M
mark_a
Guest
This argument works just as well from the perpetual virginity side of the street, if I understand you correctly.
Very much like the contraception question, it was at that time a no brainer.
- Status
Very much like the contraception question, it was at that time a no brainer.
A
adrift
Guest
Your mistake is that you are trying to compare. The word does not change meanings The word means a period of time. Both usages are about a period of time. When you try to change the meaning of the word you get into trouble. Apply the definition that it means a period of time. Then look at all the scriptures and it makes sense. You are applying your own definition not the standard one.
Look at the answer more closely. Mary doesn’t say wait a minute Joseph and I are not having sex yet. Nope! She say she knows not man, not Joseph, man. She doesn’t say Oh! Joseph and I will have a child? Nope! She knows not man. A strange statement from a married woman.
Nope it doesn’t track. Here she is married but not yet brought into her husbands household. How close was this to happen. It seems it was close since Joseph is told to do so. No. It is as you say highly unlikely that she would have thought any other way than that this child would be Joseph’s. Unless there was something else on her mind. I think it is strange that you say she is startled unable to have the time or presence to think it out but realizes the angel meant right away. Actually the opposite would be true. She would think the angel would mean later when she was brought into Jospeh’s house. Which is exactly how she thought. Was she suppose to make Joseph her husband? It couldn’t be any other man. Nope! It doesn’t track.
D
Dokimas
Guest
Maybe if I could explain it better you’d understand. Sorry. I realy does seem to fit nicely.
E
elvisman
Guest
Doki -
Your past posts have been - let me put this nicely - interesting, at best, if not REALLY convoluted.
Re-READ your statement:
"The thread is about Mary being an eternal virgin NOT about whether or not she had children."
That is about the most twisted comment I have ever read on this forum. Her perpetual virginity has EVERYTHING to do with whether she had other children or not. Did your parents ever explain the birds and the bees to you? Do you not understand the state of virginity and conception?
**Are you honestly arguing the point that she immaculately conceived children through the Holy Spirit other than Jesus??
PLEASE - choose a position and stick to it because you are ALL over the board on this one.**
V
verum_peto_1
Guest
Here is an alternative point of view by a professor emeritus of Jewish studies at Oxford.
Considering the importance of the Virgin Mary in Christianity, the historian is struck by the scarcity of supporting evidence in the New Testament. St Paul never speaks of the virginal conception. All we learn from him is that Jesus had a Jewish mother. The few gospel allusions to Jesus’ family in the accounts of his public life describe him as the son of Joseph and Mary, who had four more sons and several daughters. James, head of the Jerusalem church, is called “the brother of the Lord” and “the brother of Jesus surnamed the Christ” by Paul and the contemporaneous Jewish historian Josephus.
Outside the infancy narratives, it is never suggested that Jesus was not Joseph’s real son and the full brother of James, Joseph, Simon and Judas. Nor does the New Testament ever state that Mary remained a virgin. In fact, Matthew seems to contradict this when reporting that Joseph abstained from “knowing” her until the birth of Jesus. The earliest source of Mary’s lasting virginity is the legendary first gospel of James. From its late-second-century non-Jewish author derives also the tale that Joseph was old, a widower whose children from a former marriage were known as Jesus’ brothers and sisters.
The doctrine of the virginal pregnancy is based on the accounts in Matthew and Luke. Mark and John ignore his infancy. Not even Matthew and Luke show any awareness in their chronicle of Jesus’ public life of the details listed about his birth: miraculous conception, Roman census, star, magi. The infancy narratives are best understood as late additions to Matthew and Luke.
In Luke the virginal conception was announced to a girl on the point of marrying Joseph. Mary was baffled. How could she become a mother before they had come together? One may wonder whether her astonishment resulted from the knowledge that, not having reached the age of puberty, she was not yet ready for motherhood, for virgin in Jewish parlance could designate a girl too physically immature to conceive. The angel, in his answer, seems to argue that God could allow the pre-pubertal Mary to conceive just as he had caused the post-menopausal Elizabeth to become pregnant. Again in Jewish parlance, a married woman past child-bearing age was a virgin for a second time.
