M
mcq72
Guest
That is because what you seek you will find.
If one is honest, one will admit to the others points have some rationale.
- Status
If one is honest, one will admit to the others points have some rationale.
A
Agathon
Guest
Some is less than more.Cathoholic:
That is because what you seek you will find.
If one is honest, one will admit to the others points have some rationale.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
mcq72 . . .
I said they were not good arguments. And they are not good arguments when looked at with ALL the data.
Anyone can claim “rationale” by focusing on selective portions of any proposition.
The Catholic position is the one that is most believable given the data.
But I didn’t say they had “rationale” or not. (The same for Medawlinno who claimed “equally valid”, not had “some rationale”.)
I said they were not good arguments. And they are not good arguments when looked at with ALL the data.
Anyone can claim “rationale” by focusing on selective portions of any proposition.
I think the DENIAL of the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary is what is “dishonest”, when taking into consideration ALL the data.
The Catholic position is the one that is most believable given the data.
Last edited:
M
Medawlinno
Guest
Apparently has to be done in two parts…
@mcq72 –
No, maybe you misunderstood the western European model - if the main character is male (the ‘hero’), the father figure is usually written out of the narrative, if the main character is female (the ‘heroine’), the mother is typically written out of the narrative. The remaining parent figure may or may not appear in the rest of the story.
Yes, Mary it seems in some Christian traditions, is well on her way to becoming a goddess. Monotheism (in the Jewish, and subsequently Christian and Islamic cultures) essentially eliminated the sacred feminine – i.e., the goddess. I think it’s only a matter of time before she is “reintroduced”, so to speak – won’t happen anytime soon; took 2000 years for Mary to go from human female to the status of co-redemtrix (virtually a demi-goddess). I know that may sound utterly ridiculous, but that seems to be where it’s headed. In some Christian offshoots (mainly among indigenous populations in the Americas), for all intents and purposes, she’s already attained the status of goddess.
@Cathoholic –
“The question HAS been answered . . . by the Church.”
I know many people will not agree but, I think that’s what the church would like to think; it really hasn’t been answered or proven sufficiently enough to make for an airtight argument, otherwise people wouldn’t still be debating it today. There are just too many, for lack of a better way of putting it, “loose ends”. Up until relatively recently in history, things wouldn’t have ended well for anyone that dared to publicly disagree or question the matter, accounting for the centuries of ‘status quo’. I do think it’s a matter of personal belief and nothing to do with various Christian churches and what they teach/believe.
@mcq72 –
No, maybe you misunderstood the western European model - if the main character is male (the ‘hero’), the father figure is usually written out of the narrative, if the main character is female (the ‘heroine’), the mother is typically written out of the narrative. The remaining parent figure may or may not appear in the rest of the story.
Yes, Mary it seems in some Christian traditions, is well on her way to becoming a goddess. Monotheism (in the Jewish, and subsequently Christian and Islamic cultures) essentially eliminated the sacred feminine – i.e., the goddess. I think it’s only a matter of time before she is “reintroduced”, so to speak – won’t happen anytime soon; took 2000 years for Mary to go from human female to the status of co-redemtrix (virtually a demi-goddess). I know that may sound utterly ridiculous, but that seems to be where it’s headed. In some Christian offshoots (mainly among indigenous populations in the Americas), for all intents and purposes, she’s already attained the status of goddess.
@Cathoholic –
“The question HAS been answered . . . by the Church.”
I know many people will not agree but, I think that’s what the church would like to think; it really hasn’t been answered or proven sufficiently enough to make for an airtight argument, otherwise people wouldn’t still be debating it today. There are just too many, for lack of a better way of putting it, “loose ends”. Up until relatively recently in history, things wouldn’t have ended well for anyone that dared to publicly disagree or question the matter, accounting for the centuries of ‘status quo’. I do think it’s a matter of personal belief and nothing to do with various Christian churches and what they teach/believe.
M
Medawlinno
Guest
Part 2…
“It DOES diminish the message.”
I have to disagree - the fact Mary may have had additional children does not diminish anything with respect to the message of Jesus; Mary’s status in the church would obviously change, but only in the church; not in history, i.e. it’s more of a church issue than a historical one. It’s one the church would need to come to terms with; not history. That said, I don’t really see that change in the church (if it were to ever come) as having to be a negative one.
“The “Greek template” argument against the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary is also irrelevant.”
