Mary's Assumption Shown in Scripture! w/ William Albrecht & Fr. Christiaan Kappas
Vložit
- čas přidán 15. 12. 2022
- Full Episode: • *EVERY* Objection to M...
Many Protestants object to Mary's bodily assumption as being unscriptural. William and Father Christian explain why the woman in the sky in revelation is definitely Mary.
This Clip is sponsored by Hallow! Free Trial Here!: hallow.com/matt
Join our community on Locals: mattfradd.locals.com/
Matt I appreciate you so much for this 3month subscription to Hallow! I have Spotify unlocked so I can listen to not only your Podcast but many more as well, I am excited to Grow my Prayer Life to whole new level! God Bless!
Beautiful words. God bless you all. To God be the glory 🙏🏻⛪🕊️💞
This was beautiful! Ave Maria!
Nope. They only told you wanted you wanted to hear. The bible doesn't agree with this satanic teaching. Neither day they show May's assumption in the bible.
@@wesleysimelane3423 Vivat Christus Rex! I believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Not interested in a computer debate. God bless thee! Ave Maria!
@@vivacristorey1853 I believe in Jesus ONLY! God bless u and may He open your eyes.
@@wesleysimelane3423 you believe in Jesus only? Or The Father Son and Holy Ghost? Do you believe in the Kingdom he set up? Do you believe in the Apostles he sent out to preach the gospel? Do you believe in the Word of God? You can’t say you believe in Jesus only. He came to bring us the Kingdom of God! He instituted His Church on earth, which contains a whole bunch of different people with different ministries and roles. Do you believe in the great cloud of witnesses by which we are surrounded? I pray He opens your eyes! Long live Christ the King and Mary His Mother and Queen of Heaven and Earth!
Fantastic clip! I had never heard some of these points.
Liar. It's basic catholic one or one bias. You only happy coz you heard what you wanted to hear.
Amen! Simply beautiful correlation. So important for us to all know and understand, particularly when defending our veneration for our Blessed Mother. ✝️🙏🏿🪷
So much packed into a brief excerpt. Compelling.
Its packed lies.
The Old Testament also says the Ark will be in Heaven with the Anointed One when the Lord arises.
Psalm 132:8-10:
"‘Arise, Lord, and come to your resting place,
you and the ark of your might.
9 May your priests be clothed with your righteousness;
may your faithful people sing for joy.’”
10 For the sake of your servant David,
do not reject your anointed one."
Look at that passage in context: it’s referring to Zion (Jerusalem). The psalm is about David bringing the ark of the covenant to Jerusalem
And it very well may also be a foreshadowing of the new David bringing the new Ark into the Heavenly Jerusalem.
I love that manly men are clearly speaking up about the faith in love and humility. Bring back masculine men, feminine women and innocent children. Traditional Family Values 🩸✝️✨️🍷🍞👑💯
Yup. It has to be Mary. She's also the "Heart" in that sense. Hearing Matt reading that verse again on Revelation, "earthquake, lightning... etc" a close basic picture came to my mind, "a nurse/doctor reviving a patient with defibrillator after cardiac arrest or something." It seems that the church at that time was on cardiac arrest.
Yeah right!
How do we know when to draw lines as to what is symbolic and what is not in Revelation? If that woman is Mary and we are to take her being crowned as literal, wouldn't that mean that we have to take the descriptions of her giving birth to a baby near a dragon as literal? And wouldn't that mean that we have to take the descriptions of her with wings as literal?
And what about in other parts of the Bible where believers are described as being crowned with glory? Does this mean that we are ALL bodily assumed if that indicates it for Mary?
And why don't any of the verses they cite actually mention ASSUMPTION. It goes from POTENTIAL honoring of Mary (though they ripped it out of context, but that's fine) to somehow BODILY ASSUMPTION with very few logical explanations as to why.
Finally:
WHY DOES IT MATTER? Why is it that Mary would be bodily assumed into heaven? What's wrong with waiting until the resurrection, since the Bible is clear that "catching up" (bodily) of believers has not yet happened? And why is it that one MUST believe in the assumption of Mary TO BE SAVED. Why is random intellectual agreement with a tertiary/quaternary teaching made NECESSARY for being saved when it has nothing to do with faith in Christ Jesus?
I feel like I am going insane, Roman Catholicism is making less and less sense the more and more I hear from Apologists.
I will answer your questions one at a time, and some of my answers are probably going to make a lot more sense than others, because my knowledge on this subjects varies from question to question.
1. Her giving birth to a baby would presumably also be literal, as the baby is Jesus, and the dragon is the devil (the devil has often been represented as a dragon or dragon-like creature).
