1. 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!

The Ever Virginity of Mary

Discussion in 'Christianity in General DIR' started by James the Persian, Oct 11, 2005.

  1. DTrent

    DTrent Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    93
    Ratings:
    +4
    I've never heard that the Bible is a product of the Church meaning that the fallibility of the CHurch means the Bible is fallable, too.
    Actually, the Bible itself says it came from God. - 2Tim.3:16,17
    It was "God-breathed". His Word is perfect but His followers ain't! :)
    And I've heard it said the Church (I guess you mean the CATHOLIC Church) is perfect or infallable but I don't see where that is true.
    Anyone care to explain or should that be for another thread? :confused:
     
  2. Quiddity

    Quiddity UndertheInfluenceofGiants

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2005
    Messages:
    19,626
    Ratings:
    +1,275
    Religion:
    Catholic
  3. Linus

    Linus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    1,211
    Ratings:
    +132
    Same here. I'm not dogmatic about it, but I tend to believe that she wasn't a virgin her whole life. I find it a little hard to believe that she and Joseph simply never had sex. But it seems most of the passages given as evidence of her being the mother of other children besides Jesus are a bit shaky in their intended meaning.

    Oh well.

    Thanks for the timely response. Sorry for the lateness of the reply. :eek:
     
  4. iris89

    iris89 Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2004
    Messages:
    434
    Ratings:
    +21
    Hi DTrent



    You are correct, I for the life of me can not understand why some argue that the meaning was anything other than what we ordinarily take to mean sisters and brothers, in this case half brothers and half sisters, since Jesus' (Yeshua's) Father was God (YHWH). However as you can see some argue otherwise. Why? Probably because they have 'mental blinders' due to creedal beliefs that are NOT supported by the Bible, and you used an excellent Bible, the Jerusalem Bible, as it is actually published by a creed that pushes the creedal belief of ever virginity of Mary. Strange that at Matthew 1:25 in this Bible it says, "he took his wife to his home and, though he had not had intercourse with her, she gave birth to a son; and he named him Jesus" (New Jerusalem Bible) which differs from the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible which reads, "And he knew her not till she brought forth her first born son: and he called his name Jesus." (Douay -Rheims Catholic Bible; DRCB).Interestingly the New American Bible [Catholic] says, "He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus" (New American Bible; NAB). Sounds like that creed does NOT know how to handle the obvious, that the scriptures do NOT back their creedal creed that the Virgin Mary remained ever virgin.



    As you said,

    Interestingly Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible on Matthew 13:53-56 says, "And it came to pass: when Jesus had finished these parables, he passed from thence. 54 And coming into his own country, he taught them in their synagogues, so that they wondered and said: How came this man by this wisdom and miracles? 55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude: 56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence therefore hath he all these things?" (Douay -Rheims Catholic Bible; DRCB) right in keeping with what you said. So there is no excuse to think the words mean anything but what they say given the context they were used in. This would be the case in Koine Greek as well as in English, and brings up an interesting point which is usage sometimes governs the meaning of a word and in this case that meaning is made unmistakable by the context, i.e., literal sisters and brothers who are even named.

    Your last comment really highlighted the facts,

    and makes the point that contending otherwise is just simply unreasonable.

    Your Friend in Christ Iris89
     
  5. iris89

    iris89 Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2004
    Messages:
    434
    Ratings:
    +21
    Hi Linus

    Your comment,

    Makes a lot of sense as I can not imagine any real man marrying a women and not having sex with her, ever. This in my way of looking at the world makes absolutely no sense. To imagine such a thing is in itself unbelievable.

    Let's keep this great discussion going as a great discussion.

    Your Friend in Christ Iris89

     
  6. DTrent

    DTrent Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    93
    Ratings:
    +4
    Iris -
    Thanx for the nice comments. I do appreciate them. (Some people on the board do not know how to be kind.)

    Yes, it seems that many religions say one thing but their own Holy Book says another. :eek:
    And which one should be adhered to? The Holy Book, not the religion! Our beliefs should be based on said Holy Book, not on our own selves, yes? And I believe that is how it should go with ALL faiths...

