Mary and the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin

[Particular]

Thou shalt honor thy father and thy mother.... It has been the understanding of Jews and Christians for thousands of years that no one can "by pass" and dishonor parents. God command circumcision for example, but Jewish law prohibits one doing this without the authorization of the parents.




.



.

Is this your argument for why you refuse to baptize all humans, regardless of their confession of faith?
What I read here is that your entire position is one of tradition, apart from scripture...or based solely upon a prooftext out of context.
I'm curious, do you always abandon context when you makeup your theology?

 

[Particular]

Parents have authority over their own children. They do not have authority over anyone else. That's why we don't just baptize anyone at leisure.

So parents save their kids with no conscious effort by the child, but adults cannot be saved unless they make a conscious decision to be baptized...and zero humans can be saved without water baptism. Is that a correct interpretation of your post?

 

[Lamb]

So parents save their kids with no conscious effort by the child, but adults cannot be saved unless they make a conscious decision to be baptized...and zero humans can be saved without water baptism. Is that a correct interpretation of your post?

Perhaps you could start a new thread instead of hijacking this one?

 

[Josiah]

Is this your argument for why you refuse to baptize all humans

It's God's words regarding parents. No, most Christians do not hold that we are to violate the Commandment about honoring parents, no matter how important Baptism and teaching are. And this has been a part of the Jewish/Christian communities forever; Jews also forbid circumcising a child without the permission of the parents.


What I read from you is that your entire position is one of very new, very rare human tradition, apart from Scripture...




.

 

[FredVB]

Look, the Bible says NOTHING - read NOTHING WHATSOEVER - about Mary having or not having other children. Not one word. About her HAVING given birth to others or NOT having done so. Nothing. Nada. Zip.

EVEN IF Mary had no other children, that is entirely IRRELEVANT to her being a perpetual virgin (the dogma) unless you can biologically prove that EVERY act of marital relations results in the birth of a child (and also recorded in the Bible). Yes, IF she was a perpetual virgin, then she likely had no other children (unless they too were miracious) BUT the opposite is not true. LOTS of couples have LOTS and LOTS of sex but no kids.

There's nothing from the Apostles either. Nothing from the earliest church. It's a THEORY, a 'pious opinion" that developed later. It's only dogma in ONE denomination (the Catholic Church) and that for less than 200 years - but it IS a commonly held view in the Orthodox churches, too.

There's NOTHING in Scripture or early Tradition to support it..... and NOTHING in Scripture or early Tradition to deny it. Kind of like Mary being 8 feet tall and being allergic to fish - that too would have NOTHING to support it, NOTHING to deny it.

Why it matters how often a married couple has relations.... why that must be DOGMA.... no one has ever explained to me. I consider it a PRIVATE matter between spouses and no body's business (perhaps even rude to discuss about a married couple?). Frankly, all the ancient Christian dogmas I can think of would not be impacted ONE BIT if the couple had had relations (or didn't).

So, if the Bible says nothing about Mary having other children, and it says Mary came with his four brothers, including James who wrote the epistle as James the brother of the Lord, why should it be thought from what is shown that Mary would not be their mother?

It is not a matter of rude invasiveness. It is expected among any of married people that they would be intimate and from that children would be born, and in that culture of that time it would be a disappointment if no children were born from that. There is no record of anyone ever entering a marriage with a personal vow to remain a virgin. Joseph would not have expected that when he was going to marry Mary to start with, before the angelic announcements, and he had no reason to expect a difference to the relationship after the announcements.

 

[Josiah]

So, if the Bible says nothing about Mary having other children, and it says Mary came with his four brothers, including James who wrote the epistle as James the brother of the Lord, why should it be thought from what is shown that Mary would not be their mother?

Several reasons:

1. The Greek word for "brother" here is by no means limited to folks who have the same mother. Indeed, MOST of the time, it was not used that way - including most of the time in the Bible. You are my brother!

