Mary says *yes* to the Garden?
What kind of nonsense is that all about.
And here I thought I had heard everything.
Oh baloney. Christ’s. dare was pulled out prior to His crucifixion. Do you think those hairs lying on the ground mean all of Christ is not in Heaven? please
So you're now saying that Mary was crucified on the cross with Jesus?
And are you now saying that since Catholics say she was sinless, like Jesus, and that she was crucified on the cross with Christ, that she can save just like Jesus does?
That would indeed make her the deity that Catholics claim they don't make her.
I guess then that when Jesus said this....
John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
since Jesus doesn't lie, He must have forgotten to mention Mary. An oversight on His part perhaps?
The Body Who Ascended was not the same body put in the rock hewn tomb. Have you not read 1 Cor 15:51-54 or 1 Thess 4:13-17? Have you not read that flesh and blood cannot inherit Heaven? Your reasoning is a bit off tonight.
Yes. It’s called mitochondrial DNA
You’ve got it backwards. Mary was buried with her DNA not Jesus.
Which is wise since that testifies to the delusions of Rome which imagines she can proclaim something to be required belief approx. 1700 after it allegedly occurred by fallibly claiming non-existent early testimony but which means she claims to "remember" what early tradition "forgot" to mention.
As Ratzinger stated,
Before Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was defined, all theological faculties in the world were consulted for their opinion. Our teachers' answer was emphatically negative. What here became evident was the one-sidedness, not only of the historical, but of the historicist method in theology. “Tradition” was identified with what could be proved on the basis of texts. Altaner, the patrologist from Wurzburg…had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven was unknown before the 5C; this doctrine, therefore, he argued, could not belong to the “apostolic tradition. And this was his conclusion, which my teachers at Munich shared.
How then can Rome rationalize making belief in the Assumption a binding doctrine? Why, by claiming,
But if you conceive of “tradition” as the living process whereby the Holy Spirit introduces us to the fullness of truth and teaches us how to understand what previously we could still not grasp (cf. Jn 16:12-13), then subsequent “remembering” (cf. Jn 16:4, for instance) can come to recognize what it has not caught sight of previously and was already handed down in the original Word,” J. Ratzinger, Milestones (Ignatius, n.d.), 58-59.
"Caught sight of" means seeing what is not there. Yet the actual basis for the claimed veracity of such decrees as the Assumption is NOT that Scripture substantiates it, but is bases upon the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and basically in primary cults).
Thus as asserted by the founder of sophist "Catholic Answers,"
"...the mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true," -Karl Keating, founder of Catholic Answers; Catholicism and Fundamentalism San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988, p. 275)
For Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined(?) (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.