Mary a virgin?

MarkRohfrietsch said:

Off topic, but likely because half of the readers of the Gospel knew him as "OT,aAOMaA" (Aramaic Thomas) and the other half would know him as "Θωμάς"; both would know that Scripture was talking about that same Tom guy, that everyone knows and loves.

Click to expand...

Not two people, a repeated nickname. I wasn't suggesting it was two different people. lol... I was wondering what the meaning of the nickname might be, especially since it is repeated?

Fascinated With God said:

This may be a tangent, but why does Thomas mean twin in Aramaic and Didymus mean twin in Greek? Why did Jesus nickname him Twin Twin?
John 20:24 Now Thomas called Didymus
I've never heard of a Jew named Tom. That was not a proper noun, it was a common noun used as a nickname.

Click to expand...

I know next to nothing about Aramaic, but I think Mark's answer is good. I just didn't want to ignore you. But I'm not one to speak on Aramaic.

Fascinated With God said:

Not two people, a repeated nickname. I wasn't suggesting it was two different people. lol... I was wondering what the meaning of the nickname might be, especially since it is repeated?

Click to expand...

Think of it this way; my Grandfather was Baptized Andreas, those of English decent called him Andrew. Not a nick name, just the same name two different cultures, with two different languages/dialects. Same Guy.

I had a cousin Fritz/Fred.

Another example would be:
spiritus Sanctus and Holy Spirit; same person of the Trinity, two different languages; Latin and English.

~Anastasia~ said:

I know next to nothing about Aramaic, but I think Mark's answer is good. I just didn't want to ignore you. But I'm not one to speak on Aramaic.

Click to expand...

Neither am I (cheated and used on-line dictionairy and Google translate LOL).

MarkRohfrietsch said:

Think of it this way; my Grandfather was Baptized Andreas, those of English decent called him Andrew. Not a nick name, just the same name two different cultures, with two different languages/dialects. Same Guy.

I had a cousin Fritz/Fred.

Another example would be:
spiritus Sanctus and Holy Spirit; same person of the Trinity, two different languages; Latin and English.

Click to expand...

Crypto, all of that is common sense. It doesn't answer my question, why the nickname Twin?

I did some hunting around and he is referred to as Judas Thomas by Eusebius and the gospel of Thomas. So his original name must have been Judas, but that was too many Judases! The gospel of Thomas also addresses my question a little more directly:


So it is apparently referring to being an allegorical twin of Jesus. In what regard I still don't have a clue, so I'm still in the dark here.

~Anastasia~ said:

I know next to nothing about Aramaic, but I think Mark's answer is good. I just didn't want to ignore you. But I'm not one to speak on Aramaic.

Click to expand...

Thank you. *bow* I only picked on you because you look like the most authoritative person around, and I didn't want to just address it to the wind! lol...

And I want to say that I think this is a fantastic new (to me anyway) board. I've always wanted to focus on the early Father's and the foundations of Christian theology.

Fascinated With God said:

the gospel of Thomas also addresses my question a little more directly:

Now, since it has been said that you are my twin and true companion, examine yourself, and learn who you are, in what way you exist, and how you will come to be. Since you will be called my brother, it is not fitting that you be ignorant of yourself.​

So it is apparently referenced to being an allegorical twin of Jesus. In what regard I still don't have a clue, so I'm still in the dark here.

Click to expand...

I'd be very careful of taking such info to heart. They are deliberate forgeries by the Gnostics, designed to put forth their own version of the Gospel.

Do you have a quote from Eusebius? Who can be problematic as well, but is frequently useful in a historical sense.

~Anastasia~ said:

I'd be very careful of taking such info to heart. They are deliberate forgeries by the Gnostics, designed to put forth their own version of the Gospel.

Do you have a quote from Eusebius? Who can be problematic as well, but is frequently useful in a historical sense.

Click to expand...

Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History Chapter XIII

~Anastasia~ said:

I'd be very careful of taking such info to heart. They are deliberate forgeries by the Gnostics, designed to put forth their own version of the Gospel.

Click to expand...

But it's in the canonical gospels as well, so he's still got the nickname Twin, regardless.

~Anastasia~ said:

Do you have a quote from Eusebius? Who can be problematic as well, but is frequently useful in a historical sense.

Click to expand...

Yes, I've seen where his claims of persecutions in Gaul at the end of the reign of Domitian is not confirmed by Irenaeus of Lyons, who lived in the region just a few decades after Domitian, who says nothing about it.

~Anastasia~ said:

Who can be problematic as well, but is frequently useful in a historical sense.

Click to expand...

Oh, wait, he was Arian, that's what you're referring to. I forgot exactly why I just knew he's not theologically reliable as well as his histories being questionable at times. He is only venerated as a historian, not a theologian.

~Anastasia~ said:

I'd be very careful of taking such info to heart. They are deliberate forgeries by the Gnostics, designed to put forth their own version of the Gospel.

Click to expand...

I was mistaken, it's the apocryphal work The Acts of Thomas that refers to Judas Thomas repeatedly. Not as bad as a destroyed Gnostic text. It also describes the historically accurate mission of Thomas to India and Afghanistan where he in fact founded seven churches: “The Seven Churches” Founded by St Thomas.

The quote I made wasn't from the GoT either, I got rather mixed up. Its something even worse called The Book of Thomas the Contender. Found only in the Nag Hammadi texts.

But I found a definitive answer to my question: Pope Benedict in a reflection on Thomas in 2006, mentions the etymology of the name and says, "The reason for this nickname is unclear."

Just really briefly (trying to catch up on a few days of posts) ...

