Don't be shy. Quit hiding. Spell out exactly the oral traditions extant in Paul's time about which we should abide.
When you do that, now tie them back to apostles (per Irenaeus).
And as said before, it was already addressed earlier - if you cannot choose to deal squarely with the information, you need to quit protesting as if you were able to (or concerned to begin with).
Again, Cherry picking and arguing selectively
doesn't change where you already avoided several points where oral traditions were present in Paul's time that the Church continued. And thus far, you've yet to deal with Scripture - or the early Church. For as said before, several were already noted earlier - and it was addressed in #
731 - It was also addressed in
#748 ...and even further back in
#35. Again, It was laid ou
t plainly here - and it was also dealt w
ith earlier here (as
well as here)- if one really wants to deal with it, they can deal with it there - or go to
From Shadow to Reality - Ancient Christian Worship. Other Jewish Christians have long noted the same reality as it concerns Oral Traditions - as mentioned before with others like Father James Bernstein and other Jewish Christians who came into Liturgical camps (more in
A Brief History of Jewish Conversion | The Groom's Family ) and Ancient Christianity because of seeing the culture they were told to honor being more than present..
Fr James Bernstein on: Beauty in Orthodox Worship - YouTube
The Jewish Roots of Orthodox Christian Worship - Fr. A.J. Bernstein - YouTube:
Fr. James Bernstein lecture: "Disciple of Christ" - YouTube
If you cannot even address 2-3 traditions present in the Church orally that were present in the time of the Apostles (and not just Paul), then you don't really have any room to be talking on the subject - and to continue speaking on the issue while avoiding what others note is to promote willful falsehood on what others have stated. A bad choice on your part if choosing to to do - but it is what it is and enough has already been given for any excuses from yourself to fly on why you cannot address what St. Paul said on tradition or what the history of the Church said.
You have not dealt with the actions of the Apostles at any point - and thus, any talk you have to offer on them really is inconsequential since you already avoided their example. And you're wasting other's time since you commented on something another had said to a different individual in
#707 - ignoring the context they already spoke it when it came to traditions within the Church that can be seen practiced in the times of the apostles and then insisting on asking for more demonstration rather than addressing what was already said (if really wanting to deal with the evidence). It is what it is and you have not dealt with it where your own claims were addressed squarely. So if wanting people to answer, deal with what was already said and
quit wasting people's time . You will either deal with scripture - or you need to drop the pretense of concern for it.
Let me help. Here's a Tradition: Mary did not remain a virgin after Christ's birth. How do we know this?
Here's the Tradition from Cyril of Jerusalem telling us WHY she didn't remain a virgin (it was proof of God-with-us (in the flesh)) and HOW we know this (the virgins can glory because of the 9 months (NOT because of Mary's life)).
33. Since God then beareth witness, and the Holy Ghost joins in the witness, and Christ says, Why do ye seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth1478? let the heretics be silenced who speak against His humanity, for they speak against Him, who saith, Handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have1479. Adored be the Lord the Virgin-born, and let Virgins acknowledge the crown of their own state: let the order also of Solitaries acknowledge the glory of chastity for we men are not deprived of the dignity of chastity. In the Virgins womb the Saviours period of nine months was passed: but the Lord was for thirty and three years a man: so that if a virgin glories because of the nine months, much more we because of the many years.
Tertullian and Irenaeus also confirm this Tradition.
Can we find this Tradition in Scripture? Yes.
Paul wrote, Christ born of a woman.
John wrote, Christ came in the flesh, born of water and blood. As He entered the world, so too did He depart. PROOF of God-with-us, came in the flesh.
And as said before...
As said before,
One needs to actually deal with the totality of what the CHurch fathers teach before actually attempting to speak on them - you already avoided where Gregory shared on prayers to Mary as well as noting where she was a perpetual virgin and it is self-evident where you promoted falsehood taking them from their context - ALL of whom supported Apostolic tradition in praying to Mary and recognizing her
perpetual virginity - which the Scriptures support, counter to the claims you've been making..
