M
Montie_Claunch
Guest
Obviously Jews don’t see Christ as God, or they wouldn’t be Jewish. So that beckons the question. What do Jews see Jesus as? Thanks and God bless.
- Status
K
Kirane
Guest
Montie Claunch:
Why the Jews rejected Jesus
By David Klinghoffer
or
Jesus the Pharisee
by Hyam Maccoby
It is difficult to find out everything because some parts of the Talmud have been censored. But you might try the book:
Why the Jews rejected Jesus
By David Klinghoffer
or
Jesus the Pharisee
by Hyam Maccoby
M
moshe
Guest
Hi,
The most remarkable thing about the life of Jesus as presented in the Gospels is the utter silence about its earlier phases. He was one of a rather large family, having four brothers, Jacob, Jose, Simon, Judah, besides sisters.
It is known that he earned his living by his father’s trade, that of a carpenter; according to Justin Martyr, plows and yokes made by Jesus were still in existence at his (Justin’s) time, about the year 120.
<>
jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=254&letter=J
The most remarkable thing about the life of Jesus as presented in the Gospels is the utter silence about its earlier phases. He was one of a rather large family, having four brothers, Jacob, Jose, Simon, Judah, besides sisters.
It is known that he earned his living by his father’s trade, that of a carpenter; according to Justin Martyr, plows and yokes made by Jesus were still in existence at his (Justin’s) time, about the year 120.
<>
jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=254&letter=J
M
moshe
Guest
"As far Crucifixion, in handing over their prisoner to the procurator, Pontius Pilate, the Jewish officials refused to enter the pretorium as being ground forbidden to Jews. They thereby at any rate showed their confidence in the condemnation of Jesus by the Roman power.
Before Pilate the sole charge could be attempted rebellion against the emperor. In some way, it would appear, the claim to be king of the Jews (or possibly of a kingdom of heaven) was made before him by Jesus himself, as is shown by the inscription nailed up in derision on the cross.
If overt acts in a disturbed district had accompanied the claim, the official could scarcely avoid passing sentence of condemnation; and Pilate took the same course. But he seems to have hesitated: while condemning Jesus, he gave him a chance of life. It appears to have been the practise to grant to the Jewish populace the privilege of pardoning a prisoner on public holidays; and Pontius Pilate held out to the rabble surrounding the pretorium (for most responsible heads of families must have been at this time engaged in searching for leaven in their own homes) a choice between Jesus and the other Jesus (bar Abbas), who also had been accused of rebellion.
The mob had naturally more sympathy for the avowed rebel than for the person who had recommended the payment of tribute. It chose Barabbas; and Jesus was left to undergo the Roman punishment of Crucifixion in company with two malefactors. He refused with some not overkindly words (Luke xxiii. 28-31) the deadening drink of frankincense, myrrh, and vinegar which the ladies of Jerusalem were accustomed to offer to condemned criminals in order that they might pass away in an unconscious state (Sanh. 43a).
Whatever had been Jesus’ anticipations, he bore the terrible tortures, due to the strain and cramping of the internal organs, with equanimity till almost the last, when he uttered the despairing and pathetic cry “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?” (the Aramaic form of Ps. xxii. 1, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”), which showed that even his resolute spirit had been daunted by the ordeal. This last utterance was in all its implications itself a disproof of the exaggerated claims made for him after his death by his disciples.
The very form of his punishment would disprove those claims in Jewish eyes. No Messiah that Jews could recognize could suffer such a death; for “He that is hanged is accursed of God” (Deut. xxi. 23), “an insult to God” (Targum, Rashi).
How far in his own mind Jesus substituted another conception of the Messiah, and how far he regarded himself as fulfilling that ideal, still remain among the most obscure of historical problems."
Before Pilate the sole charge could be attempted rebellion against the emperor. In some way, it would appear, the claim to be king of the Jews (or possibly of a kingdom of heaven) was made before him by Jesus himself, as is shown by the inscription nailed up in derision on the cross.
If overt acts in a disturbed district had accompanied the claim, the official could scarcely avoid passing sentence of condemnation; and Pilate took the same course. But he seems to have hesitated: while condemning Jesus, he gave him a chance of life. It appears to have been the practise to grant to the Jewish populace the privilege of pardoning a prisoner on public holidays; and Pontius Pilate held out to the rabble surrounding the pretorium (for most responsible heads of families must have been at this time engaged in searching for leaven in their own homes) a choice between Jesus and the other Jesus (bar Abbas), who also had been accused of rebellion.
