Jesus had brothers??????

[justasking4]

Yes, of course. But your are not really assuming that this reasoning is “correct” . You are not willing to do the role play. This question is identical to the question “did God say, you shall not eat of the tree”?

It is not a question that is relevant to the discussion. The discussion is about why Mary asked how the conception would happen. She had no reason to ask. She knew she was betrothed, and would expect that she would concieve after the manner of all married women…

Unless she had made a vow…

Where is the evidence that Mary made any vow in this passage?

 

[justasking4]

It is hard to say, since OT had not been canonized. This did not happen until 66 - 70 years after Christ, and excised many scriptures that pointed to Christ. It is clear that they believed in the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and “the Writings” (proverbs, psalms, and histories{

No one has asserted that Mary was an Essene. What has been asserted is that having a vow of celibacy, and still being married, is not “unheard of” as you state. There is some evidence that John the Baptist may have been an Essene, or stayed with them for some time.

Where in the OT do we have any examples of a married couple making a vow pf celibacy?

Was John the Baptist married?

 

[justasking4]

cascherman;3252372]So you are disagreeing so we can have a sounding board to ‘practice’ on? Do you not actually disagree then?

I disagree with the idea that Mary was a virgin all her life for the mere fact the evidence from Scripture shows otherwise.

But really, what does it mean to you that Mary may have been a virgin her whole life? It does not really affect any common protestant theology.

I want the truth. If Mary was truly a virgin all her life then there would be evidence for it. If not then there would be evidence for that to.

But, on the subject of Mary’s virginity, I will try to appeal to your logic and/or common sense of God. God; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, chose Mary to be an ideal vessel to hold Jesus (God the Son) in her womb. She literally grew God in human form in her body. After having birthed God, how much sense would it make to then taint a God given gift by becoming pregnant and birthing a imperfect and sinful human being? In the same uterus that housed God for 9 months.

I don’t see any problems with her having normal sexual relations with her husband after the birth of Christ. This is what the Scriptures bless.

cascherman
Or, put yourself in Mary’s position. There are human beings NOW that stay unmarried and virgin their whole lives just to devote their every day to God. Now that you are imagining yourself in Mary’s position, would you have another child or would you be content with having birthed God, and devote your body to him for the rest of your life?

Just wondering.

Instead of imagining what could have happened lets study the texts and see if they support the contention that she did indeed stay a virgin all her life. That’s what we need to know. I see so much speculations on this dogma about Mary being a virgin instead of solid biblical facts.

 

[guanophore]

Not so. I thought i sent you 3 passages that shows otherwise. See Matthew 13:55-56; Mark 6:3 and Galatians 1:19

There is no evidence in any of these passages that these are not the offspring of Joseph from a previous marriage.

 

[Tom]

Jesus Himself seems to think remaining a virgin is superior to having sex:
Matthew 19, 10 His disciples say unto him: If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry. 11 Who said to them: All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother’s womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it.
And Paul definitely recommends celibacy:
1 Corinthians 7
1 Now concerning the thing whereof you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 But for fear of fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

29 This therefore I say, brethren; the time is short; it remaineth, that they also who have wives, be as if they had none;

37 For he that hath determined being steadfast in his heart, having no necessity, but having power of his own will; and hath judged this in his heart, to keep his virgin, doth well.

 

[Tom]

Now, coluld we get back to Luke?
We’ve gotten to the point, that you agree, Mary had no knowledge or suspicion that her conception of a child would be anything other than normal. Let’s see if you agree with this:

1. If she had planned on having a normal sexual relationship with Joseph she would have naturally known that the child she would conceive would be from her husband Joseph, but, that is only if she planned a normal sexual relationship after her marriage. Prior to her question in verse 34, the angel Gabriel had given no indication that her conception would not be from natural sexual relations with her husband. Agree or disagree?

If you agree we can proceed to verse 34 where she not only asks a question but also makes a statement about her future, perpetual virginity.

 

[guanophore]

You missunderstand what i meant here. What i’m saying this conversation with the angel is going at a normal clip which would not give her the time to reflect at this point what all this means. Keep in mind that when angels appear in the Scriptures there is usually fear on the part of humans when they encounter them. I would think that Mary was nervous and perplexed by the visit and during the visit with angel.

