The Assumption in Divine Revelation
In addition to Genesis 3:15, there are several other Scripture passages that point to the Assumption of Our Lady. For example, there is Luke 1:28, since her bodily assumption is a natural consequence of her being “full of grace.” Other passages include Revelation 12:1, in which Mary’s coronation implies her bodily assumption, and 1 Corinthians 15:23 and Matthew 27:52-53, which support the possibility of a bodily assumption. And lastly there is Psalm 132:8, which provides: “Arise, O Lord, into your resting place: you and the ark which you have sanctified.” Mary is the new Ark of the Covenant, who physically bore the presence of God in her womb before bearing Christ to the world.
The Assumption is also witnessed by sacred Tradition. For example, St. Gregory of Tours (d. 593) wrote: “The Lord commanded the holy body [of Mary] to be borne on a cloud to Paradise where, reunited to its soul and exalting with the elect, it enjoys the everlasting bliss of eternity.” The doctrine was also explicitly taught by Church Fathers such as St. Germain of Constantinople, St. Andrew of Crete, and St. John Damascene.
I don’t see anything wrong with admiring the fact the Assumption isn’t in Scripture at all. First of all, there’s nothing in the Dogma of the Assumption that contradicts Scripture at all. So the only person or persons who could have a problem with it would be anyone who demands that every Christian dogma be specifically in Scripture. Which is precisely what sola scripturists assure us is NOT “sola scriptura”. So anyone who objects to it yet insists on sola scriptura is a hypocrite (unless they wish to explain why we should expect everything about Mary’s life be in Scripture when Scripture itself says everything about JESUS’ life isn’t in Scripture)
Secondly, I don’t know why any Catholic on this issue or any issue really continues to cow-tow to the sola scriptura insistence of “show me that in the Bible”. That requirement ITSELF was not in Christianity for 1500 years and even after the “Reformation” it still wasn’t present (as all the early “reformers” like Calvin and Luther and Zwinglii all still insisted on ecclesiastical authority and everyone’s submission to the Church. It was just their idea of what the Church should teach is what they were “reforming” not the nature and authority of the Church per se)
So you have as a matter of historical fact this demand of “show me that in the Bible or what you say isn’t real Christian teaching” being at best a 300 year old invention (starting mainly in the 17th century) and not even the original goal of the “Reformation”! So why even play that game at all? It’s pointless and ultimately self defeating, for all parties involved.
Wrong. The word for "full" is not even there, and your NAB recognizes that and says “Hail, favored one!"
Your argument is based upon the refuted premise that Lk. 1:28 says Mary is full of grace (and uniquely so), but which it simply does not say. Kecharitomene (one form of the verb "charitoo") in Lk. 1:28, is never used for "full" elsewhere, but Lk. 1:28 simply says she was graced, favored, enriched with grace, as in Eph.1:6.
Much more technical here :
And evidently the translators of the official Catholic NAB Bible also render Lk. 1:28 as "Hail, favored one!"
Nor does kecharitomene being a perfect passive participle translate into meaning a "a perfection of grace," or distinctively a past action, in distinction to echaritosen (another form of the verb "charitoo") used in Eph. 1:6, as there also it refers to a present state based upon a past action, "To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted [echaritosen] in the beloved." (Ephesians 1:6) More at source.
,In contrast, the only one (though Stephen in Acts 6:8, in some mss) said to be full of grace is the Lord Jesus, "full ("plērēs) of grace (charis) and truth." (Jn. 1:14) The reason "plērēs" is not used in Lk. 1:28 is because plērēs actually does denote "full" 17 other places in the NT., and thus it is used of the one who was/is unmistakably full of grace and Truth. If Mary was perfectly full of grace as bearing Christ then it would say she was full of grace, but it does not.
And Swan stated ,
I was though pleased recently to hear Roman Catholic Magisterium interpreter Jimmy Akin say of Luke 1:28 on the word kecharitomene: "This is a Greek term that you could use in that exact grammatical formation for someone else who wasn't immaculately conceived and the sentence would still make sense." He then gives the example of using the term of Mary's grandmother. He also stated, "This is something where I said previously, we need the additional source of information from tradition and we need the guidance of the magisterium to be able to put these pieces together." This is a frank admission that the text does not plainly support the Roman Catholic interpretation and needs to be supplemented by another ultimate authority. In other words, the IC must be read into Luke 1:28.
However, seeking to compel Scripture to support her tradition of men, Lk, 1:28 was wrongly rendered "full of grace" in the DRB, rather than "highly favored" or similar, as in Rome's current official New American Bible, “Hail, favored one!" (http://usccb.org/bible/luke/1) Yet the DRB translates Eph. 1:6 as "in which he hath graced us."
