One feature of the [Word of Faith](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_of_Faith) movement's teaching is that you can "call things into existence" by faith, by which proponents primarily apply to health and wealth, since they say that because - we are given promise (Mark 11:22-24), - we are given a share in Jesus's divinity as children of God, - God wants to give us good things (Matt 7:11), - we inherit Abrahamic blessings if we have faith that can move mountains (Matt 17:20) we can also speak restorations into existence **just like how Jesus *as man* was given the power by God and was able to**: - declare someone to be healed in the manner of Genesis 1 (see [this interpretation of Matt 9:24](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/102587/10672)) , - command the demons to leave a possessed person (Matt 8:28-34) or - calms the storm simply by speaking (Mark 4:35-41), noting that Jesus's disciples can do "greater things" (John 14:12) BY FAITH **following the example** of post-Pentecost healers like Paul & Peter, while noting that Jesus could not work many miracles in Nazareth because of unbelief (Matt 13:58). Of course [WoF movement is *not* Biblical](https://www.gotquestions.org/Word-Faith.html) , but my question is a HISTORICAL one, **whether a similar movement has happened in the past 20 centuries**, *even if* it was not as "full featured" as the 20th century charismatic-tinged Word of Faith movement. More specifically I'm asking whether the element of **calling restorations into existence by word of faith** has ever been taught before, **especially keeping in mind that Jesus, Paul and Peter were doing that as well**. Please note that the work of restoration itself **IS** orthodox because we Christians are also called into Jesus's ministry of restoration, although understood more along the lines of restoring injustice, human dignity, and most importantly peace with God through repentance, which then flows over into the restoration in our horizontal relationships, bringing healing to humanity's many facets of brokenness. The preaching of the gospel can be seen as a means to this end. For example, orthodox Christians *can* declare "your sins have been forgiven" to a repentant person, or declare "Jesus loves you" to them (thus removing shame and bringing psychological healing), which in a sense bringing something not previously there into reality. I wonder whether there has been any group that teaches this style of explicit declaration **as a standard practice by *all* members of the group**, apart from Catholic priests declaring "I absolve you from your sins" during the Catholic [Sacrament of Penance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrament_of_Penance) .

I am reading "The History of the Church". I have thus far read a supposed letter from Christ himself written to an official, and a declaration that Christ descended into Hades following his Crucifixion (an idea which I think is accepted by some denominations, and rejected by others). Are these writings considered generally credible? I find it hard to believe that an actual letter from Christ would not be more well-known and revered, should it be accepted as legit.

I know the story that they lacked our current biological knowledge. I know the story that they still considered abortion to be a grave evil. These two excuses seem inadequate to me. Regardless, they are still quoted to this very day by pro-abortion apologists. Aquinas was even quoted by name in *Roe vs. Wade* in support of historical theological confusion about abortion.*
*cf. *The Fake and Deceptive Science Behind Roe v. Wade: Settled Law v. Settled Science* by Thomas Hilgers, W., MD . Since they were so brilliant all they had to do was look at Psalm 51:5 “in sin did my mother conceive me” which clearly proves original sin is present at conception which necessitates a spiritual soul. The answer escapes me and causes me to question if they were they really so brilliant. If they were brilliant, then why the primitive thinking on ensoulment?

I have four closely related questions on this topic (if overall this is considered too broad, I'm happy to receive advice as to which questions—if any—would be better off in a separate post): 1. What is the earliest documented use of the term "Queen of Heaven" being applied to Mary, the mother of Jesus? (cf. Wikipedia on *the Virgin Mary as Queen of Heaven* - there seems to be a contradiction between the first and second paragraphs in this section ). 2. Given that the only Biblical references to this title are regarding a false goddess being worshipped in the nation of Judah during Jeremiah's time (cf. Wikipedia's *Queen of heaven (antiquity)* ), is there evidence of any discussion or dissent (over whether such a title was in any way appropriate) in evidence in the wider church when this title was being adopted and disseminated (prior to the Reformation)? 3. Are there any arguments from Church Fathers or other historical records of why such a title would have been adopted in the first place? 4. It seems on the surface (at least to some) that this might be an example of Syncretism , but perhaps there are convincing arguments that can exclude that possibility - if so what would be the outline of such arguments? Or otherwise, what additional evidence (ie not covered in 2. or 3.) would support the idea that this *is* an example of Syncretism? **Please note**: I'm looking for answers that are supported by quotes from Church fathers and Church historians, not doctrinal expositions from denominational perspectives. I'm only looking for a very brief outline of an argument (one way or the other) to question 4 (one or two paragraphs maximum) - if there are the seeds of a worthwhile further question to be developed from such responses, I will ask a separate question to elicit a more detailed answer."

