The Perpetual Virginity of Mary (Jesus, crucifixion, blood, disciple)

[Aqualung]

Originally Posted by jeffrey

I believe Victor summed it up pretty well, As I stated, it would make no difference. But why would she? Why is sex so important? Just because?

In the same light, why is abstinence so important? Just because?

[Victor]

Originally Posted by Aqualung

In the same light, why is abstinence so important? Just because?

I really do hope you are asking out of sincere curiousity. Nonetheless it's off topic and I will find a good article for you to read in the Catholic section.

Peace be with you
~Victor

[Victor]

Originally Posted by ChrisBianchi

The historical data that is required for the foundation of religious theology can all be found in the Old and New Testaments - primarily the New Testament. The Apocropha, as far as I am concerned, might as well be the Book of Mormon.

Historical Data that could possibly be accepted as "proof" or indication of perpetual virginity would have been written at or shortly after the time that Mary and Joseph were together and would have been authored by someone very close to either Mary or Joseph who would have possibly shared that personal information with them. Truely, I don't believe that you'll find such documentation.

I guess that's a no. Nothing new....

~Victor

[Victor]

Originally Posted by ChrisBianchi

During the Exodus, God requested a lot of things on the basis of creating a foundation of the Jewish faith. Personally, I believe that many of his commands at the time were set forth as a test of faith not as an examination betweeen the natural and the unnatural. Just read the book of Leviticus for examples of that.

The verse you intended in the Exodus is actually Ex. 19:15. Ex. 20 outlines the Ten Commandments. However, this was an order from Moses, not from God. God did not tell Moses to have the people abstain. This was done in tradition of the customs, not as a commandment from God.

There are times when God asks people to abstain in the Old Testament, such as during a woman's menses. However, the discussion here is specifically in regards to Mary.

Fair enough. My only point is that it SHOULDN'T be seen as odd when I just gave you an example of God working in a such a manner. As long as I can get "God wouldn't do that" out of your mind. I'm a satisfied customer... Baby steps...

[ChrisBianchi]

Originally Posted by Victor

Fair enough. My only point is that it SHOULDN'T be seen as odd when I just gave you an example of God working in a such a manner. As long as I can get "God wouldn't do that" out of your mind. I'm a satisfied customer... Baby steps...

Perhaps I was coming across as a different mindset. I don't and have never professed that "God wouldn't do that" to Mary. There was another earlier who did say that, though. God will do or will allow all sorts of things to happen, and I cited several examples ranging from the biblical flood to the martyrdom of the apostles earlier.

I have no problem with the possibility that God may have given Mary the direction of perpetual virginity. I would just like to see evidence of that somewhere in the scriptures.

In this and other discussion, I have reached the following conclusion(s):

- The perpetual virginity of Mary is important to some people, not important to others, and is of no significance to a person's spirituality or walk with God.

- The scriptures do not provide evidence that Mary was perpetually virgin nor do they provide evidence that she was. Her relationship with Joseph following the birth of the Savior is not described and cannot be surmised using scripture alone. This also defines the significance of the possibility from a spiritual perspective.

- The scriptures do not provide explicit definition that Jesus had siblings that were children of Mary. Yet again, the scriptures also do not provide explicit definition that Jesus did not have siblings that were children of Mary. Only inference can be made. Whether that inference is made by amateur debaters on an Internet forum or doctorites of Theology, it's still an inference and an educated guess, at best.

- The things that are important to our walk of faith are quite clear. Jesus set forth instructions that, regardless of translation, determine our salvation. These are the acceptance of Jesus as Messiah, the recognition of death by crucifixion, and the belief in the physical resurrection of the body of Christ.

[Victor]

I directed you to an article. I hope you read it.

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by Victor

As personal as knowing Christ didn't sin....

Well, we have a fair amount of evidence as to Christ's character -- all dating from people who knew Him personally. As to how many people knew the particulars of Mary's and Joseph's sex life, that seems to me to be another thing entirely.

Why do you ask for how early? Historical data hasn't made a difference with you yet. Cause if I show you something, it's put into the apostasized trash can. How about you just tell me what your willing to accept and I'll stick to that....

Well, as you know, a teaching that didn't surface until the 3rd or 4th century wouldn't carry much weight with me -- particularly on a subject such as Mary's virginity. If you could show me something from the 1st century, I might be willing to consider it. It just seems to me that Mary wouldn't have gone around making an issue of it, and if she truly died a virgin, having been married to Joseph for a number of years, the only way anyone would have known this is if she'd said something.

So, I guess the only thing I'd really be "willing to accept," I'd have to say that I'll accept the fact that this is something we really don't have the facts on.

[James the Persian]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

Well, as you know, a teaching that didn't surface until the 3rd or 4th century wouldn't carry much weight with me -- particularly on a subject such as Mary's virginity. If you could show me something from the 1st century, I might be willing to consider it. It just seems to me that Mary wouldn't have gone around making an issue of it, and if she truly died a virgin, having been married to Joseph for a number of years, the only way anyone would have known this is if she'd said something.

So, I guess the only thing I'd really be "willing to accept," I'd have to say that I'll accept the fact that this is something we really don't have the facts on.

Kat,

The teaching is older than the 3rd or 4th century. It is found in the writings of Origen (late 2nd century) and in the Protoevangelion of James (early to mid 2nd century). I also wouldn't be surprised to find it in the works of even earlier Church Fathers, though I must admit that I am not sure as I've never really had a burning desire to track down this belief's earliest mention. I'll have a look and see if I can find out, but the teaching predates the period you mentioned (which I guess is when you think the Church apostacised) by at least a century and pre-dates the setting of the NT canon by two centuries (hence why I believe sola scripturalists are barking up the wrong tree when they ask us for Scriptural proof - there is weak evidence in Scripture but as we rely on Holy Tradition which contains ample extra-scriptual evidence I need nothing more).

James