Perpetual virginity (not a hate thread)

[BeforeTheFoundation]

Traditionally, I have not believed in the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary citing the numerous times in the Gospels that Jesus' brothers (Greek=adelphois) as proof that Jesus must have had siblings. Of course I am aware of the the counter argument that adelphos (this is the singular of adelphois) can also mean cousin but traditionally I have rejected that idea with the reasoning that the 'usual' meaning of adelphos is brother and that there was no reason to use the secondary reason.

However, I thought of something recently. In the Gospel of John 19 (the crucifixion) it says this.

26When Jesus saw his mother and(AI) the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, (AJ) "Woman, behold, your son!" 27Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!" And from that hour the disciple took her to(AK) his own home.

Now if Jesus had siblings, he was obviously the oldest and thus would ahve been charged with caring for his mother once his father was out of the picture (and seeing as Joseph never appears, we can assume that he is dead by this point). Upon the death of the oldest son, care for the mother would pass to the next oldest son. However, that is not what happens here. Jesus instead asks a friend to care for his mother and commands them to know each other as if they were mother and son.

I know that this does not prove the perpetual virginity. After all, one can have sex without concieving or Joseph and Mary could have had only females (who in the society would not have been able to care for Mary for the same reasons that Mary could not care for herself). But I do think that it lends credence to translatingadelphois as 'cousins' and certainly makes the idea of the perpetual virginity much more plausible.

Does anyone have any thoughts? Did I miss anything or is this already common knowledge?

BTF

 

[Thekla]

This passage is, indeed, cited as evidence that Mary had no other children.
(But imo, its lovely that you found it on your own !)
If its not an intrusion, I did want to mention that in Hellenistic Greek, adelphos was used to indicate (by definition and in secular extant works) as well as sibling and cousin also countryman, neighbor, step-sibling, like minded, good friend, etc. As an example of this broader usage, John states that Mary and her adelphoi (usually translated sister) Mary are standing at the cross.

Thank-you !

 

[fivepointTULIP]

nothing to add, just similarly piqued.

 

[Thekla]

I also thought to add: none of the named adelphoi of Christ are present at the cross with Mary, the mother of Jesus. This seems odd - if not in support of Christ, at least also why not in support of Mary ?

 

[BeforeTheFoundation]

Wonderful. Thank you so much for your comments. So this has been used as a proof before. Of course I am not surprised that I was not the first to come up with it. Actually, the fact that others have said this before makes me more confident in my conclusions.

If its not an intrusion

No, thank you. I welcome all information that you can give. At one point I think I did know the fuller semantic range of the word, but I didn't actually look it up in a lexicon while posting the OP. I was doing it from memory. But giving that semantic range, I am even more confident. Thank you very much.

As an example of this broader usage, John states that Mary and her adelphoi

Of course, if I hadn't been too lazy I could have looked it up in my Greek New Testament and perhaps I would have noticed that. Thank you.

I also thought to add: none of the named adelphoi of Christ are present at the cross with Mary, the mother of Jesus. This seems odd - if not in support of Christ, at least also why not in support of Mary ?

Indeed.


Any other comments would be great.

BTF

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Just a reminder...

There is do dogma of "Jesus Had No Sibs."
Never has been. In any denomination.

The Dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is that Mary had no sex.
NOT that Mary had no kids.
It's about SEX, not SIBS.


I think we all know that a couple may have a single instance of loving, mutual sharing of marital intimacies and not have a child result specifically mentioned in the Bible. In fact, not have a child at all - mentioned in the Bible or not. In fact, they may have dozens, even thousands of such instances of intimate sharing and not have a child result - whether specifically mentioned in the Bible or not. I personally know two couples - each married for roughly 50 years - who have no children (not just not mentioned in the Bible - but at all). In one case, they said that "they tried...." (I think that means they had sex). One could is childless, the other adopted children. Thus, NOT having children means NOTHING about being a perpetual virgin. Even IF the CAtholic is correct and Jesus had no sibs (really, really big "IF" there), it has no relevance to whether Mary had sex.

Of course, IF Jesus had sibs via Mary, then she was NOT a perpetual virgin and that is a point some try to make. Frankly, while I agree that the best and most obvious interpretations is that He did, it cannot be substantiated - thus no Protestant denomination known to me has a dogma of Jesus Had Sibs (much less that Mary Had Lotsa Sex) - we aren't dogmatic on this because Scripture isn't. While most Protestants are of the OPINION that "brothers" means "brothers" there is no dogma about in any Protestant denomination. But again, even if Jesus had no sibs, that does NOT mean that Mary had no sex. And the issue of the Catholic dogma is SEX, not SIBS.






