Perpetual Virginity

[Thekla]

Oh, okay because it was used like that? I got ya now. So when I say I'm going to not have sex until I'm married. I'm also saying I wont have sex after. Makes total sense. /sarcasm

In both examples, "until" refers to a particular span of time, ie the span of time coming before.

As in the example of the words of Jesus Christ (Matthew 28:20), is it your belief that Christ will not be with those addressed in this passage after the end of the age ?

 

[tmanz12]

I keep posting scripture as evidence and you keep posting word play and generalities.

If you can find scripture that supports the notion that Mary was a perpetual virgin or was brought to heaven without dieing, I'll believe it. Until then it is Pseudepigrapha .

 

[Thekla]

I keep posting scripture as evidence and you keep posting word play and generalities.

If you can find scripture that supports the notion that Mary was a perpetual virgin or was brought to heaven without dieing, I'll believe it. Until then it is Pseudepigrapha .

I have posted scriptural references as well, for example the Matthew 28 passage which records the words of Christ.

Nor have I engaged in any discussion outside of language/terminolgy; perhaps you have confused me with another poster here.

You have claimed that adelphos means "from the same womb", yet have failed to explain how Philip and Herod ( who were born of different mothers) shared a womb. Further, perhaps you can explain how Lot and his uncle Abraham were also 'born from the same womb'.

In short, it cannot be shown using Scripture what exactly the relationship of Jesus and the adelphos actually was. Thus, Scripture does not support your position that Mary had other children.

 

[tmanz12]

I have posted scriptural references as well, for example the Matthew 28 passage which records the words of Christ.

Nor have I engaged in any discussion outside of language/terminolgy; perhaps you have confused me with another poster here.

You have claimed that adelphos means "from the same womb", yet have failed to explain how Philip and Herod ( who were born of different mothers) shared a womb. Further, perhaps you can explain how Lot and his uncle Abraham were also 'born from the same womb'.

In short, it cannot be shown using Scripture what exactly the relationship of Jesus and the adelphos actually was. Thus, Scripture does not support your position that Mary had other children.

You're arguing the use of the word until. You cannot honestly say that these are used in the same way. You are purposely abusing the laws of the language to enforce baseless, and scriptureless rhetoric. Rhetoric that is based on the Romans mixing polytheism with Christianity to make it suit them better. Look up the goddess Minerva. There is you're perpetual virgin.

Mary was an average Jewish girl that was blessed enough to be allowed to carry the Christ, Jesus. She is not a god, nor the queen of heaven. Jesus existed before she did as part of the holy trinity. She didn't create him.

Matthew 28:19-20
19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”



Matthew 1:24-25
24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

 

[Thekla]

You're arguing the use of the word until. You cannot honestly say that these are used in the same way. You are purposely abusing the laws of the language to enforce baseless, and scriptureless rhetoric. Rhetoric that is based on the Romans mixing polytheism with Christianity to make it suit them better. Look up the goddess Minerva. There is you're perpetual virgin.

Is it your assertion that Christ will not be with the apostles after the end of the age - will it be that they abandon Him ? What do you think on this matter ?

Perhaps you can provide academic grammatical sources for English and Greek that indicate that the use of the word "eos/until" demonstrate an ineluctable change of condition following the span of time covered by the term "eos/until"'; please do so.

As for rhetoric, please provide the name of the rhetorical device I am using, as I am not aware of it.

Mary was an average Jewish girl that was blessed enough to be allowed to carry the Christ, Jesus. She is not a god, nor the queen of heaven. Jesus existed before she did as part of the holy trinity. She didn't create him.

Please quote any of my posts that demonstrate that I have stated that Mary is god or pre-existed the pre-eternal Logos. I have not to my knowledge done so.

As for the term "queen of heaven", it is a cultural term denoting the identity of the 'son of the queen'. IE, the kings mother is called the queen.

Matthew 28:19-20
19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

The Greek here is more literally translated: "I with you am all the days until/eos the completion of the age." There are numerous online interlinears where you can check this for yourself.

Matthew 1:24-25
24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

In this passage, as in Matthew 28:20, the word translated 'until' is eos (epsilon, omega, sigma) -- again, check an online interlinear.

 

[tmanz12]

Is it your assertion that Christ will not be with the apostles after the end of the age - will it be that they abandon Him ? What do you think on this matter ?

I'm not even going to regard that. Apples and oranges.

