the History of Virgin Mary

[alasthai]

The "knowing" is referred to elsewhere in the scriptures. The meaning is obvious and it is referring to having sex.

The meaning of ουκ εγινωσκεν αυτην is indeed obvious: it means that he did not have sexual intercourse with her. However, it is not particularly relevant, since what matters is 'εως ετεκεν, which, as already noted, does not imply what the English "until she gave birth" does, because Greek is not English. It is not that the translation is bad, per se, merely that English (as is so often the case) does not have a term which is properly parallel to 'εως.

That's a pretty big stretch to think that throughout his marriage, that he couldn't have sex.

No, it is not. First, I am quite a few years younger than the Joseph is described as being, and there is no way that I would ever bed a 16-year-old. My reaction would be even more negative if I, like Joseph, had children of that age or older. Second, given his age and the practically non-existent healthcare of the time, he may not have been physically capable. Third, we do not know how much longer he lasted: our last reference to him is Lk 2:43, 12 years later. He is absent from the Crucifixion, and thus presumably had passed on by then.

One of the questions which needs to be asked about the traditional account of Mary's Perpetual Virginity, and thus Jesus' lack of immediate siblings, is, if it were untrue, how exactly did the early, scattered, quite-disorganised Church manage the conspiracy of covering up an entire family, quite possibly of multiple generations, so thoroughly that no early Christian document ever refers to any of them?

At what point is Mary able to hear your prayer? Why ask any saint for something God is freely giving?

This is actually a distinct topic, since it regards praying to all saints generally. In essence, the way that it works is that praying to saints is not required, but is advisable in that you are asking a fellow Christian to pray for you. The mere fact that the fellow Christian happens to have died is no problem for Almighty God.

 

[pshun2404]

Acts 2

34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, 35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool.

Are we to suppose that Jesus ceases to be at the Father's right hand after the parousia (the second coming)? But it says "until"?

I remember a grave marker found once that read "Giving birth to her first born she died" Firstborn? Did she have other children after she died? Hmmm?

Are such words always to be taken so literally as we, reading them in English, perceive? I am not convinced it is that cut and dry are you?

Paul

 

[Albion]

I am not so sure about that: I have met very few Protestants who do believe in her Perpetual Virginity. It might be a useful question to ask on the Anglican community here.

He's quite wrong about that (as usual), and you are correct.

I belong to that forum and certainly do not subscribe to the legend of the Perpetual Virginity of the Virgin Mary. There are other members who probably would say that they do, but it's definitely not an official doctrine of any Anglican church body that I'm aware of. And once you get away from Anglicans, you're dealing with Protestant churches that are MUCH less likely to put any stock at all in that doctrine.

 

[pshun2404]

Certainly it is "not an official doctrine" only that she was a virgin when she conceived and bore Him...but I do not believe she had any other children. There is nothing in scripture or history to say she did...

 

[Albion]

Certainly it is "not an official doctrine" only that she was a virgin when she conceived and bore Him...but I do not believe she had any other children. There is nothing in scripture or history to say she did...

Except for those mentions of his brothers and sisters.

Now, here's where folks get to say "but that could be taken another way." OTOH, it IS in the Bible and so you can't really say that "there is nothing in scripture...."

 

[alasthai]

Except for those mentions of his brothers and sisters.

Now, here's where folks get to say "but that could be taken another way." OTOH, it IS in the Bible and so you can't really say that "there is nothing in scripture...."

What you can say is that there is nothing in the Bible which says that Mary had other children, only one particular term which could be interpreted in that way, although such an interpretation is linguistically unnecessary (q.v. Josephus, Life 8), and peculiar in the light of Jesus' entrusting the care of Mary to one of his disciples rather than one of her own alleged children (John 19:26-7), and remarkable given the utter absence of any subsequent historical record of any of these alleged siblings of the Saviour (especially as contrasted with the early Church's plethora of references to Mary).

 

[Albion]

What you can say is that there is nothing in the Bible which says that Mary had other children, only one particular term which could be interpreted in a that way

For myself, no, that is not going to work--although all that we're working on at this point is the preferred wording. Ours, that is, not Scripture's.

To me, when anyone says "there is nothing in Scripture that says...." there had better be NOTHING. Not any evidence, even if it weren't conclusive. That's the usual meaning of "evidence."

In this case, it's more than apparent that when anyone says "there is nothing...." it's not correct.