So, you think she was just blithering and blathering, stuttering and ill chosen words were coming out? I guess that is one way to discount the conversation…

In regards to Jesus this would be true i.e. to be a virgin until the birth of Christ. On her suppoesed perpetual virginity you are reading catholic doctrine into the passage instead of letting the passage speak plainly and clearly.

You might try doing this yourself. Just role play! “Pretend” that you are Catholic for a minute, and see how it looks with those glasses on. I promise you will not eternally contaminate yourself.

The Gospel was written by Catholics who believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary because they lived with her. They knew she did not have any other children, because they knew Jesus family. It is not necessary to “read into” the passage, it is the context from which the passage comes. On the contrary, you are working to keep Catholic doctrine out when reading the passage.

Again you read catholic doctrine into this passage. There is no mention of her vowing to be a virgin the rest of her life. The other claim that she is the spouse of the Holy Spirit is another reading into the text. You will never find such a claim for her in the entire Scriptures.

That is because she took the vow long before the conversation with the angel. She brings it up because the annunciation is confusing. How can she have a son, if she knows not a man?

You will have to speak for yourself about what you will not find in scripture. You are the one with the anticatholic blinders on, so you are the one who will never find what Catholics find.

 

[guanophore]

Just because something has been believed for a long time does not automatically mean its correct. Your response does not come close to refuting what i have written and shown from the Scriptures themselves. Thats what you want to deal with. To refute my case you must show that these words mean something like cousins or relative. Can you do that?

Jesus knew that this method was a vicious dead end circle, and that is why He instructed his disciples to take their disputes to the Church. Scripture does not interpret itself. Certainly one passage can shed light on the meaning of another, but written words do not “understand” and “perceive”. People do that. You are free to reject what has come down to us from the Apostles, and what was believed by the Church until new doctrines emerged a couple centuries ago based on complete separation from the context in which the Bible was written. What is puzzling is why you are bringing our new doctrine of SS here to CAF? What is your goal here? You continually urge SS onto Catholics, telling us what we “should” and “must” do. Above you say “you want do deal” with this. Do you think you will succeed in some sort of brainwashing Catholics in the same way that you have been?

The word “brothers” appears in Gen 13:8. Where in Genesis does it mention Abraham and Lot as having the same parents?
Its best to understand Abraham when he says “brothers” as being in a close relationship in which Lot was his newphew. See Gen 12:5.

Exactly, just as the relatives of Jesus were his brothers and sisters. Not the children of Mary, but very near relatives.

How so? Did these people have access to a written NT in the 2nd-3rd centuries?

Most of it. The "memoirs of the apostles (Gospels) were in circulation. But how is that relevant? Don’t you think they learned the faith through the teaching of the Apostles?

What does IOW mean?
We do have text support though in Matthew 13:55-56 that where brothers are mentioned in conection with a mother or father it denotes blood relationships.

In Other Words.

No, this passage says nothing about the parents of these children. They could be the children of Joseph by a previous marriage. In fact, two of them are named as sons of Mary’s sister, the wife of Clopas. And, since it is unlikely that two blood sisters in one family would be called Mary, Mary the mother of James and Joses may be a sister of Joseph, or Alphaeus may be the brother of Joseph, or Alphaneus may be the son of Anna and Joaquim. The truth is that the text does not specify. But we know from the Teachings that Jesus is an only Son of Mary.

Why do you let any of this bother you, ja4? You understand that Catholics believe differently than you. What prevents you from accepting this? Why is it you cannot seem to go your way in peace?

 

[guanophore]

Where is the evidence that Mary made any vow in this passage?

She is a betrothed woman. The angel tells her she will conceive and bear a son.

Why would she wonder how this could happen?

 

[guanophore]

Where in the OT do we have any examples of a married couple making a vow pf celibacy?

Was John the Baptist married?

This practice became common among the Essenes in the intertestamental period.

I have never heard or seen any evidence that the Baptist was married. What woman would have a man who wore stinky camels hair, lived in the desert, and ate locusts!

I disagree with the idea that Mary was a virgin all her life for the mere fact the evidence from Scripture shows otherwise. ’

Since you already made up your mind, what are you doing on CAF? This forum is for people to ask questions about the Catholic faith. You have already answered your question, yet you are still here?

I want the truth. If Mary was truly a virgin all her life then there would be evidence for it. If not then there would be evidence for that to.

