Perpetual Virgin?

Ok, and what does that have to do with my statement about the RCs I know? I don't know him
Did you or did you not make this comment?

taurik:
Neither I, nor any Catholics I know, think we are better than "over there"
You do not have to know the man to know that he has a very bad attitude toward anyone that disagrees with him. Especially novus ordo practitioners such as yourself. In his book, you are no better than protestants.
 
Did you or did you not make this comment?


You do not have to know the man to know that he has a very bad attitude toward anyone that disagrees with him. Especially novus ordo practitioners such as yourself. In his book, you are no better than protestants.
Ok so this guy has an attitude.
 
Catholic dot com huh? Why are all the biblical quotes from the o.t.? Because the Hebrew doesn't make the distinction the greek does. In the greek n.t. there are specific words for brother, cousin and sister. Jesus had other brothers and sisters from Mary and Joseph.
from the same source... "The decisive proof, however, is that the father and mother of at least two of these “brethren” are known to us. James and Joseph, or Joses, are, as we have seen, the sons of Alpheus, or Clopas, and of Mary, the sister of Mary the Mother of Jesus, and all agree that if these are not brothers of the Savior, the others are not. This last argument disposes also of the theory that the “brethren” of the Lord were the sons of St. Joseph by a former marriage. They are then neither the brothers nor the step-brothers of the Lord. James, Joseph, and Jude are undoubtedly His cousins. If Simon is the same as the Symeon of Hegesippus, he also is a cousin, since this writer expressly states that he was the son of Clopas the uncle of the Lord, and the latter’s cousin. But whether they were cousins on their father’s or mother’s side, whether cousins by blood or merely by marriage, cannot be determined with certainty. Mary of Clopas is indeed called the “sister” of the Blessed Virgin, (John, xix, 25), but it is uncertain whether “sister” here means a true sister or a sister-in-law. Hegesippus calls Clopas the brother of St. Joseph. This would favor the view that Mary of Clopas was only the sister-in-law of the Blessed Virgin, unless it be true, as stated in MSS. of the Peshitta version, that Joseph and Clopas married sisters. The relationship of the other “brethren” may have been more distant than that of the above named four."

Contrary to what you said, Luther, Zwingli, Wesley, and Calvin (at some point of his life) believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary.
 
from the same source... "The decisive proof, however, is that the father and mother of at least two of these “brethren” are known to us. James and Joseph, or Joses, are, as we have seen, the sons of Alpheus, or Clopas, and of Mary, the sister of Mary the Mother of Jesus, and all agree that if these are not brothers of the Savior, the others are not. This last argument disposes also of the theory that the “brethren” of the Lord were the sons of St. Joseph by a former marriage. They are then neither the brothers nor the step-brothers of the Lord. James, Joseph, and Jude are undoubtedly His cousins. If Simon is the same as the Symeon of Hegesippus, he also is a cousin, since this writer expressly states that he was the son of Clopas the uncle of the Lord, and the latter’s cousin. But whether they were cousins on their father’s or mother’s side, whether cousins by blood or merely by marriage, cannot be determined with certainty. Mary of Clopas is indeed called the “sister” of the Blessed Virgin, (John, xix, 25), but it is uncertain whether “sister” here means a true sister or a sister-in-law. Hegesippus calls Clopas the brother of St. Joseph. This would favor the view that Mary of Clopas was only the sister-in-law of the Blessed Virgin, unless it be true, as stated in MSS. of the Peshitta version, that Joseph and Clopas married sisters. The relationship of the other “brethren” may have been more distant than that of the above named four."

Contrary to what you said, Luther, Zwingli, Wesley, and Calvin (at some point of his life) believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary.
Tertullian; Anti Marcion book 4 ch 19

“Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?” In this manner heretics either wrest plain and simple words to any sense they choose by their conjectures, or else they violently resolve by a literal interpretation words which imply a conditional sense and are incapable of a simple solution, as in this passage. We, for our part, say in reply, first, that it could not possibly have been told Him that His mother and His brethren stood without, desiring to see Him, if He had had no mother and no brethren.

His meaning when He resorts to non-literal words, saying “Who is my mother or my brethren?” It seems as if His language amounted to a denial of His family and His birth; but it arose actually from the absolute nature of the case, and the conditional sense in which His words were to be explained. He was justly indignant, that persons so very near to Him “stood without,” while strangers were within hanging on His words, especially as they wanted to call Him away from the solemn work He had in hand. He did not so much deny as disavow them. And therefore, when to the previous question, “Who is my mother, and who are my brethren? He added the answer “None but they who hear my words and do them,” He transferred the names of blood-relationship to others, whom He judged to be more closely related to Him by reason of their faith. Now no one transfers a thing except from him who possesses that which is transferred. If, therefore, He made them “His mother and His brethren” who were not so, how could He deny them these relationships who really had them? Surely only on the condition of their deserts, and not by any disavowal of His near relatives; teaching them by His own actual example, that “whosoever preferred father or mother or brethren to the Word of God, was not a disciple worthy of Him.” Besides, His admission of His mother and His brethren was the more express, from the fact of His unwillingness to acknowledge them. That He adopted others only confirmed those in their relationship to Him whom He refused because of their offence, and for whom He substituted the others, not as being truer relatives, but worthier ones.
 
