Vanity: Was Mary "assumed into heaven? Catholic Dogma and Scripture

Catholic Encyclopedia ^ | various

[count-your-change]

Jesus was not claiming to be the Father but the Son. The trinitarian dogma says clearly that Father and Son are not one and the same person but two, God the Father and God the Son so are you suggesting a dualism of Father and Son in Jesus?

[Natural Law]

"Jesus was not claiming to be the Father but the Son. The trinitarian dogma says clearly that Father and Son are not one and the same person but two,"

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. - John 1:1

"I and the Father are one." - John 10:30

Peace be with you

[Iscool]

"There are not more than 100 people in the world who truly hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they perceive to be the Catholic Church.

Just because some guy said it doesn't mean there is any accuracy to it...

[Natural Law]

"Just because some guy said it doesn't mean there is any accuracy to it..."

I know, that is the only way I can wade through most of the errors posted about the Church and about Catholics. Thanks for the reinforcement, though.

Peace and Blessings.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Hey roamer, I think you did a wonderful job of not tirading (is that a verb?) and of sticking to the subject with no disrespect. It looks to me like we've got a reasonable discussion going here.

Hey... IS THAT ALLOWED???? :o)

I am puzzled by your assertion that Yeshua/Jesus is the perfect "container" of the Law and the promises of Yahweh. Jesus is not a "container" at all: He IS God! There is only one God, Yahweh, and He's Him! (Note that I am not saying that Jesus is the Father, but that Jesus IS God. Jesus says "the Father and I are One.")

Thus the New Testament "Ark" or "container" would have to be someone who was overshadowed by the Glory of God and became the one to carry Jesus. Mary carried Jesus for 9 months. The analogy is wonderful.

Where do I get all this from? Some pope or bishoip? No, I get it from Scripture: and in particular, from the Gospel of Luke.

St. Luke clearly wanted us to see Mary as the New Ark. Inspired by God, he parallels many of his verses with those used to describe the Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament. Compare, for example, Luke's words with 2 Samuel 6 below:

2 Samuel 6:2 And David arose, and went with all the people that were with him from Baale of Judah, to bring up from thence the ark of God, whose name is called by the name of the LORD of hosts that dwelleth between the cherubims.	Luke 1:39 And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda
2 Samuel 6:9 And David was afraid of the LORD that day, and said, How shall the ark of the LORD come to me?	Luke 1:43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
2 Samuel 6:11 And the ark of the LORD continued in the house of Obededom the Gittite three months...	Luke 1:56 And Mary abode with her about three months...
2 Samuel 6:16 And as the ark of the LORD came into the city of David, Michal Saul's daughter looked through a window, and saw king David leaping and dancing before the LORD [His Presence over the Ark]	Luke 1:41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:

In the Old Testament, the Ark of the Covenant, overshadowed by the the Spirit of God, was the instrument through which God came to dwell among men; in the New Testament, Mary, overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, is the instrument through which God came to dwell among men. She is the Ark of the New Covenant.

And here's a biggie: look carefully at Revelation 11:19-12:1. St. John tells us what he sees in Heaven: "And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail. And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars [this woman, we are told later in chapter 12, is the one who brought forth the man child who would rule over the nations, ie, Christ].

Keep in mind, too, that chapter and verse divisions did not exist until the Middle Ages: what John says he saw is the Ark of the Covenant -- a woman. Really -- think about this: there is the Ark of the Covenant, lost for generations, in the Heavenly Temple! Then come the "special effects" -- lightning! Thunder! The very earth shakes! And there is the woman who brought forth the man child who who would rule over the nations... Mary, the pure and holy Ark of the New Covenant. [Note that the Woman of Revelation 12 is also a symbol of the Church: there is dual meaning here!]

" Mary did not go before Israel in battle,"

But Mary carried in her body, Him who went into battle. There was great "enmity" between her and the serpent.

"It was not Mary who destroyed Israel's enemies with incredible power"

No, she bore Him who destroyed the Enemy. After all, it is not the "container," which does these things, whether we're speaking of the Ark or of Mary. It is GOD who does these things.

Mary is not the Mercy Seat of YHWH.

No, she is the Ark of the New Covenant.. She HOLDS the Mercy Seat.

Praise be to You, Lord Jesus Christ!

And God bless you, roamer_1.

(And a friendly hello from my don-o, too.)

[count-your-change]

nl is one of a very few posters I will not respond to other than to so inform them.

[Zuriel]

**There is no such thing as soul sleep —> Luke 8:52 uses sleep as a euphemism for death as does 1 Thess 4:13-18**

Sleep...death....Euphemism?

