|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 12/17/2005 8:42:19 PM
|
|
|
Lurker
Posts: 740
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Silver Spring, MD
Status: offline
|
Well, in ancient times, when one's son is the King, the mother naturally assumes the title of Queen mother. It's a title of honour, not power. And the only reason we call Mary a queen is directly related to who her Son is.
_____________________________
Do not be afraid of Christ! He takes nothing away, and he gives you everything. When we give ourselves to him, we receive a hundredfold in return. Yes, open, open wide the doors to Christ—and you will find true life.
-Pope Benedict XVI
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 12/20/2005 11:04:07 PM
|
|
|
ChelseaRae
Posts: 920
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Well, in ancient times, when one's son is the King, the mother naturally assumes the title of Queen mother. It's a title of honour, not power. And the only reason we call Mary a queen is directly related to who her Son is.
Exactly, think of Bathsheba. When her husband was king she had to bow before him to even go into his presence in the throne room, when her son became king however, she was given a place of honour and a throne of her own to sit on!
If Jesus was a King (and we know he was), then Mary is most certainly the Queen Mother!
quote:
Jesus' ancestry going back to David is outlined in Matthew's gospel, and it is through Joseph. Since Jesus was not Joseph's blood child, this is reconciled because Jesus was Joseph's legal heir, therefore he was of Joseph's line.
If Mary had no children after Jesus, that would mean that Joseph's other children had been born before Jesus. Then James or one of the other brothers would've been the legal heir, not Jesus.
Those who hold to Mary's perpetual virginity: how do you reconcile this?
I think I would like to respond to this but I want to clarify what you are asking first, Im not sure why you think that Joseph had to have other children.
_____________________________
Growing our newest little one!
****5****10****15****20*  **25****30****35****40
Little Miss Bookworm
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 6/21/2006 1:29:10 PM
|
|
|
DaveW
Posts: 4110
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: MD suburbs of Washington DC
Status: offline
|
From a now closed thread:quote:
ORIGINAL: TGFG
I have been yapping on a catholic forum. Someone posed a question to me that I cant answer. I was wondering if anyone here could help.
The thread was about Mary and the fact that Jesus had no brothers and sister. I think He did according to Matthew ?. So this person said that Joseph was married before and had other children. This was part of Jewish tradition. That an older man would marry a young woman and not have sex with her. Catholics say this is what happened with Joseph and Mary. I asked for proof and they said it was oral tradition.
She said since not everything Jesus taught was written down, I should search for the truth in the oral traditions.
Is she right? Are we missing something that the Catholics claim to have?? Or is it written anywhere in the Bible that says the bible is sufficient enough?
Most marriages were arranged between children what we now would call early grade school age (4-8) and consumated in the early teens. While it probably happened from time to time that an older widower marryed a young lady, we have no indication that was the case here. And there is absolutely no Jewish tradition of marrying someone and not having sex. It was considered a sin to not marry (unless there was some darned good reason not to) as it was a violation of the command to multiply and fill the earth. To marry and not have sex was unthinkable. The Mishna actually laid down (from Jewish oral tradition) the minimum amount of sex considered acceptable based on the husband's occupation. The wife could force him to change jobs if that one did not keep her satisfied. If he did not meet those minimums she could divorce him.
The part of Joseph having children from a previous marriage is EOC, not RCC tradition. RCC insists they were cousins, the greek word for "brother" could also mean "close relative."
As to christian "oral tradition," it is very suspect. There was a clear break with the Jewish community and even the believing Jews in the late first and early 2nd centuries. This led to a complete "recasting" of many Jewish traditions that made no sense from a gentile viewpoint, and ended up being massaged to fit their new ideas and not the true history.
As to your other question, is the bible sufficient in and of itself. Yes and no. While it has everything we need in its pages, the only way to properly understand it and intrepret it is if you see it from the perspective of the original authors and audience; for the NT that would be first century Jews and Greek prostelytes. If you try to look at it from a modern western viewpoint you will totally lose many things.
