Perpetual Virginity of Mary and the Assumption/Dormation of Mary...

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.



Rhamiel, I have some questions for you, if I may....


Who were the first to somehow KNOW this usually private marital matter? Would you kindly verbatim quote that person? The year that individual stated this? Please indicate how this individual knew this usually very private tidbit? That it is being stated as dogmatic fact? Thank you.

What was there before ANYONE said whether Mary and Joseph did or did not have relations after Jesus was born.... before ANYONE dogmatically reported ANYTHING about this normally very private matter? What was this original tradition, this first tradition? Silence?

What did MARY state, could you please verbatim quote her? What did JOSEPH state, could you please verbatim quote him on this matter? Or were they..... silent?

What is the oldest tradition, the one from Mary and Joseph? From Jesus and every one of the Apostles? That Mary and Joseph DID later have relations? That they did NOT have relations? Or silence? Respectful silence?





.

 

[PaladinValer]

I have some questions for you, if I may....

Asking questions in answer to an honest question isn't a very respectful answer. Can his questions be answered first, since he did ask first, and then yours', I'm certain, with be given equally fair treatment. Let's be respectful and fair to all.

And to be honest, your earlier Straw Men statements that my post pointed out were never readdressed. Could they be please? Thanks in advance.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

PaladinValer,

Perhaps you'd be so kind as to address the questions?


1. Who was the first person to state that he/she somehow KNEW this usually private marital matter (whether she did or did not have marital relations after Jesus was born)? Would you kindly verbatim quote that first person? Please state the year that individual stated this? Please indicate how this individual knew this usually very private tidbit? That it is being stated as dogmatic fact? Thank you.


2. What was there before ANYONE said whether Mary and Joseph did or did not have relations after Jesus was born.... before ANYONE dogmatically reported ANYTHING about this normally very private matter? What was this original tradition, this first tradition? Silence?


3. What precisely to this issue did MARY state, could you please verbatim quote her? What did JOSEPH specifically state about this, could you please verbatim quote him on this matter? Or were they..... silent?


4. What is the oldest tradition, the one from Mary and Joseph? From Jesus and every one of the Apostles? That Mary and Joseph DID later have relations? That they did NOT have relations? Or silence?



Thank you in advance for answering these!


- Josiah





.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The text itself is quite clear: Protoevangelium 9:8; 17:1-4. When we compare these to the verses in Holy Scripture where the people say "here are His brothers and sisters", it does indeed strongly imply by its testimony, through that vital context, that she remained a virgin.

Wrong. If you quote the text (rather than just referring it), it says NOTHING about how often Mary and Joseph had marital relations (if at all) up to and through the last day of her life, and it says NOTHING about what did or did not happen to the body and soul of Mary at the microsecond of her death (or was it undeath).

And since the book is REJECTED, false, non-canonical, non-authoritative, why would it matter if it did state these things, which, as you know, it does not.


Thank you!


Pax


- Josiah






.

 

[PaladinValer]

Perhaps you'd like to address the questions?

My post addressing your earlier Straw Men (#9 in this thread) was never addressed. I am under no obligation to entreat questions when my replies are never themselves addressed.

The 2nd Principal on Traditional Theology is this: We promise to discuss honorably and in true fairness to all, even those we disagree with; no matter our theological differences. Is it fair for anyone to expect others to answer questions demanded by him or her as a reply to a question asked by others? Particularly a general question, since it wasn't addressed to anyone in particular. It doesn't seem very honorable to me.

I'll be happy to entertain your questions. Simply be fair by answering challenges and questions asked first. That's a proper and respectful way to debate an issue.

 

[PaladinValer]

Wrong.

Right, actually.

If you quote the text (rather than just referring it), it says NOTHING about how often Mary and Joseph had marital relations (if at all), and says NOTHING about what did or did not happen to the body and soul of Mary at the microsecond of her death (or was it undeath).

Except that's not the actual being given. That's a Straw Man reply. Please actually address the argument: that the actual passages show that they were not St. Mary's children but St. Joseph's from a previous marriage, and that in that context, as well as the full meaning of the Greek word for "brothers", it does indeed reconcile.

And since the book is REJECTED, false, non-canonical, non-authoritative, why would it matter if it did state these things, which, as you know, it does not.

The Didache isn't in Holy Scripture either. Is it false and non-authoritative because it isn't a part of the canon (and therefore rejected for inclusion)?

