Did the Virgin Mary remain a virgin?

[Standing Up]

How does any of this impact what I have posted? Is there a point you are trying to make?

Also, could you refresh my memory regarding the Isaiah prophesy. Are you sure it wasn't the Psalms?

It may have been Psalms.

Folks wonder why Christ "appointed" John re Mary at the cross. His brothers didn't believe is why.

 

[Standing Up]

We can certainly disagree, but none of these Greek terms for relationship, including adelphos which is translated into English as "brothers" is conclusive enough to determine any relationship beyond "relative". This is evident when the Septuagint uses the term to denote a relationship between uncle/nephew as "adelphos" and between cousins as "adelphos". The only way we know what the actual relationships are is because of the context -- parents are identified.

Thus, the only honest and true conclusion from Scripture is that there is no way to know the exact relationship between Christ and these brethren. The Catholics and Orthodox accept Sacred Tradition as valid, and know from that Sacred Tradition that these are not children of Mary. You are certainly welcome to draw from whatever tradition you choose to assert that they are. Regardless, the most one can say from Scripture is that we don't know.

Mary most certainly is from the house of David because we know that Christ descended from David according to the flesh. Elizabeth is married to a Levite. That would indicate to me that their relationship is through maternal ties, not paternal ones. It would also explain why the term "adelphos" is not used for Mary and Elizabeth, as that seems to me to be used more often when the tie is paternal.

There is sacred tradition so called, but as you know it conflicts. EO typically believe the tradition from PoJames (old Joseph as caretaker). RC typically believes the tradition from Jerome (cousin theory).

Let's not forget, however, that there is the tradition through Tertullian and others that the brothers were in fact brothers (same mother, different father).

But we can narrow this down. Origen explains the scripture POV that they were brothers and sources the step brother theory to PoJames. Jerome's theory is about 400 years far after the facts, so is too late to be believable. Point is there is tradition and then there's tradition.

 

[narnia59]

There is sacred tradition so called, but as you know it conflicts. EO typically believe the tradition from PoJames (old Joseph as caretaker). RC typically believes the tradition from Jerome (cousin theory).

Let's not forget, however, that there is the tradition through Tertullian and others that the brothers were in fact brothers (same mother, different father).

But we can narrow this down. Origen explains the scripture POV that they were brothers and sources the step brother theory to PoJames. Jerome's theory is about 400 years far after the facts, so is too late to be believable. Point is there is tradition and then there's tradition.

The Sacred Tradition that the Orthodox and Catholics share is that Mary is ever-virgin, declared infallibly at the 5th ecumenical council (Constantinople II). That decree ends any potential disagreements among individual Christian authors. That is the Sacred Tradition we hold to. As I stated, you are perfectly free to hold to another tradition -- that Mary had other children. Just don't try to pretend that Scripture asserts that as fact, because it does not.

The tradition that identifies the specific relationship of these relatives to Christ is not part of the infallible deposit of faith, and there is no need to "narrow it down" to specifics in order to accept the dogma. I personally think a combination of both could be true -- some cousins, some children of Joseph. The specifics of who they are is not dogmatically defined and therefore there is no conflict between the Catholics and Orthodox in terms of Sacred Tradition. It frankly doesn't matter what the specific relationship to Christ is. It simply matters that Mary is known to be ever-virgin, and the implications of that.

 

[prodromos]

It may have been Psalms.

If it is the Psalm (Psalm 69), it has nothing to do with Jesus' siblings. If I may quote a brother's post

John 2.17 is in reference to chasing out the merchants from the temple. Thus its quite obvious to anyone that reads the Fathers and scriptures that temples and churches are personified in the feminine, as mothers and even as virgin mothers. Within context of John 2.15-17 'Mother' is symbolic for the temple and her sons the rebelious children of Israel who are buying and selling in the temple. Christ sees these actions of money changing as an insult and a profaning of his house thus out of zeal drives them out.​

Folks wonder why Christ "appointed" John re Mary at the cross. His brothers didn't believe is why.