_____________________________
Avatar is Saphira 5 months and Louvena at 23 months!
We are now grandparents TWICE!!
====================================
Our CD is now available here:
http://cdbaby.com/cd/dswaggoner
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 6/21/2006 2:49:19 PM
|
|
|
TGFG
Posts: 2
Joined: 5/13/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DaveW
From a now closed thread:quote:
ORIGINAL: TGFG
I have been yapping on a catholic forum. Someone posed a question to me that I cant answer. I was wondering if anyone here could help.
The thread was about Mary and the fact that Jesus had no brothers and sister. I think He did according to Matthew ?. So this person said that Joseph was married before and had other children. This was part of Jewish tradition. That an older man would marry a young woman and not have sex with her. Catholics say this is what happened with Joseph and Mary. I asked for proof and they said it was oral tradition.
She said since not everything Jesus taught was written down, I should search for the truth in the oral traditions.
Is she right? Are we missing something that the Catholics claim to have?? Or is it written anywhere in the Bible that says the bible is sufficient enough?
Most marriages were arranged between children what we now would call early grade school age (4-8) and consumated in the early teens. While it probably happened from time to time that an older widower marryed a young lady, we have no indication that was the case here. And there is absolutely no Jewish tradition of marrying someone and not having sex. It was considered a sin to not marry (unless there was some darned good reason not to) as it was a violation of the command to multiply and fill the earth. To marry and not have sex was unthinkable. The Mishna actually laid down (from Jewish oral tradition) the minimum amount of sex considered acceptable based on the husband's occupation. The wife could force him to change jobs if that one did not keep her satisfied. If he did not meet those minimums she could divorce him.
The part of Joseph having children from a previous marriage is EOC, not RCC tradition. RCC insists they were cousins, the greek word for "brother" could also mean "close relative."
As to christian "oral tradition," it is very suspect. There was a clear break with the Jewish community and even the believing Jews in the late first and early 2nd centuries. This led to a complete "recasting" of many Jewish traditions that made no sense from a gentile viewpoint, and ended up being massaged to fit their new ideas and not the true history.
As to your other question, is the bible sufficient in and of itself. Yes and no. While it has everything we need in its pages, the only way to properly understand it and intrepret it is if you see it from the perspective of the original authors and audience; for the NT that would be first century Jews and Greek prostelytes. If you try to look at it from a modern western viewpoint you will totally lose many things.
Hi,
Thank you for the info. I feel better now.
TGFG
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 6/21/2006 3:18:13 PM
|
|
|
Fritzpw_Admin
Posts: 7663
Joined: 2/28/2005
From: New Jersey
Status: offline
|
ADMIN'S NOTE :: ATTENTION PLEASE
Caur, another post like that and you'll be restricted from the topic or banned from the site.
Please do not reply to this message within the Community.
Please email Community@salemwebnetwork.com with questions, comments, or concerns.
Please do not send me PMs regarding this message.
_____________________________
Fritz
Senior Manager of Social Media
fritz@salemwebnetwork.com
Want to see my latest online project? Check out http://budurl.com/CWonFacebook
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 6/21/2006 4:00:14 PM
|
|
|
caur
Posts: 231
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lurker
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
The implication here is that he did know her after Jesus was born.
"Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death" (2 Sam. 6:23). So then you'll agree the implication here is that she had children after her death then, right?
46 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.
47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
Here there is a distinction being made between mother and brethren as opposed to the general population and even His disciples. The context is clear that these were His blood realations.
Indeed, blood relatives yes. But not brothers as we know the term. The language and culture of that time period used the terms "bretheren" and "brothers" in many ways. Check out how Lot, Abraham's nephew, is called his "brother" in Genesis 14:14. And then we have Jacob/Israel who is referred to as his uncle Laban's "brother" in Gen. 29:15. ANd of course the daughters of Eleazer obviously didn't marry their own brothers as they had none, but they did marry their "bretheren", the sons of Kish (their cousins), in 1 Chr. 23:21–22.