Yes, in a sense you’re exactly right. The Greek mythic hero archetype template the author of Mark’s gospel used has nothing to do with Mary’s perpetual virginity; rather, it explains why Joseph drops off the face of the earth as soon as Jesus attains adulthood as per Jewish custom (12-13 years old – at the time of his bar-mitzvah, when he’s ‘lost’ in the temple).
On another note – it occurred to me that in a previous post, I had said that a Levirate marriage would not apply to Mary; but… if one postulates an early death for Joseph and, since Jesus was not Joseph’s biological son, Mary would technically “qualify” for a Levirate marriage under Jewish customs; she’d be a widow with no children from her deceased husband to carry on his line.
To be clear, I’m not “bashing" Mary here, but I think part of the issue is that people want to take her completely out of the context of a married Jewish woman living in the 1st century and turn her into this Christian ideal/concept that’s developed over the course of time. Something, in life, she never was.
“It DOES diminish the message.”
I have to disagree - the fact Mary may have had additional children does not diminish anything with respect to the message of Jesus; Mary’s status in the church would obviously change, but only in the church; not in history, i.e. it’s more of a church issue than a historical one. It’s one the church would need to come to terms with; not history. That said, I don’t really see that change in the church (if it were to ever come) as having to be a negative one.
“The “Greek template” argument against the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary is also irrelevant.”
Yes, in a sense you’re exactly right. The Greek mythic hero archetype template the author of Mark’s gospel used has nothing to do with Mary’s perpetual virginity; rather, it explains why Joseph drops off the face of the earth as soon as Jesus attains adulthood as per Jewish custom (12-13 years old – at the time of his bar-mitzvah, when he’s ‘lost’ in the temple).
On another note – it occurred to me that in a previous post, I had said that a Levirate marriage would not apply to Mary; but… if one postulates an early death for Joseph and, since Jesus was not Joseph’s biological son, Mary would technically “qualify” for a Levirate marriage under Jewish customs; she’d be a widow with no children from her deceased husband to carry on his line.
To be clear, I’m not “bashing" Mary here, but I think part of the issue is that people want to take her completely out of the context of a married Jewish woman living in the 1st century and turn her into this Christian ideal/concept that’s developed over the course of time. Something, in life, she never was.
H
hope
Guest
Jesus was seen as Joseph’s son. Therefore a brother would not have been required to produce issue for him. Only Mathew and Luke mention an alive Joseph. Are you suggesting your theory also applies to him. Your theory reminds me of those who say that Jesus is the same as some pagan gods. No Luke was not writing a fiction he was writing the life of Jesus and he was not trying to portray him as you suggest.
M
Medawlinno
Guest
I’ll reply more tomorrow - but I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying in the quoted section; could you clarify? Do you mean that Mark and John do not include a birth narrative?
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
ok understand. I would say the CC has very good arguments, and they would almost persuade me. Of course i believe the flip side , not so much because it is good , even being more "simple’’, or “straightforward”, but just because I believe it is true, having a much different perspective, paradigm, and fruit, even “familiar”. And Christ did incarnate to be at least familiar with us and vice versa., and no less Mary with us (as close as we can get to a Jewish perspective of the time).
Last edited:
C
Cathoholic
Guest
mcq72 . . .
Why do you think (St.) Joseph “knew her not” before Jesus was born?
After all, the Angel told Joseph to take Mary into his home.
The angel said nothing (that we know of) about refraining from marital relations when this occurs.
So why do you think (St.) Joseph “knew her not” before Jesus was born?
Why do you think (St.) Joseph “knew her not” before Jesus was born? I would argue he “knew her not” afterward too. But prescinding from that momentarily . . .
Why do you think (St.) Joseph “knew her not” before Jesus was born?
After all, the Angel told Joseph to take Mary into his home.
The angel said nothing (that we know of) about refraining from marital relations when this occurs.
So why do you think (St.) Joseph “knew her not” before Jesus was born?
M
Medawlinno
Guest
@ Cathaholic –
The betrothal of Joseph and Mary followed 1st century Jewish practices – as M. Satlow (professor of Judaic studies - Brown Univ.) states in his article “On Jewish Betrothal”, “typically during the betrothal period (‘erusin’), the woman was legally married, although she still remained in her father’s house. She could not belong to another man unless she was divorced from her betrothed. The wedding (‘nissuin’) meant only that the betrothed woman, accompanied by a colorful procession, was brought from her father’s house to the house of her groom, and the legal tie with him was consummated.
