[jo kus]

I just went through the entire writings up through Irenaeus...approximately the first 150 years of the church.

There is no hint of the immaculate conception AND there is no hint of any assumption nor of any perpetual virginity nor of any perpetual hymen.

Later Catholics, such as Jerome, write that it was an "ancient" belief from apostolic times that Mary was a perpetual virgin. Apparently, as I have said before, not EVERYTHING was written the first few years of Christianity.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Regards

[P-Marlowe]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

That is an untrue truism. Obviously you are not a lawyer.

[xzins]

I am willing to admit that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

I hope that others are willing to admit that Protestants are not raving, fanatical out-in-left-fields cultists because they believe the absence of evidence is sufficient reason to come to a different conclusion.

We have scripture, we have the history that treats Mary doctrinally only as the virgin mother of Jesus and the fulfillment of the Isaiah prophecy.

Using those facts we construct our teachings.

There is nothing irrational or faithless in it. It is premised on a sincere desire to deal with the facts at hand.