The mob had naturally more sympathy for the avowed rebel than for the person who had recommended the payment of tribute. It chose Barabbas; and Jesus was left to undergo the Roman punishment of Crucifixion in company with two malefactors. He refused with some not overkindly words (Luke xxiii. 28-31) the deadening drink of frankincense, myrrh, and vinegar which the ladies of Jerusalem were accustomed to offer to condemned criminals in order that they might pass away in an unconscious state (Sanh. 43a).
Whatever had been Jesus’ anticipations, he bore the terrible tortures, due to the strain and cramping of the internal organs, with equanimity till almost the last, when he uttered the despairing and pathetic cry “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?” (the Aramaic form of Ps. xxii. 1, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”), which showed that even his resolute spirit had been daunted by the ordeal. This last utterance was in all its implications itself a disproof of the exaggerated claims made for him after his death by his disciples.
The very form of his punishment would disprove those claims in Jewish eyes. No Messiah that Jews could recognize could suffer such a death; for “He that is hanged is accursed of God” (Deut. xxi. 23), “an insult to God” (Targum, Rashi).
How far in his own mind Jesus substituted another conception of the Messiah, and how far he regarded himself as fulfilling that ideal, still remain among the most obscure of historical problems."
B
BlovedbyBloved
Guest
Interesting pages of information on OP’s question here :
myjewishlearning.com/ideas_belief/Jews_NonJews/NJ_Attitudes_TO/NJ_Christianity.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_view_of_Jesus
myjewishlearning.com/ideas_belief/Jews_NonJews/NJ_Attitudes_TO/NJ_Christianity.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_view_of_Jesus
I
inJESUS
Guest
they consider him neither Messiah nor prophet nor anything. Otherwise why kill him?
S
Semper_Fi_1
Guest
Yes, Jesus did have a rather large family, the whole human race (which He created). His only blood relative on Earth was Miriam, though. There is not one instance in the Gospel of any of his ‘brothers’ being sons of Mary. Perhaps step brothers from one of Joseph’s previous marriages or close kin such as what we today call first cousins. Mary remained ever-virgin, and thus his only ‘father’ was his adopted father, Joseph.
God bless.
R
randel
Guest
Semper Fi:
What proof do you have that Mary did remain virgin?
Thanks
Hello,
What proof do you have that Mary did remain virgin?
Thanks
T
tdandh26
Guest
Do you need actual visible proof? or would a good common sense explaination do?
Mary was the mother of God. Do you really think that she could have even considered sexual relations after such an experience? Not to mention her conversation with the angel Gabriel at the annunciation doesn’t make any sense unless she had taken a vow of virginity. As all woman knew how children were born and Mary was being wed to Joseph. So the possibility of children was there, unless this vow of virginity. No other woman in the whole bible asks, “how can this be…?”, when God has reveiled to them that they were to bear a child.
Don’t let the word brother or bretheren confuse you. It was common for the Jews to refer to all relations as brother or sister, since there was no word to designate cousins and the like.
Mary was the mother of God. Do you really think that she could have even considered sexual relations after such an experience? Not to mention her conversation with the angel Gabriel at the annunciation doesn’t make any sense unless she had taken a vow of virginity. As all woman knew how children were born and Mary was being wed to Joseph. So the possibility of children was there, unless this vow of virginity. No other woman in the whole bible asks, “how can this be…?”, when God has reveiled to them that they were to bear a child.
Don’t let the word brother or bretheren confuse you. It was common for the Jews to refer to all relations as brother or sister, since there was no word to designate cousins and the like.
R
randel
Guest
Who are they?
R
randel
Guest
I need to see proof from the scriptures that she did remain a virgin for the rest of her life after Jesus’ birth.
T
tdandh26
Guest
I gave it to you. Read the annunciation and see if it makes any sense unless she had taken a vow of virginity. Also, if it was not her intention to remain a virgin that prompted her to ask this, then why didn’t the angel strike her deaf and dumb like he did to Zachariah. Why would God punish one person for lack of faith and not the other unless it was not lack of faith that Mary asked this but rather fear of having to break a vow. Which is why the angel immediately follows up Mary’s question with, " do not fear Mary…"
This is implied proof as much of scripture tends to do when revealing a mystery.
This is implied proof as much of scripture tends to do when revealing a mystery.
R
randel
Guest
What did Mary say when Angel gave the good news of a child?
Luke 1, 34-35
But Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?” And the angel said to her in reply, "The holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.
She did not say I have taken a vow to remian a virgin fro whole life. She only said I have no relation with a man, so far.
I need to see a proof that she did take vow or remained a virgin after Jesus’ birth.
