perpetual virginity of Mary..T or F?

[Lochias]

That’s an amazing tale, Kliska. Who knew that the Holy Family was so completely dysfunctional.

Exactly.

But the specific word for cousin (anepsios) probably would not have been used in Matthew 13:55 unless all the “brothers” were cousins. If even one of them was not a cousin, the more general term “adelphoi” covers the situation. Even if all of them were cousins, the term “brother” could still be used by Matthew to appropriately describe them. Adelphoi covered all possibilities; anepsios would not.

Correct. So, you’re pretty much out there all on your own here.

These things were taken for granted by the early Christians, who were familiar with the biblical languages and who knew that Mary was a lifelong virgin. In A.D. 380, Helvidius proposed that Mary had other children because of the “brothers” in Matthew 13:55. He was rebutted by Jerome, who was arguably the greatest biblical scholar of the day.

The Protestant reformer John Calvin seconded Jerome: “Helvidius has shown himself too ignorant, in saying that Mary had several sons, because mention is made in some passages to the brothers of Christ” [quoted by Bernard Leeming, Protestants and Our Lady, 9]
.

Martin Luther agreed with Calvin that Mary was always a virgin, as did Ulrich Zwingli: “I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary” [E. Stakemeier, De Mariologia et Oecumenismo, K. Balic, ed., 456].

So, even though many Protestants can agree that Mary remained a life-long virgin…for some reason you can’t. Or won’t.

Hang your reasoning on a personal interpretation of one Psalm if you wish, but the preponderance of the evidence is against that line of thinking.

Not only that, but the Greek translation came from the Hebrew / Aramaic, and in those languages there is no word for “cousins”. The Greek translators simply copied over what they saw, as they knew from recent knowledge that Jesus was indeed an only child.

It is highly significant, that’s what I mean. John was picked for a multitude of reasons; IMO, Jesus’ own siblings denied Him and called Him crazy, John represents the church, and James was not at the crucifixion.

But that’s just it…it’s only an opinion, and we’re to form our opinions based on a well-informed conscience. Even the great Protestant minds of the day disagree with your stance, here…why are you so bent on being your own authority when it comes to matters of God?

No, I find Jewish cultural norms throughout scripture.including the NT.

Except when it comes to literally the most important Jewish family who ever lived? I’m sorry, but your own bias is hopelessly skewing the facts.

Thank you for your kind words, you’re pretty nice yourself. I’m not ignoring it so much, as trying to dig into the closest written source we have, scripture, and compare opinion, yes the ECF’s, to that. I respect the teaching and I understand where people get it from, I just don’t agree that it is communicated in scripture. I said to Randy upthread that Tradition is the main evidence that backs up the teaching, but stubborn Sola Scriptura person that I am, I feel that this particular tradition contradicts scripture. Looking at it through logic (I also see the logic on the other side) I can connect several dots if Jesus had siblings that aren’t connected for me if He didn’t.

Firstly, the source that you’re clinging to, Scripture, is itself the product of Catholic tradition; so you’re paradoxically doing away with Catholic tradition while clinging to Catholic authority. Second, as has been demonstrated, I gently reiterate that what you agree or don’t agree with just doesn’t hold water when compared with all the evidence that you’re simply choosing to ignore, for whatever reason. Scripture IS Tradition, ma’am, and as a product of the Catholic Church, Scripture can never be at odds with that Church. That’s just simple history.

The problem with trying to connect the dots you want to see connected is that they disconnect many, many more dots on the way.

What dots are you trying to see connected so badly, exactly?

 

[aidanbradypop]

Virginity of Mary

I found this link. It seems to be from the Evangelical tradition. Might give a bit of insight into how one comes to believe the PV to be false.

 

[pocohombre]

That’s exactly my point. People are projecting onto the Holy Family what they think is standard and normal for a family.

You mean like purification after giving birth and temple worship and observing passover and other Jewish feasts and going to weddings, appearing to be normal to “neighbors/villagers”,living hectic lives enough to “misplace” a child (think “Home Alone”-a movie premise not possible with an only child) doing nothing “outstandish” that people would recall… Did they live in a palace ?.. Was not Jesus like us, totally human and tempted and knowledgeable by first hand experience of our travails ? Your perfect Holy Family puts that out of reach. The “holy family” was “set aside” (holy) to bring forth a perfect Messiah, though they themselves were not perfect , except in faith and mission (hence holy).

