Accepted. However, He has already given life to MANY. It is only Mary who has been lifted up to a position befitting a goddess. In fact, out of all those already given life, it is only Mary who is recognizable - Why are there no powerful apparitions of David? or the Prophets? Or the Patriarchs? Many of these saw YHWH face to face (and since no man has seen YHWH, it is safe to say that they were face to face with Yeshua). Why no appearances from the Apostles? Why aren't these mighty men of YHWH appearing in the sky, making pronouncements and uttering prophecy?
I can tell you why - None of these fit the mold of pagan Rome, that's why.
[...]The doctrine is not made up of whole cloth, but is a formal declaration by the Church of a belief that has been a part of the community of believers since nearly the very beginning.
The veneration of Mary began very early in the Church. The catacombs in Rome have depictions of her. There is even one of her being assumed into heaven. She is called the mother of the church and there is a fresco in those catacombs that shows her between Peter and Paul.
To say that the Church has “made up” the Marian doctrines out of whole cloth is a false accusation. As early as the second century, writers and theologians have considered Mary and her role in salvation, in the Church and in the hearts of believers.
I will reject that outright. There are depictions of 'Mary' going back far before her birth... All the way back to Babylon. And there is a dearth of actual extant early works - 100-350AD. Virtually all the works that you would have to rely upon are later copies; which copies were created amidst reams and reams of forgeries, and at a time when works were shamelessly infected with inclusions at a rate not seen before or since. It is my assertion that *none* of it can be relied upon.
And what is far more incredulous is what these documents purport to acclaim: That the liturgical Roman church sprang forth from Judaism, and supposedly, literally over night. The two are quite incompatible, and the closer one tries to align the Roman church to the early Church (torah observant Jewish sect) the more ludicrous it becomes.
To believe that Jesus, who is God, prepared her for Himself and then assumed her into heaven at the end of her life to be with Him does not conflict with Scripture. The Scriptures clearly shows that others are in heaven, body and soul so it is not without precedent.
Except for the fact that early versions of the story admit she died and was buried, and make absolutely no claim to her assumed assumption, I would agree that there would be no necessary conflict - Neither is there any necessary evidence. And in accepting things for which there is no proof ('Mary' included, most prominently), the inevitable result is the preaching of a different gospel, and the ascent of another kingdom.
To believe these things about Mary does not lead us to believe a different Gospel, it reinforces the Gospel we already believe. That Jesus is Lord, Son of the Living God and by His grace we are saved and will have eternal life with Him. To think that Jesus honored His mother is in perfect keeping with Scripture, both the plain text and the spirit.
The spirit of the Word necessarily flows from the Old Testament to the New - Not the other way around. New revelation cannot make older revelation null, without making YHWH a liar. Therefore, what begins in the Torah must, of a necessity, not be changed. Just as prophets cannot discount what was stated before them, neither can preachers. Brick by brick, line by line. What is preached out of Rome can in no way be considered to be in perfect keeping generally, not to mention only 'Mary'. It does indeed teach a different gospel.
Thank God it wasn't by the Catholic Church.
I find it incredulous that so many who have bought into the whole "Rapture" theory reject the assumption of Mary who was already judged sinless. Is this out of an overblown sense of fairness or jealousy?
"I will reject that outright. There are depictions of 'Mary' going back far before her birth... All the way back to Babylon."
So every ancient goddess is a depiction of Mary? What a laugh. Theories like yours are no different than those lunatics who claim that Jesus too is traceable back to Babylon as the Zoroastrian deity Mithra. If you are going to try to connect the dots, at least follow the numbers.
AMEN to everything you said. Every cult must have a goddess of the universe to worship. The Mary of RCC is nothing more than pagan goddess worship dressed up in RC gowns. She is not the Mary of God’s word. If Mary is the queen of heaven, there must be SOME KIND of cat-fight going on because Ishtar has had that “honor” since Babylon AKA The Semitic goddess Astarte. She was condemned by God then (Jeremiah 7:18, 44:17-19,25). How can the RCC hope to escape the judgement of God now?
I find it ironic that paganism is so often a charge against Catholicism only when it pertains to Mary or things which fit the most of the protestant. Why ironic?
Well, considering that the entirety of Christianity has been thus accused by nonChristians it is truly a case of a splinter and a log.
Why are there no apparitions of the Apostles or prophets or patriarchs? Well, we have no need of them. We have their written accounts in Scripture, Apostolic Succession in the priesthood and the Magisterium.
We have only one Mother. She is the Queen Mother of the heir to the throne of the House of David, Jesus. She takes hers place beside her son as all the other queen mothers did when their sons took the throne. She acts on our behalf as a intercessor with her Son, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. She does not take the title for herself, it is hers by right of the birth of her Son. He honors her as all Jews honor their mothers and it is in her that the promises of Christ to all who believe in Him, love Him and obey Him have been fulfilled. She welcomed Him first, loved Him first, followed Him first and as such is with Him now.
If there is a dearth of anything, is that of love for her found on these forums.
“Virtually all the works that you would have to rely upon are later copies”
You are aware that we do not have the originals of any of the New Testament books, right? All we have are copies of copies of copies. The same can be said of them, oh and BTW, has been said.
I have never seen a claim that the Church sprang up fully formed overnight. What I see, what history teaches is that it has grown and evolved throughout its 2000 year history.
Yes, early stories have said that Mary died, that Thomas did not arrive in time and that when the tomb was opened for him(poor Thomas, always doubting)it was empty.
The Church does not claim that the story is true. It makes no declaration as to whether Mary died or was assumed while alive. It merely states that in light of the fact that she is the Mother of the second person of the Trinity, Jesus, God made man and in light of her preservation from sin, and in light of the fact that Scripture allows that there have been humans taken by God into heaven, the Church can state as true, the belief that Mary, at the end of her earthly life, was united body and soul to her Son in eternity as she was with Him in their earthly lives.