Mere conjecture or assumption is not a proof to declare anything descisively.
T
tdandh26
Guest
Did she know she was going to be married to Joseph? YES
Did she know that in marriage children are born? YES
Then why ask the question?
Why didnt the angel strike her deaf and dumb?
This is not mere conjecture this is definitely what took place.
How can anyone even think that the mother of God would even consider having sexual relations. If the ark of the covenant was unable to be touched because it carried the word of God, how much more sacred the womb which carried the WORD made flesh. The fathers of the church assert this point often. If you require a statement that says Mary remained a virgin all her life, in the Bible itself then I cant help. But, I will ask that you show me where all the beliefs you hold are so clearly defined in the Bible like that.
G
Gerry_Hunter
Guest
Such a need is simply not consonant with Catholic teaching.
The need bespeaks a sola scriptura mindset, which is not to be found among Catholics, who benefit from the teaching authority of the Church. It is not a requirement that a teaching of the Church be proof-textable from Holy Scripture. It can be Apostolic in origin (therefore preserved and transmitted in Tradition), and not contradicting, or contradicted by, Holy Scripture (an impossibility, since Scripture and Tradition have a common source).
Sadly, much misunderstanding eventuates when Catholics are called upon to adopt non-Catholic standards of proof, and the Catholics will have none of it, because they cannot.
Blessings,
Gerry
R
randel
Guest
Gerry Hunter:
Unfortunately, Catholicism history begins from 4th century. Not to mention there was no consenses on a uniform basic creed even within the Church for centuries, let alone other matters or issues. Not all Popes had same views even regarding the Virginity of Mary.
Do you think Mary is God’s mother?
If Jesus was God too, then who was his Father?
Do you mean Mary was mother to Jesus (Son of God) and also mother of God (the Father) at the same time if God (the Father) was incarnated in him?
Or Mary was God Almighty’s wife and mother of His Son?
And how would you explain to a young boy or a young girl the expression “the holy Spirit will come upon Mary” and “the power of the Most High will overshadowing Mary” ?
Hello Hunter,
Unfortunately, Catholicism history begins from 4th century. Not to mention there was no consenses on a uniform basic creed even within the Church for centuries, let alone other matters or issues. Not all Popes had same views even regarding the Virginity of Mary.
Do you think Mary is God’s mother?
If Jesus was God too, then who was his Father?
Do you mean Mary was mother to Jesus (Son of God) and also mother of God (the Father) at the same time if God (the Father) was incarnated in him?
Or Mary was God Almighty’s wife and mother of His Son?
And how would you explain to a young boy or a young girl the expression “the holy Spirit will come upon Mary” and “the power of the Most High will overshadowing Mary” ?
G
Gerry_Hunter
Guest
That salutation, Sir, is rude.
Actually, the history of the Catholic Church begins well before that.
Why no. Since the Church teaches that she is theotokos, the God-bearer, I KNOW she is. And, since history does not seem to be the strong suit of the previous paragraph, I’d point out that the primary reason for explicitly proclaiming that teaching was to counter the heresy that Jesus Christ was not really fully human.
The father of God the Son is God the Father. Was that a trick question?
God the Father was not incarnated. God the Son was, The confusion in the question above results from overlooking that revealed truth.
See above.
Probably the same way it was explained to me. Mary conceived Jesus by the power of God the Holy Spirit. We can’t know the way that happened, because it is a mystery. A mystery is something we humans can be aware of, but not something that we are able to fully understand.
Blessings,
Gerry
S
Semper_Fi_1
Guest
Hi, sorry, no it does not. The Catholic Church began on pentecost.
Mary’s Ever-Virgin status was supported by the Church Fathers, who were the first Christians, well before the fourth century, sir.
As you can see here:
The Protoevangelium of James 15
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’ … 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’ (120 a.d.)
The Protoevangelium of James 4
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. (120 a.d.)
The Protoevangelium of James 8-9
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’ (120 a.d.)
Origen Commentary on Matthew 2:17
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. (248 a.d.)
Hilary of Poitiers Commentary on Matthew 1:4
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. (354 a.d.)
Athanasius Discourses Against the Arians 2:70
“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” (360 a.d.)
(cont’d…)
S
Semper_Fi_1
Guest
Epiphanius of Salamis The Man Well-Anchored 120
“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” (374 a.d.)
Epiphanius of Salamis Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 78:6
“And to holy Mary, [the title] ‘Virgin’ is invariably added, for that holy woman remains undefiled” (375 a.d.)
Jerome Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 19
[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. (383 a.d.)