2. While I'd agree that in the implication of a verse is that these are relatives, there also is no word in Greek for a step brother or step sister, they were just called brother or sister, even if one only shared ONE parent with them. And as today, this was quite common. There is an old tradition.... we can date it to at most 150 AD where we have it written down, that JOSEPH had children from a previous marriage. We don't know that's true (this very early tradition COULD be false), nonetheless, if so, there would be no other way to label them other than "brothers and sisters" of Jesus.

Now, PERSONALLY, I'm of the opinion that these LIKELY are children of both Mary and Joseph. BUT this cannot be proven from the Bible and actually is contradicted by VERY early tradition. We can't be sure and certainly not dogmatic. There is no verse that says "Mary had other children" and nor is there a verse that says "Mary had no other children" thus we can't make dogma out of EITHER position - we just don't know. You and I may agree it's LIKELY but we can't know.

It is expected among any of married people that they would be intimate and from that children would be born, and in that culture of that time it would be a disappointment if no children were born from that.

True. But today, we have couples (I personally know several) who have no children. I two cases, they've told me straight out that "we've tried" which I read to mean they are both not perpetual virgins (they are doing their part, LOL) but.... no kids. It happens today. It happened then. Even if Mary and Joseph DID have relations, it is absurd to dogmatically insist ERGO they MUST have had kids. Anyone who took biology in high school knows that while "relations" MAY result in children, it doesn't always happen. And back then, they didn't have fertility clinics. There are examples in the Bible itself of couples who had no children.

There is no record of anyone ever entering a marriage with a personal vow to remain a virgin.

Actually, I think that's wrong. But I never said anything about anyone having any vow. Although the teaching that Mary DID comes from the Protoevangelum of James which dates to about 120 or so (pretty early!!!) and it out right says Mary did just that. But no, that's not Scripture and could be wrong. But whether one makes a vow or not, it's still possible for one to have relations 10,000 times and yet not have one kid. Happens now. Happens then.




Note, this thread is not about the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, it's about a completely different and entirely unrelated view, the Assumption of Mary. Apples and oranges.





.




.

 

[Particular]

sola lutherana...

 

[FredVB]

If the Bible says nothing about Mary having other children, and it says Mary came with his four brothers, including James who wrote the epistle as James the brother of the Lord, why should it be thought from what is shown that Mary would not be their mother?

It is not a matter of rude invasiveness.

There is no record of anyone ever entering a marriage with a personal vow to remain a virgin. Joseph would not have expected that when he was going to marry Mary to start with, before the angelic announcements, and he had no reason to expect a difference to the relationship after the announcements.

Several reasons:

1. The Greek word for "brother" here is by no means limited to folks who have the same mother. Indeed, MOST of the time, it was not used that way - including most of the time in the Bible. You are my brother!

2. While I'd agree that in the implication of a verse is that these are relatives, there also is no word in Greek for a step brother or step sister, they were just called brother or sister, even if one only shared ONE parent with them. And as today, this was quite common. There is an old tradition.... we can date it to at most 150 AD where we have it written down, that JOSEPH had children from a previous marriage. We don't know that's true (this very early tradition COULD be false), nonetheless, if so, there would be no other way to label them other than "brothers and sisters" of Jesus.

Now, PERSONALLY, I'm of the opinion that these LIKELY are children of both Mary and Joseph. BUT this cannot be proven from the Bible and actually is contradicted by VERY early tradition. We can't be sure and certainly not dogmatic. There is no verse that says "Mary had other children" and nor is there a verse that says "Mary had no other children" thus we can't make dogma out of EITHER position - we just don't know. You and I may agree it's LIKELY but we can't know.

Number 1, when it is your mother and your brothers are here, even if brothers could possibly be used with meaning other things, in this context there is not reason to first think it would not mean actual siblings from the same parent, unless there is clear statement somewhere to see it differently. And there is no clear statement for that, unless using extrabiblical statements from the church much later.

Number 2, they did have only one parent in common with Jesus. It had to be Mary, because it could not be Joseph, as Joseph did not father Jesus. I think those brothers were younger, too. They are not involved in any way, even being left somewhere, in the nativity setting with Mary and Joseph, and their flight to Egypt, and the small baby boys in Bethlehem still being slaughtered. I see they would be with Mary and Joseph only later, with their brother Jesus where they grew up. I have an impression that they didn't like him or resented him, but it is just my impression. At least they believed in him later.