I would counter that those who do not view it as essential and necessary are in fact diminishing what it means for Mary to have given birth to the Son of God, and therefore diminishing Jesus himself.

Well, I get that from Catholics here (PR was that you, did I paraphrase you right ?) Jesus is not diminshed by a fully human, like us, Mary. He does not get the “cooties” from contacting “fallen carbon atoms”, “dust”.

Sorry, there can’t be any real beauty and majesty in an objective falsehood.

Well, falsehood is subjective, not objective. But I agree otherwise, no majesty in falsehood.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Dan Corner an Arminian fundamentalism? I say… Apostolic Church’s and its Saints.

So why should we believe Dan over the Eastern or Western Church’s.

Besides all this I’ll tell you what I can’t comprehend. This young woman Mary who’s prayer intercedes for all of us, who indeed was a virgin and has a supernatural birth and gives birth to, now listen…GOD. She gives birth to GOD.

Then after this extraordinary unprecedented supernatural event she decides to entertain some carnal thinking? I highly doubt that and it certainly doesn’t have a ring of truth in regards to the mystics/Saints. Very much the contrary. People as such have no interest in anything but living and dying for Jesus Christ. Its a repetitive situation in history.

The spiritual and carnal are in conflict imho.

 

[57Bill]

Yes!

I see the perpetuity of virginity as evidence to our Sovereign God over all the earth.

IMHO this and other Catholic Marian doctrines point to God and His grace poured out to Mary.

I thank God for Mary, I do not thank Mary for God. I thank Mary for her obedience to God.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Dan Corner an Arminian fundamentalism? I say… Apostolic Church’s and its Saints.

I would say you are correct on the Arminian fundamentalist.

So why should we believe Dan over the Eastern or Western Church’s.

It would not just be Dan but the evangelical tradition from which he comes from.

This young woman Mary who’s prayer intercedes for all of us, who indeed was a virgin and has a supernatural birth and gives birth to, now listen…GOD. She gives birth to GOD.

Agree

Then after this extraordinary unprecedented supernatural event she decides to entertain some carnal thinking? I highly doubt that and it certainly doesn’t have a ring of truth in regards to the mystics/Saints. Very much the contrary. People as such have no interest in anything but living and dying for Jesus Christ. Its a repetitive situation in history.

The spiritual and carnal are in conflict imho.

I wouldn’t go as far as to state they are in conflict. There were many saints that had a wife and child(ren).

Yes there were saints that remained pure but having a natural family does not bring about conflict.

If I may be so bold to place myself in the Joseph’s shoes…I would in no way wish to do anything sexually with the woman that just gave birth to God. Just my 2 cents.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Yes!

I see the perpetuity of virginity as evidence to our Sovereign God over all the earth.

IMHO this and other Catholic Marian doctrines point to God and His grace poured out to Mary.

I thank God for Mary, I do not thank Mary for God. I thank Mary for her obedience to God.

 

[Lochias]

I thank God for Mary, I do not thank Mary for God. I thank Mary for her obedience to God.

 

[aidanbradypop]

How very Catholic of you.

We simply do not choose to understate the importance of her obedience.

How very Christian sounds better.

 

[Lochias]

How very Christian sounds better.

Why?

 

[aidanbradypop]

Why?

Really?

1st…Bill is not Catholic.

2nd…we are all Christians but not all Catholic so how very Christian of you sounds charitable rather than sacrastic.

 

[Lochias]

Really?

1st…Bill is not Catholic.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Yes, hence my comment. I was pointing out similarities.

How about…Praise God we have that in common or Thank they Lord we share that belief!

See above. I daresay it only sounded sarcastic to you.

I am not saying you were being sacrastic. Some notable Catholic posters will post that phrase vey sacrasticly. It tends to come across that way to some.

Thanks for the correction.

 

[stewstew03]

We would be just as close as a blood relative, and if none of your blood relatives are believers, we’d be closer. You are leaving out the part where the Lord’s family thought Him unhinged, crazy, nuts. He would not leave His Mother with someone that not only denied Him, but thought Him insane.

