Source of Non-Ever Virgin POV

[repentant]

I have no clue what anti Catholic site he is getting info from, but I can show quotes from the Saints themselves that he posted, that say they did believe in the PV of Mary...

 

[simonthezealot]

I have no clue what anti Catholic site he is getting info from, but I can show quotes from the Saints themselves that he posted, that say they did believe in the PV of Mary...

Okay do it then...lets start with Hegesippus.
Put up, or retract... instead of trying to defame my character.

 

[simonthezealot]

And lastly, my congregational icon is Anglican, not Vatican Catholic, though I think it would be Christian of you not to spread falsities about other churches or denominations.

If your going to accuse me of spreading falsities, point them out or retract the statement! You are essentially calling me a liar and I don't appreciate that.

 

[NewToLife]

Okay do it then...lets start with Hegesippus.
Put up, or retract... instead of trying to defame my character.

Obviously this wasnt directed at me and i cant quote directly as of now but Hegesippius is one of the sources that actually asserts that the supposed other children of Mary are in fact only step brothers of Jesus is he not?

Personally, given that Hegesippius went so far as to explain the relationships denying Mary had other children, I'd say your reading seems dubious to say the least.

 

[Trento]

Okay do it then...lets start with Hegesippus.
Put up, or retract... instead of trying to defame my character.

O.K.

A native of Palestine, Hegesippus finished his Memoirs in the reign of Pope Eleutherius (AD 175-189) when he was an old man draws his information from personal sources, as he was able to question some surviving members of Jesus' family. Hegesippus can tell us that: "After the martyrdom of James, it was unanimously decided that Simeon, son of Clopas, was worthy to occupy the see of Jerusalem. He was, it is said, a cousin of the Saviour;" Hegesippus recounts in fact that Clopas was a brother of Joseph (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., III, 11).
St. Epiphanius (Haer., LXXVII, 7) says the same and adds (ibid., 14) "that this Simeon, the son of Clopas, was a cousin of James the Just," as Hegesippus says in another passage. (Prat, Jesus Christ, p. 505).
Cleophas is the brother of Joseph (Jesus' adopted father). It follows that Cleophas' wife Mary is the Virgin Mary's sister in law, which explains why they can have the same name and are called sisters. It also follows that James is Jesus' cousin. Ferdinand Prat reasons:
"We know, then that the mother of two of the brothers of the Lord was Mary of Cleophas, the sister of the Blessed Virgin. We also know that Cleophas, St Joseph's brother, was the father of a third, called Simon or Simeon. Since the remaining one, Jude, is always connected with Simon and is, like him, part of the family of David, it is natural to suppose that he was also a son of Cleophas.
All the points that remain obscure would be cleared up, in our opinion, if two hypotheses are risked. Mary, the sister of the Blessed Virgin, having two sons, James and Joseph, by a first marriage, was married a second time to Cleophas, brother of St. Joseph, who also had two sons, Simon and Jude, by a former marriage. In light of the customs of the country and the age, there was nothing extraordinary in the marriage of a widow and a widower, each with children. The second hypothesis is that the sister of the Blessed Virgin had as her first husband a man of the tribe of Levi, called Alpheus.
In this fashion nine or ten problems would be solved. Thus one could explain why James, Joseph, Simon and Jude are always named in that order, as brethren of the Lord; why James and Joseph are a pair distinct from Simon and Jude; why Mary, sister of the Blessed Virgin, is called the mother of James and Joseph and not the mother of Simon and Jude; why, according to Hegesippus, Simon and not James is the son of Cleophas; why, again according to Hegesippus, Simon and Jude are of the family of David; why, according to tradition, James was of sacerdotal ancestry; why the common opinion of Catholics identifies James, son of Mary, sister of the Blessed Virgin, with James the Apostle, the son of Alpheus; why Mary of Cleophas is called in the Gospel sister of the Blessed Virgin, when she was really her sister-in-law, being the wife of St. Joseph's brother; finally, why, after the deaths of Joseph and Cleophas, the two sisters brought their families together, so that thereafter the two families seemed to be but one." (Prat, Jesus Christ, p. 136-137).
We do not hear of Cleophas or Joseph (Jesus' adopted father) in the Gospels during Jesus' adult life. We can imagine that after their deaths, the two families—deprived of their protectors and heads—came together under one roof. This would further strengthen their ties: the two Marys as "sisters" and Jesus and His cousins as "brothers". Gospel and tradition kept these names without denying Mary's perpetual virginity.
St. Jerome. Against Heldiviu. Where better to get a scriptural defense of Mary's perpetual virginity than the greatest Bible scholar of his day? The standard Protestant objections of today were handily refuted in AD 383, such that this heresy did not resurface again until relatively modern times.

