Toto

Acts does not have a chapter 102, 113, or 120. It ends at chapter 28.

Go to biblegateway.com and do a search for the term "virgin" in the NT.

There are no hits in Acts - just

Matthew 1:23
“The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” (which means “God with us”).

Luke 1:27
to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary.

Luke 1:34
“How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”

plus some unrelated verses in the epistles about virgins that do not mention Mary.

The phrase "virgin Mary" is never found.

Where did you get this??

Duvduv

I wasn't referring to Acts, I was referring to Dialogue with Trypho.

Toto

So you agree with me on Acts? Why did you mention this, and why not learn to write clearly?

Duvduv

I thought you realized I was following on a discussion about Dialogue with Trypho in the first sentence. Anyway, the point is that you argued that the term "Virgin Mary" was only used "much later" by the Catholic Church. However, the Dialogue was NOT "much later". Unless you feel that the Dialogue may indeed be from the 4th century....

Toto

You had originally made an argument that seemed to be based on the lack of respect for the virgin Mary in Acts. My argument still stands that the veneration of the Virgin Mary was a later Catholic phenomenon. It probably started in the mid second century and grew after that. Yes, you can find the phrase "Virgin Mary" in Justin Martyr, and you can find a growing veneration of the Virgin in later Catholicism.

What exactly is the point you are trying to make?

Duvduv

I guess it depends on when you think "probably started" refers to........

If Acts and Justin were written in the mid 2nd century, then the Catholic use of "virgin Mary" was not very late. On the other hand if one or the other were written in the fourth century, then that's pretty late for Acts not to have incorporated "virgin Mary."

In my humble opinion the writings of "Justin" were not from the 2nd century and neither was Acts, but later on.

Eusebius can tell me that the Communist Manifesto was written in the 5th century and I still wouldn't rely on him since he was simply a party hack, a hired propagandist for the brand new Byzantine regime, IF he even existed and is not really a composite of writers from the 4th century who based themselves on scraps and stories from earlier centuries. They attributed their clever work to names like Tertullian and Irenaeus.

Looks like "Justin" must have slipped up by referring to the Virgin Mary so early when he didn't even know about Paul, but only about "John" and "Simon Peter." Maybe the Dialogue was written based on the philosophical musings of someone in the 2nd or 3rd centuries to ensure an EARLY provenance of heresiogists and apologists way back in the 2nd century.

Anyway, as you mentioned the revised and redacted versions were in the 4th century, so what we have of Mary or the Virgin Mary for all practical purposes emerged in the 4th century or maybe even in the fifth.

aa5874

Myths characters can be described as human. It is mind boggling that you don't understand that Myths can be described as physically existing.

Please examine Plutarch's Romulus.

Romulus and Remus were the Myth founders of Rome born of the same woman.

Do you think "Harry Potter" has a real body?

Duvduv

Read all the references in context and tell me again how you managed to fit a square into a circle...

Toto

Let me try to spell it out simply.

Two of the gospels call Mary a virgin, in relation to Hebrew scripture's prophecy.

Justin Martin actually uses the phrase "Virgin Mary," but just as a descriptor.

The exaltation of the Virgin Mary to near goddess status evolved later.

Got it?

???? What is your point here?

As long as you remain humble. But I would prefer that you not clutter up this forum with completely baseless speculation that you can't even support.

Why would this be a slip? It is entirely consistent with the gospels, if Justin knew Luke or Matthew but not Acts.

Why try to make her that late? What's the point?

Duvduv

I wasn't asking for an exaltation in Acts! I was simply pointing out that the one reference to her in Acts is given without the descriptor of Virgin as it is in the Dialogue, and you believe this can only be done "later." Well, how much later? How much after Acts was Justin?!
That's all.
And what do you mean "IF" Justin knew Matthew or Luke but not Acts? Who says he knew any of them?
I am intrigued as to what objective criteria are used to determine the significance of what "clutters" up the forum on this thread or on any other thread especially on the basis of some of the postings I have observed.