Mary and the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin

[atpollard]

As I indicated, the authority is Scripture, which you say is "authority fallacy."

Scripture is not an authority fallacy. Claiming that something must be true because 1. Everyone believes it or 2. People have always believed it is an “appeal to authority” fallacy.

 

[Josiah]

Scripture is not an authority fallacy. Claiming that something must be true because 1. Everyone believes it or 2. People have always believed it is an “appeal to authority” fallacy.

Of course, obviously, as all know who can read, I never said something is true BECAUSE everyone believes it. Clearly, the authority I appealed to is the words of Scripture. You replied I therefore was "appealing to s fallacy."


If you have a verse that states, "Mary was not assumed into heaven" or any other verse that makes such impossible, then quote it. And you'll substantiate your point that this teaching is wrong. Until then, we just have you giving your own new personal feeling that this isn't true but NOTHING in Scripture that substantiates your feeling (you rejecting the authority of Scripture and subsituting your own individual opinion and feeling). And then we would have the two largest, oldest faith communities (Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox) expressing that Mary was so assumed but having NOTHING in Scripture that substantiates that feeling. You simply have joined with the RCC and EOC in rejecting the authority of Scripture and substituting individual feelings and opinions. Until then, you are just doing the very thing you ridicule the RCC and EOC for doing.





.

 

[atpollard]

Of course, obviously, as all know who can read, I never said something is true BECAUSE everyone believes it. Clearly, the authority I appealed to is the words of Scripture. You replied I therefore was "appealing to s fallacy."

This ...

The Dogma of the Assumption of Mary is an ancient and widely held view, embraced by most Christians for most of our history. And I know of nothing in Scripture that clearly denies it.

... comes very close to claiming that it must be true because: 1. it is widely held (appeal to authority fallacy). 2. Embraced for most of history (appeal to authority fallacy).

There are many widely held views that are false.
There are many views held for most of history that are false.

 

[Josiah]

This comes very close to claiming that it must be true because: 1. it is widely held (appeal to authority fallacy). 2. Embraced for most of history (appeal to authority fallacy).

You prove - in undeniable black-and-white words - that I never remotely stated that something is dogma because lots believe that it is. You prove (and now admit) I never said what you claim. If you read the whole post, it is CLEAR and unavoidable that I hold Scripture as the authority (and you posted thus I was holding to an authority fallacy).


If you have a verse that states, "Mary was not assumed into heaven" or any other verse that makes such impossible, then quote it. And you'll substantiate your point that this teaching is wrong. Until then, we just have you giving your own new personal feeling that this isn't true but NOTHING in Scripture that substantiates your feeling (you rejecting the authority of Scripture and subsituting your own individual opinion and feeling). And then we would have the two largest, oldest faith communities (Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox) expressing that Mary was so assumed but having NOTHING in Scripture that substantiates that feeling. You simply have joined with the RCC and EOC in rejecting the authority of Scripture and substituting individual feelings and opinions. Until then, you are just doing the very thing you ridicule the RCC and EOC for doing.

Since you insist the RCC and EOC are wrong to hold to a view Scripture does not confirm ("Mary was assumed into heaven") then you are equally wrong to hold a view that Scripture does not confirm ("Mary was not assumed into heaven"). OR you are doing what they do; Simply holding to a tradition (albeit, theirs is FAR, FAR older and more universal - although that doesn't make it true, just makes your tradition a LOT newer and less embraced).




.

 

[FredVB]

Requiring proof that something is not so is not at all as reasonable as requiring proof of others saying it was so. Proof should be required with the original claim.

 

[Josiah]

Requiring proof that something is not so is not at all as reasonable as requiring proof of others saying it was so. Proof should be required with the original claim.

Correct. The opening post didn't prove anything.

There is no proof as to whether Mary had other children or not. NEITHER position has proof. There IS ancient and (until VERY recently) universal Tradition and belief, but no proof.

Just how it is. For those who shout that she did and for those who shout she did not.

