Perpetual Virginity

[prodromos]

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.

The manner in which Mary bore Christ is ontologically different to the manner in which we carry Christ. She was singled out and chosen for a very specific purpose which is unique in the history of all creation. In the Old Testament we find other examples of people chosen by God for a specific purpose who then went on to lead a celibate life.

I also don't believe that is what Paul had in mind when he wrote to the Corinthians. He was extolling them to flee from sexual immorality.While we are the Temple of the Holy Spirit, we are not consecrated in the same way that the temple in Jerusalem was consecrated. You will argue that neither was Mary to which I will beg to differ. Like some of the Saints of the Old Testament she was clearly set apart.

 

[katherine2001]

So did we exist before we were born>

Of course we do. We are in our mother's womb for 9 months before we are born and we very much exist!

 

[Uphill Battle]

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.

true. But there is no reason to state the span of A-B, if there is no change of condition after A elapses and B begins.

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 were deliberately obfuscating, because the more accurate statement would be "Joseph and Mary never had sex." not "until Jesus was born, they never had sex."

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.

you have to look at the context of it. I'll be with you (here on earth, while you'll still be around) until the world ends. That's basically the statement that is being made. After which, they will be with him in another place.

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).

not disputing this.

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.

since everyone considered Joseph as his father, it might make sense that they were using it in that sense.

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

but they make claims that it is neccessary because she bore him. See below.

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?

this always makes me shake my head... as if the thought of sex with ones husband somehow defiles the woman.

 

[prodromos]

then they were deliberately obfuscating, because the more accurate statement would be "Joseph and Mary never had sex." not "until Jesus was born, they never had sex."

The way it is written in Greek is probably the most concise and economical manner in which to state that Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus. That is the only information Matthew is conveying and it makes no sense to understand him as implying that Joseph and Mary had sexual relations afterwards. Such information has no bearing on the Gospel and is quite out of place in a writing that was intended to convey God's word. Can you think of any other passage in the Gospels which you believe states unnecessary information as you apparently believe this one does?

 

[prodromos]

Were any of the things consecrated for God's purpose in the temple ever used for common purposes?

this always makes me shake my head... as if the thought of sex with ones husband somehow defiles the woman.

I never implied any such thing. The altar in the temple was not used for sitting down and eating a meal because it had been set apart for a specific and Holy purpose. The cups used in the temple rituals were not used by the priests for kicking back and having a drink of wine after a hectic day of offering sacrfices to God because they too have been set apart. There was one part of the temple, the Holy of Holies, where only one person could enter and only on specific days. I've heard it said that he entered with a rope tied around his ankle so that if he had entered unworthily and was struck dead, the others would be able to drag his corpes out without having to enter themselves. One man was struck dead simply for trying to steady the Ark when one of the oxen stumbled.
For 9 months, Mary's womb was the Holy of Holies.
Joseph was a God fearing man. Put yourself in his shoes.

 

[Uphill Battle]

The way it is written in Greek is probably the most concise and economical manner in which to state that Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus. That is the only information Matthew is conveying and it makes no sense to understand him as implying that Joseph and Mary had sexual relations afterwards.

I'd just think that if ever virginity was such an important thing to believe, someone might have mentioned it.

Such information has no bearing on the Gospel and is quite out of place in a writing that was intended to convey God's word. Can you think of any other passage in the Gospels which you believe states unnecessary information as you apparently believe this one does?

I don't believe this one DOES state unneccessary information.

I never implied any such thing. The altar in the temple was not used for sitting down and eating a meal because it had been set apart for a specific and Holy purpose. The cups used in the temple rituals were not used by the priests for kicking back and having a drink of wine after a hectic day of offering sacrfices to God because they too have been set apart. There was one part of the temple, the Holy of Holies, where only one person could enter and only on specific days. I've heard it said that he entered with a rope tied around his ankle so that if he had entered unworthily and was struck dead, the others would be able to drag his corpes out without having to enter themselves. One man was struck dead simply for trying to steady the Ark when one of the oxen stumbled.
For 9 months, Mary's womb was the Holy of Holies.

do you remember what God did with his holy of holies when Christ died?

Joseph was a God fearing man. Put yourself in his shoes.

I can't. I wasn't told by an angel to marry a woman that was made pregnant by the holy spirit.