Tertullian; Anti Marcion book 4 ch 19

“Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?” In this manner heretics either wrest plain and simple words to any sense they choose by their conjectures, or else they violently resolve by a literal interpretation words which imply a conditional sense and are incapable of a simple solution, as in this passage. We, for our part, say in reply, first, that it could not possibly have been told Him that His mother and His brethren stood without, desiring to see Him, if He had had no mother and no brethren.

His meaning when He resorts to non-literal words, saying “Who is my mother or my brethren?” It seems as if His language amounted to a denial of His family and His birth; but it arose actually from the absolute nature of the case, and the conditional sense in which His words were to be explained. He was justly indignant, that persons so very near to Him “stood without,” while strangers were within hanging on His words, especially as they wanted to call Him away from the solemn work He had in hand. He did not so much deny as disavow them. And therefore, when to the previous question, “Who is my mother, and who are my brethren? He added the answer “None but they who hear my words and do them,” He transferred the names of blood-relationship to others, whom He judged to be more closely related to Him by reason of their faith. Now no one transfers a thing except from him who possesses that which is transferred. If, therefore, He made them “His mother and His brethren” who were not so, how could He deny them these relationships who really had them? Surely only on the condition of their deserts, and not by any disavowal of His near relatives; teaching them by His own actual example, that “whosoever preferred father or mother or brethren to the Word of God, was not a disciple worthy of Him.” Besides, His admission of His mother and His brethren was the more express, from the fact of His unwillingness to acknowledge them. That He adopted others only confirmed those in their relationship to Him whom He refused because of their offence, and for whom He substituted the others, not as being truer relatives, but worthier ones.
Well it appears that the ecfs do not solve the problem. But there are those who do confirm Jesus had half siblings and they were not cousins. The reason RCs go with the ones who appear to say they were not is because they follow that awful, false book the POJs.
 
Well it appears that the ecfs do not solve the problem. But there are those who do confirm Jesus had half siblings and they were not cousins. The reason RCs go with the ones who appear to say they were not is because they follow that awful, false book the POJs.
Catholics cherry pick the church fathers. I like this from Tertullian;

"In this manner heretics either wrest plain and simple words to any sense they choose by their conjectures, or else they violently resolve by a literal interpretation words which imply a conditional sense and are incapable of a simple solution,"

Seems even in his day the plain, simplest meaning wasn't good enough. Those people were 'incapable of a simple solution.' The apple didn't fall far from the tree. This is right around 200 A.D. give or take. The rcc wasn't around then, but it learned well from these people.
 
Jesus is not the prince spoken about in Ez. 44. Therefore, it is not about Mary.
This prince offers a sin offering 45:22
This prince has sons. 46:16

He was wrong.
It is about Mary. She is the closed gate in the house of God. The last eight chapters of Ezekiel contain a lengthy description of the prophet’s vision of a new and miraculous Temple, a prophecy fulfilled not in a physical building but in the body of Jesus Christ (cf. Ez. 47:1-9; John 2:19-21, 7:37-38). Surrounding this Temple is a closed gate, facing east. God revealed that “this gate shall remain shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it; for the Lord, the God of Israel, has entered by it; therefore, it shall remain shut” (Ez. 44:2).

The Church Fathers saw in this a reference to Mary’s perpetual virginity. For example, St. Gregory the Wonderworker, a second-century Church Father famed for his miracle-working, described Mary as “herself both an honorable temple of God and a shrine made pure, and a golden altar of whole burnt offerings,” and “the door which looks eastward”—that is, the closed gate of Ezekiel 44:2.
 
It is about Mary. She is the closed gate in the house of God. The last eight chapters of Ezekiel contain a lengthy description of the prophet’s vision of a new and miraculous Temple, a prophecy fulfilled not in a physical building but in the body of Jesus Christ (cf. Ez. 47:1-9; John 2:19-21, 7:37-38). Surrounding this Temple is a closed gate, facing east. God revealed that “this gate shall remain shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it; for the Lord, the God of Israel, has entered by it; therefore, it shall remain shut” (Ez. 44:2).

The Church Fathers saw in this a reference to Mary’s perpetual virginity. For example, St. Gregory the Wonderworker, a second-century Church Father famed for his miracle-working, described Mary as “herself both an honorable temple of God and a shrine made pure, and a golden altar of whole burnt offerings,” and “the door which looks eastward”—that is, the closed gate of Ezekiel 44:2.
Yet no one wants a shut gate. We want the gate open to believers. Jesus is the gate that is open.

John 10:9

9 I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. They will come in and go out, and find pasture.

There is no reference to the PV in those verses at all. Which ECFs are you referring to? Provide the evidence of this claim.
 
