M
mcq72
Guest
Some Catholic sources definitely list Tertullian a church father. yes Jerome disputed Helvidius , but not as heretic, and I believe they were both clerics in same city…both very Catholic.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
M
mcq72
Guest
“Now that I have cleared the rocks and shoals I must spread sail and make all speed to reach his epilogue. Feeling himself to be a smatterer, he there produces Tertullian as a witness and quotes the words of Victorinus bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proved from the Gospel— that he spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary, but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship not by nature. We are, however, spending our strength on trifles, and, leaving the fountain of truth, are following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenæus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views, and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man. But I think it better to reply briefly to each point than to linger any longer and extend my book to an undue length.”…Jerome against helvidius
did Ignatius , or Polycarp , Iranaeus or Martyr write anything about perpetual virginity…I would challenge Jerome’s assertion that Hevidius was following “tiny streams of opinion”, going against these early fathers on this matter… and following “gospel of james” is better?..but again , did these fathers write on her perpetual virginity, or were they silent ?
did Ignatius , or Polycarp , Iranaeus or Martyr write anything about perpetual virginity…I would challenge Jerome’s assertion that Hevidius was following “tiny streams of opinion”, going against these early fathers on this matter… and following “gospel of james” is better?..but again , did these fathers write on her perpetual virginity, or were they silent ?
Last edited:
H
hope
Guest
I wasn’t clear. When I said about to marry, I was referring to any woman in that circumstance. Mary was married. She was waiting for Joseph her husband to take her into his home. We don’t know the time period. It doesn’t matter. Note that the Angel is speaking of a future time. Why wouldn’t Mary assume that Joseph would be the father. Why wouldn’t she assume that Joseph would come for her? Why did she say no man instead of Joseph hasn’t come to get me yet. She never mentions Joseph very odd.you say “about to marry”, yet we are not sure the time period, could have been more than a year away, further you take away the amazement of just what kind of child this was to be, one would be dumbfounded and the only way back to some assemblage of reality was to the how, and so she utters it. Also some render the reading, "which is being conceived "…Not sure we want to be presumptuous, or that Mary was, about her her future relations to Joseph , and how he would take all of this, yet she knew it takes two to tango, and considered it(Joseph, the “man”)…
Under ordinary circumstances your question is valid, but this was not ordinary. I mean the angel mentions nothing of the marriage, nor of Joseph here. mentions nothing about being set free from any vow of chastity (something most Jews did not do, much less enter marriage with such a vow). She took things as they were, in an unconsummated marriage, possibly still a far off…she was definitely in the present, and quite overwhelmed, and assumed nothing on the angels’s understanding .
H
hope
Guest
Helvidus was a layman and is considered a heretic Tertullian is also considered a heretic
Mary ever Virgin.
Funny you should ask. I found this before you asked.did these fathers write on her perpetual virginity, or were they silent ?
Mary ever Virgin.
E
Elf01
Guest
God may take time in our eyes to fulfill promises. Certainly his promise of a son to Sarah and Abraham took a while between Gods promise and Issac’s conception.you say “about to marry”, yet we are not sure the time period, could have been more than a year away, further
M
mcq72
Guest
Perhaps because Mary was better than to “assume” anything about the future, or assume anything about Joseph, for certainly others(critics) assumed Joseph to be the father of Jesus during his ministry, (as Origen points).
Understand your point that the angel is speaking about many things in the future, some still in future,yet some have not ruled out that “things”, had already begun,as in vs 35(“the child already developing inside you” as one translation puts it).
As to marriage…would not use the word “married”, for it has incongruant conotations in today’s understanding. (Could not some marriages have been arranged years earlier, even before adolescence?) I thought there had not yet been the wedding ceremony, hence not married yet in todays use of word…betrothed is better word I thought.
Understand your point that the angel is speaking about many things in the future, some still in future,yet some have not ruled out that “things”, had already begun,as in vs 35(“the child already developing inside you” as one translation puts it).
As to marriage…would not use the word “married”, for it has incongruant conotations in today’s understanding. (Could not some marriages have been arranged years earlier, even before adolescence?) I thought there had not yet been the wedding ceremony, hence not married yet in todays use of word…betrothed is better word I thought.