It is really a much greater assumption that Mary was always remaining a virgin, and even with the intention to be. I don't see any basis for that.

It is expected among any of married people that they would be intimate and from that children would be born, and in that culture of that time it would be a disappointment if no children were born from that.

True. But today, we have couples (I personally know several) who have no children. I two cases, they've told me straight out that "we've tried" which I read to mean they are both not perpetual virgins (they are doing their part, LOL) but.... no kids. It happens today. It happened then. Even if Mary and Joseph DID have relations, it is absurd to dogmatically insist ERGO they MUST have had kids. Anyone who took biology in high school knows that while "relations" MAY result in children, it doesn't always happen. And back then, they didn't have fertility clinics. There are examples in the Bible itself of couples who had no children.

Couples might not have children, now when it is not such a great deal, or then, when heirs for inheritance was very important to all in the culture. It does not matter to my point that some unfortunately did not have children. It was still that important in the culture. Children were very much wanted by married couples. And with that intention to remain a virgin in a marriage is inexplicable.

I never said anything about anyone having any vow. Although the teaching that Mary DID comes from the Protoevangelum of James which dates to about 120 or so (pretty early!!!) and it out right says Mary did just that. But no, that's not Scripture and could be wrong. But whether one makes a vow or not, it's still possible for one to have relations 10,000 times and yet not have one kid. Happens now. Happens then.

Note, this thread is not about the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, it's about a completely different and entirely unrelated view, the Assumption of Mary. Apples and oranges.

Again infertility is irrelevant to that topic, and later tradition does not make such a vow not inexplicable, which it remains. The vow or even just the intention really makes no sense, especially for both the one intending that and to the spouse.

And as this is about the assumption of the virgin Mary, it is relevant, as I say she was not remaining a virgin as a married woman, she was also not sinless, and had nothing special such that she would just be assumed into heaven. Only Jesus was sinless among humanity, and only he is the mediator and redeemer, and he was still crucified and died for us, only then after his resurrection three days later, and the time appearing to followers, ascending into heaven. We who believe all have to wait to be changed to be taken up, or, as in the case of almost all, dying first and waiting to be brought back in the resurrection to go meet Jesus our Lord. We may be spiritually with the Lord before that when we die.

 

[brian100]

Jesus said whoever liveth and believeth shall never die. He confirmed this by asking do you believe this?

2:42

 

[Particular]

Mary was not a perpetual virgin. Matthew 1 makes this clear. Therefore, when the Bible refers to Jesus brothers and sisters one need conclude that these are Mary's children.

Matthew 1:24-25 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.

 

[brian100]

Jesus put her Immaculate heart on his Shroud.. and a sword thru b/c of the reformation in the 1500's.

 

[Lamb]

Jesus put her Immaculate heart on his Shroud.. and a sword thru b/c of the reformation in the 1500's.

Could you explain what you mea by that? I'm confused by it.

 

[brian100]

Well he put her Immuculate heart on his Shroud=sinless. But only the reformers rammed a sword thru it.

 

[Josiah]

Number 1, when it is your mother and your brothers are here, even if brothers could possibly be used with meaning other things, in this context there is not reason to first think it would not mean actual siblings from the same parent

AGAIN, I don't disagree with your ASSUMPTION but it IS an assumption. The verse you quote does not say that Mary was the mother of all those named, what you are insisting upon is NOT stated in the text. And it is weakened further because the word "brother" MORE OFTEN THAN NOT does not mean "share the same mother." Fred, YOU are my brother.

Now, if the issue was this: Does it appear more likely these also had Mary as their mother? I'd join with you in saying "that would be the more obvious reading of the text" but we're not talking about what appears more likely, you are insisting it is a FACT all these people had the same mother. Where does the Bible state that?

Number 2, they did have only one parent in common with Jesus. It had to be Mary

They did not have to have ANY parent in common. You and I are brothers but we have NO biological parent in common.

See Mark 3:35, Acts 9:17, 1 Cor. 5:11, Philemon 16, Luke 6:41, and over 50 other such verses. Can you textually prove in every case, there is a shared biological mother?

