Bodily Assumption/Resurrection Comparison

2 Thessalonians 2:15 and Apostolic Tradition

Yes, and in Scripture, it's buying 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.

The Catholic Claim About the Bodily Assumption of Mary

You didn't answer my question.

You did ask a question.

You said I ignored something, and I'm pointing out to you I'm not ignoring anything at all. It's an assertion. My question, based on that assertion, is do you understand, first of all, that the Catholic Church claims that Mary is assumed 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 ascension 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. All right, I'm simply saying you're misrepresenting it by saying that it's only after, you know, centuries and centuries that all of a sudden they figure out that it may be Mary.

Historical Evidence, Typology, and the Limits of the Argument

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 dogmatic teachings of the Church, but that your arguments for this are based upon possibilities and probabilities.

But isn't it, 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 teaches?

That the reason we know that Mary was assumed in Heaven is because it was a low-witness fact. It was a historical fact. It's space-time history. Like the Resurrection of Jesus Christ and like His Ascension.

I would say there are many Roman Catholic scholars that would not say that, Mr. Matiticks, 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 documentation?

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 Religious Prophecy of the Assumption of Mary, that they, you know, in the passage referred to, they speak of the Apostles gathering about and witnessing the taking of her body into Heaven.

I'm sorry.