Are there ancient writers that mentions halos/nimbus: from 1-8 century? 1. How was the halo adopted in the church? And what is its historicity? 2. I read from some sources that in the beginning it was reserved only for the Lord but in later time it was depicted on saints. 3. Did anyone wrote anything about it? Thanks in advance. ........................................................................... **UPDATE** I found only this - > “Marcus Servius Honoratus (Servius the Grammarian), a Roman grammarian of the late 4th century, > in his commentary on Virgil's works defines the Nimbus as a "divine > cloud" ("nimbo effulgens: nube divina, est enim fulgidum lumen quo > deorum capita cinguntur. Sic etiam pingi solet" - Servianorum in > Vergilii Carmina commentariorum / Ed. E. K. Rand. Lancaster, 1946. > Vol. 2. P. 471). The Latin theologian Isidore of Seville in his > Etymologies mentioned the Nimbus as a radiance around the heads of > angels (Isid. Hisp. Etymol. XIX 32. 2).” https://www.pravenc.ru/text/2577657.html **The Etymologies of Isidore of Seville (c. 560-636 AD?):** > **The light that is depicted as being around the heads of angels is > called a nimbus,** although a nimbus is also the dense part of a cloud > (nubis). 3.Ahood (capitulum) is commonly called a capitulare. This is > also called a cappa (i.e. another word for ‘hood,’ or perhaps > ‘kerchief’), because it has two tips like the letter kappa, or because > it is an ornament for the head (caput). >**(Isid. Hisp. Etymol. XIX 32. 2)** **(Page 404 in the pdf)** https://sfponline.org/Uploads/2002/st%20isidore%20in%20english.pdf ------------------------------- Are there maybe church fathers that talk about it or other persons besides from Marcus Servius Honoratus and Isidore of Seville? Additional information about the halo. https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/112600/do-the-catholic-orthodox-believe-that-the-halo-is-apostolic-unwritten-traditio

[Athanasius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasius_of_Alexandria) and [Apollinaris](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollinaris_of_Laodicea) were two important figures in the early church, and both were opponents of Arianism. But while Athanasius is regarded as a faithful defender of sound teaching during this period while Trinitarian Christology was being developed, Apollinaris is considered a heretic because he denied that the Son became a full human in the incarnation, but instead only took on a human body, not a human mind or soul. It has been claimed however, since at least the 19th century, that Athanasius' Christology was essentially Apollinarian. Richard Hanson likened his Christology to that of an astronaut and a spacesuit: > Just as the astronaut, in order to operate in a part of the universe where there is no air and where he has to experience weightlessness, puts on an elaborate space suit which enables him to live and act in this new, unfamiliar environment, so the logos puts on a body which enabled him to behave as a human being among human beings. But his relation to his body is no closer than that of an astronaut to his space suit. (*The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God*, p448) > > We must conclude that whatever else the Logos incarnate is in Athanasius’ account of him, he is not a human being. (Ibid, p451) Trevor Hart [says](https://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/eq/1992-2_155.pdf) that Hanson followed Baur, Stülcken, Richard, and Grillmeier in interpreting Athanasius as "virtually ignoring the presence of a human soul or mind in the incarnate Christ." This is a big claim, but not one I've heard before. Lots of early church figures have mixed legacies, being instrumental for powerfully and clearly stating true doctrine in some area, while getting it very wrong in another, but Athanasius does not have this reputation. Athanasius and Apollinaris were active at the same time, though Apollinaris outlived Athanasius. A [previous question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/24916/6071) has asked whether any of Athanasius' writings about Apollinaris survived, but even if they didn't, enough of Athanasius' writings have survived that we should be able to judge whether this claim has merit. Did Athanasius either deny or ignore that Christ in the incarnation had a human mind and soul?

Brigham Young taught in April 1852 (as recorded in contemporary journals) that “Adam is Michael or God ... and all the God that we have any thing to do with” (see Wilford Woodruff journal entry dated 1852‑04‑09). Later LDS leaders publicly denounced what they called the “Adam‑God theory” (e.g., Spencer W. Kimball, 1976; Bruce R. McConkie, 1980). In modern discussion, it is often claimed that Brigham Young learned this doctrine from Joseph Smith. Some historians also note that Brigham appears to have believed this attribution, whether or not the transmission can be demonstrated in surviving documents. Question: *What extant primary sources (sermons, diaries, minutes, letters, temple instruction notes, etc.) from Joseph Smith’s lifetime (before June 1844) explicitly teach or clearly imply that Adam is God the Father / the father of human spirits (“the God with whom we have to do”)?* If there are no surviving Joseph‑era documents that state this directly, what are the earliest post‑1844 primary sources that attribute this teaching to Joseph Smith, and what exactly do they say (with dates and provenance)? Please: - Cite primary sources with date and repository (JSP, diaries, archives, etc.). - Distinguish this claim from narrower teachings such as “Adam is Michael” or “Adam is the Ancient of Days,” which might not the same as directly saying Adam being God the Father. I do realize that the Encyclopaedia Judaica shows evidence otherwise and connects them as do other sources, but I'm looking for additional more direct LDS quotes. - Focus on documenting the historical record rather than arguing whether the doctrine is true.

