Answering Arguments from Silence Against Mary's Assumption 

Mary who died in 43AD or who died in 48AD or who died in 53AD or who died in 63AD or who died after the last book of the NT was written or who never died. Mary who died in the place of Jerusalem or who in the place in the place of Ephesus or who never died. Mary whose death was by God (e.g. Moses) or whose death was natural (e.g. old age) or whose death was by murder or who never died. Who was assumed immediately after death or who was assumed the following night or who was assumed three days after death or who was assumed seven months after death or who was assumed without death. From the above account Catholics can be 100% historically certain that Mary went bodily into heaven on August 15th because Eugenio Pacelli claimed in 1950AD that the 1st century Apostles deposited this as historical fact to the Roman Catholic Church.

Are you kidding me? He was leader of the inquisitions and also wrote that horrific Jesuit Oath of Induction. Read it. It still is on the books and is still being used! 😈🔥👹☠

@@Revelation18-4 no offense, but he was never an inquisitor. He was jailed by the inquisitors. I've been a Jesuit for 23 years, took all the vows, been a superior, been the director of a work, made the full 30 day exercises twice... The oath you're referring to was a hoax made up by enemies of the Jesuits. I encourage you to research a bit more.

@@Revelation18-4 is this what you spend your free time doing? Trolling comments on Trent’s videos? Very Christian like behaviour LOL 😂

@@FrJohnBrownSJ Do you believe Epiphanius taught the bodily assumption of Mary?

_"...all your great work for the Catholic Church."_ Should cannibalism and human sacrifice be condemned or worshiped?

​@@twitherspoon8954what is this the 100ad Roman Senate? You got to be more original than that, it's The year of our Lord 2023..But followers always follow, and the weak, and confused, are the ones who follow so what's new, because this claim sure as shit is not..

@@twitherspoon8954 😒🙄

@@thenazarenecatholic Are you denying that the literal worship of human sacrifice is the core tenet of Christianity? You know, that cross and John 3:16... Christians believe that God sent one of his sons to be tortured and killed as a sacrificial offering (a practice adopted from Paganism). They worship this human sacrifice as part of a ritual intended to appease a god. In Christian theology, atonement refers to the forgiving of sin by using Jesus as the human sacrifice. Paul created Christianity in 48 AD and this is how he put it: Romans 8:32 "He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all." 1 Corinthians 5:7 "Christ our passover is sacrificed for us." Romans 3:25 "God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement." Romans 5:8 "God showed his great love for us by sending Christ to die for us." Hebrews 10:10 "We are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ."

​@@twitherspoon8954youre being overly fececious and you misrepresent our position by not then explaining what the sacrifice was for. Youre a disingenuous critic and all you want to do is argue. We praise God for his sacrifice to save humanity, to take on the punishment of man. Cannibalism? You mean the eucharist? Its symbolic and literal, but no person is being hurt in the process of recieving it.

Are you Catholic?

Thanks!

Do you believe Epiphanius taught the bodily assumption of Mary?

Praying for you, brother. Frankly, I do think this sort of thing shows a massive problem. For instance, consider the morning consecration: "My Queen, my Mother! I give myself entirely to thee, and to show my devotion to thee I consecrate to thee this day, my eyes, my ears, my mouth, my heart, my whole being without reserve, Wherefore, good Mother, as I am thine own, keep me, guard me, as thy property and possession." This prayer encourages the faithful to offer themselves to Mary as their property, possession--to give their whole being to Mary. Just saying "and through her to Christ", as you say, is a poor bandaid--you could justify just about any act of worship to a creature like that. Now, one might say "well you don't have to pray that prayer and can disagree with it because it's not infallibly taught by the magisterium." True, but even non-infallible teaching is said to be protected from being harmful to souls. But I don't see how this sort of prayer can be anything other than harmful to souls, and the kind of devotion it issues forth seen in the Shrine you visited.

❤🙏🏼❤️ my wife is Protestant also (non- denominational to be specific) and IF she ever converted this would be the last bridge to cross. Very difficult for Protestants to understand/ get on board with.