It makes no sense since His brothers all did subsequently believe. Its not as if Mary would have suddenly been homeless and destitute upon Jesus' death. Where had she been living all the time Jesus had been travelling around Israel preaching the coming kingdom? By what means had she been living seeing as her Son was not currently earning an income through carpentry. Did those means suddenly vanish when Jesus died?
Jesus knew that although they didn't believe at the time, that they would after his resurrection. They were with the disciples on the day of Pentecost which is not even 7 weeks after His resurrection and only 10 days after His ascension.

 

[RDKirk]

Its not as if Mary would have suddenly been homeless and destitute upon Jesus' death. Where had she been living all the time Jesus had been travelling around Israel preaching the coming kingdom? By what means had she been living seeing as her Son was not currently earning an income through carpentry. Did those means suddenly vanish when Jesus died?
Jesus knew that although they didn't believe at the time, that they would after his resurrection. They were with the disciples on the day of Pentecost which is not even 7 weeks after His resurrection and only 10 days after His ascension.

Appointing John to care for Mary was not a matter of belief. It was a matter of Jesus being the son who was responsible for his mother, irrelevant of the fact that he was the Messiah. That he appointed "the disciple he loved" rather than leaving it to James or another relative strongly suggests he was the only son born to Mary.

 

[Thekla]

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).

There are about 50-100 Greek kinship terms, highly detailed, which describe relative funerary obligations and inheritance patterns.

Then there are more general terms which reflect a simplified, vernacular usage (gathering a number of specific terms into a generalization).

Adelphos belongs to the more vernacular (and is used in the secular writings, like Plato, and in the Holy Scriptures - OT and NT); the term adelphos/oi is used for kin groups (tribe), household (regardless of biological relation, pointing to a common male which may be why it appears as a term for a wife where the couple resides in the husband's father's household), closeness per interaction or idea, same nation, etc.

The term 'anepsios' used in the NT actually means "sister's son" (and does not apply to brother's son, etc.). There is also sygenis - which is another general term for relation (Elizabeth generationally was Mary's aunt, not cousin).

 

[Thekla]

I have sadly known some instances where this has been the case even though the eldest sibling was not clinically insane. If my oldest sibling went around the countryside telling folks that she is God, do you have any idea what I could think?

Of course this discussion skips the point that Herod and Philip did not share the same mother yet are referred to in the NT as 'adelphos'; likewise only one of Joseph's brothers shared the same mother, though all are referred to as "adelphos".

And in the OT, adelphos is used for cousins, uncle/nephew, etc.

 

[Thekla]

They did not believe (see John).

Adelphos also is used to refer to all of the Jews - as well as in narrower groups like within the 12 tribes.

 

[Thekla]

Sure it does. In the NT:

Lk. 1:36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

"cousin" is syggenes.

So, if the brothers of Christ were cousins, the gospel writers would have used that word. They didn't. Therefore, we can rule out that the brothers were cousins.

On a different note, clearly the townspeople who knew the family would know their relationship. They thought the brothers were sons of Joseph/Mary. Just like they doubted Jesus born of a virgin.

It doesn't mean "cousin"; it means "relative".

 

[Thekla]

It may have been Psalms.

Folks wonder why Christ "appointed" John re Mary at the cross. His brothers didn't believe is why.

The reference is to His "countrymen" (ya know, who called for His crucifixion).

 

[Standing Up]

The Sacred Tradition that the Orthodox and Catholics share is that Mary is ever-virgin, declared infallibly at the 5th ecumenical council (Constantinople II). That decree ends any potential disagreements among individual Christian authors. That is the Sacred Tradition we hold to. As I stated, you are perfectly free to hold to another tradition -- that Mary had other children. Just don't try to pretend that Scripture asserts that as fact, because it does not.

