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?

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.

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.

Could you ever entertain the possibility that dumping everything not satisfied by Scriptural warrant as "tradition" isn't just assuming all followers did just fall off the turnip truck?

I believe, that God gave us his inspired words to be the guide for our faith. It SHOULD be at the top of the heap as far as authority. Traditions, and EVERYBODY has them, should be measured by this source if they have to do with doctrines of the faith. What would prevent anyone from making up something and just expecting adherence because it was labeled "TRADITION"? We need an objective source because we are imperfect.

There is IMPLICIT Scripture that points to the possibility of Mary's Assumption. It is not explicitly mentioned.

There is not any implicit Scripture that supports that doctrine. Grabbing verses out of context and using them to support a doctrine which has NO basis at all, isn't Scriptural support.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.

And that's where all the error comes in.

The Church's doctrines are not all necessarily defined in the Bible.

We know that. And if it's not defined in the Bible, then it's simply presumption and not likely to be true.

It's only the Roman Catholic church's tradition that Tradition is on equal par with the written, infallible, immutable Word of God. A nice neat little system they have there. Then if you argue with them, you are in essence arguing with God.

Any time political powers want to establish themselves they claim divine appointment to back themselves up.

Any tradition or doctrine not found in Scripture is all fluff and should be treated as suspect.