mary, the eternal virgin?

[LilyM]

If the doctrines you hold so dear about the wonderful woman we know as Mary, are so important, why are they not in the NT? Why do we need to wait many yrs after the NT was penned to hear about many of these ideas? Paul would have know the importance if they are true. Luke surely would have know and written about such an important issue.

Maybe the reason it’s important to discuss these things is that if you are incorrect, then too much of you time is spent thinking about something that’s not true which takes away from things important to be meditated on. Just a thought.

Remember the doctrine of the Trinity as we understand it wasn’t formalised or dogmatised for hundreds of years either. Augustine was still nutting it out towards the end of the 4th century.

Similarly with the combined divine and human natures of Jesus as we understand them. Hence the wide spread of the Arian heresy which held that Jesus was only a created being like other humans.

Hence also the In fact that for the first MILLENIUM there were sizeable communities of Nestorian Christians who continued to believe in SEPARATE human and divine natures for Christ. They spread as far as the Middle East where they influenced Mohammed in the 7th Century, and Mongolia where a Nestorian church was built in Genghis Khan’s capital city in the 12TH century.

These most important truths of our faith, too, are NOT explicitly stated in scripture, nor are they implicit enough that they were beyond dispute.

 

[Dokimas]

Remember the doctrine of the Trinity as we understand it wasn’t formalised or dogmatised for hundreds of years either. Augustine was still nutting it out towards the end of the 4th century.

Similarly with the combined divine and human natures of Jesus as we understand them. Hence the wide spread of the Arian heresy which held that Jesus was only a created being like other humans.

Hence also the In fact that for the first MILLENIUM there were sizeable communities of Nestorian Christians who continued to believe in SEPARATE human and divine natures for Christ. They spread as far as the Middle East where they influenced Mohammed in the 7th Century, and Mongolia where a Nestorian church was built in Genghis Khan’s capital city in the 12TH century.

These most important truths of our faith, too, are NOT explicitly stated in scripture, nor are they implicit enough that they were beyond dispute.

There is real evidence from the Bible that Jesus is God and for the Spirit being God. Thus the Trinity. There is no evidence any of you have shown from the NT that poinsts to many of the understanding you have about Mary. In fact, there’s good evidence from the Bible that would contradict some of your understandings. Of course, this is my understanding thus my opinion.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

And of course the Bible itself was not in canon for the first 350 years or so of Christendom. We have the Subtuum and we have early Church Fathers speaking of Mary’s virginity (and yes, perpetual. She is referred to as “the virgin”. Not as “the virgin until she bore Jesus.” Are there any other women who were virgins as young women, married, lived for many years, died, and are then referred to as “the virgin so-and-so?” No, because once they were married and lived as ‘married women’ they would (normally) have experienced sexual relations. Mary in that case would have been known as "The woman who bore Jesus as a virgin, then went on and became the “widow Mary”). She’d be the “matriarch Mary” (of that humongous tribe of 'uterine brothers and sisters). For her to be known as “the Virgin” would be ludicruous. And yet–that is what she is known as, for that is who she is. . .The Virgin. Ever Virgin. Not because marital sex is bad (it isn’t) but because, ‘appearances’ notwithstanding and indeed, showing the PARADOX that is found so often in Christianity (the weak are stronger, we are brought to life through the DEATH of Christ, etc.) she is not only virgin ‘before’ but virgin ‘after’ she brought forth the Holy of Holies.

BTW, the Ark of the Covenant. . .so, if somebody ‘took out’ the Scrolls, etc., did the Jewish people go around and use the ark to haul wood? Heck, did they even use it to carry precious metal, gold and jewels and treat it with respect, but not with what it was made to contain?

So what makes us think that Mary, having born the Holy of Holies as a pure virgin, was ever going to be ‘used’ in any other way?

 

[Nicea325]

It is not possible to prove a negative, Rev.

The faith that was handed down to us from the Apostles is that Jesus was the only child or Mary. These other relatives are children of another Mary, described in the holy scriptures as the “sister” of the mother of our Lord.

If you are brave enough to get into the history of your faith, you will find that this is a modern evangelical innovation.

That is absolutely true. Modern evangelical innovations tend to lean on revisionism and want many others to buy it.

 

[Nicea325]

There is real evidence from the Bible that Jesus is God and for the Spirit being God. Thus the Trinity. There is no evidence any of you have shown from the NT that poinsts to many of the understanding you have about Mary. In fact, there’s good evidence from the Bible that would contradict some of your understandings. Of course, this is my understanding thus my opinion.

Yes true to an extent. The RCC will admit it is not explicit,but implicity there are references in the OT and NT No different than the complexity of the Trinity,it is not explicit,but implicitly in scripture.