Perhaps you can provide academic grammatical sources for English and Greek that indicate that the use of the word "eos/until" demonstrate an ineluctable change of condition following the span of time covered by the term "eos/until"'; please do so.

Its the entire sentence that is a statement not one word.

As for rhetoric, please provide the name of the rhetorical device I am using, as I am not aware of it.

rhet·o·ric


–noun4. the ability to use language effectively.

6. the art of making persuasive speeches; oratory.

7. (in classical oratory) the art of influencing the thought and conduct of anaudience.

Please quote any of my posts that demonstrate that I have stated that Mary is god or pre-existed the pre-eternal Logos. I have not to my knowledge done so.

Its part of the perpetual virginity/holy ascension myth.

As for the term "queen of heaven", it is a cultural term denoting the identity of the 'son of the queen'. IE, the kings mother is called the queen.
The Greek here is more literally translated: "I with you am all the days until/eos the completion of the age." There are numerous online interlinears where you can check this for yourself.
.

Queen shows ownership or royalty. Projecting the idea that she is a part of the God head.

 

[Chris81]

Mary was an average Jewish girl that was blessed enough to be allowed to carry the Christ, Jesus. She is not a god, nor the queen of heaven. Jesus existed before she did as part of the holy trinity. She didn't create him.

Mary was just some average Jewish girl, is that what they teach you at your Church?

Mary is highly favored by God:

Luke 1:28 "Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you."

And why was she favored by God?

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Luke 1:34 "And Mary said to the angel "How can this be, since I am a virgin?"

Therefore she was favored because of her Chasity.

In Luke 1:26-38 we see in Mary's response to hearing that she would conceive Jesus that she displays remarkable character.

She is troubled but instead of any display of excitement or of alarm, there is only the quiet self possessed casting of the mind.

No word of skepticism.

No demand for a sign

She does not doubt that it shall be she just questions how it shall be.

In response to finding out that she has been chosen to conceive Jesus the Christ she responds back with true and genuine piety, as well as a profound humility in the following verse:

38 "And Mary said, "Behold, the bondslave of the Lord; be it done to me according to your word."

Therefore she was favored because of her Conformity to God’s will.

In Luke 1:46-55 we hear of her confession of praise 'The Magnificat'

46 "My soul exalts the Lord"

47 "And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior"

Augustine said “Mary first conceived Christ in her heart by faith before she conceived in the womb.”

48 "He has had regard for the humble state of his bondslave;"

1. This is her humility showing again.
2. Handmaiden. She was a slave for the Lord.

The message of her praise of God

1. His divine power “He that is mighty hath done…great things” vs 49
2. His divine holiness.
a. “Holy is his name” vs 49
b. “He hath scattered the proud,” etc. vss 51, 52
3. His divine mercy. vs 50
4. His divine faithfulness. vss 53-55.

Therefore she was favored because of her Confession of faith in God’s will.

In conclusion Mary was not just some average Jewish girl. Mary was favored by God and indeed blessed “among women”. She had prepared herself to be used by God and then allowed herself to be used by God. She had beauty of character.

She was highly favored because of:

Her Chastity
Her Conformity to God’s will
Her Confession of faith in God’s will

 

[tmanz12]

By average I meant normal. The only thing that set her apart was her faith and God's favor. Apart from being in the line of David like the prophecy said.

None of those scriptures(or any other) refer to her being a virgin after she gave birth to Jesus. Which is where you go from religion to mythology.

 

[Chris81]

By average I meant normal. The only thing that set her apart was her faith and God's favor. Apart from being in the line of David like the prophecy said.

None of those scriptures(or any other) refer to her being a virgin after she gave birth to Jesus. Which is where you go from religion to mythology.

Perpetual virginity requires no miracle from god. There are some woman who even today remain virgins their entire lives.

How is the doctrine of Perpetual Virginity considered mythology? If this was a doctrine that the leaders of the protestant reformation found to be in error they would have spoken against it, instead the reaffirmed the doctrine of Perpetual Virginity.

You seem to be equating Mary's perpetual virginity with some weird idea of her being a goddess. No one is arguing such a case. This is also not equivalent with the doctrine of Immaculate Conception in which Mary was born without original sin. As a protestant I believe that she still sinned in her life but none the less lead a life of righteousness and true faith in God, she was blessed and highly favored by God to conceive the Christ. The doctrine of Perpetual Virginity concerns itself only with Mary remaining a virgin her during her entire life.