Nor am I basing that on my personal slant on things. You know that that wording has been seen for a long time and by many churches and theologians as indicating that Christ had siblings.

BTW, the idea that Mary gave birth "in the usual way" but remained, biologically, a virgin has no basis in scripture whatsoever, just like the idea that she had no sexual relations ever thereafter. Yet look at the number of people who accept these myths without question.

 

[pshun2404]

Except for those mentions of his brothers and sisters.

Now, here's where folks get to say "but that could be taken another way." OTOH, it IS in the Bible and so you can't really say that "there is nothing in scripture...."

In this case, it's more than apparent that when anyone says "there is nothing...." it's not correct.


The passage does not say they are her children...just say'n...and history does always mention these others but not of her...(so of Joseph)...so as I said it says nothing of HER having had other children

Paul

 

[Albion]

In this case, it's more than apparent that when anyone says "there is nothing...." it's not correct.


The passage does not say they are her children...just say'n.

Of course, we could speculate almost anything. We could, for example, say that Mary was favored by God by being whisked away to heaven after giving birth to Christ and then the Father replaced her with a double. But that doesn't eliminate the evidence that is there in scripture as being evidence. And it has indeed been considered evidence by people a lot closer to the facts than any of us are.

 

[alasthai]

To me, when anyone says "there is nothing in Scripture that says...." there had better be NOTHING. Not any evidence, even if it weren't conclusive.

At that point, it comes down to whether the claim is "there is nothing which says that she had other children" or "there is nothing which can be construed as meaning that": the former is true; the latter is false.

Nor am I basing that on my personal slant on things. You know that that wording has been seen for a long time and by many churches and theologians as indicating that Christ had siblings.

Sure, but I also know that plenty of Protestants have not read it that way and that the Protestant readers who do read it that way belong to a group with a political interest in disputing Catholic/Orthodox doctrine, even against the historical, cultural, and linguistic reasons for reading it in the way in which the Orthodox, who have been reading it in their own language for two thousand years, read it.

Obviously (given our previous discussion on the certainty of history), I am not about to claim that anyone must believe that Mary had no other children, but there is plenty of cause for people to believe that.

 

[Albion]

At that point, it comes down to whether the claim is "there is nothing which says that she had other children" or "there is nothing which can be construed as meaning that"

All right then, go back and see what was originally written. That's what I responded to, not some hypothetical.

Sure, but I also know that plenty of Protestants have not read it that way

It doesn't matter. Most of them have., which is all that I reported.

 

[alasthai]

At that point, it comes down to whether the claim is "there is nothing which says that she had other children" or "there is nothing which can be construed as meaning that"

All right then, go back and see what was originally written. That's what I responded to, not some hypothetical.

Sure. This is what he said:

"I do not believe she had any other children. There is nothing in scripture or history to say she did"

It doesn't matter. Most of them have, which is all that I reported.

What you reported was a belief being held "for a long time and by many churches and theologians", but this belief has only been consistently held by Protestants, meaning that the "long time" is at most only a quarter of the Church's history and that the "many" are only some of a minority group within the Church. Thus, in terms of Christianity, that is not long, and they are not many.

 

[Albion]

Sure. This is what he said:



What you reported was a belief being held "for a long time and by many churches and theologians", but this belief has only been consistently held by Protestants, meaning that the "long time" is at most only a quarter of the Church's history and that the "many" are only some of a minority group within the Church. Thus, in terms of Christianity, that is not long, and they are not many.

Good grief. I didn't think you'd edit what was said and omit the main comment. Is that the only way you can make your point??

Here's what I wrote in reply to the idea that there is nothing in Scripture to indicate that Mary was not childless after Jesus' birth:

Except for those mentions of his brothers and sisters

Would you like to have me also post the exact wording...or can I assume that you know that Christ's siblings are mentioned in the New Testament (since that point was acknowledged and the argument made that DESPITE the mention, they were not sibs in fact)?

 

[Targaryen]

Scripture doesn't name James as a son of Mary however, Jospeph yes. So the question of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is not really answerable. And technically, in a patriarchal society and culture it would list Joseph rather then Mary as the lineage.

And I'm an Anglican that doesn't believe in the Perpetual Virginity. But my position cannot say one or or another is correct.

 

[alasthai]

Good grief. I didn't think you'd edit what was said and omit the main comment. Is that the only way you can make your point??
Here's what I wrote in reply to the idea that there is nothing in Scripture to indicate that Mary was not childless after Jesus' birth

Somehow, you seem to have misunderstood the entire sequence of this conversation.