The problem I observe with many Evangelicals,Fundamentalists, and some Protestants is the notion scripture must explicitly show it or say it in order to make it “true.” Scripture does not teach everything must be explicitly laid out in a theological and systematic pattern. The Bible was not written is such a format or fashion.

What is your take on it?

 

[Dokimas]

Yes true to an extent. The RCC will admit it is not explicit,but implicity there are references in the OT and NT No different than the complexity of the Trinity,it is not explicit,but implicitly in scripture.

The problem I observe with many Evangelicals,Fundamentalists, and some Protestants is the notion scripture must explicitly show it or say it in order to make it “true.” Scripture does not teach everything must be explicitly laid out in a theological and systematic pattern. The Bible was not written is such a format or fashion.

What is your take on it?

I think there’s great Biblical evidence for Jesus being God.

I don’t necessarily think that a “truth” needs to be implicitlyor explicitly in the Bible (but I’d think great care should be taken to making if an important teaching). However, if something that is believed to be true and implicit or explicit evidence is found in the Bible that contradicts it, one should not believe it or be VERY careful believing it.

 

[Nicea325]

I think there’s great Biblical evidence for Jesus being God.

I don’t necessarily think that a “truth” needs to be implicitlyor explicitly in the Bible (but I’d think great care should be taken to making if an important teaching). However, if something that is believed to be true and implicit or explicit evidence is found in the Bible that contradicts it, one should not believe it or be VERY careful believing it.

I agree with you…not arguments from me. By the way, what is the name of the congregation you attend? Is it Protestant? Fundamentalist? Evangelical? Non-denominational? Do not worry, I am not asking to attack it or anything on those lines. Only a simple question.

 

[Dokimas]

I agree with you…not arguments from me. By the way, what is the name of the congregation you attend? Is it Protestant? Fundamentalist? Evangelical? Non-denominational? Do not worry, I am not asking to attack it or anything on those lines. Only a simple question.

We spent the last couple of yrs helping two different churches as pulpit supply. That time is over and we are looking. One of the churches is where we think we may end up. It’s non-denominational.

Using terms like the ones you used above have different meanings to different people so I hesitate using them.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
I agree with you…not arguments from me. By the way, what is the name of the congregation you attend? Is it Protestant? Fundamentalist? Evangelical? Non-denominational? Do not worry, I am not asking to attack it or anything on those lines. Only a simple question.

We spent the last couple of yrs helping two different churches as pulpit supply. That time is over and we are looking. One of the churches is where we think we may end up. It’s non-denominational.

Using terms like the ones you used above have different meanings to different people so I hesitate using them.

I take that ‘we’ means you and your significant other? Well I hope God guides you and your loved one(s) where your hearts belong. I’ll pray for you.

Yes you are correct about the terms…very true.

 

[guanophore]

You know what is puzzling?

Either Mary’s virginity status after the birth of Christ doesn’t mean anything, or it does.

If it doesn’t, then why did the Church ‘bring it up?’ If it doesn’t matter, why was it taught one way for so many years? What possible purpose (a nefarious one if the teaching was, as some protestants claim, wrong) did it serve? And if it doesn’t matter, why don’t protestants dismiss us with a shake of the head and “you people are arguing over nothing important”?

But if it DOES matter, then its truth or falsity becomes very important. And of course, then the consistency and the reasoning etc. become important. Either the Church (and again, for WHAT purpose would they LIE on this when it MATTERS?) lied or it didn’t. If it did, then where is the consistent teaching ‘against’ for the first 1500 years? If it matters, then it must have been taught and the false teaching ‘repudiated’, else Scripture is wrong about the Spirit guiding us or that Christ will make sure that we will hear the truth that has been written and given through oral tradition.

But if it just ‘crops up’ by those ‘protesting’ Christian truth, and indeed, not even by the FIRST protesters who actually UPHOLD perpetual virginity of Mary–well, then it looks like one of those ‘different gospels’ we were warned against, doesn’t it?

Excellent points Tantum!

People have been arguing about this at least as long as Jerome . If he was provoked enough to refute it, then it must have seemed important to him.

 

[Dokimas]

I take that ‘we’ means you and your significant other? Well I hope God guides you and your loved one(s) where your hearts belong. I’ll pray for you.

Yes you are correct about the terms…very true.

My wife and I…

Thank you for the much needed prayers.

 

[mark_a]

There is no evidence any of you have shown from the NT that poinsts to many of the understanding you have about Mary.

Implicit or explicit?

 

[elvisman]

There is real evidence from the Bible that Jesus is God and for the Spirit being God. Thus the Trinity. There is no evidence any of you have shown from the NT that poinsts to many of the understanding you have about Mary. In fact, there’s good evidence from the Bible that would contradict some of your understandings. Of course, this is my understanding thus my opinion.

I have given you nothing BUT Biblical evidence.

