The assumption of Mary.

[Anoetos]

I think you misunderstand the argument. It not that we have no relics now, its that no relics were put forward at a period in time when it was very common to do so and during which there would have been many motivating factors to do so and even a tomb which by the standards of the day should have contained relics but did not.

But we don't know that no relics were put forward back then.

I think it can be safely admitted that it is believed on the testimony of the church not on any evidence that is available to us. I certainly wouldn't say that the evidence is historically strong, but I accept the churches testimony. Even if it is incorrect it is no more harmful than accepting Enoch's or Elijah's assumption which are much harder to make any sort of historical case for.

Blessings

I appreciate your honesty. Both the Assumption of Mary and the fates of Enoch and Elijah rest upon an authoritative claim and that's just fine. We can discuss the relative validity of the authorities but that's probably beyond the scope of this thread and besides I am sure it's already being discussed in about ten other places around here.

:)

[Thersites]

Ok.

1. In order to foster a specific set of doctrinal beliefs which would assist in the consolidation of control over the church.

But why the Assumption? Of Mary? Coulnd't they have come up with something more... exciting?

2. In order to make money. People will pay to visit churches commemorating this event if it is "authoritatively" taught.

More than slightly counter-intuitive, given that you could get more money from relics than no relics.

3. Because it became important to develop feminine expressions of the divine in order to coopt pagan assumptions about the gender of gods (yes, I know that Catholics and Orthodox do not believe Mary to have been divine, but things like the Immaculate Conception and the Dormition and Assumption go a long way toward including the feminine in the "public face" of God").

Immaculate Conception didn't gain traction until after the close of the Middle Ages, and wasn't dogma until the mid-1800s. As for the Dormition/assumption, an attempt to introduce this as a "new teaching" of Christianity would have been rebuffed by the established Christianity. They didn't give a fart what pagans thought of them: they were interested in the truth, not how many pagans they could fool into becoming Christian by pretending Mary was somehow God.

[QUOTE]There are a number of other possibilities.

But, and please read this carefully, the point is not really whether it happened or not which is something we cannot know for certain. The question is why do people believe it? and it seems to me that assuming that people believe it, or should believe it because there aren't any bodily remains is a facile and very weak negative conclusion. This may have worked in a pre-scientific milieu but today, among educated people it looks daft.

By the same token since there are no relics of Julius Caesar, should we assume that he was eaten by wolves? Or must it have a corresponding tradition such that the equation becomes: Absence of remains + positive tradition about disposition of remains = truth.

It would be surprising to find that Caesar left no relics... if the Romans were the relic-gathering type, which they weren't. Not a good example.

I realize that insisting on a "scientific approach" won't mean much but even that is really the center of my point:

If you are going to make arguments from a lack of evidence, you are assuming by consequence the value of verifiable facts of which there are none, which makes such an argument nonsensical at worst.

The end point being that people believe these things ONLY because they want to, and NEVER because they can be proven and ABSOLUTELY NEVER because they cannot be disproven, because if they did they would be rightly judged critically deficient.

It's not just the lack of relics, it's the fact that people observed that there was a lack of relics.

[Anoetos]

Spart,

My point has never been to put forward evidentialist arguments for why the doctrine of Mary's Assumption might be a fiction. In fact, I didn't want to do so and only did when I was asked to give examples.

Whether they're right or not they are every bit as plausible as an argument (and probably even moreso) that says that because there are no relics she must have been assumed.

My real point is that your confessional commitment obliges your belief in the matter, despite the total lack of evidence.

And that's fine, but pretending that the fact that there isn't any somehow proves it isn't.

[Joshster]

I dont think theres much pre-nicene evidence but even if there is an oral story doesn't mean its authentic, cause oral transmission can be easily corrupted.

Your still looking for the truth? Jesus said he is the way the truth and the life.

If your looking for a church that has the perfect doctrine on secondary issues your not going to find it, unless its a church built on the main essential truths in regards to salvation, and any church that says their the true church is most likely not the true church.

[One Bad Pig]

I dont think theres much pre-nicene evidence but even if there is an oral story doesn't mean its authentic, cause oral transmission can be easily corrupted.

It doesn't mean that is is inauthentic or corrupted because it's oral, either. Oral transmission can be highly accurate, especially in cultures with low literacy rates. On the flip side, written material isn't necessarily accurate.

Your still looking for the truth? Jesus said he is the way the truth and the life.

If your looking for a church that has the perfect doctrine on secondary issues your not going to find it, unless its a church built on the main essential truths in regards to salvation, and any church that says their the true church is most likely not the true church.

Any church founded in AD 29/30 and active since would have some legitimate claim to that. Those founded later? Not so much.

[Anoetos]

But OBP, there's only one church.

[One Bad Pig]

There's one holy catholic and apostolic church. There are other self-styled churches, having separated themselves from the foregoing, which lack one or more of those attributes, and hence lack the fullness of the faith. Whether or not God honors that separation is, of course, up to Him.

[Joshster]

It doesn't mean that is is inauthentic or corrupted because it's oral, either. Oral transmission can be highly accurate, especially in cultures with low literacy rates. On the flip side, written material isn't necessarily accurate.



Any church founded in AD 29/30 and active since would have some legitimate claim to that. Those founded later? Not so much.

Then we would be getting into apostolic succession and whether or not Jesus said you must have it (if thats what your saying).

[One Bad Pig]

Then we would be getting into apostolic succession and whether or not Jesus said you must have it (if thats what your saying).