    Cya -
     
  7. iris89

    iris89 Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2004
    Messages:
    434
    Ratings:
    +21
    Hi DTrent

    You are most welcome. You have learned from me and I have learned from you. That is the advantage of discussion over debating. I love discussion as both parties to a discussion advance their knowledge; whereas, debates do not lead to further learning but only in trying to best the other person, an unliving thing per Matthew 22:37-40, "Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." (Authorized King James Bible; AV).

    Your Friend in christ Iris89
     
  8. James the Persian

    James the Persian Dreptcredincios Crestin

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Messages:
    4,416
    Ratings:
    +656
    No, I am not saying the translators are wrong. Until is the correct word to use in English, it's just that using the word in modern English has an implication that is wholly absent in the original. It is, therefore, the interpretation and not the translation that is incorrect. You persist in holding to an incredibly anglocentric view of the Scriptures. If you were to read the Scriptures in another language (say Romanian, where pâna (until) has exactly the same meaning as the Koine), you would see that the translation is the same but the meaning differs from your interpretation of the English. It is not a problem of bad translation but rather of the limitations of the English language. All translations suffer from this problem in one way or another, so unless you believe that a translation into English was inspired by God you must look to the original language to clarify any ambiguities.

    James
     
  9. James the Persian

    James the Persian Dreptcredincios Crestin

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Messages:
    4,416
    Ratings:
    +656
    For those who keep bringing up the word adelphoi as 'clearly' showing that Christ had brothers who were also sons of Mary, can I please just point out that adelphoi can mean brothers, half-brothers, step-brothers, cousins or even just very, very close friends (though the latter meaning is not possible in this context). There is no 'clearly' about it. I'm sure everyone will continue to ignore me because of their 'creedal blinders' :banghead3 , but this is linguistic fact and not theological opinion.

    As for those of you who claim that the use of half-brothers supports the view that they were Mary's children. I'd note that the word adelphoi is found in speach reported by the author. Unless you can show evidence that those speakers knew that Christ was God's rather than Joseph's son (and I'd say there's ample evidence to the contrary as they specifically call Him the carpenter's son) then your argument simply fails. As far as the speakers were concerned Christ was the son of Mary and Joseph. Half-brothers, then, would imply that they were sons of Joseph by a previous marriage unless you believe Mary married again after Joseph's death. This is simple textual analysis and has absolutely nothing to do with reading my beliefs into the text. I agree that the Scriptures do not prove my position (but they don't have to) but they most certainly don't contradict it.

    James
     
  10. iris89

    iris89 Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2004
    Messages:
    434
    Ratings:
    +21
    Hi James the Persian

    FIRST, You overlook the simple fact that in both Koine Greek and English, context often governs,
    Matthew 13:53-56:

    Interestingly the context in which they were called brothers and sisters is such as to make the arguments of some that the Koine Greek words meant something else look absurd. True some Koine Greek words could mean more than one thing including the ones in question, but the context of their usage clearly shows the truth or reality in this case. Let's look at the scriptures in question to see the facts.

    The Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible at Matthew 13:53-56 says, "And it came to pass: when Jesus had finished these parables, he passed from thence. 54 And coming into his own country, he taught them in their synagogues, so that they wondered and said: How came this man by this wisdom and miracles? 55 Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude: 56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence therefore hath he all these things?" (Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible; DRCB). So there is no excuse to think the words mean anything but what they say given the context they were used in. This would be the case in Koine Greek as well as in English, and brings up an interesting point which is usage sometimes governs the meaning of a word and in this case that meaning is made unmistakable by the context, i.e., literal sisters and brothers who are even named.