Last edited:
H
hope
Guest
[/quote]>Understand your point that the angel is speaking about many things in the future, some still in future,yet some have not ruled out that “things”, had already begun,as in vs 35(“the child already developing inside you” as one translation puts it).
As to marriage…would not use the word “married”, for it has incongruant conotations in today’s understanding. (Could not some marriages have been arranged years earlier, even before adolescence?) I thought there had not yet been the wedding ceremony, hence not married yet in todays use of word…betrothed is better word I thought.
What translation is that? I have checked several translation and all of them use a future tense.35 And the angel said to her in reply, "The holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.
Betrothal was not the same then as it is today. Marriage took place in two stages. The first was the agreement this is when they were considered married. That is why Joseph wanted to divorce Mary privately. At this point, the woman remained with her family preparing to be a wife. The man went to prepare a place for his wife. the second part of the marriage is when he went to get his bride. You see this reflected in the parables of Jesus, remember the wise and foolish bridesmaids. So when Joseph is going to divorce his wife an angel comes to assure him to take Mary, his wife, into his home. There by fulfilling the second part of the marriage.
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
H
hope
Guest
Strong’s Greek
Interesting but I don’t understand your pointWord Origin
from genna (descent, birth)
Definition
to beget, to bring forth
NASB Translation
bear (1), bearing children (1), became the father of (4), became…father (1), begotten (4), bore (1), born (41), Child (1), conceived (1), father (37), Father (1), gave (1), gives birth (1), produce (1).
M
mcq72
Guest
Lol…i barely do myself…just that some might understand it to be a present tense verb…being born, as if somewhere between earlier verse that speak in future tense and vs 35, conception had already begun, as He is “being born”, the process being started
H
hope
Guest
OH I see your reasoning. But take the whole verse
I know that when a woman marries children are often discussed. if as an engaged woman, I were told , you will have a child. My response would not be Wow how is that going to happen? It would be yeah Joe and I will have a baby.More so with Mary as she was married. As the angel spoke of a future event, then it makes her response even more puzzling. She didn’t even mention her husband Joseph.
I am not versed in Greek to be able to argue from the Greek. I must rely on translations. This is from the NAB. Most of the others are basically the same. The verse is in reply to Mary’s how can this be. My belief is that the Holy Spirit would not overshadow Mary until she agreed to be Jesus mother. Not until the do unto me according to your word. After that then Jesus began to grow in her. But I don’t believe verse 35 says that conception had begun. Verse 35 is in answer to Mary’s question which does not make sense. She was married why did she ask? Why didn’t she assume that Joseph would be coming soon to complete the marriage?35 And the angel said to her in reply, "The holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.
I know that when a woman marries children are often discussed. if as an engaged woman, I were told , you will have a child. My response would not be Wow how is that going to happen? It would be yeah Joe and I will have a baby.More so with Mary as she was married. As the angel spoke of a future event, then it makes her response even more puzzling. She didn’t even mention her husband Joseph.
M
mcq72
Guest
Good post…i tend to agree with most translations also (future tense), and agree to the respect of free will, awaiting her “amen” .
As to her response of “how,” take it that it was asked so that we knew/know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, she was a virgin, fullfilling scripture. She did not fornicate nor adulterate, nor have relations before the wedding with Joseph. That is, she did not have relations before her marriage contract, nor during it up to the wedding, which had not occurred yet. She led a holy, exemplary life , unlike many of her contemporaries, for Jesus cites these sins almost as prevalent amongst His people during his ministries. Again her question makes clear that scripture is being fulfilled.
Even moreso, it fulfills the insight of David, that such an unfailing heir could not be “after the manner of man”, and that apparently even in His conception, that it be by the Holy Ghost.
So we get all of the above with such a concise, with an economy of words, question.
As to her response of “how,” take it that it was asked so that we knew/know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, she was a virgin, fullfilling scripture. She did not fornicate nor adulterate, nor have relations before the wedding with Joseph. That is, she did not have relations before her marriage contract, nor during it up to the wedding, which had not occurred yet. She led a holy, exemplary life , unlike many of her contemporaries, for Jesus cites these sins almost as prevalent amongst His people during his ministries. Again her question makes clear that scripture is being fulfilled.
Even moreso, it fulfills the insight of David, that such an unfailing heir could not be “after the manner of man”, and that apparently even in His conception, that it be by the Holy Ghost.