3 His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest.
4 For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world.
5 For neither did his brethren believe in him.
Kind of odd that since Jesus was the first born (read: oldest son) His younger brothers would give Him advice as that simply wasn't done in those times. But it does make sense when you realize they're NOT the sons of Mary but rather Jesus' older cousins.
Also, examine Mark 6:3, Jesus is referred to as THE son of Mary, not A son of Mary. The implication here is that Jesus was an only child.
There's more, but alas, I need to get ready for work. I'm sure someone else will fill in what I missed. :D
Ok, fair enough, I am corrected and accept it. In repost, I will let the statement, in bold, speak for itself. I would like to encourage Lurker to perhaps choose a different example by which to attempt his point.
As far as the topic in quote:
Mat 12:46 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.
Mat 12:47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
Mat 12:48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
Mat 12:49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
What is the implication here?
_____________________________
Jesus is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 6/21/2006 10:49:25 PM
|
|
|
finallythere
Posts: 17
Joined: 6/12/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Hey, waitaminute, in looking up the "carpenter" reference, I came upon:
Mt 13:55 - Is this not the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas?
If they thought Joseph was his bio-dad, then naturally they would think the above were at least His half-brothers. Which fits with the tradition that they were His step-brothers.
since no one responded to 1lightseekers' post i'd thought i'd post again... because they are named does that make them more likely to be direct relatives? also, John the Baptist was his 1st cousin, and if this reference was to cousinship why wasn't he mentioned?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 7/6/2006 5:02:55 PM
|
|
|
youthpastorswife
Posts: 17
Joined: 6/29/2006
Status: offline
|
Luke 1:26-27 " In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazereth a town in Galilee to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin's name was Mary.
Mary was already engaged BEFORE the angel visited her and told her that she was going to bear Jesus.
Matthew 1:18-25 " This is how the birth of Jesus came about; His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. Because Joseph, her husband did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly. But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, 'Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son and you are to give him the name Jesus because he will save his people from their sins. All this took place to fufill what the Lord had said through a prophet: 'The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel-which means God with us. When Joseph woke up, he did what he was commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave them the name Jesus."
I don't know how ya'll feel but sex and marriage go together. God created it that way. Joseph had no union with Mary so that she would be a virgin until Jesus was born and because I think under Jewish law she might have been considered unclean. I don't know about other children, but I seriously doubt that Mary remained a virgin. She was married after all to Joseph.
And about Mary being sinless, Romans 3:23 says, "For ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Yes, that included Mary. There is also another scripture that says, "there is none righteous,no not one."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 7/6/2006 6:19:12 PM
|
|
|
Lurker
Posts: 740
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Silver Spring, MD
Status: offline
|
A great link explaining how Jewish law works in regards to the Theotoko's perpetual virginity is found here. It addresses the idea that Joseph was required to have conjugal relations and shows how, in fact, according to Jewish law, he was prohibited.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/TALMUD.HTM
It's highly informative and pertinant to this discussion. :)
_____________________________
Do not be afraid of Christ! He takes nothing away, and he gives you everything. When we give ourselves to him, we receive a hundredfold in return. Yes, open, open wide the doors to Christ—and you will find true life.
-Pope Benedict XVI
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 7/17/2006 5:23:58 AM
|
|
|
Cristianus
Posts: 1
Joined: 7/12/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Fritzpw_Admin
This topic is neverending. So as to help keep things from constantly being repeated or asked we've decided to create a perpetual discussion on the topic.
Why do Catholics believe that Mary is a virgin for all time?
How do Catholics explain the verses in the Bible that refer to the brothers of Jesus?
I don't see problems because her virginity refers to Jesus' birth miracle.
The virgin Mary was married therefore she could have sons with Joseph, there is not difference about grace..