Yeah, we'd be getting into apostolic succession. I'm not saying that Jesus said we must have it, though, only that the mechanism was set in place by Jesus and the apostles. AFAICS, it's much easier to keep following a thread than to try to find it once it's been lost (and IMO the variegated threads of Protestantism bear this out). Also, the assumption that the thread's been lost implies a failure of the Church, which doesn't seem to line up with what's been promised in scripture.

[Anoetos]

No, say it with me OBP:

There Is Only One Church. It Is The Body Of Christ. It Is Constituted By All Those He Has Called Regardless Of What The Sign Says Outside The Buildings In Which They Gather For Corporate Worship.

And really, that is what makes the church the Church: we are the sheep of His sheepfold. He calls us and we follow Him because we know His voice. It's His Church, not our church and whatever "markers" it may have which identify it as His Church are all bound up in Him and in His identity as Lord of the Church and its Head.

Too much attention to titles and pedigrees is missing the point.

[mostlyharmless]

No, say it with me OBP:

There Is Only One Church. It Is The Body Of Christ. It Is Constituted By All Those He Has Called Regardless Of What The Sign Says Outside The Buildings In Which They Gather For Corporate Worship.

Just because you believe this particular dogma does not mean OBP or many others accept your definition of the church. And historically your definition is innovative rather than an accepted teaching of historical Christian faith.

Blessings

[Anoetos]

Just because you believe this particular dogma does not mean OBP or many others accept your definition of the church. And historically your definition is innovative rather than an accepted teaching of historical Christian faith.

Blessings

You're right to a degree on both points. But wrong too.

You're right because clearly not everyone accepts it, but you're wrong because denial of it completely contradicts the usual conclusion that Protestants are actually Christians however radicalized and heterodox. Now, OBP may be one of those few who deny that Protestants (or Catholics or what have you) are Christians. If he is, I have nothing more to say. But if he is not then I need to point out that there is no salvation outside the church and that if these people are Christians then they are, somehow in the Church.

The idea of a Christian outside the church is an oxymoron.

Regarding innovation, it's true that in this ecumenical age the very fact that we even have to have a thing called ecumenism as a discrete theological locus tells us that something is amiss, and that ideas like this one, that we are all in Christ regardless, seem novel and strange. But the idea that the church is catholic regardless of affiliation is exactly Paul's point in 1 Corinthians, and was warmly upheld by the ECF's and even our present differences cannot undo what Christ has done.

All that said, fabricated notions about pedigrees and titles, lineages and affiliations are dangerous to souls, as is the rejection of brethren because they wear the wrong name tag.

[Anoetos]

I know the usual arguments for all non-A being somehow included in A "mystically, by virtue of baptism" or what have you, but these are just an effort to defuse logic and good sense since it's clear, you're either in or you're out .

[Joshster]

Just because you believe this particular dogma does not mean OBP or many others accept your definition of the church. And historically your definition is innovative rather than an accepted teaching of historical Christian faith.

Blessings

The Bride Of Christ, I think what Anoetos is tryin to say is not a denomination or an insitution (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, etc...) but it is those who follow Christ as Lord and Saviour (afterall in heaven there is no denomination)

I would agree, True Biblical Christianity makes no assertion that the Church is a mere building, but a body rooted on the main fundamental truths (Jesus is Lord, Triune Godhead, Atonement for sin, ressurection) with the members using there different gifts for the purpose God has called them to.

I see nothing wrong with apostolic succession (its pretty good as long as the churches dont get infiltrated with false teaching then you have no choice but to split), but thing is must one have it to be qualified as part of The Bride. I don't see anywhere in the New Testament that dogmatically states u must.

just curious your Orthodox or Roman Catholic?

[mostlyharmless]

You're right to a degree on both points. But wrong too.

You're right because clearly not everyone accepts it, but you're wrong because denial of it completely contradicts the usual conclusion that Protestants are actually Christians however radicalized and heterodox. Now, OBP may be one of those few who deny that Protestants (or Catholics or what have you) are Christians. If he is, I have nothing more to say. But if he is not then I need to point out that there is no salvation outside the church and that if these people are Christians then they are, somehow in the Church.

The idea of a Christian outside the church is an oxymoron.

Not really. This is just a matter of definitions of words. From an outsiders viewpoint a Christian is someone who follows Christ no matter what doctrine they profess. Yet this tells us nothing about membership in the Church or salvation as per Christ's own parable (Not everyone says to me "Lord, Lord"....). If you are going to define a Christian as someone who "does the will of the Father" then you must get into a discussion of doctrine as Christ makes it clear that we should be 'one' as the Father and He are one. This will of course lead to separating out hetrodox teachers who disrupt the unity of the Church. Most RC's and EO's are quite happy to grant the title Christian as per the first definition, while holding to the understanding of the Church defined in the creeds as 'one, holy, catholic and apostolic' (without the usual protestant redefinitions of the words) which excludes some Christians from the Church. In a similar manner this definition of Church does not tell us who is saved (using the traditional interpretation of Christ's parable of the wheat and tares).

Is Christ unable to save these followers who are outside of the Church? Of course not. If Christ can join those who died before his incarnation to the church then I am sure he will have no problem with those who lived after the incarnation who never joined the Church. But is is foolishness to try and live a Christian life outside of the Church and very harmful to teach falsehood.

At the eschaton there will only be those joined to Christ who are saved, but this has yet to come.

Blessings