Mary as Ever-Virgin

[Sophrosyne]

Your also, as we are all, a modern we do not understand the ways of the ancients. We approach Scriptures as if they are a modern account when we should not. Marriage does not imply sex

 

[whitetiger1]

No one here is interpolating a modern view. Consummation of marriage is as old as marriage itself.

You are assuming it was done. Even the Reformers were not that bold

 

[Hentenza]

You are assuming it was done. Even the Reformers were not that bold

You are the one assuming that it was not. Nothing in scripture supports that it was not consummated.

 

[Hentenza]

There is no reason whatsoever that anyone should give credence to an alleged development that God chose NOT to include in Scripture, either pro or con. That fact should end it because if it is not in Scripture, it clearly is not necessary for salvation, and if it is not necessary for salvation, it's adiaphora, and if it's adiaphora, there's no reason to argue over it.

It doesn't matter. It's no different from:

Did Jesus travel to India as a teen?

Was Jesus an Essene as a young man?

Was Joseph of Arimathea Jesus' relative?

Did someone take the Holy Grail to Britain?

Was there a person named Veronica who had that famous veil?


None of it matters.

Fully agree.

 

[Sieben]

You are the one assuming that it was not. Nothing in scripture supports that it was not consummated.

That is true... I suppose without the traditions even, no one would even bring this up whether or not she remained a virgin.

 

[whitetiger1]

You are the one assuming that it was not. Nothing in scripture supports that it was not consummated.

as nothing is there saying it does.

 

[Sieben]

Isn't this considered circular reasoning?

 

[billybtennessee]

The gospel centers in Jesus Christ. This issue is not a part of the gospel. Mary became Joseph's wife. Are we to believe they married, she became his wife, and yet they never became as one, as God ordained a man and his wife to do, after the birth of Jesus Christ? Where is this taught in scripture? Is oral tradition 'canon', or is scripture 'canon? Really, this is still the issue, as it has been historically, and still is, and will continue to be.

Montalban said this is 'your theory', and asks if it is based on speculation. (#117)

Explain please what part of this is theory based on any speculation. You wanna go through each sentence? Or which?

 

[Sophrosyne]

That is true... I suppose without the traditions even, no one would even bring this up whether or not she remained a virgin.

It is ironic that "Tradition" trumps Jewish traditional marriage.

 

[Sieben]

It is ironic that "Tradition" trumps Jewish traditional marriage.

I am pretty sure they play Barry White at Jewish weddings

 

[Sophrosyne]

I am pretty sure they play Barry White at Jewish weddings

Dunno bout that, it could tempt those getting married to want to participate in the tradition of consummating the marriage

 

[Montalban]

Isn't this considered circular reasoning?

No. It'd be considered perhaps a rhetorical question

 

[Montalban]

I have never made that assertion.

Yes, you did. Even pointing out it is first on a list of meaning.

I said that the meaning semantic range includes a definition of brother also so YOU can not be dogmatic and refuse to accept brother as a definition.

I said I can't, on a strictly sola scriptura analysis, but I can given I know how it's meant to be interpreted.

You can not absolutely deny that adelphos can mean blood brother.

I haven't, on a purely sola scriptura basis

That is the problem with "T"radition. It adds to scripture whatever anyone wants to add to it because there is no bar by which to measure it. In fact, "T"radition is undefinable.

How is it 'adding' to scripture?

Lets see.

Matt. 12:46
46 While He was still speaking to the crowds, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him.

Where does it say literal brother?

Where did I claim that there was evidence "elsewhere"? All my evidence IS from scripture.

No, it's not. It's based on scripture through the lens of your interpretation. And it's so confused that you both want to deny it means brother, and then list all scriptures you think confirm that it does!

It's a case of having both arguments at once.

You say that there's a problem for tradition in that it 'adds' something, and you've not shown what is added.

If I were to write a book and you interpret it one way and I interpret it another way, then I've not added ANYTHING.

I noted two commentaries that also agree with an interpretation. Your posts continue not to address that.

 

[Montalban]

It is ironic that "Tradition" trumps Jewish traditional marriage.

What is 'traditional' about Mary's wedding? Are you saying it's typical that women have children outside of marriage in Judaism?

 

[Sophrosyne]

What is 'traditional' about Mary's wedding? Are you saying it's typical that women have children outside of marriage in Judaism?

Non sequitor, I was talking about marriage not wedding and wasn't talking about children born outside of marriage either.

 

[Montalban]

Non sequitor, I was talking about marriage not wedding and wasn't talking about children born outside of marriage either.

I already addressed this last time it was raised. What is 'traditional' about Mary's marriage?

You may not be talking about 'children born outside of marriage' but that's the very point!

Mary and Joseph didn't have a 'traditional marriage', in that she was already with child before she entered the marriage.

 

[Sophrosyne]

I already addressed this last time it was raised. What is 'traditional' about Mary's marriage?

You may not be talking about 'children born outside of marriage' but that's the very point!

Mary and Joseph didn't have a 'traditional marriage', in that she was already with child before she entered the marriage.

So you are saying that it was a rare thing for a Jewish girl to get pregnant before marriage.... right? The fact that Joseph accepted the child in her womb as his own satisfied the requirements of tradition at the time. If this had been a big problem I am sure we would have heard a mention of it and perhaps even Jesus later in life would have been an outcast instead of being allowed temple access.