It's a good idea to identify the reasons each text was rejected. Things like the letters of Clement, the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas - fall into one sort of category.

The Acts of Thomas offhand I'm not recalling to mind. But as a general rule, something attributed to the Apostles which was not placed in the canon - was a forgery, attempting to use Apostolic authority in order to press heresy. They often contained a mixture of truth and error, but unless we already know which is which, trying to determine from the reading is not the safest course. Such things were never recommended to be read by the faithful.

I'm not saying you are doing that. Just commenting for the sake of lurkers and such.

We do know of course that he was called "the twin". But trying to seek out depths of spiritual meaning from non-approved texts might be unwise.

Natsumi Lam said:

Hi Family,

What is the biblical basis for Mary being considered as a virgin?

What about the fact that she had kids or a kid after Jesus which requires sex?

~Natsumi Lam~

Click to expand...

The Protoevangelium of James which is an apocryphal gospel indicates that Mary was a virgin before birth, after birth, and was forever virgin. The question of brothers of Jesus is complicated by the fact that the custom and practice of the culture at that time was to call cousins brothers. The term indicated that they were close relatives and but not necessarily from the same mother. This question will continue to be debated for all time along with several of the other beliefs about Mary professed by the Catholic Church.

~Anastasia~ said:

The Acts of Thomas offhand I'm not recalling to mind. But as a general rule, something attributed to the Apostles which was not placed in the canon - was a forgery, attempting to use Apostolic authority in order to press heresy.

Click to expand...

Not always forgeries per say, but of a later date. I was using the Acts of Thomas purely for historical purposes. The same as I used Eusebius, who would be considered a heretic today, but his histories are revered by Orthodox and Protestants alike.

But keep in mind the Deutrocanonical part of the Apocrypha is OT, doesn't refer to Apostles and is not in the Bible for very different reasons.

prodromos said:

I personally don't see how remaining a virgin takes anything away from her humanity.

Click to expand...

I personally do not understand why do not see the point I make in each of the perpetual virginity threads. The fact that Jesus was both human and divine by way of being born of woman and the Holy Spirit is whole point of his incarnation, it confirms the humanity of Jesus. For men to come along later and say Joseph and Mary did not consummate their marriage after the birth of Jesus as Matthew tells us does take away the beauty and mystery of the Virgin Birth, in my humble opinion. All the speculation that came with the later Church Fathers is typical of humanity trying to fathom the unfathomable.

Fascinated With God said:

Not always forgeries per say, but of a later date. I was using the Acts of Thomas purely for historical purposes. The same as I used Eusebius, who would be considered a heretic today, but his histories are revered by Orthodox and Protestants alike.

But keep in mind the Deutrocanonical part of the Apocrypha is OT, doesn't refer to Apostles and is not in the Bible for very different reasons.

Click to expand...

I'm not looking to debate btw. But the reason I say "forgery" is that they attempt to attach the name of an Apostle - who isn't the real author. That's why they were considered forgeries. If they appeared at a later date bearing the name of an Apostle, clearly a forgery.

What you are referring to as the Apocrypha wouldn't be "apocrypha" for us but part of Holy Scripture (though on a different level of importance than, say, the Torah. It is in the canon of many of the posters of TT, and who mostly based our canon on the Septuagint. The removal was (firstly) an economic consideration with early printed Protestant Bibles, and later began to be argued against in favor of the (late date and error-filled, not to mention opposed to Christianity) Masoretic text.

You rightly say that there are different reasons why different works are not included in different canons, and that is very valuable information in considering how to treat various texts.

Again, posting for general info, not looking to correct you personally.

Natsumi Lam said:

So we are thinking Mary and Joseph didnt marry or consummate their marriage?

I thought in their culture someone was not married unless consummated.

Click to expand...

Betrothal was (and still is within the Orthodox Church) considered a legally binding "marriage" in the sense that divorce is needed to dissolve it. (Remember Joseph was thinking of "quietly putting her away" ... if it paralleled how we think of "engagement" today, he could have simply broken it off.)

For this reason, the ceremony of "betrothal" is usually conducted just prior to the actually wedding in Orthodox Churches, so that if the engagement WERE to be broken, it wouldn't amount to a canonically divorced couple when they never actually had the wedding/consummation.

Natsumi Lam said:

Also, what is so important to consider her a virgin...it doesnt make someone holier than thou.

Click to expand...

Something we need to remember in everything we say about the Theotokos (Vitgin Mary) ... is that nothing is meant to point us to her. Her virginity is about the holiness of Christ Jesus - never is anything really about the Virgin Mary except that she is overall a good example of Christianity - fully submitted to God and devoting her life to Christ.

~Anastasia~ said:

I'm not looking to debate btw. But the reason I say "forgery" is that they attempt to attach the name of an Apostle - who isn't the real author. That's why they were considered forgeries. If they appeared at a later date bearing the name of an Apostle, clearly a forgery.

Click to expand...

I was referring to works that don't claim to be authored by an Apostle and are well known to be of much later origin. In the case of the Acts of Thomas, it is from Edessa written in Syriac in the 3rd century. It was preserved in a redacted form to purge it of the most unorthodox overtly Encratite passages, so it is relatively safe.

My hypothesis is that much of the information comes from Christian travelers back to the West from India over the centuries. The Fathers weren't about to make it canon because the information was collected by Gnostics and its late date of origin. But it was preserved because of its historical value, much like Eusebius' works, except Eusebius didn't have to be redacted.

So there is probably some truth to the general outline of the work, but you have to take the details with a serious grain of salt because the people compiling the stories had a Gnostic bias making the description of specific events unreliable. But the general outline is less likely to be affected by theological bias.