John 19 and the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary

[godisgood77]

No it is unreasonable to make up your own definition. The purpose of using it was to talk about the period of time before Jesus was born that is the meaning of until.

Got it sexual relations inside of marriage diminish purity and I am not allowed to contemplate the meaning of the scripture.

 

[adrift]

Got it sexual relations inside of marriage diminish purity and I am not allowed to contemplate the meaning of the scripture.

Wow! I don’t know how you equate Mary’s virginity to marriage in general. Just Wow!

 

[godisgood77]

“And there was a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher; she was of a great age, having lived with her husband seven years from her virginity, and as a widow till she was eighty-four” (Lk 2:36-37) – Does this mean that Anna was no longer a widow after the age of eighty-four?

It probably means that something changed at 84. Perhaps she died at 84? I don’t think people cease to be widows, do they? Maybe if they remarry? Not sure…

 

[godisgood77]

Wow! I don’t know how you equate Mary’s virginity to marriage in general. Just Wow!

I didn’t equate Mary’s virginity to marriage. I asked the question of why perpetual virginity is important and how we came to that conclusion. With all due respect, it seems like you are reading into my words looking for something that isn’t there…perhaps I am guilty of that in yours, brother…

Quote:
CATHOLIC: Actually, it does matter. Every doctrine about Mary tells us something about Christ or something about ourselves or the Church. Mary’s perpetual virginity demonstrates her purity of heart and total love for God. In 388, St. Ambrose of Milan wrote that Mary’s virginity was “so great an example of material virtue” because it demonstrated her total devotion to Jesus. In Mary, we see an example of the purity our own hearts must have in total dedication to God. Her virginity also tells us something about the Church, which, like Mary, is both mother to the faithful and “pure bride to her one husband” (2 Cor. 11:2).

The above quote is something you provided. I’m trying to understand a few things (without pretense). Maybe I can do so with a question… If Mary would have had marital relations with her husband, would that tell us anything about her purity of heart and total love for God?

I’m genuinely interested in a theological discussion about her perpetual virginity. About what the dogma adds to our faith - what would we not have if Mary and Joseph had marital relations? About whether it was inspired by gnostic thought/discipline and the remnant of the widespread belief in the early centuries and espoused by (Augustine and others)that having sexual relations was, at best, venial sin - even inside of marriage.

As I said in my first post in the thread, I submit to the teaching and would not try to persuade anyone otherwise. I simple don’t understand it. I thought this forum was a place to discuss these types of things and to develop a deeper understanding of pieces and parts of our faith, no?

Looking at another part of this quote you introduced… Who was Mary’s “one husband”?

 

[D_Martin]

Using the bible, let’s name the “children of Mary.” If we are honest, we must stop at one. If we are curious, we read John 1:1-3. There, we see that Christ created all things. Thus, He conceived of, and created Mary specifically to be His mother. We likewise read Luke 1:26-34 and see that Mary, even though she was about to be married, and even though she was aware that “relations with man” produced children, was surprised to learn that she would bear a child. She had the audacity to question this fearsome angel (who was sent directly by God to her) just how this child bearing thing was supposed to happen. If we are intelligent, we ponder these things.

We read Luke 1:36 and see that Mary, created by Christ to be His own mother, declared herself to be the bond slave of her own son. Her Divine Son declared that a slave may serve only one Master. We see that Mary was with Jesus from virgin womb to virgin tomb. We can see that Jesus appointed a son for her from the cross. If we are interested in the truth, and not in polemics, we ponder these things.

Continuing on our intellectual journey, we read Genesis 11:27 and see that Abram had a nephew named Lot. Yet, in our reading of Genesis 13:8, we see that Abram called Lot one of his brothers. Scripture here informs our intellect that “brother” or “sister” had a different meaning back then than it does today.

Yes but your argument attempts to create doubt to the obvious intent of the text. If the text (or writer) wanted you to see that these names mentioned in (Mt:13:54-58) were “kinsman” at least half of the translations would make you aware of that by using the word kinsman. The word “kinsman” has been used in the English language as far back as 1052 long before any known English translation of any notoriety, there is no reason why any of the translations wouldn’t use it unless it didn’t apply. It amazes me how every one becomes more expert then those who grieved over these text day and night year after year so the accuracy would be as plain as possible, to portray their own view of the text, rather then take the text for what it says. The English language in and of itself changes, some times drastically, over the years. It is easier to stick to an old translation such as (KJV) and get a dictionary such as OED that covers the use of English when it was translated.

As you have shown the text in reference to Abram and Lot verifies that Lot was Abram’s nephew, not his brother. Also it was Abram’s prerogative to speak to and treat Lot as if Lot was his brother, or in Abram’s brother’s place in relationship to Abram, though he was Abram’s brother’s son. Lot’s father had a untimely death, and Abram looked out for Lot’s well fair.

In the case of Abram the text isn’t deceiving, anyone can see what is what, in this case. What you are saying is the text in (Mt:13:54-58) is deceiving and shouldn’t be trusted as it is written and or translated. Though the language it was translated to, in this case English, had words that any translator would have recognized as more accurate, according to your view.

How is it that all these translators are dumper then you are?

 

[D_Martin]

Brethren and sisters literally could mean any close relatives, and they would all live in the same area. People back then usually didn’t take a plane to a far away country to start on their new job offer after college.