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 7/17/2006 12:35:54 PM
|
|
|
unworthyseraphim
Posts: 1084
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Mississippi
Status: offline
|
Dear Christianus,
I think pretty much all posters here believe that the blessed Theotokos was virgin at the conception of Christ...that Christ's was a virgin birth.
The ancient communions though also believe that her virginity remained perpetual: in conception, birth, and after the birth of Christ.
Lurker's post gives information on why from a rabbinical perspective Joseph would not have even considered having conjugal relations with her, given her initial pregnacy apart from him.
Then there is of course the Tradition that explians why they were betrothed in the first place (she was a virgin dedicated to the temple and he was a caretaker husband given to preserve her chastity and honor when it was no longer possible for her to remain at the temple because of her physical maturity...and her monthly times of ritual uncleaness).
So the ancient communions have always held her to have remained a virgin her entire life.
And that is sort of what this thread dosidoes upon...did she or didn't she and why.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 7/17/2006 1:08:06 PM
|
|
|
nowimfound
Posts: 389
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unworthyseraphim
Dear Christianus,
I think pretty much all posters here believe that the blessed Theotokos was virgin at the conception of Christ...that Christ's was a virgin birth.
The ancient communions though also believe that her virginity remained perpetual: in conception, birth, and after the birth of Christ.
Lurker's post gives information on why from a rabbinical perspective Joseph would not have even considered having conjugal relations with her, given her initial pregnacy apart from him.
Then there is of course the Tradition that explians why they were betrothed in the first place (she was a virgin dedicated to the temple and he was a caretaker husband given to preserve her chastity and honor when it was no longer possible for her to remain at the temple because of her physical maturity...and her monthly times of ritual uncleaness).
So the ancient communions have always held her to have remained a virgin her entire life.
And that is sort of what this thread dosidoes upon...did she or didn't she and why.
I don't think it makes much difference if she did remain a virgin or not. So, I'm not inclined to engage in a lengthy debate on this topic. Lurker suggest that we consider Joseph's desire to obedient to Jewish Law. I think of equal or greater import is Joseph's being obedient to the angel's command that he take Mary home as his wife. The angel could have commanded Joseph to be her protector and guardian of her child. He didn't. He said to take her home as his wife. This command implies fulfilling a number of obligations including that of sexual fidelity with one's spouse. In fact, it is doubtful that Joseph considered himself married to Mary (i.e. made her his wife) until after the marriage was consumated by physical union. Matt 1:24 says that Joseph took Mary home as his wife prior to her giving birth to Jesus. Luke 2:5 says that Mary was still only pleged in marriage to Joseph at the time of Jesus' birth. Something happened after Jesus was born that made Mary Joseph's wife or else he was never obedient to the angel's command. I don't think there are many options for what the 'something' was. I can only think of one.
Grace and Peace,
NIF
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 9/24/2006 11:33:53 PM
|
|
|
Robbie88871
Posts: 2
Joined: 9/18/2005
Status: offline
|
I tried repeatedly to open the link discussing the sinlessness of Mary but the page would not open, so here is my question....Why was it necessary for Christ to be born of a virgin? Obviously it fulfills prophecy, but why was it necessary? If a human can be born without original sin by redemption prior to birth by special grace, like Mary, why was it necessary for Christ to be born of a virgin? I always assumed He had to be born of a virgin so that His human-ness would not be tainted with original sin. We know he was 100% God and 100% man. I would be thankful to anyone who could clear up any misunderstandings I have.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 9/24/2006 11:58:11 PM
|
|
|
1love1God1way
Posts: 2417
Joined: 5/16/2005
Status: offline
|
Whether Mary did or did not have children after Jesus' birth (which I believe she did) is irrelevant to the question of whether she was a virgin....you can have sex and not end up with kids.
If she was in fact a virgin her entire life, I give more props to Joseph for hanging in there....
