How many other children did Mary have?

[Hentenza]

One in that list is correct,

Yours, of course.

but I don't feel like getting into a denomination debate right now.

Naturally.

Why dont you stud church history?

Been there done that.

It is surprisingly obvious.

Tell that to the other churches that claim that their Traditions are the correct one.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Come now, we all know that isn't true. People on this forum attack the Mother of God far too vehemently for it to not matter at all to them.

There is no such attack stating the obvious, our salvation has nothing to do with Marys sexual intimacy with Joseph after the birth of Jesus Christ.

None whatsoever.

Let the womans life with Joseph be hers and his (between them) its not our business.

 

[Montalban]

"Holy" Tradition is excluded as far as the EV of Mary since the EV of Mary is not a teaching prior to the middle of the second century. Can you supply evidence that EV was taught prior to the middle of the second century?

You keep repeating this mistake.

There's two things:

a) there's no WRITTEN EVIDENCE of teaching prior to 150*

with

b) there's no teaching prior to 150

Your argument has one but thinks the other.


*-and even this is wrong as I showed dating for written evidence from 145

 

[Thekla]

Nonesense. There are a plethora of extant Christian texts from the first and second century. The totality of the text of scripture, OT and NT, is extant. Are you suggesting that we are missing books or texts of scripture?

Then by your standard, the New Testament can only contain the verses in copies dated as extant by the end of the 2cnd century, and none other.

Here's your NT Scripture:

Untitled Document

(Roman numerals indicate century.)

 

[Thekla]

"Holy" Tradition is excluded as far as the EV of Mary since the EV of Mary is not a teaching prior to the middle of the second century. Can you supply evidence that EV was taught prior to the middle of the second century?

Where is your explicit evidence that in all of Christendom it was not ?

Do not mistake the record of history for history.

 

[Hentenza]

You keep repeating this mistake.

There's two things:

a) there's no WRITTEN EVIDENCE of teaching prior to 150*

with

b) there's no teaching prior to 150

Your argument has one but thinks the other.


*-and even this is wrong as I showed dating for written evidence from 145

I said middle of the second century. I did not say 150. 145 IS middle of the second century.

 

[Hentenza]

Where is your explicit evidence that in all of Christendom it was not ?

Do not mistake the record of history for history.

Wait. You are suggesting that given ALL of the extant Christian texts prior to the middle of the second century, which are record of history, are NOT history? Are you suggesting that, given ALL of the extant Christian texts prior to the middle of the second century, not a single one mentions EV but that is because they have not been found yet? Are you suggesting that the witness of the first Christians written in the pages of scripture which was fully written by the end of the first century somehow forgot to witness to Mary's EV? Are you suggesting that ECFs like Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, etc., early writings like the Didache, Shepherd of Hermas, the writings of Papias, and even the plethora of pseudo gospels and epistles including the gnostic writings which attacked Mary, conveniently forgot to mention EV?

 

[Hentenza]

Then by your standard, the New Testament can only contain the verses in copies dated as extant by the end of the 2cnd century, and none other.

Here's your NT Scripture:

Untitled Document

(Roman numerals indicate century.)

Apples and oranges. The NT was FULLY written by the end of the first century. There is plenty of historical and textual evidence.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Apples and oranges. The NT was FULLY written by the end of the first century. There is plenty of historical and textual evidence.

Not necessarily. Jude may have been written as late as the first quarter of the 2nd century. It was regarded as part of the Antilegomena for some time. It's possible for 2 Peter to be about as late as well.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[razeontherock]

Wait. You are suggesting that ...

It seemed to me like Thekla was saying the NT wasn't written before 200 AD?

 

[Hentenza]

Not necessarily. Jude may have been written as late as the first quarter of the 2nd century. It was regarded as part of the Antilegomena for some time. It's possible for 2 Peter to be about as late as well.

-CryptoLutheran

The vast majority of reputable scholarship disagrees with a late date. The consensus seems to stand at between 60ad and 80ad. It is the same for 2 Peter.