Do you not believe that one can live a life devoted to god in Chasity for life? If it is possible for someone today to remain a virgin do you not think that Mary 'the favored one' could also lead a life of Chasity for god?

 

[Thekla]

I'm not even going to regard that. Apples and oranges.

Not apples and oranges, it is eos and eos as both verses use the word eos which is translated as until.

Its the entire sentence that is a statement not one word.

Indeed. But you are arguing that the use of eos/until necessarily indicates a change of condition; please cite a grammatical reference for both English (until) and Greek (eos) to substantiate your claim.

rhet·o·ric

–noun4. the ability to use language effectively.

6. the art of making persuasive speeches; oratory.

7. (in classical oratory) the art of influencing the thought and conduct of anaudience.

Thank-you, but I did not ask for a definition of rhetoric. You claimed the use of rhetoric, and rhetoric uses rhetorical devices, such as litotes,anastrophe, catachresis etc. to this end. Which rhetorical device/s did I use ? I am not aware of having used any, so I ask you to identify them.

Its part of the perpetual virginity/holy ascension myth.

You have stated that I deem Mary a god, and to have pre-existed the pre-eternal Logos. I asked you to quote the post where I did. Your response is a straw man, and a bit of an evasion it seems.

Queen shows ownership or royalty. Projecting the idea that she is a part of the God head.

Please note that in the OT, the mother of the Jewish king was referred to as the queen. The term is a survival of Jewish House of David nomenclature, and confesses the identity of Christ as descended from David and as the true King, our Lord.

 

[prodromos]

Jesus existed before she did as part of the holy trinity. She didn't create him.

Do you honestly believe your mother created you? Aren't you God's creation?

 

[MamaZ]

So did we exist before we were born>

 

[Uphill Battle]

The term translated as "til/until" has a broader use. Further, even in English, the use of the term "until" does not describe/is not referrent to what comes after the time period covered by until.

very true, but "until" marks a a conditional. A is true "until" B.

the statement "she did not have sex until Jesus was born" is a nonsensical statement, if there is some change of condition. (see what I mean on your example below.)

It's not dishonest, its language structure. Christ says, "I will be with you until the end of the world". Then what ?

then they will be with him. The condition changes.

To use a previous example:
If I say to my children "Behave until I return", do I mean they are to misbehave after I return ?[/quote]
you don't specify. You gave them a conditional statement. Do this, UNTIL the condition is met. You didn't speak to what you expect after you return. Is it safe to assume though, that the possibility of the children misbehaving AFTER you return exists, without any further command on the matter?

In short, it cannot be shown using Scripture what exactly the relationship of Jesus and the adelphos actually was. Thus, Scripture does not support your position that Mary had other children.

using the "brother" arguement, neither side is supported.

the fact that "brother" CAN mean something other than Natural biological brothers, does not mean that it DOES mean something else.

so you have a situation where brother=brother OR brother =/= brother with equal possibility of each. Neither side wins with this argument.

 

[Uphill Battle]

It has been proven, now it depends if someone wants to believe in it or not.
No one here can strong arm anyone else into seeing - but we all have eyes.

it has not been proven. It is an unprovable. Just because you believe it does NOT make it proven! That is circular reasoning, the most simple argumentation to deconstruct.

I believe it because it's proven because I believe it because it's proven. Do you see how silly it sounds written like that?

I hate to break it to you - but the early Church knew she remained a virgin - and when they knew this - they knew she was meant strictly for God and remained faithful to Him in ALL areas of life.
And lack of carnal relations with man means only the Holy Spirit had permission to enjoin Himself to her in a unique way lacking sex.

they knew no such thing. Did they stay in Mary's bedroom every day after Jesus was born, to be sure of this?

So it's not sexual at all, it's a mystery that completes in her - her innocence to know man - while maintaining faithfulness to God in her vow to remain chaste.

and women who have sex are unfaithful to God?

interesting. (and there is no vow to remain chaste in scripture.)

AND the OT testifies to HOW the LORD comes in - no man shall enter after Him.

I've refuted that passage to be used for proving Mary's pv numerous times, and you do nothing but ignore it. I'm sorry, but this argument isn't worth the time it takes to type it for the 100th time.
I am assuming of course everyone here understands allegory.
So what is truth?
Do you know?

Or do you prefer to remain removed from the early teachings? And why do you? Is there a prejudice to the Church for any reason?

I have a prejudice against believing things simply because people tell me I must, regardless if there is any evidence to believe it, any good reason to believe it, or any reason to trust what is being said in the first place.

