The Church Fathers- Mary: Ever Virgin

The Church Fathers ^ | 120AD-450AD

[marshmallow]

The Protoevangelium of James

“And behold, an angel of the Lord stood by [St. Anne], saying, ‘Anne! Anne! The Lord has heard your prayer, and you shall conceive and shall bring forth, and your seed shall be spoken of in all the world.’ And Anne said, ‘As the Lord my God lives, if I beget either male or female, I will bring it as a gift to the Lord my God, and it shall minister to him in the holy things all the days of its life.’ . . . And [from the time she was three] Mary was in the temple of the Lord as if she were a dove that dwelt there” (Protoevangelium of James 4, 7 [A.D. 120]).

“And when she was twelve years old there was held a council of priests, saying, ‘Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, lest perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord?’ And they said to the high priest, ‘You stand by the altar of the Lord; go in and pray concerning her, and whatever the Lord shall manifest to you, that also will we do.’ . . . [A]nd he prayed concerning her, and behold, an angel of the Lord stood by him saying, ‘Zechariah! Zechariah! Go out and assemble the widowers of the people and let them bring each his rod, and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. . . . And Joseph [was chosen]. . . . And the priest said to Joseph, ‘You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the Virgin of the Lord.’ But Joseph refused, saying, ‘I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl’” (ibid., 8–9).

“And Annas the scribe came to him [Joseph] . . . and saw that Mary was with child. And he ran away to the priest and said to him, ‘Joseph, whom you did vouch for, has committed a grievous crime.’ And the priest said, ‘How so?’ And he said, ‘He has defiled the virgin whom he received out of the temple of the Lord and has married her by stealth’” (ibid., 15).

“And the priest said, ‘Mary, why have you done this? And why have you brought your soul low and forgotten the Lord your God?’ . . . And she wept bitterly saying, ‘As the Lord my God lives, I am pure before him, and know not man’” (ibid.).

Origen

“The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the firstfruit of virginity” (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).

Hilary of Poitiers

“If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, ‘Woman, behold your son,’ and to John, ‘Behold your mother’ [John 19:26–27), as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate" (Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354]).

Athanasius

“Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary” (Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).

Epiphanius of Salamis

“We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit” (The Man Well-Anchored 120 [A.D. 374]).

“And to holy Mary, [the title] ‘Virgin’ is invariably added, for that holy woman remains undefiled” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 78:6 [A.D. 375]).

Jerome

“[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]).

“We believe that God was born of a virgin, because we read it. We do not believe that Mary was married after she brought forth her Son, because we do not read it. . . . You [Helvidius] say that Mary did not remain a virgin. As for myself, I claim that Joseph himself was a virgin, through Mary, so that a virgin Son might be born of a virginal wedlock” (ibid., 21).

Didymus the Blind

“It helps us to understand the terms ‘first-born’ and ‘only-begotten’ when the Evangelist tells that Mary remained a virgin ‘until she brought forth her first-born son’ [Matt. 1:25]; for neither did Mary, who is to be honored and praised above all others, marry anyone else, nor did she ever become the Mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin” (The Trinity 3:4 [A.D. 386]).

Ambrose of Milan

“Imitate her [Mary], holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of material virtue; for neither have you sweeter children [than Jesus], nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son” (Letters 63:111 [A.D. 388]).

Pope Siricius I

“You had good reason to be horrified at the thought that another birth might issue from the same virginal womb from which Christ was born according to the flesh. For the Lord Jesus would never have chosen to be born of a virgin if he had ever judged that she would be so incontinent as to contaminate with the seed of human intercourse the birthplace of the Lord’s body, that court of the eternal king” (Letter to Bishop Anysius [A.D. 392]).

Augustine

“In being born of a Virgin who chose to remain a Virgin even before she knew who was to be born of her, Christ wanted to approve virginity rather than to impose it. And he wanted virginity to be of free choice even in that woman in whom he took upon himself the form of a slave” (Holy Virginity 4:4 [A.D. 401]).

“It was not the visible sun, but its invisible Creator who consecrated this day for us, when the Virgin Mother, fertile of womb and integral in her virginity, brought him forth, made visible for us, by whom, when he was invisible, she too was created. A Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth, a Virgin perpetual. Why do you wonder at this, O man?” (Sermons 186:1 [A.D. 411]).

“Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband” (Heresies 56 [A.D. 428]).

Leporius

“We confess, therefore, that our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, born of the Father before the ages, and in times most recent, made man of the Holy Spirit and the ever-virgin Mary” (Document of Amendment 3 [A.D. 426]).