You say you already have the truth. You say it is Catholics who have not the truth. So, what you mean to say here is that you wish to convince Catholics of your truth?

Your refusal to accept the evidence does not make it go away. The Pharisees rejected the evidence of Jesus mighty deeds also.
Most of these were not even written down.

I don’t see any problems with her having normal sexual relations with her husband after the birth of Christ. This is what the Scriptures bless.

So, since you have your opinion, why contend with Catholics here? You have not questions. It is disingenuous to say you are ‘justasking4’ answers, because you are not. You are evangelizing.

Instead of imagining what could have happened lets study the texts and see if they support the contention that she did indeed stay a virgin all her life. That’s what we need to know. I see so much speculations on this dogma about Mary being a virgin instead of solid biblical facts.

What is this “what we need to know” business? You already believe you know, so what is your need? Catholics don’t accept your belief, because we prefer the one that comes from the Apostles. I wonder if we were to translate this “we need” into “justasking4 needs” what that sentence would sound like?

 

[Good_Fella]

Have you looked at the context for the passage you quote? This has nothing to do with Mary.

You fail to realize that the OT prophecies have a primary and secondary context. In its primary context Isaiah 53 refers to Israel; in its secondary context the suffering servant of Isaiah refers to Jesus the Messiah. Again, in its primary context Psalm 69 refers to King David, whereas in its secondary context the Psalm refers to Christ to some extent. Ezekiel 44, 2-3, taken in its secondary context, alludes to Mary, who served as a gate for the Lord to enter the world. And this gate was reserved only for the Prince of Peace. The OT prophecies have more than one type of fulfillment.The commentaries in our Bible do not serve to engage in the full spectrum of theological implications and investigation.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Good_Fella]

I think making Mary out to be some kind of ark type is not biblical since the Scriptures never do.

I’m afraid the evangelist Luke would disagree with you, since he is the first known Christian - a true Catholic - to have drawn a parallel between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant. Observe:

Luke 1, 39 / 2 Samuel 6, 2: Mary (the ark) arose ane went. / David arose and went to the ark.

Lk 1, 41 / 2 Sam 6,16: John the Baptist / King David leap for joy before Mary / the Ark.

Lk 1, 43 / 2 Sam 6, 9: How can the Mother / Ark come to me?

Lk 1, 56 / 2 Sam 6, 11 / 1 Chronicles 13, 14: Mary / the Ark remained in the house for three months.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Good_Fella]

Not so. I thought i sent you 3 passages that shows otherwise. See Matthew 13:55-56; Mark 6:3 and Galatians 1:19

Not sure what you mean here. Can you clarify?

I did and not sure what you are getting at here. Can you explain?

Please go back to the request I made in reply # 219. Apparently you have a difficult time keeping track of all your unsupported abstract assertions. Please clarify what your version of the NT Greek Lexicon has to say about the above verses. You haven’t yet explained. Until you do, I cannot respond. Thanks.

Zechariah 12, 10 is a Messianic prophecy. Observe the capped print:

I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and petition; and they shall look on him whom they have PIERCED, and they shall mourn for him as one mourns for AN ONLY SON, and they shall grieve over him as one grieves over A FIRSTBORN.

The evangelist John perceives in this passage a prophecy fulfilled in the piercing of Christ’s side by the spear of the Roman soldier (Jn 19, 37). The evangelist Luke sees a fulfillment of this prophecy in the birth of Christ, the first born of Mary (Lk 2, 6). And the evangelist Matthew sees this prophecy fulfilled in the virgin birth of Christ (Mt 2, 22-23; cf. Isa 7, 14). Mary is spoken of as “the” (tes) virgin, not “a” virgin. The church of Matthew would not have simply referred to Mary as “the” virgin or “a” virgin if she had had other children of her own.

“Behold, the virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel.”

The first born children of Israel were consecrated to the Lord. This is what Luke means by the designation. According to Zechariah, Mary’s child was not only consecrated to the Lord, but he was Mary’s only child. The phrase “an only son” does not refer to Jesus as the Only-begotten Son of God, for the Word of God is eternally begotten of the Father. He is not made or born like we are. But, as the Son of Man, he was born of the Virgin Mary and was her only child. What Strong, McClintock, or any other biased Protestant biblical scholar has to say about Mary’s Perpetual Virginity holds no water. They can dabble in Greek and Hebrew linguistics all they want, but the prophet Zechariah refutes their preconceived conclusions. :yup:

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[sterryfamily]

One question for JA4 -

You do understand that your interpretation of scripture is contrary to all Christian understanding for the first 1700 years or so, do you not? You can find many people today who agree with your interpretation, but before the last couple of hundred years and going all the way back to the apostles (and beyond) all Christian testimony agrees with the Catholic interpretation.