I understand your point. But I think just see the matter differently. I see no reason to believe that Joseph would not have enjoyed a normal marriage with his wife after Christ was born.

 

[MamaZ]

The manner in which Mary bore Christ is ontologically different to the manner in which we carry Christ. She was singled out and chosen for a very specific purpose which is unique in the history of all creation. In the Old Testament we find other examples of people chosen by God for a specific purpose who then went on to lead a celibate life.

I also don't believe that is what Paul had in mind when he wrote to the Corinthians. He was extolling them to flee from sexual immorality.While we are the Temple of the Holy Spirit, we are not consecrated in the same way that the temple in Jerusalem was consecrated. You will argue that neither was Mary to which I will beg to differ. Like some of the Saints of the Old Testament she was clearly set apart.

We are all chosen to be the temple of the Living God with a very purpose of God in mind to which we are to carry out. Each and every one of His body has been singled out and chosen for a very specific purpose. We carry Christ in our bodies through the Spirit which is as real as Mary carrying Christ in the flesh in her body. God is amazing that way.

 

[prodromos]

We are all chosen to be the temple of the Living God with a very purpose of God in mind to which we are to carry out. Each and every one of His body has been singled out and chosen for a very specific purpose. We carry Christ in our bodies through the Spirit which is as real as Mary carrying Christ in the flesh in her body. God is amazing that way.

What's the very specific purpose you have been singled out for?

 

[MamaZ]

What's the very specific purpose you have been singled out for?

I have been singled out with the gift of Mercy and Hopitality for the Body of Christ and to those whom Christ desires to bring into His kingdom. I also have been singled out as a mother to bring my children up in the Lord be submissive to my husband. God is awesome in the gifts He gives His people so that what they are blessed with can flow through those who He gives His gifts to bless others.

 

[BiblebelievingChristian]

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.

"The Greek word for "until" (heos) does not imply that Mary had marital relations after the birth of Christ. In 2 Samuel 6:23, we read that Michal, the daughter of Saul, had no child "until" the day of her death. (Rest assured that she didn’t have any children after that day, either.) Hebrews 1:13 and 1 Timothy 4:13 are similar examples." Source

 

[Zeek]

When Scripture has to be explained in a rather diplomatic fashion, that is hailed as truth, but is either misleading or inconclusive, it is time to listen to the warning bells of the Spirit. Generally in looking at Scripture, the simplest, plainest explanation that the text affords is the proper meaning, and does not need specific interpretation that tries to bend it to fit pre-conceived doctrinal beliefs.

The elevation of Mary's womb to something Holy and untouchable, might seem like a sanctified revelation...but the truth of the matter is that she had other offspring, including sons and daughters.... the brothers and sisters of the L-rd. There is no indication anywhere that Joseph was married before, and entered the marriage bringing numerous children from a previous marriage with him...that is unfounded speculation, and there is no way the brothers and sisters of Jesus that are mentioned, were in fact just distant relatives or cousins...read the Scriptures in context and see for yourself....to believe otherwise is a prime example of eisogesis.

The idea of Mary's perpetual virginity does not stand in isolation, but is another attempt of man to elevate her status to that of a goddess....not in so many words, but unfortunately that is the thrust of all the unbiblical nonsense attributed to her.

 

[Thekla]

This is, for me, a repetitious response; sorry if it seems inattentive because of this.

But, neither "side" of the argument can argue its position exclusively from the information given in the New Testament.

The term translated as brother (and sister) in the NT has about a dozen meanings.

There is no statement that denotes a marriage between Joseph and Mary.

The terms translated as wife/husband in Greek also mean woman/man and betrothed.

 

[Zeek]

The term translated as brother (and sister) in the NT has about a dozen meanings.

There is no statement that denotes a marriage between Joseph and Mary.

The terms translated as wife/husband in Greek also mean woman/man and betrothed.

Forgive me, not quite sure what you are trying to say Thekla.

Could you point out where Scripture is making ambiguous assertions about the relationship of Jesus to His brothers and sisters, when the context that describes them seems to make it obvious what sort of relationship is being described?

 

[Thekla]

Forgive me, not quite sure what you are trying to say Thekla.

Could you point out where Scripture is making ambiguous assertions about the relationship of Jesus to His brothers and sisters, when the context that describes them seems to make it obvious what sort of relationship is being described?

I'm not sure what context you mean ... maybe if you could clarify ?