So we get all of the above with such a concise, with an economy of words, question.
Last edited:
H
hope
Guest
I like your answer. In addition to what you have stated, which I think is really good, it is to show us also that she remained a virgin. She had no intention of ever knowing man.
M
mcq72
Guest
Thank you , understand how and why you go one step further. It is not explicit in the scripture, but certainly has been implied in developed church tradition.I like your answer. In addition to what you have stated, which I think is really good, it is to show us also that she remained a virgin. She had no intention of ever knowing man.
Again, why would one with a vow of chastity, of perpetual abstinence, enter into marriage ? It is also a question put forth to Joseph, or one that would require his consent for it to be a holy thing. Still totally possible, but just as possible, or even more , not.
"The deliberate renunciation of marriage is all but completely alien to Judaism.
The norm of Jewish law, thought, and life is represented rather by the opening clause in the matrimonial code of the Shulḥan Arukh: “Every man is obliged to marry in order to fulfill the duty of procreation, and whoever is not engaged in propagating the race is as if he shed blood, diminishing the Divine image and causing His Presence to depart from Israel”…Celibacy
Not sure about this site, and you might find contrary sites, for Judaism is very varied in thought and teaching.
Last edited:
H
hope
Guest
Women at that time needed men for support. I have never read it but I believe in the The Protevangelium of James there is story of how Joseph was chosen to be the protector of Mary. Mary dedicated herself to God but she would have needed someone to take care of her that is why there would be what has come to be called a Josephite marriage. You are correct on the Jewish law but there were exceptions such as the article mentiond. Also remember Paul, he encouraged people not to marry. Also consider that the Jews would have found it abhorrent to touch where God had been. Jews don’t address this because they don’t believe Jesus was God. But I do and I find it unholy for a child to be carried in the same place that God dwelt. I think of the soldier who died because he touched the ark to keep it from falling. How much more would a man die for touching the place where God dwelt.
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
I can not seriously take things of the spurious James book…they may be part of the “fables” that Paul warns about…as to Josephite marriage very unusual…i think it an oversimplification to say Paul encouraged non marriage…does it not say some where else disparagingly of a cult that did just that?
And not sure Joseph or Mary exactly understood the nature of Christ as fully God and fully man early on, or before His ministry…nor is it he first time God did a miracle in a women’s womb to cause a conception, though this time without a man, that later resulted in chastity…again what was born appeared to be quite human, and touchable holdable, in the most intimate way as only a mother or “father” could…quite unlike the Ark, or burning bush, or His spiritual face (that passed by Moses)…I would think that would diminish any apprehension , to engage in marital relations otherwise ordained and commanded of God (that there is no Godly declaration to the contrary to Mary or Joseph, like as with the Ark etc…)
And not sure Joseph or Mary exactly understood the nature of Christ as fully God and fully man early on, or before His ministry…nor is it he first time God did a miracle in a women’s womb to cause a conception, though this time without a man, that later resulted in chastity…again what was born appeared to be quite human, and touchable holdable, in the most intimate way as only a mother or “father” could…quite unlike the Ark, or burning bush, or His spiritual face (that passed by Moses)…I would think that would diminish any apprehension , to engage in marital relations otherwise ordained and commanded of God (that there is no Godly declaration to the contrary to Mary or Joseph, like as with the Ark etc…)
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
Just read an article that says Protevangelium talks of Mary being restored as a virgin, physically(hymen), to the amazement of the midwife, and later “inspected” by Salome. So that perpetual virgin or ever virgin, does not mean never having sexual relations alone but being “intact”, even after child bearing…is this truly what early saints (Jerome) or the CC thought/taught?
Last edited:
H
hope
Guest
I don’t put to much belief into James but I do in Paul.
As for the physical aspects of virginity is not one I wish to get into. I remember such a thread and it was not pretty. I will let the catechism be my only comment
8 Now to the unmarried and to widows, I say: it is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do,
Have you ever read numbers 30? There are those who believe that it is referring to vows of sexual abstinence. Perhaps it wasn’t so uncommon.
I am sorry I don’t know what you mean???does it not say some where else disparagingly of a cult that did just that?