You do understand and acknowledge this, yes?

 

[justasking4]

Good Fella;3262683]Please go back to the request I made in reply # 219. Apparently you have a difficult time keeping track of all your unsupported abstract assertions. Please clarify what your version of the NT Greek Lexicon has to say about the above verses. You haven’t yet explained. Until you do, I cannot respond. Thanks.

Zechariah 12, 10 is a Messianic prophecy. Observe the capped print:

I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and petition; and they shall look on him whom they have PIERCED, and they shall mourn for him as one mourns for AN ONLY SON, and they shall grieve over him as one grieves over A FIRSTBORN.

The evangelist John perceives in this passage a prophecy fulfilled in the piercing of Christ’s side by the spear of the Roman soldier (Jn 19, 37). The evangelist Luke sees a fulfillment of this prophecy in the birth of Christ, the first born of Mary (Lk 2, 6). And the evangelist Matthew sees this prophecy fulfilled in the virgin birth of Christ (Mt 2, 22-23; cf. Isa 7, 14).

Mary is spoken of as “the” (tes) virgin, not “a” virgin. The church of Matthew would not have simply referred to Mary as “the” virgin or “a” virgin if she had had other children of her own.

How do you know this? There is nothing in the passage to indicate this.

“Behold, the virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel.”

The first born children of Israel were consecrated to the Lord. This is what Luke means by the designation. According to Zechariah, Mary’s child was not only consecrated to the Lord, but he was Mary’s only child.

Where are you getting from Zechariah that Jesus would be Mary’s only child? Can you give me the verse that says that kind of thing?

The phrase “an only son” does not refer to Jesus as the Only-begotten Son of God, for the Word of God is eternally begotten of the Father. He is not made or born like we are. But, as the Son of Man, he was born of the Virgin Mary and was her only child.

The problem is that there is no support for your assertion–
“as the Son of Man, he was born of the Virgin Mary and was her only child”.

What Strong, McClintock, or any other biased Protestant biblical scholar has to say about Mary’s Perpetual Virginity holds no water. They can dabble in Greek and Hebrew linguistics all they want, but the prophet Zechariah refutes their preconceived conclusions. :yup:

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

What do catholic biblical scholars say?

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

The problem is that there is no support for your assertion–
“as the Son of Man, he was born of the Virgin Mary and was her only child”.

Yes, there is, and I don’t know how many times we’ve tried to explain this to you! Your evidence, that is, references to the points where the Gospels mention the “brothers” of Jesus, has been refuted several times over.

It is not impossible that Mary took a vow of virginity- such vows were rare, but not unheard of throughout the Bible, and it seems likely that Mary took a vow of virginity based on the evidence of her conversation with Gabriel. Saying that she was “confused” is a half-baked excuse, really. Of all things, Mary was confused by Gabriel’s statement that she would be pregnant, not any other part of the message. A vow of virginity is the only plausible explanation for this question.

 

[guanophore]

How do you know this? There is nothing in the passage to indicate this.

Sacred Tradition, of course!

Where are you getting from Zechariah that Jesus would be Mary’s only child? Can you give me the verse that says that kind of thing?

Sacred Tradition, of course!

The problem is that there is no support for your assertion–
“as the Son of Man, he was born of the Virgin Mary and was her only child”.

None that you will accept, since you have rejected the Apostolic Traditions.

What do catholic biblical scholars say?

How is that relevant? They do not determine Sacred Tradition!

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3264632]

Originally Posted by justasking4
How do you know this? There is nothing in the passage to indicate this.

guanophore
Sacred Tradition, of course!

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Where are you getting from Zechariah that Jesus would be Mary’s only child? Can you give me the verse that says that kind of thing?

guanophore
Sacred Tradition, of course!

Can you give me the documentation in the Sacred Tradition writings for your assertions?

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
The problem is that there is no support for your assertion–
“as the Son of Man, he was born of the Virgin Mary and was her only child”.

guanophore
None that you will accept, since you have rejected the Apostolic Traditions.

