I don't discount it because of the church fathers, I discount by a clear reading of God's Word. I had never heard of replacement theology until I read FR on the subject. To the pastors I know, I had to explain the context for them to realize what I was talking about. They were unfamiliar with the concept by that name. So while you may embrace it, it is a new challenge to orthodoxy in that format, and the Scriptural basis is such that it gets no play except amongst the heterodox. Scripturally it isn't a close call.
On second thought Maybe you should not discount it. I think Martin Luther believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary IIRC. The LCMS does not however. How did that happen?
Really marbren, c'mon where have you been? Luther was a Catholic priest, did you think he was unversed in PV since he became a priest? Tell me, what is the Scriptural warrant for PV? Like the LCMS 'idolization' of doctrine, it doesn't exist, The Lutheran Confessional docs are not based on 'personal' opinion, they are rooted in God's Word, that's how it happened. The upthread execrable assertion about Luther's anti-semitism, common to the era, didn't make it either. Your question: How did that happen?
I now return you to your regularly scheduled thread: The Church Fathers-Mary: Ever Virgin which will be aired in its entirety.
Any LCMS Pastor's I have talked to also did not have a clue about the roles of Israel and the Church. P#2 Revelation Bible study was embraced by me at the time.. This was about the time I was wondering what the truth was about Israel in the scriptures. P#3 Bible study on Revelation was a waste of time that I had to live through. It was agony. P#4 had a fascinating Revelation study that I did not agree with many points but learned a lot!