Cyril of Alexandria

“[T]he Word himself, coming into the Blessed Virgin herself, assumed for himself his own temple from the substance of the Virgin and came forth from her a man in all that could be externally discerned, while interiorly he was true God. Therefore he kept his Mother a virgin even after her childbearing” (Against Those Who Do Not Wish to Confess That the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God 4 [A.D. 430]).

Pope Leo I

“His [Christ’s] origin is different, but his [human] nature is the same. Human usage and custom were lacking, but by divine power a Virgin conceived, a Virgin bore, and Virgin she remained” (Sermons 22:2 [A.D. 450]).

[Cronos]

let's talk about other persecutions played out by various non-Catholic groups on Catholics and other non-Catholic groups

The truth is, the Pilgrims were Puritan fascists who were only looking for their own religious freedom. They were too ... independent and fanatical even for the more mainstream zealots of English and European Reformations. They called themselves “Puritans” because they were dedicated to purifying the Church of England of Roman influences. They hated Rome and they hated heretics, and they hated sinners and they really hated witches. Their reigning English King, James I was also a foaming Protestant Scottish witch hunter, and was every bit as fanatical as the Pilgrims were, since they were all theological soul mates. But James I actually had to sophisticate himself a bit, particularly stifling his witch-hating fanaticism when he took power in England. He had to accommodate the more moderate and educated Protestantism that then still held great sway in his English Court and Parliament. This social moderation at home however, didn’t slow him from encouraging the exportation of sharp, Puritan zeal to his growing colonies in the New World though, where raw Puritanism would be free to dominate the new society he intended to found there.

I say with very little exaggeration, that living under Puritan rule in the New England American Colonies would be nearly as religiously oppressive as living under the Taliban in Afghanistan, or Wahhabi ruled Saudi Arabia. The principle difference between Sharia Law and Pilgrim Law would be that the Pilgrims let women show their whole faces in public. the Puritans in particular on the other hand, weren’t all that put off by the Inquisition’s tactics or even goals in and of themselves. The Puritans and many other Reformers in truth just wanted the Inquisitional zeal applied unilaterally up and down the Church ranks from clergy to commoner. They just didn’t think you should be able to buy or politic your way out of being tortured into a confession of heresy. They figured that kings, Popes and bishops and priests were just as good candidates for heresy as anyone else—the more the merrier. Puritans in short, actually wanted more repression and more micromanaging of the Body of Christ. They wanted the power to institute the same sort of fanatical purification of Christendom that the Inquisition only pretended to enforce, and then only selectively, often for personal, social, or political reasons. The Puritans wanted their newly cleansed Protestant Inquistition to be universally applied to all Christians of whatever rank. The Puritans wanted everyone to be beaten into piety whatever his station in the Church or society– they just wanted to insure it was being done fairly and correctly by a dictatorial theocracy of their own design.

We read about the Salem Witch trials, some decades after the Pilgrims landed, and think that hanging nineteen men and women as witches on the say-so of a couple of snotty little girls looking for attention was a fluke carried out by an isolated, small group of inbred fanatics. We think the old man they crushed under stones for refusing to submit to their trials was the result of some abnormal paranoia due to the bunker mentality of a pioneer colony in a harsh new land. When we read about the dozens of fellow colonists they just let rot in jail for months as they queued them up for their American Inquisition, we assume that this sort of fiendish treatment had to be the product of some sort of atypical mass mental illness brought about through a bad diet and not enough sunlight. But no, that’s what Puritans did.

[Cronos]

carrying on from this website which carries on and points out

The Pilgrims didn’t intend to found a nation based upon the freedom of religion at all. They hadn’t the slightest conception of a pluralistic society that could tolerate letting everyone worship God according to the dictates of their own conscience and understanding. Their America was founded as the Puritan’s chance at the unfettered purification of human society as they defined purity, through whatever means necessary, with nobody looking over their shoulder to moderate their efforts. The Pilgrims intended to establish a Bible Commonwealth. Citizenship, or “Freemanship” as they called it, was restricted to church members. Religious dissenters were banished. Originally even freemen didn’t even have the right to elect the colony’s officers. These were appointed by the clergy councils.

The allegedly God-fearing, venerated, funny-hat-and buckle-wearing Pilgrims we celebrate at Thanksgivingevery year by eating pumpkin pie and turkey till we can’t walk straight, brought with them a culture of religious bigotry. They whipped, imprisoned, hung, and publicly humiliated even their minor religious offenders in stocks, dungeons, gallows and on whipping posts usually in the town square or other places of public access where their fellow colonists could pass by and mock or taunt them. When we see these quaint depictions of Puritan discipline in woodcuts or read about them in history books, we are usually told or allowed to assume these punishments had something to do with civil misdemeanors or criminal activities. To the contrary, most of these routine sentences to ritual public humiliation were related to not living up to their legally mandated “Christian” obligations. Or rather, poor Christian observance was criminal activity to them.