The Scriptures never assert she was an ever virgin. There is no Apostolic support for this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
What do catholic biblical scholars say?

guanophore
How is that relevant? They do not determine Sacred Tradition!

They are relevant because they study these things at depth. Do you know what some of them say?

 

[sterryfamily]

Here ya go…

The Protoevangelium of James

“And behold, an angel of the Lord stood by [St. Anne], saying, ‘Anne! Anne! The Lord has heard your prayer, and you shall conceive and shall bring forth, and your seed shall be spoken of in all the world.’ And Anne said, ‘As the Lord my God lives, if I beget either male or female, I will bring it as a gift to the Lord my God, and it shall minister to him in the holy things all the days of its life.’ . . . And [from the time she was three] Mary was in the temple of the Lord as if she were a dove that dwelt there” (Protoevangelium of James 4, 7 [A.D. 120]).

“And when she was twelve years old there was held a council of priests, saying, ‘Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, lest perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord?’ And they said to the high priest, ‘You stand by the altar of the Lord; go in and pray concerning her, and whatever the Lord shall manifest to you, that also will we do.’ . . . [A]nd he prayed concerning her, and behold, an angel of the Lord stood by him saying, ‘Zechariah! Zechariah! Go out and assemble the widowers of the people and let them bring each his rod, and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. . . . And Joseph [was chosen]. . . . And the priest said to Joseph, ‘You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the Virgin of the Lord.’ But Joseph refused, saying, ‘I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl’” (ibid., 8–9).

“And Annas the scribe came to him [Joseph] . . . and saw that Mary was with child. And he ran away to the priest and said to him, ‘Joseph, whom you did vouch for, has committed a grievous crime.’ And the priest said, ‘How so?’ And he said, ‘He has defiled the virgin whom he received out of the temple of the Lord and has married her by stealth’” (ibid., 15).

“And the priest said, ‘Mary, why have you done this? And why have you brought your soul low and forgotten the Lord your God?’ . . . And she wept bitterly saying, ‘As the Lord my God lives, I am pure before him, and know not man’” (ibid.).

Origen

“The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] 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 honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the firstfruit of virginity” (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).

Hilary of Poitiers

“If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, ‘Woman, behold your son,’ and to John, ‘Behold your mother’ [John 19:26–27), as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate” (Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354]).

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]).

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).

to be continued…

 

[sterryfamily]

continued…

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]).

Ambrose of Milan

“Imitate her [Mary], holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of material virtue; for neither have you sweeter children [than Jesus], nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son” (Letters 63:111 [A.D. 388]).

Pope Siricius I

“You had good reason to be horrified at the thought that another birth might issue from the same virginal womb from which Christ was born according to the flesh. For the Lord Jesus would never have chosen to be born of a virgin if he had ever judged that she would be so incontinent as to contaminate with the seed of human intercourse the birthplace of the Lord’s body, that court of the eternal king” (Letter to Bishop Anysius [A.D. 392]).

Augustine

“In being born of a Virgin who chose to remain a Virgin even before she knew who was to be born of her, Christ wanted to approve virginity rather than to impose it. And he wanted virginity to be of free choice even in that woman in whom he took upon himself the form of a slave” (Holy Virginity 4:4 [A.D. 401]).

“It was not the visible sun, but its invisible Creator who consecrated this day for us, when the Virgin Mother, fertile of womb and integral in her virginity, brought him forth, made visible for us, by whom, when he was invisible, she too was created. A Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth, a Virgin perpetual. Why do you wonder at this, O man?” (Sermons 186:1 [A.D. 411]).

“Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband” (Heresies 56 [A.D. 428]).

Leporius

“We confess, therefore, that our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, born of the Father before the ages, and in times most recent, made man of the Holy Spirit and the ever-virgin Mary” (Document of Amendment 3 [A.D. 426]).

Cyril of Alexandria

“[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 childbearing” (Against Those Who Do Not Wish to Confess That the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God 4 [A.D. 430]).

Pope Leo I

“His [Christ’s] origin is different, but his [human] nature is the same. Human usage and custom were lacking, but by divine power a Virgin conceived, a Virgin bore, and Virgin she remained” (Sermons 22:2 [A.D. 450]).

Where is your proof of a contrary belief held by pre-reformation Christians?