Moreover, while Mary is highly blessed among women, and is to be honored according to what is written, this does not translate in the type of supererogation of praise seen in Catholicism, in which humble holy Mary is made into an almost almighty demigoddess, etc. .
The Assumption is also witnessed by sacred Tradition
Which oral form can consist of variant stories and fables, but based upon her fallacious novel premise of perpetual ensured magisterial infallibility, Rome can declare something as binding belief, which does not mean it was believed everywhere and by all, and this one lacks early testimony. But Rome can just claim to remember what she "forgot."
Listen to Ratzinger explain the Assumption, which is lacking in early evidence:
Before Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was defined, all theological faculties in the world were consulted for their opinion. Our teachers' answer was emphatically negative...
Altaner, the patrologist from Wurzburg…had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven was unknown before the 5C; this doctrine, therefore, he argued, could not belong to the “apostolic tradition. And this was his conclusion, which my teachers at Munich shared. This argument is compelling if you understand “tradition” strictly as the handing down of fixed formulas and texts…
But if you conceive of “tradition” as the living process whereby the Holy Spirit introduces us to the fullness of truth and teaches us how to understand what previously we could still not grasp (cf. Jn 16:12-13), then subsequent “remembering” (cf. Jn 16:4, for instance) can come to recognize what it has not caught sight of previously and was already handed down in the original Word,” J. Ratzinger, Milestones (Ignatius, n.d.), 58-59.
Yes, tradition certainly was conceived to teach this, "remembering" what was is wanted, making it a binding doctrine no less, but to attribute this to the Holy Spirit is blasphemous and makes Rome a false teacher, teaching for doctrines the traditions of men. For which she will suffer.
In contrast is true doctrine ,
For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. (2 Peter 1:16)
We have also a more sure word of prophecy...Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation [which does not refer to understanding it, as RCs imagine, but to its writing]. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (2 Peter 1:20-21)
In addition to what i just provided,
The Assumption Of Mary In The Earliest Sources
Many people are aware of the evidence pertaining to the assumption of Mary in the later centuries of the patristic era. They've heard of the apocryphal literature in which the concept first appears, they've heard of Epiphanius' comments about how nobody knows what happened at the end of Mary's life, etc. I'll be addressing that later evidence in a future post, but in this post I want to address the earlier evidence, including some that isn't often discussed.
The conservative Roman Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott, when discussing the concept of Mary's bodily assumption, acknowledged that "Direct and express scriptural proofs are not to be had." (Fundamentals Of Catholic Dogma [Rockford, Illinois: Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., 1974], p. 208) Passages like Psalm 132:8 and Revelation 11:19 are sometimes cited in support of the doctrine, but the ark in both passages can reasonably be seen as some entity other than Mary, and neither passage would require a first century bodily assumption of Mary even if we did conclude that the ark is Mary. If Mary is spiritually in Heaven, her presence there wouldn’t prove that she was bodily assumed in the first century. Even if Psalm 132 and Revelation 11 were referring to Mary being bodily in Heaven, how would we know when it occurred? No Evangelical denies that Mary is currently spiritually in Heaven and that she’ll someday have a resurrected physical body. There isn’t any way to arrive at a first century bodily assumption of Mary as a probable conclusion to any passage of scripture.
A group of some of the leading Roman Catholic and Lutheran scholars in the world concluded:
"Furthermore, the notion of Mary's assumption into heaven has left no trace in the literature of the third, much less of the second century. M. Jugie, the foremost authority on this question, concluded in his monumental study: 'The patristic tradition prior to the Council of Nicaea does not furnish us with any witness about the Assumption.'" (Raymond Brown, et al., Mary In The New Testament [Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1978], p. 266)
People often argue that we would know where Mary's bodily remains are, and that early sources would have claimed more Marian relics, if she had remained in the grave, since she's such an important person. But did the earliest Christians think Mary was as important as some people suggest? David Farmer comments:
"in the early church, as in Christ's ministry, she [Mary] remained so much in the background that it is difficult to know where she lived or even where she died. Both Ephesus and Jerusalem claimed to be the place of her death, with the Eastern Fathers generally supporting Jerusalem." (Oxford Dictionary Of Saints [New York, New York: Oxford University Press, 1997], p. 336)
And the claim that early sources would surely have discussed Mary's grave and relics if she hadn't been bodily assumed is dubious. There are many well known Biblical figures and figures of later church history whose graves and relics aren't discussed much or aren't discussed at all in the earliest sources. Concern over such issues increased over time, as concepts such as the veneration of relics developed into their later forms, but even somebody living as late as John Chrysostom could comment:
"Tell me, are not the bones of Moses himself laid in a strange land? And those of Aaron, of Daniel, of Jeremiah? And as to those of the Apostles we do not know where those of most of them are laid. For of Peter indeed, and Paul, and John, and Thomas, the sepulchers are well known; but those of the rest, being so many, have nowhere become known. Let us not therefore lament at all about this, nor be so little-minded. For where-ever we may be buried, 'the earth is the Lord's and all that therein is.'[Psalm 24:1]" (Homilies On Hebrews, 26:2, v. 22)
It doesn't seem that John Chrysostom thought that every significant figure of Christianity had a known grave site and known relics. It's understandable that people would refrain from making claims about Marian relics in later centuries, when the concept of a bodily assumption began circulating. A bodily assumption would be one possible explanation for a lack of claims about Marian relics, but other explanations are plausible, and the other evidence involved is contrary to the concept of an apostolic tradition of a bodily assumption.