When Dr Vance Smith , a Unitarian, was appointed to the Committee to revise the Authorised Version, public opinion objected to the appointment and Drs Westcott and Hort (Hort, also, leaning towards Unitarianism) said that if Dr Smith was not allowed then neither would they be involved in the revision. All three were permitted to contribute to the revision and during that revision Drs Westcott and Hort approached other members of the committee, singly, seeking to influence them in regard to the Greek text being translated - the Received Text, also called the *Textus Receptus*. The ensuing revision resulted in the imposition of a new Greek text (that of Drs Westcott and Hort) in 1881, something not envisaged by the purpose of the revision. Many objected to this, among them Dean John Burgon who, in his book ‘*Revision Revised*’, pointed out that between the two manuscripts upon which the W&H text strongly depended, Codex Aleph (*Sinaiticus*) and Codex B (*Vaticanus*), there was disagreement in over three thousand places *in just the four gospels*. Hermon Hoskier , in his book ‘*Codex B and its Allies*’ demonstrated that there had been a recension (a supposed ‘reversion’ to the original) in the fifth century, based on Egyptian and Coptic influence, resulting in a corrupted text. The *correction* of this recension, of the fifth century, resulted in the Received Text . Hermon Hoskier further demonstrated that the two manuscripts upon which Drs Westcott and Hort so much relied were, in fact, *proof of the corrupt recension*. The reason they survived, say Dean John Burgon and Hermon Hoskier, is that they were recognised for their fault and were little used, just retained as reference. The resulting Greek text of Westcott and Hort can be seen to be weakened, compared to the Received Text, in many places where the Deity of Christ and where the relationship of Father and Son are in view. (See below for just a few of those places.) Overall, about 9,000 alterations, additions and deletions were made to the Received Text (see Dr Scrivener’s comparative text of 1881) amounting to about 7% of the text. And it is noticeable to anyone who studies these changes in detail that there is a definite bias appearing in regard to the deliberate favouring of Codices Aleph and B on these particular occasions. What is the response of those who favour the so-called ‘Critical Text’ above the Received Text to the overall changes in emphasis seen in these texts - the bias evidently towards Unitarianism ? ---------------------------------------------- A full explanation of the following texts and the effect of changing them is available here . (See the PDF version for a much better display of the Greek letters.) - ... and they **worshipped him** ... Luke 24:52 - ... the **only begotten Son** ... John 1:18 - ... the Son of man, **which is in heaven** ... John 3:13 - ... purchased **with his own blood** ... Acts 20:28 - ... Christ came, **who is over all, God blessed for ever** ... Romans 9:5 - ... neither let us tempt **Christ** ... 1 Corinthians 10:9 - ... singing to the **Lord** ... Colossians 3:16 - ... **God** was manifest in flesh ... 1 Timothy 3:16 - ... the dead ... stand **before God** ... Revelation 20:12 ----------------------------- Note (edit) I have used the word 'bias' in its second meaning as listed by the Oxford English Dictionary - 'to exert an influence unduly'. This is exactly, precisely, a description (as demonstrated in detail by Herman Hoskier in '*Codex B and its Allies*' and Dean John Burgon in his book '*Revision Revised'*) of placing undue preponderance on just two manuscripts against the vast weight of evidence contained in over 5,000 other Uncials and miniscules, the Patristic Citations, the Versions and the Lectionary quotations. It results in a bias introduced in the fifth century and reproduced in the Critical Text as the above examples clearly indicate.

Is there any historical evidence that the early church believed in the divinity of Jesus? What about the **first century**? What about the **second century** (and so on)? Was the belief in the divinity of Jesus widespread? Was it the norm or the exception? Can we find reliable answers to these questions in the historical records? Answers to this question should provide clear unambiguous evidence of post-New Testament writings which teach the divinity of Jesus.

### Background I am intrigued by this conversation between God and Devil in the Book of Job: > "One day the angels came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came with them. The Lord said to Satan, “Where have you come from?” > > Satan answered the Lord, “From roaming throughout the earth, going back and forth on it.” If Job was a historical person and the conversation between God and Devil is the verbatim reproduction of what really happened, I wish to believe that they were not such sworn enemies as we have been trained to believe. I prefer to believe that heaven is the place where the faithful who choose to live for ever with God go, and hell on the other hand, is that state of continued existence which the people who consciously choose to ignore God are assigned to be in. The very fact that those who choose the 'adversary' above God are deprived of God's presence, itself becomes their agony after death. ### Question Has there has been a historical development of the 'image' of devil through the history of the Church?

Polycarp is said to be a student of the Apostle John. Yet he never mentions it in his epistle, nor does he quote the Gospel of John. Why is that?

