Happy Immaculate Conception!

[Thersites]

This is a really odd way to look at things, but I can see what you're saying. I don't think it's accurate to say that Christians 'bring Christ into the world', but that could come down to semantics.

What about Mary would teach us that Christians are destined to be united with God, both body and soul?

At the end of her life, she was taken up, body and soul, into Heaven-- that's the Assumption.

[Carrikature]

She was? Is that a RCC-only thing?

[Thersites]

She was? Is that a RCC-only thing?

In a word, No.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumption_of_Mary

[Carrikature]

I see. Nonetheless, not something I am likely to accept as fact. Surprising, yes?

[Thersites]

I see. Nonetheless, not something I am likely to accept as fact. Surprising, yes?

Why not? Where is Mary's tomb? The bones of the martyrs were revered from early on-- how much more precious would the body that held the unborn Savior be to the early Christians?

[Carrikature]

Why not? Where is Mary's tomb? The bones of the martyrs were revered from early on-- how much more precious would the body that held the unborn Savior be to the early Christians?

Where is Abraham's tomb? Where is Silas' tomb? That I know not of its location, or that it has yet to be found, is irrelevant.

Regarding the bones of the martyrs, that's essentially begging the question.

[Thersites]

Where is Abraham's tomb? Where is Silas' tomb? That I know not of its location, or that it has yet to be found, is irrelevant.

Regarding the bones of the martyrs, that's essentially begging the question.

And what is the question?

[Carrikature]

And what is the question?

Good question.


You are probably aware that I don't approve of revering the martyrs either, so to use that as a basis for revering Mary more won't work very well. Even if I was OK with revering the martyrs, it does not follow that Mary should be revered more.

[Thersites]

Good question.


You are probably aware that I don't approve of revering the martyrs either, so to use that as a basis for revering Mary more won't work very well. Even if I was OK with revering the martyrs, it does not follow that Mary should be revered more.

It's not a question of should, but WOULD. If I had meant that early Christian veneration of the martyrs ought to be an example for us today, I would have said so, but I did not say so. What I suggested was that, if indeed Mary's tomb existed, early Christians would have known about it.

[Carrikature]

Agreed. Nothing in the article you linked suggests whether or not they knew it existed. The closest information that is cited is sometime 4th century and is disputed.

[RBerman]

Why not? Where is Mary's tomb? The bones of the martyrs were revered from early on-- how much more precious would the body that held the unborn Savior be to the early Christians?

Never mind Mary's tomb; where are her bones? The early church had enough bones in reliquaries to reassemble the disciples a hundred times over. All frauds, of course. But while many of Mary's alleged possessions were toted around, no one dared to assign any bones to Mary. This shows how early the cult of the Virgin dug its claws into the church.

[Kelp]

Never mind Mary's tomb; where are her bones? The early church had enough bones in reliquaries to reassemble the disciples a hundred times over. All frauds, of course. But while many of Mary's alleged possessions were toted around, no one dared to assign any bones to Mary. This shows how early the cult of the Virgin dug its claws into the church.

That doesn't make sense. Lots of relic claims in the first place indicates the disciples already were venerated. Their "cult had already dug its claws in."

Anyway, they probably didn't "assign" her any bones because it wouldn't have jibed with the belief in her assumption, which for me such earliness provides some (admittedly circumstantial) evidence for it being true. Maybe it makes me a bad protestant, but I'm starting to think the idea that the majority of Christians jumped the skids in such a major way so early on doesn't give God a lot of credit.

[Thersites]

"Digging its claws in"-- is that really how you see it, RBerman? Is believing that the Church community (that is, the Body of Christ) transcends death such a destructive teaching that it is the first thing Satan would try to instill in the generally-accepted body of teachings? Worse than Gnosticism, Arianism, or Manichaeism? Keep in mind, the same communities that held on to the relics were the same groups that produced those martyrs in the first place-- these are evidently devoted Christians we're talking about.

While you're at it, could you possibly substantiate your claim about the sheer volume of relics supposedly attributed to Mary or the Twelve Apostles?

[RBerman]

That doesn't make sense. Lots of relic claims in the first place indicates the disciples already were venerated. Their "cult had already dug its claws in." Anyway, they probably didn't "assign" her any bones because it wouldn't have jibed with the belief in her assumption, which for me such earliness provides some (admittedly circumstantial) evidence for it being true. Maybe it makes me a bad protestant, but I'm starting to think the idea that the majority of Christians jumped the skids in such a major way so early on doesn't give God a lot of credit.

You're right that veneration of the disciples was also an early phenomenon. Not hard to understand why, given the pagan Roman context. Cultural blind spots and all that. And yes, you're probably right that Mary was not assigned any bones because Assumption theology had already set in. Hence the "claws" remark.

[RBerman]

"Digging its claws in"-- is that really how you see it, RBerman? Is believing that the Church community (that is, the Body of Christ) transcends death such a destructive teaching that it is the first thing Satan would try to instill in the generally-accepted body of teachings? Worse than Gnosticism, Arianism, or Manichaeism? Keep in mind, the same communities that held on to the relics were the same groups that produced those martyrs in the first place-- these are evidently devoted Christians we're talking about. While you're at it, could you possibly substantiate your claim about the sheer volume of relics supposedly attributed to Mary or the Twelve Apostles?

Yes, Spartacus. Satan isn't going to try to get the church to deny Christ outright. At least, not as an exclusive strategy. He's going to distract the church with trinkets and baubles and other competing luminaries. Worse than gnosticism? Not usually. But more seductive, and harder to root out. As for the sheer volume of relics, even the Catholic Encyclopedia admits that, "There was always a disposition to regard any human remains accidentally discovered near a church or in the catacombs as the body of a martyr...spurious relics began to abound." Relic forgeries were proverbial enough by Medieval times that Chaucer facetiously describes his Pardoner as carrying Mary's veil, Peter's sail, and other fakeries.