And, if you notice, it refers to Jesus, the son of Mary, or Mary, the mother of Jesus, in the NT many times, but never, ever refers to another as the son of Mary or “Mary, mother of”. If Christ had other brothers and sisters, they were likely by Joseph from a previous marriage. There is a tradition that he was actually much older than Mary and a widower.

No matter how you slice it, there is absolutely no evidence that Christ had biological brothers and sisters. Nice try, though.

Like I said before the understanding of the use of the English word mother in relationship applies to your desired version of the text, but brother and sister don’t, so you have to fill in the blanks with something other then what the text said. I do believe that is what the serpent did at the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, isn’t it?

Besides since the translation doesn’t meet your standard for brothers or brethren when the word kinsman was available to the translators at the time, what would the text have to say for the reader to be confidant that his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas are his brethren. Also note that “his mother” is sufficient for you to believe and understand that Mary is his mother but “his brethren’ or “his sisters” isn’t.

 

[PeaceInChrist]

Like I said before the understanding of the use of the English word mother in relationship applies to your desired version of the text, but brother and sister don’t, so you have to fill in the blanks with something other then what the text said. I do believe that is what the serpent did at the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, isn’t it?

Besides since the translation doesn’t meet your standard for brothers or brethren when the word kinsman was available to the translators at the time, what would the text have to say for the reader to be confidant that his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas are his brethren. Also note that “his mother” is sufficient for you to believe and understand that Mary is his mother but “his brethren’ or “his sisters” isn’t.

We have clear examples of close relations being called ‘brethren’ ‘brothers’ or ‘sister’ throughout Scripture (including Christ’s disciples). Nowhere do we have someone who is not the mother of another being called ‘the mother of’. Nice try, though.

And speaking of your own interpretation, who is to say that yours is correct over mine? There are many people who adhere to either Perpetual Virginity or the opposite (actually, even Luther adhered to Marian doctrine). So why is your interpretation somehow correct and mine is not, rather than just your opinion on the text?

 

[po18guy]

Yes but your argument attempts to create doubt to the obvious intent of the text.

How can you possibly know this?

 

[PeaceInChrist]

Like I said before the understanding of the use of the English word mother in relationship applies to your desired version of the text, but brother and sister don’t, so you have to fill in the blanks with something other then what the text said. I do believe that is what the serpent did at the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, isn’t it?

Besides since the translation doesn’t meet your standard for brothers or brethren when the word kinsman was available to the translators at the time, what would the text have to say for the reader to be confidant that his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas are his brethren. Also note that “his mother” is sufficient for you to believe and understand that Mary is his mother but “his brethren’ or “his sisters” isn’t.

Additionally, as I mentioned before, there is the tradition that Joseph was a widower and had children by a previous marriage. Scripture doesn’t say explicitly that Christ had biological brothers and sisters or that Mary had children after Christ. Thus, by reading into the text something that it doesn’t say, you are adding to Scripture and inventing doctrine with no ecumenical support.

The Church discerned that through councils and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Luther even held to this dogma.

Two questions to you: why are the ecumenical councils (held by bishops with Apostolic Succession, far closer to the Apostolic Age than you or I, with far older texts of Scripture) that determined this dogma void because of your opinion, and why is it even important for you to refute this?

 

[po18guy]

Additionally, as I mentioned before, there is the tradition that Joseph was a widower and had children by a previous marriage. Scripture doesn’t say explicitly that Christ had biological brothers and sisters or that Mary had children after Christ. Thus, by reading into the text something that it doesn’t say, you are adding to Scripture and inventing doctrine with no ecumenical support.

The Church discerned that through councils and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Luther even held to this dogma.

Two questions to you: why are the ecumenical councils (held by bishops with Apostolic Succession, far closer to the Apostolic Age than you or I, with far older texts of Scripture) that determined this dogma void because of your opinion, and why is it even important for you to refute this?

Excellent points, which I suspect will be sidestepped.

 

[TimothyH]

Additionally, as I mentioned before, there is the tradition that Joseph was a widower and had children by a previous marriage. Scripture doesn’t say explicitly that Christ had biological brothers and sisters or that Mary had children after Christ. Thus, by reading into the text something that it doesn’t say, you are adding to Scripture and inventing doctrine with no ecumenical support.

The Church discerned that through councils and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Luther even held to this dogma.

Two questions to you: why are the ecumenical councils (held by bishops with Apostolic Succession, far closer to the Apostolic Age than you or I, with far older texts of Scripture) that determined this dogma void because of your opinion, and why is it even important for you to refute this?

It wasn’t just ecumenical councils and the discernment of the Church which got us to the belief that Jesus was the only child of Mary. For those who know a little bit of Jewish culture and history, scripture is explicit that Jesus was an only child.

That Mary could have only one child by one spouse is a commandment of the Jewish Law of Moses. Anyone who knows Jewish culture and Old Testament law knows that a woman who had a child by another man while her first spouse was alive was an adulterer. Mary had a child by the Holy Spirit. For her to then have another child by someone else makes Mary and adulterer and makes Jesus Christ the son of an adulterer. That simply isn’t possible.

Jesus also gave up his birthright when he gave Mary to the disciple from the cross. If Jesus had a brother, the birthright would have gone to that brother, but he gave the birthright to his close friend. This is a clear statement, for those who understand how Jewish society worked and how the birthright worked, that Jesus was an only child.

Scripture makes it crystal clear that Jesus was an only child, but only if we know a little about Jewish culture and history.

-Tim-