I really didn’t need to read any past that statement. “In the second century”? Seriously? If you read my question I asked about the bodily assumption of Mary with proof from scripture. You didn’t do that. In the rest of your post you only attempt to show RCC justification for the veneration of Mary with scripture that doesn’t support the contention. I realize that Catholics hold the “church fathers” on the same level as the apostles but no where in scripture is that supported.
As to the level of veneration of Mary there is no support in scripture. In Luke we are given Jesus statement as to the veneration of Mary.
Luke 11:27-28 27 And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. 28 But he said, Nay rather, (Greek Menounge: nay surely, nay rather) blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.
The words spoken to Mary were no different then were spoken to Jael in Judges. In fact, Jael was called blessed above women. Mary was called blessed among women.
Luke 1:28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
Judges 5:24 Blessed above women shall Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite be,
Those words were also spoken of Noah, Moses, and David.
The Catholic veneration of Mary is unscriptural and conjured up along the lines of pagan worship of “the queen of heaven” condemned by God. There is no “co-redemtrix” with Christ. The entire Mariology concept is blasphemy.
The RCC interpretation of the “woman” in Revelation is in error. The “woman” in Revelation 12 is Israel.
You haven’t answered the question I posted to prove from scripture the bodily assumption of Mary. Mary wasn’t even mentioned in scripture after the ascension of Christ and as I showed from Luke Jesus wouldn’t support the veneration of Mary.
Your question about Mary is based on a false premise. The Bible itself makes no claim that all spiritual truth is limited to scripture. The authority of apostolic tradition and apostolic authority is all over the place in the New Testament.
Everything about Mary is reasonable if you take the time to actually study what the Church teaches rather than anti-Catholic sources. If Mary was given the grace to be the holy mother of God incarnate, it is reasonable she could have been taken like Enoch.
Hebrews 11:5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God. KJV
You would love being a Catholic.
Cynical Bear:
Actually, I have answered it and my answer is fully supported by references to the orthodox Church Fathers going back to the 2nd century. Your position is well “your position” or one based on an interpretation that Pastor Bubba Bob Jones made at the First Fundie Church of somewhere.
Revelation 12 does point to Mary as from a literal interpretation perpsective, she was the won who gave birth to Christ. The Catholic Church along with the Eastern Orthodox Church have always used the 4 sense of Scripture method [Literal, Allegorical, with is then divided into the spiritual, moral and anagogical sense of scripture] and Typology, OT points to the NT and NT unlocks the Old [following St. Augustine].
So as the Navare Catholic Commentary notes, The Woman is depicted by features that can apply to Israel, the Blessed Virgin and the CHurch. The passage becomes more clearer and more meaningful in light of Revelation as a whole. For example, ST. Luke, in his account of the annunication, sees Mary as representing the faithful remant of Isael; the angel salutes here with the greeting given Zephaniah 3:14-15 to the daughter of Zion. So here this an allegorical connection to Mary supported by the text.
The Navare Commentary goes on to say that a direct reference to Mary is also supported as she as a Mother, shares the pain of Calvary [Luke 2:35] and who was also prophesied in Isiah 7:14 as a sign [cf. Mt 1:22-23]. St Paul in Galatians 4:26 sees in a woman Sarah, an allegorical reference to the Church our mother.
Another reference to Mary being the Woman is described in the Ignatius Catholic Commentary on this passage, Revelation 12:1-6 describes a woman wearing a Crown indicating a Queen Mother who bears a royal male child; thus a Queen Mother of a Davidic Kingdom reestablished by Christ, who is from the line of David and the Eternal King of Glory [cf 1 Kings 2:19-20; Jer 13:18].
Finally, you bait and switch alot in your post. The issue was Assumption of Mary, not the issue of Veneration which is to show Honor towards something or some person.