.

 

[Philothei]

I know that this does not prove the perpetual virginity. After all, one can have sex without concieving or Joseph and Mary could have had only females (who in the society would not have been able to care for Mary for the same reasons that Mary could not care for herself). But I do think that it lends credence to translatingadelphois as 'cousins' and certainly makes the idea of the perpetual virginity much more plausible.

Does anyone have any thoughts? Did I miss anything or is this already common knowledge?

The question of Ever virginity is again that if Theotokos was the one to be so involved in the incarnation and give birth to the God-man who was by birth God and man in one hypostases, why would God let anyone else to be born out of her? Why would God allow in the world to exist the dna of Christ? The incarnation was a unique event for a specific purpose. The tomb that kept Christ after his death was a new tomb.... It makes complete sense that Mary would remain virgin, pure as she had already taken her vow to do so. And that is why she asked the agnel "how" since she knows no man. Also the word "until" means to the ages and we know that from many other references in the bible. All these are pointers to her Ever virginity. The fact that she had no children does not prove her virginity that is true. On the other hand though why would she take any chances if she knew that God's will was to be undefiled "until" the end of the ages? Her devotion to God was not some "physical" test or that marital relations are in any sense "bad" or "improper" rather it was a decision she made to honor God in her own special way because of her "special" relationship with Him. She was God's bride and her first vows were to Him. Her Ever virginity have to do with her spiritual devotion to the incarnation and lttle to do with the physical state. Her "physical" virginity was a mere "tool" to approach the Lord in humility, purity and prayer and complete devotion to her calling It is not by any means a pointer to a life without marital relations. Those who are steeped in the faith of the Church understand the higher purpose of the Ever Virginity of Mary.....

 

[katholikos]

.....I thought of something recently. In the Gospel of John 19 (the crucifixion) it says this.

26When Jesus saw his mother and(AI) the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, (AJ) "Woman, behold, your son!" 27Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!" And from that hour the disciple took her to(AK) his own....... home.


.......Does anyone have any thoughts? Did I miss anything or is this already common knowledge?

Good scripture. If Jesus had brothers, one of them would have cared for the Blessed Virgin. I would like to refer you to this link regarding Jesus's "brothers":
http://www.catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp

...and to this one about Mary's perpetual virginity:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

If Jesus had brothers

There is do dogma of "Jesus Had No Sibs."
Never has been. In any denomination.

The Dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is that Mary had no sex.
NOT that Mary had no kids.
It's about SEX, not SIBS.


I think we all know that a couple may have a single instance of loving, mutual sharing of marital intimacies and not have a child result specifically mentioned in the Bible. In fact, not have a child at all - mentioned in the Bible or not. In fact, they may have dozens, even thousands of such instances of intimate sharing and not have a child result - whether specifically mentioned in the Bible or not. I personally know two couples - each married for roughly 50 years - who have no children (not just not mentioned in the Bible - but at all). In one case, they said that "they tried...." (I think that means they had sex). One could is childless, the other adopted children. Thus, NOT having children means NOTHING about being a perpetual virgin. Even IF the CAtholic is correct and Jesus had no sibs (really, really big "IF" there), it has no relevance to whether Mary had sex.

Of course, IF Jesus had sibs via Mary, then she was NOT a perpetual virgin and that is a point some try to make. Frankly, while I agree that the best and most obvious interpretations is that He did, it cannot be substantiated - thus no Protestant denomination known to me has a dogma of Jesus Had Sibs (much less that Mary Had Lotsa Sex) - we aren't dogmatic on this because Scripture isn't. While most Protestants are of the OPINION that "brothers" means "brothers" there is no dogma about in any Protestant denomination. But again, even if Jesus had no sibs, that does NOT mean that Mary had no sex. And the issue of the Catholic dogma is SEX, not SIBS.






