Infallibility!?

[Philthy]

Not exactly.

As best I can remember, there is no existing evidence of any belief in the assumption until centuries after the apostles.

Was there a belief that pre-dates the evidence? Yeah…probably but you guys have no way of tracing it back to the apostles (as best I can tell).

That’s more like it. No one knows for certain one way or the other. Maybe yes, maybe no. You cannot prove that the belief didnt exist simply by appealing to the lack of any written evidence.

I

 

[VociMike]

Not exactly.

As best I can remember, there is no existing evidence of any belief in the assumption until centuries after the apostles.

Was there a belief that pre-dates the evidence? Yeah…probably but you guys have no way of tracing it back to the apostles (as best I can tell).

The fact that the Church never challenged the belief as false or heretical is all the evidence necessary.

 

[Calvinator]

The fact that the Church never challenged the belief as false or heretical is all the evidence necessary.

One, this assumes your church would recognize heresy when it saw it and two, this is an argument from silence which is one of the weakest arguments.

 

[Calvinator]

You really wish to continue to debate whether you overstated your point? Well tenacity is a good thing. OK…

True or False: For a belief to exist it must be written down.

True or False: All written evidence has been discovered

Are any lightbulbs going on? :newidea:

Not that it is relevant to the specific point addressed above, but just so you have more info, read the link I provided to see the other “evidence” in favor of the Assumption.

Let me make myself perfectly clear. I know there is no written evidence of the assumption until centuries after the apostles. What I don’t remember is whether this “evidence” is dated to the the 4th, 5th, or 6th century.

All we have is your church claming that this was part of the apostolic tradition when, other than the claim, there is no evidece the apostles knew anything of this “tradition”.

If your strongest argument for this doctrine is from silence, well…go ahead and accept it if you want.

I’ve read the links before but will take another look at them later today.

 

[Calvinator]

You cannot prove that the belief didnt exist simply by appealing to the lack of any written evidence

.

I

And all we are left with is your church claiming that this was part of apostolic tradition…without any evidence to the contrary.

 

[VociMike]

One, this assumes your church would recognize heresy when it saw it

Yes, I do assume the Church founded and guided by Christ would recognize heresy when it saw it.

and two, this is an argument from silence which is one of the weakest arguments.

Your argument has been from the beginning an argument from silence: If it wasn’t written down before X, it was not believed before X.

So provide your better alternative argument as to why, if the Church was indeed capable of recognizing heresy, when “heretical” belief Z first appears in writing the Church did not condemn it.

 

[VociMike]

And all we are left with is your church claiming that this was part of apostolic tradition…without any evidence to the contrary.

The lack of condemnation when it first appeared in writing is the evidence.

 

[VociMike]

If your strongest argument for this doctrine is from silence, well…go ahead and accept it if you want.

Your argument is nothing more than an argument from silence as well, and yet you do not hold your own argument up to the same skepticism. Why not?

 

[Calvinator]

Yes, I do assume the Church founded and guided by Christ would recognize heresy when it saw it.

Your argument has been from the beginning an argument from silence: If it wasn’t written down before X, it was not believed before X.

So provide your better alternative argument as to why, if the Church was indeed capable of recognizing heresy, when “heretical” belief Z first appears in writing the Church did not condemn it.

There is no way for you to trace the evidence for this “doctrine” back to the apostles.

You might have a chance at doing so if it is true that the feast of the assumption goes all the way back to the late first century or early second century (and there is quite a bit of controversy over this issue) but that is apparently your only hope because no father in the first few centuries revealed anything about the assumption in their writings.

By the way, it’s not an argument from silence to point out the lack of evidence associated with this doctrine.

So, when someone says that this doctrine has always been around they say so without any evidence to support their claim.

 

[Calvinator]

By the way, I apologize to the original poster as a discussion of the assumption was not the intent of this thread.

Unless someone has some startling new evidence for the assumption I will simply beg off at this point.

 

[VociMike]

There is no way for you to trace the evidence for this “doctrine” back to the apostles.

You might have a chance at doing so if it is true that the feast of the assumption goes all the way back to the late first century or early second century (and there is quite a bit of controversy over this issue) but that is apparently your only hope because no father in the first few centuries revealed anything about the assumption in their writings.

By the way, it’s not an argument from silence to point out the lack of evidence associated with this doctrine.

So, when someone says that this doctrine has always been around they say so without any evidence to support their claim.

And for the umpteenth time I say that the fact that the Church never objected to the doctrine when it first appeared in writing (at least, in the writings we have discovered) is the evidence.

I asked you before to provide a better explanation of the fact that when an item of Catholic doctrine first appears in our written records, the Church does not attack that item as incorrect. I maintain that the best explanation of that fact is that the Church did not regard the item as in error. Since you disagree with that explanation of this fact, please provide your own explanation.

 

[Calvinator]

And for the umpteenth time I say that the fact that the Church never objected to the doctrine when it first appeared in writing (at least, in the writings we have discovered) is the evidence.

I asked you before to provide a better explanation of the fact that when an item of Catholic doctrine first appears in our written records, the Church does not attack that item as incorrect. I maintain that the best explanation of that fact is that the Church did not regard the item as in error. Since you disagree with that explanation of this fact, please provide your own explanation.

Let’s say that the evidence for the doctrine can be traced back to 500ad and that your church didn’t object to it. So what?

You somehow go from the evidence appearing late on the scene and the church not objecting to it to assuming it was taught by the apostles.