The Pilgrims didn’t really put a big red letter “A” on your breast to shame you as an adulterer, or suspected adulterer–since the accusation alone was usually enough to destroy you. The Pilgrims by law could kill you for adultery, though in practice this never happened. And it was the letters “AD” with which you would be marked, and if found without this mark you would be branded on the forehead. This was later liberalized to merely whipping adulterers severely twice, giving recovery time between whippings, and marking them with “AD” letters–then if caught without this marking, rather than branding them, the sentence was moderated to severely whipping them again and again, every time they were found improperly labeled.

[Cronos]

carrying on from this website which carries on and points out

The Pilgrims would fine you for harboring a Quaker. (The Quaker they would drive out to die in the wilderness.)The Pilgrims would even punish you for celebrating Christmas or Easter because they weren’t in the Bible. They probably would not approve of the nation of their legacy inventing yet another un-Biblical holiday in their honor and calling it “Thanksgiving.” Thanksgiving is not in the Bible and therefore is not holy. Celebrating it would be unholy. Unholiness is punished.

[Cronos]

Quix: Pretending that I defend Benny Hinn’s hideousness is, imho, bearing false witness

when you say about Benny that He affirms all the cardinal doctrines of the faith AND that Christ came in the flesh. and I'm not at all convinced he's a false prophet. Excessive in a list of ways, probably and I think God laughs big ones about the consternation Benny causes a lot of folks. --

tsk, tsk, Quix -- falsehoods are not the fruit of the Holy Spirit

[Cronos]

this is really incredible that one could in any way defend such a con-artist, such a fake, such a demon-possessed fraud as Jesse (God doesn't have the power of death over you) Duplantis or Benny (there are 9 gods) Hinn.

Let's see the ways in which Quix's posts defend Benny (9 gods) hinn:

• post 1125: Many folks assume that because Benny Hinn doesn't fit our notions of integrity and a lot of other truly very important factors--GOD SIMPLY COULD NOT AND WOULD NOT EVER USE HIM IN ANY WAY FOR ANY REASON IN ANY CONTEXT.

• From post 589: If God chooses to use Benny, that’s God’s business.

Quix's posts on Jesse the demonic conman Duplantis

• post 1213: compared to Jesse Du Plantis in terms of pleasing God. -- don't you mean Jesse comforting God? Saying "there, there?"

This is defending Jesse who says

1. "Some people don't live close to God the way they should. They know Jesus as their Savior, but they could do so much better. In heaven they will eventually be able to go to God’s Throne, but it takes more time for them." -- interesting, even in heaven?

2. "They almost got there; then they stopped, turned around and had to go back. It seemed as if they were depressed. I heard someone say, "There is no depression here. Just eat of the Tree of Life, smell the leaves for healing and let your spirit grow. You shall stand at the Throne of God."" --> interesting, the sanctification process isn't completed in heaven?

3. David tells Jesse "I think I should have allowed more of the answer to come through, instead of the complaining. " --> oh, so Jesse thinks that scripture is NOT inspired, but what David allowed to come through? -- what unbiblical words from hell spoken by the demonic possessed fraud Jesse Duplantis

4. "I didn’t know before how much He needed me to reach out to other people. I have always thought of how much I needed Him, not how much He needs me. . .He smiled at me and said, "I chose you. No one else wanted you, and I need you Jesse." --> ego surfing!

and defending Benny who believes in 9 Gods...

[Cronos]

And while we see posts that support Benny Hinn and Jesse Duplantis we read in post 420 :Luther doesn’t cut any ice with me. He was clearly brainwashed by horrific deceptions, too.

[Cronos]

Quix: It appears that some are so awash in seemingly willful-blindness, idolatry, blasphemy, bitterness, vengeance and the like that they can’t help but relentlessly and ruthlessly let such things spew widely every excuse they can cobble together.

So, does that mean you finally agree that Jesse Duplantis and Benny Hinn are demonic-possessed con-men spouting unbiblical stuff from hell?

[Cronos]

Quix: what little I’ve watched of Jesse has been edifying. He is exceedingly Biblical—way above average, imho.

You mean biblical stuff like

• God has the power to take life, but He can’t.

• He’s got the power to do it, but He won’t. He’s bound; He can’t.

