"If" Jesus had blood brothers & sisters, then...

[Radical]

On one hand at the beginning of this post you say 1st 2nd and 3rd centuries is a few years, …

no, the few years that I was referring to was in relation to Tomb54’s comment that he would place Tertullian in the third century vs. the end of the 2nd. (as in Tertullian might have written Against Marcion in 202AD +/- instead of 197 AD +/- )

…then at the end of the post you say a lesser time is quite a gap.

yes, 300+ years is quite a gap, don’t you agree?

As I have followed this thread,…

may be not as well as you could of?

…you appear to pick and choose when and where you want and ignore the rest.

I am not sure what you have me picking an choosing…if it is ECFs, then yes I pick and choose. If I want to know what they believed in Carthage at 200 AD +/- I’ll pick Tertullian over Epiphanius. Also, I don’t disagree that some later ECFs endorsed the perpetual virginity of Mary…such is obvious and I feel no need to address it.

…if it is about the posts that I respond to, then yes, again, I pick and choose…but apart from Guanophore (who is on my to-do list) I don’t think that I have missed anything of substance…though please feel free to point something out.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Wonder how long the gap was before someone wrote Mary definitely had other children?

 

[Radical]

If he use near relative for Mary then why did he not just use Mary or His mother instead of right term?

b/c he is referring to Mary and Jesus’s brothers …with one term, namely “near relatives”. It is the correct term…and is shorter to write (and not at all confusing since he has already identified who he is talking about)

well let see you are ok with the sacred scripture taking time for the early church to develop by those of the earlist CC fathers (Ignatious, Clement, Polycarb, Irenaeus, etc)

yep…it took some time for the ECFs to figure out whether or not some books should be included or not included in the canon…and if we uncovered some very good evidence that demonstrated that Revelation was copied in chunks from some an earlier Jewish/non-Christian work, I wouldn’t hestitate to reconsider its inclusion…

…but not the teachings on the virginity of Mary to develop.

and how exactly do teachings such as that develop? She was either a virgin ante partum or not. Scripture says that she was…good enough for me. She was either a virgin in partu or not. The Protoevangelium and some later ECFs say yes…Terullian said no…Tertullian is more reputable than the Protoevangelium and the later ECFs are, well, later. She was either a virgin post partum or not. What develops? If it is an understanding working off a reflection upon scripture, then the ECFs have nothing to offer that we don’t also possess.

let see, Nativity, Journey to Egypt and back, Trip to temple, Jesus lost in temple, Cana, might be missing 1 or 2 more but that is about it and no brothers or sisters.

you need to rethink this list. For those of us who think that it is quite possible that Mary had other kids, understand that Jesus would have been the firstborn. As such, the younger siblings would not be present at Jesus’s birth, not necessarily present at the Journey to Egypt…so again, how many passages are there describing Jesus’s early life where the mention of siblings would have been relevant?

Yep the gap is less than it took for the Bible though.

we don’t have to wait until 170 AD before we find a work (not even reputable) that mentions that Paul’s letters are being treated as authoratative…we even have Paul’s letters (fairly reliable manuscripts to be precise). We don’t have to wait until 300 AD for an ECF to defend Paul’s letters as scripture. Besides having the letters, we have have the ECFs quoting Paul’s letters from much, much earlier. You are comparing apples to Orangutans. WRT scripture and the development of the canon we have considerable continuity. WRT the perpetual virginity of Mary, we have a considerable gap.

 

[Tomb54]

and how exactly do teachings such as that develop? She was either a virgin ante partum or not. Scripture says that she was…good enough for me. She was either a virgin in partu or not. The Protoevangelium and some later ECFs say yes…Terullian said no…Tertullian is more reputable than the Protoevangelium and the later ECFs are, well, later. She was either a virgin post partum or not. What develops? If it is an understanding working off a reflection upon scripture, then the ECFs have nothing to offer that we don’t also possess.