In the gospel of Matthew, Joseph is described as having been betrothed to Mary but not yet cohabitating with her when she becomes pregnant (Matt. 1:18-19). Joseph considers divorcing her. Such a story only makes sense if the betrothal was considered binding. The author of Matthew (the most “Jewish” of all the Christian gospels), writing probably in the last first century CE, knew of the practice of a binding betrothal.”
This is why Joseph did not “know Mary” during their betrothal; a marriage was not consummated until the actual wedding even though “on paper” the couple were legally married.
The betrothal of Joseph and Mary followed 1st century Jewish practices – as M. Satlow (professor of Judaic studies - Brown Univ.) states in his article “On Jewish Betrothal”, “typically during the betrothal period (‘erusin’), the woman was legally married, although she still remained in her father’s house. She could not belong to another man unless she was divorced from her betrothed. The wedding (‘nissuin’) meant only that the betrothed woman, accompanied by a colorful procession, was brought from her father’s house to the house of her groom, and the legal tie with him was consummated.
In the gospel of Matthew, Joseph is described as having been betrothed to Mary but not yet cohabitating with her when she becomes pregnant (Matt. 1:18-19). Joseph considers divorcing her. Such a story only makes sense if the betrothal was considered binding. The author of Matthew (the most “Jewish” of all the Christian gospels), writing probably in the last first century CE, knew of the practice of a binding betrothal.”
This is why Joseph did not “know Mary” during their betrothal; a marriage was not consummated until the actual wedding even though “on paper” the couple were legally married.
H
hope
Guest
I am saying that just like Luke Mathew has Joseph in his birth narrative. Neither of the other Gospels have Joseph present.
M
Medawlinno
Guest
Due to length limitations – 2 parts
Yes, Jesus may have been seen as such (i.e. Joseph’s son), but I’m sure at the very least, immediate family was aware of the situation – Jesus was not Joseph’s biological son; therefore, if one adheres to the “Joseph died young” theory, Mary was a widow with no child from her deceased husband – eligible for a Levirate marriage. I’ll get back to this in a bit.
Joseph only makes an appearance in two of the four gospels. Mark’s does not reference him at all, and he is only indirectly referred to in John’s gospel (but even here, only twice).
If one adheres to the literary devise of the ‘mythic hero archetype’ template for telling an epic story in the Greek tradition, all the better that Joseph doesn’t make an appearance at all – no need for the author to either devise a way to write him out of the narrative at the appropriate time, or reach a somewhat awkward point in the story where he seemingly just drops off the face of the earth never to be heard from again with no explanation for the absence (which is what kind of happens in Matthew and Luke).
In these instances, attention can be immediately focused on the ‘hero’ in the story, Jesus. Mark’s gospel seems to follow this idea, i.e. no mention of a birth narrative, no mention of the ‘father figure’ in the story – it starts immediately with the ‘main character’.
John’s gospel seems to follow suit, though Joseph is indirectly referenced a few times. In these few times, it’s done in a way that does not create an awkward situation (literally speaking) where the author is left to explain what happened to him.
The other two gospels do have birth narratives and do refence Joseph, but, in following the literary template, only up to the point where Jesus attains adulthood, then he’s written out of the narrative.
The theory that Joseph dies young also works, but I think, it’s a bit more complicated.
If Joseph dies young, Mary would have been eligible for a Levirate marriage. Regardless of how Jesus was perceived by peers, he was not the biological son of Joseph. There are some Biblical scholars and writers who put forth the theory that Mary does indeed marry again, namely to Clophas, Joseph’s brother. In this case, the siblings named later on (James, Jose, Jude, Simon, Salome, and Mary) are half-siblings of Jesus. There are quite a few interesting articles on this theory.
Again, I think it’s a matter of personal belief – there are a few possibilities that can be equally argued. I think the concept of her perpetual virginity has more to do with the so-called “cult of Mary” that developed in early Christianity than it has to do with what would be considered to be historically more accurate; either not deceased, but purposefully written out of the narratives, or deceased and with Mary entering into a Lervirate marriage with his brother Clophas. Either way would make the named children uterine siblings of Jesus as they all share the same mother.
Yes, Jesus may have been seen as such (i.e. Joseph’s son), but I’m sure at the very least, immediate family was aware of the situation – Jesus was not Joseph’s biological son; therefore, if one adheres to the “Joseph died young” theory, Mary was a widow with no child from her deceased husband – eligible for a Levirate marriage. I’ll get back to this in a bit.
