints being a common practice and that Mary’s bones would have been especially important, I would also then assume that the bones of Lazarus and Mary and Martha were also important, ESPECIALLY Lazarus, as well as Jairus’ daughter and the young man who Christ raised out from the dead to return to the man’s grieving mother. I don’t know of the bones of any of the aforementioned people being saved, nor do I know of the bones of John the Baptist being saved. For that matter if it was important to save the bones of the saints, then what about all those saints from Matthew 27: 52-53? How were their bones found and saved if they actually had been taken body and soul into heaven?)
FYI—I’m enjoying this conversation, but if I DO NOT want to come off as belligerent. Believe it or not, I actually WOULD like to be able to defend the Catholic faith with some rational logic and Scriptural answersrather than wishful conclusions such as “Mary was the ark of the covenant” so that somehow means that she was assumed body and soul into heaven. Sorry if that comes off as belligerent, but we as Catholics are going to have to do better than such things if we are to engage the non-believers.
Peace of the Risen Lord to you.