### Background The phrase מַלְאַךְ יְהוָה (angel of Y-H-V-H) is found several times in the Hebrew bible: > Then the **angel of the Lord** said, “O Lord of hosts, how long will you withhold mercy from Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, with which you have been angry these seventy years?” Then the Lord replied with gracious and comforting words to **the angel** who spoke with me. (Zechariah 1:12-13) > But when **the angel** stretched out his hand toward Jerusalem to destroy it, the Lord relented concerning the evil and said to **the angel** who was bringing destruction among the people, “It is enough; now stay your hand.” **The angel of the Lord** was standing by the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite. (2 Samuel 24:16) > **The angel of the Lord** found her by a spring of water in the wilderness, the spring on the way to Shur. 8 And he said, “Hagar, slave of Sarai, where have you come from and where are you going?” She said, “I am running away from my mistress Sarai.” (Genesis 16:7-8) ### Question It is a relatively common (if not mainstream) Christian belief among most denominations that the "angel of the Lord" found in the Hebrew bible is a pre-incarnate form of Jesus. However this belief appears to post-date the Bible since the New Testament does not make this claim. - When was the angel of the Lord first explicitly identified as Jesus/a person of the Trinity? - Who first made this claim and where did they make it? - What's the history of the co-identification of the "angel of the Lord" with Jesus?

Is it true that the Assumption of Mary is taken from (apocrypha condemned by popes), and do we have evidence that it is not, but parallel unwritten tradition, not from apocrypha? Do ancient church fathers or writings before 5c. AD mention the Assumption of Mary? While the Gelasian Decree condemned these apocrypha, did the same popes believed in the Assumption of Saint Mary, do we have evidence from writings? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- **The short answer to this, from the current information from catholic and other sources:** **Mentioning of the Assumption of Saint Mary - after the Gelasian Decree:** **(According to the catholic source "St. Gregory of Tours (d. 593)" is the earliest - known Patristic witness. (mentioning the assumption prob. from apocrypha?))** **St.Gregory of Tours (d.593):** > The earliest known Patristic witness to the belief in the Assumption > in the West appears to be **St. Gregory of Tours (d. 593)**. However, due > to the detail with which he describes the death of our Blessed Mother > with the Apostles in attendance, and her Assumption at the command of > Christ, **some scholars believe that he was greatly influenced by the > Apocrypha.86** https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=469 > **St. Isidore of Seville (d.636):** > **St. Isidore of Seville (d.636) in (De ortu et obitu Patrum, 67; PL, > 83, 150)** **appears to be the first to cast some doubt upon the fact of > Mary's death.** **Obviously ignoring the Apocrypha**, he said of the death > of Mary: ". . . nowhere does one read of her death. Although, as some > say, her sepulchre may be found in the valley of Josaphat."10 https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=469 **1.**(2?-3?-4-5 c.AD) - **(The apocrypha:)** (Liber Requiei Mariae ("**The Book of Mary's Repose**")), (**Six Books Dormition Apocryphon**. It dates almost certainly to the middle of the fourth century, if not perhaps even earlier.), (The Greek Discourse on the Dormition or **The Book of John Concerning the Falling Asleep of Mary** (attributed to John the Theologian), is another anonymous narrative, and may even precede **the Book of Mary's Repose**. This Greek document, is dated by Tischendorf as no later than the 4th century. but is dated by Shoemaker as later.), (the apocryphal treatise **De Obitu S. Dominae**, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century. It is also found in the apocryphal book **De Transitus Beatae Mariae Virginis**, falsely ascribed to Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to Denis the Areopagite.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumption_of_Mary **2.(c. 375AD - in The Book Panarion) (In the East)** Epiphanius of Salamis does not know about the Assumption of Saint Mary he says - "No one knows her end. But we must not honor the saints to excess; we must honor their Master." **Page 635 or 654 in the pdf.** https://ia800501.us.archive.org/18/items/EpiphaniusPanarionBksIIIII1/Epiphanius - _Panarion_ - Bks II %26 III - 1.pdf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panarion **3.(384-496-523 AD?) (in the West)** - Condemnation of the "Assumption of holy Mary apocryphus" by the (Gelasian Decree c. 5c.AD? (384-496-523 AD)) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gelasian_Decree **4.(c. If any think am mistaken, moreover, let them search through the > scriptures and neither find Mary’s death, nor whether or not she died, > nor whether or not she was buried—even though John surely traveled > throughout Asia. And yet, nowhere does he say that he took the holy > Virgin with him. Scripture simply kept silence because of the > overwhelming wonder, not to throw men’s minds into consternation. > 11,3 For I dare not say—though I have my suspicions, I keep silent. > Perhaps, just as her death is not to be found, so I may have found > some traces of the holy and blessed Virgin.(4) In one passage Simeon > says of her, “And a sword shall pierce through thine own soul also, > that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.” 