Martin Luther was sola scriptura, which meant he didn't dismiss Tradition, he merely limited its authority, making it subject to Holy Scripture and that it couldn't be in disagreement with it. The fact that he himself held to semper virgo and that, as Mark Rohfrietsch has pointed in many times in his tenure on CF, that it is within the Lutheran Confessions, gives credence to my argument as not only permissive but, dare I say, Lutheran?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Is it fair for anyone to expect others to answer questions demanded by him or her as a reply to a question asked by others? Particularly a general question, since it wasn't addressed to anyone in particular. It doesn't seem very honorable to me.

I'll be happy to entertain your questions. Simply be fair by answering challenges and questions asked first. That's a proper and respectful way to debate an issue.

I already answered your questions.....


I'm not debating anything or anyone..... just replying to posts.





.

 

[MKJ]

Wrong. If you quote the text (rather than just referring it), it says NOTHING about how often Mary and Joseph had marital relations (if at all) up to and through the last day of her life, and it says NOTHING about what did or did not happen to the body and soul of Mary at the microsecond of her death (or was it undeath).

And since the book is REJECTED, false, non-canonical, non-authoritative, why would it matter if it did state these things, which, as you know, it does not.


Thank you!

Pax


- Josiah






.

No one who believes that there is a tradition, or Tradition, of the Church - which is what traditional theology is about - can really be a bible-onlyist. Lutheranism as it happens does not take that view, that anything outside of Scripture is some kind of false account or has no authority.

Argue by all means about what the tradition contains, or how much authority or weight should be given to different parts of it, but if you are going to claim that there is no such thing and it has no weight, that isn't really a position you can argue in TT, and it really isn't one a Lutheran position can make either.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Right, actually.

Then it's easy, isn't it? All you have to do is quote the verbatim words in this book that state that Mary died without ever having had marital relations and that at the moment of her death, her body and soul were assumed into heaven. If it states that in this book, all you need to do is quote it. Thank you.

Please actually address the argument: that the actual passages show that they were not St. Mary's children but St. Joseph's from a previous marriage, and that in that context, as well as the full meaning of the Greek word for "brothers", it does indeed reconcile.

1. It's a non-canonical, rejected, false, non-authoritative book. There is no evidence the unknown author of this false book ever spoke with Mary or Joseph, who it would seem would be the only ones to know about their private marital relations.

2. AGAIN...... there is no dogma of "Jesus Had No Sibs" or "Jesus Had Sibs." And those two non-existent dogmas are not the subject of this thread. AGAIN...... sure, IF it could be proven that Mary had other children, I agree that would be a strong point against the dogma in 2 or 3 denominations of Mary as a PERPETUAL virgin, but in my opinion, it is irrelevant in the case of no such children. AGAIN, I do not agree that a woman not having any children (at least specifically named in the pages of the Bible) confirms as a dogmatic point of highest importance possible and greatest certainty of fact possible - as the only possilble and mandated result - that such a woman never once had marital relations. If my knowledge of human biology is amiss, you are welcome to correct it. The point that "Mary had no other children" (a point that IMO is entirely without support) does NOTHING to support the dogma of the PVM.







.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Argue by all means about what the tradition contains, or how much authority or weight should be given to different parts of it.

I'm not arguing anything.... I simply view these two dogmas as issues about which Scripture is silent. And so is earliest Tradition. IMO, the earliest Tradition is silence. Which happens to be the dogmatic position of virtually all denominations.

you are going to claim that there is no such thing and it has no weight, that isn't really a position you can argue in TT, and it really isn't one a Lutheran position can make either.

Perhaps you'd clarify. Does this forum mandate that any source anyone may reference (but perhaps not quote) must be accepted as fully authoritative and normative? Is silence not considered a part of Tradition? Is STATUS not a part of Tradition?

No, Mark did NOT say that in Lutheranism, these two views are DOGMA. In fact, he stated that, as a Lutheran, he thinks the PVM is one people are free to accept or not (and I think that includes simply not taking a view), and that he seems unconvinced about the Assumption of Mary. He did NOT state these are Lutheran dogmas.

And.... I've not "argued" with any position, not stated that ANYONE taking ANY side is right or wrong in their position. I've not even challenged holding a pious opinion here.

Mark asked us what we think of these two Dogmas. I have yet to give my opinions.... I'm simply raising the issue that perhaps neither of these are clearly from Scripture or earliest Tradition.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[FireDragon76]

Something to keep in mind, just because a book is not in the Bible doesn't mean it doesn't have some kind of authority, or is necessarily "false". It just means it doesn't have infallible authority. The Church Fathers, for instance, are indeed a source of authoritative teaching about the interpretation of Scripture, they just are not infallible sources. Where the Church Fathers agree, one has to give more weight to their catholicity than to where they disagree.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Something to keep in mind, just because a book is not in the Bible doesn't mean it doesn't have some kind of authority, or is necessarily "false". It just means it doesn't have infallible authority. The Church Fathers, for instance, are indeed a source of authoritative teaching about the interpretation of Scripture, they just are not infallible sources. Where the Church Fathers agree, one has to give more weight to their catholicity than to where they disagree.