Jerome Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 21
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 (383 a.d.)
Didymus the Blind The Trinity 3:4
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. (386 a.d.)
Ambrose of Milan Letters 63:111
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. (388 a.d.)
(cont’d…)
“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” (374 a.d.)
Epiphanius of Salamis Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 78:6
“And to holy Mary, [the title] ‘Virgin’ is invariably added, for that holy woman remains undefiled” (375 a.d.)
Jerome Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 19
[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. (383 a.d.)
Jerome Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 21
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 (383 a.d.)
Didymus the Blind The Trinity 3:4
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. (386 a.d.)
Ambrose of Milan Letters 63:111
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. (388 a.d.)
(cont’d…)
S
Semper_Fi_1
Guest
Pope Siricius I Letter to Bishop Anysius
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. (392 a.d.)
“And indeed it was a virgin, about to marry once for all after her delivery, who gave birth to Christ, in order that each title of sanctity might be fulfilled in Christ’s parentage, by means of a mother who was both virgin, and wife of one husband. Again, when He is presented as an infant in the temple, who is it who receives Him into his hands? Who is the first to recognize Him in spirit? A man just and circumspect,’ and of course no digamist, (which is plain) even (from this consideration), lest (otherwise) Christ should presently be more worthily preached by a woman, an aged widow, and the wife of one man;’ who, living devoted to the temple, was (already) giving in her own person a sufficient token what sort of persons ought to be the adherents to the spiritual temple,–that is, the Church. Such eye-witnesses the Lord in infancy found; no different ones had He in adult age." Tertullian, On Monogamy, 8 (a.d. 213).
“For if Mary, as those declare who with sound mind extol her, had no other son but Jesus, and yet Jesus says to His mother, Woman, behold thy son,’ and not Behold you have this son also,’ then He virtually said to her, Lo, this is Jesus, whom thou didst bear.’ Is it not the case that every one who is perfect lives himself no longer, but Christ lives in him; and if Christ lives in him, then it is said of him to Mary, Behold thy son Christ.’ What a mind, then, must we have to enable us to interpret in a worthy manner this work, though it be committed to the earthly treasure-house of common speech, of writing which any passer-by can read, and which can be heard when read aloud by any one who lends to it his bodily ears?” Origen, Commentary on John, I:6 (a.d. 232).
“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; for in neither case had it been of profit to us men, whether the Word were not true and naturally Son of God, or the flesh not true which He assumed.” Athanasius, Orations against the Arians, II:70 (a.d. 362).
So we have established that the early fathers believed in the ever-virgin status of Mary, as well as the protestant reformers. Why won’t you?
from www.scripturecatholic.com & www.earlychurchfathers.org.
God bless.
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. (392 a.d.)
“And indeed it was a virgin, about to marry once for all after her delivery, who gave birth to Christ, in order that each title of sanctity might be fulfilled in Christ’s parentage, by means of a mother who was both virgin, and wife of one husband. Again, when He is presented as an infant in the temple, who is it who receives Him into his hands? Who is the first to recognize Him in spirit? A man just and circumspect,’ and of course no digamist, (which is plain) even (from this consideration), lest (otherwise) Christ should presently be more worthily preached by a woman, an aged widow, and the wife of one man;’ who, living devoted to the temple, was (already) giving in her own person a sufficient token what sort of persons ought to be the adherents to the spiritual temple,–that is, the Church. Such eye-witnesses the Lord in infancy found; no different ones had He in adult age." Tertullian, On Monogamy, 8 (a.d. 213).
“For if Mary, as those declare who with sound mind extol her, had no other son but Jesus, and yet Jesus says to His mother, Woman, behold thy son,’ and not Behold you have this son also,’ then He virtually said to her, Lo, this is Jesus, whom thou didst bear.’ Is it not the case that every one who is perfect lives himself no longer, but Christ lives in him; and if Christ lives in him, then it is said of him to Mary, Behold thy son Christ.’ What a mind, then, must we have to enable us to interpret in a worthy manner this work, though it be committed to the earthly treasure-house of common speech, of writing which any passer-by can read, and which can be heard when read aloud by any one who lends to it his bodily ears?” Origen, Commentary on John, I:6 (a.d. 232).
“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; for in neither case had it been of profit to us men, whether the Word were not true and naturally Son of God, or the flesh not true which He assumed.” Athanasius, Orations against the Arians, II:70 (a.d. 362).
So we have established that the early fathers believed in the ever-virgin status of Mary, as well as the protestant reformers. Why won’t you?
from www.scripturecatholic.com & www.earlychurchfathers.org.
God bless.
- Status