I will remember you at Holy Mass today

Please refer to Dr Scott Hahn to help your wife

Here is The TRUE Savior YaH The Heavenly FATHER (Genesis 1) HIMSELF was Who they Crucified/Pierced for our sins and “HERE IS THE PROOF” From the Ancient Egyptian Semitic: "Yad He Vav He" is what Moshe (Moses) wrote, when Moses asked YaH His Name (Exodus 3) Ancient Egyptian Semitic Direct Translation Yad - "Behold The Hand" He - "Behold the Breath" Vav - "Behold The NAIL"

Timestamp 0:29 as a fellow video producer see you if can coax Trent Horn into do a 100k subscriber live special

Do you believe Epiphanius taught the bodily assumption of Mary?

​@@yajunyuan76650⁰⁰⁰⁰0⁰⁰0⁰⁰⁰0000ppppppppp

Hello

Why don't you read Anne Catherine Emmerich or Mary of Agreda .....download it from the internet....the assumption is there .....actually dictated to these people by Jesus Himself..... So don't worry about humans today giving you their theories .

Trent is good listen to him

Stop praying on those idol beads and go to Jesus directly for prayer. Jesus is the only mediator between God and man. 1 Timothy 2:5 read your bible.

@@chommie5350 Ann Emmerich was into satanic rituals. She was evil. She also practiced levitation.

@@Revelation18-4 What idol are you referring to?

Are you from PNG? I agree, Trent Horn is amazing.🙏🙏

@@jenniegermale2592 yes,, I am Papua New Guinean. Indeed, Trent Horn is the true gift to the Catholic Church. Thank you and God bless you. Amen 🙏

@@MaranglikPeterTo-Rot-dm4nc hi, fellow Papua New Guinean here. Nice to meet you. Thank you and God bless you too.🙏

@@jenniegermale2592 ❤️❤️

@@jenniegermale2592 Portable Network Graphics? (What? No I didn’t just look up what a PNG file was just to make that joke what are you talking about?)

Here is The TRUE Savior YaH The Heavenly FATHER (Genesis 1) HIMSELF was Who they Crucified/Pierced for our sins and “HERE IS THE PROOF” From the Ancient Egyptian Semitic: "Yad He Vav He" is what Moshe (Moses) wrote, when Moses asked YaH His Name (Exodus 3) Ancient Egyptian Semitic Direct Translation Yad - "Behold The Hand" He - "Behold the Breath" Vav - "Behold The NAIL"

That woman in Revelation is symbolic of twelve tribed Israel. It is not Mary.

@@geordiewishart1683 whatever you say, friend. ❤️

Catholics would look at Revelation 12:1-2 and interpret “the woman clothed with the sun” as being a reference to Mary. Is this position correct? No, it is not. If you notice the text in verse 2 it says that she was “with child and she cried out being in labor and in pain.” This is a problem because according to the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, Mary did not inherit Original Sin. CCC 491, “Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, “full of grace” through God, was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854: The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.” If you’re not familiar with the concept of Original Sin, it is “the hereditary fallen nature and moral corruption that is passed down from Adam to his descendants.”1 Sin entered the world through Adam (Romans 5:12). He is the first man who committed sin, and that sin is reckoned to all people (1 Corinthians 15:22; Romans 5:18). This means that all descendants of Adam are under the effects of original sin. Part of the curse of the Fall that caused Original Sin is spoken of by God in Genesis 3. Gen. 3:16, “To the woman He said, ‘I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth. In pain you shall bring forth children. Yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.’” Notice that part of the curse is pain in childbirth. This is why women suffer during the birth process. So, when we look back to the text of Revelation 12:1-2, we see that the woman clothed with the sun is suffering birth pain. Since the Roman Catholic position is that Mary could not be suffering birth pain (because of her Immaculate Conception and no Original Sin), then these verses cannot be about Mary.