    This fact is also shown in the Jerusalem Bible at Matthew at 13:53-56 where it talks about Jesus astonishing people in the synagogue with his teaching. So the people wanted to know where he got his wisdom from since he is the carpenter's son, his mother is the woman called Mary, and his BROTHERS (GREEK, adelphoi) James and Joseph and Simon and Jude, and his SISTERS (GREEK, adelphai) were all there with them. (Mary had other sons and also had daughters). The New Jerusalem Bible says, "When Jesus had finished these parables he left the district; 54 and coming to his home town, he taught the people in their synagogue in such a way that they were astonished and said, 'Where did the man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers? 55 This is the carpenter's son, surely? Is not his mother the woman called Mary, and his James and Joseph and Simon and Jude? 56 His sisters, too, are they not all here with us? So where did the man get it all?'" (The New Jerusalem Bible; TNJB).
    Now, if one is to maintain the un-maintainable that by brothers and sisters some other relative was meant, then this would also apply to 'mother' and that is utterly absurd.

    Jesus replied, "Who are my mother and my BROTHERS"? (Here he made the clear distinction of the difference between SPIRITUAL BROTHERS AND SISTERS and FLESHLY ones, or NATURAL ones. Really, no one claims the ref to Jesus' MOTHER means anything different from what it says. Is it consistent, then, to reason that his NATURAL BROTHERS were not that but were perhaps cousins? When what is meant is not brothers but relatives, a different Greek word (syggenon) is used, as at Luke 21:16.).


    SECOND, You overlook the fact of recorded history:

    Last, Jesus' (Yeshua's) brother James is mentioned by Flavius Josephus the ancient 1 century Jewish historian as follows, "concerning Albinus, under whose procuratorship James was slain; as also what edifices were built by Agrippa. ... Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the orad; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: bus as for who seemed the most equitable of the citizens and such as were the most uneasy at the breacch of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa]," [source - The Life and works of Flavius Josephus translated by William Whiston, A.M., pub. By The John C. Winston Co., in Philadelphia, Chapter IX, page 598]. So this speaks to the fact that James was the literal brother, actually half brother of Jesus (Yeshua) as his Father was God (YHWH).

    THIRD, You overlook common sense.
    Why would anyone think that Joseph and Mary had no other children after Jesus was born? Since God instituted the marriage arrangement with its many joys one would not expect Him to expect Joseph and Mary NOT to indulge in them. What would be the point?

    FOURTH, You are mistaken with respect the English language as it has many terms for relatives other than literal brothers and sisters, so please get real.

    Your Friend in Christ Iris89
     
  11. James the Persian

    James the Persian Dreptcredincios Crestin

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Messages:
    4,416
    Ratings:
    +656
    I wasn't overlooking context at all. You were when you failed to distinguish between the context of the writing of an author who knew that Christ was the Son of God and the context of said author reporting the speech of others who had no such knowledge.



    I overlook no such thing. You still keep translating adelphoi as brothers as though that is the only possible translation when I have repeatedly demonstrated that it is not. Yes, James was the brother of Christ but that in no way implies that he shared Mary's blood. He could just as easily have been Joseph's by a previous marriage or, given that adelphos has so many meanings, no brother in English terms at all. You have yet to come up with any evidence to support your assetion that adelphos can only be translated as brother in this context.



    In what way am I overlooking common sense? Holy Tradition tells us (and I know you ignore it, but I do not) that Mary remained virgin because she consecrated herself as a virgin to God. You may dispute the fact, but as I accept it it is hardly valid to say that I am overlooking your 'common sense' (by which you appear to mean that I don't read the frailties of the average human into Scripture when it comes to the Theotokos). I am not overlooking it at all, rather rejecting it in the light of further evidence. You overlook the fact that Mary was not 'just another human', but one that God found so worthy as to bear His Son in the flesh. I hardly think that your 'common sense' can extend to such an essentially uncommon situation.

    Now this one is just bizarre. Where did I ever reference the English vocabulary for relations? I didn't. I've spoken of the Koine but never once mentioned the English. The problem with these translations is caused precisely because of the paucity of kinship terms in Koine (ditto Aramaic, by the way) when compared to English. If you could stick to arguing against points that I've actually made rather than inventing points which you wish I had made the discussion would go a lot more smoothly. Actually answering rather than avoiding my points would help, too.

