Replies

So, following this reasoning, then can I presume that anything not specifically mentioned in the Bible happened to someone just because it happened to someone else?

Anyone can claim any amount of absurd things using that kind of reasoning.

The doctrine of the Assumption of Mary was dogmatically and infallibly defined by Pope Pius XII on November 1, 1950, in his Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumption_of_Mary

Nineteen hundred years after her death! Anyone can claim anything after nineteen hundred years and be hard pressed to prove it did or didn’t happen. There is NO Scriptural basis for making a doctrine out of that. The Bible says NOTHING about Mary’s life after the beginning of Acts and NOTHING about her death.

Making up doctrines and claiming they’re true because the Bible doesn’t specifically say they’re not is the broad way to error and deception.

Making up doctrines and claiming they’re true because the Bible doesn’t specifically say they’re not is the broad way to error and deception.

wow..it's THIS bad..isn't it..that's very depressing, now that i've seen it in black and white. This truly is what it's all about.

or in the words of some. this truly is what this isn't all about, isn't it...

Making up doctrines and claiming they’re true because the Bible doesn’t specifically say they’re not is the broad way to error and deception.

IT’S EASY AND STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE

IN THE

ALICE IN WONDERLAND SCHOOL OF STRETCHY THEOLOGY.

"Anyone can claim anything after nineteen hundred years and be hard pressed to prove it did or didn’t happen. There is NO Scriptural basis for making a doctrine out of that."

If sin is what leads to death and Mary had no sin, then we can surmise that she is not dead and was taken up into heaven, body and soul.

While this teaching is not explicitly found in Scripture, it certainly was prophesied in Psalm 132:8, and made evident to John in his revelation when he sees “the woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under feet and on her head a crown with twelve stars” (Apoc 12:1-2).

There is also nothing in Scripture that precludes Mary’s assumption

Making up doctrines and claiming they’re true because the Bible doesn’t specifically say they’re not is the broad way to error and deception.

How about ignoring or deliberately misinterpreting the PLAIN WORDS of Jesus in the Gospel according to John when He says that one must eat His body and drink His blood to have everlasting life within you? The words are plain, the meaning clear to those WITH HIM AT THE TIME. Yet Jesus does not deviate from what He said. In fact, HE REPEATS IT, even as those who rejected it then rejected HIM and walked away.

So, following this reasoning, then can I presume that anything not specifically mentioned in the Bible happened to someone just because it happened to someone else?

I didn't say anything of the sort. I did say "Just because Enoch and Elijah are the only two people EXPLICITLY mentioned in the Bible that were assumed into heaven does not mean that it could not have happened to others."

Anyone can claim any amount of absurd things using that kind of reasoning.

Again, I did not use that reasoning. Not even remotely. I agreed with you that it did not necessarily have to happen to Mary just because it happened to Enoch and Elijah. What's your problem with that? I'm AGREEING with you.

There is NO Scriptural basis for making a doctrine out of that. The Bible says NOTHING about Mary’s life after the beginning of Acts and NOTHING about her death.

There is IMPLICIT Scripture that points to the possibility of Mary's Assumption. It is not explicitly mentioned. However, unless you just fell off the turnip truck, you should be aware that the Church holds Sacred Tradition to be on a par with Scripture. That's a basic point that has been discussed in hundreds of posts on this thread, and on countless other threads. The Church's doctrines are not all necessarily defined in the Bible.

Making up doctrines and claiming they’re true because the Bible doesn’t specifically say they’re not is the broad way to error and deception.

I never said the Church did that nor would any Catholic here worth his salt say that. That's a presumption on your part, and it's a wrong presumption. The Church does nothing of the sort in defining doctrine.