First, in the OT, the imagery of the sun, moon, and stars refers to the nation of Israel. Joseph said, “I have had still another dream; and behold, the sun and the moon and eleven stars were bowing down to me” (Gen. 37:9). Osborne writes, “In Jewish literature ‘twelve stars’ often refers to the twelve patriarchs or the twelve tribes.”[1] Second, the Bible frequently uses the imagery of a woman to refer to Israel, Zion, or Jerusalem. Paul writes, “The Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother” (Gal. 4:26). Jeremiah writes, “Surely, as a woman treacherously departs from her lover, so you have dealt treacherously with Me, O house of Israel” (Jer. 3:20; c.f. Isa. 54:1-6; Ezek. 16:8-14; Hos. 2:19-20; Micah 4:9-10). Third, in the OT, the image of being protected by eagle’s wings refers to Israel. In Exodus 19:4, we read, “You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles’ wings, and brought you to Myself.” This seems to fit with the language in Revelation 12:14, where we read, “The two wings of the great eagle were given to the woman, so that she could fly into the wilderness to her place, where she was nourished.” Fourth, the Woman is protected in the wilderness for 1,260 days. This fits with the prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27, which is directed to Israel (“your people and your holy city”). This iteration of 3.5 years is mentioned five times through this section of Revelation (Rev. 11:2; 11:3; 12:6; 12:14; 13:5). Clearly, this time span of three and a half years must be important to the author. This seems to fit with half of the seven years, where the Antichrist will be in power (Dan. 9:26-27). Fifth, Daniel 12 predicted that Michael would rise up at this time to protect Israel (Dan. 12:1). Daniel writes, “Now at that time Michael, the great prince who stands guard over the sons of your people, will arise. And there will be a time of distress such as never occurred since there was a nation until that time; and at that time your people, everyone who is found written in the book, will be rescued” (Daniel 12:1). We see a fulfillment of this, when John writes, “There was war in heaven, Michael and his angels waging war with the dragon. The dragon and his angels waged war” (Rev. 12:7). Sixth, Jesus is said to rule the nations with a rod of iron. In Revelation 19:15, we read, “From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron.” Thus the man-child of verse 5 must be Jesus-not the Church. Mary? Roman Catholic interpreters argue that the woman here is Mary, Jesus’ mother.[2] Advocates of this interpretation argue that the woman is referred to in the singular (Rev. 12:5, 17). If the nation of Israel or the Church were really in view, then why is this woman just a singular person? Also, the most natural and straightforward reading would be to think of this as Jesus’ mother, Mary. Of course, critics of this view make a number of counter arguments: First, this is symbolic language, and it shouldn’t be read rigidly. Since we are reading apocalyptic literature, we shouldn’t place too much weight on the fact that this is spoken of as a singular woman. Second, when did the 1,260 days of nourishment occur in Mary’s life, as the text explains (vv.6, 14)? This time frame, which is mentioned five times in the text (Rev. 11:2; 11:3; 12:6; 12:14; 13:5), seems to fit best with Daniel’s vision of the 70th seven in Daniel 9:27 (as argued above). Third, when was Mary persecuted so intensely? John writes, “When the dragon saw that he was thrown down to the earth, he persecuted the woman who gave birth to the male child” (v.13). Roman Catholic interpreters usually identify this with Mary seeing Jesus crucified in front of her. But this doesn’t seem to fit the language of Revelation 12. Fourth, Roman Catholics believe that Mary was a perpetual virgin-not giving birth to more children. While the Bible affirms that Mary had more children (Mt. 1:25; 12:46-47; 13:55; Mk. 6:2-3; Jn. 2:12; Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 9:4-5; Gal. 1:19), Roman Catholics argue that this Greek word for “brothers” (adelphos) should actually be translated cousins. While NT scholars disagree with this view,[3] this precludes Mary from being the woman from a Roman Catholic perspective. If Mary remained a perpetual virgin, then who are “the rest of her children” mentioned at the end of the chapter? (Rev. 12:17)

Here is The True Savior YaH The Heavenly FATHER (Genesis 1) HIMSELF was Who they Crucified/Pierced for our sins and “HERE IS THE PROOF” From the Ancient Egyptian Semitic: "Yad He Vav He" is what Moshe (Moses) wrote, when Moses asked YaH His Name (Exodus 3) Ancient Egyptian Semitic Direct Translation Yad - "Behold The Hand" He - "Behold the Breath" Vav - "Behold The NAIL"

I went to the 8:30 mass bc I had a guitar lesson at noon. But then the lesson got canceled XD.

@fury_blade9303 D'oh! Our 8am was Latin (and the second mass of the day, but still too early for me)

Cool! What denomination are you? I had no idea there were Protestants who believed this.

Reformer Heinrich Bullinger believed in the Assumption

@@gunsgalore7571 I'm currently affiliated with the PCA, the Presbyterian Church in America. My views are too high church to be labeled Presbyterian, so I just go by high church Protestant.

@@ianpardue2615 Is it common for high church Protestants to believe in the assumption? I ask this solely for my own education... I thought it was just Catholics and Orthodox who believed in this.

