The assumption is her Resurrection. She is taken body and soul into eternity. In eternity there is no before and after.
It is a bit ironical that someone with Lutheran views should compare her labors with Paul’s and see her coming short. Her great work was BEING the mother of my Lord. You think that a mean accomplishment?
That argument is absurd. (1Cor. 15:52) The Scriptures do not teach of any souls being resurrected with glorified bodies and crowned in heaven prior to the last trump at Christ''s return, and after that saints receiving their crowns and places of rule. The assumption of Mary and her glorification is not what Scripture teaches, and trying to metaphysically excuse this by invoking the timeless nature of eternity is desperate, and as a hermeneutic leads to eschatological chaos, and is contrary to the description of revelation God chooses to operate under. The devil has not yet been cast into the lake of fire after the beast and false prophet were there for a 1,00 years, and other like events have not yet occurred. Including Mary receiving any crowns.
It is a bit ironical that someone with Lutheran views should compare her labors with Paul’s and see her coming short. Her great work was BEING the mother of my Lord. You think that a mean accomplishment?
Regardless of how you construe my argument, I certainly did not say that Mary's role as a mother was not significant, being the virtuous vessel by whom the Word became flesh, and was cared for accordingly, but that the record does not testify to Mary being superior in love, labor, holiness or sufferings for the Lord and His body, the church. T
The Holy Spirit was not negligent in only giving a brief record of Mary, while abundantly recording Paul's love, labor, holiness and sufferings for the church and providing the word of God in tangible form, but the extreme exaltation and magnification of Mary is far beyond what Scripture says, and overall warrants. And as Paul admonished the Corinthians "not to think of men above that which is written," (1 Corinthians 4:6) so this applies to Mary.
But the cult of Mary will not be restrained, which testifies to its unscriptural source. As even the Catholic Encyclopedia states on "Devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary,"
A further reinforcement, of the same idea, was derived from the cult of the angels, which, while pre-Christian in its origin, was heartily embraced by the faithful of the sub-Apostolic age. It seems to have been only as a sequel of some such development that men turned to implore the intercession of the Blessed Virgin. This at least is the common opinion among scholars, though it would perhaps be dangerous to speak too positively. Evidence regarding the popular practice of the early centuries is almost entirely lacking...— http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15459a.htm,
“Her great work was BEING the mother of my Lord. You think that a mean accomplishment?”
She only did what millions of woman before and after her have done. This was God’s accomplishment and Mary was only the vessel thru which He accomplished it.
Sheesh!