This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
Jewish Women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish WomenWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish WomenTemplate:WikiProject Jewish WomenJewish Women articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of the Women in Religion WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Women in religion. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Women in ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject Women in ReligionTemplate:WikiProject Women in ReligionWomen in Religion articles
A fact from Perpetual virginity of Mary appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 14 June 2004. The text of the entry was as follows:
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.
Moved from article
This material is moved from the article in case it has useful matter in it.
Breed|page= 237 |quote= Calvin was likewise less clear-cut than Luther on Mary's perpetual virginity but undoubtedly favored it. Notes in the Geneva Bible (Matt. 1:18, 25; Jesus' 'brothers') defend it, as did Zwingli and the English reformers, often on hazardous grounds (e.g., the established proof text of Ezek. 44:2, to rebut the charge of reliance on tradition instead of Scripture).}}</ref> In his commentary of Luke 1:34, he rejected as "unfounded and altogether absurd" the idea that Mary had made a
Jewish tradition in response to God's command and participation in His service.[2][3] In the Commentary on a Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, Calvin rejected the argument that Mary had other children due to the mention in Scripture of brothers of Jesus.[4]
References
^Calvin. "Commentary on Luke 1:34". Harmony of Matthew, Mark, and Luke vol. 1. Full statement: "The conjecture which some have drawn from these words ['How shall this be, since I know not a man?'], that she had formed a vow of perpetual virginity, is unfounded and altogether absurd. She would, in that case, have committed treachery by allowing herself to be united to a husband, and would have poured contempt on the holy covenant of marriage; which could not have been done without mockery of God. Although the Papists have exercised barbarous tyranny on this subject, yet they have never proceeded so far as to allow the wife to form a vow of continence at her own pleasure. Besides, it is an idle and unfounded supposition that a monastic life existed among the Jews."
^Harvey McArthur (1987), "Celibacy in Judaism at the Time of Christian Beginnings", Andrews University Seminary Studies(PDF), Vol. 25, No. 2, Andrews University Press, p. 172
^Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), / From Calvin's Commentaries, tr. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949: "The word brothers, we have formerly mentioned, is employed, agreeably to the Hebrew idiom, to denote any relatives whatever; and, accordingly, Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s brothers are sometimes mentioned." (vol. 2, p. 215); [On Matt 1:25:] "The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband ... No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words ... as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called 'first-born'; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin ... What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us ... No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation." (vol. I, p. 107)
Catholic Encyclopedia
@Pbritti: Please do not needlessly antagonize the experts. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:14, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tgeorgescu: Not sure what you're referring to, considering the "expert" in question has already be soundly told off for this specific behavior before. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:43, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be the first to admit there are things we ought not use CE for (references to "backward Abyssinians" in liturgical articles come to mind). However, the scholarly merit of CE on matters of simple historic fact, such as the one AS removed, are unfounded. Don't needlessly antagonize your peers, tgeorgescu. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:48, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may refer to the over half-dozen editors who have challenged your understanding of reliable sourcing directly on your talk page. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A half-dozen devout Catholic editors, whose offense at having their preconceptions challenged is an understandable but not a convincing reason for regarding 5th century Catholics as reliable on matters of history. Achar Sva (talk) 05:46, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only place where the article is citing the CE is in a place where it is noted that Hegesippus may have disputed the dogma. I do not know how someone can describe that claim as a product of 'confessional bias' (I mean, what is biased in that statement?). Potatín5 (talk) 15:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3RR exemption
Reverting vandalism is 3RR exemption. While having another POV can be accepted, wholesale deletion of sourced information can't. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