Tertullian; Anti Marcion book 4 ch 19

“Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?” In this manner heretics either wrest plain and simple words to any sense they choose by their conjectures, or else they violently resolve by a literal interpretation words which imply a conditional sense and are incapable of a simple solution, as in this passage. We, for our part, say in reply, first, that it could not possibly have been told Him that His mother and His brethren stood without, desiring to see Him, if He had had no mother and no brethren.

His meaning when He resorts to non-literal words, saying “Who is my mother or my brethren?” It seems as if His language amounted to a denial of His family and His birth; but it arose actually from the absolute nature of the case, and the conditional sense in which His words were to be explained. He was justly indignant, that persons so very near to Him “stood without,” while strangers were within hanging on His words, especially as they wanted to call Him away from the solemn work He had in hand. He did not so much deny as disavow them. And therefore, when to the previous question, “Who is my mother, and who are my brethren? He added the answer “None but they who hear my words and do them,” He transferred the names of blood-relationship to others, whom He judged to be more closely related to Him by reason of their faith. Now no one transfers a thing except from him who possesses that which is transferred. If, therefore, He made them “His mother and His brethren” who were not so, how could He deny them these relationships who really had them? Surely only on the condition of their deserts, and not by any disavowal of His near relatives; teaching them by His own actual example, that “whosoever preferred father or mother or brethren to the Word of God, was not a disciple worthy of Him.” Besides, His admission of His mother and His brethren was the more express, from the fact of His unwillingness to acknowledge them. That He adopted others only confirmed those in their relationship to Him whom He refused because of their offence, and for whom He substituted the others, not as being truer relatives, but worthier ones.
Tertullia's literary period were from 197 -220ad. The catholic period was from 197-206ad, his semi montanist writings were from 206to 212ad. His montanist period was 213 onwards. Against Marcion was written in 207-212ad
what you posted is not about perpetual virginity. but of Christ's remark when told about his mother and his brethren.

- He transferred the names of blood-relationship to others, whom He judged to be more closely related to Him by reason of their faith.

-Surely only on the condition of their deserts, and not by any disavowal of His near relatives; teaching them by His own actual example, that whosoever preferred father or mother or brethren to the Word of God, was not a disciple worthy of Him. Matthew 10:37 Besides, His admission of His mother and His brethren was the more express, from the fact of His unwillingness to acknowledge them. That He adopted others only confirmed those in their relationship to Him whom He refused because of their offense, and for whom He substituted the others, not as being truer relatives, but worthier ones. Finally, it was no great matter if He did prefer to kindred (that) faith which it did not possess.
 
Tertullia's literary period were from 197 -220ad. The catholic period was from 197-206ad, his semi montanist writings were from 206to 212ad. His montanist period was 213 onwards. Against Marcion was written in 207-212ad
what you posted is not about perpetual virginity. but of Christ's remark when told about his mother and his brethren.

- He transferred the names of blood-relationship to others, whom He judged to be more closely related to Him by reason of their faith.

-Surely only on the condition of their deserts, and not by any disavowal of His near relatives; teaching them by His own actual example, that whosoever preferred father or mother or brethren to the Word of God, was not a disciple worthy of Him. Matthew 10:37 Besides, His admission of His mother and His brethren was the more express, from the fact of His unwillingness to acknowledge them. That He adopted others only confirmed those in their relationship to Him whom He refused because of their offense, and for whom He substituted the others, not as being truer relatives, but worthier ones. Finally, it was no great matter if He did prefer to kindred (that) faith which it did not possess.
Hes arguing for the blood relationship of His literal mother and literal brothers.
 
It is about Mary. She is the closed gate in the house of God. The last eight chapters of Ezekiel contain a lengthy description of the prophet’s vision of a new and miraculous Temple, a prophecy fulfilled not in a physical building but in the body of Jesus Christ (cf. Ez. 47:1-9; John 2:19-21, 7:37-38). Surrounding this Temple is a closed gate, facing east.

Hahahahahaha.

Ezekiel was not talking about Mary's vagina!

What is wrong with you people?
 
It is about Mary. She is the closed gate in the house of God. The last eight chapters of Ezekiel contain a lengthy description of the prophet’s vision of a new and miraculous Temple, a prophecy fulfilled not in a physical building but in the body of Jesus Christ (cf. Ez. 47:1-9; John 2:19-21, 7:37-38). Surrounding this Temple is a closed gate, facing east. God revealed that “this gate shall remain shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it; for the Lord, the God of Israel, has entered by it; therefore, it shall remain shut” (Ez. 44:2).

The Church Fathers saw in this a reference to Mary’s perpetual virginity. For example, St. Gregory the Wonderworker, a second-century Church Father famed for his miracle-working, described Mary as “herself both an honorable temple of God and a shrine made pure, and a golden altar of whole burnt offerings,” and “the door which looks eastward”—that is, the closed gate of Ezekiel 44:2.
the church fathers? I put no weight behind them.
 
Back
Top