The tradition that identifies the specific relationship of these relatives to Christ is not part of the infallible deposit of faith, and there is no need to "narrow it down" to specifics in order to accept the dogma. I personally think a combination of both could be true -- some cousins, some children of Joseph. The specifics of who they are is not dogmatically defined and therefore there is no conflict between the Catholics and Orthodox in terms of Sacred Tradition. It frankly doesn't matter what the specific relationship to Christ is. It simply matters that Mary is known to be ever-virgin, and the implications of that.

Could you reference the quote please?

As to ever-virgin, regardless of whether Mary/Joseph did "it", which quite frankly is none of our business, the main point is she birthed a normal birth in birthing Christ. Thus, "ever-virgin" is over. (feel free to review the last few pages)

 

[Standing Up]

Adelphos also is used to refer to all of the Jews - as well as in narrower groups like within the 12 tribes.

True enough. We'd have to look more closely at "the point".

 

[prodromos]

True enough. We'd have to look more closely at "the point".

I half expected our old friend Oblio to jump back into the fray after that statement.

Anyway, are you going to tell us what is "the point"?

 

[narnia59]

Could you reference the quote please?

2.If anyone will not confess that the Word of God has two nativities, that which is before all ages from the Father, outside time and without a body, and secondly that nativity of these latter days when the Word of God came down from the heavens and was made flesh of holy and glorious Mary, mother of God and ever-virgin, and was born from her: let him be anathema.

6.If anyone declares that it can be only inexactly and not truly said that the holy and glorious ever-virgin Mary is the mother of God, or says that she is so only in some relative way, considering that she bore a mere man and that God the Word was not made into human flesh in her, holding rather that the nativity of a man from her was referred, as they say, to God the Word as he was with the man who came into being; if anyone misrepresents the holy synod of Chalcedon, alleging that it claimed that the virgin was the mother of God only according to that heretical understanding which the blasphemous Theodore put forward; or if anyone says that she is the mother of a man or the Christ-bearer, that is the mother of Christ, suggesting that Christ is not God; and does not formally confess that she is properly and truly the mother of God, because he who before all ages was born of the Father, God the Word, has been made into human flesh in these latter days and has been born to her, and it was in this religious understanding that the holy synod of Chalcedon formally stated its belief that she was the mother of God: let him be anathema.

14.If anyone defends the letter which Ibas is said to have written to Mari the Persian, which denies that God the Word, who became incarnate of Mary the holy mother of God and ever virgin, became man, but alleges that he was only a man born to her, whom it describes as a temple, as if God the Word was one and the man someone quite different; which condemns holy Cyril as if he were a heretic, when he gives the true teaching of Christians, and accuses holy Cyril of writing opinions like those of the heretical Apollinarius ;which rebukes the first holy synod of Ephesus, alleging that it condemned Nestorius without going into the matter by a formal examination; which claims that the twelve chapters of holy Cyril are heretical and opposed to the true faith; and which defends Theodore and Nestorius and their heretical teachings and books. If anyone defends the said letter and does not anathematize it and all those who offer a defence for it and allege that it or a part of it is correct, or if anyone defends those who have written or shall write in support of it or the heresies contained in it, or supports those who are bold enough to defend it or its heresies in the name of the holy fathers of the holy synod of Chalcedon, and persists in these errors until his death: let him be anathema.

As to ever-virgin, regardless of whether Mary/Joseph did "it", which quite frankly is none of our business, the main point is she birthed a normal birth in birthing Christ. Thus, "ever-virgin" is over. (feel free to review the last few pages)

The fact that she remained a virgin has deep theological significance regarding who Christ is. And as for the type of birth she had, it seems to me that you are once again relying on some type of tradition rather than Scripture, which seems rather silent on the matter.

 

[Tzaousios]

As to ever-virgin, regardless of whether Mary/Joseph did "it", which quite frankly is none of our business, the main point is she birthed a normal birth in birthing Christ.

If that is the case, then fundamentalist and Evangelical apologists would not employ the tactic of the question of sex in the Holy Family as a primary means to combat Marian tradition.

