Bodily Assumption/Resurrection Comparison

Yes, and in Scripture, it's binding on the conscience, of course, that ignores what I quoted from Scripture itself, 2

Thessalonians 2 .14, in which we believe everything that the Apostles taught, whether it was written or oral. Actually, that's 2 Thessalonians 2 .15,

and the passage says that we are to hold to the traditions that were delivered to us in two ways. You didn't answer my question.

You did ask a question. You said I ignored something, and I'm pointing out an assertion.

My question, based on that assertion, is do you understand, first of all, that the

Catholic Church claims that Mary is a student in Heaven based on a historical fact, not upon speculations about possibilities?

Do you understand? I'm not asking you to agree, I know that you don't. But do you understand that the Catholic Church claims that the assumption of Mary in Heaven was a verified, witnessed, historical fact like the assumption of Jesus in Heaven?

Do you understand that? Okay. Then isn't it a little bit misleading to the audience? I would suggest that it is, to argue that I'm simply giving you possibilities based on typology and speculations.

The same authority that we have for believing in the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, the same authority we have for believing in his ascension, is the authority we have for believing in the assumption of Mary.

Is that a question or an assertion? I'm asking you. Isn't it, in fact, the

Catholic claim that it's the same authority? I realize you reject that. Yes, I reject that, and that is the

Catholic claim. I'm simply saying you're misrepresenting it by saying that it's only after centuries and centuries that all of a sudden they figure out that it may be

Mary. Now you're misrepresenting me because I didn't say that. I said that your arguments for the bodily assumption, not the

Catholic understanding of it, according to the dogmatics, are based upon possibilities and probabilities.

But do you not understand the difference, Mr. White, between showing the appropriateness of something by spiritual or scriptural analogies and the basis on which we know it?

Do you understand what the Catholic teaching says? The reason we know that Mary was assumed in Heaven is because it was a low witness. In fact, in space -time history, like the resurrection of Jesus Christ, unlike his ascension,

I would say there are many moments because it is quite obvious that the ascension of Jesus Christ is witnessed to by eyewitnesses whose records we have, and the bodily assumption of Mary, we have absolutely positively known documentable historical evidence for a minimum of 600 years.

So are you saying that the actual proclamation of the Church says that there is the same historical document?

I didn't say that. Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say the same. I said that when you do get references in the early

Church Proverbs of the Assumption of Mary, that they, you know, in the passages referred to, they speak of the

Apostles gathering about and witnessing the taking of her body into Heaven. I'm sorry.