2. Yes, we all will be bodily assumed to Heaven, that is Catholic doctrine. The Resurrection will include the resurrection of our physical bodies. Until the Resurrection, however, our souls will be separated from our bodies. Because Revelation deals with the close of history, it makes sense that it includes the resurrection and references to people with bodies in Heaven.
3. This is where I start to questions the guys' logic as well. I definitely think this passage could be Marian, could definitely emphasize the importance of Mary as the New Ark, but I think it would be a stretch to say she is necessarily embodied at this stage. But remember, it's not Catholic teaching that this Bible verse is about bodily assumption, it's just a verse that guys like Matt Fradd use to support bodily assumption.
But even then, there is a pretty good point on these guys' side: you need a body to give birth. So there could be a good argument to be made here that Mary must be embodied to be able to give birth, so if she is giving birth in Heaven, she must be embodied.
4. "Why does it matter?" Good question. I agree it's not a primary issue, but I can see why it might matter with consistency. Catholicism states that Mary was born without original sin, so she had this sort of early taste of redeemed life. I guess this is sort of filling it into other areas as well, like bodily redemption.
Now, on the issue of SALVATION...
In short, it matters because the Catholic Church has infallibly defined it. Christ Himself established the Church and promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide it so it cannot teach error. So why does believing in the Assumption matter? Because if you don't, then you have a disagreement with the Church that should be resolved.
Now, if you're not Catholic, then none of this really matters anyway, but if you are a Catholic, then you need to accept the teachings of the Church because they are true. To be a Catholic (which means you believe that the Catholic Church is the true infallible Church) but to disagree with its teachings means that you are willing to go against what Christ's Church has said.
Now, you seem like you may be on the fence about bodily assumption (Revelation 12's impact on it notwithstanding), so I should probably address another issue. Some Catholic will say, "I believe in the bodily assumnption because the Church has infallibly defined it, but I think infallibly defining it was a bad move."
Guess what? As a Catholic, that is a position you are allowed to take. As long as you believe what the Church teaches, you're fine. Infallibility does not mean that the Church is going to define things at the most prudent times, or that it is always going to infallibly define things that are the most important. It just means that everything the Church defines is true.
The New Catholic Encyclopedia admits: “There is no explicit reference to the Assumption in the Bible.”
A Catholic theologian says: “In the beginning, no memory of the death of Mary was linked to the Christian community.” Mary’s assumption is clearly not based on the Bible!
@@gunsgalore7571 but then Orthodox believe they are the infallible Church so logic says they both cant be so someone is wrong .
@@dallasbrat81 Yes, either Catholicism or Orthodoxy is wrong. They cannot both be right. But this applies to any two groups that make competing claims. It's like saying "Catholicism and Protestantism can't both be right," or "Calvinism and Lutheranism can't both be right" or "Christianity and atheism can't both be right." Whenever you have two different groups that believe two different things, one of them must be wrong. Now, because Catholicism and Orthodoxy agree on so much, they could both be right on a lot of things, but ultimately, only one maximum can be right about which Church is the original one.
@@gunsgalore7571 I disagree, no Protestants that I know of would say they are the only Christian Church . The thought of one true Church is absurd because Copt can trace there Church back to apostle Mark. The apostles scattered after Pentacost Praise Jesus .
I do believe that Revelation 12 is Marian, but I'm not sure how people are reading it to teach bodily assumption. If the saints and elders are alive in the presence of God and crowned (Rev. 4:4) without being bodily assumed, why would we assume Mary has to be bodily assumed into heaven in order to be crowned? It just seems like we're reading a Marian dogma into the text rather than the other way around.
I have no problem with the idea of the assumption, but this text doesn't clearly teach it...
I think its because the passage describes the woman bodily being crowned.
She wasn’t portrayed as a soul waiting for the resurrection of the body. She was portrayed as a woman with a glorified body that is crowned.
As to the saints in heaven being crowned, I don’t think that’s the case.
Although I stand to be corrected, the bible refers to the crowning of the saints as a future event on the day of judgment when our bodies are resurrected. Not as something they received upon their death.
An example of this is shown in the passage below:
2 Tim 4:8: Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.
I believe the reference of “at that day” is that of the day of judgement.
@@charlesudoh6034 that makes sense, and is consistent with Marian dogma, but still seems to be reading into the text rather than out of it. Revelation 12 itself says nothing about the woman's physicality or lack thereof. She's also depicted as crowned before the birth of Jesus (v. 5), so unless Mary was bodily in heaven before the birth of Jesus, that read doesn't follow.
