After The Rapture

[Jake Huether]

Of course, we could take it the other way.

Wow! I think you are mistaken on two points:

we (Protestants) see Mary as a normal person who needs Christ for salvation and is worshipping Him and bowing at His feet

First of all, though you may not have intended, this insinuates that Catholics see Mary as someone who doesn't need Christ for salvation. On the Contrayry, we are fully aware that Mary needed Christ for salvation. You see, it was Catholics who wrote the NT, and it was Catholics who compiled the Bible. And in the NT Mary says, "...and my spirit has rejoiced in God my SAVIOR." So, it wouldn't be like a Catholic to miss that point.

Mary needed Jesus. He saved her indeed. No Catholic would deny this. But His salvation became effective for her at the moment of her conception. She was saved because through her would be born OUR Salvation.

Now:

and have no reason to believe Christ raised her up.

It is truly unfortunate that Protestants have no reason to believe Christ would raise Mary up. It was by the Power of God that Enoch and Elijah were taken up.

And you would be hard pressed to come up with a reason why Enoch and Elijah were "better" than Mary as candidates for this reward. While Enoch and Elijah were Holy people, and while they brought the word of God to the Jews, God's people, it was through Mary that the Word Made Flesh was born for our Salvation!

Isn't it odd you believe God's mother was assumed into heaven but no one else would be?

No it wouldn't be. . Why would it? None of us had the singular Grace to cary God Himself in us for 9 months, to be the protector and nurturer of God made Flesh. None of us had the singular Grace to give birth to the Salvation of mankind. She said yes when we continue to say no! Of course she was assumed into heaven. It would be odd for the Mother of God NOT to be assumed into heaven. Don't you think?

[Circle_Master]

some things

a) I did imply Catholics see her as different. Many of you indicate in your words she has some kind of persuasive ability over Christ because she is God's mother and not that she is giving everything she is to glorify God now.

b) Enoch no information is known about. Elijah is a prophet. Mary is a woman who was given the gift of bearing the Son of God. The Word of the Lord does not record her as being raised up - thus it is not important since the Gospel writers did choose what was important to write.

c) The rapture at the end is different in that it is not singular, but corporate. The specifics I won't bother arguing her, I was just commenting on Anna's smug reply that it really shouldn't be so smug. If you want to start a thread on the rapture, I would be happy to participate like once a day if I have time for that . Lates

[Anna]

Many of you indicate in your words she has some kind of persuasive ability over Christ because she is God's mother and not that she is giving everything she is to glorify God now.

Actually, we imply both. She does intercede with her Divine Son, Our Lord, Jesus Christ, on our behalf. She is a powerful prayer warrior at the Feet of her Son!

And we also are absolute in our understanding and belief that she, indeed, gives everything over to God.

Both of these beliefs are founded in Scripture as well.

Christ performed His first miracle at the prompting of ... Mary.

And Mary's fiat in Luke 1, "Be it done unto me according to thy word" is her total acceptance for all of God's will in her life. She gave all to Him then, as she does now in heaven.

As far as the inspired Word of God not recording Mary's assumption, the Bible itself claims that so many wonders were worked by God that not all of them can be contained. The Apostles believed and taught that Mary was assumed into heaven, but were not Divinely inspired to write it down.

Pax Christi. <><

Edited January 21, 2004 by Anna

[Jake Huether]

b) Enoch no information is known about. Elijah is a prophet. Mary is a woman who was given the gift of bearing the Son of God. The Word of the Lord does not record her as being raised up - thus it is not important since the Gospel writers did choose what was important to write.

First of all: Where, in the Scriptures, does "inspiration" userp "importance"?

Furthermore, where in Scripture does it specifically say that "inspiration" would stop at the last page of the Bible. The Church has the Authority to loose and bind! The Church was promised the Holy Spirit. And it was under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that the Church declared Mary's Assumption Dogma (though it was believed by the Apostles and by the Church already).

Besides that, it really doesn't make a difference...

1.) The Gospel writers didn't "choose" what was important to write. The Gospel writers wrote what they were inspired to write.

2.) And there were several "Gospel" writers. The Catholic Church chose which writings were inspired, not based on importance either.

And 3.) Catholics know that in the realm of our "Salvation", Mary's Assumption doesn't play a role. The knowledge of her Assumption doesn't have a role in our Salvation. For whatever reason the Scripture writers were inspired to write about Enoch and Elijah, which means nothing more than the fact that God wanted them to write it. But that doesn't discount fact or importance of anything that was not "inspired" to write into the Bible. Many things have happened that are REAL and IMPORTANT that aren't written in the Bible. WWII and the fall of Hitlar was REAL and IMPORTANT, but it wasn't written in the Bible. Mary's Assumption was REAL and IMPORTANT. And in fact, I believe, it was written about. However, the Catholic Church, while choosing which writings were inspired, didn't choose that particular letter or whatever.

Okay... So now, back to the topic of "Rapture".

[Jake Huether]

First of all: Where, in the Scriptures, does "inspiration" userp "importance"?

Furthermore, where in Scripture does it specifically say that "inspiration" would stop at the last page of the Bible. The Church has the Authority to loose and bind! The Church was promised the Holy Spirit. And it was under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that the Church declared Mary's Assumption Dogma (though it was believed by the Apostles and by the Church already).

Besides that, it really doesn't make a difference...

1.) The Gospel writers didn't "choose" what was important to write. The Gospel writers wrote what they were inspired to write.