@@gunsgalore7571 Within high church Protestantism, it is usually seen as an opinion that is neither required for salvation, nor forbidden to hold to, since the Holy Scriptures don't clearly allude to it. Depending on the church as well. Me and my padre don't see eye to eye about Mary. He accuses me of trying to lead the Reformed Church either to Rome or into Lutheranism and Anglicanism. My views on blessed Mary are: I hold to both the perpetual virginity and the bodily assumption of the Mother of God. I also hold to the belief that she was free from personal sin. I see evidence for in Luke 1, Revelation 12, and from the New Eve title that was given to her by St Justin Martyr and St Irenaeus of Lyons. I agree with the Queen of Heaven and the Mother of the Church titles (Revelation 12:1, 17). I honor Mary under the title of Our Lady of La Leche, since I see evidence for that title from art from the second century, and from Psalm 22:9, Luke 11:26-27, and Hebrews 2:17. That is all.

Trent's vidz attract a lot of attention.

❤️🙏♥️

I believe in Jesus, and God the Father.

​@@geordiewishart1683Holy Spirit?

Here is The True Savior YaH The Heavenly FATHER (Genesis 1) HIMSELF was Who they Crucified/Pierced for our sins and “HERE IS THE PROOF” From the Ancient Egyptian Semitic: "Yad He Vav He" is what Moshe (Moses) wrote, when Moses asked YaH His Name (Exodus 3) Ancient Egyptian Semitic Direct Translation Yad - "Behold The Hand" He - "Behold the Breath" Vav - "Behold The NAIL"

@@geordiewishart1683 You cannot have TWO Masters, either pick the “son” OR The “Father” but you CANNOT have both Praise YaH The FATHER and no other

This is blasphemy. Glory be to God alone.

@@georgwagner937 Blasphemy? Is Jesus fully God? If so, Mary can rightfully be called Theotokos. If not, then you're re-treading Nestorianism.

Since I was born in October, I guess I was meant to be a Protestant

​@@Wgaither1cringe

He’s three, actually. (He has three Masters.)

@drjanitor3747 Jealousy will get you no where? I have 10 years of study of Catholicism and he puts my intellect to shame.

@@robertajaycart3491 Do you believe Epiphanius taught the bodily assumption of Mary?

@YajunYuanSDA If Elijah, how much more the Mother of Christ. Epiphanius gives us, in section 79 of Panarion, a point-blank statement that is overlooked today by many: Like the bodies of the saints, however, she has been held in honor for her character and understanding. And if I should say anything more in her praise, she is like Elijah, who was virgin from his mother’s womb, always remained so, and was taken up, but has not seen death. St. Epiphanius clearly indicates his personal agreement with the idea that Mary was assumed into heaven without ever having died. He will elsewhere clarify the fact that he is not certain, and no one is, at least not definitively so, about whether or not she died. But he never says the same about the Assumption itself. That did not seem to be in doubt. By comparing her to Elijah, he indicates that she was taken up bodily, just as the Church continues to teach 1,600 years later. Since the time of the promulgation of the dogma of the Assumption of Mary, there has been much new discovery. We now have written evidence of belief in the Assumption of Mary as far back as the third century. Though it is not necessary for there to be written evidence all the way back to the second century for us as Catholics because we have Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture as interpreted by the Magisterium of the Church first and foremost that has already given us the truth of the Matter, I believe it is really exciting that new historical discoveries continue to be made and once again . . . and again . . . and again, they confirm the Faith of our Fathers.

"The woman of the Apocalypse clothed with the sun, which in its *literal* sense must be taken to mean the church,..." (Fundamentals of Catholica Dogma, Ludwig Ott) Yes, interesting that Jesus never refers to Mary as his mother. Jesus has never given Mary the title 'mother of God'.