 

[simonthezealot]

O.K.

A native of Palestine, Hegesippus finished his Memoirs in the reign of Pope Eleutherius (AD 175-189) when he was an old man draws his information from personal sources, as he was able to question some surviving members of Jesus' family. Hegesippus can tell us that: "After the martyrdom of James, it was unanimously decided that Simeon, son of Clopas, was worthy to occupy the see of Jerusalem. He was, it is said, a cousin of the Saviour;" Hegesippus recounts in fact that Clopas was a brother of Joseph (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., III, 11).
St. Epiphanius (Haer., LXXVII, 7) says the same and adds (ibid., 14) "that this Simeon, the son of Clopas, was a cousin of James the Just," as Hegesippus says in another passage. (Prat, Jesus Christ, p. 505).
Cleophas is the brother of Joseph (Jesus' adopted father). It follows that Cleophas' wife Mary is the Virgin Mary's sister in law, which explains why they can have the same name and are called sisters. It also follows that James is Jesus' cousin. Ferdinand Prat reasons:
"We know, then that the mother of two of the brothers of the Lord was Mary of Cleophas, the sister of the Blessed Virgin. We also know that Cleophas, St Joseph's brother, was the father of a third, called Simon or Simeon. Since the remaining one, Jude, is always connected with Simon and is, like him, part of the family of David, it is natural to suppose that he was also a son of Cleophas.
All the points that remain obscure would be cleared up, in our opinion, if two hypotheses are risked. Mary, the sister of the Blessed Virgin, having two sons, James and Joseph, by a first marriage, was married a second time to Cleophas, brother of St. Joseph, who also had two sons, Simon and Jude, by a former marriage. In light of the customs of the country and the age, there was nothing extraordinary in the marriage of a widow and a widower, each with children. The second hypothesis is that the sister of the Blessed Virgin had as her first husband a man of the tribe of Levi, called Alpheus.
In this fashion nine or ten problems would be solved. Thus one could explain why James, Joseph, Simon and Jude are always named in that order, as brethren of the Lord; why James and Joseph are a pair distinct from Simon and Jude; why Mary, sister of the Blessed Virgin, is called the mother of James and Joseph and not the mother of Simon and Jude; why, according to Hegesippus, Simon and not James is the son of Cleophas; why, again according to Hegesippus, Simon and Jude are of the family of David; why, according to tradition, James was of sacerdotal ancestry; why the common opinion of Catholics identifies James, son of Mary, sister of the Blessed Virgin, with James the Apostle, the son of Alpheus; why Mary of Cleophas is called in the Gospel sister of the Blessed Virgin, when she was really her sister-in-law, being the wife of St. Joseph's brother; finally, why, after the deaths of Joseph and Cleophas, the two sisters brought their families together, so that thereafter the two families seemed to be but one." (Prat, Jesus Christ, p. 136-137).
We do not hear of Cleophas or Joseph (Jesus' adopted father) in the Gospels during Jesus' adult life. We can imagine that after their deaths, the two families—deprived of their protectors and heads—came together under one roof. This would further strengthen their ties: the two Marys as "sisters" and Jesus and His cousins as "brothers". Gospel and tradition kept these names without denying Mary's perpetual virginity.
St. Jerome. Against Heldiviu. Where better to get a scriptural defense of Mary's perpetual virginity than the greatest Bible scholar of his day? The standard Protestant objections of today were handily refuted in AD 383, such that this heresy did not resurface again until relatively modern times.

Whats this trento, this has nothing to do with Hegesippus, their is one area that has Eusebius quoting him.

And why did you highlight Jeromes against Heldiviu???

 

[simonthezealot]

Personally, given that Hegesippius went so far as to explain the relationships denying Mary had other children, I'd say your reading seems dubious to say the least.

Where has he done this?

 

[Trento]

And why did you highlight Jeromes against Heldiviu???

Jerome was the reviser of the Vulgate, was well known with the Hebrew language. Here is a message from Jerome especially for you.


"[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" (Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 19 [A.D. 383]).

 

[simonthezealot]

"[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" (Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 19 [A.D. 383]).