In some ancient Greek, Latin and Aramaic manuscripts, Matthew specifically asserts the paternity of Joseph: “Jacob begot Joseph, and Joseph, to whom the virgin Mary was betrothed, begot Jesus.” The same claim was made by the ancient Jewish-Christian community of the Ebionites. Finally, hostile Jewish and pagan gossip rumoured that Jesus was conceived out of wedlock, and that his father was Panthera, a Roman soldier. This theory often features among feminist interpretations of the gospels.
Let us discard the extremes. Luke and Matthew stress that Jesus’ conception by a virgin through the Holy Spirit outshines all other miraculous conceptions in the Bible. By placing their wonderful infancy narratives at the beginning, Matthew and Luke intended to intimate to their gentile audience that Jesus was not only the Messiah, but also God’s son, not just figuratively in the Jewish sense, but really by nature. As for the role of Mary in worship, believers who are happy to base their faith on unwritten traditions can easily accommodate Marian cult with the rest of their Christianity. Indeed, the idea of a loving maternal hand suitably counterbalances for them the intimidating image of the severe male heavenly judge.
Geza Vermes is Professor Emeritus of Jewish Studies at Oxford. His latest book is The Nativity: History and Legend
Considering the importance of the Virgin Mary in Christianity, the historian is struck by the scarcity of supporting evidence in the New Testament. St Paul never speaks of the virginal conception. All we learn from him is that Jesus had a Jewish mother. The few gospel allusions to Jesus’ family in the accounts of his public life describe him as the son of Joseph and Mary, who had four more sons and several daughters. James, head of the Jerusalem church, is called “the brother of the Lord” and “the brother of Jesus surnamed the Christ” by Paul and the contemporaneous Jewish historian Josephus.
Outside the infancy narratives, it is never suggested that Jesus was not Joseph’s real son and the full brother of James, Joseph, Simon and Judas. Nor does the New Testament ever state that Mary remained a virgin. In fact, Matthew seems to contradict this when reporting that Joseph abstained from “knowing” her until the birth of Jesus. The earliest source of Mary’s lasting virginity is the legendary first gospel of James. From its late-second-century non-Jewish author derives also the tale that Joseph was old, a widower whose children from a former marriage were known as Jesus’ brothers and sisters.
The doctrine of the virginal pregnancy is based on the accounts in Matthew and Luke. Mark and John ignore his infancy. Not even Matthew and Luke show any awareness in their chronicle of Jesus’ public life of the details listed about his birth: miraculous conception, Roman census, star, magi. The infancy narratives are best understood as late additions to Matthew and Luke.
In Luke the virginal conception was announced to a girl on the point of marrying Joseph. Mary was baffled. How could she become a mother before they had come together? One may wonder whether her astonishment resulted from the knowledge that, not having reached the age of puberty, she was not yet ready for motherhood, for virgin in Jewish parlance could designate a girl too physically immature to conceive. The angel, in his answer, seems to argue that God could allow the pre-pubertal Mary to conceive just as he had caused the post-menopausal Elizabeth to become pregnant. Again in Jewish parlance, a married woman past child-bearing age was a virgin for a second time.
In some ancient Greek, Latin and Aramaic manuscripts, Matthew specifically asserts the paternity of Joseph: “Jacob begot Joseph, and Joseph, to whom the virgin Mary was betrothed, begot Jesus.” The same claim was made by the ancient Jewish-Christian community of the Ebionites. Finally, hostile Jewish and pagan gossip rumoured that Jesus was conceived out of wedlock, and that his father was Panthera, a Roman soldier. This theory often features among feminist interpretations of the gospels.