​@@yajunyuan7665 "Jesus never refers to Mary as his mother" LOL, are you saying Jesus didn't have a mother?? You really think Jesus did not think of Mary as His mother?? She was just some vessel that gave birth to Him, fed Him with her own breast, changed his diapers, taught Him the things all mothers teach their children, held Him when He cried, etc. How wacko fringe do you and other Protestants want to go?? Is it not good enough for you that the Holy Spirit gave Mary the title Mother of God? (Are you really going to twist yourself into a knot over the difference between God and LORD?) "Elizabeth was filled with *the Holy Spirit* and she exclaimed with a loud cry, 'Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why is this granted me, that *the mother of my Lord* should come to me?'" Lk 1:42-43 Need I cite other passages in the Spirit-inspired Scripture where Mary is called His mother? "On the third day there was a marriage at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there" Jn 2:1 By calling her woman, giving her the title that Eve had before the Fall, Jesus honors her. The earliest Church fathers (Justin Martyr, Irenaeus) pick up on this, comparing her to Eve. I think I'll go with the early Church over Ott (assuming you even quoted him in proper context), which accepted both interpretations and saw Mary as the literal interpretation and the Church as the figurative interpretation: "No one of you is ignorant of this: that the dragon is the devil; nor of this: that the woman signifies the Virgin Mary, who being inviolate, brought forth our Head inviolate; at the same time she represented in her person Holy Church in figure, that as she remained a virgin in bringing forth her Son, so also the Church brings forth His members at all times, without any loss to her virginity." -Quovultdeus (c. 430 AD), early Church father and bishop (De Symbolo 3) Always tricky labeling something "literal" in a work like Revelation. But I think it is completely clear to anyone that a person claiming that the woman is really the Church is NOT appealing to the literal sense of the word "woman." Does this really need to be argued??

Tony, the poster said that Jesus is never recorded as calling Mary his mother. The quotes you provide are not attributed to Jesus.

​@@geordiewishart1683 Do I need to spell it out for you?! Jesus is God. God is the primary author of Scripture. Scripture says Mary is Jesus' mother, the Mother of the Lord/God. Can you follow the logical chain which results in "Jesus says Mary is Jesus' mother"? What exactly are we arguing about here? The point being made by the poster is not only irrelevant but misleading. Even if I were to concede that Jesus never calls Mary His mother, SO WHAT?! What would that supposedly mean? STOP beating around the bush and just come out and say the ridiculous thing that lies behind it! Because by itself, it would not actually have any significance compared to the truth about Mary according to God's Word in Scripture. Are you saying Jesus didn't have a mother?? Are you saying Mary did not give birth to Jesus?? Are you Jesus did not think of Mary as His mother?? Are you saying Jesus did not honor Mary as His mother? Spit it out.

@@tonyl3762 Do you want to know what Epiphanius says about why Jesus called her "Woman" in John?

I’ve always known Protestantism to be incoherent. That is why I knew if Christianity was true it would have to be Catholicism. But upon discovering these huge historical problems, such as the assumption, I could not remain catholic. I now no longer believe Christianity.

@@thatgirlray2765 I would suggest you read, "Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary" by Brant Pitre. It explains from the Bible all that Ctholics believe about Mary.

@@pixurguy4915 that doesnt prove it actually happened, that’s reading what Catholics want to be true INTO the text. If it weren’t the case, it wouldn’t be just a catholic scholar who finds it. Pitre is slimy apologetics at best, i suggest you look into him and actual academic criticisms of him and his work.

The Trinity is in scripture, if you dont believe that why even be Christian. Imagine sacrificing the core essential of God’s identity to defend medieval folklore.

Indeed! Likewise!!

Excellent!

Yes indeed. It seems so obvious this is an addition to the deposit of faith, not an exposition of it. Likewise for the doctrine of Mary being sinless. Neither of these are taught - even implicitly - by the apostles or the early church. Unless of course we totally redefine and stretch the meaning of "implicit" beyond recognition.

As a Catholic, would love to see you and Trent debate this.

The theological truth of this Marian dogma is about the everlasting life that all who believe in Christ would be raised on the last day. Mary experienced the first resurrection.

​@@theosophicalwanderings7696One thing is the Assumption, another is Mary's sinlessness. That is actually very much present in the Early Church.

@@nickdon But one can believe that all will be resurrected on the last day without believing Mary was assumed (hence Epiphanius)

And Mary was clearly more close to God that Elijah and Enoch. God literally lived physically in her body and nursed from her.

You believe this so why not believe that? In 300 years we will definitely have Mary as redemptor with that line of thinking.

@tafazzi-on-discord We know Elijah was assumed without dying, We know Moses was assumed after dying. Unless you think Mary was in total isolation and then when she was assumed suddenly she was surrounded by eye witnesses then there is no way to explain no one knowing the end of Mary.