Again I ask what does this have to do with Hegesippus writings re:Mary's perpetual virginity...

I have read most, though not all of the writers he listed... But thanks! on offering advice as to how to become wiser.

 

[simonthezealot]

"[Helvidius] produces Tertullian as a witness [to his view] and quotes Victorinus, bishop of Petavium.

See here ya go a few more whom didn't accept the PV theory.

 

[Trento]

See here ya go a few more whom didn't accept the PV theory.

Ignatius and Polycarp were instructed by Apostles. There view has the most authority.

 

[simonthezealot]

Trento, hope this post gets you up to speed, I did as Kristos asked then citing 4 writings from the ECF's then repentent questioned me so I put up the challenge to prove me wrong starting with HEGESIPPUS.

Now maybe you'll post in context

Historically, what is the source of the teaching that Mary did not remain a Virgin?

I'm not looking for right or wrong here, but a historical trace of this teaching.

Please cite your references,
I'm not interested in your opinion. Thanks!

HOPE THESE HELP!
Basil

The church father Basil commented that the view that Mary had other children after Jesus "was widely held and, though not accepted by himself, was not incompatible with orthodoxy" (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], p. 495).

Hegesippus


The church father Hegesippus apparently didn't believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Hegesippus refers to Jude as "the Lord's brother according to the flesh" (church history of Eusebius, 3:20). He refers elsewhere to Symeon, a "cousin of the Lord" (church history of Eusebius, 4:22). We know, then, that Hegesippus understood the differences between the Greek terms for "brother" and "cousin". He chose "brother", and added the words "according to the flesh", to describe Jesus' sibling named Jude.

Irenaeus

Irenaeus refers to Mary giving birth to Jesus when she was "as yet a virgin" (Against Heresies, 3:21:10). The implication is that she didn't remain a virgin. Irenaeus compares Mary's being a virgin at the time of Jesus' birth to the ground being "as yet virgin" before it was tilled by mankind. The ground thereafter ceased to be virgin, according to Irenaeus, when it was tilled. The implication is that Mary also ceased to be a virgin. Elsewhere, Irenaeus writes:
"To this effect they testify, saying, that before Joseph had come together with Mary, while she therefore remained in virginity, 'she was found with child of the Holy Ghost;'" (Against Heresies, 3:21:4)
Irenaeus seems to associate "come together" with sexual intercourse. The implication is that Joseph and Mary had normal marital relations after Jesus was born.

Tertullian

Tertullian comments:
"Behold, there immediately present themselves to us, on the threshold as it were, the two priestesses of Christian sanctity, Monogamy and Continence: one modest, in Zechariah the priest; one absolute, in John the forerunner: one appeasing God; one preaching Christ: one proclaiming a perfect priest; one exhibiting 'more than a prophet,' - him, namely, who has not only preached or personally pointed out, but even baptized Christ. For who was more worthily to perform the initiatory rite on the body of the Lord, than flesh similar in kind to that which conceived and gave birth to that body? 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." (On Monogamy, 8)
Tertullian says that Mary is representative of both ideals, monogamy and continence. She represented virginity for a while, then represented monogamy within marriage. The latter seems to *replace* the former, as something distinct from it, which is a denial of the perpetual virginity doctrine.

I have no clue what anti Catholic site he is getting info from, but I can show quotes from the Saints themselves that he posted, that say they did believe in the PV of Mary...

Okay do it then...lets start with Hegesippus.
Put up, or retract... instead of trying to defame my character.

Simon

 

[Catholic Christian]

OBJECTOR: I went to Mass with one of my friends, and I noticed that during the Penitential Rite, Catholics ask for prayers from "the Blessed Mary, ever Virgin." This is an obvious example of Catholics adding teachings that contradict the clear witness of Scripture.

CATHOLIC: On the contrary, the belief that Mary was always a virgin has been held since the earliest days of Christianity. Many of the early Church Fathers, including Athanasius, Jerome, and Augustine, expressed this belief. To give just one example, Augustine said in A.D. 411 that Mary was "a Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth, a Virgin perpetual."

OBJECTOR: Well, I definitely respect Augustine, but just because he said something doesn’t mean that it’s true. He was a great theologian, but he wasn’t infallible. This is one case where I’ll have to disagree with him. By the time Augustine said this, over three hundred years had gone by since Mary had lived.