Let us discard the extremes. Luke and Matthew stress that Jesus’ conception by a virgin through the Holy Spirit outshines all other miraculous conceptions in the Bible. By placing their wonderful infancy narratives at the beginning, Matthew and Luke intended to intimate to their gentile audience that Jesus was not only the Messiah, but also God’s son, not just figuratively in the Jewish sense, but really by nature. As for the role of Mary in worship, believers who are happy to base their faith on unwritten traditions can easily accommodate Marian cult with the rest of their Christianity. Indeed, the idea of a loving maternal hand suitably counterbalances for them the intimidating image of the severe male heavenly judge.
Geza Vermes is Professor Emeritus of Jewish Studies at Oxford. His latest book is The Nativity: History and Legend
M
mark_a
Guest
This is surely an undeniable plus for Christianity, although the rest of the clip doesn’t really cover any new ground.
To me, all the Church’s implicit teachings from scripture about Mary hinge on Luke’s account of the annunciation.
Either Luke belongs in the bible, or it doesn’t.
If Luke doesn’t belong, Thomas Jefferson was right when he believed that the Greeks ruined the bible.
So what we have here folks, is a question of authority.
D
Dokimas
Guest
Can someone help us here? I’m thinking Elvis is being quite silly and he thinks I’m convoluted.
Let’s see, what’s the name of this thread? I’m going to copy and past. Here goes.
mary, the eternal virgin? Let me do this again and highlight it: mary, the eternal virgin?
Maybe color will help: mary, the eternal virgin?
As I said this thread is about Mary’s perpetual virginity, not about whether she had other children. Mary COULD HAVE had sex without having more children. Ever hear of barren women like Mary’s cousin Elizabeth (before God opened her womb)?
If Elvis doesn’t get it this time, could someone else help him out (or me if I’m not really understanding what’s going on here)?
M
mark_a
Guest
I gotta admit, I’ve seen so many of these threads that I make presumptions.
I never guessed this was your angle.
Are you saying that even if Ortodox and Catholics are correct about Mary not having other children, that scripture implicitly or explicitly suggests that Mary did not reserve herself for God?
Thanks.
O
onenow1
Guest
Hi, WB, I would like to come at this from a different perspective;that may be some help.
From Josephs perspective his decision to divorce, was the thing to do. But ! In a dream,he is told what is in her, is from the Holy Spirit, lets not forget, Mary and Joseph are responding to the graces given to them.
I"m only guessing here but wouldn"t you think they had there own plans when God came along and asked them to take on this responsibility in raising the Son of the most High. After all a visit from an angel of God would get my attention. To bad we can only imagine their conversations in the ensuing years… .
Considering the finding of Jesus in the temple I think Jesus was probably a handful.
Peace and God Bless
onenow1
A
adrift
Guest
I understand what you are saying. I disagree. It fits like a puzzle piece that has been jammed into a spot that it doesn’t belong. I do wonder if you understand what I am telling you. I don’t know how to make it clearer without being redundant.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
What amazes me is that every anti catholic including Jews and muslims who read the new testament when instructed not too. Forget that Jude, yes the epistle writer was the blood brother of James, yet why is not Jude referred to the brother of the Lord? I find that prejudice is rampant outside of the Catholic Apostolic Traditional 2000 year old teaching. Jude, James and the Other brothers and sisters of Jesus are of the same Jewish tribe period. The Gospels are clear in defining which are tribal brothers and sisters and which belong to the same Mother. Re-read your text.
We have not yet entered into the hebrew/aramaic language and understanding here, when these “professors” outside of the Apostolic Tradition try and force a new wind of understanding from a Greek understanding which is foreign to the language spoken from the Gospels especially Matthew’s Gospel which was written for the Hebrew mindset spoken in Aramaic written in Greek.
Give me a professor who understands the Hebrew mindset, spoken in Aramaic translated into Greek, and then you may have a listener? Until then, I think your professor’s student should demand a refund.
