Nevertheless, the earliest evidence of any such belief appears only in the ninth century, in a Syriac manuscript, copied in 874 which reports that Mary accompanied John to Ephesus, where she died and was buried. (Shoemaker S. The Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary’s Dormition and Assumption. Oxford University Press, 2006, p. 75)
There’s evidently a house outside of Ephesus that has a plaque proclaiming it to be the house of Mary.
Pope Pius XII declared it a Holy Place as did Pope John XXIII (it is an important religious site for Muslims too); Wikipedia reports “Pope Paul VI visited the shrine on July 26, 1967, and ‘unofficially’ confirmed its authenticity.”
But irrespective of what location may have been “Mary’s house”, the historical accuracy of the “assumption of Mary”, is at best an assumption that seems to contradict scripture.
John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
I can find nothing prior to the 4th century of anything on the Assumption of Mary.
anabebhken = ascended.
Mary did not ascend, of her own will into heaven.
She was carried up, “assumed” by the power of God into heaven. This is a crucial point to remember.
“I can find nothing prior to the 4th century of anything on the Assumption of Mary.”
Well, there’s apparently a shrune at her tomb that is older than the one in present use, and that one dates back to the 5th century. So it seems to me that one was built, and later destroyed.
FYI, Jesus ascended, Mary was assumed.
Jesus, the second person of the Trinity, had the power to lay down His life and to raise it again and to ascend to the Father from whence He came.
Mary did not and thus was assumed by Jesus, Her Son.
There is no contradiction with Scripture with the doctrine of her assumption.