2.) And there were several "Gospel" writers. The Catholic Church chose which writings were inspired, not based on importance either.

And 3.) Catholics know that in the realm of our "Salvation", Mary's Assumption doesn't play a role. The knowledge of her Assumption doesn't have a role in our Salvation. For whatever reason the Scripture writers were inspired to write about Enoch and Elijah, which means nothing more than the fact that God wanted them to write it. But that doesn't discount fact or importance of anything that was not "inspired" to write into the Bible. Many things have happened that are REAL and IMPORTANT that aren't written in the Bible. WWII and the fall of Hitlar was REAL and IMPORTANT, but it wasn't written in the Bible. Mary's Assumption was REAL and IMPORTANT. And in fact, I believe, it was written about. However, the Catholic Church, while choosing which writings were inspired, didn't choose that particular letter or whatever.

Okay... So now, back to the topic of "Rapture".

Actually, wow. I learn something new every day.

I must appologise FIRST to Mary, for missrepresenting a Truth about her, second, to my Phat Phamily for the same reason.

The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary is a Dogma of the Catholic Faith.

And according to the definition of Dogma:

CCC 89 “There is an organic connection between our spiritual life and the dogmas. Dogmas are lights along the path of faith; they illuminate it and make it secure. Conversely, if our life is upright, our intellect and heart will be open to welcome the light shed by the dogmas of faith.”

http://www.secondexodus.com/html/catholicd...tions/dogma.htm

So indeed, the Assumption of Mary does play a role in our Salvation, as it is organically connected to our spiritual life.

Although, what I had previously stated still holds as far as the necessity of this Dogma to be directly indicated in Scripture.

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ct_assumption.html

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05089a.htm

Just thought I'd clarify...

[willguy]

The Word of the Lord does not record her as being raised up - thus it is not important since the Gospel writers did choose what was important to write.

1. it is possible that one or more of the Gospels were written BEFORE she was Assumed into heaven, so they wouldn't mention it.

2. The Gospel writers never explain the Trinity either. Or Sola Scriptura. Or Sola Fide. So I guess they're not important either (actually, IMHO, two of the three are heresy, but that's a different discussion).

3. The Gospels do not claim to be an exhaustive record of everything in the early church, or even what is important. They are a biography of some aspects of Christ's life, teachings, death, and resurrection.

4. I find it interesting that, had Mary died naturally, the early church, which was as big into relics as the Catholic Church is now, didn't keep her bones or records of them. I think there are at least two cities that claim to have the place Mary died, but NOWHERE claims to have her bones.

[M.SIGGA]

some things

a) I did imply Catholics see her as different.  Many of you indicate in your words she has some kind of persuasive ability over Christ because she is God's mother and not that she is giving everything she is to glorify God now.

b) Enoch no information is known about.  Elijah is a prophet.  Mary is a woman who was given the gift of bearing the Son of God.  The Word of the Lord does not record her as being raised up - thus it is not important since the Gospel writers did choose what was important to write.

c) The rapture at the end is different in that it is not singular, but corporate.  The specifics I won't bother arguing her, I was just commenting on Anna's smug reply that it really shouldn't be so smug.  If you want to start a thread on the rapture, I would be happy to participate like once a day if I have time for that .  Lates

Yo CircleM,

I haven't been in this debate at all, but there is one fact that needs to be pointed out - the assumption of the bvm isn't a roman catholic thing, it is accepted as an actual event that took place by all of the christian churches that existed before the reformation. all of orthodoxy, even those churches that haven't been linked to Rome since the First Councils celebrate the assumption of Mary. i think this was 'the baby that was thrown out with the bathwater' for prots who needed to distance themselves from catholicism, yet some anglicans still believe in it. it's not in the bible because it's not supposed to be; the entire old testement is preparing the way for the messiah and the new testement is the Good News that he's finally here and the fulfullment of the old law, period. The Church of the Dormition and the Chapel of the Virgin's Tomb and Assumption on Mt. Zion is where she died and was assumed, not ascended or risen, into heaven. It was an event that every Christian before 1518 accepted as the truth. Just 'cause it ain't in the Bible doesn't mean it didn't happen. And there would be no possible reason for the Early Christians to fake the event, b/c she would have been simply venerated as a Saint like all the other saints, martyrs, and apostles. And Jesus didn't raise her up like Lazarus, she was assumed, almost like being picked up.

This is a rough website on the topic, but if your interested there are more out there on the web.

http://www.my-holyland.com/site.php?site_id=40&category_id=1

holla back.

[Winchester]

The sad thing is after the Rapture, most of those idiot's cars with the "in case of rapture this vehicle will be unmanned" bumper stickers would actually be better driven.

[Aloysius]

very early Christian writings give accounts of the Apostles finding Mary's tomb empty filled with roses. :cool:

[Dave]

a) I did imply Catholics see her as different.  Many of you indicate in your words she has some kind of persuasive ability over Christ because she is God's mother and not that she is giving everything she is to glorify God now.

Well, consider the wedding at Cana. Jesus changed the water to wine when she asked him to. Also, Mary is in heaven, and those in heaven are PERFECTLY in tune to God's will. Mary won't persuade her Son to do anything that's not in accordance with His Will. However, he wants us to ask rather than take a fatalistic approach. I mean, often His will is, "If that person prays I'll do this but if not I won't." So if it's in accordance with His Will, and Our Lady asks for it, then of course He'll do it!

Edited January 23, 2004 by Dave