Peace be with you
D
Dokimas
Guest
Try Arnold Fruchtenbaum
BTW, is this a description of catholic theologians? (see highlighted above)
A
AwGusTeen
Guest
Yes - ONE rendering. Yet the majority of Christendom (intellectuals and grammarians alike) held to the perpetual virginity of Mary until after the reformation. That’s about 1,600 years of precedence. Do you think they all had it wrong for so long? You are probably aware of the preponderance of evidence from the ECF’s, so I won’t start cutting-and-pasting that. However, let’s see what some of the Fathers of the Reformation had to say on the subject.
**Martin Luther: **“When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her.” That Jesus Christ was born a Jew, Luther’s Works (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1955), vol. 45, 206.
“Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb…this was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.” Sermons on John, Ibid., vol. 22, 23.
**John Calvin: **“There have been certain folk who have wished to suggest from this passage * that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph’s obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent his angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company…And besides this Our Lord Jesus Christ is called first born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or not there was any question of the second.” Sermon on Matthew
Ulrich Zwingli:* “I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure and intact Virgin.” Cited in the Corpus Reformatorum, vol. 1, p. 424.
Peace!
D
Dokimas
Guest
Yes - ONE rendering. Yet the majority of Christendom (intellectuals and grammarians alike) held to the perpetual virginity of Mary until after the reformation. That’s about 1,600 years of precedence. Do you think they all had it wrong for so long? You are probably aware of the preponderance of evidence from the ECF’s, so I won’t start cutting-and-pasting that. However, let’s see what some of the Fathers of the Reformation had to say on the subject.
**Martin Luther: **“When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her.” That Jesus Christ was born a Jew, Luther’s Works (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1955), vol. 45, 206.
“Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb…this was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.” Sermons on John, Ibid., vol. 22, 23.
**John Calvin: **“There have been certain folk who have wished to suggest from this passage * th
Ulrich Zwingli:* “I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure and intact Virgin.” Cited in the Corpus Reformatorum, vol. 1, p. 424.
Peace!
Could you link us to a 1st century document that holds to the perpetual virginity of Mary? Thank you.
Are the above men also correct that the CC needs reforming? Notice I didn’t say gotten rid of, just reforming.
A
AwGusTeen
Guest
I can’t think of any nor can I think of any 1st century documents that define the Trinity and other seminal doctrines of Chritianity. However, I think the earliest reference would be the Protoevangelium of James [A.D. 120]. Why is that important to the conversation?
Why did you slide around the content of what those individuals had to say? Why are you ignoring historical precedence for the perpetual virginity of Mary? Why are you now attempting to change the subject? I think I know…
Peace!
D
Dokimas
Guest
It’s quite clear from the Bible God is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. It’s not clear that Mary was always a virgin.
If there’s no documentation that the 1st century church believe and taught that Mary was a perpetual virgin, they I’ll stick with what the Bible says as I understand it to be saying.
I brought up you using the three reformers because I’m not sure why you’d use them when you think they are heretics. At least I’m pretty sure the CC thinks of them as heretics. I can glean from them truth and disreguard some of what they say because I don’t expect anyone to understand all.
G
guanophore
Guest
Yes, it would. Mary had consecrated herself to God. If we look at the consecrated vessels in the OT, they were considered permanently dedicated to God’s temple. No vessel that was dedicated to the temple was then returned to daily use.
The church affirms the marital bond as sacramental, as well as the vow of celibacy. Both are legitimate and holy calllings. Therefore, Mary is not “less fit” if she is celibate, nor the other way around.
However, since she was a consecrated virgin, it would have been a profanation for her to return to “daily use” of her sexuality.
For the Jews, large families and lots of children were considered a blessing and a gift from God. Every occasion of the marital embrace was an opportunity to welcome another child into the family.
Mary suffered no distractions from her single minded service to Christ. There is nothing “less holy” about having more children. It was not her calling.
G
guanophore
Guest
Perhaps customarily, but not necessarily. They may choose to stay open late, or have a 24 hour sale!
I find it interesting that when Catholics propose ideas that are 'implied" in scripture, we get all kinds of flak from our Sola Scriptura brethren, but our brethren seem to be able to use “implication” with impugnity!