So you say Tertulian was more reputable than later ECFs even though he sided with the Montanists who believed they had new revelations from the HS and he also became one as he went into hersey? Well you can follow a questionable one over a later ones that are more reputable if you want but what he believed did not follow scripture at that time. He believed you could not and did not deserve to be forgiven of your sins and several other things against scripture so do you believe him here when he says your sin can’t and do not desrve to be forgiven or would you be incline to believe what the other ECF taught?

you need to rethink this list. For those of us who think that it is quite possible that Mary had other kids, understand that Jesus would have been the firstborn. As such, the younger siblings would not be present at Jesus’s birth, not necessarily present at the Journey to Egypt…so again, how many passages are there describing Jesus’s early life where the mention of siblings would have been relevant?

David was also call the first born and he was not first was he. Although I will say Jesu was 1st born and the only born to Mary. Yes going to Egypt might not have had other but then again you also have to be open that she could have in that amount of time before they left if you believe she had other children and even more likely on the return trip if she had more children which means they would have had to be mentioned in looking for Jesus in the temple at 12 but then nothing here when both left to look for him.

we don’t have to wait until 170 AD before we find a work (not even reputable) that mentions that Paul’s letters are being treated as authoratative…we even have Paul’s letters (fairly reliable manuscripts to be precise). We don’t have to wait until 300 AD for an ECF to defend Paul’s letters as scripture. Besides having the letters, we have have the ECFs quoting Paul’s letters from much, much earlier. You are comparing apples to Orangutans. WRT scripture and the development of the canon we have considerable continuity. WRT the perpetual virginity of Mary, we have a considerable gap.

You do not have to wait 170 years for a list to start to develop for scripture but since the CC had Oral tradition (which the list developing on scripture was a part of) who is to say there was not something already accepted with the ever virgin teaching but since it was not a main focus there was no need to write about it. This only came up when heretics started to question Jesus divinity.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

So you say Tertulian was more reputable than later ECFs even though he sided with the Montanists who believed they had new revelations from the HS and he also became one as he went into hersey? Well you can follow a questionable one over a later ones that are more reputable if you want but what he believed did not follow scripture at that time. He believed you could not and did not deserve to be forgiven of your sins and several other things against scripture so do you believe him here when he says your sin can’t and do not desrve to be forgiven or would you be incline to believe what the other ECF taught?

Some know no limits, when it comes to disagreeing with Catholicism. It’s apparent some would accept speculative language over precise, even if the speculative was passing and the precise was lasting.

 

[fbl9]

In the book Catholism and Fundamentalism The Author quotes St.Jerome saying that the idea of Mary having other children is wicked. Also St.Jerome says that Tertillian was a heritic. ECFs are not heritics so claiming Tertillian wis an ECF kinda stretches the truth.

 

[guanophore]

agreed...but we look at the ECFs to determine what was believed by the Church at the time in question...

This is rather disingenous of you, Radical. You seem to be grasping at Fathers to support your view that Mary did not remain a virgin, but you don’t do the same with regard to all the other beliefs of the Church at the time. I suspect it is because those beliefs are just “too Catholic”.

when Tertullian (at the end of the 2nd century/start of third) said Mary didn’t remain a virgin we can be fairly certain that his view was a view that prevailed in Carthage at that time…it is unchallenged by any reputable source from that period.

This is also a serious case of denial. Almost any ECF is more reputable than Tertullian, since he was cast about by waves with regard to doctrinal issues. And the only reason Helvidius’ view was preserved is because Jerome was writing against him.

“But, as appears, many even down to our own time regard Mary, on account of the birth of her child, as having been in the puerperal state, although she was not. For some say that, after she brought forth, she was found, when examined, to be a virgin.” (Stromata book VII)

"But some say, basing it on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, as it is entitled, or “The Book of James,” that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honour of Mary in virginity to the end, so that that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word which said, “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee,” might not know intercourse with a man after that the Holy Ghost came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first-fruit among men of the purity which consists in chastity, and Mary among women; for it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first-fruit of virginity. (Origen Commentary on Matthew).

