Totally different conditions....at Moses death, the Israelites were basically a group of nomads seeking the promised land....Mary, on the other hand, lived in a home, in an established community with her husband and single child. Every follower of Christ, at the time of her death, knew where she had been buried and would certainly have respected her burial place. She was the mother of their leader whom they worshiped as God.
Your imagination is still keen ... The Roman government and the Sanhedrin had a stake in suppressing the ‘new religion’, so it is more likely that Mary’s other children wanted to keep her death and burial out of public knowledge. Only the Catholic desperation to raise the Mother of Jesus to goddess status keeps these fool imaginings going.
Then where's that house with the historical plaque in front of it?
I disagree bro. Mary and Joseph had a ton of kids. Mary and Joseph had a normal marriage, after Jesus was born, including a normal married couple's sex life.
Which is exactly why it was wise to NOT announce where it was. With some people's tendencies to idolize anything that has to do with anyone they respect, it would be a better decision to not advertise where it was.
She was the mother of their leader whom they worshiped as God.
" their leader whom they worshiped as God"
Wait... What???
You don't believe that Jesus was GOD? That His followers worship Him AS God?
Every follower of Christ, at the time of her death, knew where she had been buried and would certainly have respected her burial place. She was the mother of their leader whom they worshiped as God.
Every follower of Christ knew?? The believer in Libya knew? Antioch? Egypt? Every believer???
I guess it was in all the papers.
You are anachronistically reading Catholic devotion to Mary back into the NT where it simply does not exist. In all the life of the church, from Acts to Revelation, where or where do you see any devotion to Mary? Where or where do you even see her mentioned after the note that she was in the upper room leading to Pentecost? Even if you read her into Rv, 12, which is not here, there simply is no evidence of devotion to Mary at all in the life of the church with its descriptions of prayers and worship, and exhortations to obedience and means of grace, and of its notable persons. You must therefore charge that the Holy Spirit did not deem it important to note, which is absurd. Or you can read into Scripture what you can only wish was there.
Moreover, your hypothesis that absence of a know grave means that she must have been bodily assumed into Heaven is specious, for as John Chrysostom states,
"Tell me, are not the bones of Moses himself laid in a strange land? And those of Aaron, of Daniel, of Jeremiah? And as to those of the Apostles we do not know where those of most of them are laid. For of Peter indeed, and Paul, and John, and Thomas, the sepulchers are well known; but those of the rest, being so many, have nowhere become known. (Homilies On Hebrews, 26:2)
We are not even sure where the tomb of Christ was!
And as Jason Engwer writes,
If the early sources were refraining from mentioning Marian relics because they thought she was bodily assumed to Heaven, then why didn't they ever mention that bodily assumption? Wouldn't they be likely to mention such an unusual occurrence, especially if they held as high a view of Mary as the groups arguing for her assumption tend to..it's an illustration of the absurdity of the idea that Christians for hundreds of years would have known about a bodily assumption of Mary, yet would never have said anything about it in their extant writings, even when they're commenting on Mary.?
The church fathers of the earliest centuries repeatedly cite Enoch and Elijah as examples of people who didn’t die, were translated to Heaven, etc. (Clement of Rome, First Clement, 9; Tertullian, A Treatise On The Soul, 50; Tertullian, On The Resurrection Of The Flesh, 58; Tertullian, Against Marcion, 5:12; Methodius, From The Discourse On The Resurrection, 14), yet they never say any such thing about Mary or include her as an example. Irenaeus, for instance, writes about the power of God to deliver people from death, and he cites Enoch, Elijah, and Paul (2 Corinthians 12:2) as illustrations of people who were "assumed" and "translated", but he says nothing of Mary (Against Heresies, 5:5).
People claim to see references to an assumption of Mary in Biblical passages like Revelation 12. Yet, Hippolytus, Methodius, and other early fathers comment on such passages without saying anything of an assumption. How likely is it that all of these writers, commenting in so many different contexts, would all refrain from mentioning Mary’s assumption, even though they knew of it? Though Roman Catholics give Mary so much attention and claim that Mary is God’s greatest creation, the apocryphal assumption of Moses receives more attention among the ante-Nicene fathers than Mary’s assumption (which isn’t mentioned at all).
But Rome can "remember" what is needed when lacking actual warrant for something from where it should be found. Ratzinger states,
Before Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was defined, all theological faculties in the world were consulted for their opinion. Our teachers' answer was emphatically negative. What here became evident was the one-sidedness, not only of the historical, but of the historicist method in theology. “Tradition” was identified with what could be proved on the basis of texts. Altaner, the patrologist from Wurzburg…had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven was unknown before the 5C; this doctrine, therefore, he argued, could not belong to the “apostolic tradition. And this was his conclusion, which my teachers at Munich shared.
How then can making belief in the Assumption a binding doctrine? Why by claiming Rome can "remember" what history forgot:"
But if you conceive of “tradition” as the living process whereby the Holy Spirit introduces us to the fullness of truth and teaches us how to understand what previously we could still not grasp (cf. Jn 16:12-13), then subsequent “remembering” (cf. Jn 16:4, for instance) can come to recognize what it has not caught sight of previously and was already handed down in the original Word,” J. Ratzinger, Milestones (Ignatius, n.d.), 58-59.
But which is mere sophistry, for it changes an event that has no historical warrant for belief into a teaching that too hard to understand, but which is not the case here, and in fact Caths point to the record of bodily assumptions in Scripture as understandable support for the alleged assumption of Mary.
Webster's THE ASSUMPTION OF MARY has more on this.
Every follower of MOSES, at the time of HIS death, knew where HE had been buried and would certainly have respected HIS burial place. HE was their leader whom they worshiped adored, venerated and respected as one who talked with God.