If the saints don't receive their crowns until the Judgment, who are the people around the throne with crowns in Revelation 4? That takes place well before the final Judgment. The elders aren't described as angelic beings, so they must be human. And if a body is required for being crowned, who are these people who are bodily in heaven before the Judgment?
Re: 2 Tim 4:8, I think verse 6 clears it up that he's speaking of "the day" of his death, because "my departure is near". Could be wrong though, I'm not a Timothy scholar.
Thanks for your response! 😃
@@TheBillyDWilliams
_but still seems to be reading into the text rather than out of it_
I would grant that the text can't be used as a primary and stand alone proof of the assumption.
I would argue that together with early church witness and a very distinct lack of her remains and burial site (which is something of an anomaly considering her importance), it lends credence to that interpretation of the text.
_If the saints don't receive their crowns until the Judgment, who are the people around the throne with crowns in Revelation 4?_
The people are the 24 elders. Its still unclear who or what they are and there are a lot of views as to who/what they are or are meant to be representive of.
However, it's simplistic to refer to them as saints. The saints are described distinctly from the 24 elders in Revelation. If the 24 elders were merely saints, such distinctions wouldn't be there.
_Re: 2 Tim 4:8, I think verse 6 clears it up that he's speaking of "the day" of his death, because "my departure is near"_
I would disgree with this as I still believe the reference to "the day" is about the day of judgement.
This is supported as he referenced others when he said "and not only to me, but also to all who have longed for his appearing". The crowning seems to be more collective than individual. That fits beter with the day of judgement (when all would be judged) than the day of his death.
_Thanks for your response!_
Thanks for yours as well. I appreciate.
First
The problem with using John 6 is that Paul delimits the discussion of “The Lord’s supper” to the night which he was betrayed. John 6 is obviously not that.
This might sound silly but why isn't there a revised bible without the chapters and verses without the confusion on this topic to make it clear?
It sounds silly no matter
There are reader’s Bibles that remove them like the ESV readers Bible
Quick question. What does Mary being the new Ark have to do with her being assumed into heaven? Is it because the Ark is mentioned as being in heaven in Revelation 11 (which also seems to be correlated with the woman in Revelation 12)?
Man added the divisions (chapter/verse) into scripture (1300's-1500's) - pick up a bible older than this to see the fullness of God's word as it flows as it was revealed.
This is probably the reason why when the chapters were added that they ended in chapter 11, and the woman in heaven started chapter 12, so as not to confuse the ark with the woman, because they are not the same. If you go back to revelation chapters 4 and 5, you find the meaning of the imagery from revelation 11, which is the slain Lamb which represents Jesus and his atonement. The woman in revelation 12 who is in heaven represents the nation of Israel, not Israel and Mary. John is very specific in drawing imagery from specific Old Testament verses that represent the nation of Israel. If this woman was Mary bodily assumed to heaven, he would’ve used and drawn from more specific imagery and wording. Plus, there’s absolutely nothing even insinuated in revelation 12 about a bodily assumption to heaven. Only that this “woman“ which represents Israel is in heaven. A bodily assumption has to be forced unnaturally and eisegetically into the text.
@@BornAgainRN " If this woman was Mary bodily assumed to heaven, he would’ve used and drawn from more specific imagery and wording. " John would not have to had repeated what was already revealed in the other 3 gospels and the OT - the 'old' ark (made by mans hands) contained Gods word written on stones (which saved no-one), 'manna' from heaven(yet partakers all of who died), and the staff of Aaron (Levitical priesthood of obsolete animal sacrifices) - ALL now superseded by a Living Ark made by God's hands (Mary - the first living temple of God), whom contained THE WORD of God Himself - Jesus, who is of a Higher Priesthood of Melchizedek forever ruling with an Iron Rod, and Whom He Himself (Jesus) IS the bread of Life, come down from heaven, he who eats of will never die - Yes, to us who believe ALL of scripture it's easy to see why John ALSO sees Mary as Our Ark of the New covenant, right as revelation shows!
Need more? In Luke we see that Mary stayed about 3 months in the countryside just as the old ark did with David, Elizabeth exclaiming 'how is it that the Mother of MY LORD should come to me (just as David exclaimed 'how is it that the [old] ark should come to me) , and John the baptist Lept in the womb, just as David lept for joy too as the [old] ark came to him! Besides, what need would God have of some old relic 'made by humans' in heaven if you think Rev11 is referring to a wooden box ??
@@garyr.8116 or just get a readers Bible...
How do you go from Ark of the Covenant to the assumption?
Because Mary is the new Ark of the Covenant.