_____________________________
love.ben
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 9/25/2006 8:21:24 AM
|
|
|
nowimfound
Posts: 389
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Robbie88871
I tried repeatedly to open the link discussing the sinlessness of Mary but the page would not open, so here is my question....Why was it necessary for Christ to be born of a virgin? Obviously it fulfills prophecy, but why was it necessary? If a human can be born without original sin by redemption prior to birth by special grace, like Mary, why was it necessary for Christ to be born of a virgin? I always assumed He had to be born of a virgin so that His human-ness would not be tainted with original sin. We know he was 100% God and 100% man. I would be thankful to anyone who could clear up any misunderstandings I have.
The reason that Jesus had to be born of a virgin was so that there would be no question of his Divine parentage. He is truly the Son of God and the Son of Man (woman).
Grace and Peace,
NIF
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 9/25/2006 8:53:02 AM
|
|
|
GoodME_II
Posts: 364
Joined: 12/15/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: nowimfound
The reason that Jesus had to be born of a virgin was so that there would be no question of his Divine parentage. He is truly the Son of God and the Son of Man (woman).
Indeed.
But beyond that, those who accept the life-long virginity of Mary are trying to explain what that concept instructs to Christians regarding God's Grace and Favor when it is bestowed upon the mortal flesh of we non-divine humans - including the non-divine human named Mary who bore our Savior.
I for one in reading the posts find it interesting (based on my up-bringing in my Faith) that so many see the virginity of Mary as being frivolous once Jesus was born. That this Grace of God which kept her an unstained vessel for bearing Jesus somehow "wore out" or "evaporated" or "disintegrated".
What are we saying about God's Grace if we espouse this view? Aren't we saying that the action of Grace is temporary? Aren't we saying that not only do we have to worry about the rejection of God's Grace by our sin choices, but now we also have an "expiration date" that we have to check - kinda like checking the date on the milk jug in the 'fridge before taking a swig...?
If this Grace was some sort of "temporal" Grace to preserve Mary until the birth of Jesus, but then was revoked or removed - we need to perhaps have that discussion. Let's discuss the Scriptural instruction of temporal Grace.
_____________________________
"For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there is disorder and every foul practice. But the wisdom from above is...peaceable, gentle, compliant, full of...good fruits...And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace for those who cultivate peace"
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 9/25/2006 9:06:12 AM
|
|
|
Machaira
Posts: 174
Joined: 9/2/2006
From: Philadelphia, Pa.
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GoodME_II
. . . Aren't we saying that the action of Grace is temporary?
Hello GoodME_II,
With all due respect, I don't see any "special" connection between Mary's virginity and God's grace. Mary was a virgin the old fasioned way - she had never "known" a man. After the birth of Christ, what need was there for Mary to remain a virgin? I would have no problem with this doctrine if I could at least find some indication of it in Scripture. One would think that something as important would have been mentioned somewhere in Holy Writ.
_____________________________
For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake . . . Php 1:29
Check out my blog @ www.thomasboston.wordpress.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 9/25/2006 12:14:10 PM
|
|
|
unworthyseraphim
Posts: 1084
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Mississippi
Status: offline
|
When was that which was dedicated as holy to God ever allowed thereafter to be put to common use. If you found the Ark of the Covenant or one of the old chalice from which wine offerings were made by the priests of Israel...all antique considerations aside, would you feel free to store old blankets in one and use the other as a candy dish?
The very God of the universe, the Creator became incarnate through the blessed Virgin, He chose her humanity, her flesh to become His own, out of all women who have ever or will ever live...her's, not anyone elses....so just because He's "done" with her she can go back to normal Jewish housewife routine. If He did not allow this sort of thing for articles made of wood and stone and metal, why would He allow this for an infinitly more precious living person, the very person who was the culmination of all Abrahamic salvic history...the one, the woman who was prophisied from Genesis would would bear the seed who would crush the sperpent's head...the very first person ever direcetly prophesied about. She is to be set aside as old business? Not likely, not likely in the least.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 9/25/2006 2:21:27 PM
|
|
|
GoodME_II
Posts: 364
Joined: 12/15/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Machaira
With all due respect, I don't see any "special" connection between Mary's virginity and God's grace. Mary was a virgin the old fasioned way - she had never "known" a man. After the birth of Christ, what need was there for Mary to remain a virgin? I would have no problem with this doctrine if I could at least find some indication of it in Scripture. One would think that something as important would have been mentioned somewhere in Holy Writ.