• You choose when you live; you choose when you die. Death and life is in the power of your tongue, not God’s.?

• Adam (not God) breathed life into animals at creation

• Or Jesse ORDERING God "With fierce prayers and determination to see my mother healed, I started talking to God. "What is going on here?! I'm praying! Dad's praying! Why isn't she healed? You cannot allow death to defeat me, God. You made a covenant with me through Jesus' blood! And that covenant says by His stripes we were healed! Where is that healing? If you break this covenant with me, you'll have to cease to be God! You must keep covenant with me. You must obey your Word!"

• OR Jesse's preaching that God begs Jesse for a decision: You have Me in a hard place, Jesse. Someone has got to give in. Get yourselves together and tell Me what I am to do! -- Jesse gives God the solution! Huzzah for Jesse-the-demon!

and this is what "evangelical Pentecostal Christianity" believes according to your statement Jesse believes in the basic Biblical doctrines of evangelical Pentecostal Christianity?

[Mad Dawg]

Therefore I wrote:

Though a general, emperor, or genius is in some respects greater than a mother, still in other respects no one can possibly be greater in importance than the mother of a general, emperor, or genius.

[Quix]

Personally,

I think that perspective

greatly trashes—at best wholesale diminishes

Christ’s assertions on such scores . . .

and His Deity.

It casts Christ as having

HIS HUMANNESS

IN CHARGE OF

HIS DEITY.

imho,

That’s NOT Biblical in the least.

[Quix]

It seems that the Vatican magicsterical perspective is to

ostensibly

cast Christ’s humanness and Deity as sort of equal residents in the one Being.

Then, vis a vis the Ishtar-Mary caricature—to

PRETEND VERY FIERCELY AND BRAZENLY

that Christ’s humanness is virtually totally in charge.

I think the Biblical model is more like . . . functionally and in every meaningful sense . . .

Once upon a time He was a mortal human—at least as much as CREATOR GOD COULD reside in a human frame.

Then, that ‘phase of His life, His mission’ was completed at the Resurrection. And certainly after the Ascension, His mortal human life came to a rather wholesale

END.

He has resumed His CREATOR GOD STATUS AND POSITION AT THE RIGHT HAND OF THE FATHER.

He is NO LONGER MUMMY’S LITTLE BOY.

In some existential LARGER REALITY SENSE—WHERE SPIRITUAL REALITIES ARE THE TRUER REALITIES . . . contrary to mortal realities . . .

HE NEVER WAS.

It was a Role Play—for real . . . for a finite time.

Yet the Vatican Cult would have us believe that

thereby—ISHTAR-MARY now eternally holds CREATOR GOD hostage to her whims and preferences.

NO WAY!

[Quix]

Sorry, A-G, I meant to ping you as I’m interested in your perspective on the following:

---

It seems that the Vatican magicsterical perspective is to

ostensibly

cast Christ’s humanness and Deity as sort of equal residents in the one Being.

Then, vis a vis the Ishtar-Mary caricature—to

PRETEND VERY FIERCELY AND BRAZENLY

that Christ’s humanness is virtually totally in charge.

I think the Biblical model is more like . . . functionally and in every meaningful sense . . .

Once upon a time He was a mortal human—at least as much as CREATOR GOD COULD reside in a human frame.

Then, that ‘phase of His life, His mission’ was completed at the Resurrection. And certainly after the Ascension, His mortal human life came to a rather wholesale

END.

He has resumed His CREATOR GOD STATUS AND POSITION AT THE RIGHT HAND OF THE FATHER.

He is NO LONGER MUMMY’S LITTLE BOY.

In some existential LARGER REALITY SENSE—WHERE SPIRITUAL REALITIES ARE THE TRUER REALITIES . . . contrary to mortal realities . . .

HE NEVER WAS.

It was a Role Play—for real . . . for a finite time.

Yet the Vatican Cult would have us believe that

thereby—ISHTAR-MARY now eternally holds CREATOR GOD hostage to her whims and preferences.

NO WAY!

[MarkBsnr]

I think the Biblical model is more like . . . functionally and in every meaningful sense . . . Once upon a time He was a mortal human—at least as much as CREATOR GOD COULD reside in a human frame. Then, that ‘phase of His life, His mission’ was completed at the Resurrection. And certainly after the Ascension, His mortal human life came to a rather wholesale END. He has resumed His CREATOR GOD STATUS AND POSITION AT THE RIGHT HAND OF THE FATHER.

This gets better and better. The Quixian model surpasses and succeeds the Christianity of the Church Fathers in every way, doesn't it? So the Incarnation was just a passing fancy and Jesus jet-sets about changing careers at a whim?