Luke 8:52,53 “..she is not dead, but sleepeth. And they laughed him to scorn, KNOWING that she was dead.” Euphemism?

John 11:4 This sickness is not unto death...11 Our friend Lazarus sleepeth....12 Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well....14 Jesus said unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead....39 Lord by this time he stinketh, for he hath been dead FOUR days.

So what pray tell was the soul of Lazarus doing other than sleeping during those four days?

John 5:25 “..the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.” vs 28 “..for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice..”. I guess they don’t hear his voice UNTIL then.

I see it no different than a coma. When one awakes there is no realization of elapsed time. You could enter the coma in one city, be moved a thousand miles, and awake there a year later. That would be your very next conscious experience, yet it took a year for it to happen.

For the “after death experiences” where people tell of visions that seem real, but revive after a few minutes, I believe this: oxygen deprevation can bring such hallucinations. Nomatter what the doctor says, your not dead until the blood is dead. Lazarus was entering decay, but there is no record of him relating “after death experiences”.

Gotta go, be back in a couple days.
Lord bless.

[Zuriel]

Oh, I should make it clear: In God’s eyes, death and sleep can be similar, since he can resurrect both body and soul to life; hence a euphemism could be appropriate. But the the mortal man, the soul is still viable somewhere, but the body has had it, sometimes even vaporized (nuke), and so death and sleep are two different things the natural man.

[Zuriel]

With your interpretation of Mary as the Ark and the babe leaping in her womb, how does David, being outside of the Ark, create an accurate comparison. I think you need the contents inside the Ark bouncing around.

**[this woman, we are told later in chapter 12, is the one who brought forth the man child who would rule over the nations, ie, Christ].**

That is from verses 4 and 5. We are also told in the next verse (6), that “.. the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.” Which shows that the ‘woman’ is plainly the nation of Israel.

off to bed,
Lord bless.

[Cronos]

and so death and sleep are two different things the natural man.

Perhaps, yet in the Bible, the word is used as a euphemism for death. There is no such thing as soul sleep -- when you die, you are judged then, not to go into some sleep for that time.

[Cronos]

that’s what you say today,right? Like some years ago you said you were Catholic, right? And then Baptist? Modalist? Etc?

[Mrs. Don-o]

Well, types and images are like that. They are not allegory, one detail matching the other point-for-point. (I'm not sure the Bible has a lot of allegory.) Rather, types and images are allusive.

It was the presence of the Lord that inspired David-the-king to dance in His presence, and John-the-fetus to leap in His presence. Nothing there about "the contents of the Ark" leaping. It was the "conents of the Ark" that inspired them to leap for joy.

Elizabeth, Mary's kinswoman, was not the Ark!

The woman of Romans 12 is an image of Mary, of Israel, and of the Church at the same time. It would be a rather puny, threadbare "image" that "meant" only one thing. These are multiple images. They are true over and over again. That's the beauty of them.

[roamer_1]

It looks to me like we've got a reasonable discussion going here. Hey... IS THAT ALLOWED???? :o)

LOL! I dunno... The Rel Mod might find it to be an interesting new twist!

I am puzzled by your assertion that Yeshua/Jesus is the perfect "container" of the Law and the promises of Yahweh. Jesus is not a "container" at all:

In the same way that any of us are a container... This sack o' meat is not me. It is a mere husk on a seed (And it must be one heck of a big seed to judge from the meat-sack it is in... Just sayin :P ). And even the soul within is meant to be filled. The Seed is the seed, no matter if it is in His mother, or walking among men, or hanging on the cross, or planted in the ground. One may as well be bowing down to the earth for having once contained Him. Nay rather, Bow down to Him.

Thus the New Testament "Ark" or "container" would have to be someone who was overshadowed by the Glory of God and became the one to carry Jesus. Mary carried Jesus for 9 months. The analogy is wonderful.

Just because an analogy is wonderful does not make it true. Rainbows, flying unicorns farting skittles, and all that. Stuff that myths are made of.

St. Luke clearly wanted us to see Mary as the New Ark. Inspired by God, he parallels many of his verses with those used to describe the Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament. Compare, for example, Luke's words with 2 Samuel 6

Yes, I am well aware that the RCC considers the Bible to be a big word-match game... Funny that they are willing to do that, but are so against 'Bible code' phenomena, which is basically word-search and crossword kinda slammed together. It is of little consequence to me, as I would much rather spend my time in the literal sense and in the concepts generated therein. And 'mariology' is not among them, to say the least. One must be cautious of twisting the Word - One can make it say any number of things with such cherry-picking. The Law makes for a very sure safety valve on such things.

