mary, the eternal virgin?

[Gabriel_of_12]

Try Arnold Fruchtenbaum

BTW, is this a description of catholic theologians? (see highlighted above)

 

[guanophore]

The thread is about Mary being an eternal virgin NOT about whether or not she had children. The only way interjecting children into this thread is if she had children. Then she would MOST definately not a perpetual virgin. If she did not have children, it doesn’t help on this thread.

Therefore, as I’ve said and you’ve missed, my issue is whether or not Mary was a perpetual virgin. I say no and I believe Matthew 1:24,25 say no too.

Do you understand yet, Elvis?

Unlike the modern culture of death in which we live, marital relations in Jewish culture was synonomous with the bearing of children, or the willignness to do so. If Mary had relations with Joseph, she would have been open to receive Children from God. Children were considered a blessing, and barroness a curse from God.

 

[AwGusTeen]

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.

Why are you so hung up on the 1st Century? The source that I gave to you was written approximately 50 years after the death of the last apostle. That’s very close to the 1st century and much older than the canon of the New Testament itself, which is what you claim as your measure of authenticity. Further, by accepting the canon of the NT you are tacitly accepting the authority of those who put the canon together - the Catholic Church. On the one hand you accept the NT canon, yet on the other you reject the Church’s apostolic teaching. Do you not find this somewhat ironic?

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.

I used quotes by the three Reformers because your belief system is inextricably linked to one or more of them. If you wish to ignore what the founders of Protestantism actually believed, then you have a big problem - you cannot even validate what was taught 500 years ago by the Reformers, much less what was taught in the 1st century by the early church.

Peace!

 

[elvisman]

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)?

Calm down, friend. Might I suggest a English course or maybe a writing course? You don’t seem to be able to get your point accross very well.

You want to discuss the possibility of Mary having had sex without having other children - which is a farce in and of itself. A faithful Jewish woman in her time wouldn’t have had relations with her husband without the acceptance of possible bearing children. That, coupled with the fact that we already know - Mary WASN’T BARREN.
Your point, therefore, is moot.

 

[onenow1]

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.

The whole book of luke qualifies if you accept the teaching of the Catholic Church. As a side note the CC has been reforming since the time of Christ,none of the other ten disagreed with Peter when he decided from scripture through the Holy Spirit,that they needed a replacement for Judas.Where there was more controversy such as circumsission they took it to the Church.

Hope you don’t mind my butting in ?

Peace and God Bless
onenow1

 

[Rightlydivide]

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!

I have some difficulty understanding the Protoevangelium, can you direct me to the part thats says she was a perpetual virgin?

 

[guanophore]

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

Indeed, the context of Matthews Gospel is the Jews, and it was written first in Aramaic. The other synoptic gospels used it as a framework, but the concepts cannot be understood outside of the Jewish culture. Most moderns don’t understand tribal mentality. Here in the Southwest, we still have many native peoples that live the same standards of marriage as the ancient Hebrews. Anyone in the tribe belonging to one’s clan who is too close for marriage is a brother, sister, uncle, aunt, grandparent, etc.

Through Papias’ writings, we have testimony that Matt. wrote in the native language of the Jews. Here is a non-Catholic website that explains the details.

For the Native Jews, there were words for “cousin” or 'stepbrother". Since the bulk of the denials about Jesus being the only Son of Mary are based upon passages in Matthew, it seems that this context is essential.

 

[guanophore]

Are the above men also correct that the CC needs reforming? Notice I didn’t say gotten rid of, just reforming.

No. They were correct that men in the Church needed reforming. The doctrine did not need to be reformed, but they did it anyway.

My question is, if they thought this particular doctrine was in need of reformation, why did they retain the Catholic teaching on this?

 

[guanophore]

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!

This would be a blatant case of accepting Catholic Sacred Tradtiion, and the authority of the Church to define doctrine.

It's quite clear from the Bible God is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

It is clear to you because you have already accepted the extrabiblical Apostolic Teaching on this matter. It is one of the aspects of Sacred Tradtition that was retained by the Reformers. I think you will have to admit that it is not nessarily “quite clear”, as we now have hundreds of thousands of Mormons and Oneness Pentecostals who read the same bible and come to the conclusion that there is no Trinity. The clarity comes in your mind from that which you have already embraced. You read it through the filters of the lenses of your belief.