**Conversely - you have not provided one shred of Biblical evidence that Mary gave birth to anybody other than Jesus.

I will issue that challenge again that I issued a couple of months ago:
Show me one, single, solitary line of Scripture that proves Mary had other children.

**You couldn’t answer it then, and you can’t do it now because it doesn’t exist.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dokimas
There is real evidence from the Bible that Jesus is God and for the Spirit being God. Thus the Trinity. There is no evidence any of you have shown from the NT that poinsts to many of the understanding you have about Mary. In fact, there’s good evidence from the Bible that would contradict some of your understandings. Of course, this is my understanding thus my opinion.

elvisman:

I have given you nothing BUT Biblical evidence.

Conversely - you have not provided one shred of Biblical evidence that Mary gave birth to anybody other than Jesus.

I will issue that challenge again that I issued a couple of months ago:
Show me one, single, solitary line of Scripture that proves Mary had other children.

You couldn’t answer it then, and you can’t do it now because it doesn’t exist.

Unfortunately elvisman,many will use the on-going argument about the terms: brother, until and first-born.

 

[elvisman]

Unfortunately elvisman,many will use the on-going argument about the terms: brother, until and first-born.

Yup - no matter *how *many times you refute that stuff, it keeps coming *back *. . .

 

[rev_kevin]

Definitely Jesus had close kin - brethren- that were near relatives. None of them came from the womb of Mary.

You are still left with explaining how the Church got this wrong for 1800 years…

How is it that God was so weak, and disinterested, that He was unable to correct this misunderstanding? Why did He allow the Apostles to pass on such an error?

And if such a glaring error existed, how can anything the Church taught be trusted? How can the canon of scripture be trusted, since it was composed by those who believed the Apostolic Teaching on the perpetual virginity of Mary?

It could be that God did try to correct this misunderstanding but the church could not face the fact that what they have been teaching for 1800 years is incorrect. It could be that, that is what is happening now, God trying to correct this misunderstanding after all these yerar of getting it wrong. Why does God allow the corruption of the world to go on for so long before he flooded it and whiped out all of humanity except for Noah, his family and 2 of every animal? Why did God allow the sin of man to go on so long before he sent His Son to save the world?

 

[rev_kevin]

Sorry pal - the onus is on YOU to prove that Mary had other children.**
**It is up to YOU to prove that the Church was wrong for over 1700 years.
As Guanophore noted - you can’t prove a negative and it’s not up to us to do so.

---

Tell me something, Kevin – who was the last surviving Apostle?
This IS relevant so please respond.

I figured that is what you would say.
To answer your question. Most historians agree that it would be John, one of the apostles of Jesus who was the only one to die a natural death. It is believed he was around 94 when he died.

 

[rev_kevin]

The underlying text of the Bible is not Aramaic. Although there is a part of Daniel, Daniel 2:4 through 7:38, that is actually written in the eastern Aramaic dielect. With that one exception, the OT laungage is Hebrew. The entire NT is in Greek. Now Greek does have a word for cousin, anepsios, which is used in Colossians 4:10 to describe the relationship between Barnabas and Mark. Paul, who wrote Colossians, evidently knew the word for cousin, did not apply to James, the Lord’s brother, in Galatians 1:19. Matthew and Luke also worte their gospels in Greek, and they certianly has a word for cousin at their dieposal. They didn’t use it because it was inaccurate, these were Jesus’ real brothers.
But lets say the word cousin was not available to them, would they have used the word brother instead? The OT writers did not fail to differentiate between brothers and relatives who were not brothers.
Ezekiel 11:15 starts off with, “Son of man, your brothers, your relatives, your fellow exiles and the whole of Israel…” In this verse a relative is distinguished from a brother.
Now we all believe the Bible when it says “All inspired by God.” (2 Timothy 3:16) then you must ask yourself, if when God inspired Ezekiel, He was careful to ensure that cousins and other relatives were not referred to as brothers, why would He let Matthew and Luke refer to cousins as brothers in Greek when Greek actually has a word for cousin?

 

[elvisman]

I figured that is what you would say.
To answer your question. Most historians agree that it would be John, one of the apostles of Jesus who was the only one to die a natural death. It is believed he was around 94 when he died.

So - let me get this straight:
You’ll believe what historians will tell you about John - even though it’s not in the Bible - but you* won’t* believe any extrabiblical evidence about Mary’s perpetual virginity.**

Hmmmm - that makes a lot of sense . . .

 

[rev_kevin]

So - let me get this straight:
You’ll believe what historians** will tell you about John - even though it’s not in the Bible - but you* won’t* believe any extrabiblical evidence about Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Hmmmm - that makes a lot of sense . . .

Give me proof positive that Mary stayed a virgin. Where is it Biblical? Where in the Bible does it say that Mary stayed a virgin? HIstorians have proof positive, you don’t.