I guess this point might be of more concern to me if this letter stated that Mary had no marital relations during her lifetime and that she was assumed body and soul into heaven upon her death. Perhaps the issue of its reliability concerning these specific statements would be more relevant if such statements existed?


As for the "interpretation of Scripture", I think there is an important distinction between what Scripture states and what some people felt such "means" - interpretation of a text is not the same as the text. And of course, there can be no interpretation if there is no text on this to interpret. For example, what Scripture speaks of Mary's death? What, precisely, is the verse on that were various "interpreters" are disagreeing as to the usual meaning of the word that we should embrace as the one meant?


I acknowledge that these two ideas are old. I'm simply asking if they are stated in Scripture and in the earliest Tradition. I have raised the question (not pov) that silence may, perhaps, be the more biblical view and the one more in line with earliest Tradition (as a question)? And might our opinions be best embraced as our opinions (however pious, sincere, and blessed)? Questions..... Not positions.....


And of course, there are always two positions here (and the OP alludes to this reality): the belief and its status among us. None yet seems to have engaged in that, but that does apply?



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[PaladinValer]

Then it's easy, isn't it? All you have to do is quote the verbatim words in this book that state that Mary died without ever having had marital relations and that at the moment of her death, her body and soul were assumed into heaven. If it states that in this book, all you need to do is quote it. Thank you.

Straw Man reply. Again, the actual point is that it shows a reconcilable account based on those verses in context with the Greek and the passages in Holy Scripture.

Can what is actually presented in my argument be addressed?

In actual logic, outright and blatant "there it is" isn't absolutely necessary. Deduction is as much a part of discerning and discovering truth as something nanometers in front of one's face.

1. It's a non-canonical, rejected, false, non-authoritative book. There is no evidence the unknown author of this false book ever spoke with Mary or Joseph, who it would seem would be the only ones to know about their private marital relations.

There's no absolutely proof that the Didache was written by the Apostles or anyone who met them, yet its contents are accepted as proof and example of Christian belief by most denominations and churches, including your own.

Shall we throw away the Nicene Creed? None of the Fathers knew Jesus, knew the Father, or the Holy Spirit in the way your point explains. So, why then accept the Holy Symbol of the Christian Religion?

2. AGAIN...... there is no dogma of "Jesus Had No Sibs" or "Jesus Had Sibs."

<snip>

Straw Man. Where did my argument ever bring up the word "dogma"? Your rebuttal is invalid the moment that accusation is made.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Then it's easy, isn't it? All you have to do is quote the verbatim words in this book that state that Mary died without ever having had marital relations and that at the moment of her death, her body and soul were assumed into heaven. If it states that in this book, all you need to do is quote it. Thank you.


.

Straw Man reply. Again, the actual point is that it shows a reconcilable account based on those verses in context with the Greek and the passages in Holy Scripture.


.

The point made was that this noncanonical book confirms these two dogmas: That Mary was a PERPETUAL virgin and that at the moment of her death (or was it undeath?) her body and soul were ASSUMED in heaven. I posted this book doesn't state those things. You replied, "Actually it does." Thus, read my reply.

The Protoevangelium of James is generally dated no early than the mid Second Century; it is first mentioned by Origin of Alexandria who speaks negatively of it. Now, does the book state that Mary had no marital relations with Joseph during her lifetime - no. And does the book state that Mary was assumed body and soul into heaven at the moment of her death or undeath - no. IMO, if it did, you probably would have quoted it instead of just referencing it and then abandoning it?

In actual logic, outright and blatant "there it is" isn't absolutely necessary.

Either this noncanonical letter states these two Dogmas, as claimed, or it does not.


See posts 49 and 43.



I'm just discussing the points others post, never disagreeing with their faith or belief on either of these, regardless of what that is.



Thank you!


Pax


- Josiah






.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

who were the first theologians to say that Mary was not a virgin?

Helvidius, maybe?

Oh, wait, do you mean perpetual virgin, or the first theologians to say that Mary was not a virgin when she conceived Jesus? Because in that case, Wolfhart Panneberg may not be the first but he is the most serious.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Helvidius, maybe?

Oh, wait, do you mean perpetual virgin, or the first theologians to say that Mary was not a virgin when she conceived Jesus? Because in that case, Wolfhart Panneberg may not be the first but he is the most serious.

Just from wikipedia (since no one has quoted anything else)...

