Perpetual virginity (not a hate thread)

[LittleLambofJesus]

The fact still remains that no man ever told the story that Mary had more children then Jesus from her womb until 200 years ago.

For me I want to avoid believe in man made theologies that do not fit with Christian beliefs and for this to happen the thology must fit with accepted teachings from the earliest of Christianity.

To say Mary gave birth to any person besides Jesus is to teach man made theologies from the last 2 centuries.

Tis interesting. Outta be a law against that

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Friend and bro,


There IS and never WAS any dogma of Jesus Had No Sibs.
Not in the RCC. Not anywhere.
Ever.

The Dogma under discussion here is one held in perhaps 3 denominations.
It is that Mary Had No Sex - Ever.
It's about sex.
Not sibs.




.

Why do you continue to post as though you did not read my post?

Tell me, did you read that Mary gave borth to no other than Jesus and that the only accepted story of Jesus having siblings was from his serrogate father Joseph from a previous marriage?

Did you read my links I gave you?

Please show enough courtesy to address my posts in their fullness.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Why do you continue to post as though you did not read my post.

You don't seem to be reading mine, LOL.

There is no dogma of Jesus Had No Sibs.
Never has been. Isn't now.
Anywhere.

I don't understand why you want to spend so much energy trying to defend and support a dogma that doesn't exist.

The Dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is that Mary was a perpetual virgin. Surely you know that. We all do.


Now, I never stated that there were opinions for or against the idea of siblings of Jesus. Yup. Still are. But that's not the topic of this thread and there's no dogma about that. The dogma is about sex, not sibs. It is: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary. Not: "Jesus Was An Only Child" or "Mary Had One Child" or "Jesus Had No Siblings." Let's try to stick to the subject at hand - how often Mary had sex (if at all). IMHO, it will aid greatly in the discussion.


Thank you!


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

You don't seem to be reading mine, LOL.

There is no dogma of Jesus Had No Sibs.
Never has been. Isn't now.
Anywhere.

I don't understand why you want to spend so much energy trying to defend and support a dogma that doesn't exist.

The Dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is that Mary was a perpetual virgin. Surely you know that. We all do.


Now, I never stated that there were opinions for or against the idea of siblings of Jesus. Yup. Still are. But that's not the topic of this thread and there's no dogma about that. The dogma is about sex, not sibs. It is: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary. Not: "Jesus Was An Only Child" or "Mary Had One Child" or "Jesus Had No Siblings." Let's try to stick to the subject at hand - how often Mary had sex (if at all). IMHO, it will aid greatly in the discussion.


Thank you!


Pax


- Josiah





.

I am not trying to support a Dogma but show the false teaching that Mary gave birth to another child. Mary gave birth to Jesus alone and not other was in that ark.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I am not trying to support a Dogma but show the false teaching that Mary gave birth to another child. Mary gave birth to Jesus alone and not other was in that ark.

AH, but, of course, that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread or with the dogma of those 3 denominations. But you'd be FAR from the first to divert a thread into an entirely different subject, LOL....

Any reason why you aren't discussing how often Mary had sex - if at all? Why you are not supporting your Dogma? Not that you need to, I'm just curious.




.

 

[Sierra162]

The fact still remains that no man ever told the story that Mary had more children then Jesus from her womb until 200 years ago.

For me I want to avoid believe in man made theologies that do not fit with Christian beliefs and for this to happen the thology must fit with accepted teachings from the earliest of Christianity.

To say Mary gave birth to any person besides Jesus is to teach man made theologies from the last 2 centuries.

Going the opposite direction in time, when was Mary first written about that she was ever virgin?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

AH, but, of course, that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread or with the dogma of those 3 denominations. But you'd be FAR from the first to divert a thread into an entirely different subject, LOL....

Any reason why you aren't discussing how often Mary had sex - if at all? Why you are not supporting your Dogma? Not that you need to, I'm just curious.




.

If you had read the link I gave...

Mary made a vow as a child to never have sex and always be a virgin. If you had read my link you would know that this is what Christian have been taught since at least the 4th century. These 4th century writings atest to this fact that Mary made such a vow and God knew should would always keep her vow.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Going the opposite direction in time, when was Mary first written about that she was ever virgin?

In the first century.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

In the first century.

Would you mind quoting, verbatim, from a document that we can certainly date as 99 AD or earlier that specifically states that Mary never once had sex?