It is the same reason that Catholics and the original Reformers saw the perpetual virginity in the scriptures. All accepted the Apostolic Teaching. Modern American evangelicals have departed from this Teaching, so when they read the Bible, they do not “see” what others do.

It’s not clear that Mary was always a virgin.

I agree. I can see how those that deny the Trinity also come to their conclusion.

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.

The vast majority of what was written in the first century was destroyed in the persecutions. What has remained are the prayers and the liturgy. This is a primary source where we see the faith of the early church. The same Church that formed the NT received the doctrine of Mary the Mother of God and the perpetual virginity. If you reject these, how can you be sure they got the canon right?

I brought up you using the three reformers because I’m not sure why you’d use them when you think they are heretics.

Precisely for that reason! They “Reformed” all the doctrines they believe needed to be “reformed”. Why do you suppose they did not think it necessary to change this one?

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.

So, they did not “reform” this doctrine because they did not understand that it was a heresy in need of changing?

 

[adrift]

I have some difficulty understanding the Protoevangelium, can you direct me to the part thats says she was a perpetual virgin?

That is what this thread addresses. Have you read it?

 

[Dokimas]

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.

5775 Tense-Imperfect

The imperfect tense generally represents continual or repeated action in the past. Where the present tense might indicate “they are asking,” the imperfect would indicate “they kept on asking.”

In the case of the verb “to be,” however, the imperfect tense is used as a general past tense and **does not **carry the connotation of continual or repeated action.

Looks to me like you are incorrect about imperfect tense. Joseph never KNEW Mary in the past. It says NOTHING about the future.

 

[Dokimas]

Unlike the modern culture of death in which we live, marital relations in Jewish culture was synonomous with the bearing of children, or the willignness to do so. If Mary had relations with Joseph, she would have been open to receive Children from God. Children were considered a blessing, and barroness a curse from God.

Good points.

 

[Dokimas]

**Calm **down, friend. Might I suggest a English course or maybe a writing course? You don’t seem to be able to get your point accross very well.

You want to discuss the possibility of Mary having had sex without having other children - which is a farce in and of itself. A faithful Jewish woman in her time wouldn’t have had relations with her husband without the acceptance of possible bearing children. That, coupled with the fact that we already know - Mary WASN’T BARREN.
Your point, therefore, is moot.

I wasn’t uncalm. Best for you not to look in a mirror unless you’re willing to take your own advice.

Okay, you convinced me. Mary had children. Thanks for changing my mind.

You are correct. I do have trouble typing what’s in my head. I think faster than I type. I also can’t at times put into words what I’m thinking. Was the above clear enough to understand?

 

[Dokimas]

Hope you don’t mind my butting in ?

The whole book of luke qualifies if you accept the teaching of the Catholic Church. As a side note the CC has been reforming since the time of Christ,none of the other ten disagreed with Peter when he decided from scripture through the Holy Spirit,that they needed a replacement for Judas.Where there was more controversy such as circumsission they took it to the Church.

Peace and God Bless
onenow1

I don’t mind.

I think that in a few instances, the CC is incorrect.

As I read the NT, I’m convinced that Paul was God’s replacement for Judas. Peter and the others tried but, IMO, did not do it God’s way. Jesus didn’t cast lots for the first 12 but called them personally. I doubt that He changed His way of choosing a replacement.

 

[Dokimas]

It is clear to you because you have already accepted the extrabiblical Apostolic Teaching on this matter. It is one of the aspects of Sacred Tradtition that was retained by the Reformers. I think you will have to admit that it is not nessarily “quite clear”, as we now have hundreds of thousands of Mormons and Oneness Pentecostals who read the same bible and come to the conclusion that there is no Trinity. The clarity comes in your mind from that which you have already embraced. You read it through the filters of the lenses of your belief.

I can produce the verses that make it VERY clear that Jesus is God. Didn’t you agree there’s no clear verse attesting to the perpetual virginity of Mary?

It is the same reason that Catholics and the original Reformers saw the perpetual virginity in the scriptures. All accepted the Apostolic Teaching. Modern American evangelicals have departed from this Teaching, so when they read the Bible, they do not “see” what others do.

I accept your opinion.

I

agree. I can see how those that deny the Trinity also come to their conclusion.

I can understand why many non-Christians think God is awful using the Bible. So what? They need the Holy Spirit.