@tafazzi-on-discord Correct, but no one knows what happened to Mary. Catholics have said she died of old age, Catholics have said she died of martyrdom, Catholics have said she never died. This means the Catholic Church is saying no one knows what happened to her, so we are just going to say she is Heaven now because we think Mary is special. Even though the Catholic Church lacks any divine revelation on it.

@tafazzi-on-discordso if someone goes missing and never to be found again, we should assume they were assumed into heaven

Umm where’s Peter’s body? Where’s Paul’s body?, How about any of the Apostles? Heck folks asking who’s buried in Grant’s tomb?

@@darinbracy8433 buried under Catholic Churches.

@@darinbracy8433We have bodily relics of the apostles and martyrs, including the first martyr, St. Stephen. It was the norm for Christians to gather the relics of apostles and saints once they died as a way to venerate them, and the Catholic Church has tons of relics, some of them uncorrupted. This is why it's such a big deal that we do not have any bodily relics of Mary - Christians definitely would have tried to get her bodily relics if they could have. But they couldn't, because her body was assumed into heaven.

Just because a body cannot be located doesn't mean that that person went to heaven. God disposed of Moses body in some unknown location. Moses is still dead.

@@tongakhan230 your tradition doesn't believe in the Transfiguration?

She wasn't though

Where is her body then?

I easily believe if Enoch and Elijah were assumed into heaven, Mary was definitely assumed. Mary is the new Eve and the Ark of the covenant. There is no way her Son would allow her body to be corrupted in death.

@@GMAAndy333 Disagreeable definitely

@Anthony-fk2zu your logic is flawless.

Maybe you didn’t watch the entire video but he clearly said he’s not trying to prove the doctrine using the historical record but rather showing how arguments from silence used by Protestants aren’t sufficient in denying the claim.

@@kidus_1010 I'm well aware of the arguments.

@kidus_1010 obviously a strong point in the Protestant eyes is that these dogmas CAN NOT be proven from the earliest historical records therefore we should not be held to something that's not proven (especially when they are considered binding on the conscience, demanded beliefs and infallibly proclaimed and not until 1870 and 1950 respectively).

@kidus_1010 this seems to be generally conceded by Catholic apologists thus they shift to a strategy of doctrinal development hypothesis of Cardinal Newman.

@kidus_1010 I kind of anticipated someone would say what you did...that's why I pointed out that the burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim...meaning your retort (and Trents) that silence doesn't disprove does not hold water...all we need to establish is that these doctrines are unproven and if they are not proven they should not be DEMANDED to be held (if they were optional beliefs we could talk). That is irrespective of the point that Trent conceded his goal was not an attempt to prove the doctrine historically.

The Assumption is a historical event. Although it is true that the end of Mary’s life is not explicitly described in Scripture, there are allusions to it, passages that resonate with the truth of the Assumption. Here are a few examples: “Arise, O Lord, into your resting place: you and the ark, which you have sanctified” (Ps. 132:8). An ancient tradition compares Mary to the Ark of the Covenant; in that light, this passage’s reference to the sanctified ark being brought to the Lord’s resting place can be seen as speaking of Mary’s assumption. “Come with me from Lebanon, my bridge; come with me from Lebanon” (Song of Sol. 4:8). “And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars” (Rev. 12:1ff). We do not rely on Scripture for our belief in the Assumption, but Scripture does sort of “point to” it.

@@noahgaming8833 If Scripture "does sort of 'point to' it," this is pretty shaky ground by which to dogmatize something on pain of shipwrecking faith if you don't believe it, wouldn't you agree?