Jesus’s brothers are "those who listen to God’s teaching and obey it.” (Luke 8:21)

 

[Nicea325]

Who said the Holy Family is subjective ? It was said they were NOT a standard family, and i questioned what is a “standard family”…Having said that I suppose anyhting beyond fact is “subjective” and that has been around since the beginning, and up to the 21st century

I beg your pardon? What is a “standard” family? Really? The Holy Family was mentioned here and yet you question what is a “standard” family? You buy into that garbage? Unbelievable!

 

[Kliska]

Not only that, but the Greek translation came from the Hebrew / Aramaic, and in those languages there is no word for “cousins”. The Greek translators simply copied over what they saw, as they knew from recent knowledge that Jesus was indeed an only child.

Or not. The Greek language was the perfect language to communicate what God was communicating in the NT. Each language is different, and apparently He wanted the NT in Greek.

But that’s just it…it’s only an opinion, and we’re to form our opinions based on a well-informed conscience. Even the great Protestant minds of the day disagree with your stance, here…why are you so bent on being your own authority when it comes to matters of God?

I don’t care for the authority of man, but the authority of God. One of the ways to check to see if man is right is to compare what man says to the word of God. In this case, I will go with the word of God. Further, I’m not “bent” on it; a boardmember asked for our opinions and I’m giving them.

Except when it comes to literally the most important Jewish family who ever lived? I’m sorry, but your own bias is hopelessly skewing the facts.

From you position, of course you see it that way.

Firstly, the source that you’re clinging to, Scripture, is itself the product of Catholic tradition;

Funny, I thought is was God, as even the RCC teaches.

so you’re paradoxically doing away with Catholic tradition while clinging to Catholic authority. Second, as has been demonstrated, I gently reiterate that what you agree or don’t agree with just doesn’t hold water when compared with all the evidence that you’re simply choosing to ignore, for whatever reason. Scripture IS Tradition, ma’am, and as a product of the Catholic Church, Scripture can never be at odds with that Church. That’s just simple history.

Simple history is that there has never been one canon. Simple history underscores in all churches that scripture comes from God. We can all look into it and see if we agree with the canon. It always seems that the RCC clings to the idea that they gave the world the Bible; it didn’t. Certainly not the OT, and the NT was organically compiled save for several contended books.

You make the claim that RCC tradition doesn’t clash with scripture. Well, that’s why you are RC. I’m protestant because I see it clashing in several key ways, including on matters of salvational importance. I understand your view, I just don’t agree with it.

The problem with trying to connect the dots you want to see connected is that they disconnect many, many more dots on the way.

What dots are you trying to see connected so badly, exactly?

Sorry, but I don’t see any disconnect in believing that Mary and Joseph had other children; what a blessing God must have bestowed on them, and why would He withhold the blessing of children to the couple of couples? I’ve already connected the dots that I see in scripture from the OT Psalm, to the NT fact of James leading the church, to His disbelieving family, to John’s role in the church and Mary’s relationship to him.

 

[Lochias]

How about…Praise God we have that in common or Thank they Lord we share that belief!

Eh, semantics. If we were on a general Christian forum, I’d totally agree; I don’t think my statement was out of place here, though.

I am not saying you were being sacrastic. Some notable Catholic posters will post that phrase vey sacrasticly. It tends to come across that way to some.

Thanks for the correction.

Gotcha.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Eh, semantics. If we were on a general Christian forum, I’d totally agree; I don’t think my statement was out of place here, though.

If you said that Christ is our salvation and I stated…that is very Anglican of you.

You would be cool with that?

 

[Lochias]

If you said that Christ is our salvation and I stated…that is very Anglican of you.

You would be cool with that?

Surely, because 1: It’s true, 2: We’re both Christian, and 3: Catholics said it long before the Anglicans did.

 

[GaryTaylor]

If I may be so bold to place myself in the Joseph’s shoes…I would in no way wish to do anything sexually with the woman that just gave birth to God. Just my 2 cents.

Hey, me either, especially after I found myself speaking to Gods Angel and messenger, and then he stuck me speechless. Then this woman bears Jesus Christ, the Living God?

No in my mind entertaining the idea of a further family after that, I can’t see it. It is a family, the holy family