@@christfriedrodeyns5300 Many Protestants believe that, but that doesn’t get you an assumption
@@Christian-ut2sp Psalm 131:8 (Douay-Rheims Version) "Arise, O Lord, into thy resting place; thou and the ark, which thou hast sanctified"
@@russbus1967 read that verse in its context please. It is a reference to David bringing the ark to Zion (Jerusalem). There is nothing in this passage hinting at Mary. That’s reading it into the text
@@russbus1967 now that is some evidence. Thanks for the response, I’ll look into it.
At the end of Revelation 11 when it talks about the lightning, peals of thunder, etc. taking place in Heaven, this is reference back to Revelation 4:5: "Out from the throne come flashes of lightning and sounds and peals of thunder. And there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne," which goes on to reveal in Revelation 5:6: "And I saw between the throne (with the four living creatures) and the elders a Lamb standing, as if slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God." What is revealed in this imagery is the atonement of the "slain Lamb" on the cross, not Mary being "the ark." That is why those who made chapters later on ended it there and began Revelation 12 with "the woman" in Heaven, so the reader would not get confused and try to equate the ark with the woman and with Mary.
The "woman" is also NOT Mary, but Israel, nor some sort of conflation of Mary AND Israel AND the Church AND Eve, as some have suggested. When John uses imagery, he is borrowing SPECIFIC imagery from previous Scripture, such a Genesis 37:9-10; Isaiah 26:15,17-19; Isaiah 49:14-15; etc.) If this referred to Mary too, and not just Israel, John certainly would have been more specific with his imagery of Mary. But all he uses is imagery about Israel from Scripture, none about Mary.
And the "sign" in Revelation 12 is found in HEAVEN, while the "sign" in Isaiah 7:14 is found on EARTH. So, this is not the same "sign." Plus, NOWHERE in Revelation 12 does it even insinuate a BODILY Assumption to Heaven. All it says is that the "woman" is IN Heaven. So, even "if" the woman is Mary, there is nothing about an Assumption in this verse. It has to be eisegetically read into the text.
And, no early church father believed in the bodily Assumption of Mary. I have listened to William's explanations from Epiphanius of Salamis & others, and there is nothing explicitly in these writings about a BODILY assumption of Mary. They either have to be eisegeted, or when it mentions Mary going to Heaven ALONG WITH OTHER SAINTS, "bodily Assumption" had to be read into the text.
This is why even Catholic Mariologist Ludwig Ott in his work Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma conceded, “the idea of the bodily assumption is first expressed in certain transitus narratives of the 5th & 6th centuries…these are apocryphal.”
They also say Mary didn't experience pain in birth, so how could Rev 12 be about her? This same woman is also said to have children or descendants at the end of 12. But Mary is also said not to have these.
@@TKK0812 Mary’s birth pains were in her sufferings watching Her Son be crucified, and through those pains, and the offering of her prayers, merits, and the offering of her Divine Son, she became the Mother of the Church and gave birth to her spiritual children through these pains, which God has blessed her with as a reward for her obedience to His will - “Behold Thy Mother.”
@@grant3287 Yeah except the text says none of that.
and she was with child; and she cried out, being in labor and in pain to give birth.
- Revelation 12:2
To take a verse like that and say “oh, that’s about the pain she felt at the cross” is beyond laughable. These are simply the traditions of men.
Not even close
Can you explain why?
@@charlesudoh6034 Sure thing. I’m reading Rev 11:19-12:1 and it says zero about anything resembling the bodily ascension of Mary….even when I ignore the chapter divisions lol.
@@dylanwagoner9768
_Sure thing. I’m reading Rev 11:19-12:1 and it says zero about anything resembling the bodily ascension of Mary….even when I ignore the chapter divisions lol._
You get to the "Assumption of Mary" when you notice that the passage described an embodied soul (a woman) who is being crowned.
The figure being seen is described in terms of a body (the author could even identify the gender) and not just a soul waiting for the resurrection of the body.
If you accept that the figure/sign being described is Mary (which seems obvious), then you would have to accept that at some point (either while she was alive or after her death) her body was assumed to heaven and glorified.
@@charlesudoh6034 It “seems obvious” that the woman here illustrates Gods people. Gen 37:9, Joseph clearly uses this same language to refer to Jacob and his sons. To more clearly show this the woman has a crown of twelve stars. I don’t know how John could be clearer.
Then in v5-6 note the distinction. Jesus is “caught up into heaven”, ascends to heaven. And the woman, people of God, do not ascend, but flee for protection into the wilderness where they have a place prepared by God.