Thanks!


PS Glad to get around to the topic of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary! Although, I confess, I think the issue of whether Jesus had sibs has far more relevance than whether Mary ever had sex. I've never understood why anyone cares how often she had sex.




.

 

[Sierra162]

In the first century.

Thank you Jack.



When I think of Mary being ever virgin, I always think of it in terms of Jesus having no other siblings. I didn't ever think of it in terms of her not having sex. I think if she did, she would of had other children.

I know the whole brothers and sisters deal can mean cousins, or other relatives. But what makes me think that Jesus did not have other siblings is because on the cross, he gave his mother to the beloved disciple John.
He would not have done that if he had brothers to care for her.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

PS Glad to get around to the topic of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary! Although, I confess, I think the issue of whether Jesus had sibs has far more relevance than whether Mary ever had sex. I've never understood why anyone cares how often she had sex.

Is there a chance Mary could have been sterile and unable to have children or even that Joseph could have been sterile. Just curious

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I didn't ever think of it in terms of her not having sex. I think if she did, she would of had other children.

Perhaps, but I know of no dogmatic fact of biology that every single act of marital intimacy results in the birth of a child specifically mentioned in the Bible - or one at all. In fact, I know of a couple - probably well in their 70's - that specificly told me that they had "tried" for years to have a child, but that they never did conceive. So they adopted some children. I assume "tried" means they had sex. At least once, anyway. So, while I'm no expert in biology, it seems to ME that one CAN have sex - at least once - and not NECESSARILY have children, much less specifically mentioned in the Bible.


The dogma is called "The Perpetual Virginity of Mary" because the dogma is that Mary was a perpetual virgin. If the dogma were that Jesus had no sibs, I suspect the dogma would be referred to as "Jesus had no siblings." Actually, while that was a subject of some interest well after the early church, centuries AFTER Mary lived, that topic was never the subject of any dogmas or even doctrines. Of course, it could be seen as an ramification of this dogma (Obviously, if she never once had sex, she could not have had other children unless they too were by a miracle). But the dogma is that she had no sex, not that she had no other children.

He would not have done that if he had brothers to care for her.

.... MAYBE. But I hesitate to embrace as a dogmatic fact of highest importance and certainly based on a speculation. And of course, there IS no dogma of Jesus had no sibs, only that Mary had no sex.





.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Sierra162 I didn't ever think of it in terms of her not having sex. I think if she did, she would of had other children.

Not necessarily. There are a few instances where women were barren and YHWH opened their wombs to bear and why I brought up concerning maybe either Joseph or Mary were "sterile", but YHWH allowed Mary to bear our Lord Jesus only. Just tossing this out there

Rotherham) Genesis 29:31 And, when Yahweh saw that Leah was hated, he granted her to bear children,--whereas, Rachel, was barren.

Rotherham) Genesis 30:22 Then God remembered Rachel,--and God hearkened unto her, and granted her to bear.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Is there a chance Mary could have been sterile and unable to have children or even that Joseph could have been sterile. Just curious

The speculations are endless, aren't they? But one is often left wondering why it should be a matter of highest importance, and if speculation is a sound basis for dogma. Don't you think?

In any case, if I properly understand biology (and I'm an unmarried virgin), NOT every single act of marital intimacy ALWAYS results in a child - especially one specifically mentioned as such in the Bible. Is that correct? If so, then even IF it can be proven that He had no sibs (and no one has even attempted to show that), that would be entirely moot to the dogma we're discussing here. Do you agree?

Of course, the opposite is also true. IF it could be shown that Mary DID have other children, that would make this dogma a heresy. And I think some DO try to prove that. IMHO, they fall short of that proof - even though I agree that the argument is far, far stronger on that side. Thus, IMHO, we just don't know if Mary had any other children or not. I use to be of the view that she did not (rather passionate) but having read some of the posts here at CF, I'm not at all sure. But since no denomination on the planet has any doctrine on that anyway - I'm not loosing any sleep on that. We're back to the issue at hand. And it's about Mary and sex, not Jesus and sibs.


Let's see what documents CLEARLY from before 99 AD our Catholic friend comes up with that specifically state that Mary never once ever had sex. And who is the author; maybe it's Mary's brother or something, someone who theoretically anyway might have been told this issue by Mary and thus might, theoretically anyway, actually know this tidbit - moot as it is. I'm kinda waiting for that verbatim quote.


