Replies

No. It is not plausible that she was just buried and forgotten, because that would be ABSOLUTELY ATYPICAL behavior on the part of the early Christians. I don’t know how many of the bodies of the apostles were preserved and venerated, but relics of Peter, Paul, and at least several apostles are preserved. In St. Peter’s Basilica, the bones of about 15,000 martyrs are inside the columns of the Bernini baldacchino—those four twisty columns around the main altar. The tombs of who-knows-how-many other martyrs and saints are all over Rome and cities all over the Mediterranean region.

We're 100% certain about Paul and Peter?

So we only have a few of these relic things.

Again, you presume Mary held the lofty position she did in the early church.

Isn't it a possibility she didn't? I think you have to concede that.

Whether or not all of the “relics” are genuine is beside the point. Nobody, absolutely nobody ever tried to claim that he had relics of Mary’s body. There is only one thing that could possibly have prevented somebody from falsely claiming to have relics of Mary: a consensus of all Christians that nobody COULD have relics of Mary.

I would think a "relic" being genuine would be key....wouldn't you?

Whether or not all of the “relics” are genuine is beside the point. Nobody, absolutely nobody ever tried to claim that he had relics of Mary’s body. There is only one thing that could possibly have prevented somebody from falsely claiming to have relics of Mary: a consensus of all Christians that nobody COULD have relics of Mary.

I would think a "relic" being genuine would be key....wouldn't you?

It is important, but has nothing to do with my argument.

My argument is that the absence of any CLAIMED relics is a fact that requires an explanation--whether such relics ever existed or not. Whether Mary was assumed into heaven or not.

Given the KNOWN mindset of the early Christians about relics in general, the fact that no one ever even claimed FALSELY to have relics of Mary can be explained only by a universal belief among the early Christians that NO ONE COULD POSSESS relics of Mary.

My argument is NOT that the absence of a body of Mary is proof of the Assumption.

My argument is that the absence of any CLAIMED relics of Mary is proof that everyone BELIEVED that relics of Mary were IMPOSSIBLE.

I would think a "relic" being genuine would be key....wouldn't you?

Any rational person would.

But we're not dealing with rational people when they have proved that they will believe anything to support their pet doctrine, even when the Catholic church itself admits that there is no support for it.