Question on the perpetual virginity of Mary...

[nmgauss]

But what is GOD’s exegesis? If what God wants to communicate with us is that the Blessed Mother was perpetually a virgin, then there is great importance there.

So it comes down to: is YOUR exegisis infalible? How do you know what you have been taught is 100% correct?

We cannot know for sure what God means. God is unknowable.

Whatever was originally communicated was oral only and was transmitted orally from generation to generation. Finally, the oral form was written down by a scribe.

Whatever was originally written down is only one persons attempt to express God’s message in written form using the language extant at that time. When that original writing is copied over and over, changes are known to have been introduced. Then comes the translation, which introduces new changes. In the case of the Catholic Bible, it is a translation of a translation. What we see in English is the English that was used at the time of the translation. So by the time we read it, we are not really sure of what was meant by the written word.

There is no exegesis for God, since He does not have to derive meaning from any written word. If the word is originally His, He does not have to exegete anything.

Meditate on this before you dismiss it, for if you dismiss any truth, you are dismissing Christ (Jn 14:6).

If I knew it was the truth, I would have no problem accepting it. But I don’t know. All I have is my own exegesis and the word of an authority such as the Magisterium. I am perpetually skeptical of any authority, so that dismisses anything coming from the Magisterium. Therefore, I am left with my own exegesis. I will not try to read into the Scripture my own personal bias, which would be eisegesis.

 

[sirach2v4]

in the preceding post there is a quotation box with the following contents:

Meditate on this before you dismiss it, for if you dismiss any truth, you are dismissing Christ (Jn 14:6).

to be sure, those words are NOT a quotation of Jn 14:6, not in my Bible.

 

[JamesTheJust]

in the preceding post there is a quotation box with the following contents:

Meditate on this before you dismiss it, for if you dismiss any truth, you are dismissing Christ (Jn 14:6).

to be sure, those words are NOT a quotation of Jn 14:6, not in my Bible.

I think he’s asking nmgauss to meditate on John 14:6. At least, that’s how I understood it.

 

[ezeekl]

We cannot know for sure what God means. God is unknowable.

Whatever was originally communicated was oral only and was transmitted orally from generation to generation. Finally, the oral form was written down by a scribe.

Whatever was originally written down is only one persons attempt to express God’s message in written form using the language extant at that time. When that original writing is copied over and over, changes are known to have been introduced. Then comes the translation, which introduces new changes. In the case of the Catholic Bible, it is a translation of a translation. What we see in English is the English that was used at the time of the translation. So by the time we read it, we are not really sure of what was meant by the written word.

There is no exegesis for God, since He does not have to derive meaning from any written word. If the word is originally His, He does not have to exegete anything.

If I knew it was the truth, I would have no problem accepting it. But I don’t know. All I have is my own exegesis and the word of an authority such as the Magisterium. I am perpetually skeptical of any authority, so that dismisses anything coming from the Magisterium. Therefore, I am left with my own exegesis. I will not try to read into the Scripture my own personal bias, which would be eisegesis.

So, are we to then think that you do not believe in the inspiration of the Holy Spirit upon the writers of scripture? You know you are sounding less and less like a christian believer, non denominational or otherwise, than you are an atheist or at best an agnostic.
The isea of a Magisterium is not unscriptural. Throughout the Old Testament God always had someone to lead his people and if the New Testament is prefigured in the Old as christians proclaim then we should expect to see the fulfillment of that prefigurement in the New Testament. Also whenever God’s people of the old Testament fell away from the leadership that God had entrusted them to they paid a heavy price. You seem to be headed in that same direction.

 

[nmgauss]

So, are we to then think that you do not believe in the inspiration of the Holy Spirit upon the writers of scripture? You know you are sounding less and less like a christian believer, non denominational or otherwise, than you are an atheist or at best an agnostic.
The isea of a Magisterium is not unscriptural. Throughout the Old Testament God always had someone to lead his people and if the New Testament is prefigured in the Old as christians proclaim then we should expect to see the fulfillment of that prefigurement in the New Testament. Also whenever God’s people of the old Testament fell away from the leadership that God had entrusted them to they paid a heavy price. You seem to be headed in that same direction.

