Is the assumption of Mary Scriptural? Some n-C I came across said unless I gave a biblical quote he isn’t changing his mind that I have been misled by my Church. He says ONLY the Bible can lead you to ALL TRUTH. Any experts out there? Need help!
I get to be the second post in this Assumption thread.
Maybe a little too much info, but there you go. For some biblical evidence, see the objections to the Assumption in the above article. The prominent Marian “type” is the Ark of the Covenant. Depending on when Mary was assumed, it might have been too late for Paul’s letters to mention. The book of Revelation and the Gospels could have mentioned it (all dating perhaps after 70 AD), and according to how you interpret Rev 12 and other passages, do mention it.
How does Rev 12 support the Assumption?
His arguement is a logical fallicy. Unless of course he denies the Trinity, doesn’t celebrate christmas or Easter, and doesn’t exchange vows and rings at weddings. I could go on, of course.
Ask him why he even believes the bible in the first place. Where does he think it came from? How does he know the author of th Gospel of Mark? etc.
If he trusts the bible, then by default, he trusts the infallibility of the Catholic Church, which is where we got the Bible.
<< How does Rev 12 support the Assumption? >>
Fairly obvious, if the “Woman” is Mary, the Mother of God, she is shown as being in heaven, body and soul. Many early Fathers and Doctors, and today’s biblical exegetes, prefer either the Church or Israel as the primary interpretation, with the Blessed Mother a secondary interpretation, since she is a “type” of the Church. There are about a dozen “Assumption” threads discussing that topic.
I haven’t really thought this out, but aren’t there other “characters” in the book of Revelations such as the elders who aren’t generally believed to have been assumed?
<< I haven’t really thought this out, but aren’t there other “characters” in the book of Revelations such as the elders who aren’t generally believed to have been assumed? >>
You might have a point there. There are also definitely “souls” mentioned who probably are just “souls” without bodies (Rev 6:9ff). Of course angels don’t have bodies either and they are mentioned. Also, taking the “Woman” literally “standing” with the “moon under her feet” and a “crown of twelve stars” she would have to be a couple thousand miles tall since the moon has a diameter of 2160 miles approx. Of course that’s maybe taking this a little too literally.
I believe the Assumption because the Church teaches it, bottom line. The article above goes into enough of the historical “evidence” to show the Church was correct to make it a dogma. It was a well-established teaching of the Church from about the 5th or 6th century, is also believed by the Orthodox, and follows theologically from the Immaculate Conception.
Thanks for your reply Phil.
Really? Only the bible can do that? That’s funny, Christ promised the Apostles that they would be led into all truth by the Holy Spirit, not the bible. Hmmmm. interesting.
Ask here where sola scirptura is found in the bible. Guess what. Its not ther there.
First thing: don’t panic.
No, there’s no clear-cut scriptural support for the Assumption. Luckily for the Church, there is nothing that requires every aspect of the deposit of faith to have clear-cut scriptural support, any more than there is a requirement that every English word can be spelled using only the first half of the alphabet. If non-Catholics want to tie one hand behind their backs, that’s quaint but it’s not, and never has been, a rule of the faith.
We believe in the Assumption because the Church teaches it, and has never taught anything else, and the Church is guided and preserved by God in her teachings. For historic backup, note that no place claims to contain the body of Mary, and that relics of Mary do not exist, and you know how important saints’ bodies and relics were to the early Christians.
Where did he get the statement “Only the Bible can lead you to all truth?” Tell him to back that statement up with the Bible. When he plainly can’t, you can show him what the Bible says about “The pillar and bulwark of truth.” Show him 1 Timothy 3:15.
You don’t need to defend the Glorious Assumption. You need to instead, go on the offensive and attack his faulty doctrine of “Sola-Scriptura.”
Any Scriptural attempt to directly support the Glorious Assumption is grasping at straws, and dishonest. When trying to convince a Protestant of the Catholic Church, the Marian doctrines, particularly the Glorious Assumption should be one of the absolute LAST points that you want to argue, because in all probablility, it will ONLY be believed by someone who has first accepted the authority of the Catholic Church. That doctrine is more of a stumbling block into people accepting the Catholic Church, than a selling point.
When people speak the language of “Sola-Scriptura,” a doctrine that their church has mislead them to believe, the best way to convince them of Catholic Truth, is to first stick a nail in the coffin of Sola-Scriptura. You can do so, sticking to Scripture, and with any knowledge of Church history. Then, once they are willing to accept sources outside of Scripture, show them what the Early Church Fathers believed.
