I know I am probably on a big limb here and will be knocked off by protestants.
but i need convincing that Tertullian actually thought Mary had other children or that she had a sexual relatonship with joseph.
the main extracts that will be used are as follows.
Behold, there immediately present themselves to us, on the threshold as it were, the two priestesses of Christian sanctity, Monogamy and Continence: one modest, in Zechariah the priest; one absolute, in John the forerunner: one appeasing God; one preaching Christ: one proclaiming a perfect priest; one exhibiting ‘more than a prophet,’ - him, namely, who has not only preached or personally pointed out, but even baptized Christ. For who was more worthily to perform the initiatory rite on the body of the Lord, than flesh similar in kind to that which conceived and gave birth to that body? And indeed it was a virgin, about to marry once for all after her delivery, who gave birth to Christ, in order that each title of sanctity might be fulfilled in Christ’s parentage, by means of a mother who was both virgin, and wife of one husband." (On Monogamy, 8)
okay… the extract from “on monogamy” appears pretty convincing, but tertullian then goes on later in the same chapter to discuss chastity including the following comments
“…others who, after marriage, remained (or became) virgins…”
and then in a previous book “On exhortation to chastity” he writes the following in Chapter 1*…"…a third grade remains, monogamy, when after the interception of a marriage once contracted, there is thereafter a renunciation of sexual connection…" *
Given the above quotes on a chaste marriage, I’m not so sure that his words describing Mary as fullfilling the role of both Virgin and wife necesarrily mean she slept with Joseph.
then there is
Against Marcion 4:19
He did not so much deny as disavow727 them. And therefore, when to the previous question, "Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?728 He added the answer “None but they who hear my words and do them,” He transferred the names of blood-relationship to others, whom He judged to be more closely related to Him by reason of their faith.  Now no one transfers a thing except from him who possesses that which is transferred. If, therefore, He made them “His mother and His brethren” who were not so, how could He deny them these relationships who really had them? Surely only on the condition of their deserts, and not by any disavowal of His near relatives; teaching them by His own actual example,729 that "whosoever preferred father or mother or brethren to the Word of God, was not a disciple worthy of Him."730 Besides,731 His admission of His mother and His brethren was the more express, from the fact of His unwillingness to acknowledge them.  That He adopted others only confirmed those in their relationship to Him whom He refused because of their offence, and for whom He substituted the others, not as being truer relatives, but worthier ones.
why does he use the word ‘brethren’, a cousin is still a blood relationship right?
his Mother is certainly a blood relationship
is this extract of Tertullian so convincing to others out there (ie: against PV)?
any discussion on this would be great.