@@marcuswilliams7448 you wrote: this is pretty shaky ground by which to dogmatize something on pain of shipwrecking faith if you don’t believe it, wouldn’t you agree? Response: I’m not an expert on this, but I feel like this is just a double standard. Why dogmatize something that can only kind of be point to it from scripture? Well, that’s like when Protestants use verses that “point out” sola scriptura, like 2 Timothy 3:16-17: “All scripture (Greek, pasa graphē) is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work” There are a few points to why using this verse to support sola scriptura is setting it on a shaky one. 1. pasa graphē ordinarily would be translated “every scripture” (pasa generally means “every” rather than “all” before a singular noun like graphē). “Every scripture” would be a reference to each individual book of Scripture. Further, in the Bible the word “scripture” (singular) refers to an individual book or passage. The inspired books as a whole are “the scriptures” (plural), not “scripture.” But Paul couldn’t mean each individual book is sufficient for doctrine. Otherwise, you could do theology by “Genesis alone,” “Isaiah alone,” and so forth. 2. Paul says the books are useful toward certain goals, including teaching. But being useful merely means that something makes a contribution-not that it is uniquely and exclusively sufficient. 3. although the scriptures contribute to the goal of making the man of God “complete, equipped for every good work,” they aren’t the only things he needs. He also needs holiness, the charisms of the Holy Spirit, the correct understanding of the texts, and so on. The texts are not sufficient by themselves. 4. If we look at the context, Paul was referring to the Old Testament: “and how from childhood you have known the sacred writings that are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.” 2 Timothy‬ ‭3‬:‭15‬ I’m sure you would disagree that only the OT should be the sole rule of faith.

@@noahgaming8833 The entire point is moot, because no one believes that sola Scriptura is so fundamental that if you disbelieve it you've made shipwreck of your faith.

@@marcuswilliams7448 you wrote: No one believes that sola scriptura is so fundamental that if you disbelieve it you’ve made shipwreck of your faith. Response: WOW! That’s a pretty big generalization to make. Sola Scriptura is the dogma of Reformed Christianity that religious or theological authority comes from the bible alone (i.e. solely from scripture). Dogma: A principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. Incontrovertibly: in a way that cannot be disagreed with or denied. So this Isn’t what you would see as making a shipwreck of your faith? Then what would happened if a Protestant denied this dogma that “cannot be disagreed with or denied”? Nothing? I don’t know about you, but where I’m from, your statement is called a lie, Mr. Williams.

"If the Marian dogmas are Gnostic in origin, then the Roman-Catholic church has a really serious problem." I don't believe this is the case, but even if it was, this position would be in the err of the Genetic Fallacy. Because the Gnostics were shown to be heretical in previous points, doesn't mean that therefore *everything* they claimed was heretical.

Rev 12 seems to clearly point to Mary being in Heaven. So it's with in the sphere of scriptural interpretation. Also keep listening till the 16:56 mark

@@jon6car No Christian has any doubt that Mother Mary is in heaven. Even if Rev. 12 is talking specifically about Mary, it doesn't prove the assumption of Mary, which is quite a different matter.

@@saintejeannedarc9460 I didn't say it proved it. But that its in the sphere of scriptural interpretation. Which it is.

@@jon6car If Mary was assumed, I can't see why it wouldn't be clearly stated, as it was w/ Elijah and Enoch. Even w/ Moses, it is murky, but many believe he was, esp. because he was transfigured w/ Christ and Elijah.

In regards to the Assumption of Mary, Protestants appeal to the literal sense of Scripture and the early Church Fathers.

@@YajunYuanSDA there’s nothing in Scripture regards the assumption of Mary. It didn’t start gathering pace until mid 5th century unless you want to use some gnostic writings which were earlier

@@scottie8365Exactly, so all the early Church Fathers do not support the assumption of Mary.

@@YajunYuanSDA I put all the Marian Dogmas together which wasn’t right to do but it would take too long to break them all down one by one. But my point for the most part still stands,RC teachings appeal to early church fathers,tradition,isegesis and typology while the arguments against them mostly appeal to Scripture.

Romans 3:23 all have sinned. When the Bible has a verse this blunt and easy to understand why does one not believe it but try to find verse that they try to justify their beliefs?

@@only1gumpy941 Did Jesus sin? Sometimes Bible verses do indeed seemingly contradict like the Roman’s 3:23

@@azophi I hope you’re not serious. If you are I suggest you read the book of John that tells you who Jesus is.

>non biblical Where does the bible implicitly or explicitly say that all of Church teaching and history will be in the bible?