And there's just no proof to the issue of the thread: that Mary was assumed into heaven. NOTHING in Scripture that states she was, NOTHING that says she was not. And unlike the issue of children, this idea is much later with much weaker Tradition.

Just how it is.

And to both: why does it matter, one way or the other?


.

 

[FredVB]

Correct. The opening post didn't prove anything.

There is no proof as to whether Mary had other children or not. NEITHER position has proof. There IS ancient and (until VERY recently) universal Tradition and belief, but no proof.

Just how it is. For those who shout that she did and for those who shout she did not.

And there's just no proof to the issue of the thread: that Mary was assumed into heaven. NOTHING in Scripture that states she was, NOTHING that says she was not. And unlike the issue of children, this idea is much later with much weaker Tradition.

Just how it is.

And to both: why does it matter, one way or the other?


.

I certainly missed the shouting, wherever that happened. My point is that the burden of having basis should be on those who made the first claim, historically it was such ones that claimed Mary always remained a virgin all through her marriage and the rest of her life, and that she was assumed bodily into heaven, and with no basis but trusting the authority of some among them, who were not witnesses in any case. So that should be criticized, not those who point out there is not the basis for that claim.

Can you see? No shouting is involved with this.

 

[Josiah]

I certainly missed the shouting, wherever that happened. My point is that the burden of having basis should be on those who made the first claim, historically it was such ones that claimed Mary always remained a virgin all through her marriage and the rest of her life, and that she was assumed bodily into heaven, and with no basis but trusting the authority of some among them, who were not witnesses in any case. So that should be criticized, not those who point out there is not the basis for that claim.

Can you see? No shouting is involved with this.

IMO, the "burden" is on any who make a dogmatic claim.... And of course, I claimed NOTHING, I only noted that those who insist SCRIPTURE supports their claim are wrong. One claim simply looks to very ancient, ecumenical Tradition going back at least to 110 AD, whereas the opposite claim of a small minority Tradition goes back to the early 1800's. They are EQUALLY Tradition - just one is ancient and universal, the contrary tiny and very, very new. Neither is confirmed by Scripture (and frankly, neither matters). Can you see?


And I hold that some preference is to be given to a view that has universal, ecumenical, solid consensus from the beginning..... When every Christian accepted something say for 1800 years (like say that the book of Romans is Scripture) that view has some preference over a small minority of Christians SUDDENLY (out of the clear blue) inventing some contrary view (like say Romans is not Scripture). If we are going to say "The Bible is inspired by God and the norm for teachings and practice" then we must accept ancient, ecumenical Tradition... Can you see?




.

 

[FredVB]

IMO, the "burden" is on any who make a dogmatic claim.... And of course, I claimed NOTHING, I only noted that those who insist SCRIPTURE supports their claim are wrong. One claim simply looks to very ancient, ecumenical Tradition going back at least to 110 AD, whereas the opposite claim of a small minority Tradition goes back to the early 1800's. They are EQUALLY Tradition - just one is ancient and universal, the contrary tiny and very, very new. Neither is confirmed by Scripture (and frankly, neither matters). Can you see?


And I hold that some preference is to be given to a view that has universal, ecumenical, solid consensus from the beginning..... When every Christian accepted something say for 1800 years (like say that the book of Romans is Scripture) that view has some preference over a small minority of Christians SUDDENLY (out of the clear blue) inventing some contrary view (like say Romans is not Scripture). If we are going to say "The Bible is inspired by God and the norm for teachings and practice" then we must accept ancient, ecumenical Tradition... Can you see?




.

Your retaliatory Can you see? was in response to my question of can you see there is no shouting, but you seem to shout that back, ironically. I am not the one insisting you and others should believe that Mary consummated her marriage with Joseph, and lived and died as the rest of believers did, not related to whether she was a perpetual virgin or not. I do believe as I do and state reasons I do, as I sure may, in light of those insisting otherwise, and did, not at all shouting, as there was accusation of doing, with then Can you see shouted back at me. Others may believe additional things to what the Bible says, I just point out what I believe from what the Bible says.