THE THIRD HOMILY. +]
ON THE ANNUNCIATION TO THE HOLY VIRGIN MARY. +]
… Gabriel was sent to a virgin, in order to transform the dishonour of the female sex into honour; Gabriel was sent to prepare the worthy chamber for the pure spouse; Gabriel was sent to wed the creature with the Creator; Gabriel was sent to the animate palace of the King of the angels; Gabriel was sent to a virgin espoused to Joseph, but preserved for Jesus the Son of God. The incorporeal servant was sent to the virgin undefiled. One free from sin was sent to one that admitted no corruption. … Gabriel was sent to declare Him who is upon the throne, and yet also in the cavern… In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent to a virgin espoused to a man; espoused, not united; espoused, yet kept intact. And for what purpose was she espoused? … “This book that is sealed shall be delivered to a man that is learned.” What is meant by this sealed book, but just the virgin undefiled? From whom is this to be given? From the priests evidently. And to whom? To the artisan Joseph. As, then, the priests espoused Mary to Joseph as to a prudent husband, and committed her to his care in expectation of the time of marriage, and as it behoved him then on obtaining her to keep the virgin untouched, this was announced by the prophet long before, when he said: “This book that is sealed shall be delivered to a man that is learned.” And that man will say, I cannot read it. But why canst thou not read it, O Joseph? I cannot read it, he says, because the book is sealed. For whom, then, is it preserved? It is preserved as a place of sojourn for the Maker of the universe. … Gregory Thaumaturgus [213-275 AD]

CHAPTER IV
By the example of Anna St. Ambrose shows what ought to be the life of widows, and shows that she was an example of chastity at every age. From this he argues that there are three degrees of the same virtue, all of which are included in the Church, and sets forth several examples in Mary, in Anna, and in Susanna. But, he adds, the state of virginity is superior to either of the others, but that a widow ought to take greater care for the preservation of her good name.

Why would Ambrose be holding up Mary as an example of chastity if she was not in a state of virginity?

“ever Virgin” takes a while to show up…

He wrote around the same time the NT canon was closed. If that is “late”, then I guess you can’t trust the NT either?

kinda like how Clinton and Bush can be still called president Clinton or president Bush when they aren’t holding that position any longer. It is a title of honor that refers back to a significant role that they played…as you point out, Tertullian called her “virgin”, but also stated clearly that her womb was opened…as such Virgin (as used by the ECFs) doesn’t equate to ever Virgin as used later

As with a number of Tertullians writings, it is not consistent with the faith of the Church. One does not learn the faith of the Church by looking at those who depart from it. Well, maybe you do, but Catholics dont.

 

[guanophore]

That’s quite a gap, isn’t it?

No more of a “gap” than the councils that defined the hypostatic union and the Trinity.

“Certain of these heretics brought accusation against Symeon, the son of Clopas, on the ground that he was a descendant of David and a Christian; and thus he suffered martyrdom, at the age of one hundred and twenty years, while Trajan was emperor and Atticus governor.” And the same writer says that his accusers also, when search was made for the descendants of David, were arrested as belonging to that family. And it might be reasonably assumed that Symeon was one of those that saw and heard the Lord, judging from the length of his life, and from the fact that the Gospel makes mention of Mary, the wife of Clopas, who was the father of Symeon, as has been already shown. The same historian says that there were also others, descended from one of the so-called brothers of the Saviour, whose name was Judas, who, after they had borne testimony before Domitian, as has been already recorded, in behalf of faith in Christ, lived until the same reign. He writes as follows: “They came, therefore, and took the lead of every church as witness and as relatives of the Lord. And profound peace being established in every church, they remained until the reign of the and until the above-mentioned Symeon, son of Clopas, an uncle of the Lord, was informed against by the heretics, and was himself in like manner accused for the same cause before the governor Atticus. And after being tortured for many days he suffered martyrdom, and all, including even the proconsul, marveled that, at the age of one hundred and twenty years, he could endure so much. And orders were given that he should be crucified.” (Eusebius -history of the Christian Church 265-340)

 

[guanophore]

On the contrary, those who claim Mary had other children are the one’s imposing 20-21st desires upon a 1st century CULTURE…not texts!

Not entirely, I dont’ think. It is true that Jews believed God commanded they should “multiply and fill the earth”, and that many children were a blessing from God. Marriages were considered consummated by intercourse. These are ancient Jewish cultural values that stood in contrast to the life of Mary and Jesus, neither of whom procreated in the natural way.