The terminology is inconclusive; for example, Herod and his stepbrother (different mothers) are referred to as "adelphos". Likewise, Lot and his uncle Abraham are referred to as "adelphos" (LXX OT, 2nd or 3rd c. BC).

Familiarity in relationship is not exclusive to 1st degree blood relationships; in fact, children in blended households are "adelphos" (as, for example, above). Any demonstrative statement of parentage is not given for the "adelphoi" of Jesus (for ex., "born of"). The term "firstborn is a religious and medical term, and does not denote further births (like the OB/GYN term still used in 21st century US, "prima para").

 

[WarriorAngel]

If the Holy Spirit imposed a change on Mary before she was rightfully 'married' - then wouldn't the Holy Spirit be committing adultery against His own Laws?

Jesus's rightful father is God. Jesus is God, How He conceived was by God - for a man to be involved in the relationship as a rightful partner means that God usurped the marital relationship by 'giving Mary to beget Jesus without regard to Joseph's rightful untainted womb.

BUT who in their right mind could dare have intercourse with a woman who Conceived God and gave birth to Him?

The Lord is a jealous God - and says in the OT [allegory to Mary] that HOW HE ENTERS no man shall enter...
And we ignore that totally because gates - have a higher priority than His love for humanity?

The use of the GATE is a non carnal foreshadow to the relationship Mary would have with Him - and she was not just a virginal womb for the taking - she was HIGHLY FAVORED - and the English cannot even begin to describe her graces or the precise term for the exaltation Gabriel gave her in that High Favor.

 

[Kepha]

Of course we do. We are in our mother's womb for 9 months before we are born and we very much exist!

 

[Zeek]

I'm not sure what context you mean ... maybe if you could clarify ?

The terminology is inconclusive; for example, Herod and his stepbrother (different mothers) are referred to as "adelphos". Likewise, Lot and his uncle Abraham are referred to as "adelphos" (LXX OT, 2nd or 3rd c. BC).

Familiarity in relationship is not exclusive to 1st degree blood relationships; in fact, children in blended households are "adelphos" (as, for example, above). Any demonstrative statement of parentage is not given for the "adelphoi" of Jesus (for ex., "born of"). The term "firstborn is a religious and medical term, and does not denote further births (like the OB/GYN term still used in 21st century US, "prima para").

Hi, I'm simply asking for you to quote any passage with reference to the brothers and sisters of the L-rd that appears other than it seems in the context given. Thanks.

 

[Zeek]

If the Holy Spirit imposed a change on Mary before she was rightfully 'married' - then wouldn't the Holy Spirit be committing adultery against His own Laws?

Jesus's rightful father is God. Jesus is God, How He conceived was by God - for a man to be involved in the relationship as a rightful partner means that God usurped the marital relationship by 'giving Mary to beget Jesus without regard to Joseph's rightful untainted womb.

BUT who in their right mind could dare have intercourse with a woman who Conceived God and gave birth to Him?

The Lord is a jealous God - and says in the OT [allegory to Mary] that HOW HE ENTERS no man shall enter...
And we ignore that totally because gates - have a higher priority than His love for humanity?

The use of the GATE is a non carnal foreshadow to the relationship Mary would have with Him - and she was not just a virginal womb for the taking - she was HIGHLY FAVORED - and the English cannot even begin to describe her graces or the precise term for the exaltation Gabriel gave her in that High Favor.

At what point in their life do you think Mary and Joseph fully understood the divine nature of their first-born off-spring?

Also could you please quote that reference to gates in the OC that is an allegory to Mary, I would like to consider what is written. Thanks

 

[Thekla]

Hi, I'm simply asking for you to quote any passage with reference to the brothers and sisters of the L-rd that appears other than it seems in the context given. Thanks.

Maybe you could quote what you mean; when the term adelphos (and related) terms are used, no clarification is given. The actions and context/s are consistent with a number of the definitions of adelphos (both blended family/shared household and extended kinship groups).

 

[Zeek]

Maybe you could quote what you mean; when the term adelphos (and related) terms are used, no clarification is given. The actions and context/s are consistent with a number of the definitions of adelphos (both blended family/shared household and extended kinship groups).

I don't think I could make my request any simpler...just provide a Scripture regarding reference to Jesus' brothers and sisters that you think is inconclusive/ambiguous in its given context...I want you to quote it, not me (can't do all the work)