In the Old Testament, the Ark of the Covenant, overshadowed by the the Spirit of God, was the instrument through which God came to dwell among men; in the New Testament, Mary, overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, is the instrument through which God came to dwell among men. She is the Ark of the New Covenant.

I would submit that there is no new covenant - it is a renewed covenant, as the Torah predicts. Melchizedek transcends Levi only because Melchizedek precedes Levi. If it were new, it would of a necessity be false. Folks tend to forget that YHWH's word does not return to Him empty, and every last jot and tittle will be done.

And here's a biggie: look carefully at Revelation 11:19-12:1. St. John tells us what he sees in Heaven: "And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail. And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars [this woman, we are told later in chapter 12, is the one who brought forth the man child who would rule over the nations, ie, Christ].

I do not see this the way you do - That there is an Ark goes without saying - everything on earth has it's counterpart in heaven. You are correct that the 'woman' passage is adjacent to the 'Ark' passage, but that does not mean that it requires a comparison - and even if it does, that does not mean the comparison is correct. One must shed the scales on Roman eyes to see it any differently: If one were to compare them because they are adjacent, what would the average Hebrew see therein?

what John says he saw is the Ark of the Covenant -- a woman.

No, that is hardly a provable scenario.

there is the Ark of the Covenant, lost for generations, in the Heavenly Temple!

again, for every object on earth there is it's counterpart in Heaven. The temple was made to resemble the abode of YHWH, as was the tabernacle. The Ark before Him is not the one which was here on earth.

[roamer_1:] Mary did not go before Israel in battle [...]

But Mary carried in her body, Him who went into battle.

You miss the point: The Ark itself went before the Israelites in battle. It was physically carried before them. It is not Mary being symbolized there. Mary was not leading them.

[roamer_1:] Mary is not the Mercy Seat of YHWH. [...]

No, she is the Ark of the New Covenant.. She HOLDS the Mercy Seat.

Oh, STOP! Let's think about it another way: Envision the Ark as a throne - the Shekinah Glory would sit upon it when YHWH was among His people... Who do you suppose sits upon it now? Mary? Because I have seen blasphemous artwork depicting exactly that.

After all, it is not the "container," which does these things, whether we're speaking of the Ark or of Mary. It is GOD who does these things.

See the meat-sack comments above.

Have a nice day.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Hey roamer---

Thanks for your quick and point-by-point response. I respect your gift of time and thought.

My first question is: what kind of church do you go to? (You may want to respond to this by PM because sometimes one's info is better shared where there is no risk of odd points being badly bandied in front of the FR peanut gallery.)

I ask this because I am wondering about your use of "Yeshua" and "Yahweh" --- which are of course correct as to Hebrew usage, often used by Messianic Jews, but generally not in frequent gentile usage. Some people find it an irritant to speak of "denominations," but I'm just looking for some kind of context to understand your point of view.

Second, where do you get this stuff about the "meat sack" not being you? Certainly you are your body. You are an embodied spirit--- or, equally true, an enspirited body. God willed you to be a complex being, consisting of a spiritual soul + a body, and neither is to be denigrated, both are honorable because both are, together, YOU, alive and complete in every detail, as God made you.

Genesis, and Psalms, are full of praises about the goodness of God's Creations, the material world, and his masterwork, the human person, body and soul. Our flesh has enduring value. Our bodies will rise immortal.

Christianity in general holds the body in honor: Ephesians 5:29 says "no one hates his own body, but nourishes and cherishes it".

Our bodies belong to God, are members of Christ (I Co 6:17) and temples of the Spirit, so we must glorify God in our bodies (vs 20).

Saint Paul called the resurrection "the redemption of the body" (Romans 8:23). It is but the completion of Christ's saving work, the perfection of our entire selves, soul and body.

God don't make junk. And frankly, it is demeaning to God and Man to call anybody's body just a meat-sack, whether you are talking about yourself, me, or Christ Our Lord.

Third, a discussion of types and foreshadowings is not a "big word-match game". Go through the 4 Gospels, and all the Epistles particularly Romans and Hebrews, and notice the Apostles' and Evangelists' very frequent reflections on the OT, which comprise multiple examples of word-matches, image-matches, parallels and prefigurings.

These things are neither games nor coincidences. As St. Augustine said: "In the Old Testament the New Testament is concealed; in the New Testament the Old Testament is revealed." His insight is based on Scripture itself:

But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery,
a wisdom which is hidden,
which God ordained before the world,
unto our glory:
Which none of the princes of this world knew;
for if they had known it,
they would never have crucified the Lord of glory.
(1 Corinthians 2:7-8)

This "connecting the dots" is the very way we look for prefiguring, and by "we" I don't just mean Catholics, I mean Orthodox, Protestant, Evangelical, any sort of Christians who --- like the noble Bereans --- check things out by searching out congruences between the Old Covenant and the New.