35 And elsewhere > the Revelation of John says, “And the dragon hastened after the woman > who had born the man child, and she was given the wings of an eagle > and was taken to the wilderness, that the dragon might not seize > her.” 36 Perhaps this can be applied to her; I cannot decide for > certain, and am not saying that she remained immortal. But neither am > I affirming that she died. 11,5 For scripture went beyond man’s > understanding and left it in suspense with regard to the precious and > choice vessel, so that no one would suspect carnal behavior of her. > Whether she died, I don’t know; and [even] if she was buried, she > never had carnal relations, perish the thought! (6) Who will choose, > from self-inflicted insanity, to cast a blasphemous suspicion [on > her], raise his voice, give free rein to his tongue, flap his mouth > with evil intent, invent insults instead of hymns and glory, hurl > abuse at the holy Virgin, and deny honor to the precious Vessel? **Epiphanius of Salamis - Panarion - against antidicomarians 11,3** **Page 644 or 625** https://ia800501.us.archive.org/18/items/EpiphaniusPanarionBksIIIII1/Epiphanius%20-%20_Panarion_%20-%20Bks%20II%20%26%20III%20-%201.pdf > The holy virgin may have died and been buried—her falling asleep was > with honor, her death in purity, her crown in virginity. Or she may > have been put to death—as the scripture says, “And a sword shall > pierce through her soul” 96—her fame is among the martyrs and her holy > body, by which light rose on the world, [rests] amid blessings. Or she > may have remained alive, for God is not incapable of doing whatever he > wills. No one knows her end. But we must not honor the saints to > excess; we must honor their Master. (10) It is time for the error of > those who have gone astray to cease. Mary is not God and does not have > her body from heaven but by human conception, though, like Isaac, she > was provided by promise. (11) **Ephiphanius of Salamis - Panarion - against antidicomarians** **Page 635 or 654 in the pdf.** > And if I should say anything more in her praise, [she is] like Elijah, > who was virgin from his mother’s womb, always remained so, and was > taken up and has not seen death. **Page 641 or 660.** **Some catholics say that this part show that Epiphanius believed in the assumption of Mary, but I think that the stress is under the virginity. Because as above he says - No one knows her end.** > >No one knows her end. But we must not honor the saints to > > excess; we must honor their Master. (10) It is time for the error of > > those who have gone astray to cease. Mary is not God and does not have > > her body from heaven but by human conception, though, like Isaac, she > > was provided by promise. (11) **Page 635 or 654 in the pdf.** https://ia800501.us.archive.org/18/items/EpiphaniusPanarionBksIIIII1/Epiphanius%20-%20_Panarion_%20-%20Bks%20II%20%26%20III%20-%201.pdf > “What is between me and thee?” that the holy Virgin is anything more > [than a woman], he called her “Woman” as if by prophecy, because of > the schisms and sects that were to appear on earth. Otherwise some > might stumble into the nonsense of the sect from excessive awe of the > saint. **Ephiphanius of Salamis - Panarion - against collyridians 8** **(I think that it may be also relevant to mention the title queen of heaven)** > the error which has arisen on St. Mary’s account.... preparing the > table for the demon25 and not for God..... even though Mary is all > fair, and is holy and held in honor, she is not to be worshiped..... > Such women should be silenced by Jeremiah, and not frighten the world. > They must not say, “We honor the queen of heaven.”... **The book Panarion:** **It was written in Koine Greek beginning in 374 or 375, and issued about three years later,1** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panarion **(Here it seems that Epiphanius is mentioning Anne and Joachim - probably the Protoevangelium of James - It is interesting that he starts with - "If any think am mistaken, moreover, let them search through the scriptures and neither find Mary’s death, nor whether or not she died" and here he mentions Anne and Joachim that are not found in scripture, but apocrypha?)** > > For the age-old error of forgetting the living God and worshiping his > creatures will not get the better of me. (4) They served and worshiped > the creature more than the creator,” and “were made fools.”14 If it is > not his will that angels be worshiped, how much more the woman **born > of Ann**,15 who was given to **Ann by Joachim 16** and granted to her > father and mother by promise, after prayer and all diligence? She was > surely not born other than normally, but of a man’s seed and a woman’s > womb like everyone else. (5 **Ephiphanius of Salamis - Panarion - against collyridians 8** Page 644 in the pdf https://ia800501.us.archive.org/18/items/EpiphaniusPanarionBksIIIII1/Epiphanius%20-%20_Panarion_%20-%20Bks%20II%20%26%20III%20-%201.pdf **Translated from Russian:** ENGLISH > Regarding written patristic testimonies about the death of the Mother > of God, there is a firm conviction that they did not exist before the > 4th century. St. Epiphanius of Cyprus writes: “Let them search the > Scriptures, and they will not find information about the death of > Mary, nor about whether she died, nor about whether she did not die, > nor about whether she was buried, nor about whether she was not > buried.” Scant testimonies about the death of the Mother of God begin > to appear in the writings of individual church writers only after the > 4th century 1. The events of the Dormition and Burial of the Virgin > Mary are known from several apocrypha: "The Tale of the Dormition of > the Virgin Mary" by Pseudo-John the Theologian (originating in the > middle of the 5th century or later), "On the Exodus of the Virgin > Mary" by Pseudo-Meliton of Sardis (not earlier than the 4th century), > the work of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, "The Tale" by > Pseudo-Joseph, "The Sermon of John, Archbishop of Thessaloniki". These > apocrypha are all quite late (5th-6th centuries) and differ from each > other in content2. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%BE%D0%B7%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%94%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%8B_%D0%9C%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B8 ENGLISH > Until the 5th century, the Church Fathers make no mention of the feast > of the Dormition of the Virgin Mary. At the end of the 6th century, > Emperor Maurice established the celebration of the Dormition on August > 15.3 Epiphanius of Cyprus, a Jew by origin, a native of Phoenicia, who converted to Christianity in adulthood and lived as a monk for over 20 > years in Palestine from 335-340 to 362, writes in his Panarion, > written in 378, that nothing is known about the circumstances of > Mary's death: neither the place of her death, nor whether she died of > her own accord or was murdered.1 It should be noted that Epiphanius of > Cyprus researched various Christian historical works when writing his > books, and also knew and communicated personally with virtually all > the heads of the local Christian churches. Beginning in the 5th > century,the cult of Mary began to develop, and for this purpose, > authors wrote various works of their own composition, describing the > death (or Dormition) of the Virgin Mary.The authors do not sign these > works with their own names, but instead, they attribute the names of > ancient and revered holy fathers who lived in the 1st and 2nd > centuries, such as John the Theologian, Dionysius the Areopagite, and > Melito of Sardis, as the authors.2 https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%B2%D1%8F%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D0%98%D0%BE%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%91%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0_%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%BE%D0%B1_%D1%83%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B8_%D0%A1%D0%B2%D1%8F%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%91%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%86%D1%8B **I read from sources that the Assumption of Mary was taken from apocrypha,and I even read that some of these apocrypha seem to be even condemned by the popes in the beginning (492AD-553AD) - the Gelasian Decree. It seems that the west adopted the assumption of Mary story later - in 7th century?** https://christiantruth.com/articles/assumption/ > The feast of the Dormition,arrived in the West in the early 7th > century,its name changing to Assumption in some 9th century > liturgical calendars. The feast was decreed for Constantinople on > 15 August by the emperor Maurice in 600; about fifty years later it > was introduced in Rome and is mentioned in a papal decree of Sergius > (687–701),who fixed a procession for the feast. Pope Leo IV > (reigned 847–855) gave the feast a vigil and an octave to solemnise it > above all others, Pope Nicholas I (858–867) placed it on a par with > Christmas and Easter, and Pope Benedict XIV (1740–1758) declared it "a > probable opinion, which to deny were impious and blasphemous". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumption_of_Mary#:~:text=The%20feast%20of%20the%20Dormition,response%20to%20both%20these%20questions . **Gelasian Decree (496-553 AD?):** > A catalogue of the 'apocrypha' and other writings which are to be > rejected. > > The remaining writings which have been compiled or been recognized by > heretics or schismatics the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church does > not in any way receive;of these we have thought it right to cite > below some which have been handed down and which are to be avoided by > catholics.Further Enumeration of Apocryphal Books: http://www.ntcanon.org/Decretum_Gelasianum.shtml > the book which is called the Assumption of holy Mary apocryphus > > **in the other link probably is the -** Book which is called the > Home-going of the Holy Mary http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/decretum%20gelasianum.htm Please let me know if you know some other sources and your thoughts. Thanks in advance. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- **UPDATE:** **(I can not guarantee the source, it is hard to find this text on the internet from catholic source)** **Isidore of Seville (c. 560-636)** > Some say that Mary departed this life by passing through the coarse > torments of martyrdom,since the just man Simeon, holding Christ in > his arms,was prophesying when he said to his Mother:"A sword will > pierce your heart"(Lk 2:35).But it is not certain whether he was > speaking of a material sword or if he meant the word of God,which is > stronger and more cutting than any two-edged sword.**In any case, no > particular historical narrative tells us that Mary was killed by the > stroke of a sword,since one reads nothing about it,and nothing about > her death either. However,some say that her tomb is to be found in > the valley of Josaphat.** **(Cf. I. Bengoechea, "Doctrina", 178) (De ortu et obitu Patrum, 67; PL, 83, 150)** https://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2024/08/isidore-of-seville-c-560-636-on.html https://www.academia.edu/124196275/The_Assumption_of_Mary_A_Historical_Critical_Analysis **(The only catholic source I could find ab. Isadore)** > St. Isidore of Seville (d. 636) appears to be the first to cast some > doubt upon the fact of Mary's death. Obviously ignoring the Apocrypha, > he said of the death of Mary: ". . . **nowhere does one read of her > death**. **Although, as some say, her sepulchre may be found in the valley > of Josaphat."10 Tusaredo, a Bishop in the Asturias province of Spain > in the eighth century, wrote:"Of the glorious Mary, no history > teaches that she suffered martyrdom or any other kind of death.