Replies

As always, the problem here is with the model used to derive the conclusions. If the model is flawed, so too will be the conclusions.

The problems with the model are obvious. Firstly, a half-baked Greek scholarship in contradiction to what the Greeks actually say (as pointed out by another poster). Wouldn't it be prudent to study the wrtings of the Greek Orthodox on Mary's perpetual virginity? They are Greek, after all.

Secondly, a rejection of 2,000 years of Church tradition on this subject and the writings of numerous saints and doctors.

Thirdly, a prideful, personal analysis of Scripture, divorced from the Church which gave us Scripture.

Put those three things together and it's a certainty that you'll end up in the swamp of heresy.

A second-century document that paid special attention to Mary’s virginity was originally known as the Nativity of Mary, but later became known as the Protoevangelium of James.[3][39] The document tells of Mary’s virginity before giving birth, the miraculous way in which she gave birth, and her physical virginity even after giving birth.[40][41][42] The work also claims that Jesus' "brothers" and "sisters"[43] are Joseph’s children from a marriage previous to his union with Mary.[44] However, this text does not explicitly assert Mary's perpetual virginity after the birth of Jesus.

There was no full consensus on the doctrine of perpetual virginity within the early Church by the end of the second century, e.g. Tertullian (c.160 – c.225) did not teach the doctrine (although he taught virgin birth), but Irenaeus (c.130 – c.202) taught perpetual virginity, along with other Marian themes.[37] Origen (185-254) was emphatic on the issue of the brothers of Jesus, and stated that he believed them to have been the children of Joseph from a previous marriage.[45] However, wider support for the doctrine began to appear within the next century.[37]

Some writers from 4th century, Helvidius and Eunomius of Cyzicus (one of the Arians leaders), interpreted Matthew's statement to mean that Joseph and Mary did have normal marital relations after Jesus' birth, and that James, Joses, Jude, and Simon were the biological sons of Mary and Joseph, a view held by Helvidius and Eunomius.[46] Helvidius appealed to the authority of Tertullian against the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity, to which Jerome (c.340-419) replied that Tertullian was "not a man of the church."[47] Basil of Caesarea denied Eunomius' view since Basil sees Matthew 1:25 as evidence for, not against, Mary’s perpetual virginity.[46]

By the 4th century, the doctrine of perpetual virginity had been well attested.[48] For example, references can be found in the 3rd century writings of Hippolytus of Rome, who called Mary "the tabernacle exempt from defilement and corruption," [49] and the 4th century works of Athanasius,[50] Epiphanius,[51] Hilary,[52] Didymus,[53] Ambrose,[54] Jerome,[55] and Siricius[56] continued the attestations to perpetual virginity – a trend that gathered pace in the next century.[6][7]

source https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_virginity_of_Mary

“Secondly, a rejection of 2,000 years of Church tradition on this subject and the writings of numerous saints and doctors.” With Magic Thinking pumped up by tradition, well some folks can and do believe anything, even when it contradicts what the Word of God clearly states.

Paul lived in the era in question, hundreds of years before the faux perpetual virginity issue was finalized by the catholiciism institutional org. HE stated ‘the brother of Jesus’. But the religion of catholiciism needs certain magic issues to continue their hold on souls, so the scriptures are twisted or denied and tradition rules the dogma. BUT Paul lived then, free of these institutional traditions the religion of catholiciism has conjured up for organizational empowerment.

As always, the problem here is with the model used to derive the conclusions. If the model is flawed, so too will be the conclusions.

True.

NO. the opinion pieces of men do not hold up to the integrity of Scripture. It would be more prudent to read what the Holy spirit tells us in the word He inspired.

Secondly, a rejection of 2,000 years of Church tradition on this subject and the writings of numerous saints and doctors.

And rightly so when that *tradition* contradicts Scripture.

Thirdly, a prideful, personal analysis of Scripture, divorced from the Church which gave us Scripture.

Not an *analysis*. I simply posted the verses that refer to Jesus' siblings and showed that the Greek words for brother and sister mean brother and sister. Nor did the *church* give us Scripture. The HOLY SPIRIT gave us Scripture.

Put those three things together and it's a certainty that you'll end up in the swamp of heresy.

Not so because Scripture is the truth and you can't go wrong following that. You can go wrong following the opinion pieces of men. THAT'S where the heresy lies.