[rollo tomasi]

I will take the three earliest concerning virginity:St. Justin the Martyr (165 A.D.) observed that the "power of God, coming upon the Virgin, overshadowed her, and caused her, while yet a Virgin, to conceive." St. Irenaeus (202 A.D.) referred to Jesus as "the Word Himself, born of Mary who was still a Virgin." He adds, "The belief in the Virgin Birth has been handed over to the Church by the Apostles and by their disciples, the same as the other truths of the Faith." St. Hippolytus (215 A.D.), in questioning candidates for baptism, inquired, "Do you believe in Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was born of the Holy Spirit, of the Virgin Mary?"

All three arguing from Srcipture and Apostolic Tradition would be CORRECT. I would assume prottys have no argument against Mary's virginity up UNTIL Jesus' birth. They respond to SILENCE and the reference of Jesus' simblings after the birth. The speculation and "intellectualism" started when perpetual virginity was bandied about, CENTURIES later and neither came from the Scriptures or DIRECT Apostolic Tradition. Church Fathers opining out of NOTHING about perpetual virginity do not impress. Who cares, it does nothing in terms of salvation but "the Church" sure makes it something.

Where is the "tradition" of Assumption at? Seems John and the earliest Church Fathers were silent. The legend came CENTURIES later. Again if the evidence was strong would have been dogma since day one, not around 1630 YEARS later from the RCC beginnings (Starting around the "super" structure "Constantinian" days).

[rollo tomasi]

Srcipture=Scripture, sorry bad speller.

[Petronski]

...1630 YEARS later from the RCC beginnings (Starting around the "super" structure "Constantinian" days).

The Catholic Church was founded circa AD 32.

[MarkBsnr]

***Church Fathers opining out of NOTHING about perpetual virginity do not impress. Who cares, it does nothing in terms of salvation but “the Church” sure makes it something.***

It’s the same Church that codified the canon and came up with the Creeds. That’s why I care. I don’t believe that the Church Fathers opined out of nothing.

***Where is the “tradition” of Assumption at? Seems John and the earliest Church Fathers were silent.***

They were also silent about the Christological developments that came out over the next three centuries. The Church speaks with the authority given to it.

[Mad Dawg]

Again if the evidence was strong would have been dogma since day one, not around 1630 YEARS later from the RCC beginnings (Starting around the "super" structure "Constantinian" days).

That's an interesting theory and speculation, but it doesn't hold water. We have a history of councils being called and dogma being determined usually in response to conflict, controversy, or outcry.

For example: the bogus list claims that Trent "added" the Apocrypha to the OT. Leaving side the question of whether the so-called Apocryphal books should be canonical, the fact is they were read, studied, and trusted as canonical long before Trent, and the action was taken at Trent not as some brand new idea but in response to Protestants ruling the books out.

Again, rightly or wrongly, the definitions of Marian Dogmas came about because of persistent, even mounting, popular clamor. Catholics were content with things as they were for all those centuries, but finally they appealed for resolution.

My tag line, for example, was known and prayed and said to have been from a vision some years before the definition of the Immaculate Conception.

To assess the reliability of the Marian Dogmata on the time between them and Christ is to misunderstand the process and the kind of things that lead to such definitions.