Does it really matter what I believe? I purposely declared myself non-denominational, implying that I may or may not have any faith. For all anybody knows, I may be Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Jew, agnostic, Gnostic, atheist, deist, and it would not have any significance. I doubt that falling away from the leadership that God has entrusted to anybody applies to me if I don’t follow the Bible. If I am a Buddhist, it certainly does not apply. The Bible was written for Jews, and Christians later adopted and contributed to it… Why does it matter if I am neither Jewish or Christian.

Are you a predicting a fire and brimstone fate for me?

 

[Michael_Francis]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

***Off topic posts have been removed …

Please stay on topic or citations will be issued and/or the thread will be closed.

---

 

[zz912]

If an event in the Bible is written briefly, there is a tendency to fill in the gaps. Isaiah 7:14 is a case in point. This passage is ripe for eisegesis. Although the original Hebrew term “almah” depicted a young woman who has not yet given birth or a married young woman, it did not necessarily depict the young woman as a virgin. The Greek translator decided to use the term “parthenos” for this woman, thus injecting a note of eisegesis.
This interpretation thus supposes that the woman was a virgin. This is wishful thinking.
There is no proof positive that she was a virgin, but believing it to be so probably influenced the translator to use “parthenos” instead of another Greek word for a young woman. The supposition that this was a special sign from God meant that it had to be uncommon, and what better way than to describe it has happening to a virgin.

Let’s think this through. In your understanding, it’s possible that the Isaiah was giving a prophesy, and the “sign” that people were to look for is a young woman giving birth. Young women give birth every single day. Exactly what kind of a “sign” is this? How would they be able to know which of the daily “signs” is the right one?

This is not rational or a reasonable possibility.

 

[zz912]

R.C. Sproul says that the old Ark was SO Holy it could not even be touched. Sproul says that the reason Uzzah was killed was because of the sin of presumption: he presumed he was cleaner than the dirt the Ark was going to fall on.

That and they were not properly transporting the Ark. There were very specific rules for carrying the Ark by poles, and they were transporting it by cart I believe.

 

[zz912]

Whatever was originally communicated was oral only and was transmitted orally from generation to generation. Finally, the oral form was written down by a scribe.

Whatever was originally written down is only one persons attempt to express God’s message in written form using the language extant at that time. When that original writing is copied over and over, changes are known to have been introduced. Then comes the translation, which introduces new changes. In the case of the Catholic Bible, it is a translation of a translation. What we see in English is the English that was used at the time of the translation. So by the time we read it, we are not really sure of what was meant by the written word.

So you believe the New Testament was not written by the widely recognized authors?

What changes are you describing here? How extensive and significant do you claim these changes are?

 

[nmgauss]

Let’s think this through. In your understanding, it’s possible that the Isaiah was giving a prophesy, and the “sign” that people were to look for is a young woman giving birth. Young women give birth every single day. Exactly what kind of a “sign” is this? How would they be able to know which of the daily “signs” is the right one?

This is not rational or a reasonable possibility.

The fact that she would name him Immanu-el is the clincher.

 

[nmgauss]

So you believe the New Testament was not written by the widely recognized authors?

What changes are you describing here? How extensive and significant do you claim these changes are?

Several biblical scholars have detected distinctively different styles within the same books. This indicates multiple authors. Genesis had at least three authors. Joshua was not written by Joshua, Timothy was not written by Timothy, Isaiah had at least two different authors. Deuteronomy was written by a different author than Leviticus, Numbers, and Exodus. We traditionally attribute St. Luke’s Gospel to Luke, but do we recognize that some of the Acts were also written by St Luke.