John doesn’t picture Mary anywhere in this passage.
I grew up reading the Bible and not being steered one way or the other as far as Rev. 12, but I never took the woman as Mary. Too many things line up with it being Israel that don’t fit Mary, like fleeing to the wilderness and being saved by a flood from the dragon, which all seem pretty obviously eschatological in context. So no, reading this as Mary is not some default Protestants have to talk people out of. And as others have mentioned, there’s nothing here about Mary’s assumption. John sees the sign in heaven but that doesn’t mean she’s in heaven, let alone that she was bodily assumed. All of that is eisegesis.
Mary was also half-bird, half-woman (Revelation 12:14). The reason no one, literally no one, has every written about this is because it has never been disputed so there has been no need to defend it.
And it says that she flew to the wilderness not heaven
two people in the old testament were taken up to heaven: Enoch and Elijah. two people in the New Testament have empty tombs and taken up to heaven: Jesus and Mary. God sometimes have a tendency to do things twice just to prove a point. the old is a foreshadowing of the new. God even had to write the ten commandments twice! temple of jerusalem, destroyed twice! on the same day!
4:26 it’s not continuous though. Revelation is filled with parts like this, the book is not in sequential order.
In chapter 7 it talks about everyone worshipping God after the time of great distress and then chapter 8 flashes back to the tribulation to talk about the trumpets.
After the trumpets, chapter 11 talks about the two witnesses. During this chapter the world seems to still be functioning and not in complete chaos as it was during the trumpets indicating that this is before the trumpet judgements (the 1260 days/first 3 and half years of the tribulation. It even says this is during the 1260 days).
From chapter 11 to 12 it’s the same thing. It ends on a high note in 11 and then changes the pacing and starts over talking about something else entirely in chapter 12 (I know originally there wasn’t chapters but regardless of that, this is the flow of Revelation). That being Israel’s beginnings, persecution that followed by Satan, the messiah (Jesus), and then it transitions to war in heaven which ultimately leads to the tribulation on earth.
It’s not continuous like he says it is.
This is coming from a Catholic, I just don’t see this perspective in the text.
Thank you for your honesty
Amen brother. I'm still a catholic but the more i read the bible and the catholic dogma the more I don't c a link between that passage and Mary
Let's say for sake of argument that it is indeed Mary. The passage does not teach that she was bodily assumed to heaven. Now, I have no issue inherently in believing she was. It wouldn't be out of place that she would be given an honor given to Enoch and Elijah before her. But that just is not what the text teaches.
Except the fact that the passage described an embodied soul (a woman) who is being crowned.
The figure being seen is described in terms of a body and not just a soul waiting for the resurrection of the body.
If you accept that the figure/sign being described is Mary (which seems obvious), then you would have to accept that at some point (either while she was alive or after her death) her body was assumed to heaven and glorified.
Hence, why Catholics believe in the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary
@@charlesudoh6034 Why did it take until 1950 to declare this dogma?
Virgin Mary is the woman in Rev 12:1 and 12:17. She is the Arc of the new Covenant Rev 11:19, Lk 1:35,43. You may be interested in researching the apparitions of Virgin Mary in Medjugorge. She’s been appearing to visionaries since 1981, giving messages for everyone to convert and live for God. It’s very interesting, she said in June of 2017, that we were at a turning point in time where we need to choose God.
@@charlesudoh6034 The passage also describes a red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns. When was Mary given the wings of an eagle to flee this dragon into the wilderness? Was Mary half-bird, half-woman? Or is this a future dogma?
@@Wgaither1 "....Why did it take until 1950 to declare this dogma?....." Not that you will listen anyway; as this is your typical trolling method. Most things in Catholicism eventually had to be defined NOT because it was coming into belief; but because years of anti-Church behaviour was eroding what was always believed. The Church always believed in Mary's Assumption since the Apostles; but by the time the Pope found it necessary to define it; Protestantism, modernism, and lack of proper catechesis began to call it into question after 1955 years of faithful belief in it.
Using your argument you would also have to conclude that Christians did not believe in such things as the Trinity, the Divinity of Jesus, and other beliefs until the Church defined them hundreds of years after the last Apostle.
The chapter/verse distinction that was brought up is irrelevant because the text itself demonstrates a break in subject. Chapter 11 ends by saying that the ark of the covenant was *seen*. Then in Chapter 12, it says "and a great sign *appeared* in heaven".
So if the ark was already seen in Chapter 11, then clearly the sign that has now appeared is something completely different. Take away all the verse and chapter breaks you want, it doesn't help your case in the slightest.