.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The question of Ever virginity is again that if Theotokos was the one to be so involved in the incarnation and give birth to the God-man who was by birth God and man in one hypostases, why would God let anyone else to be born out of her? Why would God allow in the world to exist the dna of Christ? The incarnation was a unique event for a specific purpose. The tomb that kept Christ after his death was a new tomb.... It makes complete sense that Mary would remain virgin, pure as she had already taken her vow to do so. And that is why she asked the agnel "how" since she knows no man. Also the word "until" means to the ages and we know that from many other references in the bible. All these are pointers to her Ever virginity. The fact that she had no children does not prove her virginity that is true. On the other hand though why would she take any chances if she knew that God's will was to be undefiled "until" the end of the ages? Her devotion to God was not some "physical" test or that marital relations are in any sense "bad" or "improper" rather it was a decision she made to honor God in her own special way because of her "special" relationship with Him. She was God's bride and her first vows were to Him. Her Ever virginity have to do with her spiritual devotion to the incarnation and lttle to do with the physical state. Her "physical" virginity was a mere "tool" to approach the Lord in humility, purity and prayer and complete devotion to her calling It is not by any means a pointer to a life without marital relations. Those who are steeped in the faith of the Church understand the higher purpose of the Ever Virginity of Mary.....

I disagree with your rubric that dogmas are substantiated if I can ask questions and answer them and in my opinion, my answers to my questions seems to suggest the dogma might be true. About as weak and baseless of a rubric as I can image - and one I'm SURE you'd reject from any other.




.

 

[katholikos]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbCFHTJ6Ax4

 

[BeforeTheFoundation]

There is do dogma of "Jesus Had No Sibs."
Never has been. In any denomination.

The Dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is that Mary had no sex.
NOT that Mary had no kids.
It's about SEX, not SIBS.

One usually follows the other. Unless you posit that they adopted.

I think we all know that a couple may have a single instance of loving, mutual sharing of marital intimacies and not have a child result specifically mentioned in the Bible. In fact, not have a child at all - mentioned in the Bible or not. In fact, they may have dozens, even thousands of such instances of intimate sharing and not have a child result - whether specifically mentioned in the Bible or not. I personally know two couples - each married for roughly 50 years - who have no children (not just not mentioned in the Bible - but at all). In one case, they said that "they tried...." (I think that means they had sex). One could is childless, the other adopted children. Thus, NOT having children means NOTHING about being a perpetual virgin. Even IF the CAtholic is correct and Jesus had no sibs (really, really big "IF" there), it has no relevance to whether Mary had sex.

I acknowledged all of this in my post. I did not say that this proved anything, just made the perpetual virginity more plausible.

@katholikos: Interesting video. The first point doesn't really help the case though because while Hebrew and Aramaic may not have any word for nephew, cousin, etc. the language in question is Greek (Irecognize that Jesus would have been speaking Aramaic, but the Gospels were all written in Koine Greek).

Of course adding this...

The writers of the New Testament were brought up using the Aramaic equivalent of "brothers" to mean both cousins and sons of the same father—plus other relatives and even non-relatives. When they wrote in Greek, they did the same thing the translators of the Septuagint did. (The Septuagint was the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible; it was translated by Hellenistic Jews a century or two before Christ’s birth and was the version of the Bible from which most of the Old Testament quotations found in the New Testament are taken.)

In the Septuagint the Hebrew word that includes both brothers and cousins was translated as adelphos, which in Greek usually has the narrow meaning that the English "brother" has. Unlike Hebrew or Aramaic, Greek has a separate word for cousin, anepsios, but the translators of the Septuagint used adelphos, even for true cousins.

from the first link that you posted changes thins a bit doesn't it?

Her "physical" virginity was a mere "tool" to approach the Lord in humility

Interesting.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

There is do dogma of "Jesus Had No Sibs."

Never has been. In any denomination.

The Dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is that Mary had no sex.

NOT that Mary had no kids.
It's about SEX, not SIBS.


.

One usually follows the other. Unless you posit that they adopted.

I'm not sure that it is "USUAL" that every single instance of the mutual, loving sharing of intimacies results in a child specifically mentioned in the Bible - or even a child at all. Thus, even IF (big word there, lol) it cannot be shown that there is another child via Mary mentioned in the Bible, that does not preclude a single such case of marital sharing.

I agree, NORMALLY, in MOST cases, a lifetime of such sharing between spouses will result in children - although not necessarily all mentioned in the Bible. But there's no firm link there. Certainly insuffient to show that Mary could not have had some intimate sharing even once.

Again, the dogma is not about sibs. It's about sex.

Yes, IF Mary had other children - she should not have been a perpetual virgin (unless all the others were by the Holy Spirit, as well). But NOT having other children (specifically mentioned in the bible or not) says NOTHING about whether she ever once had sex or not. Nothing.