    I'd also appreciate it if you could take a less combative tone. I'm happy to debate the issues with you but you consistently come across as attacking my faith. I have not once attacked your belief (and as far as I am concerned you have every right to it, however misguided I feel it may be) but have only discussed the evidence of the Scriptures and other aspects of Holy Tradition. You have failed to show the same courtesy towards me so I can only assume that your customary way of signing your posts is intended to be sarcastic - you certainly aren't coming across as friendly by any stretch of the imagination.

    James
     
  12. iris89

    iris89 Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2004
    Messages:
    434
    Ratings:
    +21
    Hi James the Persian

    FIRST, Your comment is the same thing that I have shown in error numerous times, now I shall do it once more. This is getting tiring. Also, I plan to address tradition straight from the Bible and I do hope you learn from it.

    First, while the word adelphos can have many meanings as do some words in English, the meaning of adelphos is governed by the context within which it appears. I have clearly shown that with respect its context in Matthew 13:53-56 its meaning is quite clear as follows:

    Which you reject even though it is completely logical; whereas, you hold for a meaning that given context of Matthew 13 is completely illogical. Why, because of tradition.

    Second, Holding to something illogical because of tradition is both illogical and definitely NOT in keeping with what Jesus (Yeshua) and the Apostles said about tradition, which is as follows:

    Matthew 15:;1-3, "Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,

    2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. 3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by you" (Authorized King James Bible; AV).

    Mark 7:1-8, "Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem. 2 And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault. 3 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. 4 And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables. 5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands? 6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. 7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. 8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do." (AV).

    Colossians 2:8, "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." (AV).

    So as we can plainly see, holding to something because of tradition is NOT in keeping with the Bible.

    SECOND, Your comment,

    You have failed to show that Joseph was previously married and history shows James to be younger than Jesus (Yeshua). So please stop grasping at straws.

    THIRD, Your comment,

    is what I call a 'so what.' How would that make either her or her husband different in inbred desires from other humans. Explain!

    LAST, I am an independent researcher and my job is to dig out facts and present them. I do NOT engage in debates which I consider worthless, only in up-building discussions such as the one I am having with Ltrent. Also, I am NOT given to speculation nor holding to tradition, only facts.

    Your Friend in Christ Iris89

     
  13. DTrent

    DTrent Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    93
    Ratings:
    +4
    WOW!! Where in the world did the notion come from that Joseph's 2nd wife was Mary?!!??!??
    I have never heard THAT one!!!
    There is NO indication IN SCRIPTURE that Joseph had other children BEFORE marrying Mary!
    Their 1st child was Jesus. The rest came later for Mary was no longer virgin. (That teaching is CHURCH DOCTRINE, not BIBLE doctrine.)
    Remember the account in Luke 2:41-51 where the family went on the trip to Jerusalem for the annual Passover celebration? Amidst all the relatives, Mary & Joseph noticed Jesus to be 'missing'. With all the other kids they had & all the hustle & bustle of the long trip by whatever humble means they had to travel by, it's not surprising that SOMETHING 'got lost'! (Or in this case, someONE!)

    And why in the world would anyone think Joseph wouldn't 'sleep' with his wife after they were legally married?!?? That would go against God's marital arrangement. One is supposed to 'rejoice with the wife of one's youth'. - Prov.5.

    Just some points to ponder -
     
  14. iris89

    iris89 Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2004
    Messages:
    434
    Ratings:
    +21
    Hi Dtrent

    Your comment reflects by sentiments exactly,

    And here are some more facts:

    And,

    Acts 1:13-14, "And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James. 14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren." (Authorized King James Bible;AV)

    And,

    And,

    All speak for themselves, I need say no more.

    Your Friend in Christ iris89

     
  15. DTrent

    DTrent Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    93
    Ratings:
    +4
    Hi Iris -
    I often read info gathered by Jerome, Origen, & Eusebius, too.
    Good call!
     
  16. iris89

    iris89 Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2004
    Messages:
    434
    Ratings:
    +21
    Hi DTrent

    Thanks, and here is some more.