 

[Montalban]

So you are saying that it was a rare thing for a Jewish girl to get pregnant before marriage.... right?

I would hope so.

The fact that Joseph accepted the child in her womb as his own satisfied the requirements of tradition at the time.

Really? What tradition says

"A man may marry a woman pregnant with a child not his, so long as it's God's"?

If this had been a big problem I am sure we would have heard a mention of it and perhaps even Jesus later in life would have been an outcast instead of being allowed temple access.

I am not saying it's a big problem. I'm saying it's NOT a traditional marriage - so far your only retort was one of semantics when I used 'wedding' instead of marriage.

Your response here is also flawed.

I'm not aware of any Jews who'd be saying "Oh, it's okay, we can admit Jesus to the temple because although Mary's carrying God's child, Joseph's taken her upon himself as his bride."

The reason they wouldn't have questioned it is because Joseph took her as his bride. They'd have assumed that he was the father - and in fact, in a sense he was.

Do you think that at the time he was presented to the temple they'd be saying "Oh, Joseph's not the biological father, God is"?

No matter how you try to 'normalise' this it's not a normal union.

It's difference is why it's so important - which you're trying to diminish.

 

[Sophrosyne]

I would hope so.


Really? What tradition says

"A man may marry a woman pregnant with a child not his, so long as it's God's"?

what tradition excludes a man from marrying a pregnant woman when the child isn't his? none I know of but since Joseph accepted the child it was seen to be his for satisfying marriage traditions otherwise he would been unable to marry Mary because tradition wouldn't have allowed it.

I am not saying it's a big problem. I'm saying it's NOT a traditional marriage - so far your only retort was one of semantics when I used 'wedding' instead of marriage.

Just because Mary was pregnant doesn't mean the marriage was not done traditionally and the couple was expected to adhere to tradition when married. The simple fact is the wedding happened, wasn't opposed by any and the couple was accepted in a traditional sense and their child was also accepted as part of a marriage.

I'm not aware of any Jews who'd be saying "Oh, it's okay, we can admit Jesus to the temple because although Mary's carrying God's child, Joseph's taken her upon himself as his bride."

You assume that all around them know the source of Jesus, when the bible equates almost everyone around them as rather clueless as to him coming from God. I would consider that his true identity was kept somewhat secret to most people.

The reason they wouldn't have questioned it is because Joseph took her as his bride. They'd have assumed that he was the father - and in fact, in a sense he was.

bingo!... I was saying this, if they assumed Joseph was Jesus father then they would not even consider him begotten of God OR someone else as the father. This would make it rather traditional with exception of pregnancy before marriage which I suggest was not entirely uncommon at the time.

Do you think that at the time he was presented to the temple they'd be saying "Oh, Joseph's not the biological father, God is"?

I think the temple was clueless and figured Jesus was the son of two humans and not God otherwise they probably would have considered stoning him to death then for blasphemy possibly....

No matter how you try to 'normalise' this it's not a normal union.

to appearances it is normal, After Jesus was born Mary and Joseph were considered normal to those around them I figure we have no indications otherwise they were different so we must conclude be default they were in the range of normal.

It's difference is why it's so important - which you're trying to diminish.

I am not diminishing nothing Jesus, I am however saying to force Joseph to marry Mary and never have sex with her nor have Mary ever have sex with Joseph seems beyond normal to me, and tends to fly in the face of Jewish tradition entirely because the bible shows a long line of people that followed tradition in marriage to make Mary and Joseph exist in the first place. If this were not tradition then God would not have said go forth and multiply to start the tradition. For Mary to reject the tradition AND Joseph also to me doesn't make sense at all. I don't see in the bible any example of people married that were both celibate... period. You have to dig up an example of a celibate couple (willingly celibate) in the bible otherwise it is nothing but your "Tradition" that Mary AND Joseph were both celibate.
It is possible Joseph wasn't celibate though.. would that be sinful as Paul suggests in the NT for them to not allow each other sex? Did Paul come up with this idea out of thin air or was it related to Jewish tradition marriage is about sex in the first place?

 

[Montalban]

what tradition excludes a man from marrying a pregnant woman when the child isn't his?

None. However you choose to speculate that this was an average marriage

It wasn't a 'normal' marriage because Mary had a child not of Joseph.

What you do is speculate that it must have been aside from that, because it must have been.

Whilst this could be correct, it might not be. You just assume, from the text that it must have been.

It's further undermined that the text doesn't clearly indicate that there were in fact any other children, though in theory their marriage may have been normal and not produced children - however you would just assume that to be the case.

It's like saying "Mary was a normal mother aside from the fact that she had the Son of God, born of the Holy Spirit, whilst remaining a virgin when she conceived". It's to completely underscore the attempt to use the term 'normal', because of the major exception.

As far as I know, that exception, not only being unique in human experience by its very fact makes her EXCEPTIONAL.

True she was a woman. But no other woman has had that experience. None.

However aside from just accepting one assumption to be true, though clearly not based on scripture, with no scriptural support to show conclusively other children, it ignores the teaching of the church on the matter. It ignores it, for no apparent reason.