The Eucharist (as practiced by the Roman Church)

And the Scripture gives reason for that.
Otherwise all must die. It gives no exception for Mary.
The Assumption of Mary is as verifiable as one of the moons of Saturn made of green cheese. You can't prove either one. I'll make up my own religion just as the RCC has made up theirs with pagan doctrines. And my doctrines (such as I gave you) will be just as believable. One cannot make an argument from silence!

 

There are more Hindus than Mormons, and they all believe that being baptized in the holy waters of the Ganges River will wash away their sins. Do you believe it will?
Satan is a great deceiver.

 

Yes he is.

 

Actually, despite your faith, we have proven the moons of Saturn aren't made of cheese thanks first to the voyager missions and more recently the Cassini missions.

The fact is Mary could have died. She could have been raised from the dead, She could have been taken up by a firery chariot. We don't know because there is nothing in scripture about it. So we can only say we don't know. Surely, you don't deny that God could do these things?

And I'm not arguing for it. Just saying we can't argue from silence against it.

 

Then we agree--we can't argue from silence. Put the period where it belongs. One cannot make an argument from silence. She could have been taken to heaven in a spaceship too. Any argument there? Her body is in the grave. Guides can take you there, unless the RCC object to it. Mary is dead. Unlike the RCC we don't believe in necromancy. We don't believe in praying to the dead. There is no need to believe in this doctrine of the assumption of any other "saint" in the Bible. If this could be true then why not Bartholomew, Barnabas, Apollos, and some of the others? Mary was no different than any other "saint," or believer in Christ. She was a sinner that needed a Savior. She was found in Acts 1 with 120 others praying. No special prominence was given to her. In fact that is the last that we hear of her. Not much is said of her in Scripture, when put in perspective to some of the Apostles. Her role was rather minor when put in that light.

 

You like preaching don't you? A lot of things you say as if its fact but the truth is; its based on what you believe.

 

You are arguing from silence to defend it!!! Thus you are departing from Scripture as your source of final authority for faith and practice (2 Tim. 3:16-17) in order to establish it as a doctrine. Silence cannot be used to establish any doctrine - only the Scriptures.

Second, the assumption of Mary is opposed to what the Scriptures do teach. The assumption doctrine is inseparably linked in the Catholic's mind to a SINLESS Mary who is taken to heaven to act as a co-redemptrix both of which are refuted by the Scriptures.

Ask a Catholic, what if Mary was not sinless, not a perptual virgin and not a co-redemptrix what reason would there be for the assumption of her to heaven????? Ask them if she was a saved sinner like every other child of God, with no special input to Christ or God, what would be the reason for believing such a tradition???

 

I believe the truth. The RCC justifies infant baptism solely from arguments from silence. Many of their doctrines come from silence. That is where heresy comes from.

Consider:
There is more evidence to believe that dinosaurs (modern day word for dragons) exist on this earth, than in the Assumption of Mary.
There is more evidence to believe that when dinosaurs die that they are assumed into heaven than there is of Mary being in heaven.
There is more evidence of dinosaurs being in heaven right now than there is of Mary being in heaven right now, for the resurrection has not yet taken place. Mary is dead.

What proof?
Revelation 12:3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.

At least I can support my contention, however weak it may be, with Scripture. The RCC and cults do the same thing. My argument is not from total silence. Yours is. The Assumption of Mary is from total silence. I have made a ridiculous story that has more credibility from the Bible than the Assumption of Mary. That is how pitiful the RCC doctrine is.

 

Thinkingstuff, I have noticed this ever since I starting posting here three years ago. You have come up with the words to express my thoughts exactly. And this practice seems rather pervasive among the fundamentalists who think they have a monopoly on all truth, whether they are posting on this board or writing elsewhere.

 

Boloney, Scripture is NOT SILENT about this. 1 Corinthians 15:20-23 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits;after that those who are Christ's at His coming. Only Jesus has risen in His glorified body "the FIRSTfruits" then later AT His coming those who belong to him.....this includes Mary. Saying Mary rose from the dead "even hypothetically" is totally unscriptural AND perpetuates a false doctrine as Her being an intercessor.

 

Very insightful, Jedi. So how do you explain Moses and Elijah at the Transfiguration?

 

They were not in their glorified bodys yet. But that still sidestepping what the scripture clearly states.....Christ rose first,then later those at his coming. Everything in it's order........1,2,3. After Jesus resurrection all those in Christ fell asleep"died",but their spirit were with the Lord untill at His coming recieve their new glorified bodies. Moses was buried by the Lord and the place of his burial was kept secret from all men. Also Jude speaks of Moses body.

 

I think they were in their glorified bodies. "[T]hey were Moses and Elijah, who, appearing in glory, were speaking of His departure." Luke 9:30-31. We know Elijah was assumed before his death so that doesn't present a problem. However, Moses died, yet we see him here in a glorified body. Wouldn't that make Moses the first fruits? Or do we start with a clean slate upon Christ's resurrection? And my point is when we take the Bible too literally we will exclude things we know happened. If we exclude things we know happened, we also wrongly exclude things that might have happened--such as the assumption of Mary.

 

:jesus: Is the firstfruits from the dead.

 

Does the bible say they were in their glorified bodies? Nope.

 

Not too insightful was it? You turn around and defend a false concept anyways? Don't flatter like Scribes and Pharisees did trying to trick Jesus with their questions.

 

If you choose to ignore scripture over "reason" thats why you won't get it.

 

Any you accuse me of denying the truth of scripture?