Thank you!


GEEZE I wish you would clean up your inbox!!!



.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

We're back to the issue at hand. And it's about Mary and sex, not Jesus and sibs.

Yes, I gathered that and sorry to interrupt....

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Yes, I gathered that and sorry to interrupt....

No prob...


Actually, like you, I think the issue of whether Jesus had sibs is more interesting and far more relevant. I don't even care how often my parents have sex, I care a whole lot less how often Mary and Joseph did - if at all. But there is no doctrine about his sibs - never has been, anywhere. The dogma (and the topic of this thread) is quite different: NOT whether Jesus had sibs but whether Mary had sex.



.

 

[Sierra162]

So, while I'm no expert in biology, it seems to ME that one CAN have sex - at least once - and not NECESSARILY have children, much less specifically mentioned in the Bible.

That is true Josiah.

Not necessarily. There are a few instances where women were barren and YHWH opened their wombs to bear and why I brought up concerning maybe either Joseph or Mary were "sterile", but YHWH allowed Mary to bear our Lord Jesus only. Just tossing this out there

Rotherham) Genesis 29:31 And, when Yahweh saw that Leah was hated, he granted her to bear children,--whereas, Rachel, was barren.

Rotherham) Genesis 30:22 Then God remembered Rachel,--and God hearkened unto her, and granted her to bear.

You got a point there too LLOJ

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I have a question. Are the EO and RC Churches in complete agreement on all aspects of the EV of Mary? I saw this thread concerning the EO perpsective but are there any differences with the RCC on this and which one was the first to come up with this view? Thanks

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7302640
Ever Virginity of Theotokos - Eastern Orthodox perspective

 

[MoeSzyslak]

Going the opposite direction in time, when was Mary first written about that she was ever virgin?

I'm not going to enter the excitement here. If you wish to believe it, then believe it. If ya don't then don't. It doesn't really matter to me either way.
But to answer the question. The earliest quote I have found regarding the perpetual virginity of Mary comes from a writing called the "Protevangelium of James." Most scholars date this writing around 150AD. Then shortly thereafter, some Christian writers seem to pick up on the idea. The Protevangelium of James is a Gnostic writing. The particular flavor of Gnosticism behind the Protevangelium of James was Docetism. Docetism essentially denied that Jesus became man. They believed he was some kind of embodied spirit that lived on the earth. In section 19 of the Protevangelium, it states that Mary did not give birth to Jesus. Instead, a light flooded the room and then when it dissipated, Jesus was there as a baby and went to Mary to nurse. Then it mentions Mary still being intact. So the Docetist seemed to invent the notion of Mary's perpetual virginity as a defense to their belief of Jesus as an embodied spirit. If Mary was a virgin and is still intact, then how could Jesus have been a human? He must have been an embodied spirit.
Of course, the church rejected Docetism, but some writers seemed to pick up on the perpeutal virginty idea that came out of it. It seems to be of a dubious origin to me. But, then again I wasn't alive then. So I don't know who ultimately borrowed the idea from who?

 

[Sierra162]

I'm not going to enter the excitement here. If you wish to believe it, then believe it. If ya don't then don't. It doesn't really matter to me either way.
But to answer the question. The earliest quote I have found regarding the perpetual virginity of Mary comes from a writing called the "Protevangelium of James." Most scholars date this writing around 150AD. Then shortly thereafter, some Christian writers seem to pick up on the idea. The Protevangelium of James is a Gnostic writing. The particular flavor of Gnosticism behind the Protevangelium of James was Docetism. Docetism essentially denied that Jesus became man. They believed he was some kind of embodied spirit that lived on the earth. In section 19 of the Protevangelium, it states that Mary did not give birth to Jesus. Instead, a light flooded the room and then when it dissipated, Jesus was there as a baby and went to Mary to nurse. Then it mentions Mary still being intact. So the Docetist seemed to invent the notion of Mary's perpetual virginity as a defense to their belief of Jesus as an embodied spirit. If Mary was a virgin and is still intact, then how could Jesus have been a human? He must have been an embodied spirit.
Of course, the church rejected Docetism, but some writers seemed to pick up on the perpeutal virginty idea that came out of it. It seems to be of a dubious origin to me. But, then again I wasn't alive then. So I don't know who ultimately borrowed the idea from who?

What excitement Moe?

I do thank you for your input.