Perpetual virginity (not a hate thread)

[Standing Up]

Lk. 2:42 And when he was twelve years old, they (Joseph and Mary) went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast.


I tried to find something in the OT about caring for widows, as the point was made that Jesus instructed John to care for His mother, implying that there were no other siblings of Jesus (probably accurate, as the typing from Sarah was the one and only son Isaac). Perhaps John was also of the tribe of Judah (next of kin typing from Ruth).

 

[Thekla]

perhaps, Thekla. I want to research fully before I say "I told you so."

I think you've earned an "I told you so" on that line of exploration

 

[Constantine_Orthodox]

CaliforniaJosiah and UphillBattle, I suggest you read the prophesy in Ezechiel 44, 1-3, since you are so keen in sola scriptura!

 

[Uphill Battle]

Hello Constantine. I've read it. I've had it presented as evidence.

It is rather baffling evidence indeed.

for it mentions a gate, not a person. If it's a simile, an archtype, or whathave you, I must question of course why part of the "prophecy" is used, but the rest discarded in defense of the Perpetual virginity.

 

[prodromos]

The translation of the word "gynai" is not necessarily mean wife it can also be used for someone who is 'engaged" to someone.

At the wedding at Cana, Jesus calls His mother "gynai", yet I've never heard anyone suggest that Jesus and Mary were married. Why then do some people insist that the proper translation of "gynai" is "wife"?

John

 

[prodromos]

Lk. 2:42 And when he was twelve years old, they (Joseph and Mary) went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast.


I tried to find something in the OT about caring for widows, as the point was made that Jesus instructed John to care for His mother, implying that there were no other siblings of Jesus (probably accurate, as the typing from Sarah was the one and only son Isaac). Perhaps John was also of the tribe of Judah (next of kin typing from Ruth).

According to Orthodox Tradition, the wife of Zebedee and mother of James and John, Salome, was one of the daughters of Joseph by his first wife. That makes James and John Christ's nephews.

John

 

[bbbbbbb]

"Then he went to the gate which faced east, went up its steps, and measured the threshold of the gate, one rod in width; and the other threshold was one rod in width." Ezekiel 40:6

Here is one of the truly great prophecies of the Bible. Here in mystical and prophetic language Ezekiel describes his divine encounter with the very gate of God, that great eastern gate through which our Lord would come and enter into His temple. Indeed, it is none other than the very womb of His incarnation, is it not?

We see in this prophetic utterance that this gate had steps which one ascended to enter therein. Marvelous steps! Wonderful steps! Indeed, are these not a foretaste of the Stations of the Cross - those deeply moving and sad steps our Lord Himself took to the cross? And yet we see that these very same steps were foreordained as being at the very entrance of the gate.

Next we see that the threshold is measured. Oh what a divine promise! What supreme illumination is given to us! That the very threshold of our Lord's gate would be measured so that we might know the very size of that mystical, yet real, gate! And yet not just the one threshold but the other as well. Does this not show to us the absolute verification of the dimensions of the gate?

Finally, the exact size of the thresholds are revealed. They both precisely one rod in width. And what does that mean? One need look no further than to understand the absolute measurement of a rod. A rod is precisely 43,798 centimeters in length. Thus, Ezekiel is shown the precise number of days until our Lord would enter through the thresholds of that mystical gate, the very womb of humanity. Wondrous grace! Wondrous prophecy! Should we not bow low in worship?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

CaliforniaJosiah and UphillBattle, I suggest you read the prophesy in Ezechiel 44, 1-3, since you are so keen in sola scriptura!

I have.


NOTHING about Mary or her virginity.


NOTHING.


Back to the subject of this thread....


.

 

[Philothei]

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.



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 plausibl

This has been answered already....

 

[Philothei]

At the wedding at Cana, Jesus calls His mother "gynai", yet I've never heard anyone suggest that Jesus and Mary were married. Why then do some people insist that the proper translation of "gynai" is "wife"?

John

Because of the poor understanding of scriptural greek....

 

[Uphill Battle]

nobody is insisting the word must mean wife. What is being insisted upon, is when a word means more than one thing, you actually have to put the puzzle pieces together to see the picture.

simply saying "it may not mean wife, therefore it doesn't" is poor methodology.

 

[Philothei]

Still until someone is told that it also means 'this' and "that" one thinks just because this meaning is written down there is no other meaning... See the point?

 

[Uphill Battle]

perhaps. That's why putting the puzzle together is so important.


It serves no more purpose to believe that it can't mean something, because someone tells you it can't, than assuming it does, based on what you read.

