[Quix]

Does this mean that tradition is contrary to scripture? No.

.

EXCEPT, when IT IS CONTRARY TO SCRIPTURE, of course.

[BenKenobi]

Well I ask.

Where does scripture say that Mary was not bodily assumed? Scripture says nothing about it.

Where does it say that Mary was sinful? Not found in scripture either.

All your arguments here that tradition is wrong are from silence. That’s not good enough for me. Your argument that Paul in Romans clearly states, “All have sinned and fallen short of the law”, doesn’t say, “All have sinned and fallen short of the law, save Christ. He doesn’t make an exception for Christ, and yet you assume that all really doesn’t mean all, and that he was driving home a very different message.

Who was Paul’s audience? Jewish and Gentile converts. What does he mean by all? All who are alive on earth today? Which excludes Mary, and excludes Christ. Mary’s already passed away, and Christ had resurrected when Romans was written.

[roamer_1]

[BenKenobi:] Does this mean that tradition is contrary to scripture? No.

EXCEPT, when IT IS CONTRARY TO SCRIPTURE, of course.

...Which would seem to be most of the time. ; )