AS the teacher of humanity in the position laid out by Christ, the Church is accountable for souls - to ensure His ppl get their fill. He did not abandon us - and laid down His precepts. THOSE precepts are for His people.
The Church has the job to keep the teachings from being corrupted.
For if they are corrupted - then Jesus abandoned us.

poppycock.

“If we are not faithful, he will still be faithful, because he cannot be false to himself” (2 Tim. 2:13).

We don't need to be infallible. He is.

Infallible means taught without error and to be believed.
Something the Church itself enjoins to it's people to avoid heresies.

or to maintain control. That's another option.


A Pope does not make things up.

Kill all the muslims! God wills it! - Pope Urbain something or other.
maybe they do.... but then you can fall back on the "but he wasn't speaking infallibly then" argument, and that makes it all better.

And rarely does the Pope make an infallible teaching...only if necessary.

see? same POST and you brought it up.

I've argued before that Infallibility is useless, if it isn't used in all cases. But apparently it's pretty hit and miss, as to it's application, so it serves no REAL purpose.

And FWIW - it's not about power whatsoever. Its about preserving the sacred teachings for with an understanding that reaches each generation.

and preserving headship over everyone who would follow Christ... which seem a LOT like power.

 

[Thekla]

very true, but "until" marks a a conditional. A is true "until" B.

More accurately, A is true before B; what happens after B is not covered, as it falls outside the span of A-B.

It cannot be said that there is necessarily a change of condition after B, as this is not logically covered by the statement. What can be said is that nothing is said re: following B.

the statement "she did not have sex until Jesus was born" is a nonsensical statement, if there is some change of condition. (see what I mean on your example below.)

It is not nonsensical; it is essential as it establishes that Joseph is not the biological father - which is a crucial point in reference to the prophecy.

then they will be with him. The condition changes.

This presumes they are not with Him, which is non-sensical. Relationship, "being with" presumes two, not one. One cannot be a relationship. Thus, if He is with them, they are with Him.

To use a previous example:
If I say to my children "Behave until I return", do I mean they are to misbehave after I return ?

you don't specify. You gave them a conditional statement. Do this, UNTIL the condition is met. You didn't speak to what you expect after you return. Is it safe to assume though, that the possibility of the children misbehaving AFTER you return exists, without any further command on the matter?

The statement is not formally conditional (if>then), though a smart-alec child would indeed use it as a formal conditional. Instead, my statement is refers only to a limited period of time, ie. the time-span of my absence (from leaving til returning).

So to restate, the statement refers to a limited time frame: while I am gone (as opposed to "if I am gone" ie "if and only if" of an "if>then" statement). The statement covers only that time frame. The oppositional child would take the "while" and replace it with "if and only if", requiring a change of condition.

using the "brother" arguement, neither side is supported.

the fact that "brother" CAN mean something other than Natural biological brothers, does not mean that it DOES mean something else.

so you have a situation where brother=brother OR brother =/= brother with equal possibility of each. Neither side wins with this argument.

I agree with you; nothing can be said of what the actual relation of the adelphos to Christ can be gained from the term - its meaning is too broad. I do note in its familial NT usage, (Herod and Philip, Joseph and his brothers), it is a reference to a common father.

 

[prodromos]

So did we exist before we were born>

Christ did, which is one of the main differences between His conception and our own.

 

[MamaZ]

Christ did, which is one of the main differences between His conception and our own.

Yes The word did and He became flesh and dwelt among us. Emmanuel. But Mary being a virgin all her life has nothing of importance to Christ being God.

 

[Chris81]

Yes The word did and He became flesh and dwelt among us. Emmanuel. But Mary being a virgin all her life has nothing of importance to Christ being God.

True but I don't think anyone has made the claim that Mary's perpetual virginity had anything to do with Christ divinity.

 

[prodromos]

Yes The word did and He became flesh and dwelt among us. Emmanuel. But Mary being a virgin all her life has nothing of importance to Christ being God.

Not sure what you are trying to say here, but I will ask this:
Were any of the things consecrated for God's purpose in the temple ever used for common purposes?

 

[MamaZ]

Not sure what you are trying to say here, but I will ask this:
Were any of the things consecrated for God's purpose in the temple ever used for common purposes?

So because we now are the very temple of God we cannot do common things? We are not used to bear and raise Children as women and men are not to to go make a living for their family. These are common purposes and we are His temple.