Replies

I don’t think so.

You simply play into the hands of radical modern scholars who claim Christianity, the birth, death, burial, and resurrection, are nothing more than updated middle eastern religions.

Mary truly was pregnant with the Son of God. And there is nothing unusual or irrational about arriving at the ‘mother of God’ concept. And, as we’ve seen, it’s true in regard to her being the mother of the incarnate, 2d person of the trinity.

Nor, really, is there anything more than sentiment that explains the Assumption. It basically comes from the notion that kids really love their moms, that Jesus loved His mother, too, so given the power, He raptured her early.

It’s problem, of course, is there being no biblical basis for such a sentiment. But sentimental people come up with all kinds of notions and then incorporate them into their worship as if they’re a necessary part of the faith...all the way from altar rails to mourner’s benches to pulpits.

You go right ahead and keep defending the concept. I’m going to take a hint from the Holy Spirit who inspired scripture who never once called her the mother of God and I’m thinking that was for a reason. God had much to say about the “queen of heaven” concept and none of it good.

Nor, really, is there anything more than sentiment that explains the Assumption. It basically comes from the notion that kids really love their moms, that Jesus loved His mother, too, so given the power, He raptured her early.

This is based upon what one assumes God would do, but for which there is zero record in Scripture of or promise specific to Mary of it occurring, and is contrary to what is revealed, which is that the bodily resurrection and giving of rewards (and crowns) does not occur until the Lord returns.

And this, and such things as the sinlessness of Mary is also contrary to the manner of Scriptural revelation, in which the Holy Spirit characteristically records notable or extraordinary aspects of even lesser persons, from their age, holiness, prolonged virginity, or sinlessness, etc.

All which renders the Assumption as a binding doctrine as lacking warrant, and is based upon the also unwarranted premise of the perpetual assured magisterial infallibility of Rome.

And which does not mean i do not want to honor Mary (among others) in accordance with what is written, and God above all. And thus see my responses on Salon.com to the atheistic arrogance that this thread refers to: Why rape is so intrinsic to religion (Mary Got Raped:Salon Click Bait)