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

Try listening to my mp3 over here:
http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7331774

 

[Philothei]

perhaps. That's why putting the puzzle together is so important.


It serves no more purpose to believe that it can't mean something, because someone tells you it can't, than assuming it does, based on what you read.

it is ... and the more we know about how language works the more "wide" of a window in interpretation and open we become to different perspectives.... Based on what it means and in this case in more than it actually says... or was translated

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

I have.


NOTHING about Mary or her virginity.


NOTHING.


Back to the subject of this thread....


.

I laugh when I read your diatribes about Mary and sex, for I know that you are applying your particular spin on what is essentially a very simple issue: Just like other parthenos, the concern is DEVOTION. The virgins at the Parthenon (hence the word parthenos) were such as a sign of their devotion to the pantheon.

If I am devoted as a giver of funds to the Church, it is not about money, it is about devotion lived out. If I am a monk, and devoted to prayer, it is not about my effort in prayer as much as it is about my devotion to God and His children. If you are devoted to the reading and study of scripture, your intent is not to read and study as much as it is about your devotion to God and His ways.

This is obvious, but something in your brain triggers around the issue of sex that is positively Freudian in scope.

As for the OP:
There are scriptures that lead one to believe that very possibly Mary had no other biological children. We who believe that she remained Virgin perpetually believe so because of this evidence, coupled with the writings of everyone Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox until the advent in the 1800s of virulent anti-Catholicism, and rejection of such theological/traditional distinctives.

What I appreciate about the OP and its author is the unfetterred exploration of the issue.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I know that you are applying your particular spin on what is essentially a very simple issue

Yes it is.


The DOGMA of The Perpetual Virginity of Mary is this: Mary had no sex ever.


Very simple. Very precise.
For odd reasons, those that embrace it - fully and with docility - and who defend it passionately seem a bit embarrassed and defensive and even apologetic about it.

This is obvious, but something in your brain triggers around the issue of sex that is positively Freudian in scope.

Exactly the opposite. I have no "issues" with Mary and sex at all. The obsession and discomfort is entirely on the side of Catholics (and it would seem, Orthodox). To be frank: I think it entirely moot and completely none of my business of Mary and Joseph ever shared such intimacies or not - but then NO ONE has ANY dogma about that issue at all except for two denominations: the CC and EO.

There are scriptures that lead one to believe that very possibly Mary had no other biological children.

This thread is not about whether Mary had any other biological children.
There is not now - and never has been - ANY doctrine or dogma on that issue.
This thread is about whether Mary ever had sex.

We who believe that she remained Virgin perpetually believe so because of this evidence

I sincerely doubt that, for that would require that they believe that every single act of marital intimacies results in a child specifically named in the Bible - and I very strongly doubt that any knowledgable person believes that.


Again, there is no dogma of "Jesus Had No Sibs."
Never has been. In ANY denomination. At ANY time.
Nor is this thread about such an opinion.
This thread is about the dogma of "Mary Had No Sex."
UNLESS you have solid biological evidence that every single act of sex results in a child and that such a child is named in the Bible, then there's no connection between a non-existent dogma of Mary Had One Child and the dogma of 2 denominations that Mary Had No Sex.






.

 

[Thekla]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50wGjSTlfIs&feature=related

 

[Thekla]

I do find it sad that after extensive treatment of the issue, there are remaining factual errors on the matter iterated by the poster that have previously been addressed and corrected. Goes to show that some things are futile.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I do find it sad that after extensive treatment of the issue, there are remaining factual errors on the matter iterated by the poster that have previously been addressed and corrected. Goes to show that some things are futile.

Here are the FACTS:

1. The DOGMA of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is that Mary had no sex ever.

2. The Bible says NOTHING about how often she had sex. ONLY that she had not had sex before Jesus was born.

3. Many regard it as theologically moot and frankly no one's business how often a couple has sex - except for that couple. It's often regarded as a private marital issue and may even be regarded as rude and offensive to shout to others as an issue of highest importance for all to know and affirm.

4. Of course, IF it can be evidenced that Mary had other children then surely she did not remain a virgin. While SOME Protestants feel there is compelling if not conclusive indications of that, others (including me) make no firm stand upon that. The opposite, however, is moot. Even if Mary had no other children, that means NOTHING regarding this dogma. I think all over the age of 13 know that it's possible to have a single instance of sex and not have a child result from such - especially one specifically mentioned in the Bible. It's a meaningless argument that does NOTHING to support the DOGMA.




Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah




.