Fred, you are my brother. Do we share the same biological mother?

I have an impression

I don't agree that personal impressions are verification of dogma. You are insisting that Mary had mother children but you've not provided anything that remotely indicates that. I agree you have one verse where I agree that's the most obvious conclusion but it doesn't say that.

It is really a much greater assumption that Mary was always remaining a virgin, and even with the intention to be. I don't see any basis for that.

Okay. But holding that there is insufficient TEXTUAL proof that she forever remained a virgin does not prove ergo she had lots of children. Again, it is not only possible but actually happens with some frequency that a couple might have lots of sex - perhaps over 10,000 times - and not have a child (especially one specifically mentioned in the Bible!). I know several couples who (I suspect) have sex but (I know) have no children. Your personal ASSUMPTION that Mary had sex and thus had kids is 1) An assumption and not textual proof and 2) biologically baseless.

Your point that the Catholic Church cannot prove some dogma is not authorization for you to prove you don't have proof for your opposite dogmatic view. Just because I cannot prove there is no life on Jupiter does NOT mean ergo it is a dogmatic fact that there is.

And as this is about the assumption of the virgin Mary

Yes it is! And that dogma has nothing - nothing at all, nothing whatsoever - to do with Mary's sex life or Jesus' brothers.




.

 

[Josiah]

Mary was not a perpetual virgin. Matthew 1 makes this clear. Therefore, when the Bible refers to Jesus brothers and sisters one need conclude that these are Mary's children.

Matthew 1:24-25 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.

Does Matthew 1:25 provide evidence for or against the perpetual virginity of Mary?

Matthew 1:25, regarding Joseph "knowing" Mary, reads: but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus. (ESV) The word "until," in English, typically indicates ...

hermeneutics.stackexchange.com

.

 

[Particular]

AGAIN, I don't disagree with your ASSUMPTION but it IS an assumption. The verse you quote does not say that Mary was the mother of all those named, what you are insisting upon is NOT stated in the text. And it is weakened further because the word "brother" MORE OFTEN THAN NOT does not mean "share the same mother." Fred, YOU are my brother.

Now, if the issue was this: Does it appear more likely these also had Mary as their mother? I'd join with you in saying "that would be the more obvious reading of the text" but we're not talking about what appears more likely, you are insisting it is a FACT all these people had the same mother. Where does the Bible state that?






They did not have to have ANY parent in common. You and I are brothers but we have NO biological parent in common.

See Mark 3:35, Acts 9:17, 1 Cor. 5:11, Philemon 16, Luke 6:41, and over 50 other such verses. Can you textually prove in every case, there is a shared biological mother?

Fred, you are my brother. Do we share the same biological mother?






I don't agree that personal impressions are verification of dogma. You are insisting that Mary had mother children but you've not provided anything that remotely indicates that. I agree you have one verse where I agree that's the most obvious conclusion but it doesn't say that.






Okay. But holding that there is insufficient TEXTUAL proof that she forever remained a virgin does not prove ergo she had lots of children. Again, it is not only possible but actually happens with some frequency that a couple might have lots of sex - perhaps over 10,000 times - and not have a child (especially one specifically mentioned in the Bible!). I know several couples who (I suspect) have sex but (I know) have no children. Your personal ASSUMPTION that Mary had sex and thus had kids is 1) An assumption and not textual proof and 2) biologically baseless.

Your point that the Catholic Church cannot prove some dogma is not authorization for you to prove you don't have proof for your opposite dogmatic view. Just because I cannot prove there is no life on Jupiter does NOT mean ergo it is a dogmatic fact that there is.







Yes it is! And that dogma has nothing - nothing at all, nothing whatsoever - to do with Mary's sex life or Jesus' brothers.




.

This is a really weak argument. The context very clearly points to these being Jesus brothers and sisters by kinship, not generality.

Does Matthew 1:25 provide evidence for or against the perpetual virginity of Mary?

Matthew 1:25, regarding Joseph "knowing" Mary, reads: but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus. (ESV) The word "until," in English, typically indicates ...

hermeneutics.stackexchange.com

.