What concerns me is the phraseology of your initial question. It appears that your Protestant friend is trying to get you to speak and think in Protestant terms. Asking, “Is this Scriptural?” or “Is this Biblical?” has a connotation of the Bible being the pillar and bulwark of truth. Again, as I mentioned 1 Timothy 3:15.
Your friend will try to claim that the “church” referred there is the “invisible church,” but Jesus said that the gates of Hell will not prevail over His Church, while a kingdom split into factions can not stand. Therefore, the whole notion that the “invisible church” is the Church that Jesus founded is flat out contradicted by Scripture. Historically, you can show that it was, is, and ever shall be the Catholic Church.
I hope that helps.
Thank you everyone. Problem is, did I make a mistake by saying it is scriptural although I was aware it wasn’t explicitly mentioned in the Bible. I thought I’d kick-start the discussion using Rev. 12 as the basis of it being scriptural but like one of yous said they won’t understand it if they do not accept the Church’s teaching.
I think I made a big mistake by saying carelessly that it is scriptural. Anyway, you’ve all being of great help. I’ve checked out the links and your comments and I guess I’m quite ready to handle this with him. I’ll be posting more Qs here if I hit the brickwall again.
According to Quran/Islam/Muhammad Mary was a pious lady mother of a Prophet of GodAllahYHWH but she died a natural death as did her son, they both assumed/exalted to heaven after their natural death and buriel.
[23:51] And We made the son of Mary and his mother a Sign, and gave them shelter on an elevated land of green valleys and springs of running water.
tell me Phil,
was Mary assumed millions or billions of years ago? and did she evolve into the Queen or immediately? or did she evolve into Queen in about 6000 years?
lol. it is nice to hear you talking about something besides evolution, and also nice to know you love Mary.
Thanks Ahmadi. Very much appreciated.
According to Quran/Islam/Muhammad Mary was a pious lady mother of a Prophet of GodAllahYHWH but she died a natural death as did her son, they both assumed/exalted to heaven after their natural death and buriel>>
**** W * R * O * N * G *
Jesus died on the Cross and rose again from the dead and ascended into heaven by His own power as God!
Mahomet (ptuy) rots in the grave.
I confess there is no God but Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and JEsus is God Incarnate!
316 << tell me Phil, was Mary assumed millions or billions of years ago? and did she evolve into the Queen or immediately? or did she evolve into Queen in about 6000 years? lol. it is nice to hear you talking about something besides evolution, and also nice to know you love Mary. >>
Oh Mary was assumed sometime between the Cretaceous and Jurrasic periods…pause…
Hey only half my posts are about the creation-evolution thing these days. But yes, still a big deal subject to me. I remember your past posts, you Hovind fan you. I have you immortalized. :eek:
I did two major articles this year for my site, (1) I edited the Juniper Carol sections of Mariology into an article on the Assumption which deals with Webster and White’s stuff, (2) I took care of the 33,000 Christian denominations issue by typing in more from the World Christian Encyclo source (2001) than anyone else has. But I am still big on creation-evolution topics. A new one started every couple of days in here. A couple new people involved, but same old objections.
paar << According to Quran/Islam/Muhammad Mary was a pious lady mother of a Prophet of GodAllahYHWH but she died a natural death as did her son, they both assumed/exalted to heaven after their natural death and buriel. >>
I find this interesting that Isalm/Quran accepts the Assumption since this is the time that the belief became strong in the Church as well. Gregory of Tours (c. 538 - 594 AD), Isidore of Seville (c. 560 - 636) in the west, and Modestus of Jerusalem (d. 634), Germanus of Constantinople (c. 634 - 733), Andrew of Crete (c. 660 - 740 ) in the east would be about the time Muhammad took his belief from the Christians. So at least Isalm and Christianity can agree on something. Although of course Christ died on the cross, was buried, and rose again three days later (1 Cor 15:1-5) is not the Muslim belief.
With respect to Revelation 12, even if the woman does represent Mary, how does it show her assumption. Yes the sign appears in Heaven but the woman doesn’t remain there. When the dragon is thrown down to earth he pursues the woman which would indicate that she was not in Heaven since the dragon could not return to Heaven. The earth protects the woman showing that she is on earth after the vision in Heaven.
I do not deny that it is possible that Mary was assumed into Heaven. I cannot accept that it is something that must be accepted as dogma.