“The council of Chalcedon in 451! Over 400 years after Christ and over 300 years after the apostles.”
Yes, sir. Many doctrines were discussed at Chalcedon. This was one of them. Again, Juvenal brought his evidence for her assumption and it was taken up by the Church as a whole then.
“This is a belief of great importance to the RCC and not one of the apostles wrote about it.”
Again there were records at the Church of Jerusalem kept from Apostolic times. These were the ones submitted by Juvenal to Chalcedon.
“Jesus said that those who believed on Him were more blessed than Mary”
He did not say that. He said that ‘Blessed are those who hear the word of God and obey it’.
Are you going to continue to lie about what Scripture teaches?
“and you believe what the RCC says?”
Yes, I do.
“I asked for evidence from scripture.”
Your premise is flawed. You are assuming that scripture is the only authoritative source of doctrine.
“You told me you could show from scripture”
I did not say that. I argued that scripture itself argues that tradition is authoritative. Ergo, your premise is flawed.
“What testimony? Where is the proof of that “testimony”?”
What was submitted by Juvenal to the Council.
“Regarding the day, year, and manner of Our Lady’s death, nothing certain is known.”
Do we know the year and the date of the Death of our Lord and Saviour?
“So we find that the whole thing is really based on a falsehood.”
No, again. That is the ‘first mention of it’. There’s a difference between ‘first mention of it’ and between the source for which the doctrine is based.
What this tells us from the historical standpoint is that something was known about her death, but that from the information that we now possess, that the originals have been lost.
“Two cities claim to be the place of her departure: Jerusalem and Ephesus.”
Jerusalem is where her tomb is located and the tomb has been dated to the time of Christ. There is disagreement, but the evidence in favour of Ephesus is weak. The best sources we do have all cite Jerusalem.
“How are we doing so far with “infallibly inspired by the Holy Spirit”? Something your pretty comfortable staking you eternal future in either heave or hell on?”
Again, you haven’t bothered to actually report the source of the belief, coming from the account submitted by Juvenal.
I’m actually rather amused at the lengths that you are driven to disprove Chalcedon.
“Vatican I was in 1868 yet Pius XII still needed to “infallibly” declare in 1950 that it was a dogma of faith?”
Blargh. That is my error. Serves me right for not checking it. Yes, it was infalliably proclaimed in 1950.
So why are you studiously avoiding any mention of the Bishop Juvenal? I’m curious here. :)
Why, sir?
There was none. The whole thing is built on myth. Give it up man. The RCC itself says “probable opinion”. To go from probable opinion to infallible doctrine which causes unbelief to be blasphemy is ludicrous. Get a clue.