Arguing from LACK of evidence??
You leaped at a cheap shot. But you don’t seem to have studied logic.
No. My argument is NOT “from an absence of evidence.” My argument is that the absence of certain phenomena IS EVIDENCE.
If Reponse X absolutely MUST follow Stimulus Y, then the absence of Response X proves the absence of Stimulus Y.
It’s a perfectly valid form of argument.
The dog that did not bark. The absence of DNA. The alarm that didn’t go off. The door that wasn’t forced. Such things are evidence in investigations all the time.
We know that the early Christians treasured, venerated, and preserved relics. Mary was the most venerated person in the early Church—more than any of the apostles. Yet, no relics and not even any CLAIM of a relic.
The absence of relics from history proves the absence of a body. No tomb. No relics. Nothing.
The absence of any CLAIM (even a fraudulent claim) proves the absence of any motive for a claim. And the only way there could be no motive for a claim is that all potential fraudsters were aware that all Christians believed in the Assumption, and thus no one would believe in any claimed relic.
There was no corpse, and there was universal belief, from the earliest days, in the bodily assumption of Mary into heaven.
That explains the facts.
Once again, do you have an alternate explanation? This time, try to come up with a response that isn’t logically invalid.