You seek any answer to Scripture that you don't understand. We seek to understand whatever the Spirit is teaching. You, however, will not be taught by us... because we are the ones doing the teaching. You create circular arguments!
Please. Enough of the doubletalk.
Uh, no. You are historically inaccurate. If you truly want to learn and not just snipe at what you don't understand you may read here on the subject.
Do you even bother reading the "proof" you link me to?
For example:
THE FACT OF THE ASSUMPTION
Regarding the day, year, and manner of Our Lady's death, nothing certain is known. Epiphanius (d. 403) acknowledged that he knew nothing definite about it (Hær., lxxix, 11). The dates assigned for it vary between three and fifteen years after Christ's Ascension. Two cities claim to be the place of her departure: Jerusalem and Ephesus; common consent favours Jerusalem, where her tomb is shown [Nirschl, Haus und Grab der allerh. Jungfrau (Mainz, 1900); Mommert, Die Dormitio (Leipzig, 1900)]; but in 1906, J. Niesen brought forth new arguments in favor of Ephesus (Panagia Kapuli, Dülmen, 1906). The first six centuries did not know of the tomb of Mary at Jerusalem.
The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise "De Obitu S. Dominæ", bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century. It is also found in the book "De Transitu Virginis", falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite. If we consult genuine writings in the East, it is mentioned in the sermons of St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others. In the West, St. Gregory of Tours (De gloria mart., I, iv) mentions it first. The sermons of St. Jerome and St. Augustine for this feast, however, are spurious. St. John of Damascus (P. G., I, 96) thus formulates the tradition of the Church of Jerusalem:
St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened, upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven."
Today, the belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is universal in the East and in the West; according to Benedict XIV (De Festis B.V.M., I, viii, 18) it is a probable opinion, which to deny were impious and blasphemous.
Your "proof" shows nothing but fraud, legend, lies, and forgery. This you call an Infallible fact?
Wow, you REALLY have it out for this belief...time to wheel out the four-times-slander.
This you call an Infallible fact?
Not at all. "Infallible fact" is your term. PG did not say that.
No, I call this a refutation of your ridiculous assertion that "the 'revelation' of the Bodily Assumption Of Mary was unknown to us for nearly 2,000 years."
If it were patently obvious, it wouldn't have taken nearly 2,000 years for the Church to recognize it clearly.
Our whole discussion boils down to one of authority. You put all authority to Scripture alone... but then how can you have One Body of Christ when so many disagree on what is plainly written?
I put my trust in the Church Christ founded to be the "bulwark and pillar of truth" entrusted to teach the principalities. Under her tutelage and motherly care, we have One Body.
I regard most of your reply as pious pap. Do you speak that way in your real life?
This is my real life and yes, I do. I'm sorry my language puts you off.