Authorship was not considered important in those days. Many books were written anonymously under somebody else’s name. This was supposed to have lent credibility to the writing. We don’t even know if the writings are true. We just accept the authority of the Church, who says that the Holy Spirit made sure that the writings are true.

 

[Gorgias]

We cannot know for sure what God means. God is unknowable.

Not true. God is not perfectly knowable; but that’s lot different than asserting that He’s ‘unknowable’! Your assertion seems to be saying that the Bible is a failure at getting us to know God and His self-revelation!

Whatever was originally written down is only one persons attempt to express God’s message in written form using the language extant at that time. When that original writing is copied over and over, changes are known to have been introduced.

Agreed. That’s where Scriptural scholarship comes into play, comparing variants from a variety of manuscripts and judging which are more reliable. When the NT says ‘virgin’ for Mt 1:23 (and, in fact, all manuscripts render ‘parthenos’ and not ‘young girl’ from almah!), then we can say that we reliably understand Matthew to mean ‘virgin’!

So by the time we read it, we are not really sure of what was meant by the written word.

In other words, you’re asserting that God has allowed His Word to fail to be transmitted down to us? That He is a failure in revealing Himself to us? Hmm…

Therefore, I am left with my own exegesis.

Hmm… in other words, in your opinion, there is a prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation?!? 2 Peter 1:20 would seem to directly contradict that stance…

 

[aidanbradypop]

I think Main Stream Protestants believe the Virgin Mary was a Perpetual Virgin. It is mostly the Evangelical, non-denominational, Southern Baptist types that claim the Virgin Mary had other children because the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of the Lord. It also says she was a Virgin “until” the Birth of Jesus. So they misinterpret the Scriptures to arrive at their conclusion. There are no EXPLICIT scriptural texts supporting the perpetual virginity of the BVM.

Although many do believe in the PV of Mary in mainline Protestantism, it is not a required belief. There are no doctrines stating the PV of Mary, at least in the Episcopal Church. Many of the early reformers held the belief that Mary was a PV.

I’m quite willing to obediently accept the teaching of the church in this matter but for the life of me, I can’t think of why it would matter. I’ve had it explained to me with a very compelling explanation but there is nothing in that information that makes a difference in my life.

I’m not trying to be flip or dismissive here but how is this important? If she was forever a virgin or was not, what practical gain does that cause in your life? Either way, I see no importance in this information.

I am with you. I have no problem with the PV of Mary. I also take no issue with those that believe it. I am not certain it is true. I also am not certain that Mary being a PV really matters to my salvation. The virgin birth is what I tend to focus on.

I simply, like yourself, do not see it as an important issue concerning my salvation.

 

[JamesTheJust]

The fact that she would name him Immanu-el is the clincher.

That was a descriptive name of Christ, not his prescriptive name, which was Jesus.

 

[zz912]

The fact that she would name him Immanu-el is the clincher.

So over the course of several hundred years, no young woman gave birth to a child and named him Immanu-el? Is that your contention? What was the prevalence of the name Immanu-el?

 

[po18guy]

Back to the OP: Jesus had to be the fulfillment of all prophecy, correct? If there was a prophecy that He did not fulfill, then either:

1. it was a false prophecy (and thus would not be in the bible),
2. or Jesus is not the Messiah.

Hangin’ so far?

Let’s read Zechariah 12:10

“On David’s clan, on all the citizens of Jerusalem, I will pour out a gracious spirit of prayer; towards me they shall look, me whom they have pierced through. Lament for him they must, and grieve bitterly; never was such lament for an only son, grief so bitter over first-born dead.”

Only son. First-born.

As well, let’s see what the angel Gabriel told both Mary:

Luke 1:31

“And behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call him Jesus.”

A Son. Singular.