Joseph only makes an appearance in two of the four gospels. Mark’s does not reference him at all, and he is only indirectly referred to in John’s gospel (but even here, only twice).
If one adheres to the literary devise of the ‘mythic hero archetype’ template for telling an epic story in the Greek tradition, all the better that Joseph doesn’t make an appearance at all – no need for the author to either devise a way to write him out of the narrative at the appropriate time, or reach a somewhat awkward point in the story where he seemingly just drops off the face of the earth never to be heard from again with no explanation for the absence (which is what kind of happens in Matthew and Luke).
In these instances, attention can be immediately focused on the ‘hero’ in the story, Jesus. Mark’s gospel seems to follow this idea, i.e. no mention of a birth narrative, no mention of the ‘father figure’ in the story – it starts immediately with the ‘main character’.
John’s gospel seems to follow suit, though Joseph is indirectly referenced a few times. In these few times, it’s done in a way that does not create an awkward situation (literally speaking) where the author is left to explain what happened to him.
The other two gospels do have birth narratives and do refence Joseph, but, in following the literary template, only up to the point where Jesus attains adulthood, then he’s written out of the narrative.
The theory that Joseph dies young also works, but I think, it’s a bit more complicated.
If Joseph dies young, Mary would have been eligible for a Levirate marriage. Regardless of how Jesus was perceived by peers, he was not the biological son of Joseph. There are some Biblical scholars and writers who put forth the theory that Mary does indeed marry again, namely to Clophas, Joseph’s brother. In this case, the siblings named later on (James, Jose, Jude, Simon, Salome, and Mary) are half-siblings of Jesus. There are quite a few interesting articles on this theory.
Again, I think it’s a matter of personal belief – there are a few possibilities that can be equally argued. I think the concept of her perpetual virginity has more to do with the so-called “cult of Mary” that developed in early Christianity than it has to do with what would be considered to be historically more accurate; either not deceased, but purposefully written out of the narratives, or deceased and with Mary entering into a Lervirate marriage with his brother Clophas. Either way would make the named children uterine siblings of Jesus as they all share the same mother.
M
Medawlinno
Guest
Part 2 –
Much of the argument of Mary’s perpetual virginity, and hence the siblings of Jesus, hinges on the use of the Greek prepositions ‘heos’ and heos hou’. Most Catholic apologists seem to like to argue that there is no difference in meaning between the two and that they are used interchangeably.
I do not believe this is the case though. The classic comparison is Mat. 1:25 and 2 Sam. 6:23. In this case, however, Matthew uses ‘heos hou’ and Samuel uses just ‘heos’. To paraphrase from a book called “Who is my Mother?” by E. Svendsen, heos hou occurs 17 times in the NT, and all are temporal. Two have the meaning of (or are best interpreted as) “while” (Mat. 14:22; 26:36), whereas the other 15 occurrences are instances in which the action of the main clause is limited by the action of subordinate clause and require the meaning, "until a specific time, (but not after)".
He goes on to demonstrate that just the ‘heos’ construction could mean what many people want it to mean with respect to Mary (i.e. Joseph did not have relations with her before the birth of Jesus as well as after ), but ‘heos hou’ typically carries the meaning of "until that point in time, with a change or stopping of that action before that time". This is the meaning carried by 15 of the 17 times it’s used. As mentioned, the other two carry the meaning/interpretation of “while”. None of the passages in the NT with ‘heos hou’ mean "until, and continuing on after that", which is required for the Perpetual Virginity dogma.
Contrary to what some writers would have one believe, ‘heos’ and ‘heos hou’ do not mean quite the same thing and they are certainly not interchangeable with the same intended meaning.
Much of the argument of Mary’s perpetual virginity, and hence the siblings of Jesus, hinges on the use of the Greek prepositions ‘heos’ and heos hou’. Most Catholic apologists seem to like to argue that there is no difference in meaning between the two and that they are used interchangeably.
I do not believe this is the case though. The classic comparison is Mat. 1:25 and 2 Sam. 6:23. In this case, however, Matthew uses ‘heos hou’ and Samuel uses just ‘heos’. To paraphrase from a book called “Who is my Mother?” by E. Svendsen, heos hou occurs 17 times in the NT, and all are temporal. Two have the meaning of (or are best interpreted as) “while” (Mat. 14:22; 26:36), whereas the other 15 occurrences are instances in which the action of the main clause is limited by the action of subordinate clause and require the meaning, "until a specific time, (but not after)".
