Okay. Quote St. Justin Martyr in a writing clearly before 100 AD where he writes, "Mary had no sex ever" or "Mary was a perpetual virgin"
Read St. Justin Martyr's commentary on Ezekiel 44:2. Hard to believe that Mary is this gateway and then on the other hand that she wasn't Ever-Virgin...
Also read all the earliest Christian commentaries on Isaiah 66:7 and Song of Songs 4:12.
... well, that's your evasion.
That's not an evasion. You are saying it was in contention and there was no consensus just become some Gnostics and Apollonarianist and other dualist nasties tried to say that Mary was not Ever-Virgin.
Where's the evasion?
The point is obvious: This springs up in the 4th century - and was highly controversal.
This is not unlike talking to someone that denies the Holy Trinity. They insist that the Holy Trinity springs up in the 4th century and then says that it's "obvious". You show them earlier Trinitarian statements that have continuity and use liturgical hymns, Chrisitan writings, art, etc. and then they just dismiss it and call it baseless.
Have you read Kafka before?
HARDLY an indicator of the claim: That Jesus and all 13 or 14 Apostles all believed, taught and confessed that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance, relevance and certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex Ever and all Christians knew this until, for some mysterious reason, a few individuals began to actually say this in the 4th century.
Did the Apostles have a bible canon?
You're creating these logical puzzles that only lean one way. If you didn't accept the canon you could say what you said above against the authenticity of the canon. You could say it wasn't until St. Jerome that the "canon" was innovated and the claim is baseless because it's a 4th century invention.
Any conditional clause, if true, is true.
Actually, it still doesn't address the issue. You'd need to show that since 31 AD, all Christians understood this statement from Ezekiel to mean that Mary Had No Sex Ever for the point to be true that the Apostle's taught and all Christians believed that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance, relevance and certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex Ever.
If you understood dogmatics that's not necessarily true. Again, I'll point to the "canon". Did the Apostles teach and Christians believe that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance that we open and close a bible "canon"
You can't say yes without betraying the argument you are using against the Ever Virginity of the Theotokos.
I don't find that to be a compelling apologetic that it is a dogmatic fact of highest importance, relevance and certainty of Truth that Mary Had No Sex Ever....
That's why you are protestant. You are your own authority on what should or shouldn't be a dogmatic fact of highest importance, relevance and certainty. Not your protestant neighbor or your bishop or pastor or anyone else other than your self for self alone. It's like the LDS or something.
Where in the bible does it mention that Josiah has to find a compelling apologetic that is a dogmatic fact of highest importance in order for it to be true?
Nowhere. The bible doesn't meantion Josiah but instead, "YOU" "ME" "US" and "WE" whoever those people are....
1. I NEVER said no one knows or no one CAN know. Strawman.
But if your position is that you don't know then you can't be against some calling it dogmatic otherwise you betray your stance and change it to: I don't know and because I personally can't find support for this dogmatic it thereby by my own personal standards of excellence does not receive the Josiahian seal of approval. Anathema to the dogma of the Ever-Virginity. Josiah has spoken.
2. I'm ASKING for the confirmation of the fact to the level claimed.
The problem is that the things you personally as an individual will accept as a "confirmation" is as unique as you are. I've provided bible verses and their right interpretation by early Chrisitans and pointed to their affirmation by the fathers that came after them and the theological accordance with Tradition and Holy Scripture according to the whole but unfortunately you play by Josiahian rules and so you call them "baseless" despite those who are found them to be sound.
You said that truth about this doesn't matter, you just submit to the tradition about it. That's not confirmation.
No, I the gist of what I said is that the truth doesn't matter at the end of the day because if the position is true you are going to deny it because you already believe as you do anyway and aren't going to deviate from that tradition.
You can't change a Protestants mind unless by some divine intervention you wind up satisfying their own personal and unique system for confirming and rejecting.
Let's say, in the year 2394, someone says, "President Obama and Hilary Clinton had a "love child." And such insists that this is a matter of highest importance, relevance to salvation and certainty of Truth. I think it would matter if such is true and, remembering what my Catholic teachers taught me, to spread a story that is potentially personal, embarrasing and offensive that we haven't confirmed as true is the definition of "gossip" and is a sin. Your position seems to be that it is our task to spread stories - regardless of whether such is true. We seem to fundamentally disagree there.
Yeah, you aren't understanding what I'm saying but seem to be arguing against some construct of what I said meant to rather than what I was actually said.
Yes. Truth matters. How you confirm that Truth matters. But I have no idea what Josiah personally requires in order to satisfy that criteria.
If you say that the Ever-Virginity is a 4th century innovation and I point beyond the 4th century you call it baseless.
If you say there are no bible verses that speak of her Ever-Virginity and provide them (which I'm always hesitant to do) you call them baseless.
If I show you continuity you say there's no continuity.
If I say the truth matters then you say I adhere to tradition and say that I don't think that the truth matters.
If I answer the question you say that I evade.
If I point out your self for self system you deny or don't respond to it but instead point out the self for self of others outside of yourself.
AND it's DOGMA - an issue created to divide Christian in a way that cannot be questioned or examined.
I'm sorry I can't take seriously a protestant using "division" as an argument against the more ancient faiths let alone complaining about not being able to question.
You are in a denomination that can question everything and there is no consequence. You can be an atheist in most protestant churches and receive communion. You can say all sorts of contradictory things about who Jesus is and then try to convince others that you are unified.
Sorry Josiah. I can't embrace or even give any weight to the idea of ancient dogmatics being divisive when you are standing in a field of pluralism.
I would rather lock out a few sheep (the Lord will see them through anyway) than open the gates to let in hordes of wolves.
Thus, two issues seem relevant: Is it true? Does it matter? Indeed, those same Catholic teachers taught US: "Before you say something personal about another, especially something potentially harmful and hurtful, ask: Is it true? Is it necessary?"
relevant to you for your self and self alone....
You alone are given the authority to proclaim a thing true and judge if it matters and to weight if you think if something is good or bad, helpful or harmful, and proclaim what is true and necessary.
You have spoken. All those of like minds will follow Josiah where the dogma of the Ever-Virginity of Mary will be no more and not give in to the supposed sin of gossip and sin...
So, you believe She DID have sex?
I never said it was. But funny how you are now, after all these pages of posts, trying to distance yourself from the issue of discussion.
I'm not trying to distance myself from the...
Lord have mercy Lord have mercy Lord have mercy
I think maybe I'm finito responding to your posts Josiah. Sorry brother. See you on the flip side.
Christ is risen