 

[guanophore]

Wonder how long the gap was before someone wrote Mary definitely had other children?

Actually, this is a rather early heresy, and like other early heresies, it is rearing it’s ugly head once again.

Jerome was battling Helvetius, who was not the first.
Athanasius
“Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary” (Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).

Epiphanius of Salamis
“We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the **holy ever-virgin Mary **by the Holy Spirit” (The Man Well-Anchored 120 [A.D. 374]).

“And to holy Mary, [the title] ‘Virgin’ is invariably added, for that holy woman remains undefiled” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 78:6 [A.D. 375]).

The notion that referring to Mary as “ever virgin” being “late” is absurd, given that these things were written before the canon of the NT was closed.

Jerome
“[Helvidius] produces Tertullian as a witness [to his view] and quotes Victorinus, bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian, I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proven from the gospel—that he [Victorinus] spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship, not by nature. [By discussing such things we] are . . . following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against [the heretics] Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man” (Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 19 [A.D. 383]).

“We believe that God was born of a virgin, because we read it. We do not believe that Mary was married after she brought forth her Son, because we do not read it. . . . You [Helvidius] say that Mary did not remain a virgin. As for myself, I claim that Joseph himself was a virgin, through Mary, so that a virgin Son might be born of a virginal wedlock” (ibid., 21).

Didymus the Blind
“It helps us to understand the terms ‘first-born’ and ‘only-begotten’ when the Evangelist tells that Mary remained a virgin ‘until she brought forth her first-born son’ [Matt. 1:25]; for neither did Mary, who is to be honored and praised above all others, marry anyone else, nor did she ever become the Mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin” (The Trinity 3:4 [A.D. 386]).

This text was written a few years after the canon was closed, but clearly represents the faith of the same Church.

Clearly when Jerome read the gospel, he understood it to say that Mary never had other children.

 

[Radical]

So you say Tertulian was more reputable than later ECFs even though he sided with the Montanists who believed they had new revelations from the HS and he also became one as he went into hersey?

No, I said Tertullian was more reputable than the Protoevangelium and that he was earlier than the later ECFs. BTW what about Montanism would have caused him to reject Mary’s perpetual virginity (PVM) if it was an established teaching ?

You do not have to wait 170 years for a list to start to develop for scripture but since the CC had Oral tradition (which the list developing on scripture was a part of) who is to say there was not something already accepted with the ever virgin teaching but since it was not a main focus there was no need to write about it. This only came up when heretics started to question Jesus divinity.

There is plenty of need to write about the PVM with regard to opposing Gnosticism…the ECF should have asserted that Mary’s womb was kept pure b/c it housed Jesus (in the flesh) for about 9 mos. and as such stands as proof that Christ did indeed come in the flesh (if the PVM was in fact a church teaching at that time)…but we have silence instead.

 

[Raccolta_447]

** ‎ἀδελφός, οῦ, ὁ adelphos brother **
In Mk. 3:33 ff. and par.; Mt. 25:40; 28:10; Jn. 20:17 Jesus calls His hearers or disciples His brethren, and He also uses the same term to describe the relations of the disciples to one another (Mt. 23:8; Lk. 22:32). As an address ἀδελφός does not, of course, occur on the lips of Jesus, and it may be asked whether there is some significance in this. Christians are certainly to see themselves as His brethren or people (R. 8:29; Hb. 2:11 ff.).

Put simply Jesus clearly did not identify with a physical (ἀδελφός) brother,in this absence those who do try to make this connection are misguided and in serious error…

1 Timothy 6:4 4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but sick about questions and strifes of words; from which arise envies, contentions, blasphemies, evil suspicions,

1 Timothy 6:5 5 Conflicts of men corrupted in mind and who are destitute of the truth, supposing gain to be godliness.

:slapfight:

 

[guanophore]

... Mary's perpetual virginity (PVM) if it was an established teaching ?

“…Mary, as those declare who with sound mind extol her, had no other son but Jesus…”

ORIGEN, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 1, Chapter 6 [A.D. 185-253]

What is it about comments like this that give you the impression they do not represent the faith of the Church?