The vast majority of what was written in the first century was destroyed in the persecutions. What has remained are the prayers and the liturgy. This is a primary source where we see the faith of the early church. The same Church that formed the NT received the doctrine of Mary the Mother of God and the perpetual virginity. If you reject these, how can you be sure they got the canon right?

So you’re saying that the Holy Spirit protected the ones He chose to be in the cannon? I agree.

Precisely for that reason! They “Reformed” all the doctrines they believe needed to be “reformed”. Why do you suppose they did not think it necessary to change this one?

Maybe there’s more that need reforming? At least there are IMO.

So, they did not “reform” this doctrine because they did not understand that it was a heresy in need of changing?

I wouldn’t call it heresy. Not all wrong understanding is herecy. If it doesn’t hinder a relationship with God, my opinion, it’s not herecy. Of course, I could be wrong. God knows.

 

[guanophore]

5775 Tense-Imperfect

The imperfect tense generally represents continual or repeated action in the past. Where the present tense might indicate “they are asking,” the imperfect would indicate “they kept on asking.”

In the case of the verb “to be,” however, the imperfect tense is used as a general past tense and **does not **carry the connotation of continual or repeated action.

Looks to me like you are incorrect about imperfect tense. Joseph never KNEW Mary in the past. It says NOTHING about the future.

No Doki, I am not. The verb “to know” here (in referenece to sexual relations) is not a case of the verb “to be”.

He knew her not. He continued to know her not. After the birth of her son, he continued to know her not.

 

[Dokimas]

No Doki, I am not. The verb “to know” here (in referenece to sexual relations) is not a case of the verb “to be”.

He knew her not. He continued to know her not. After the birth of her son, he continued to know her not.

I was partly incorrect and you were correct on that part.

However, “The imperfect tense generally represents continual or repeated action in the past.”

So Joseph and Mary never had sex before ‘until’. We are agreed totally.

No change and repeated so until the birth of Jesus.

 

[guanophore]

 I can produce the verses that make it VERY clear that Jesus is God.

It seems very clear to you that way, because you approach the text with the assumption already in your mind that Jesus is God.

Didn’t you agree there’s no clear verse attesting to the perpetual virginity of Mary?

When we read “how shall this be, for I know not a man?” we understand this to be a reference to her vow of celibacy, which she kept until the end of her life.

I can understand why many non-Christians think God is awful using the Bible. So what? They need the Holy Spirit.

Well, Christians with sincere hearts also read it, and come up with conclusions opposite from yours. They believe they have the HS.

Maybe there’s more that need reforming? At least there are IMO.

Men are always in need of reform. There is no need to reform the doctrine that Christ gave us. Don’t you think Jesus would know if His mother had other children? Don’t you think the Apostles might have had a little clue?

I wouldn’t call it heresy. Not all wrong understanding is herecy. If it doesn’t hinder a relationship with God, my opinion, it’s not herecy. Of course, I could be wrong. God knows.

Your definition of heresy is very interesting. Unfortunately, it has no support in scripture or history.

I do agree, though, that not all wrong understanding is heresy.

I think that in a few instances, the CC is incorrect.

That is mighty generous of you, Doki.

As I read the NT, I’m convinced that Paul was God’s replacement for Judas. Peter and the others tried but, IMO, did not do it God’s way. Jesus didn’t cast lots for the first 12 but called them personally. I doubt that He changed His way of choosing a replacement.

What you are saying is that Jesus was unable to make Peter understand His will, and that Peter prayed and asked for God’s guidance, read and discerned scripture, but was denied by God. If this is the case, how can you believe anything he said or did?

 

[Doxiemom]

One day it occured to me that Mary had to remain a virgin because , in that way, the proof of her being the Virgin Mother of the Son of God was evident, a sort of witness to the Truth.
Once that virginity was taken away, anyone could have had a legitimate reason to doubt the miracle of His birth.

Jesus most likely did have brothers and sisters, though. Joseph could well have been a widower and thus these were Jesus’ step brothers and sisters.

Why joseph never had intimacy with Mary could have been for physical reasons or obedience to God.

of couse, all this are just my little thoughts

 

[AwGusTeen]

I have some difficulty understanding the Protoevangelium, can you direct me to the part thats says she was a perpetual virgin?

Here’s a link that addresses the issue regarding the Protoevangelium of James and some writings of the ECF’s.

catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp

Peace!