 

[prodromos]

As to ever-virgin, regardless of whether Mary/Joseph did "it", which quite frankly is none of our business

Which begs the question as to why so many demand that Matthew 1:25 must be read as explicitly meaning they did "it".

 

[Standing Up]

2.If anyone will not confess that the Word of God has two nativities, that which is before all ages from the Father, outside time and without a body, and secondly that nativity of these latter days when the Word of God came down from the heavens and was made flesh of holy and glorious Mary, mother of God and ever-virgin, and was born from her: let him be anathema.

6.If anyone declares that it can be only inexactly and not truly said that the holy and glorious ever-virgin Mary is the mother of God, or says that she is so only in some relative way, considering that she bore a mere man and that God the Word was not made into human flesh in her, holding rather that the nativity of a man from her was referred, as they say, to God the Word as he was with the man who came into being; if anyone misrepresents the holy synod of Chalcedon, alleging that it claimed that the virgin was the mother of God only according to that heretical understanding which the blasphemous Theodore put forward; or if anyone says that she is the mother of a man or the Christ-bearer, that is the mother of Christ, suggesting that Christ is not God; and does not formally confess that she is properly and truly the mother of God, because he who before all ages was born of the Father, God the Word, has been made into human flesh in these latter days and has been born to her, and it was in this religious understanding that the holy synod of Chalcedon formally stated its belief that she was the mother of God: let him be anathema.

14.If anyone defends the letter which Ibas is said to have written to Mari the Persian, which denies that God the Word, who became incarnate of Mary the holy mother of God and ever virgin, became man, but alleges that he was only a man born to her, whom it describes as a temple, as if God the Word was one and the man someone quite different; which condemns holy Cyril as if he were a heretic, when he gives the true teaching of Christians, and accuses holy Cyril of writing opinions like those of the heretical Apollinarius ;which rebukes the first holy synod of Ephesus, alleging that it condemned Nestorius without going into the matter by a formal examination; which claims that the twelve chapters of holy Cyril are heretical and opposed to the true faith; and which defends Theodore and Nestorius and their heretical teachings and books. If anyone defends the said letter and does not anathematize it and all those who offer a defence for it and allege that it or a part of it is correct, or if anyone defends those who have written or shall write in support of it or the heresies contained in it, or supports those who are bold enough to defend it or its heresies in the name of the holy fathers of the holy synod of Chalcedon, and persists in these errors until his death: let him be anathema.




The fact that she remained a virgin has deep theological significance regarding who Christ is. And as for the type of birth she had, it seems to me that you are once again relying on some type of tradition rather than Scripture, which seems rather silent on the matter.

So, in your quotes, there's nothing declared infallibly about Mary's status of ever-virgin. Or did I miss it?

Scripture isn't silent on His nativity. Nor is tradition.

 

[Standing Up]

I half expected our old friend Oblio to jump back into the fray after that statement.

Anyway, are you going to tell us what is "the point"?

I mean the point in scripture. For example, does it matter if Elizabeth is Mary's cousin or kin?

 

[Standing Up]

If that is the case, then fundamentalist and Evangelical apologists would not employ the tactic of the question of sex in the Holy Family as a primary means to combat Marian tradition.

Which begs the question as to why so many demand that Matthew 1:25 must be read as explicitly meaning they did "it".

Well, if one is intent on showing a different t(T)radition, then that's what they do. If the t(T)radition that predominated was that they had a normal marriage, then no one cares; it is no one's business.

 

[Wryetui]

Of course the Most Holy Virgin Mary remained a pure human being, without being in touch with sin. Yes, she was born in sin like all of us but whe was cleansed by the Holy Spirit, so she remained sinless until the moment when Her Dormition occured, and She was bodily assumed into Heaven.

The protestant churches have no Holy Tradition, so they can't know this because they have lost touch with the teachings of the Church of Christ, because in the Bible the Virgin Mary is barely mentioned, but the Holy Tradition states it clearly. Proof of it we have that both the RCC and the EOC have this dogma in their doctrine.