The Assumption of Mary

Christ did not simply say "take care of my mother". He said to John "your mother". It is quite a stretch to make this simply a custodial role.

I will 100% agree with you that Christ was Mary's redeemer just as He is ours. I would not agree that she was sinner just like us.

There is a definite 'downplay' of Mary in Scripture, there is no doubt. Ever consider the possibility that is deliberate in order to protect Mary? Zealous believers wanting to be near the mother of Christ? A trophy beyond price for those who persecuted Christians?

Contrary to popular belief, the Marian doctrines did not appear out of thin air, nor were they a "top-down" mandate from the Church. They are firmly rooted in "sensus fidelium" -- the "sense of the faithful", which maintained and preserved those beliefs, and when finally declared as dogma this was noted as such.

 

When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own [home].

Jesus went to great lengths to distance himself from Mary being his mother, from the time of his baptism onward. Consistently (from that time onward) he refers to her as "woman," a phrase, not necessarily of disrespect, but to show that she no longer played the role of mother in his life, though in other families she would have. He would now be accountable only to His heavenly Father, to whom He fully submitted Himself. I have come to do thy will, He said. Nothing is ever mentioned about Mary's will from the start of his ministry at his baptism--nothing. Mary is "woman", just another person, another believer, no better, no worse, than any other believer.
She is to be held in no higher esteem than Mary Magdelene of whom Christ cast out several demons, or any higher than Thomas, who doubted the resurrection of Christ. She was just another believer, no better, no worse than any other.
On the Day of Pentecost she was found with 120 others praying. She held no exalted position. She was treated as an equal. Those that held a position of greater importance at that time were the apostles themselves. Mary had little say in any decision that was made. She stayed in the background.

In Acts 15 she isn't even present. Nowhere is her passing away mentioned. After Acts chapter one, Mary is not mentioned again. Her role in the church age is insignificant.

Mary "rejoiced in God her Savior," an admission that she herself was a sinner in need of a savior.
At the time of the circumcision of Christ, Mary took two offerings. This is according to the Law (as it is written), in Lev.12. The one offering was a sin offering. Why would Mary be offering a sin offering if she wasn't a sinner needing forgiveness of sin? She did, just like the thief on the cross did. They both did. She was no better than he was. We are one in Christ.

 

Catholic theology will always agree that Mary did indeed need a Savior. The IC doctrine is clear on this. The question is -- when did that salvation occur. A general understanding of God not being bound by time is helpful.

Regarding the "sin offering" -- seriously read Leviticus and come to an understanding of the difference between "sin offering" and "guilt offering". Sin offerings had nothing whatsoever to do with personal sin, but were part of the corporate Jewish cleanliness laws. The "sin" you are here attributing to Mary is giving birth to Christ.

Regarding the rest of your post and what you see as the role of Mary -- the scriptures say nothing about these things. Personal opinion overlaying the text.

 

Nope, that's your opinion and it doesn't fly with me. Mary gave birth to Christ and thus Mary IS Christ's mother.

I can try and distance myself from my mother, even disown her, but guess what DHK...she's STILL my...mother.

Futhermore, do you really think if Christ really, really wanted to "distance" himself from Mary as being His mother He could've done a little better job at it? I mean a liiiitttle bit better?

I mean Christ could've told His mother to stay home and that's where her place is...at home in the kitchen fix'in Turkey Pot Pies for the neighborhood. OR did Christ need someone to cook for him and do His laundry so he "allowed" his mother to accompany Him, but just don't tell anyone, your my mother?

You'r being silly DHK...Silly.

In XC
-

 

You misunderstand Lev. 12.
Your conclusion of the text says that it was a sin for any woman to give birth to a child. Let's apply that to today. Was it a sin for your mother to give birth to you?
Apply that from the beginning of Genesis when Adam and Eve were told to go out and multiply and replenish the earth. That command was not rescinded, but still in effect. Why would it be a sin? Your interpretation is faulty!