It was a Role Play—for real . . . for a finite time.

Jesus was a temporary actor? A walk-on part in a Cecil B. DeMille movie?

Yet the Vatican Cult would have us believe that thereby—ISHTAR-MARY now eternally holds CREATOR GOD hostage to her whims and preferences. NO WAY!

Yet you champion Jesse Duplantis, who claims that he does.

[OpusatFR]

That’s horrible! Completely denies that Christ is human and divine.

So what ascended then? A spirit? His resurrected body is a trasfigured body.

Nestorianism (5th Century)

This heresy about the person of Christ was initiated by Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, who denied Mary the title of Theotokos (Greek: “God-bearer” or, less literally, “Mother of God”). Nestorius claimed that she only bore Christ’s human nature in her womb, and proposed the alternative title Christotokos (”Christ-bearer” or “Mother of Christ”).

Orthodox Catholic theologians recognized that Nestorius’s theory would fracture Christ into two separate persons (one human and one divine, joined in a sort of loose unity), only one of whom was in her womb. The Church reacted in 431 with the Council of Ephesus, defining that Mary can be properly referred to as the Mother of God, not in the sense that she is older than God or the source of God, but in the sense that the person she carried in her womb was, in fact, God incarnate (”in the flesh”).

Monophysitism (5th Century)

Monophysitism originated as a reaction to Nestorianism. The Monophysites (led by a man named Eutyches) were horrified by Nestorius’s implication that Christ was two people with two different natures (human and divine). They went to the other extreme, claiming that Christ was one person with only one nature (a fusion of human and divine elements). They are thus known as Monophysites because of their claim that Christ had only one nature (Greek: mono = one; physis = nature).

http://www.catholic.com/library/Great_Heresies.asp

I’ve never talked to any Christians and I’m married to a Methodist from an AG family with Penetcostals in it who believed that Christ’s human life came to and end when he ascended.

What’s being written about on this board is plain heresy.

The fact that Christ was resurrected WITH His Body intact and transfigured is the basis of our faith and our HOPE in the Nicene Creed - “I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of the saints, THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY AND LIFE EVERLASTING Amen”

[OpusatFR]

Sorry, typos and all - more coffee needed.

[Cronos]

quix: It was a Role Play—for real . . . for a finite time.

WHAT??? Jesus was just a temporary ACTOR? The Incarnation was just some kind of skit in this doctrine?

Seriously Quix, you believe this?

Then, that ‘phase of His life, His mission’ was completed at the Resurrection. And certainly after the Ascension, His mortal human life came to a rather wholesale END.

you're saying that after the Ascension, Jesus's human life came to an end.....

[Iscool]

What I don’t believe is that we can know what a “DAY” is in God’s work.

Why not??? Peter even explained it...

[OpusatFR]

The according to Peter you believe Genesis is how long?

How many thousands?

[Iscool]

Did the experience leave you fooling feelish?

More than once...The sun comes out...the birds are singing...You close your eyes, just for a second........

[Iscool]

Mary is God's creation, a human being, period. And Catholics do NOT worship Mary, if they did I'd leave the Church. Catholics pray to Mary only to ask her to pray for them, as the mother of Jesus Christ, God incarnate.

I'm thinkin' the idea is to gain credibility...When you make statements like this around here, you're not gaining any ground...Numerous times info from different sources have been posted by from Catholics and from offical sites that show us people DO pray to Mary and ask her to provide everything from salvation to miracles...

Is the Virgin Mary dead, or alive in Heaven without the ability to hear our pleas and prayers? Impossible. The people in Heaven are more alive than you and I, and can most certainly hear our petitions, just as our heavenly Guardian Angels hear us.

Where did you learn that...Certainly not from God's scripture...

Sorry for butting into a debate without knowing who's saying what. But I gleaned enough to see that somebody thinks Catholic 'worship' the ever Virgin Mary, mother of Jesus Christ, mother of God. If the Protestants think they can seperate Jesus' humanity from His divinity, they are nothing but self appointed "popes"

Nope...We are bible believers who can read...We are not however followers of the Pied Piper...

Our Lord Jesus Christ is both man and God at once. The Apostle Thomas knew this when he fell to his knees before Jesus and said: "My Lord and my God".

When Thomas said this, he was speaking to the risen Jesus who had and has a glorified body...Not the same body he had while he roamed the earth...That body died and was changed...All those effeminate paintings you guys have around of Jesus won't help you recognize him when you see him...We have no idea what he will appear as when we see him...