My question to you is can you provide evidence that it was not taught?The Early Church did not question Mary’s perpetual virginity.
Ok. It depends on context. Not sure of Martyr’s context. For instance I think it proper to call Mary the “virgin Mary” if the context is about her before and up to the birth of Jesus. Anything thereafter I would generally not.Martyr does not call Mary but Virgin Mary. If she had not remained a virgin, calling her that would not have been appropriate.
Shall we be like the Pharisees and add?It was not supposed to be a textbook of every single dogma and doctrine ever. (
But one closer to the apostles wrote,And actually, we have some early Church writers like Papias, who said outright that he thought oral tradition and eyewitness testimony was more trustworthy and complete than anything in the NT Bible. S
Martyr sometimes calls Mary, only Mary at the time before the Angel so I think your reasoning would fail. But it fails in another way too. They never say anything about her having other children. The context of their writing assume her to be always a virgin. You made a statement that we had no teaching until Jerome. I wonder if you think Jerome one day just sat down and said Mary was a virgin her whole life? As I have pointed out we have written record of James which shows that it was being taught. What we don’t have is evidence that it wasn’t being taught. You said that it was at the time of Jerome that there became debate. It would seem that it was at this time that the traditional teaching was being challenged.Ok. It depends on context. Not sure of Martyr’s context. For instance I think it proper to call Mary the “virgin Mary” if the context is about her before and up to the birth of Jesus. Anything thereafter I would generally not.
So the virgin Mary visited Elizabeth, or traveled on a donkey to Bethlehem, or was visited by an angel, or was graced enough to be chosen to bear Emmanuel etc… But it was Mary who was at the foot of the cross, or at Cana, or in upper chamber with apostles etc…
Agree, but always conditional, as cited by Paul…they had to stick to the script…they had to stick to apostolic teaching, which we know best by their writings.Having a named person as a teacher, or having a chain of named teachers, was one of the basic proofs of trustworthiness in the ancient world.
Not sure but I believe Jesus fulfilled every prophecy that was in His scripture.If you were a Jew who became Christian, you already knew this stuff and didn’t have to be told. If you were a Gentile, somebody would tell you. Putting it into Luke would have been a waste of space
Well, I would think you could call Mary Mary anytime. A name does nor require an adjective. The question was was the adjective used to describe anything about Mary after His birth. Of course one could use the adjective, though not necesary, before the birth.Martyr sometimes calls Mary, only Mary at the time before the Angel so I think your reasoning would fail
True. They also don’t say anything about her having step children, or close cousins, or of a vow.But it fails in another way too. They never say anything about her having other children
That is what I am asking to see in Martyrhe context of their writing assume her to be always a virgin
O.K. this won’t get us anywhere. You want to look at a passage and decide that when they called her Virgin Mary it must always refer to before she had other children. It really doesn’t wash. In the quote that was provided it is clear that it is a title not clarifying that she was a virgin when Jesus was born. We disagree You obviously cannot provide any of their writing to support that she did not remain a virgin. You cannot give any reasonable reason for Mary to have been given into John’s care. I do think you gave a plausible reason for her saying she knew not man but it falls apart because she was married and she does not mention Joseph but a general no man. You do not provide evidence that she was not always a virgin in the early Church. You dismiss James but you can’t because he does verify that it was indeed the early Church teaching.Well, I would think you could call Mary Mary anytime. A name does nor require an adjective. The question was was the adjective used to describe anything about Mary after His birth. Of course one could use the adjective, though not necesary, before the birth.
Again context. Did Martyr ever contextually call the virgin Mary apart from referencing the conception/ birth?
The Talmud was written after Jesus. It would have no bearing on the Jews of Jesus time. The Jews that followed Jesus indeed knew what He spoke about. Certainly they did after He instructed them. Remember after the resurrection their was forty days of instruction. Even today their is misunderstanding . Sometime because the people of today try to put our definitions to things in the Bible that were understood differently but that every Jew who read it would understand such as what Keys represented. Another one that really floors me is the forced interpretation of until and of first born. Even today the meaning of until does not mean a change. It only means up to a certain time. Look it up in the dictionary. UntilNot sure but I believe Jesus fulfilled every prophecy that was in His scripture.
I am sure some of the Talmud had correct interpretation, and much did not, which unfortunately was adopted by the powers to be…so the Jews indeed had to be told, what they were suppose to have known ( of mercy, grace, a Lamb, of need to be born again), and not that an ever virgin was signified by a closed gate, or the meaning of sleeping with a king’s wife.
it is not reliable and rejected by jerome and origen, and i think in a list of condemned books by later pope. I can’t trust a book who claims spuriously to be James.o teaching recorded? but you do have James. It may not be inspired but it does show what was being taught that is reliable.
'But the Virgin Mary conceived …"…(read your martyr quote sorry, i forgot you had posted it} …seems to quite clearly have context of conception and birth …don’t think Martyr capitalized the V (not sure greek had “uncapitals” at this time yet…everything was capitalIn the quote that was provided it is clear that it is a title not clarifying that she was a virgin when Jesus was born
You obviously cannot provide any of their writing to support that she did not remain a virgin
quite right…was addressing this:“Also, a lot did not need to be said, because a lot of Talmudic teaching about the prophesied Messiah included lots of stuff teaching about his prophesied mom. If you were a Jew who became Christian, you already knew this stuff and didn’t have to be told. If you were a Gentile, somebody would tell you. Putting it into Luke would have been a waste of space.”…from Mintakahe Talmud was written after Jesus. It would have no bearing on the Jews of Jesus time.