I agree with you but only because we do not have information. We have no actual words that Joseph spoke. We know that he was a just man. We have few words that Mary spoke and her last recorded is prophetic. Mary must have know something how else would she have been so sure that Jesus could help the couple as Cana?And not sure Joseph or Mary exactly understood the nature of Christ as fully God and fully man early on, or before His ministry…
If I get what you are saying ( I am unsure of what you are saying) because Jesus looked human. Joseph would think it was alright to have relations with Mary even though she made a vow to virginity? That Joseph knowing that the child was from God and a miracle would think it was o.k. There would not need to be a declaration from God. It was there already. Again Mary saying she does not know man is a vow that Joseph would have to owner according to Numbers.again what was born appeared to be quite human, and touchable holdable, in the most intimate way as only a mother or “father” could…quite unlike the Ark, or burning bush, or His spiritual face (that passed by Moses)…I would think that would diminish any apprehension , to engage in marital relations otherwise ordained and commanded of God (that there is no Godly declaration to the contrary to Mary or Joseph, like as with the Ark etc…)
As for the physical aspects of virginity is not one I wish to get into. I remember such a thread and it was not pretty. I will let the catechism be my only comment
499 The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary’s real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man.
M
mcq72
Guest
for sure there have always been eunuchs, made of God for His service. But also for sure it can be in false piety or " spurious asceticism"…certainly the Essenes and others (Gnostics, dualism) fell into this, that “abstinence from marriage was meritorious’’,8 Now to the unmarried and to widows, I say: it is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do,
Have you ever read numbers 30? There are those who believe that it is referring to vows of sexual abstinence. Perhaps it wasn’t so uncommon.
and perhaps started creeping into church, so much so that Paul had to later write this:
“Speaking lies in hypocrisy;… Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.” 1 Tim 4
“Marriage honourable in all, and the bed undefiled. For fornicators and adulterers God will judge.” Heb13:4
Later, Valens Helvidius, Jovinian, Vigilantius, Aerius strove against asceticism. Philip Schaff: History of the Christian Church, Volume III: Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity. A.D. 311-600 - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
it is interesting that we both agreed with each other the most when we stuck to what is plainly understood by scripture. We then diverge when we rely on tradition and begin speculating. I would say we have no information as to any vow to be ever virgin.I agree with you but only because we do not have information. We have no actual words that Joseph spoke. We know that he was a just man. We have few words that Mary spoke and her last recorded is prophetic. Mary must have know something how else would she have been so sure that Jesus could help the couple as Cana?
As to Cana, we do not know why Mary turned to Jesus, save He be her eldest, and certainly the man about the house or elsewhere, to whom she heavily relied on (Joseph probably having already “departed”). Did it have to be a miracle ? Was there no wine left in Cana, even Israel ? We don’t know do we? We only know of one household putting on a feast ran out.
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
I was answering those that say Joseph would feel restrained to enter where God once dwelt, for the appearance was that what dwelt in her womb was a child , and blessed, and that Joseph may not have realized full Christology as we did three centuries later. God told the Israelites just how to handle the holy Ark. God gave no instructions to Mary or Joseph not to have relations after the birth , her first fruits. What declaration is there already from God to abstain or not ? Again , I am not assuming any vow the two had taken previously in this regardIf I get what you are saying ( I am unsure of what you are saying) because Jesus looked human. Joseph would think it was alright to have relations with Mary even though she made a vow to virginity? That Joseph knowing that the child was from God and a miracle would think it was o.k. There would not need to be a declaration from God. It was there already.
then is Protevengelium "not pretty ", and not sure why what CC may teach be not pretty…not sure it can go much further than what i already wrote.As for the physical aspects of virginity is not one I wish to get into. I remember such a thread and it was not pretty. I will let the catechism be my only comment
actually may not matter…I am just trying to disparage the james book, and treat it like it deserves, a spurious fable… I am somewhat surprised at the teaching…may even be the first time i have seen it in that light…always just thought it just meant she never had any relations…now I see why some Catholics cite a prophecy of OT where one of the entrances in Jerusalem is “sealed up” after the Lord or some king passed thru it, and that it speaks of Mary etc…for me it all goes just too far (from scriptural “information”) , fruits of just a touch of leaven, going beyond to what scripture says , that it was a virginal birth (to “virginal motherhood”, for 33 + years , then thereafter, “perpetual”).
But thank you for being patient with my adverse sentiments.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.