Quoting Cyril is rather pointless if ignoring where you already divorce yourself from his views on Mary being who she is - as he noted directly in
"DISCOURSE ON MARY THEOTOKOS BY CYRIL, ARCHBISHOP OF JERUSALEM" :
Now, therefore, O my beloved, these are the things which we were able to discover for our discourse on the life of the holy Virgin Mary. The whole time of her life was sixty years. She gave birth to our Lord when she was fifteen years; she followed the Saviour when He was preaching for three and a half years after she gave Him birth, and after the Saviour rose from the dead she lived eleven years and a half more. She ended her life on the twentieth day of the month Tobe. Our Lord Jesus, the Christ, reigneth over us. And after the righteous Emperors, Constantine and his [p. 650] son, rose up we built a holy church in the name of the holy Virgin Mary, the mother of the Lord, on the day of her holy commemoration. And let us send up to her thanksgiving, saying, 'Remember us, O true Queen, and do thou plead on our behalf before God, so that He may shew mercy unto us and so that me may celebrate a festival to Him at all times.' Let us give alms to the poor in the name of the Virgin, [so that] she may not forsake us in the place to which we are going. Let us ascribe glory unto her by the utterances of our lips, and let us say, 'Through thee honours have been bestowed upon the city by our God.' And again, 'The death of the saints is precious in the sight of the Lord.' (Ps 116.15) And again, 'The sound of rejoicing and salvation is in the habitation of the righteous.' (Ps 118.15) And now the time hath arrived for us to offer up the Holy Offering, the Body and Blood of Jesus the Christ, our Lord, and moderation in everything is good. By the Will of God we will give the remainder of the exegesis in the holy shrine. Let us then bring to an end our discourse at this place, and let us ascribe glory to the Holy Trinity, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, lifegiving and consubstantial, now and always, and for ever and ever. Amen.
And for more on St. Cyril of Jerusalem's Homily on the Dormition...which reads the following:
"An impenetrable mystery is the Nature that abolished the curse and destroyed the sentence of death, [p. 640] and taught us concerning the foundation, which had no beginning, of the Only-begotten One, Jesus the Christ, our Lord, the production, according to the flesh, of the womb of Saint Mary, the perpetual Virgin, in whose holy house we are I gathered together this day to commemorate the day of her death. If thou wilt confess these things with a true and sincere belief then we will prepare to receive thee into the fold of all the sheep of the loving Shepherd Christ. Have no doubt about the matter; thou must either follow the words which I have taught thee or thou must get outside this place."
One can examine more in
Mary and the Fathers of the Church: The Blessed Virgin Mary in Patristic Thought - Luigi Gambero - Google Books or
Reading Renunciation: Asceticism and Scripture in Early Christianity - Elizabeth A. Clark - Google Books
If trying to quote Tertullian, one needs to acknowledge his own words rather than speak in generalizations of what he said....more in
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. VI. As he said:
Now it will first be necessary to show what previous reason there was for the Son of God's being born of a virgin. He who was going to consecrate a new order of birth, must Himself be born after a novel fashion, concerning which Isaiah foretold how the Lord Himself would give a sign. What, then, is the sign? 'Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son' (Isaiah 7:14). Accordingly a virgin did conceive and bear 'Emmanuel, God with us' (Matthew 1:23). This is the new nativity; a man is born in God. And in this man God was born, taking the flesh of an ancient race, without the help, however, of the ancient seed, in order that he might reform it with new seed, that is, in a spiritual manner, and cleanse it by the removal of all its ancient stains. But the whole of this new birth was prefigured, as was the case in all other instances, in ancient type, the Lord being born as a man by a dispensation in which the virgin was the medium. The earth was still in a virgin state, reduced as yet by no human labor, with no seed as yet cast into its furrows, when, as we are told, God made man out of it into a living soul. As, then, the first Adam is thus introduced to us, it is a just inference that the second Adam likewise, as the apostle has told us, was formed by God into a quickening spirit out of the ground - in -- other words, out of flesh which was unstained as yet by any human generation
The best you can make in your argument is with Tertullian since it was plainly the case that
Tertullian, while affirming Mary's virginal conception of Jesus, did not hold that Mary was virginal in childbirth - in addition to his view that "brothers and sisters" of Christ were to be blood brothers and sisters (based on his views in Mark 3:31-35). Nonetheless, that was not the consensus of the church when it came to the concept of being a virgin - and what that entailed (based on Isaiah 7.....more shared on that before
here/
here and
here).
And for more on the issue, the denial of the perpetual virginity of Mary is actually a heresy that was made popular by Helvidius during the early Christian Church. St. Jerome actually a
ddressed the manner directly - the same Jerome who translated the Bible from Greek and knew the meaning of adelphos...with his rebuttal against Mary being seen in Jerome's Against Helvidius .
Frankly, If you are going to do what St. Ireneaus warned against, one can do a better job of not being so obvious on it.
Sorry - but let me make this very simple for you (as it's obvious you're choosing to skip past anything you don't like rather than address what others have said) - information has already been addressed -although others were not speaking to you originally when you interjected - and thus far, you've repeated a number of things no one has said. To do so is falsehood - and to insist on it is the essence of bearing false testimony or false witness against others.
Thus, you do not need to keep interacting if you cannot ddo so respectfully - and if you continue to do so , it'll be taken to Members Complaint and reported since it was already asked for you to quit being disrespectful in the false accusations.
So please cease interacting with me until you can deal with what I said respectfully - and if not able to do so, please do not respond at all - for I only addressed you due to you commenting on something I said to sculley and demanding I answer a question. I have done so to the best of my ability - and at this point, it is not fruitful for us to continue.
