Evidently you have nothing to refute the information in my last post to you. Sola Scriptura is not the discussion here. I wasn't holding you to Sola Scriptura. The problem for you was that you couldn't produce any other source for the apostles teaching of the assumption of Mary. The best you seem to be able to do is point to "A narrative known as the Euthymiaca Historia (written probably by Cyril of Scythopolis in the 5th century).
Catholics need to simply admit that most of their beliefs rest in supposition and conjecture and as I showed in my last post to you on writings of heretics and questionable authorship. Read this again.
The first church author to speak on the assumption, Gregory of Tours, based his teaching on the Transitus, perhaps because he accepted it as genuine. However, in 459 A.D. Pope Gelasius issued a decree that officially condemned and rejected the Transitus along with several other heretical writings. Pope Hormisdas reaffirmed this decree in the sixth century.
So two popes condemned the source for information on the assumption yet the Catholic Church calls it a dogma that must be believed. Basing ones eternal destiny on information from an organization like that makes no sense.
“That’s your best effort to establish a base for the belief in Mary’s assumption?”
No, I won’t even try if you and your ilk are the intended audience. What’s the point? Heck, I’m not even allowed - according to the private messages I was sent - to use a particular word in this forum. So what’s the point of trying if it’s already apparent that my posts will simply be deleted?
“Evidently you have nothing to refute the information in my last post to you.”
I have no reason to believe you would listen to anything anyone says that goes against whatever it is you believe.
“Sola Scriptura is not the discussion here.”
It most certainly is.
“I wasn’t holding you to Sola Scriptura.”
You most certainly are. If the Assumption of Mary was EXPLICITLY in scripture would you believe it or not? And if you did believe it would not sola scriptura be part of the reason why you would? The fact that Christians see Mary as the woman of Rev. 12 is too much for Protestants of course.
“The problem for you was that you couldn’t produce any other source for the apostles teaching of the assumption of Mary.”
No. I don’t expect there to be many written sources for it. I don’t think you do either even if you believed it. There’s not even an inspired table of contents for the Bible from the Apostles.
“The best you seem to be able to do is point to “A narrative known as the Euthymiaca Historia (written probably by Cyril of Scythopolis in the 5th century).”
No, I pointed out that Mizzi never even mentions it yet you seem to think Mizzi’s article is the be all and end all on the issue.
“Catholics need to simply admit that most of their beliefs rest in supposition and conjecture and as I showed in my last post to you on writings of heretics and questionable authorship. Read this again.”
And you wonder why I think Protestant anti-Catholics are mendacious? How did you get from ONE doctrine - the Assumption of Mary - to “most” [Catholic] beliefs? You mean like the Trinity? That’s a Catholic belief! Virgin birth? That’s a Catholic belief!
Sola scriptura and sola fide APPEAR NO WHERE IN SCRIPTURE and yet no Protestant anti-Catholic here will ever admit, “Protestants need to simply admit that most of their beliefs rest in supposition and conjecture”. Even Catholics don’t say that about Protestants because we know we actually agree on many things. But apparently Protestant anti-Catholics are not as fair-minded in their judgment on that.
Then you paraphrase or cut and paste Mizzi without attribution for a couple of paragraphs.
“So two popes condemned the source for information on the assumption yet the Catholic Church calls it a dogma that must be believed.”
There is NO EVIDENCE that the belief comes from the Tranistus documents. Logically, the belief had to have already existed to have ended up IN THE DOCUMENTS. It was widespread, no one objected to it, and the first Marian feastdays were about the Assumption.
“Basing ones eternal destiny on information from an organization like that makes no sense.”
Basing ones eternal destiny on false doctrines like sola fide (rejected by the Bible, James 2:24) or sola scriptura (which appears no where in scripture and is, therefore, self-refuting) makes no sense.
You're too generous.
Weak is too strong a word for it.
There's no proof or it would have been provided by now.
Catholics can't hide behind the *Look it up yourself* tactic any more.
Look it up yourself = There is none.