CATHOLIC: I understand that Augustine was fallible, but I don’t think you should dismiss his testimony so easily, especially because what he says is supported by many other early Fathers. Another source that supports belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity is the Protoevangelium of James. It was written around A.D. 120, when some of those who had known the apostles were still alive. It records that Mary was dedicated before her birth to serve the Lord in the temple, as Samuel had been dedicated by his mother (1 Sam. 1:11). This required perpetual virginity of Mary so that she could completely devote herself to the service of the Lord.

OBJECTOR: But if Mary wasn’t supposed to get married, why do we read that that Mary was engaged to Joseph (Luke 1:27)?

CATHOLIC: Again according to the Protoevangelium of James, concerns about ceremonial cleanliness required that Mary have a male protector who would respect her vow of virginity. Joseph was "chosen by lot to take into [his] keeping the Virgin of the Lord." His duty to guard Mary was taken so seriously that when Mary conceived, Joseph had to answer to the temple authorities. So Mary’s betrothal to Joseph was not in conflict with her vow of virginity.

OBJECTOR: This is very interesting, but there were many things written early in the history of Christianity that did not express what Christians actually believed, such as the Gnostic gospels. Like these, the Protoevangelium of James expresses a belief that is contrary to what has been revealed in Scripture.

CATHOLIC: I agree that we should use caution when relying on extrabiblical accounts, but we can also see evidence in the biblical texts that Mary had chosen to be a virgin. When the angel Gabriel tells Mary that she will bear a son, Mary asks, "How shall this be, since I have no husband?" (Luke 1:34). At this point, Mary was engaged to Joseph. Why would she then be so surprised at being told she would conceive? If she were planning on having children with Joseph in the usual way, it wouldn’t make sense for her to ask how she would be able to have a child. This question makes sense only if Mary was already planning to remain a virgin.

OBJECTOR: Maybe if you read this in light of the Protoevangelium of James, this passage could be read as an indication that Mary was planning on remaining a virgin. But why should we rely on ambiguous biblical passages and extrabiblical evidence when the Bible itself clearly states that Jesus had siblings? For example, Matthew records that "while [Jesus] was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him" (Matt. 12:46). His listeners ask, "Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?" (Matt. 13:55). Jesus is even advised by his siblings: "So his brothers said to him, ‘Leave here and go to Judea, that your disciples may see the works you are doing. For no man works in secret if he seeks to be known openly. If you do these things, show yourself to the world’" (John 7:3–4).

CATHOLIC: Although the Bible says that Jesus had brothers, this doesn’t mean that they were necessarily sons of Mary. If we accept the theory put forth in the Protoevangelium of James and accepted by many in the early Church, Jesus’ brothers would be stepbrothers, sons of Joseph but not of Mary. This would explain why Jesus’ "brothers" felt that they could admonish him, as they do in John 7:3–4. In Near Eastern society of that time, it was normally unacceptable for younger siblings to give advice to older ones.

OBJECTOR: But not all of the early Church Fathers believed that Joseph had children. St. Jerome said, "I claim that Joseph himself was a virgin."
CATHOLIC: It is interesting that you quote St. Jerome, who adamantly defended the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity. It is certainly possible for Catholics to believe that Joseph did not have children of his own. In this case, the brothers of Jesus could be other relatives, such as cousins. Aramaic, the language spoken by Jesus and his apostles, had no word for "cousin," so cousins and other close relatives were often referred to as brothers. For example, Abraham’s nephew Lot was called his brother (Gen. 14:14).

OBJECTOR: There’s a problem with your reasoning here. Although cousins may have been referred to as brothers, it’s clear that in this case, the word brothers means blood brothers of Jesus—sons of Mary. We read in Matthew’s Gospel that Joseph "had no marital relations with her until she had borne her firstborn son" (Matt. 1:25). This implies that Joseph did have relations with her after she had given birth.

CATHOLIC: The word until here just says what happened up to the time of Christ’s birth. It doesn’t imply anything about what happened after that, although our modern use of the word until seems to imply that. For an example of this, look at 2 Samuel 6:23, which says, "Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death." We’re obviously not supposed to assume that she had children after she died.

OBJECTOR: In this case, it’s obvious that Michal could not have had children after her death. The situation of Mary and Joseph is quite different. We see that in the same verse, Jesus is called Mary’s firstborn son. If Jesus is designated as Mary’s firstborn son, that shows that she had other children. My mother wouldn’t call me her oldest child if I were her only child.