 

Giving birth to a child is not considered a personal sin by any standard. This is why the "sin offering" differs from the "guilt offering", which is truly made in repentance for personal sin. Compare the Levitucus law to what happens in Luke.

Leviticus 12:1-8

1*The Lord said to Moses, 2*"Say to the Israelites: 'A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period. 3*On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised. 4*Then the woman must wait thirty-three days to be purified from her bleeding. She must not touch anything sacred or go to the sanctuary until the days of her purification are over. 5*If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding. 6*"'When the days of her purification for a son or daughter are over, she is to bring to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting a year-old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a dove for a sin offering. 7*He shall offer them before the Lord to make atonement for her, and then she will be ceremonially clean from her flow of blood. "'These are the regulations for the woman who gives birth to a boy or a girl. 8 If she cannot afford a lamb, she is to bring two doves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. In this way the priest will make atonement for her, and she will be clean.'"


Luke 2:22-24
22 When the time of their purification according to the Law of Moses had been completed, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord 23 (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, "Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord"), 24 and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law of the Lord: "a pair of doves or two young pigeons."


The passage in Luke in no way provides evidence that Mary "sinned". She made this "sin offering" in keeping with the Law of Moses regarding purification after childbirth -- which is not a personal "sin", as you've pointed out.

 

You err, and in more than one way.
First, there is no such thing as a "guilt offering." No such thing is mentioned in the passage.
There is a burnt offering and a sin offering, and both of these offerings have directly to do with sin. It is not a sin to have a child.
As the text says, it has to do with the purification of the mother. As one reads through the book of Leviticus (and even other parts of the Bible) blood (other than sacrifical blood) is always unclean. It is a picture of sin. They had to be purified from their "sin" or what the blood picture, which was sin.
Remember what Paul said: "She shall be saved through childbirth." He was speaking physically. She wouldn't bleed to death. She would suffer pain and sorrow as part of the curse, but she wouldn't die.
The Nazarite couldn't touch that which was unclean, including blood. It was a picture of sin. After that he had to go and purify himself.
This was a reminder of her sin. It was also a reminder of their sin nature.

Perhaps this is what David was referring to when he said:

Psalms 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Either way, Mary is reminded of her own sinfulness, and must present two sacrifices because of it.

 

There is no such thing as a "guilt offering"? Leviticus is full of examples, and makes a clear distinction between a "guilt offering" which is to be offered by an individual for their personal sin, and communal "sin offerings" which are offered by all as part of the communal rites. Communal sin offerings have nothing to do with 'personal sin'. Guilt offerings are specifically for dealing with personal sin. This is why this passage does nothing to imply that Mary sinned. She was simply following the Law of Moses required after childbirth. To say it was a "reminder of her sin" is inaccurate. If it was indicated in Scripture she had made a "guilt offering" -- that would indeed be relevant and indicate she had personal sin.

 

That is not what the Scripture says.
Back up your allegation with Scripture.

 

Who is being silly? Read your "silly" post again? Do you think your "quote" would have been "Christ-like" for Christ to have said that?

 

DHK, the passage in Luke is quite obviously referring to Mary make the offering as prescribed by the Law of Moses (which as a Jew she was bound to follow) for purification after childbirth.

Please explain out how this has anything to do with personal sin on Mary's part and can be used to state as evidence that she had personal sin.

 

That's just a plain silly thing to post, period DHK. There's not one single thread of evidence from Scripture that supports your theory.

So a silly quote, deserves a silly response.

In XC
-

 

I did explain it, but apparently you are not reading my posts.
The text states that there was one offering given for a burnt offering and one for a sin offering. One cannot get around what the Scripture states. You can't simply insert your own opinion here; you must adhere to what the Bible says, whether you like it or not. It states burnt offering and sin offering. Your duty in Bible study is to find out why--not to try and justify why not, or discredit what the Bible says.

