Mary's Assumption Shown in Scripture! w/ William Albrecht & Fr. Christiaan Kappas 

Liar. It's basic catholic one or one bias. You only happy coz you heard what you wanted to hear.

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.

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!

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 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 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.

Yeah right!

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.

Its packed lies.

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

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.

It sounds silly no matter

There are reader’s Bibles that remove them like the ESV readers Bible

And it says that she flew to the wilderness not heaven

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

“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.

Which do you think is the better interpretation?

@@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.

And in turn they'd doubt you

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