I posted that belief in the Perpetual Virginity was uncommon among Protestants, you responded that it was not official doctrine, and then the entirety of pshun2404's comment in reply to that was

"Certainly it is "not an official doctrine" only that she was a virgin when she conceived and bore Him...but I do not believe she had any other children. There is nothing in scripture or history to say she did..."

The only part omitted, the part which you now claim is the "main comment" is merely the reference to what is official doctrine in Protestant circles.

The above was the comment to which you responded by claiming that Scripture refers to Jesus' brothers and sisters. Then, I pointed out that your claim there is linguistically unnecessary, as well as culturally, Scripturally, and historically dubious.

can I assume that you know that Christ's siblings are mentioned in the New Testament (since that point was acknowledged and the argument made that DESPITE the mention, they were not sibs in fact)?

That claim was acknowledged by whom, exactly? pshun2404 later expressed the view that the reference is to Joseph's other children, which makes them at most foster-siblings, but even that is not a necessary conclusion.

Reading the English translation back into the Greek really does not work.

 

[Albion]

Somehow, you seem to have misunderstood the entire sequence of this conversation.

I posted that belief in the Perpetual Virginity was uncommon among Protestants, you responded that it was not official doctrine, and then the entirety of pshun2404's comment in reply to that was The only part omitted, the part which you now claim is the "main comment" is merely the reference to what is official doctrine in Protestant circles.

The above was the comment to which you responded by claiming that Scripture refers to Jesus' brothers and sisters. Then, I pointed out that your claim there is linguistically unnecessary, as well as culturally, Scripturally, and historically dubious.


That claim was acknowledged by whom, exactly? pshun2404 later expressed the view that the reference is to Joseph's other children, which makes them at most foster-siblings, but even that is not a necessary conclusion.

Reading the English translation back into the Greek really does not work.

There's nothing new in the above, but rather than give you any reason to post yet another pointless message, I'll say nothing more and hope you take the hint to be done with this.

 

[brewmama]

He's quite wrong about that (as usual), and you are correct.

I belong to that forum and certainly do not subscribe to the legend of the Perpetual Virginity of the Virgin Mary. There are other members who probably would say that they do, but it's definitely not an official doctrine of any Anglican church body that I'm aware of. And once you get away from Anglicans, you're dealing with Protestant churches that are MUCH less likely to put any stock at all in that doctrine.

Calvin, Luther and other early Protestants did hold to the perpetual virginity, so if their churches don't it shows that they have changed their own doctrine. But that's what they do, right?

Luther, Calvin, and Other Early Protestants on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

 

[Albion]

Calvin, Luther and other early Protestants did hold to the perpetual virginity, so if their churches don't it shows that they have changed their own doctrine. But that's what they do, right?

Wrong.

While those were personal opinions, none of the churches that they led have the perpetual virginity of Mary as a doctrine...and for a good reason. The notion is not Biblical, and Sola Scriptura is a cardinal doctrine of all of them. So, no, there's no change of doctrine.

 

[brewmama]

Wrong.

While those were personal opinions, none of the churches that they led have the perpetual virginity of Mary as a doctrine...and for a good reason. The notion is not Biblical, and Sola Scriptura is a cardinal doctrine of all of them. So, no, there's no change of doctrine.

Suit yourself. I'm sure you know much better than any of the Protestant reformers.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Wrong.

While those were personal opinions, none of the churches that they led have the perpetual virginity of Mary as a doctrine...and for a good reason. The notion is not Biblical, and Sola Scriptura is a cardinal doctrine of all of them. So, no, there's no change of doctrine.

Not quite correct regarding Lutherans. Confessional Lutherans fully subscribe to the Book of Concord. As I quoted earlier, the BoC confesses belief that the Blessed Mother of God's virginity remained inviolate. You are correct that this is not an article of faith though, and if a Lutheran chooses not to believe this, we do not believe that that person is destined for hell.

Regardless, our confessions state such, most (not all) of our clergy believe it also.

The Confessions (BoC) do state what the Church corporate believes and teaches; at least for "confessional" Lutherans.

When you can find where it states that it is "personal opinion" in our confessions, they make that claim. There are lots of other things in our confessions that are called adiaphora; the perpetual virginity of Mary is not among those things.