If the early sources were refraining from mentioning Marian relics because they thought she was bodily assumed to Heaven, then why didn't they ever mention that bodily assumption? Wouldn't they be likely to mention such an unusual occurrence, especially if they held as high a view of Mary as the groups arguing for her assumption tend to?
Dionysius of Alexandria, a bishop of the third century, wrote:
"Chaeremon, who was very old, was bishop of the city called Nilus. He fled with his wife to the Arabian mountain and did not return. And though the brethren searched diligently they could not find either them or their bodies." (cited in Eusebius, Church History, 6:42:3)
This passage illustrates some points relevant to an assumption of Mary. First, it's an illustration of the absurdity of the idea that Christians for hundreds of years would have known about a bodily assumption of Mary, yet would never have said anything about it in their extant writings, even when they're commenting on Mary. If both Dionysius and Eusebius thought it significant that this bishop and his wife couldn't be found, that their bodies were missing, don't you think a bodily assumption of Mary would have seemed even more significant to them? Don't you think it would be mentioned sometime in these early centuries?
Secondly, this passage from Dionysius illustrates the absurdity of concluding that a bodily assumption has occurred just because the whereabouts of a person's body aren't known. What if we were to conclude that Mary's remains weren't kept by the early Christians, that her tomb was empty, etc.? Would such evidence, by itself, prove that an assumption occurred? No. It would be consistent with an assumption, but it wouldn't, by itself, prove an assumption.
The church fathers of the earliest centuries repeatedly cite Enoch and Elijah as examples of people who didn’t die, were translated to Heaven, etc. (Clement of Rome, First Clement, 9; Tertullian, A Treatise On The Soul, 50; Tertullian, On The Resurrection Of The Flesh, 58; Tertullian, Against Marcion, 5:12; Methodius, From The Discourse On The Resurrection, 14), yet they never say any such thing about Mary or include her as an example. Irenaeus, for instance, writes about the power of God to deliver people from death, and he cites Enoch, Elijah, and Paul (2 Corinthians 12:2) as illustrations of people who were "assumed" and "translated", but he says nothing of Mary (Against Heresies, 5:5).
People claim to see references to an assumption of Mary in Biblical passages like Revelation 12. Yet, Hippolytus, Methodius, and other early fathers comment on such passages without saying anything of an assumption.
How likely is it that all of these writers, commenting in so many different contexts, would all refrain from mentioning Mary’s assumption, even though they knew of it? Though Roman Catholics give Mary so much attention and claim that Mary is God’s greatest creation, the apocryphal assumption of Moses receives more attention among the ante-Nicene fathers than Mary’s assumption (which isn’t mentioned at all).
Jesus told the disciples that the ENTIRE OT was about HIM not His momma.. The Ark was a type of Christ, containing the OT elements that were types of Him... the manna, the budding staff and the law.. all symbols of the promised Savior they were contained in the ark..the tabernacle
The cover was the place of Mercy, where the High Priest can and poured the blood of a Bull..first for his sin and then for the sin of the nation .. When God came down, His glory resred above the mercy seat—between the cherubim... Mary has no mercy to give.. Mary is not the source of Grace or Mercy ..
That Ark was kept in the tabernacle .. It was where they went for mercy ..That is Christ not His mother.
That Ark led Israel into battle.. do you think that Jesus would send His mother in front of the army? Would Jesus allow His mother to be captured by the enemies?
The psalms make clear who the ark was .. the Ark is called "the strength and glory of God"; , it is spoken of as "the ark of the strength of the Lord."
Was Mary the strength of God?