**"11 > Although St.Andrew of Crete (d.720) generally introduced much > theological argumentation into his writings, he states,with very > little argumentation, that Mary died because her Son died.12 The same > is true of a similar teaching of St.John Damascene (d.749).13 And > about one hundred years later,Theodore Abou-Kurra (d.c.820) likened > the death of Mary to the sleep of Adam in the Garden when God formed > Eve from one of his ribs.14 This,obviously, was not a true death. > > All the great Scholastics of the thirteenth century taught that Mary > died. The principal reason for their so teaching was obviously the > fact that they denied the Immaculate Conception in the sense in which > it was defined by Pope Pius IX.15 https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=469 **(Catholic source)** > The fact of Mary's death and subsequent resurrection is uncertain. We > cannot say, therefore, that they are included within the scope of the > definition of Pope Pius XII.6 For a Pope defines only what is certain. > > > > > > **In the first three centuries there are absolutely no references in the > authentic works of the Fathers** or ecclesiastical writers to the death > or bodily immortality of Mary. **Nor is there any mention of a tomb of > Mary in the first centuries of Christianity.** **The veneration of the > tomb of the Blessed Virgin at Jerusalem began about the middle of the > fifth century;** and even here there is no agreement as to whether its > locality was in the Garden of Olives or in the Valley of Josaphat.Nor > is any mention made in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus(431) of the > fact that the Council, convened to defend the Divine Maternity of the > Mother of God, is being held in the very city selected by God for her > final resting place.**Only after the Council did the tradition begin > which placed her tomb in that city.** > > **The earliest known (non-Apocryphal) mention concerning the end of > Mary's life appears in the writings of St.Epiphanius,** Bishop of > Constantia, the ancient Salamina, in the isle of Cyprus. Born in > Palestine, we may assume that he was well aware of the traditions > there. Yet we find these words in his Panarion or Medicine Chest (of > remedies for all heresies), written in c. 377: "Whether she died or > was buried we know not."7 > > > > > > > > > > And with the exception of a so-called contemporary of Epiphanius, > Timothy of Jerusalem, who said:"Wherefore the Virgin is immortal up > to now, because He who dwelt in her took her to the regions of the > Ascension,"9 no early writer ever doubted the fact of her death. They > did not, however, examine the question; they merely took the fact of > her death for granted. > > > > ....After a very thorough and scholarly investigation the author > concludes that Timothy is an unknown author who lived between the > sixth and seventh centuries (p. 23).) > > > > > Apparently influenced by the apocryphal Transitus writings of the > fifth to the seventh centuries, later Fathers and Church writers > likewise spoke of the death of Mary as a fact taken for granted. For > all men, including Christ, died: therefore, Mary, too.Like their > predecessors, they did not consider ex professo the theological > arguments for or against. > > St. Isidore of Seville (d. 636) in **(De ortu et obitu Patrum, 67; PL, 83, 150)** appears to be the first to cast some > doubt upon the fact of Mary's death. Obviously ignoring the Apocrypha, > he said of the death of Mary:". . . nowhere does one read of her > death. Although, as some say, her sepulchre may be found in the valley > of Josaphat."10 Tusaredo, a Bishop in the Asturias province of Spain > in the eighth century, wrote: "Of the glorious Mary, no history > teaches that she suffered martyrdom or any other kind of death."11 > Although St. Andrew of Crete (d.720) generally introduced much > theological argumentation into his writings, he states, with very > little argumentation, that Mary died because her Son died.12 The same > is true of a similar teaching of St.John Damascene (d.749).13 And > about one hundred years later,Theodore Abou-Kurra (d.c.820) likened > the death of Mary to the sleep of Adam in the Garden when God formed > Eve from one of his ribs.14 This,obviously, was not a true death. > > > **All the great Scholastics of the thirteenth century taught that Mary > died. The principal reason for their so teaching was obviously the > fact that they denied the Immaculate Conception in the sense in which > it was defined by Pope Pius IX.15** Thus we read in the writings of St. > Bonaventure:"If the Blessed Virgin was free from original sin, she > was also exempt from the necessity of dying; therefore, either her > death was an injustice or she died for the salvation of the human > race. But the former supposition is blasphemous, implying that God is > not just; and the latter, too,is a blasphemy against Christ for it > implies that His Redemption is insufficient.Both are therefore > erroneous and impossible.Therefore Our Blessed Lady was subject to > original sin."16 > > After the definition of the Immaculate Conception by Pope Pius IX in > 1854 the question of whether or not Our Blessed Lady died gradually > became a subject of wide theological discussion and is today one of > the most widely disputed Mariological questions. > > > > > > > **Besides isolation from the East and ignorance of its literature,** there > was also a **strong animus against the apocrypha in scholarly circles.** > **These were about the only early literature on the subject known in the > West, and their legendary character engendered doubts about the truth > of the Assumption.