Did the Virgin Mary remain a virgin?

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Josiah,

Please answer the questions and observations in post #238.

SU

They are questions - entirely unrelated to our discussion. You stated - quite boldly and as fact - that in the early church virginity had "ZIP to do with sex." I'm waiting for you to document your apologetic as true. All the diversions into entirely unrelated stuff is..... evasion.


- Josiah

 

[Standing Up]

They are questions - entirely unrelated to our discussion. You stated - quite boldly and as fact - that in the early church virginity had "ZIP to do with sex." I'm waiting for you to document your apologetic as true. All the diversions into entirely unrelated stuff is..... evasion.


- Josiah

It is documented. See post #238.

At this point, you really need to address the issue, the post.

* In the following verse, please show us the reference to Mary/Joseph sex life post the son's birth:

Is. 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

If you can't do that, then case closed.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

It is documented. See post #238.

Obviously, not. That post says NOTHING about virginity has ZIP to do with sex.


If you can't document your point, then case closed. Your point is shown to be baseless.



Thank you.


Blessings on your Holy Week....


- Josiah

 

[Standing Up]

That post says NOTHING about virginity has ZIP to do with sex.

Maybe you have a different bible?

Is. 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

There's nothing there about Mary/Joseph sex life; it has zip to do with that.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Maybe you have a different bible?

Is. 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

There's nothing there about Mary/Joseph sex life; it has zip to do with that.

Agreed. NOTHING - not anything whatsoever - to support your insistence that virginity has "ZIP to do with sex." You seem insistence to document that NOTHING supports your insistence, your point is BASELESS.



Thank you again.


A blessed Holy Week to you and yours....


- Josiah

 

[Standing Up]

Agreed.

Is. 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

So, you're agreeing with me. Why didn't you say so from the beginning? At the earliest stage, virginity was all about His nativity. It had zip to do with Mary/Joseph sex life.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Maybe you have a different bible?

Is. 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

There's nothing there about Mary/Joseph sex life; it has zip to do with that.
​

.

Agreed. You have NOTHING - not anything whatsoever - to support your insistence that virginity has "ZIP to do with sex." You seem insistence to document that NOTHING supports your insistence, your point is BASELESS.

So, you're agreeing with me. Why didn't you say so from the beginning? At the earliest stage, virginity was all about His nativity. It had zip to do with Mary/Joseph sex life.

Of course your claim is baseless. Of course, you keep showing that. Yup, you have NOTHING - not anything whatsoever - to support your insistence that virginity has "ZIP to do with sex." You seem insistent to document that NOTHING supports your insistence, your point is BASELESS.




- Josiah

 

[Standing Up]

Of course your claim is baseless. Of course, you keep showing that. Yup, you have NOTHING - not anything whatsoever - to support your insistence that virginity has "ZIP to do with sex." You seem insistent to document that NOTHING supports your insistence, your point is BASELESS.




- Josiah

Let's try this.

Lk. 2:34 And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against;

What's the sign spoken against?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Let's try this.

Lk. 2:34 And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against;

Nothing confirming your position: "virginity has ZIP to do with sex."

Yup, you continue to document that your position is baseless.



A blessed Holy Week to you and yours....


- Josiah

 

[Thekla]

Pain is not the issue here. It is the question of virginity. Both StandingUp and CaliforniaJosiah are in agreement that Mary's virginity was not perpetual. StandingUp has presented excellent historic citations regarding the understanding of virginity by the ECF's. Their issue seems to have been whether the birth of Jesus Christ was by typical human order (uterine resulting in the end of virginity) or miraculous (non-uterine through Mary's side leaving her a virgin). Others, including myself, have argued from scripture (Joseph "knowing" Mary after the birth of Jesus and Jesus' brothers and sisters). The bottom line is that there has been no counterargument from Catholic or Orthodox posters effectively disproving this evidence.

Please consider:

most EO have been observing the Great Fast

most EO are observing Holy Week

most EO will observe Bright Week starting Monday

the particular requirements of moderns for verification is unlike the earlier method of verification held in earlier cultures (ex., the covenant/contract in the OT and NT is not a document, and requires no written signature to be valid)

the particular argument you make from Scripture is not conclusive, and relies more so on translation of the Scripture than what the Scripture actually records

yes, there are a variety of ways the term you use ('virgin') can be understood, but also this does not preclude the narrower understanding that is held for the term in its reference to the Theotokos

and I have no idea precisely why I ended up checking in to CF ... except it was a silly idea

I have no clear idea of WHY folks get so offended even considering that Mary would remain a virgin ...

