• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Christian: Is The Perpetual Virginity of Mary a true Christan Doctrine

*Paul*

Jesus loves you
Am I wrong to say that jovinian and tertullian denied Marys perpetual virginity? The OP question is difficult to answer because we differ on what makes a true Christian doctrine. I would say that is is based on a sound exegesis of scripture alone and some would say that tradition and dogma decide.
 

athanasius

Well-Known Member
Am I wrong to say that jovinian and tertullian denied Marys perpetual virginity? The OP question is difficult to answer because we differ on what makes a true Christian doctrine. I would say that is is based on a sound exegesis of scripture alone and some would say that tradition and dogma decide.


they did deny it! But then again they were formal heretics!
 

*Paul*

Jesus loves you
Tertullian was a heretic? Why? Who made that decision? I look forward to your paper, you should e mail it to me.
 

*Paul*

Jesus loves you
Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli all believed it even using the bible alone!

They carried somethings over from their Catholicism such as infant baptism / batismal regeneration, temporal punishments for sin, not everything they believed was based on sound biblical exegesis.

Always reforming.
 

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
It is certainly not important for me to believe it...
She may or may not have remained a virgin...
There is no ...proof... either way
To think so is a question of faith that I think has little merit.

As she was entirely human... unlike Jesus... I see no reason for her to have remained one...
Nor do I see any blemish had she not done so.
To have sexual relations with ones husband is not sinful in any form of Christianity I know of.
and to have children is a blessing.
 

Smoke

Done here.
Am I wrong to say that jovinian and tertullian denied Marys perpetual virginity?
No, you're right, but I don't think they meant what you think they meant. They said she wasn't a virgin because she wasn't physically intact after the birth of Jesus. The Orthodox belief (affirmed by the Fifth Ecumenical Council) was (and is) that just as Mary conceived miraculously, she was also miraculously preserved physically intact even during and after childbirth. In other words, Mary was not just a virgin in the sense of never having had sexual intercourse, but also in the sense of remaining physically intact.

It's this purely physical virginity of Mary (her intact hymen) that was denied by Jovinian, and also by Tertullian, if I understand Tertullian correctly. Tertullian is a little confusing on the subject; he writes of Mary's womb being opened because she was married, but also makes it clear that it was Jesus who opened her womb. He writes (De Carne Christi 23):
She who bare (really) bare; and although she was a virgin when she conceived, she was a wife when she brought forth her son. Now, as a wife, she was under the very law of “opening the womb,” wherein it was quite immaterial whether the birth of the male was by virtue of a husband’s co-operation or not; it was the same sex [i.e., the male sex] that opened her womb. Indeed, hers is the womb on account of which it is written of others also: “Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord.” For who is really holy but the Son of God? Who properly opened the womb but He who opened a closed one? But it is marriage which opens the womb in all cases. The virgin’s womb, therefore, was especially opened, because it was especially closed. Indeed she ought rather to be called not a virgin than a virgin, becoming a mother at a leap, as it were, before she was a wife. And what must be said more on this point? Since it was in this sense that the apostle declared that the Son of God was born not of a virgin, but “of a woman,” he in that statement recognised the condition of the “opened womb” which ensues in marriage.​
That is, Tertullian does seem to believe that Mary and Joseph had sexual relations, but he clearly believes that it was the opening of her womb by Jesus that made her no longer a virgin. Whether she ever had sexual relations with Joseph is immaterial to Tertullian's argument.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
That is, Tertullian does seem to believe that Mary and Joseph had sexual relations, but he clearly believes that it was the opening of her womb by Jesus that made her no longer a virgin. Whether she ever had sexual relations with Joseph is immaterial to Tertullian's argument.


I'm not sure how much authority Tertullian has for the doctrine of Mary. He's not recognized as a saint by either the Orthodox or Catholic churches, and I believe both have condemned him as a hairy tick.
 

Smoke

Done here.
I'm not sure how much authority Tertullian has for the doctrine of Mary. He's not recognized as a saint by either the Orthodox or Catholic churches, and I believe both have condemned him as a hairy tick.
That's true, and athanasius has already pointed out that both Tertullian and Jovinian were heretics. However, many Christians outside the historic churches do consider Tertullian a Christian writer of some importance, and cite his writings as evidence against Orthodox doctrine, so it's important to understand what he's really saying.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
That's true, and athanasius has already pointed out that both Tertullian and Jovinian were heretics. However, many Christians outside the historic churches do consider Tertullian a Christian writer of some importance, and cite his writings as evidence against Orthodox doctrine, so it's important to understand what he's really saying.