And, let’s read what the angel said to Joseph:

Matthew 1:20-21

“But hardly had this thought come to his mind, when an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, and said, Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take thy wife Mary to thyself, for it is by the power of the Holy Ghost that she has conceived this child; and she will bear a son, whom thou shalt call Jesus, for he is to save his people from their sins.”

A son. Singular.

This precludes the post 16th century fabrication of “other children.” Let’s also read a few verses later in Matthew that will make all of this a little easier to grasp:

Matthew 1:25

“and he had not known her when she bore a son, her first-born, to whom he gave the name Jesus.”

Matthew 1:25 is not describing the beginning of a large family - rather, it is describing the end (fulfillment) of two prophecies. Remember that Matthew 1:25 must not be read outside of the context of the fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14 and Zechariah 12.10

Isaiah 7:14

“Sign you ask none, but sign the Lord will give you. Maid shall be with child, and shall bear a son, that shall be called Emmanuel.”

A son (again). Singular (again).

If Mary had other children, then Jesus is not the fulfillment of prophecy, and is not the Messiah. Do we really want to risk that for the sake of “proving” the Catholic Church wrong? I pray that our non-Catholic brothers and sisters will pause a moment to reflect on this biblical truth. It is in their bibles, too, but they are not looking for it and are not taught to look for it.

 

[tdefender]

Hi’ Joe,

As said above, you cannot prove or disprove Mary’s perpetual virginity from explicit scripture passages. It is a truth handed down to us from Tradition, of which scripture is a part.

The Church interprets .brothers and sisters. either as close relatives, notably cousins (a use occurring elsewhere in scripture) or as children of Joseph from another marriage.

Verbum

You are partly correct. There is absolutely no proof that Mary was a perpetual virgin. However, to say Jesus had brothers, yet calling them cousins is a stretch. In sacred scripture the word “brother” is the word adelphos, which has been a loosely used term but has never been used to mean cousin in the New Testament. The word “anepsioi” is used for that relationship - Col 4:10. Furthermore, why would you assume “brothers” or "sisters"is figurative yet Mary as “mother” is literal in Matthew 13:56. Why would the term “sister” in Acts 23:16 be literal yet Mat 13:56 not.

 

[JamesTheJust]

You are partly correct. There is absolutely no proof that Mary was a perpetual virgin. However, to say Jesus had brothers, yet calling them cousins is a stretch. In sacred scripture the word “brother” is the word adelphos, which has been a loosely used term but has never been used to mean cousin in the New Testament. The word “anepsioi” is used for that relationship - Col 4:10. Furthermore, why would you assume “brothers” or "sisters"is figurative yet Mary as “mother” is literal in Matthew 13:56. Why would the term “sister” in Acts 23:16 be literal yet Mat 13:56 not.

It’s all about context!

Also, adelphos was used figuratively in the NT. Check out Acts 1:14-15. Did Christ have 120 siblings? I think not.

Also, the Koine Greek word for mother is not nearly as figurative as adelphos is.

 

[George_Rego]

I don’t think it requires an ignorance or misinterpretation of scripture to reject our understanding of perpetual virginity. I think most people approaching the topic for the first time would assume that following childbirth, Mary would no longer have an intact hymen. Yet IIRC this is part of papal teaching on her perpetual virginity, which few Protestants would accept.

youtube.com/watch?v=O9JNO8nB3VY

 

[imnotbob]

Would Christ be any less than who he Christians say he is if Mary wasn’t a virgin in perpetuity? Would he be less if he had brothers and sisters? The answer to both questions is “no”. So why the fuss? What the assignment to Mary of a biological impossibility?

It appears to me this ridiculous position about Mary not having other children and remaining a virgin after birth comes from the early developers of the church not being able to wrap their mind around how a common woman could give birth to a God. Only someone special should be able to do to this, hence the myth of the “perpetual virgin” and weak arguments that the brothers and sisters mentioned in the biblical texts were Joseph’s by another, previous wife or Jesus’ cousins. If they were either, the Bible would have said so…