Blood has to do with sin--every time.
1. Blood is unclean, and represents sin, or:
2. Blood is sacrificial and covers sin--as in the Passover or in the blood of Christ.

This is obviously the former.
Lev.12, in great detail, explains the details of her purification. She needed to be purified of the blood that was lost in giving birth. There was blood involved. It was not a neat and clean cesarean operation. Even then, when the baby comes out, it still has blood on it and needs to be cleaned.
Blood is "unclean." It reminds one of sin. Sin has to be atoned for. It is atoned for by means of a sacrifice. All of this is done according to the law. Mary did not sin in giving birth. But the blood was unclean. The picture of it was to remind her of her own sin nature as David expressed in Psalm 51:5

No Nazarite could touch of any unclean thing, including blood, lest he be defiled. Then he had to go through a process of purification, just as these women had to.
Mary was reminded of her sin nature with these sacrifices--that she was a sinner.

It was also significant that she had to offer a pair of turtledoves. She came in her poverty, too poor to offer a lamb. Her sin, prophetically would be atoned for by the Lamb slain for the sins of the world.

 

Scripture supports my post. It is simple. Jesus consistently, throughout his ministry referred to his "so-called" mother, as "woman." He distanced himself from her as mother. Is their anything too difficult to understand about that?

 

No it's not. It would have been a sin for Christ to ignore the care of Mary. He is our example. We are to take care of our parents.

If Mary wasn't a sinner, why did she need a redeemer? This makes no sense.
There is not a shred of scriptural evidence to prove that Mary was sinless.

Have you considered that it is "downplayed" because it is not doctrine?

Protecting Mary makes no sense, because she was with Jesus and the disciples much of the time. Everyone knew she was His mother. If they wanted to protect her, they would have hidden her away somewhere, not kept her with them in public.

The Marian doctrines did not appear in scripture. That is why it should not be doctrine at all.


If you can back up your claims with scripture, you will be able to convert me, but so far all your claims are just opinion.

 

So Mary is a "so-called" mother? And b/c Christ refered to Mary as "woman" meant He was trying to "distance" Himself from her?

Please, for the class DHK cite your Scripture to support both claims.:laugh:

In XC
-

 

John 2:3-4 And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.
4 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.
--The narration says 'mother.'
The words of Jesus Himself, calls her "woman," indicating that he is not to be referred to as his mother. His time of ministry had not yet come. This was before his baptism--before the actual official beginning of his ministry. Who was this "woman" who dared to tell the Son of God what to do!!!!
She must be put in her proper place!! This "woman!"

John 19:26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
--The narration says mother; but Jesus says "woman."
It is a stark contrast. She is not his mother. She is a woman, another believer, no greater than anyone else. And John was to take this "woman" home and take care of her. Notice it was John, and not one of the half-brothers of Jesus, as custom would dictate at that time. If the physical bond was important, the family bond was important, then Jesus would have entrusted Mary to his physical family, but he didn't. The bond was only spiritual at best.

Here is one of the strongest passages yet, where Jesus completely ignores his physical mother:

Matthew 12:46-50 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.
47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
48But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

There was not one word of recognition of Mary. Not a word! He doesn't even recognize her as "mother." Instead he turns his attention on his disciples, and those that would follow him, and identifies them as his: brother, sister, and mother. Mary is totally ignored.

 

No, the Assumption of Mary was a declared dogma in 1950 by Pius XII. I checked it out before posting - I try to be careful of anything like that if I'm going to post it. Source is http://www.crossroadsinitiative.com...ma_of_the_Assumption_of_Mary____Pius_XII.html

 

The Immaculate Conception of Mary was declared as a feast, not a dogma, in 1476; then was declared a dogma in 1854 by Pius IX.

 

Mary was the mother of Jesus but that does not make her the mother of Christians. We become Christians upon faith in Christ, and God tells us that this makes us adopted children of God. There is nothing there about Mary being our mother.

In fact, the RC catechism says that the RC Church is your mother.