I like UWS's post above, but also wanted to ask:
- So, God's Grace is not the reason and cause behind Mary's reaminaing a virgin? This was due to Mary's personal righteousness and her un-excelled practice of her human freewill? Or, it was chance?
No - I'm not buying it. Mary was a virgin because God made her that way - by Grace. That Grace did not wear off nor leave nor expire, nor was it revoked.
Demonstrate for me using Scriptures (or what ever other source you would like) that:
- Mary's virginity was the result of Mary's "goodness" or "righteousness"
- Mary's virginity was the result of chance
- Once Mary had Jesus, then she was just an ordinary woman who had several other kids and raised them.
- How much older was Jesus than His "siblings"? Do we have an example of Mary, Joseph and three or four other kids in tow (including Jesus), going somewhere - before Jesus left the home?
- When Mary "lost" Jesus and found him at the temple, where were the other kids?
_____________________________
"For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there is disorder and every foul practice. But the wisdom from above is...peaceable, gentle, compliant, full of...good fruits...And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace for those who cultivate peace"
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 9/25/2006 2:26:26 PM
|
|
|
1love1God1way
Posts: 2417
Joined: 5/16/2005
Status: offline
|
GodME_II,
How does it diminish God's grace for her to act out, in a God blessed marriage, the way God intended marriage to be?
You make it sound like sex with her husband is a dirty thing that God would frown upon.
_____________________________
love.ben
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 9/25/2006 3:34:52 PM
|
|
|
Machaira
Posts: 174
Joined: 9/2/2006
From: Philadelphia, Pa.
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GoodME_II
I like UWS's post above, but also wanted to ask:
- So, God's Grace is not the reason and cause behind Mary's reaminaing a virgin? This was due to Mary's personal righteousness and her un-excelled practice of her human freewill? Or, it was chance?
No - I'm not buying it. Mary was a virgin because God made her that way - by Grace. That Grace did not wear off nor leave nor expire, nor was it revoked.
Demonstrate for me using Scriptures (or what ever other source you would like) that:
- Mary's virginity was the result of Mary's "goodness" or "righteousness"
- Mary's virginity was the result of chance
- Once Mary had Jesus, then she was just an ordinary woman who had several other kids and raised them.
- How much older was Jesus than His "siblings"? Do we have an example of Mary, Joseph and three or four other kids in tow (including Jesus), going somewhere - before Jesus left the home?
- When Mary "lost" Jesus and found him at the temple, where were the other kids?
We can discuss your questions if you like, but that all depends on what you do with Matthew 1:25. If I see that you will not allow yourself to be honest with such a clear and straight forward text, then there's no point in moving on. I've had enough of that nonsense in another thread. I work with Greek everyday and can say confidently that Matthew 1:25 is not at all ambiguous as you claimed on the first page of this thread. What would you like to do with Matthew 1:25?
Mat 1:24 . . . he took his wife,
Mat 1:25 but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.
I'll even give it to you word for word:
"and not he-was-knowing her till of-which she-brought-forth son and he-calls the name of-him Jesus."