Also, the ark is specifically said to be in the temple. But the woman appeared in heaven in general. Not a fantastic argument, but why isn't the woman noted to be in the temple as well?
Lastly, verse 2 is massively problematic for the idea that Mary was kept from pain in childbirth. All catholic apologists have to do massive mental gymnastics to get around this. It's painfully obvious to any honest reader (pun intended)
“The chapter/verse distinction that was brought up is irrelevant because the text itself demonstrates a break in subject”. THANK YOU. This is basically what I said in a comment I put but, I didn’t articulate it as good as this. This is the case for much of Revelation. It reaches a climax and then switches the subject to something else entirely only to go back to judgement events to reach a climax to then again switch the topic to something else. 11-12 is an example of “climax” and then “topic switch”.
I’m Catholic and I dislike how so many Catholics try to make Revelation solely about Catholicism/the Church. When in fact much of it is about the Jewish people.
Don’t even get me started on Catholics believing the 1000 years in Revelation is symbolic of the Church age. There will be a literal 1000 years make no mistake about it.
Good point
I disagree. While there’s certainly a literary distinction, a metaphorical equivocation is being made between the ark and the great sign (the Woman).
I’ve always interpreted the birth pangs as all the trials the Woman had to endure to bring forth the Saviour (not literal labour pains of Mary).
@@adesertsojourner8015 My problem is that the only reason you likely interpret it as such is because it would go against your dogma otherwise. That's called eisegesis, when we read our theology into the text instead of letting it speak for itself.
What trials exactly did Marry endure while she was pregnant?
@@TKK0812 I wouldn't be so quick to accuse the Catholic Church when the plethora of denominations since the Reformation speaks volumes about Protestant eisegesis!
The book of Revelation is especially multivalent. The male child, Michael, and the dragon are real characters, yet the dragon is called both a figurative sign and the literal Devil. It fits exegetically to interpret the woman as not only a sign representing the nation of Israel and the Church but a sign personified in Mary. She is the mother of the male child, the spiritual mother of John and (by extension)all whom Jesus loves (Jn 19:27), and is only ever called "Woman" by Jesus, which evokes Gen 3:15.
What trials did Mary endure? How about taking on the immense responsibility of rearing the Saviour of the entire human race while still probably just a teenager. How about the indignity of giving birth to him in a cave. Or the terror of having to flee to Egypt. Or the anxiety of losing him as a boy for 3 days. Or the sword of sorrow (Lk 2:35) that pierced her upon seeing his relatives reject him, his closest friends abandon him, and the authorities execute him.
For those who think the woman is Mary, what do you make of this:
Revelation 12:14-16
But the woman was given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness to her place, where she is nourished for a time and times and half a time, from the presence of the serpent. So the serpent spewed water out of his mouth like a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away by the flood. But the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed up the flood which the dragon had spewed out of his mouth.
Like much of the book of Revelation, it’s hard to say, but the first part of the passage seems very clear.
No one is objecting to the fact that the imagery used in the passage is symbolic and applicable to multiple realities.
It is possible for symbols to point to different things.
We simply hold that Mary is one of the realities being represented by the symbol in as much as it clearly says "she gave birth to a son, a male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter".
Unless you want to dispute that the male child here is Jesus Christ.
It's clear that it is Mary and not Israel. The description of Mary is spot on with the image of the Blessed Virgin Mary of Guadalupe. Doesn't mention a people or country flying around.
Most evangelicals and fundamental protestants will associate the woman of Rev 12 with Isreal because she flys to the wilderness to be protected from the dragon. I think this is a better interpretation, but it is fascinating that Israel could be represented by The Virgin Mary here.
Which do you think is the better interpretation?
We should remember though that chapter breaks were put where they are for a reason. Of course the chapter breaks aren’t inspired, but they do indicate where the best Bible scholars of the day thought there was a topic or tone shift. So there will be places where we can read through a chapter break as though it’s a continuous passage (because they just made a mistake or needed a chapter break even though the text didn’t really warrant one), and all chapters should be read considering the context of the surrounding chapters, but our first thought should be “I wonder what their reason for putting a break here was” rather than “if we ignore the chapter break, it teaches this”.
Second
Mary was the holiest human ever to walk the earth, excepting only Christ, who was/is also God.
Christ's birth recapitulates Genesis, as a rebirth of humanity. He is the new Adam.
It is only fitting that there should also be a new Eve. That is Mary. In order that Mary be as pure as Eve was, in the beginning, it was necessary that she be sinless from the moment of conception.
Also, as Christ was to be born of her, she would be the tabernacle and arc of the new Covenant. One does not build a temple without first consecrating the land it is to be built on.