** > > > The development of the doctrine in the West, therefore, was more or > less independent of the East, so that the two trends of thought > confirm each other."70 Consequently,since the rule of belief > determines the rule of prayer, one could not expect to find the feast > at a time when the belief in the Assumption was not explicit. > > > **There are no certain references to the existence of the feast in the > West earlier than the middle of the seventh century.** The earliest > witness appears to be the Gospel Lectionary of Wurzburg (c.650) in > which the feast for August 15 is found to be Natale Sanctae Mariae.71 > And in this century Pope Sergius I (687-701) decreed that on the feast > of the Dormition (as well as on the Annunciation and the Nativity of > our Blessed Mother) there should be a procession from the church of > St. Adrian to the church of St.Mary Major.72 Most probably it was > this same Pope who introduced the feast of the Dormition into the > Roman calendar since there are no traces of it there before 690. A > Syrian by birth, Pope Sergius was well acquainted with the feast from > his homeland. The name of the feast was changed from the Dormition to > the Assumption of St. Mary at the beginning of the eighth century.73 > And Pope Leo IV (847-855) introduced the solemn vigil and octave.74 > From Rome the feast soon spread to England, France, and Spain. > > > > > In the Munificentissimus Deus the Holy Father cites the Gregorian > Sacramentary which Pope Adrian I sent to the Emperor Charlemagne > between the years 784-790. The following are the words quoted from the > Sacramentary: "Venerable to us,O Lord,is the festivity of this day > on which the holy Mother of God suffered temporal death,but still > could not be kept down by the bonds of death,who has begotten Thy Son > Our Lord incarnate from herself."75 Although the words "could not be > kept down by the bonds of death" express the idea of Assumption only > implicitly,they are commonly understood in the sense of Resurrection > and Assumption of Mary and not only bodily incorruption. > > > > However, apart from the Apocrypha, there is no authentic witness to > the Assumption among the Fathers of either the East or the West prior > to the end of the fifth century.** > > Doubtless the Holy Father made no mention of the Apocrypha due to the > fact that many non-Catholic critics maintain that the later tradition > of the Church expressing belief in the Assumption is an outgrowth of > them.81 > > > Failing to find in the sacred books of the Bible sufficient detail to > satisfy their curiosity concerning certain phases of the lives of > Christ and Mary,some of the faithful of the second and third > centuries AD. drew these details from other sources,frequently > spurious, from their own imaginations,and from the popular beliefs of > the time. And in the firm hope that their works would be accepted as > canonical scripture, they attributed them to the Apostles and > Evangelists. This apocryphal literature is divided into gospels, > epistles, and apocalypses.82 > > Written originally in Latin, Greek, Syriac, and Coptic, the Apocrypha > passed through many versions and the result is an overwhelming variety > of subject matter and detail.In describing the death of Mary and its > sequel, however, they all agree in stating that the death of Mary was > an exception to that of the rest of mankind and, with but few > exceptions, they state that her sacred body was preserved incorrupt > and that it was assumed into heaven. > > > **The absence of an uninterrupted chain of explicit testimonies linking > our times with the Apostolic period was used by some Catholic > theologians previous to the definition of Pope Pius XII as well as by > non-Catholic critics as an argument against the doctrine of the > Assumption** or its definability. Against these we quote the words of > the eminent Mariologist, Father Juniper Carol, O.F.M., written > previous to the definition... > > > > **The earliest known Patristic witness to the belief in the Assumption > in the West appears to be St.Gregory of Tours (d.593).** However, due > to the detail with which he describes the death of our Blessed Mother > with the Apostles in attendance, and her Assumption at the command of > Christ, **some scholars believe that he was greatly influenced by the > Apocrypha.86** The Saint said:"When finally the Blessed Virgin had > fulfilled the course of this life, and was now to be called out of > this world, all the Apostles were gathered together from each region > to her house . . . and behold the Lord Jesus came with His angels and, > receiving her soul, entrusted it to the Archangel Michael and > departed. At the break of day the Apostles lifted the body with the > couch and laid it in the sepulchre,and they guarded it awaiting the > coming of the Lord. And behold the Lord again stood by them, and > commanded that the holy body be taken up and borne on a cloud into > Paradise, where now, reunited with (her) soul and rejoicing with the > elect, it enjoys the good things of eternity which shall never come to > an end."87 Later on, in the same work, we read:"Mary, the glorious > Mother of Christ, who, we believe, was a virgin before and after > childbirth, was, as we have said before (c.4),carried to Paradise > preceded by the Lord amidst the singing of angelic choirs."88 > > Certainly,from the end of the sixth or the beginning of the seventh > century on, with but few exceptions, the entire Christian Tradition is > in favor of the doctrine of the Assumption of the Blessed Mother of > God into heaven.And it was unanimously accepted by the great > Scholastics of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries many of whom > either doubted or explicitly denied the Immaculate Conception.89 https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=469 If you find misinformation, something wrong etc. let me know to correct it. All this is from public sources and I can not guarantee the accurateness.