    Says it all, doesn't it:

    Your Friend in Christ Iris89
     
  17. Scott1

    Scott1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,303
    Ratings:
    +950
    Good points, but please take the time to ponder Mark Shea's view on the subject:
    The NT gives no definate information about Mary's virginity in partu, nor about her virginity post partum... some scholars believe that discussions and the eventual pious beliefs about Mary's perpetual virginity came about in large part due to the fact that virginity was being emphasized within the Church (pre-third century) for ascetical reasons, and Mary (as a perpetual virgin) presented a persuasive model for Christian women.... but many would point to the complications that this belief caused the Church in it's fight against the heresy of the Gnostics and Docetists.

    Whatever the opinion, I pray everyone remembers that devotion to Mary (and the Saints) is ultimately devotion to Christ, whose grace has triumphed in those people.
     
  18. James the Persian

    James the Persian Dreptcredincios Crestin

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Messages:
    4,416
    Ratings:
    +656
    I'm going to answer only this point because you are right that we are going round and round in circles. We should just agree to disagree and be done with it. I still believe you are wrong but I can see that I will never convince you of this.

    I would like to point out, though, that I do not have to provide you with evidence for Joseph's previous marriage in order for my point to hold true. I do have such evidence, but it is nothing you will accept. My point was merely that the text supports my belief just as much as it does yours (but given other aspects, such as Mary being entrusted to St. John, I would say it supports my position better). That's all I was saying - that your 'clear' interpretation of the text is anything but clear.

    I am interested, though, in your evidence from history that St. James the Just was younger than Christ. I know of no such evidence and would appreciate it if you could provide some rather than just asserting that it exists. The evidence of iconography (even early icons) is that James was a very old man when he was martyred. I'm sure you won't accept such, but you've yet to provide any evidence to contradict mine.

    James
     
  19. iris89

    iris89 Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2004
    Messages:
    434
    Ratings:
    +21
    Hi James the Persian

    Wrong, I always provide the evidence for what I say, either from the Bible and/or from well respected historical resources. That Mary was entrusted to the Apostle John instead of one of Jesus' (Yeshua's) in no way supports your position. Why? Because at that time his half brothers were NOT yet his disciples, but his half brother James later became one of his disciples and held a prominent position in the congregation in Jerusalem.

    Your failure to give good evidence or in fact any evidence for Joseph's previous marriage strongly shows your position has no support whatsoever except maybe in your own mind. The context of the scriptures shows my position to be the correct one and yours the incorrect one as does all the evidence I have presented to your zero evidence. Also, your asking for evidence that James the half brother of Christ was younger than he without providing any evidence for your wrong claim that Joseph had been previously married indicates you are being hypocritical in support of your tradition myth. But here is evidence that his half brother James was younger than Jesus (Yeshua),

     
  20. iris89

    iris89 Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2004
    Messages:
    434
    Ratings:
    +21
    Hi Scott1

    Mark Shea's view on the subject is based on TRADITION and NOT historical fact as even he admits,

    But as I told another poster,

    Also, the tradition you refer to,



    did not come into existence until the 4 th. Century asd is just a self-justification for believing in a myth or tradition, but not reality.

    You make the claim of:

    but fail to show any evidence for this wrong claim. Let's look briefly why this would be impossible,



    First, Romans 5:12 says, " Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death: and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned." (Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible; DRCB), so Mary and the others would have been under inherited sin the same as everyone else. The renown Bible scholar and translator Theodore Beza said this,
    And, Mary recognized this fact and presented an offering after she gave birth as recorded at Luke 2:21-24, "[/font] And after eight days were accomplished, that the child should be circumcised, his name was called JESUS, which was called by the angel before he was conceived in the womb. 22 And after the days of her purification, according to the law of Moses, were accomplished, they carried him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord: 23 As it is written in the law of the Lord: Every male opening the womb shall be called holy to the Lord: 24 And to offer a sacrifice, according as it is written in the law of the Lord, a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons:" (DRCB). One renown Bible scholar, John Gill, said,

    Your Friend in Christ Iris89

     
Loading...