Therefore, it is both necessary and fitting that Mary was immaculately conceived and, as no other human served God better, it is also necessary and fitting that she be assumed into Heaven, as Elijah was.
If she's the most holy why did the Bible barely mention her
She was so holy she had to give sin sacrifice after she gave birth
You are making a lot of assumptions. You do not know, nor can you prove that mary was the second most holy person ever, nor does the bible teach that.
It isn’t
In order to believe this we must do the following....
1. Believe that Mary is the NEW Ark of the Covenant. Something not defined in scripture.
2. Believe that Mary is THE woman in Rev. 12 even though this is NOT clearly defined in the passage.
3. Believe that when the woman is given wings to go to the wilderness (another term for DESERT) that it means Mary and desert is what Heaven???
4. OR I must believe that because point 1 is valid and the Ark is in heaven in Rev 11 that it means thereby Mary is in heaven.
There are SOOOOOOOOOOO many logical fallacies here and require eisegesis in order to walk away with the interpretation that Mary was assumed into heaven.
First, does the Bible specifically say that Mary was assumed into heaven? No....never. To even make the argument requires so much re-reading and misreading that it doesn't even stand a chance if we were to put it to trial. Second, WHY is it necessary FOR Mary to be in heaven? IF Mary died, was buried and gets resurrected, as the Apostles and everyone else who dies in Christ, what's wrong with that? Se was after all, only human. Third, IF GOD chose to take her body into heaven, I, would have NO problem with it. One doesn't need to be a Catholic to understand her significance but at the same time, why read into scripture something that clearly IS NOT there? As if her being the vessel chosen to birth the Messiah isn't enough, why do we feel it necessary to impart to her things that aren't explicitly defined in scripture? If we take Rev 12 literal and take it to mean Mary, then I guess she's a bird-woman hybrid too?
We have numerous parallels between the Church as the Bride of Christ, Israel as the Bride, even New Jerusalem is described as a bride, we have lots of symbiology in scripture. This is just one more example of such.
Last, IF you were to give Rev 11 & 12 to 100 impartial individuals with NO preconceived bias regarding Mary, her assumption or not, how many of them would read those 2 chapters and walk away with the belief that Mary's body was taken to heaven? NONE! In the full context of the book of Revelation, they wouldn't not only NOT walk away with that opinion BUT they'd likely have an opinion in the opposite.
My faith is Christ is in no way tied to anything Mary did or didn't do, outside of a limited role as the earthly birth-mother of Yeshua hamashiach and her limited role as a member of the early church. Her role was limited and yet vital and as such, cannot be overlooked. However, my faith in Christ is not determined by her actions, good as they may be, nor anything done to, for or about her. If GOD were willing, he could take anyone to heaven, at any time, as he did with Enoch and Elijah.
You are welcome to believe as you choose, but do so from the only basis you have, a tradition that started centuries after she died. You can maintain that stance if you so choose, but it's not a teaching found in the Bible nor one held by the 1st Century writers of the NT.
@@Philip__325 The issue isn't ONLY with what is explicit but NONE of the points I made are even implicitly defined within scripture.
However, each of your points leads down infinite theological rabbit holes, each more tenuous than the one that preceded it.
If I DON'T believe in sola scriptura, then I open myself up to ANY text being placed on par with scripture. Perhaps I should reference the Canterbury Tales for their ecclesiastical relevance?
The trinity is implied multiple times throughout scripture.
Jesus not only claimed divinity but demonstrated it (Son of Man, Son of GOD, power to forgive sins, power OVER death, etc.)...
The issue though again isn't merely what is explicitly declared but that the points I made don't even pass implicit scrutiny. Instead, it seeks to exalt a human woman to a station that Christ never once established her to...that of co-redeemer and a "4th" part of the trinity. It also overlooks the NUMEROUS competing interpretations and pre-existing metaphors found throughout the OT and NT.
No one believes in Mary's Assumption unless they are catholic because it can't be found in the Bible. It is only in the man made pagan beliefs and traditions of the catholic church. Get real you guys. If you give anyone a Bible and tell them to read it they will never come to the conclusion of Mary's assumption, or divinity, because they aren't in the Bible. Ridiculous.
Neither is the Trininty. The Catholic Church needed to define it for believers. Thus the necessity of the Church to interpret Scripture correctly per Jesus command.
I doubt these guys.
And in turn they'd doubt you
Sounds like Mary is more important than Christ in Catholicism.
Sounds like you don't know the Bible. By the way, can you point to a Bible verse in which it's ok to remove multiple books from the Bible like the Protestants did????