CATHOLIC: This is another case where our modern understanding of terms interferes with understanding what the Bible meant at the time it was written. In biblical times, the term firstborn had great importance. The firstborn was to be consecrated to the Lord (Ex. 13:2); the parents were to redeem every firstborn son (Ex. 34:20). They weren’t supposed to wait until they had a second child to redeem the firstborn, and so the first son born to a woman was called the firstborn regardless of whether or not she had other children later on.

OBJECTOR: It seems to me like you’re using a lot of complicated reasoning to ignore the obvious statements in Scripture that show that Jesus had brothers and that Mary therefore could not have remained a virgin. You’re going to the passages with the idea that Mary was a virgin, and you’re reading that idea into the passages instead of drawing it from them. Even if the passages in question could be interpreted the way you see them, I don’t see any evidence in Scripture that they should be interpreted that way.

CATHOLIC: On the contrary, I think there is evidence (even beyond what I’ve shown you already) that it is very reasonable to interpret the texts as showing that Jesus did not have brothers. If Jesus did have brothers, why would he have entrusted Mary to the beloved disciple, John, at the foot of the cross (John 19:26–27)? He would have had surviving siblings who would have taken care of her. It would be surprising for Jesus to release his brothers from their obligation to their mother, especially because he criticized the Pharisees for neglecting the support of their own parents in Matthew 15:3–6.

OBJECTOR: But how could Mary and Joseph have had a loving marriage if she always remained a virgin?

CATHOLIC: Granted, a life of complete abstinence is not the recommended way for ordinary married couples to interact. But Mary and Joseph were not an ordinary married couple. They were entrusted with raising the Son of God. This circumstance was so unusual that their marriage could not have been an ordinary one, because the child they nurtured was no ordinary child.

OBJECTOR: I still don’t see why the Church requires Catholics to believe that Mary remained a virgin instead of allowing them to have their own opinions. Does it really matter if Mary had other children?

CATHOLIC: Actually, it does matter. Every doctrine about Mary tells us something about Christ or something about ourselves or the Church. Mary’s perpetual virginity demonstrates her purity of heart and total love for God. In 388, St. Ambrose of Milan wrote that Mary’s virginity was "so great an example of material virtue" because it demonstrated her total devotion to Jesus. In Mary, we see an example of the purity our own hearts must have in total dedication to God. Her virginity also tells us something about the Church, which, like Mary, is both mother to the faithful and "pure bride to her one husband" (2 Cor. 11:2).

 

[Kepha]

That was a nice read terryobrien80. I saved that puppy to notepad.

 

[IamAdopted]

CATHOLIC: Actually, it does matter. Every doctrine about Mary tells us something about Christ or something about ourselves or the Church. Mary’s perpetual virginity demonstrates her purity of heart and total love for God. In 388, St. Ambrose of Milan wrote that Mary’s virginity was "so great an example of material virtue" because it demonstrated her total devotion to Jesus. In Mary, we see an example of the purity our own hearts must have in total dedication to God. Her virginity also tells us something about the Church, which, like Mary, is both mother to the faithful and "pure bride to her one husband" (2 Cor. 11:2).

Mary is not the mother to the Children of God. This is refuted in scripture. She was the Mother of Jesus. Her husband was Joseph. And we see that in this lifetime of hers that she was faithful to him through out scripture. People knew her and Joseph and their children.

 

[PaladinValer]

Mary is the Mother of God. Through Baptism, we are made heirs of the Father and brothers and sisters to His Son, Jesus the Christ. Therefore, St. Mary the Theotokos is our Mother.

 

[Kristos]

Luther treats at length the miracle of the virgin birth, and on the basis of lack of biblical evidence to the contrary, Mary must have remained perpetually virgin:

Scripture does not quibble or speak about the virginity of Mary after the birth of Christ, a matter about which the hypocrites are greatly concerned, as if it were something of the utmost importance on which our whole salvation depended. Actually, we should be satisfied simply to hold that she remained a virgin after the birth of Christ because Scripture does not state or indicate that she later lost her virginity... But the Scripture stops with this, that she was a virgin before and at the birth of Christ; for up to this point God had need of her virginity in order to give us the promised blessed seed without sin. [46]
Interestingly, Luther implies a disbelief in Mary’s bodily assumption through the use of a similar argument: "we have no knowledge of the death of Mary, the mother of Christ. Sarah alone has this glory, that the definite number of her years, the time of her death, and the place of her burial are described. Therefore this is great praise and very sure proof that she was precious in the eyes of God."[47]
While holding this belief, Luther will not have Mary’s perpetually virginity extolled. He condemns those who venerate this attribute, and notes that it exists only to bring forth the Messiah:
Now just take a look at the perverse lauders of the mother of God. If you ask them why they hold so strongly to the virginity of Mary, they truly could not say. These stupid idolators do nothing more than to glorify only the mother of God; they extol her for her virginity and practically make a false deity of her. But Scripture does not praise this virginity at all for the sake of the mother; neither was she saved on account of her virginity. Indeed, cursed be this and every other virginity if it exists for its own sake, and accomplishes nothing better than its own profit and praise.
The Spirit extols this virginity, however, because it was needful for the conceiving and bearing of this blessed fruit. Because of the corruption of our flesh, such blessed fruit could not come, except through a virgin. Thus this tender virginity existed in the service of others to the glory of God, not to its own glory.[48]

Even in Luther’s acceptance of perpetual virginity, it was not to be worshipped as the attribute of a goddess. Luther points out that Mary fades from the biblical account after the birth, because the emphasis of the Scriptures are on her child:

"For the prophet and the evangelist, and St. Paul as well, do not treat of this virgin beyond the point where they have from her that fruit for whose sake she is a virgin and everything else. After the child is born they dismiss the mother and speak not about her, what became of her, but only about her offspring."[49]

That Luther did not spend entire treatises defending perpetual virginity serves to show that what was important to him was not Mary’s lack of children, but rather the child she did give birth to. Throughout his career, he would minimize the emphasis on this Marian doctrine.
[48] Ibid., 45:204.
[49] Ibid., 45:211.

Reference please.

Ibid doesn't count

 

[Kristos]

Okay do it then...lets start with Hegesippus.
Put up, or retract... instead of trying to defame my character.

This is good. Thank you for following the OP guidelines.

Eusebius also referneces Hegesippus in this same way when is writes about the the succession of James. Eusebius 3-11

"it is said that those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord that were still living came together from all directions with those that were related to the Lord according to the flesh (for the majority of them also were still alive) to take counsel as to who was worthy to succeed James.
They all with one consent pronounced Symeon,the son of Clopas, of whom the Gospel also makes mention;to be worthy of the episcopal throne of that parish. He was a cousin, as they say, of the Saviour. For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph."

So what I see here is that Hegesippus and Eusebius are using the term "according to the flesh" to refer to ALL the relatives of Jesus. In this case, Symeon is among them and is appointed according to his relationship. They then go on to define his specific relationship to Jesus as a cousin. The term "in the flesh" in this case has no bearing what so ever on the virginity of Mary because it shows that this term has been applied within the same document to a cousin.

But why? It would seem confusing to us, that they use this language to describe these men. But there is a reason. The reason of Symeon’s appointment as given by Hegesippus is quite significant. It was the common Oriental custom to accord the highest honors to all the members of a prophet’s or religious leader’s family, and it was undoubtedly owing chiefly to his close physical relationship to Christ that James enjoyed such prominence and influence in the Jerusalem church, apparently exceeding even that of the apostles themselves. So, being identified as a "brother in the flesh" afforded one with a place of honor versus just a brother.

 

[Kristos]

HOPE THESE HELP!
Basil

Contrary to what Roman Catholics often suggest, there were many people in the early centuries of Christianity who rejected the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. Though the doctrine was popular among the later church fathers, there was opposition to it even in those later centuries. The church father Basil commented that the view that Mary had other children after Jesus "was widely held and, though not accepted by himself, was not incompatible with orthodoxy" (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], p. 495).

Since I don't have access to Kelly book, maybe you could provide the reference from which he quotes Basil here. Was widely held by whom? St Basil obviously felt strongly enough about Mary's virginity to reference it multiple time in his Divine Liturgy:

"Remembering our most holy, pure, blessed, and glorious Lady, the Theotokos and Ever-virgin Mary, with all the saints, let us commit ourselves and one another and our whole life to Christ our God." Divine Liturgy of St Basil the Great.

He also said: "Yet, O wise objector, though He is the only Son born of the Virgin Mary, He is called her first born." NPNF2-08. Basil: Letters and Select Works, p. 64.

 

[simonthezealot]

Reference please.

Ibid doesn't count

Martin Luther, Luther’s Works,