 

[Thekla]

At any rate, it's the modern west that introduced a novel teaching (Mary had other children, Mary did not remain a virgin) into Christianity quite recently; it's y'alls' responsibility to provide a conclusive argument for your position which you have heretofore failed to do. Until you can provide clear, irrefutable evidence that you have NOT corrupted the ancient teachings of Christianity, the onus is on y'all to prove that you haven't.

And so far, you have failed to prove that your teaching on Mary is uncorrupted.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Yep, leave it to the "novel West" to introduce brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ into the sacred gospels and even be so bold as to give names to Hi brothers. We should all be grateful that the Eastern Orthodox Church has preserved the sacred text uncorrupted and that never does it mention or imply that Jesus ever had anything resembling brothers and sisters - NOT!

 

[Thekla]

Yep, leave it to the "novel West" to introduce brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ into the sacred gospels and even be so bold as to give names to Hi brothers. We should all be grateful that the Eastern Orthodox Church has preserved the sacred text uncorrupted and that never does it mention or imply that Jesus ever had anything resembling brothers and sisters - NOT!

As you know, the term for brother/sister includes many meanings - it's not exclusive to those individuals sharing a biological mother. Or do you argue that every adelphos in the Scriptures had the same biological mother - thus pointing out that the Scriptures are full of falsehood ?

... and this, for both OT (LXX) and NT ? Is it your position that Joseph and Benjamin were actually born of Leah, not Rachel ?

To rest your case on this term is to lose the case. (Or do you argue against every history text and historian that Phillip and Herod had the same biological mother ?)

 

[bbbbbbb]

I rest my case with the translators of your Bible who failed to translate these words to conform to your church's teaching.

 

[Thekla]

I rest my case with the translators of your Bible who failed to translate these words to conform to your church's teaching.

What's the need to change translations ? People can read the Holy Scriptures (as well as secular Greek writings) and know that the Greek language usage, and the usage in the Holy Scriptures, do not demand the narrow meaning. This is even apparent in English; after all, knowing a bit of history and the OT will precisely point to the fact that adelphos does not have a narrow meaning. One should read the Holy Scriptures attentively - and if one does, the understanding that adelphos is not used as a narrow term will be apparent.

 

[bbbbbbb]

What's the need to change translations ? People can read the Holy Scriptures (as well as secular Greek writings) and know that the Greek language usage, and the usage in the Holy Scriptures, do not demand the narrow meaning. This is even apparent in English; after all, knowing a bit of history and the OT will precisely point to the fact that adelphos does not have a narrow meaning. One should read the Holy Scriptures attentively - and if one does, the understanding that adelphos is not used as a narrow term will be apparent.

No reason at all to depend on another translation when it is perfectly clear in the original Greek.

 

[Thekla]

No reason at all to depend on another translation when it is perfectly clear in the original Greek.

Yes. I attend a Church where we still read the Holy Scriptures in Greek, and now also in English

And adelphos in the Holy Scriptures - OT and NT - and in Greek secular writings is not a narrow term. It means affiliation, and is a broad term that does not demand origin from the same biological mother. As before, attentive reading of the Holy Scriptures makes this clear.

 

[Standing Up]

Yes. I attend a Church where we still read the Holy Scriptures in Greek, and now also in English

And adelphos in the Holy Scriptures - OT and NT - and in Greek secular writings is not a narrow term. It means affiliation, and is a broad term that does not demand origin from the same biological mother. As before, attentive reading of the Holy Scriptures makes this clear.

At least we may rule out that the brothers are not cousins because there is a Greek word for cousin.

Whether they were sons of Joseph/previous wife or sons of Joseph/Mary depends simply on whether one prefers to use scripture or PoJames (see Origen).

 

[prodromos]

Whether they were sons of Joseph/previous wife or sons of Joseph/Mary depends simply on whether one prefers to use scripture or PoJames (see Origen).

Not true at all. I believe scripture demonstrates that Jesus' brothers were older than Jesus because they did not treat him as they would have if Jesus was their eldest brother, quite the opposite is apparent.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Not true at all. I believe scripture demonstrates that Jesus' brothers were older than Jesus because they did not treat him as they would have if Jesus was their eldest brother, quite the opposite is apparent.

If you were convinced that your eldest brother was clearly insane and delusional how would you treat him?