He goes on to demonstrate that just the ‘heos’ construction could mean what many people want it to mean with respect to Mary (i.e. Joseph did not have relations with her before the birth of Jesus as well as after ), but ‘heos hou’ typically carries the meaning of "until that point in time, with a change or stopping of that action before that time". This is the meaning carried by 15 of the 17 times it’s used. As mentioned, the other two carry the meaning/interpretation of “while”. None of the passages in the NT with ‘heos hou’ mean "until, and continuing on after that", which is required for the Perpetual Virginity dogma.
Contrary to what some writers would have one believe, ‘heos’ and ‘heos hou’ do not mean quite the same thing and they are certainly not interchangeable with the same intended meaning.
M
mcq72
Guest
not sure , for we are not told. For sure it ensures that a virgin shall conceive, and though she already conceived, for sure she gave birth a virgin, and Joseph probably had remebrance of such prophecy.
Sex during pregnancy was allowed, but given the special holy pregnancy I suppose one should obstain till the Lord’s business was done, and He was birthed.
I do not buy arguments that state a vow of obstaining forever by both Mary and Joseph, or that Joseph understood her womb should be sealed up as per a peculiar interpretation of Scripture (Jerusalem wall door being sealed up).
Furthermore, the culture, even Jehovah, mandated childbearing and that being a blessing from Him, and we have no indication that this should cease. Nor do i believe an only child is reared better thru more “attentiveness”.
Again the purpose of this verse is to undoubtedly assure a “virgin birth” to the world, as per prophecy. To go beyond this is conjecture, and I would say Unguided.
Why do you think he obstained both before and after pregnancy ?
Last edited:
M
Medawlinno
Guest
In Jewish tradition, a marriage consisted of two parts/periods; betrothal and actual marriage. The marriage was not consummated until the actual wedding even though “on paper” the couple were considered legally married at betrothal.
See post 109
See post 109
M
Mintaka
Guest
I thought Protestants were big on seeing Mary as a vessel.
When the Babylonians looted the holy vessels from the Temple and brought them back to Babylon, God killed the king who profaned them by using them as normal drinking vessels. In the end, every single vessel was marched back to the ruins of Jerusalem, accompanied by the Jewish captives; every single one of them was only used to serve the Lord. Even if a vessel could no longer be used for the Lord’s service, it was still a consecrated vessel that only the Lord could own.
But the vessels of the Temple never held God Himself, much less for nine months. They just were the Lord’s stuff, not His mom.
When the Babylonians looted the holy vessels from the Temple and brought them back to Babylon, God killed the king who profaned them by using them as normal drinking vessels. In the end, every single vessel was marched back to the ruins of Jerusalem, accompanied by the Jewish captives; every single one of them was only used to serve the Lord. Even if a vessel could no longer be used for the Lord’s service, it was still a consecrated vessel that only the Lord could own.
But the vessels of the Temple never held God Himself, much less for nine months. They just were the Lord’s stuff, not His mom.
M
Mintaka
Guest
St. Jerome’s book, “Against Helvidius,” was written in a single night against the only Christian author to have proposed that Mary had other kids. Let’s look at some quotes!
Last edited:
M
Medawlinno
Guest
I think Jerome’s writings above were typical of the time -
As one writer put it: “Mary was idealized over time as the divine-like Holy “Mother of God.” She was so far removed from her culture and her time that the very idea that she had sexual relations, bore additional children, and lived a normal life as a married Jewish woman seemed unthinkable. She was quite literally “exalted to heaven,” and her actual humanity was lost .”
As one writer put it: “Mary was idealized over time as the divine-like Holy “Mother of God.” She was so far removed from her culture and her time that the very idea that she had sexual relations, bore additional children, and lived a normal life as a married Jewish woman seemed unthinkable. She was quite literally “exalted to heaven,” and her actual humanity was lost .”
A
Agathon
Guest
Then how come we have people like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Clement of Alexandria saying similar things. Remember that some of these men were contemporaries of those who learned from the Apostles, (Irenaeus, for instance.)
A
Agathon
Guest
I’d take Jerome with a grain of salt; his theory that both Joseph and Mary were virgins is most likely influenced by his celibate lifestyle.
- Status