As of the second century, interest developed within the early Church regarding the conception of Jesus and the virginity of Mary.[31] The majority of early Christian writers accepted the virginal conception of Jesus via reliance on the accounts in the gospels of Luke and Matthew, yet, the focus of these early discussions was of virginity before birth, not during or afterwards.[31][32]
The interpretation of the Matthew 1:25 statement that Joseph "knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son" and of the various New Testament mentions of the brothers (and sisters) of Jesus is discussed below under the heading "Scripture". Some early writers, Tertullian, Helvidius and Eunomius of Cyzicus, interpreted Matthew's statement to mean that Joseph and Mary did have normal marital relations after Jesus' birth, and that James, Joses, Jude, and Simon were the biological sons of Mary and Joseph, a view held by Helvidius and Eunomius.[33]
A second-century document that paid special attention to Mary’s virginity was originally known as the Nativity of Mary, but later became known as the Protoevangelium of James.[3][34] The document tells of Mary’s virginity before giving birth, the miraculous way in which she gave birth, and her physical virginity even after giving birth.[35][36][37] The work also claims that Jesus' "brothers" and "sisters"[38] are Joseph’s children from a marriage previous to his union with Mary.[39] However, this text does not explicitly assert Mary's perpetual virginity after the birth of Jesus.
The "brothers" and "sisters" of Jesus mentioned in the Gospels, and the "James, the Lord's brother", mentioned in Galatians 1:19, "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James", mentioned by Josephus[40] were thus interpreted by some texts as not being children of Mary.
There was no full consensus on the doctrine of perpetual virginity within the early Church by the end of the second century, e.g. Tertullian (c.160 – c.225) did not teach the doctrine (although he taught virgin birth), but Irenaeus (c.130 – c.202) taught perpetual virginity, along with other Marian themes.[32] However, wider support for the doctrine began to appear within the next century.[32]
Origen (185-254) was emphatic on the issue of the brothers of Jesus, and stated that he believed them to have been the children of Joseph from a previous marriage.[41]
Helvidius appealed to the authority of Tertullian against the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity, to which Jerome (c.340-419) replied that Tertullian was "not a man of the church."[42]

Is this implying that NOTHING was said in the First Century? That the Tradition was.... SILENCE??? Noting from Mary? Nothing from Joseph? (who else would KNOW - especially dogmatically?) Nothing from any Apostle? Nothing from any Scripture? The earliest, first Tradition being.... silence?



Then, we have two CONFLICTING Traditions being added to that? Which consumed at least the next two centuries?



IF we are going to appeal to "tradition," do we need to identify WHICH? If the appeal is to some individuals who lived centuries later but who somehow KNOW (as dogma) this marital information, might we need to identify WHICH?













.

 

[hedrick]

Is this implying that NOTHING was said in the First Century? That the Tradition was.... SILENCE??? Noting from Mary? Nothing from Joseph? (who else would KNOW - especially dogmatically?) Nothing from any Apostle? Nothing from any Scripture? The earliest, first Tradition being.... silence?

There would be no reason why anyone would have denied it until the second Century, when it first appeared. And even in the 2nd Cent, there's no reason to expect people to have denied it until it become fairly common. Writers don't typically make statements on every doctrine that they disagree with.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

There would be no reason why anyone would have denied it until the second Century, when it first appeared.

If it first appeared in the second century, then it didn't exist in the first. So, what was the earlier, first tradition, I wonder? COULD it have been respectful silence, the position of all but 2 or 3 denominations today (at least dogmatically)????

It seems there were two Traditions beginning somewhere in the Second Century (perhaps late in it): That She DID have relations AND also that She did NOT. Two different traditions arose - in direct opposition. Perhaps the earlier one - silence - continued, too?

And even in the 2nd Cent, there's no reason to expect people to have denied it until it become fairly common.

Makes sense..... although I wonder if the second tradition was actually to hold that Mary DID have relations? The later, third one, would be that she did NOT? But the first was.... silence?




.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Is this implying that NOTHING was said in the First Century? That the Tradition was.... SILENCE??? Noting from Mary? Nothing from Joseph? (who else would KNOW - especially dogmatically?) Nothing from any Apostle? Nothing from any Scripture? The earliest, first Tradition being.... silence?

Just because written sources don't record any tradition doesn't mean there wasn't a tradition around- one way or another. We just don't have access to whatever oral tradition was floating around at the time. And I don't think Wikipedia is implying anything else.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

If it first appeared in the second century, then it didn't exist in the first.

You're assuming that the moment someone asserts one tradition or the other, another person will not only immediately contradict them, but will record their contradiction in writing. There very well could have been vigorous but unwritten debate in the first and early second centuries to which we have no access.