August 15, Feast of the Assumption - Did Mary's Assumption Really Occur? [Ecumenical]

NOR ^ | August 2008 | Hurd Baruch

[NYer]

Ed. Note: The Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary is August 15.

What happened to the mother of Jesus Christ at the end of her life? The answer you get depends upon whom you ask. "Nothing unusual," say Protestants. "A miracle! She was taken directly to Heaven!" say Catholics -- at least those who know that Pope Pius XII solemnly proclaimed the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary as a dogma that all Catholics must believe: "The Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory" (Munificen­tissimus Deus, #44; reaffirmed at Vatican II in Lumen Gentium, #59).

Catholics who are accustomed to meditating on the mysteries of the Rosary might assume that all of the 20 events memorialized therein can be found in the Gospels, or at least elsewhere in the New Testament, but the Assumption is an exception to the rule. Not only is there no eyewitness account or even an unattributed description of the Assumption in Scripture, there is absolutely no hint of it. By way of comparison, see the accounts of the Ascension of Christ given in the Acts of the Apostles (1:6-12) and the Gospel of Luke (24:50-53), which have the Apostles as witnesses looking on as Christ rises up to Heaven.

[Salvation]

*8For this Protestant, it just seems likely that if the Assumption HAD occurred, someone would have noticed**

They did notice. Apocryphal accounts

[wagglebee]

At that point, he wrote, “And NO MAN has ASCENDED up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven” (John 3: 13). If one assumes that John did not mean that his use of “man” excluded women, then Mary would not have yet been assumed into heaven and would be at least 105 or 106 years old. Of course, maybe her assumption happened after that.

You are making a very common error trying to make the terms "Ascension" and "Assumption" synonymous, they ARE NOT.

Jesus Christ Ascended into Heaven on HIS OWN POWER.

The Blessed Virgin Mary was assumed into Heaven by her Son through HIS POWER.

[Jaded]

That’s not surprising considering most people don’t know the difference between Virgin Birth and Immaculate Conception.

[ThisLittleLightofMine]

2 Tim 3:16, in addition to this you will find throughout the NT that anytime the apostles were teaching they would base their appeal on biblical teaching always refering to scripture, that was the final authority.

God Bless Luther!!

[ThisLittleLightofMine]

2 Tim 3:16, in addition to this you will find throughout the NT that anytime the apostles were teaching they would base their appeal on biblical teaching always refering to scripture, that was the final authority.

God Bless Luther!!

[Mr Rogers]

The Assumption of Mary would be invaluable in proving the Gospel. It seems like it would rate a mention in one of them, or the letters, if it had happened.

[Truth Defender]

For this Protestant, it just seems likely that if the Assumption HAD occurred, someone would have noticed. Her assumption would have occurred well before much of the NT was written, and it seems like it would be a significant event...

To much "assuming" on an "assumption" going on. Also, too many "assertions" of things without any proof behind them. I'm from Missouri, the "show me" state - so, "show me" that assertions are proof of anything. This should be a question any Protestant should ask when assumptions or assertions are made to prove beliefs.

[Truth Defender]

That’s not surprising considering most people don’t know the difference between Virgin Birth and Immaculate Conception.

Hmmm...Jesus was the result of an Immaculate Conception! No "man" fathered him. Virgin birth refers to a woman who never knew a man to conceive her child - thus, a Virgin giving birth to a baby. :-)

[Petronski]

2 Tim 3:16 does not say sola scriptura, not in letter nor in spirit.

[TASMANIANRED]

Very beautiful.

[Zuriel]

**Pure debate bait.**

Don’t question it FRiend, there are thousands of artists depictions of the event. Never mind the blue or brown eyes, the blond or brown hair (only her hairdresser knows for sure), the various colors of the garments, and the difference age (usually looking 30something, but sometimes younger or older).

And the Lord is always shown with long hair, yet was never mentioned in Scripture as following the Nazarite vow (Samson, John the baptist).

[TASMANIANRED]

Compare the images of Jesus from "Christ the Pantocrator" Icon in St. Catherine in Sinai 6th century.

[ELS]

St. Maria de Travestere

I didn't notice it earlier, but don't you mean Trastevere?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

MARY: MOTHER OF GOD OR MOTHER OF CHRIST?

"...the religious climate of the city of Ephesus with its temple of Artemis and the worship of this “Great Mother,” originally “the virgin goddess,” became conducive to replacing the pagan Artemis with the Christian Mary. It would be a way to merge paganism into Christianity and would facilitate the conversion of pagans into the new faith and religion..."

[Judith Anne]

From the RM’s page:

Ecumenic threads are closed to antagonism.

To antagonize is to incur or to provoke hostility in others.

Unlike the “caucus” threads, the article and reply posts of an “ecumenic” thread can discuss more than one belief, but antagonism is not tolerable.

More leeway is granted to what is acceptable in the text of the article than to the reply posts. For example, the term “gross error” in an article will not prevent an ecumenical discussion, but a poster should not use that term in his reply because it is antagonistic. As another example, the article might be a passage from the Bible which would be antagonistic to Jews. The passage should be considered historical fact and a legitimate subject for an ecumenic discussion. The reply posts however must not be antagonistic.

Contrasting of beliefs or even criticisms can be made without provoking hostilities. But when in doubt, only post what you are “for” and not what you are “against.” Or ask questions.

Ecumenical threads will be moderated on a “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” basis. When hostility has broken out on an “ecumenic” thread, I’ll be looking for the source.

Therefore “anti” posters must not try to finesse the guidelines by asking loaded questions, using inflammatory taglines, gratuitous quote mining or trying to slip in an “anti” or “ex” article under the color of the “ecumenic” tag.

Posters who try to tear down other’s beliefs or use subterfuge to accomplish the same goal are the disrupters on ecumenic threads and will be booted from the thread and/or suspended.

__________________________________________________________

FYI, this is an ecumenical thread.

[ELS]

Mary is the mother of Jesus.

Jesus is God.

Therefore, Mary is the Mother of God.

It is really quite simple logic which has been understood for millenia.

[AnAmericanMother]

Yes, typing too darn fast. I corrected it later.