Since the HS saw fit to commit God’s revelation to the Church in equal strands of Scripture and Tradition, we understand that they must inform one another. The HS constructed the scripture in such a way to guide those who have received and embraced the Apostolic faith, not for those who departed from it.
Yes, except that we are not permitted to interject into Scripture. We are bound to hold to the Deposit of Faith that was once for all deposited to the Church. W are obligated to interpret the Scriptures in the light of the faith that has been passed down to us, so “interjection” is not allowed.
In general, I woudl say no. For what it is worth, I don’t think the Scriptural record by itself is sufficient to support the Marian doctrines.
Well, we read it differently.
We believe that Jewish maidens of marriagable age were fully tutored in the duties and responsibilities of marriage by their older female relatives. We believe that Mary knew where babies come from, and that, had she been expecting to have sexual relations with Joseph, she would not have asked the angel “how can this be, for I know not a man”. She was referring there to her vow of celibacy, which Joseph had accepted (according to the Mosaic Law) prior to their engagement.
This demonstrates a lack of understanding about the nature and use of the Ark of the Covenant, as well as not understanding the desecration of returning sacred vessels to daily use.
Indeed I believe they did! However, the eldest son had the primacy in the family, most especially when the father was deceased. It would have been a great breech of propriety for younger siblings to take this approach to the firstborn, especially one who was a popular rabbi.
No, he chose HIs mother before the beginning of time, and fashioned for HImself the perfect vessel through which He would enter the world.
No, not logical. Logic presumes that she would expect to have marital relations with Joseph, and bear many children.
This is because there is nothing in Holy Scripture that contradicts the Sacred Tradition. They both come from the same Source. The Scripture is not to be separatede from the Tradition that produced it.
G
guanophore
Guest
She is not comparing the events at all, but the use of the word until, Oh Artful Dodger. This is an example of how the word “until” is used in scripture that does not imply activity after the event is reached. Now you can still argue that Mary had other children because “it was possible”, but you have to admit that sometimes the word “until” is used without implying any activity after it.
Yes, but this is again a speculation. the text does not indicate this.
It is an example of the use of “until” that does not indicate that the action will occur after it.
how do you explain that Jesus was too weak and disinterested to correct the Church on this point? Why did He let them persist in error for 1800 years?
Also, if you believe the Protestant Reformation was “God reforming his church”, then how do you explain that all the reformers accepted this doctrine? How is it God was able to use them to “correct” so many other “errors” in the faith, but not this one?
Yes. They are not meant to include the whole deposit of faith.
We are willing to accept that the use of the word “until” often has implications about what will happen afterward. Sometimes, it is used in a way that it does not. How do we know the difference? Context. The context of the NT is the Catholic Church, who wrote, preserved, promulgated and canonized the Scripture. That same teaching authority that beleived Mary is a perpetual virgin included thoe 27 books of the NT because NONE of them contradict the faith that was handed down to us from the Apostles. One of the doctrines that were received from the Apostles it s that Jesus was the only Son of His Mother, Mary. That is one of the reasons she was given the title Theotokos.
No, there is nothing unholy about sex. But it is unholy to return sacred vessels to daily use.
That means that all of us can be raised to the special status of His mother, who obeyed Him perfectly.
This interpretation requires that one believe Mary did not understand her duties as a Jewish wife, in which case she was not properly prepared for marriage, and would not be eligible for betrothal!
Of course she was startled by the angel, but she was not startled about the birds and the bees. You are assuming that Mary was ignorant and discombobulated about how children come into the world. Relations did sometimes occur during the time of betrothal, and even when they did not, the betrothed couple was well prepared to receive children when the time came. Any betrothed woman of childbearing age would expect to become pregnant in the usual manner. Except that Mary had no plans to engage in the “usual manner”.
It is illogical to assume that Mary would expect that God would father her child!
G
guanophore
Guest
I hope it does help you with your undestanding, Doki;. The commentary is clear that the tense is in the imperfect tense, which means continual action. He did not know her. He continued not knowing her.
- Status