Assumption of Mary and biblical proofs (Analogies)



Anti-Catholic Protestant apologist Jason Engwer, who heads the Tribal blog site, takes some shots at the Assumption of Mary in his article, Luke Against Roman Catholic Mariology (10-24-21). I respond with similar arguments, using his incessantly skeptical and cynical (two can play this game) methodology. His words will be in blue.

*****

Likewise, it is mentioned in Acts 1:14, but not in the three decades of church history recounted thereafter. No hypothesis of Mary is mentioned either. . . . if she died in the story covered by the record, especially if she died sooner rather than later, why is there no mention of a guess? . . .

Luke’s writings can be an important part of a cumulative argument when considering an issue like Mary’s hypothesis. The more sources we have that show an interest in relevant topics, but do not mention a hypothesis from Mary, the less likely it has been assumed (for example, Luke’s failure to mention a hypothesis despite multiple references at the ascension of Jesus,…). . . Luke is the kind of writer who would have been in an exceptionally good position to refer to a hypothesis had it occurred. He wrote extensively in relevant contexts, including a substantial amount on Mary, he probably wrote after the time of Mary’s death, he was in contact with at least one relative of Jesus (Acts 21:18),. . .

The gospel of Matthew can be an important part of a cumulative argument when considering an issue like the ascension of Jesus. The more sources we have that show interest in relevant topics, but do not mention an ascension of Jesus, the less likely it is that he ascended to heaven (e.g., Matthew’s failure to mention his ascension. ..). . . Matthew is the kind of writer who would have been in an exceptionally good position to refer to his rise if it had happened. He has written extensively in relevant contexts, including much on Jesus,. . .

The gospel of John can be an important part of a cumulative argument when considering an issue like the ascension of Jesus. The more sources we have that show interest in relevant topics, but do not mention an ascension of Jesus, the less likely it is that he ascended to heaven (e.g., John’s failure to mention his ascension. ..). . . John is the kind of writer who would have been in an exceptionally good position to refer to His ascension if it had happened. He has written extensively in relevant contexts, including much on Jesus,. . .

[Note: The book of Acts “is usually dated to around 80–90 AD, although some scholars suggest 90–110”: according to Wikipedia. St. Paul’s death, according to the Wikipedia article about him, “is believed to have occurred after the Great Fire of Rome in July 64, but before the last year of Nero’s reign, in 68.” St. Peter’s death, in the article devoted to him –according to “Early Church tradition” was “at the time of the Great Fire of Rome in the year 64.”]

No martyrdom of Saint Paul is mentioned [in Acts] That is. . . . if he died in the story covered by the document, especially if he died sooner rather than later, why is there no mention of his martyrdom? . . . Luke’s writings can be an important part of a cumulative argument when considering an issue like the martyrdom of Saint Paul. The more sources we have that show an interest in relevant topics, but do not mention the martyrdom of Saint Paul, the less likely it is that he was martyred (e.g. Luke did not mention the martyrdom of Saint Paul. ..). . . Luke is the kind of author who would have been in an exceptionally good position to refer to the martyrdom of Saint Paul had it occurred. He has written extensively in relevant contexts, including a substantial amount of St. Paul,. . .

No martyrdom of Saint Peter is mentioned [in Acts] That is. . . . if he died in the story covered by the document, especially if he died sooner rather than later, why is there no mention of his martyrdom? . . . Luke’s writings can be an important part of a cumulative argument when considering an issue like the martyrdom of Saint Peter. The more sources we have that show an interest in relevant topics, but do not mention the martyrdom of Saint Peter, the less likely it is that he was martyred (e.g. Luke did not mention the martyrdom of Saint Peter. ..). . . Luke is the kind of author who would have been in an exceptionally good position to refer to the martyrdom of Saint Peter had it occurred. He has written extensively in relevant contexts, including a substantial amount on Saint-Pierre,. . .

The gospel of Mark can be an important part of a cumulative argument when considering an issue like Jesus’ virgin birth in Bethlehem. The more sources we have that show interest in relevant topics, but do not mention Jesus’ virgin birth in Bethlehem, the less likely it is that he was born of a virgin in Bethlehem (e.g., the omission of Mark to mention his virgin birth in Bethlehem or Bethlehem at all in all of his Gospel. . .). . . Mark is the kind of author who would have been in an exceptionally good position to refer to Jesus’ virgin birth in Bethlehem if this had happened. He has written extensively in relevant contexts, including much on Jesus,. . .

The gospel of John can be an important part of a cumulative argument when considering an issue like Jesus’ virgin birth in Bethlehem. The more sources we have that show an interest in relevant topics, but do not mention Jesus’ virgin birth in Bethlehem, the less likely it is that he was born of a virgin in Bethlehem (e.g., the omission of John to mention his virgin birth in Bethlehem,…). . . John is the kind of author who would have been in an exceptionally good position to refer to Jesus’ virgin birth in Bethlehem if this had happened. He has written extensively in relevant contexts, including much on Jesus,. . .

The gospel of Matthew can be an important part of a cumulative argument when considering an issue like Jesus’ resurrection of Lazarus from the dead. The more sources we have that show interest in relevant topics, but do not mention the resurrection of Lazarus, the less likely it is that Lazarus was resurrected by Jesus (e.g., Matthew’s failure to mention his resurrection of ‘among the dead by Jesus…). . . Matthew is the kind of writer who would have been in an exceptionally good position to refer to Jesus’ resurrection of Lazarus from the dead if it had happened. He has written extensively in relevant contexts, including much on Jesus,. . .

The gospel of Mark can be an important part of a cumulative argument when considering an issue like Jesus’ resurrection of Lazarus from the dead. The more sources we have that show interest in relevant topics, but do not mention the resurrection of Lazarus, the less likely it is that Lazarus was resurrected by Jesus (e.g., Mark’s failure to mention that he was raised from the dead by Jesus…). . . Mark is the kind of writer who would have been in an exceptionally good position to refer to Jesus’ resurrection of Lazarus from the dead if it had happened. He has written extensively in relevant contexts, including much on Jesus,. . .

The gospel of Luke can be an important part of a cumulative argument when considering an issue like Jesus’ resurrection of Lazarus from the dead. The more sources we have that show interest in relevant topics, but do not mention the resurrection of Lazarus, the less likely it is that Lazarus was resurrected by Jesus (e.g., Luke’s failure to mention his resurrection in ‘among the dead by Jesus…). . . Luke is the kind of writer who would have been in an exceptionally good position to refer to Jesus’ resurrection of Lazarus from the dead if it had happened. He has written extensively in relevant contexts, including much on Jesus,. . .

Etc., etc. We now understand the analog / satirical point. . .

***

*

*

Or you may believe that my work deserves to be supported for purposes of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much needed financial contribution. I always need more funds: above all monthly Support. “The worker is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, KJV). December 1, 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked my blog’s 25th anniversary.

*

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send them to my email address: [email protected] You will see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side activity. To learn more about the different contribution methods including the 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Info. Many thanks from the bottom of my heart!

*

***

Photo credit: Ted (5-9-11), The resurrection of Lazarus, St. George’s Orthodox Cathedral, Toledo [Flickr / CC BY-SA 2.0 license]

***

Summary: Anti-Catholic Protestant Jason Engwer says Assumption of Mary didn’t happen because Luke didn’t mention it. If this is true, many shared Christian doctrines are also false.

***


Previous BoT unveils new debt consolidation measures
Next Evolution Money: The second load of debt consolidation increases