I agree completely.
 

*Paul*

Jesus loves you
No, you're right, but I don't think they meant what you think they meant. They said she wasn't a virgin because she wasn't physically intact after the birth of Jesus. The Orthodox belief (affirmed by the Fifth Ecumenical Council) was (and is) that just as Mary conceived miraculously, she was also miraculously preserved physically intact even during and after childbirth. In other words, Mary was not just a virgin in the sense of never having had sexual intercourse, but also in the sense of remaining physically intact.


It's this purely physical virginity of Mary (her intact hymen) that was denied by Jovinian, and also by Tertullian, if I understand Tertullian correctly. Tertullian is a little confusing on the subject; he writes of Mary's womb being opened because she was married, but also makes it clear that it was Jesus who opened her womb. He writes (De Carne Christi 23):
She who bare (really) bare; and although she was a virgin when she conceived, she was a wife when she brought forth her son. Now, as a wife, she was under the very law of “opening the womb,” wherein it was quite immaterial whether the birth of the male was by virtue of a husband’s co-operation or not; it was the same sex [i.e., the male sex] that opened her womb. Indeed, hers is the womb on account of which it is written of others also: “Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord.” For who is really holy but the Son of God? Who properly opened the womb but He who opened a closed one? But it is marriage which opens the womb in all cases. The virgin’s womb, therefore, was especially opened, because it was especially closed. Indeed she ought rather to be called not a virgin than a virgin, becoming a mother at a leap, as it were, before she was a wife. And what must be said more on this point? Since it was in this sense that the apostle declared that the Son of God was born not of a virgin, but “of a woman,” he in that statement recognised the condition of the “opened womb” which ensues in marriage.​
That is, Tertullian does seem to believe that Mary and Joseph had sexual relations, but he clearly believes that it was the opening of her womb by Jesus that made her no longer a virgin. Whether she ever had sexual relations with Joseph is immaterial to Tertullian's argument.


I think Tertullian makes quite a good point, and lets not forget what a horrible example of a wife Mary would have made bearing in mind that Paul says:


1st Corinthians 7:2-5 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

What kind of example would Mary have been to Christian married women in this case? She would have set a precedent to undermine this apostolic teaching.
 

Smoke

Done here.
1st Corinthians 7:2-5 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

What kind of example would Mary have been to Christian married women in this case? She would have set a precedent to undermine this apostolic teaching.
Um ... Mary's marital life, whatever it was, predated any apostolic teaching, so I don't see how that's relevant.

However, the traditional Christian belief isn't that Mary defrauded Joseph of his rightful sex life, but that Joseph was an older widower who married her in the first place to provide protection for her, knowing that her life was consecrated to God, and without expecting any marital relations.
 

*Paul*

Jesus loves you
Um ... Mary's marital life, whatever it was, predated any apostolic teaching, so I don't see how that's relevant.
It's relevant because it doesn't occur to Paul, and when Paul teaches this he has no leg to stand on because of the precedent that Mary had set if she had indeed set it and it was known. What he did was to contradict her example without any explanation or consideration.

However, the traditional Christian belief isn't that Mary defrauded Joseph of his rightful sex life, but that Joseph was an older widower who married her in the first place to provide protection for her, knowing that her life was consecrated to God, and without expecting any marital relations.
A tradition with no biblical basis at all and contradicts a clear and blatant implication of scripture:


Matthew 1:24-25 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Every time till is used it has an end in mind of a present situation, it looks forward to an event:

Matthew 2:9 When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.

Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Matthew 10:11 And into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter, enquire who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go thence.

Matthew 10:23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.

Matthew 12:20 A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory.

And so on, all through Matthew it is the same, the only reason MAtthew 1:24-25 is viewed as different is because it contradicts a dogma and the authority of scripture is ignored and the expense of tradition. It even puts the event of Joseph "knowing" his wife into a past tense completed action:

Matthew 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

I don't know how clear a text needs to be.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Atheism is therefore the only logical conclusion for the biblicist.
 

Smoke

Done here.
It's relevant because it doesn't occur to Paul, and when Paul teaches this he has no leg to stand on because of the precedent that Mary had set if she had indeed set it and it was known. What he did was to contradict her example without any explanation or consideration.
Paul didn't know Jesus, and we have no indication that he knew Mary, either.

Every time till is used it has an end in mind of a present situation, it looks forward to an event:

"For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet." But not thereafter? :D
 
Top