I think we all know that a couple may have a single instance of loving, mutual sharing of marital intimacies and not have a child result specifically mentioned in the Bible. In fact, not have a child at all - mentioned in the Bible or not. In fact, they may have dozens, even thousands of such instances of intimate sharing and not have a child result - whether specifically mentioned in the Bible or not. I personally know two couples - each married for roughly 50 years - who have no children (not just not mentioned in the Bible - but at all). In one case, they said that "they tried...." (I think that means they had sex). One could is childless, the other adopted children. Thus, NOT having children means NOTHING about being a perpetual virgin. Even IF the CAtholic is correct and Jesus had no sibs (really, really big "IF" there), it has no relevance to whether Mary had sex.

I did not say that this proved anything, just made the perpetual virginity more plausible.

More plausible than what? I don't have any children mentioned in the Bible either, it is therefore "plausible" to you that I'm a perpetual virgin (I hope not, LOL)...

And since when did a matter of highest certainty and greatest importance - to deny such is to be a heretic and thereby one's salvation is in question - need only to have some "plausibility?"





.

 

[BeforeTheFoundation]

I'm not sure that it is "USUAL" that every single instance of the mutual, loving sharing of intimacies results in a child specifically mentioned in the Bible - or even a child at all.

No, I am saying that if you are a virgin you cannot have a child (with one notable exception).

Thus, even IF (big word there, lol) it cannot be shown that there is another child via Mary mentioned in the Bible, that does not preclude a single such case of marital sharing.

I said this already.

Again, the dogma is not about sibs. It's about sex.

Right. but if he had sibs then it proves that Mary was not a virgin. By suggesting that Jesus did not have sibs makes it possible that she was a virgin for life.

But NOT having other children (specifically mentioned in the bible or not) says NOTHING about whether she ever once had sex or not. Nothing.

As I have said repeatedly, I recognize that this does not prove the perpetual virginity, but you have to admit that if the bible does not say that she had children it makes it more plausible that she was a virgin for life. It makes it possible.

I don't have any children mentioned in the Bible either, it is therefore "plausible" to you that I'm a perpetual virgin (I hope not, LOL)...

Look, if you have children then we know that you are not a virgin. But, if you do not have children and someone says , "hey CaliforniaJosiah is a virgin" then it is possible that you are. Of course, it is still possible that you are not, but it is at least possible that you are a virgin.

And since when did a matter of highest certainty and greatest importance - to deny such is to be a heretic and thereby one's salvation is in question - need only to have some "plausibility?"

Wow, I did not say that salvation depends on this. And incidentally, since Vatican II, the Catholic Church has recognized us (yes, us) as estranged brethren. That is, they still believe that we can have salvation. So, no one is questioning your salvation.

 

[Ave Maria]

Glad to see that you came across this little gem of scripture.

 

[jckstraw72]

There is do dogma of "Jesus Had No Sibs."
Never has been. In any denomination.

whats this?! CJ being dishonest? shocking.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Right. but if he had sibs then it proves that Mary was not a virgin. By suggesting that Jesus did not have sibs makes it possible that she was a virgin for life.



As I have said repeatedly, I recognize that this does not prove the perpetual virginity, but you have to admit that if the bible does not say that she had children it makes it more plausible that she was a virgin for life. It makes it possible.



Look, if you have children then we know that you are not a virgin. But, if you do not have children and someone says , "hey CaliforniaJosiah is a virgin" then it is possible that you are. Of course, it is still possible that you are not, but it is at least possible that you are a virgin.

you're basing much on possibility. Tell me, (and personally, I believe that Mary had kids, but it's not of huge import to me) if you came across a MARRIED couple without kids, would you assume virginity?

Wow, I did not say that salvation depends on this. And incidentally, since Vatican II, the Catholic Church has recognized us (yes, us) as estranged brethren. That is, they still believe that we can have salvation. So, no one is questioning your salvation.

not all of them....not since Vat II anyways.

 

[Uphill Battle]

whats this?! CJ being dishonest? shocking.

really? could you point out the Dogma of the "Mary never had kids" variety that any denomonation has on the books?

thanks.

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

whats this?! CJ being dishonest? shocking.

LOL

 

[Philothei]

I'm worried. What if the Hokey Pokey IS what it's all about?

If you are still worrying about that one.... I do not think it leaves you much room to question other more important question UB lol......Just joking ya though

anyhow...for what it is worth the fact that that couple had no kids does not point to the fact that Theotokos remained Virgin in her marriage ...It just reinforces it. Because is she did indeed had kids with Joseph then how would you feel about her being ever Virgin? That is all what is been said. We are not stupid we know that not ALL couples who do not have kids still can have marital relations...