There is plenty of need to write about the PVM with regard to opposing Gnosticism…the ECF should have asserted that Mary’s womb was kept pure b/c it housed Jesus (in the flesh) for about 9 mos. and as such stands as proof that Christ did indeed come in the flesh (if the PVM was in fact a church teaching at that time)…but we have silence instead.

Actually, there is not reason to focus on her perpetual virginity in those cases. The Fathers emphasized that He took His earthly flesh from her flesh, and there is plenty written about that. This was the main thrust of the apologies to the Gnostics and Arians.

"Therefore let those who deny that the Son is from the Father by nature and proper to His Essence, deny also that He took true human flesh of Mary Ever-Virgin; ATHANANIUS, Discourses Against the Arians, Discourse 2, Chapter 70 [A.D. 297-373

“[T]he Word himself, coming into the Blessed Virgin herself, assumed for himself his own temple from the substance of the Virgin and came forth from her a man in all that could be externally discerned, while interiorly he was true God. Therefore he kept his Mother a virgin even after her child-bearing”
CYRIL, Against Those Who Do Not Wish to Confess That the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God. 4 [A.D. 315-386]

Cyril and Athanasius are considered “Doctors of the Church” because their writings reflect the ONE FAITH of the Church committed to us by the Apostles. There are more quotes here.

As to the “silence”, there are none so deaf as those who do not wish to hear…

 

[wmscott]

“…Mary, as those declare who with sound mind extol her, had no other son but Jesus…”

ORIGEN, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 1, Chapter 6 [A.D. 185-253]

What is it about comments like this that give you the impression they do not represent the faith of the Church?

Actually, there is not reason to focus on her perpetual virginity in those cases. The Fathers emphasized that He took His earthly flesh from her flesh, and there is plenty written about that. This was the main thrust of the apologies to the Gnostics and Arians.

"Therefore let those who deny that the Son is from the Father by nature and proper to His Essence, deny also that He took true human flesh of Mary Ever-Virgin; ATHANANIUS, Discourses Against the Arians, Discourse 2, Chapter 70 [A.D. 297-373

“[T]he Word himself, coming into the Blessed Virgin herself, assumed for himself his own temple from the substance of the Virgin and came forth from her a man in all that could be externally discerned, while interiorly he was true God. Therefore he kept his Mother a virgin even after her child-bearing”
CYRIL, Against Those Who Do Not Wish to Confess That the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God. 4 [A.D. 315-386]

Cyril and Athanasius are considered “Doctors of the Church” because their writings reflect the ONE FAITH of the Church committed to us by the Apostles. There are more quotes here.

As to the “silence”, there are none so deaf as those who do not wish to hear…

guanophore, I have been following this thread for some time now and I want to compliment you on continually addressing the errors that some here want to stubbornly stick to unto the bitter end. It has been thoroughly informative, factual, and in context. I have learned from the dialog by verifying the facts myself and I am sure that there have been many watching this dialog that have learned a thing or two also. It is just amazing how some folks will stick to the anti-Catholic playbook no matter how much the truth is presented to them over and over again. I guess this is something that is buried too deep into their beliefs. It is always the same top three 1. The Blessed Mother, 2. The Pope, and 3. The Most Holy Eucharist that is at the top of the anti-Catholic playbook. We can only pray for these unfortunate souls that someday they come to see the truth of it all.

Keep up the good work, it is appreciated very much. Peace.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
On the contrary, those who claim Mary had other children are the one’s imposing 20-21st desires upon a 1st century CULTURE…not texts!

Not entirely, I dont’ think. It is true that Jews believed God commanded they should “multiply and fill the earth”, and that many children were a blessing from God. Marriages were considered consummated by intercourse. These are ancient Jewish cultural values that stood in contrast to the life of Mary and Jesus, neither of whom procreated in the natural way.

Perhaps I did not explain myself well enough. Indeed God said to "multiply and the fill the earth,"but the difference here is the fact God chose one very special Jewish girl to conceive His Son. Thus,this adamant belief she had to have more kids is stating in a sense she was not truly an orthodox Jew. Not at all. Problem is many cannot and simply do not acknowledge the connection between the OT Ark and Mary.