< Message edited by Machaira -- 9/25/2006 3:38:22 PM >
_____________________________
For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake . . . Php 1:29
Check out my blog @ www.thomasboston.wordpress.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 9/25/2006 5:20:55 PM
|
|
|
unworthyseraphim
Posts: 1084
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Mississippi
Status: offline
|
Why not ask the Greeks...they have 2000 years of Christian history, somewhere in all that time there must have been at least a few Christian men of some standing who would read and interpret this text "honestly". One has to wonder why the unanimous testimony of the Greek Christianity is in support of the blessed Virgin's continuing virginity. Even John Calvin and John Wesley who both read Greek supported her continuted virginity. Calvin even said that this passage only refers to the fact that during her pregnancy St. Joseph had no husbandly relations with her (to underscore the fact of the Virgin birth) and that it had nothing to say about their relations afterward. Then there is the consideration, that so long as she remained a virgin, she was living proof of the miraculous nature of the conception of her Son....proof that would have been lost if she had "known" St. Joseph in that way.
So unless you know someone who knows Greek better than Wesley and Calvin, and 2000 years of Greek speaking, reading, and writing Christians, then I will have to go with their concensus that they know the language and its implication better than I do.
As for sex in marriage being dirty. This is a misconstrual of the ancient communions' defense of her Virginity. The marriage bed is undefiled as St. Paul teaches. And this is good, but good is not the same as better, and better not the same as best. The testimony of Scripture is that virginity for the sake of the love of God is the noblest estate. It was good enough of Christ and it was good enough for His mother. Modern society is just sex obsessed and cannot concieve of virginity as anything but an interim state coming out of childhood and not as a virtuous God honored and God honoring estate in and of itself. But both Christ and St. Paul were quite specific in their praise of the virgin life, though it is only for those who can receive it. And the ancient Church even numbered virgins ahead of the martyrs. How low we have fallen if the virginity of the Holy Virigin seems an ignoble and contemptuous thing for us now...a temporary thing to be done with as soon as the miracle of the incarnation was out of the way.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 9/25/2006 5:31:02 PM
|
|
|
Machaira
Posts: 174
Joined: 9/2/2006
From: Philadelphia, Pa.
Status: offline
|
unworthyseraphim,
Unfortunately, Calvin carried some RC baggage into the Reformation. His opinion on this matter was squarely against the plain teaching of Matthew 1:25. It means exactly what it says.
Mat 1:25 but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.
< Message edited by Machaira -- 9/25/2006 6:09:32 PM >
_____________________________
For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake . . . Php 1:29
Check out my blog @ www.thomasboston.wordpress.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 9/25/2006 6:41:14 PM
|
|
|
unworthyseraphim
Posts: 1084
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Mississippi
Status: offline
|
What about the Greeks? It's their language and they have never read it as you do. The Orthodox, the Copts, the Syrian Orthodox, the Malankara, and the Armenian Churchs have not been in communion with Rome from 1000 to 1500 years, yet they all teach the Virgin's perpetual virginity.
Labelling Calivin's comments as RC baggage is not the same thing as actually engaging the merit of his reading of the text. Just because "until" can carry a follow over implication doesn't mean this is the case in Greek...its not even the case in English. All language has its euphamistic and particularities of use, things contextually determined. The fact that the Greeks don't and never have read this "until" the same way you are reading it has to give some pause. Consider, "I will be with you until the end of the age". Do you believe Christ means at the end of the age He will desert us, it is the same word "until"? Or what about in the OT where Michal did not bear a child until the day of her death....maybe she got pregnant and had a baby sometime after her death.
What does it do to your theology to consider that the only thing the passage under question has to say on this is that up until the time of Christ's birth the blessed Theotokos and St. Joseph had no spousal bodily relations? Does your theological world topple if you don't have to read the text to mean she and St. Joseph had such knowledge of each other? It seems that the biggest bone you have to pick is that it vindicates the Catholic reading of the text. So they have to read it wrong just because they are Catholic....maybe they misread that God is love part too. So if they read that passage to understand that God loves them and is the source of all love...obviously they must be wrong and the passage has to be read to mean God is a big bully out to stomp on some human anthills if they tick Him off. Obviously that is silly. So is rejecting a reading of the text on the grounds that it may be "too catholic". Why not just be sure as you can be it is read correctly and let the chips fall where they may regardless of whether it vindicates or undercuts your personal theological preferences?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - | | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
