Proof of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity in John 19

[Julius_Caesar]

You realize a millennia is a 1000 years right? How about something explicitly taught by the apostles themselves since you are alleging that this is an apostolic doctrine.

Jerome himself cites Irenaeus, and Polycarp, who were trained in the tradition of John, who happened to be Mary’s caretaker.

 

[Hodos]

Jerome himself cites Irenaeus, and Polycarp, who were trained in the tradition of John, who happened to be Mary’s caretaker.

Jerome claims that they agree with his point of view, and appeals to their writings. However, none of them wrote anything stating that the virginity of Mary was maintained after the birth of Christ, and nothing survives to us demonstrating that they did. He appears to be assuming a point of view rather than proving it. The earliest documentary evidence we have is the Infancy Gospel of James, a pseudepigraphal source from the mid to late second century which has aspects within it that imply a gnostic or proto-gnostic influence. Origen states that mary had not other children in the mid third century, but does not cite his source for this. However, his orthodoxy is suspect as well as he had some fairly novel ideas about a number of things. We do know that Tertullian and Victorinus disagreed with the perpetual virginity, demonstrating this was not a universal doctrine. Jerome dismisses Tertullian entirely (interesting given that Tertullian was the most important Latin theologian of his day and was instrumental in defending orthodoxy from modalism and subordinationism and in the development of the doctrine of the Trinity), not even addressing his argument, and essentially does the same to Victorinus based on the least natural reading of the relevant passages in the gospels of Luke, Matthew, John, and Mark. If you actually read the pamphlet against Helvidius, Jerome’s argument is driven by a conclusion, not that actual data from the scriptures. He argues that the passages in question cannot mean X because they cannot mean X, offering a circular argument to support an already presumed conclusion. Not only this, but he makes a number of ad hominem attacks against Helvidius himself. With all due respect to St. Jerome, this was by far his least exegetical and least persuasive writing of his career. The fact of the matter is that if you look at Acts 1 for instance, Jesus Mother and brothers are mentioned separately from the general group of brethren, showing that Luke was making a distinction between the two usages of the word brethren. In Acts 1:13-14, Luke goes through detail, naming the disciples that were present. Then saying these all (the disciples) were continuing in one accord in prayer with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus and with the brothers of him (using the genitive of him in reference to the brothers in the same context as it used the genitive form of Jesus name to demonstrate Mary was his mother). In Matthew 12, Jesus actually uses his blood relationship to his mother and brothers as a contrast to those who obey him.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

The fact of the matter is that if you look at Acts 1 for instance, Jesus Mother and brothers are mentioned separately from the general group of brethren, showing that Luke was making a distinction between the two usages of the word brethren.

The text refers to the relationship the brothers have to Jesus. It never specifies their relationship to Mary.

 

[Hodos]

The text refers to the relationship the brothers have to Jesus. It never specifies their relationship to Mary.

Well, if we accept your theory they aren’t brothers of Jesus, they are relatives of Jesus. We have already seen Luke in several places use the term syngenis for relatives. But again, this also ignores that Joseph was already engaged to Mary when the annunciation occurred, was told not to put her away privately, and did not know his wife until she gave birth to a son. Again, you make my point in that you have to read every statement regarding Mary and Jesus’ brothers in the least natural way possible because of a pre-existing assumption, inject pages of eisegesis drawn from typology and allegory not used by the apostles, and divorce each instance from one another.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Well, if we accept your theory they aren’t brothers of Jesus, they are relatives of Jesus. We have already seen Luke in several places use the term syngenis for relatives.

And if we look at the Septuagint from which the Greek from the Gospels utilizes heavily, we will see relatives described as brothers. When the word suggenes is used, it is used to describe more distant relations than brothers or first cousins.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Again, you make my point in that you have to read every statement regarding Mary and Jesus’ brothers in the least natural way possible because of a pre-existing assumption, inject pages of eisegesis

And from our vantage point, which is proven by the fact that no Gospel writer says that they are sons of Mary that you are reading your own assumption into the text. The fact that those who read the text like Irenaeus and Justin Martyr, who identify Mary as the Virgin, and even Eusebius who quotes Clement to that effect, means nothing.

 

[Hodos]

And from our vantage point, which is proven by the fact that no Gospel writer says that they are sons of Mary that you are reading your own assumption into the text.

No, we are assuming that words have meaning. Joseph did not know her until she had given birth to a son, means Joseph did not know her until she had given birth to a son, that mother means mother, and brother of him means brother of him. Not that this must mean that there was another wife and family to Joseph unmentioned by any New Testament author and that this must mean that we can completely redefine the meaning of brother in the contexts described.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Not that this must mean that there was another wife and family to Joseph unmentioned by any New Testament author and that this must mean that we can completely redefine the meaning of brother in the contexts described.

You realize the Gospels are about Jesus and the rest of the dudes are supporting characters? And we literally have no backstory for the other dudes who are Apostles besides the first six?