@@linomolina7855 Where in the Bible does it say Mary was sinless and ascended into heaven in a bodily form?
Also, the apocrypha was not considered inspired scripture until the reformation.
@@mattb4249 You still haven't answered the question, and producing question in order to deflect is logically false.
@@mattb4249 Luke 1:28-30, when St. Gabriel the Archangel said this he said FULL OF GRACE. NOT half of grace or a quarter of grace, but full of grace. Romans 6:14, and if you read the entirety of chapter 6 of Romans it doesn't look good for your Protestant heresy. Luke 1:42, Luke 1:46-49. For the assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary Psalms 132:8. Corinthians 1:12-19, which then we find in the Book of Revelation 12:1:6, and 12:13-17 which is a direct representation of the Blessed Virgin Mary of Guadalupe in the Bible. But devaluing the mother of Christ does say a lot about your relationship with your mother.
@@linomolina7855 Mary isn't my mother and I don't put her at a level equal to the Lord. Also, Gabriel is an angel, not a saint. Saints are the believes in Christ. Romans 6 is talking about salvation through Christ Jesus, not Mary. In Luke 1, Mary says God is her savior, which means she needs saving from sin like all of us, therefore Mary was not sinless. The woman in revelation is talking about Israel, not Mary. It is Mary only in the RCC doctrine. Mary cannot save you, only Christ, the Savior that Mary carried in the womb and mentioned as Savior.
The reference to 2 Sam 6:9 doesn’t work.
Am I missing something? Where did it talk about assumption?
You're not missing anything. Catholics have an amazing gift of making the Bible teach whatever they want. You should listen to Christiaan explain transubstantiation from the OT. You would swear this guy learned hermeneutics from Harold Camping himself.
Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant is central to the belief in Her Assumption. This (New) Ark was awaited by the Jews with certainty. So when John says he saw the Ark in Heaven, and then doesn't describe the Old Ark but instead describes a Woman, Catholics believe he is referring to Mary. Check Brant Pitre's explanation which is way better than what i can do here.
@@sodetsurikomigoshi2454 You do understand that much of Revelation is a *vision* and not John seeing things as they literally are, correct? Rev 12:14 describes this woman receiving eagles wings to flee the 7 headed, 10 horned dragon. Can we assume Mary was half-bird, half-woman? If not, then you need to establish a consistent hermeneutical principal that says whereby you can take her as literally in heaven but not literally having eagles wings.
@@sodetsurikomigoshi2454chapter 12 begins with history and transitions into the future. The assumption of Mary did not happen before Revelation 12:5. I’d argue the woman is most likely Israel.
@Luke Miller okay.... You didn't really address my question though
Good god is that the best you have? By the way the woman in revelations is clearly the church.
The Greek Orthodox Church believes that the Blessed Mary had seen/tasted DEATH before she was taken by the Angels to Heaven... while the Roman Catholic Church believes that the Blessed Virgin Mary did not see DEATH like Prophet Enoch and Elijah...
Since the Bible narrates that Blessed Mary found HIGHLY FAVORED by God and FULL OF GRACE from the Holy Spirit, we can then conclude and say that she "WALKED with God" just like Enoch and Elijah, in that sense... I believe it is very much POSSIBLE in the ORAL/VERBAL TRADITIONS of the Early Christian Churches in Asia Minor... Amen.
Lol what a stretch! Talk about shoddy interpretation!
I fully agree that the woman in Revelation is primarily Mary who is a commensurate sign of Israel and prefiguring sign of the Church. However this still doesn’t prove the bodily assumption of Mary (which I believe in based on patristic witness) and I wish Catholics would stop acting like it does. It ruins your exegetical credit. If Mary pictured in body in heaven giving birth to Christ proves she literally has a body in heaven today we have to then believe the the elders and angels also literally have bodies in heaven. Furthermore we have to believe that Jesus was born in heaven to Mary not in Bethlehem. This is obviously a cosmic retelling of Mary’s role in the birth of Christ and we should recognize it as her being seen as glorious in the eyes of heaven but it does nothing for bodily assumption.
Sorry folks, scripture simply doesn’t support the last two of the four Marian dogmas. Just bite the bullet and argue for the magisterium. Doing otherwise simply hurts your credibility.
If Mary was sinless then she could have been sacrificed on the cross for the sins of the world and God would not have had to send His Son to be the sacrifice for the sins of the world. Mary was not sinless.
What vain imagination teachings put into scripture.
Don't forget all the early church father's that spoke against this nonsense.
Just like the eucharist or substantiation, what a load of hocus pocus.