yesterday, we talked a great deal about Rome and Mary. I deliberately waited quite a while to talk about Mariolatry, as most apologists can’t wait to get to that subject, without first dealing with the subject of the Magisterium. I dealt a great deal with the Magisterium first, to completely remove all Roman Catholic reliance upon councils, confessions, conventions, creeds and catechisms.
Much of what I’ve quoted as proof has come from Roman Catholic sources. That apparently has REALLY infuriated a couple of Roman Catholics, one of whom has made a great deal about saying I do not understand what I’m reading. I’m not sure how this is… I’ve had classes in English for the Theologian, and have learned a great deal about the meanings of adverbs and pronouns in relation to theology!
I’ve also had a full year of comparative religion, and yet I’m informed over and over again that I don’t know anything about comparative theology, despite getting one of the highest final grades in that course in my class!
Apparently, unless you’re learning directly from the Roman Catholic cult, you haven’t learned anything. And any knowledge you get from any source other than Rome, it counts for nothing.
The hallmarks of a cult include:
- A central figure or body that presides over it
- extra-biblical books
- reliance upon its own teachings and traditions having equal or superior weight to the Holy Bible
- true church-ism (“we’re the true church” “We’re the only way” “we’re the Remnant church” “there is no salvation outside us”)
- closed doors (“us vs. everyone outside us”)
Rome insists upon one major thing – all forms of Christianity must return to Rome. To do this, they created the concept of Ecumenism, a carefully designed trap to lead all Protestants back to Rome, and all Baptists into Rome (since we were never actually part of it).
Resuming our examination of Mary…
The continuing virginity of Mary is another Roman doctrine – despite the Bible saying otherwise.
31 There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him. 32 And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee. 33 And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren? 34 And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! 35 For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother. Mark 3:31-35 (KJV)
Wow! This is most definitely a de-emphasis of Mary, by the way… and it’s recorded in the Bible.
Rome attempts to explain this by claiming that Jews consider their cousins as brothers, and even refer to them as “brother”.
uh… no. Sadly, thanks to the Shoah (the Holocaust) I have no cousins that I know about any longer in Europe. And I only have one or two in the US. I do not call my cousins “brother”. I consider them as… well, cousins. During all my time as a Chassid, I never once heard or read of any other Jew calling or considering his cousins as his brothers.
The concept cannot be found anywhere in Jewish writings. The closest we have is the “All Jews are brothers” concept that a couple of Rabbis spoke of once or twice, in some obscure books from the Middle Ages. Where did they get that concept from? The Roman Catholic cult.
That’s a phenomenon known as “wag the dog”.
So, where is the only place we find of Jews calling their cousins as “brother”? only in the writings of the RCc. It’s fiction. It’s false. Let me be even more blunt, without attempting to be disrespectful or rude… but I simply cannot find another word to describe this….
…to claim that Jews considered their cousins as brothers is a lie.
Apparently, the RCc only considers the word “brother” to refer to cousins only in the case of Jesus. Who are Mary and Martha? the sisters of Lazarus. Are they sisters or cousins? Sisters. Had the same mother or father.
That’s the second tactic Satan uses, to claim the Bible does not mean what it says. Mankind wants to add to the word of God, Satan wants to question it then deny it.
The RCc does all three.
53 And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these parables, he departed thence. 54 And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works? 55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? 56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? Matthew 13:53-56 (KJV)
It’s really clear from the context that since “mother” is mentioned, but none of Mary’s brothers or sisters, that James, Joses, Simon and Judas are all the sons of Mary, the actual physical brothers of Jesus Christ.
It seems as though God anticipated the claims of the Roman Catholic cult, and deliberately chose wording to say exactly the words that refute the RCc’s claims.
So, the perpetual virginity of Mary is completely thrown out at this point. Let’s deal with all the Biblical evidence for the Assumption of Mary into heaven.
There isn’t any.
She’s mentioned in Acts, and never again in the New Testament. Really surprising, if she’s queen of Heaven and co-redemptrix, Mother of Mercy and intercessor of the saints! She should at least get as much Bible time as Jesus Christ if she’s so holy and powerful!
So, obviously, the RCc simply swallowed up local religions, and adopted the pagan beliefs into their own beliefs as they spread, a practice we know they performed for the holidays of the pagans.
We have only the RCc’s word for it Mary was physically taken into Heaven. This was not even an official doctrine of the RCc until 1950! Why is it that if there’s evidence for it, it was not made an official doctrine of the RCc at the council of Ephesus? Or the Council of Trent? Trent was the supposed codification of the RCc’s official doctrines. Yet it is not listed with accompanying anathemas.
It’s almost overwhelming, the lack of evidence to support all the RCc’s claims. All they have is tradition. “This is our tradition. We hold it higher than the Bible. I don’t care what you can prove from the Bible, because unless you learn our traditions, you don’t know anything.”
It’s the tightest circle of circular logic I’ve ever seen, even surpassing the blindness of agnostics and atheists who cling tenaciously to a theory of Evolution for which there is still zero proof after almost two centuries of vainly searching for it!
Bottom line – Mary was not assumed into heaven. She died a Christian’s death, and was buried or placed in a tomb. As a member of the Kingdom of God, she is indeed in heaven (unlike the Old Testament saints, who await the coming resurrection)… but she does not sit on a throne.
1 After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter. 2 And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne. 3 And he that sat was to look upon like a jasper and a sardine stone: and there was a rainbow round about the throne, in sight like unto an emerald. 4 And round about the throne were four and twenty seats: and upon the seats I saw four and twenty elders sitting, clothed in white raiment; and they had on their heads crowns of gold. Revelation 4:1-4 (KJV)
We see Christ on the throne.. but no sign of Mary. There are legions of angels, and 24 Christians… but no Mary. There’s no mention of Mary anywhere in the book of Revelation.
If she was standing next to the throne, shouldn’t we see her in Revelation? There’s mention of two women in Revelation during the Seven Visions… Israel, and the harlot who rides the Beast. The Harlot is the Roman Catholic cult.
More coming soon.