I appreciate your perseverance in "reasonable discussion," something which might even make the Religion Mod smile :o)

May God bless you, roamer.

[Not gonna take it anymore]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUdYeYy3NQA

Mary and Scripture.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Really excellent - great Biblical insights. Thank you.

[roamer_1]

My first question is: what kind of church do you go to? (You may want to respond to this by PM because sometimes one's info is better shared where there is no risk of odd points being badly bandied in front of the FR peanut gallery.)

Technically Dutch/Christian Reformed, but due to location, my affiliation has been Presbyterian PCA/OPC... But I am far afield from my brethren.

I ask this because I am wondering about your use of "Yeshua" and "Yahweh" --- which are of course correct as to Hebrew usage, often used by Messianic Jews, but generally not in frequent gentile usage. Some people find it an irritant to speak of "denominations," but I'm just looking for some kind of context to understand your point of view.

I use YHWH because that is his commemorative name, which he chose for himself, and commanded us to use. And it is a wonderful name, if one understands it's primitive meaning. Why would anyone cover it up? How wonderful, how marvelous! It should be SHOUTED in praise! Yet the Jews consider it too holy to be uttered (against the clear directive of the Torah), and the Christians cover it up with 'Lord' (an appellation of Baal, btw)

As for Yeshua, That is his name - No other name requires transliteration - Why transliterate Yeshua?

As to context, I am not a Messianic Jew, but I am probably close to that definition in many aspects.

Second, where do you get this stuff about the "meat sack" not being you? Certainly you are your body. You are an embodied spirit--- or, equally true, an enspirited body. [...] God don't make junk. And frankly, it is demeaning to God and Man to call anybody's body just a meat-sack, whether you are talking about yourself, me, or Christ Our Lord.

It is interesting that you seem to have zoned in on this tidbit, when the analogy at play was actually that of a 'husk and a seed'.

I find little to honor in the flesh - not that I am an ascetic mind you, I do not deny the body... Rather, I put up with it. After all, 'flesh and blood' will not inherit the kingdom.

Saint Paul called the resurrection "the redemption of the body" (Romans 8:23). It is but the completion of Christ's saving work, the perfection of our entire selves, soul and body.

Whoop! There it is!

Third, a discussion of types and foreshadowings is not a "big word-match game".

Oh, but it is.

Go through the 4 Gospels, and all the Epistles particularly Romans and Hebrews, and notice the Apostles' and Evangelists' very frequent reflections on the OT, which comprise multiple examples of word-matches, image-matches, parallels and prefigurings.

True. But you will note that in no wise do their reflections deny the Torah. To use their analogies as license is mistaken.

These things are neither games nor coincidences. As St. Augustine said: "In the Old Testament the New Testament is concealed; in the New Testament the Old Testament is revealed." His insight is based on Scripture itself:

Yeah, thx... I pay little attention to Augustine anymore. Almost precisely because of that statement. While the scripture quoted is true, the division created by Augustine's statement is not. Leaning upon church fathers will have no effect on me - I find the whole compendium to be highly questionable.

This "connecting the dots" is the very way we look for prefiguring, and by "we" I don't just mean Catholics, I mean Orthodox, Protestant, Evangelical, any sort of Christians who --- like the noble Bereans --- check things out by searching out congruences between the Old Covenant and the New.

Therein lies the mistake - The noble Bereans relied upon the Scriptures to prove the words brought to them by Paul... a 'One Way' street, that. They relied upon the Tanakh as proof, particularly the Torah and the Prophets, I would suppose. I have done so too (or I am in the process thereof), and I would recommend that any Christian would do the same. One will be surprised at the amount of leaven added to the lump that will not pass through.

Where I would differ from you is that I know the things said in the beginning must intrinsically hold more weight than the things said later. YHWH is the only contender in the field of those claiming to be God who has not left a mechanism in place in order to change what was said in the first place. And that needfully proves his claim. He does not change. He does not add new things, and there is no novelty beyond what was originally spoken.

It is the novelties seen within, judged not against 'the beginning,' that form the corpus of human traditions added to YHWH's words - Those very same that Yeshua came to rail against. It has ALWAYS been about this... Trying to keep folks from corrupting those things, and in doing so, corrupting the message brought to generations to come...

Knowing that, try to weigh your religion against what was said before, and throw away the leaven. There you can find 'worship in spirit and in truth'. And I guarantee, it will be an eye-opener.