Joseph had sex with Mary as she was his wife.

Matthew 1:24-25 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.

Knew her means, had sex with her. Joseph and Mary had sex after Jesus was born. There is no reason to think that Mary didn't give birth to more children.

Feel free to perpetuate more myths conjured up by tradition, however. Forbid it that any crazy church tradition should be thrown out.

 

[Josiah]

.


To our Reformed friends....


Calvin argues that in Matthew 1:25 ("[Joseph] knew her [Mary] not till she had brought forth her firstborn son") the term "firstborn" and the conjunction "till" do not contradict the doctrine of perpetual virginity, but Matthew does not tell us what happened to Mary afterwards; he wrote: "no just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words of the Evangelist (Matthew), as to what took place after the birth of Christ."

Calvin held to the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, but like Luther, not as dogma.

I agree with both Calvin and Luther on that. And I personally would add, it makes no difference and perhaps isn't anyone's business anyway.

Knew her means, had sex with her.

Yes, but "until" does not necessarily mean or imply the circumstance reversed thereafter. Look up the Greek. Read what I provided. The word "until" does NOT prove she never had relations AND equally it does not prove that she did, the word does not carry just one of those meanings, it can indicate BOTH. The word "until" does NOT substantiate the PVM but equally it does not disprove it. Sorry. Your argument is false.

There is no reason to think that Mary didn't give birth to more children.

Well, you can think the Earth is flat. But the point is there is nothing in the Bible that states Mary had sex or had other children ... and there is nothing in the Bible that says she did not. Anyone can theorize and opinionate but that's not the foundation of dogma. You are being just as unbiblical as the ones you are rebuking and ridiculing, doing EXACTLY THE SAME as you rebuke them for doing, imposing what YOU THINK for what the Bible actually states.




Now, back to the subject of this thread, which is the Dogma of the Assumption of Mary (which has nothing whatsoever to do with the PVM or whether Mary birthed other children).





.

 

[atpollard]

Now, back to the subject of this thread, which is the Dogma of the Assumption of Mary (which has nothing whatsoever to do with the PVM or whether Mary birthed other children).

“The Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin” suggests that her virginity does have SOMETHING to do with her assumption. What is the basic premise behind why Mary was assumed according to Roman Catholic dogma?

 

[Particular]

.


To our Reformed friends....


Calvin argues that in Matthew 1:25 ("[Joseph] knew her [Mary] not till she had brought forth her firstborn son") the term "firstborn" and the conjunction "till" do not contradict the doctrine of perpetual virginity, but Matthew does not tell us what happened to Mary afterwards; he wrote: "no just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words of the Evangelist (Matthew), as to what took place after the birth of Christ."

Calvin held to the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, but like Luther, not as dogma.

I agree with both Calvin and Luther on that. And I personally would add, it makes no difference and perhaps isn't anyone's business anyway.








Yes, but "until" does not necessarily mean or imply the circumstance reversed thereafter. Look up the Greek. Read what I provided. The word "until" does NOT prove she never had relations AND equally it does not prove that she did, the word does not carry just one of those meanings, it can indicate BOTH. The word "until" does NOT substantiate the PVM but equally it does not disprove it. Sorry. Your argument is false.






Well, you can think the Earth is flat. But the point is there is nothing in the Bible that states Mary had sex or had other children ... and there is nothing in the Bible that says she did not. Anyone can theorize and opinionate but that's not the foundation of dogma. You are being just as unbiblical as the ones you are rebuking and ridiculing, doing EXACTLY THE SAME as you rebuke them for doing, imposing what YOU THINK for what the Bible actually states.




Now, back to the subject of this thread, which is the Dogma of the Assumption of Mary (which has nothing whatsoever to do with the PVM or whether Mary birthed other children).





.

Why would we care what Calvin thought? We are not bound by the thoughts of a 16th century person. We are bound by the word of God. Let us stick to that. Sola Scriptura, Josiah.

 

[brian100]

Mary Liveth and Believeth in Jesus and she never died. And the Lord was with Mary.. Luke 1:28

When you get to heaven and see Mary holding Salvation then what?