Metmom, if it’s *me* you’re referring to when you say that a Catholic “admitted” upthread that there’s “not a shred” of Scriptural evidence for the Assumption of Mary, you are mistaken. I must blame myself for not communicating clearly.
What I linked to was “Munificentissimus Deus” and I said it’s not Scripture, it’s history.
What I meant is that MD itself is not Scripture but it cites both Scripture and Apostolic Tradition, which is to say, teachings and practices which were handed on to us from the Apostolic era.
There’s a good deal of evidence, principally from the OT, where Mary’s Assumption/Rapture is prefigured or foreshadowed. This does not mean there is dispositive proof: it does mean that there are points of evidence or lines of evidence which make sense as pointing to the Assumption.
You really can’t *deduce* the Assumption from the Queenship foreshadowing in the OT, but once you have strong historic testimony that the early Christians believed it, the OT types and figures come into focus and make sense.
Enoch and Elijah, for instance, prefigure Mary, because they show his God lifts up His favored ones. So we see how fitting it is that Christ does the same for his own mother, His Kecharitomene, *most* highly favored one.
The reason there is no scriptural support for this, or any of the Marian dogmas, is because there is no scriptural support for them.
It is based on a lot of "it seems" and "it stands to reason".
Even the catholic encyclopedia online admits there is no scriptural support for the immaculate conception. None.
Poor Noah...