 

[Nicea325]

guanophore, I have been following this thread for some time now and I want to compliment you on continually addressing the errors that some here want to stubbornly stick to unto the bitter end. It has been thoroughly informative, factual, and in context. I have learned from the dialog by verifying the facts myself and I am sure that there have been many watching this dialog that have learned a thing or two also. It is just amazing how some folks will stick to the anti-Catholic playbook no matter how much the truth is presented to them over and over again. I guess this is something that is buried too deep into their beliefs. It is always the same top three 1. The Blessed Mother, 2. The Pope, and 3. The Most Holy Eucharist that is at the top of the anti-Catholic playbook. We can only pray for these unfortunate souls that someday they come to see the truth of it all.

Keep up the good work, it is appreciated very much. Peace.

It is called spiritual pride and look at the end results: Thousands upon thousands of denominations.

 

[RJB]

Don’t know if it was mentioned earlier, but it is my understanding that the Aramaic language did not have a word for “cousin.” so they used “brother.”

 

[PJM]

=Nicea325;7823071]“If” Jesus had blood brothers & sisters, then…I am curious why Jesus would not have made one them an Apostle? Why no slight detail of little bro’s and sisters by Jesus? No other NT folks (followers of Jesus) discuss them in detail or refer to them as followers? If Mary His Mother followed Jesus,how strange the NT writers make no mention of who took care of Jesus’ siblings?

No mention by the NT writers if they were jealous of Jesus or proud of big bro Jesus? Zilch…nada about them.No word by the ECF’s about their exact names, backgrounds or whereabouts? More important,if Jesus did indeed have blood brothers,strange he would leave the care of His mother to John?

So many unanswered questions about the so-called brothers and sisters of Jesus.

CHRIST WAS AND IS THE ONLY CHILD OF MARY!

THE TERM BROTHERS WAS USED TO DENOTE COUSINS; FRIENDS, AND FOLLOWERS OD CHRIST.

Matt.12: 46 “While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. But he replied to the man who told him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers!”

Mark.3: 31 “And his mother and his brothers came; and standing outside they sent to him and called him. And a crowd was sitting about him; and they said to him, “Your mother and your brothers are outside, asking for you.” And he replied, “Who are my mother and my brothers?” And looking around on those who sat about him, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers!

**Luke.8: 19 **“Then his mother and his brothers came to him, but they could not reach him for the crowd. And he was told, “Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, desiring to see you.”

 

[Tomb54]

In the book Catholism and Fundamentalism The Author quotes St.Jerome saying that the idea of Mary having other children is wicked. Also St.Jerome says that Tertillian was a heritic. ECFs are not heritics so claiming Tertillian wis an ECF kinda stretches the truth.

Actually I believe he is right in what St Jerome was saying because if Jesus had other brother and sisters and Jesus gave Mary to John to take care of then I believe by Jewish law what He did would have been considered a sin. and I do not believe even a Protestant will say Jesus sinned so that would be proof since the Bible says Jesus was born under the law. I have not found complete proof in this because the laws and the ruling on those laws are enormous in the Jewish faith and they have changed a little over time so you need to find it for the right time period. One day I hope to find the actual part of Jewish law from before the temples destruction to prove this case but not there yet.

 

[Tomb54]

No, I said Tertullian was more reputable than the Protoevangelium and that he was earlier than the later ECFs. BTW what about Montanism would have caused him to reject Mary’s perpetual virginity (PVM) if it was an established teaching ?

Why would he bother to attack the teaching unless it was established teaching?

There is plenty of need to write about the PVM with regard to opposing Gnosticism…the ECF should have asserted that Mary’s womb was kept pure b/c it housed Jesus (in the flesh) for about 9 mos. and as such stands as proof that Christ did indeed come in the flesh (if the PVM was in fact a church teaching at that time)…but we have silence instead.

There are connection as some have stated with the Ark of the covenant but I doubt you would interpret the bible that way since most Protestant do not look at the unity of the bible but only take it in parts so I will not go that route. I will see what I can find in the ECFs or early writings that give it more support as I believe there is some and there is some proof from Jewish law too but I do not have that all down.