 

[Julius_Caesar]

No, we are assuming that words have meaning. Joseph did not know her until she had given birth to a son, means Joseph did not know her until she had given birth to a son

And in the days of Messiah profound peace and justice will flower until the moon is no more means until the moon is no more.

 

[Hodos]

You realize the Gospels are about Jesus and the rest of the dudes are supporting characters? And we literally have no backstory for the other dudes who are Apostles besides the first six?

Gotcha, again, I’m going off the evidence provided in the text, taking the natural meanings of the text unless the context directs it to be read otherwise. I’m not having to base my reading on a speculation that conflicts with the scriptural narrative about an alternate family not mentioned by the primary, contemporary sources In the gospels. I’m also not defining a de fide dogma based upon anachronistic speculation that must be believed or be anathematized.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Gotcha, again, I’m going off the evidence provided in the text, taking the natural meanings of the text unless the context directs it to be read otherwise

And the natural reading of other passages like the one I referenced would be included?

I believe that’s a Gotcha.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

I’m not having to base my reading on a speculation that conflicts with the scriptural narrative about an alternate family not mentioned by the primary, contemporary sources In the gospels.

It only conflicted post Reformation.

 

[Hodos]

And the natural reading of other passages like the one I referenced would be included?

I believe that’s a Gotcha.

Not really, you are conflating a Psalm which is highly symbolic and is actually written as a poem, with narrative prose. If you can’t tell the difference between the two, you have a serious problem with your hermaneutic. We read scripture in the way it was meant to be read by the author taking into account the genre that author chose to write in. Also, Jesus actually was born, so the condition in clause two of the conjunction in Matthew 1:25 was met.

 

[Hodos]

It only conflicted post Reformation.

Not really, the fact that there was a pamphlet written to refute Helvidius by St. Jerome illustrates that isn’t the case. Also, even Basil the Great who was a contemporary of Jerome and apparently familiar with the controversy stated it has no impact on essential doctrine, even if he didn’t hold the view himself. So, the controversy preceded the Reformation by at least 1300 years.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

If you can’t tell the difference between the two, you have a serious problem with your hermaneutic

Right back at you. The passage in question is to establish Jesus’s parentage, not a statement on Mary and Joseph’s sex life or lack thereof.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Also, even Basil the Great who was a contemporary of Jerome and apparently familiar with the controversy stated it has no impact on essential doctrine, even if he didn’t hold the view himself.

The same Basil who said this?

“The friends of Christ refuse to admit subsequent marital relations between Joseph and Mary. Accordingly, those who denied the virginity post partum are not the friends of Christ; they are not true Christians.” (St. Basil the Great +379)

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Not really, the fact that there was a pamphlet written to refute Helvidius by St. Jerome illustrates that isn’t the case.

Key words. Helvidius. So this is your lone wolf in that regard?

 

[Hodos]

The same Basil who said this?

“The friends of Christ refuse to admit subsequent marital relations between Joseph and Mary. Accordingly, those who denied the virginity post partum are not the friends of Christ; they are not true Christians.” (St. Basil the Great +379)

For “he did not know her” - it says - “until she gave birth to a Son, her firstborn.” But this could make one suppose that Mary, after having offered in all her purity her own service in giving birth to the Lord, by virtue of the Holy Spirit, did not subsequently refrain from normal conjugal relations. That would not have affected the teaching of our religion at all, because Mary’s virginity was necessary until the service of the Incarnation, and what happened afterward need not be investigated in order to affect the doctrine of the mystery.

You forgot that part. You also forgot the part where Basil admits there is no scripture that attests to this doctrine.

Key words. Helvidius. So this is your lone wolf in that regard?

Again no. Jerome himself states that Helvidius relies upon the testimony of others before him. And awkwardly enough, the references he provides from Patristics for his side, other than Origen and Ambrose, never actually testified in their works that Mary was ever-virgin. He doesn’t even attempt to quote them to support his assertion. It is also interesting that the Infancy Gospel of James from which your theory is entirely derived is most likely written by a heretical group itself.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

“That would not have affected the teaching of our religion at all, because Mary’s virginity was necessary until the service of the Incarnation, and what happened afterward need not be investigated in order to affect the doctrine of the mystery.”

You forgot that part. You also forgot the part where Basil admits there is no scripture that attests to this doctrine.

Yeah. Doesn’t negate what Basil says above.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

And awkwardly enough, the references he provides from Patristics for his side, other than Origen and Ambrose, never actually testified in their works that Mary was ever-virgin.

Ambrose:
Behold the Virgin who conceived in her womb, the Virgin that bore a son… She is the gate of the sanctuary, which no one shall pass, only the God of Israel. This gate is the Blessed Virgin Mary, of whom it is written: ‘The Lord shall pass through Her’ and it shall be closed following the birth. For she conceived as a Virgin and gave birth as a Virgin” (Epist. 42,4 PL, XVI). Making reference to the gate of Ezekiel (44:2), he states: “What gate is this but Mary? A closed gate, because she is a virgin.

248 AD: Origen

“Mary, as those declare who with sound mind extol her, had no other son but Jesus” [Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel of John (Book I), Section 6]