Not the most solid line of reasoning.

 

[VociMike]

Let’s say that the evidence for the doctrine can be traced back to 500ad and that your church didn’t object to it. So what?

You somehow go from the evidence appearing late on the scene and the church not objecting to it to assuming it was taught by the apostles.

Not the most solid line of reasoning.

I note that once again you have not offered a better explanation for the fact under discussion. You keep saying my reasoning is not solid, but you offer nothing “more solid”. So it is natural to assume that even you cannot explain the fact under discussion in any other way.

You’re arguing the same way atheists argue about God. They say there’s not enough evidence for God, but they never offer their own “more solid” explanation for the existence of the universe and life, because they don’t have one.

 

[Church_Militant]

Let’s say that the evidence for the doctrine can be traced back to 500ad and that your church didn’t object to it. So what?

You somehow go from the evidence appearing late on the scene and the church not objecting to it to assuming it was taught by the apostles.

Not the most solid line of reasoning.

Just because a doctrine is not defined and defended until a certain time (Example: Arianism) does not mean that the doctrine was not already held. In fact, even as we do today…we do not defend a doctrine that is not attacked, at which point the church has always defined it and explained it.

 

[Calvinator]

Just because a doctrine is not defined and defended until a certain time (Example: Arianism) does not mean that the doctrine was not already held. In fact, even as we do today…we do not defend a doctrine that is not attacked, at which point the church has always defined it and explained it.

Fine.

My only point is that when someone states that the belief goes all the way back to the apostles, they make this statement without any evidence for it, other than maybe your church’s claim.

I agree that the belief had to precede the writing but the question then becoms by how many yeard did the beleif pre-date the writing.

 

[VociMike]

Just because a doctrine is not defined and defended until a certain time (Example: Arianism) does not mean that the doctrine was not already held. In fact, even as we do today…we do not defend a doctrine that is not attacked, at which point the church has always defined it and explained it.

And there is also the fact that at the very time in question the Church was attacking other ideas as false and/or heretical, so there is no question that historically the Church could and did attack such ideas which it perceived as going against the faith.

 

[Calvinator]

I note that once again you have not offered a better explanation for the fact under discussion. You keep saying my reasoning is not solid, but you offer nothing “more solid”. So it is natural to assume that even you cannot explain the fact under discussion in any other way.

You’re arguing the same way atheists argue about God. They say there’s not enough evidence for God, but they never offer their own “more solid” explanation for the existence of the universe and life, because they don’t have one.

Show me the evidence. Until you do that all you have is speculation.

As I pointed out earlier the lack of objection by your church or any church does not ipso facto mean that the belief can be traced to the apostles.

So, my point is, you have no evidence that traces this back to the apostles and it is not very convincing to say that because a group, church, council, pope, bishop, etc. didn’t object to it, it must mean that the apostles taught it. That is begging the question is it not?

 

[Church_Militant]

Show me the evidence. Until you do that all you have is speculation.

As I pointed out earlier the lack of objection by your church or any church does not ipso facto mean that the belief can be traced to the apostles.

So, my point is, you have no evidence that traces this back to the apostles and it is not very convincing to say that because a group, church, council, pope, bishop, etc. didn’t object to it, it must mean that the apostles taught it. That is begging the question is it not?

Fine.

My only point is that when someone states that the belief goes all the way back to the apostles, they make this statement without any evidence for it, other than maybe your church’s claim.

I agree that the belief had to precede the writing but the question then becoms by how many yeard did the beleif pre-date the writing.

Why does that matter? The fact that there is scripture to support it makes it apostolic to begin with.

 

[VociMike]

Show me the evidence. Until you do that all you have is speculation.

As I pointed out earlier the lack of objection by your church or any church does not ipso facto mean that the belief can be traced to the apostles.

So, my point is, you have no evidence that traces this back to the apostles and it is not very convincing to say that because a group, church, council, pope, bishop, etc. didn’t object to it, it must mean that the apostles taught it. That is begging the question is it not?

ME begging the question?! That’s rich. I have offered my evidence. It is a fact that the Church fought heresies when they occurred during the time in question. It is a fact that the Church did not fight the Assumption as a heresy. That is my evidence that the Church did not consider the Assumption to be a heresy when it first appeared in our written record.

And you still have not offered your “better” explanation of those facts, though I have asked many times now. You try and cast doubt without offering your own explantion for similar scrutiny. One can only assume this is because you have no better explanation to offer.

 

[Calvinator]

ME begging the question?! That’s rich. I have offered my evidence. It is a fact that the Church fought heresies when they occurred during the time in question. It is a fact that the Church did not fight the Assumption as a heresy. That is my evidence that the Church did not consider the Assumption to be a heresy when it first appeared in our written record.

And you still have not offered your “better” explanation of those facts, though I have asked many times now. You try and cast doubt without offering your own explantion for similar scrutiny. One can only assume this is because you have no better explanation to offer.

I can see it now, your side presents their evidence in a court of law…The attorney approaches the jury…
The Barrister:

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I know there is no evidence…oooops, I mean no direct evidence to support that the apostles taught the doctrine of the assumption, but…and it’s a REALLY BIG BUT, I can offer indirect proof.

I submit to you that since there is no evidence of anyone dissenting from the doctrine, at least according to me, that the belief was obviously taught by the apostles, nevermind the fact that there were centuries between the apostles and the earliest writings on the assumption"

You would be laughed out of the court.