@@shadowsteppah it doesn't say that every teaching is in the Bible. But if there is something so vital for our salvation that it is a "must believe" doctrine, it is certainly included in Scripture. And if it isn't a vital teaching or important for our salvation, then why does the catholic church make such a big deal of it? Why didn't John who was adopted into Jesus' family mention the bodily assumption of Mary? Why didn't ANY of the NT writers, several of whom knew Mary personally, have mentioned her bodily assumption? If she HAD been taken up into heaven without dying, surely this would be something mentioned by John or Peter or Paul in their letters. And if they didn't think it was important enough to mention, then why does the catholic church now think it is important enough to make into an "infallible" doctrine? The vital stuff is ALL included in Scripture. There is nothing we need for a complete spiritual life in Jesus Christ that is not given to us in Scripture. (except for our own active participation in the body and participation in the sacraments which are physical things we must do, and ALL of which ARE mentioned in Scripture). These non-biblical doctrines about Mary are the bad fruits of a bad tree. And it starts with men blaspheming the name of God by calling themselves "Holy Father" and falsely believing that they speak with the same level of authority and infallibility as the Word of God. Sad.

Holy church tradition is authoritative. It predates even the scripture itself. The books of the Bible and the canon itself comes from said Tradition. And guess what, Catholics and all other ancient Apostolic churches dont teach Sola Scriptura. Any kind of disrespect towards the Blessed and Holy Mother of our Lord wont be tolerated.

@Kostas_Dikefalaios disrespect? I love Mary and I know her better than you. If you knew Mary as well as you claim to, you would know that she wants you spending your time praying to her Son, worshiping her Son, and putting your faith in Him alone. The LAST thing she wants you to do is give her the title of a pagan goddess "queen of heaven" and bow down to images of her.

@@xrendezv0usx Not only am I going to bow down, but I am also going to kiss icons of the sinless and ever-virgin Holy Mother of God and Queen of Heaven and venerate her in every way provided by my church. You are dishonoring her by lowering her value. Before you start talking about whats in the Bible, which you got from the Church btw, come back when you find Sola Scriptura in the scripture. Good luck, youll need it. "I know her better than you" hahaha. Its always the non dems having that arrogant attitude. Must come along with the fact that you think you are knowledgable enough to interpret a 2000 year old text all by yourself (oh and by reading a translation of said text), disregarding any kind of tradition which was practised for 2 millenia. Yeah man you are theologically much more equipped than the church fathers which were taught by the Apostles themselves. You dont even belong to a church. Dont make me laugh

Yes, it was Bishop Juvenal and Empress Pulcheria, but this shows in the *fifth* century that Mary's alleged assumption in 64AD was not universally known.

@@sonsofpolaris6102 There is still NO scripture that states,implies or even implied in the Bible or even early non-canon Christian Books. It wasnt even CathoilcChurch Doctine until 1854. Why did it take them so long after 1854 years to realise this?

@@sonsofpolaris6102 I was only using Paul as an example. It wasn't even Catholic Church offical doctine until 1854

If Mary was sinless, why didn't she offer herself up as the lamb of God which took away the sins of the world?

​@@sonsofpolaris6102okay I will assume what you just said was true HOW do you know she made an Assumption to Heaven?

"predating the canonization of the Bible" Are you using the 1546 date?

@@yajunyuan7665 AD 382 canon

@@sonsofpolaris6102 How does that refute what I actually said? If the magisterium of the Church created a doctrine of assumption for anyone at all, out of thin air, you would have to accept it, or lose your salvation. This particular doctrine is absent in the Apostolic period, has zero biblical basis whatsoever, only becomes main stream 600 years after the beginning of the church, and was only adopted as dogma in the 1950s under penalty of losing your salvation. Meaning that all the Christians in the first 600 years of the church are not saved. If that makes any sense to anyone, it's only because you accept on faith whatever the magisterum of the Church says.

Exactly. Silence in scripture and the early church seems like a significant double whammy.

Catholics have no agreed upon date when it occurred, there is at least 5 different proposed dates that differ by more than half a century.

The Holy Spirit guided the Church and still does to this day. When Protestants allow themselves to be open to the guidance of that same Spirit, they find themselves led out of Protestantism and into the Church.

@@Danaluni59 unsaved Protestants will be prone to be tossed by every wind of doctrine. Yes, the Spirit guides the church and believers, even today, that is why in 1 John 4:1, all children of God are urged to put every spirit to the test and see if they are correct. The Bible is replete with warnings about people who come with noval ideas and we must be watchful (Acts 20:28-30, Galatians 1:6-9) Somewhat, the enemy is always sneaking in to introduce weeds amongst the wheat (Matthew 13:24-30). So don't feel hurt when a Protestant exercises caution and asks, " where did these wierd doctrines which cannot be traced to any of the Apostles come from?"

Nope