 

[Montalban]

I said middle of the second century. I did not say 150. 145 IS middle of the second century.

150 is right in the middle. 145 is around about the middle.

You didn't say "around about the middle"

Perhaps if you got 45 out of a 100 in a test you'd have said to your parents "I got half right!"

You've still not

a) provided scriptural proof it's bad doctrine
nor
b) addressed your mistake re: an argument from silence

 

[Hentenza]

150 is right in the middle. 145 is around about the middle.

You didn't say "around about the middle"

Perhaps if you got 45 out of a 100 in a test you'd have said to your parents "I got half right!" <snip>

Is that the best argument you have Montalban?

BTW- I would have gotten a 97 on the test. In case math is a little rusty for you, divide 145 by 150 not 45 by 100.

 

[Montalban]

Is that the best argument you have Montalban?

You mean against your arbitrary date that's based on an argument from silence? I guess so

BTW- I would have gotten a 97 on the test. In case math is a little rusty for you, divide 145 by 150 not 45 by 100.

Why are you dividing 145 by 150?

We're talking about the middle of a century.

The range is of 100 years - between 100AD and 200AD

That's 100 years whether it's between 1800-1900AD or 0-100AD it's still 100

The middle is 50 years into it.

For you the middle is 45 years into it.

Hence my quip about you saying you might have got half right if you only got 45 out of 100.

How'd you come up with 97?

 

[Hentenza]

You mean against your arbitrary date that's based on an argument from silence? I guess so


Why are you dividing 145 by 150?

We're talking about the middle of a century.

The range is of 100 years - between 100AD and 200AD

That's 100 years whether it's between 1800-1900AD or 0-100AD it's still 100

The middle is 50 years into it.

For you the middle is 45 years into it.

Hence my quip about you saying you might have got half right if you only got 45 out of 100.

How'd you come up with 97?

This is silly. Move on.

 

[Montalban]

This is silly. Move on.

It's another mistake your post displays. Previously it was a claim that scripture says this is bad doctrine.

Currently you're defending another - the idea of a 'step blood brother'.

In none of these cases is there an admission of error.

 

[Philothei]

Eh... Back to the OP... Where is the evidence from Scripture that Mary was not EV? Many couples marry to divorce or whatever in our times if the wedding is "white" right? Well back then there were marriages that were 'white' still the couples would not divorce...Why is it so hard to realize this? Marriage such as "atypical" as living as brother and sister have been around for centuries since the institution of marriage...

 

[Montalban]

There's no direct evidence either way so the 'sola scripturists' should be silent, as the text is.

 

[Thekla]

Wait. You are suggesting that given ALL of the extant Christian texts prior to the middle of the second century, which are record of history, are NOT history? Are you suggesting that, given ALL of the extant Christian texts prior to the middle of the second century, not a single one mentions EV but that is because they have not been found yet? Are you suggesting that the witness of the first Christians written in the pages of scripture which was fully written by the end of the first century somehow forgot to witness to Mary's EV? Are you suggesting that ECFs like Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, etc., early writings like the Didache, Shepherd of Hermas, the writings of Papias, and even the plethora of pseudo gospels and epistles including the gnostic writings which attacked Mary, conveniently forgot to mention EV?

The use of the term "the Virgin" as a proper noun is found in Justin iirc; however, your claim was that only texts from this era are acceptable evidence (thus exclude the majority of what you call the New Testament) and that all history and fact that is true is in written record. On the latter point, your contention is false by the standards of the study of history.

 

[Hentenza]

You keep repeating this mistake.

There's two things:

a) there's no WRITTEN EVIDENCE of teaching prior to 150*

with

b) there's no teaching prior to 150

Your argument has one but thinks the other.

What? There is neither written, oral, or ANY kind of teaching regarding Mary's EV prior to the middle of the second century. What part of written, oral, or any kind are you not understanding?