Ever Virgin

[George]

snip

I hate huge quote trees. Anyways on the serious side, how was it said in the original Greek?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_virginity_of_Mary#.22Until.22

Alithis, not to sidetrack, but seriously something I want to ask. If Scripture is silent on something, what do you do?

 

[Rens]

I hate huge quote trees. Anyways on the serious side, how was it said in the original Greek?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_virginity_of_Mary#.22Until.22

Alithis, not to sidetrack, but seriously something I want to ask. If Scripture is silent on something, what do you do?

If he never 'knew her' they weren't even married and then Joseph would also be an ever virgin.

 

[Alithis]

I hate huge quote trees. Anyways on the serious side, how was it said in the original Greek?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_virginity_of_Mary#.22Until.22

Alithis, not to sidetrack, but seriously something I want to ask. If Scripture is silent on something, what do you do?

If Scripture is silent on something, what do you do?.. apparently some go and make up a fairy tale and present it as a doctrine ?

ALL scripture supports itself .. the scripture IS NOT silent on this count at all- it is just that what it says does not support the fairy tale of perpetual virginity . ... as a sign to the Jews . A virgin would bring forth a son.. that took place .
it then says she had more children .
- when children read it they know that's the case .. the only people who refuse to see it is those that want their tradition rather then the word of God .

and you haven't answered the Question/.. what scripture to you bases the perpetual virginity myth on ? none .. i know . its a man made myth . a lie .a distraction

and as for your link.. dont bother directing me to screeds of long ambiguous text as if using a lot of ambiguity in words will cancel out the plain word of god . give me scripture .. not religious waffle..

 

[George]

If Scripture is silent on something, what do you do?.. apparently some go and make up a fairy tale and present it as a doctrine ?

ALL scripture supports itself .. the scripture IS NOT silent on this count at all- it is just that what it says does not support the fairy tale of perpetual virginity . ... as a sign to the Jews . A virgin would bring forth a son.. that took place .
it then says she had more children .
- when children read it they know that's the case .. the only people who refuse to see it is those that want their tradition rather then the word of God .

and you haven't answered the Question/.. what scripture to you bases the perpetual virginity myth on ? none .. i know . its a man made myth . a lie .a distraction

and as for your link.. dont bother directing me to screeds of long ambiguous text as if using a lot of ambiguity in words will cancel out the plain word of god . give me scripture .. not religious waffle..

Lol please don't start playing this game again. How is it written in the original Greek, not how translations are written. Until with is eos is used in multiple ways.

Here is something to consider: The Annunciation and the Incarnation is something beautiful and wondrous and a great example of the Power of God. So therefore, with Christ entering the womb of Mary and this great event, it doesn't seem right to then forget about what happened and then have kids and act like nothing happened. Mary knew her role in bringing Christ into the world, and it just wasn't anything random or something to dismiss. She birthed the Savior, God who took flesh in her womb. It doesn't add up to say that she then threw away her role and then had children.

I had someone else to say, but need to search through the thread.

Also, sorry for the delayed responses, between the festivities and other work, been busy. You guys are busy bees posting, couldn't nearly find this thread lol. :lol:

 

[Alithis]

Lol please don't start playing this game again. How is it written in the original Greek, not how translations are written. Until with is eos is used in multiple ways.

Here is something to consider: The Annunciation and the Incarnation is something beautiful and wondrous and a great example of the Power of God. So therefore, with Christ entering the womb of Mary and this great event, it doesn't seem right to then forget about what happened and then have kids and act like nothing happened. Mary knew her role in bringing Christ into the world, and it just wasn't anything random or something to dismiss. She birthed the Savior, God who took flesh in her womb. It doesn't add up to say that she then threw away her role and then had children.

I had someone else to say, but need to search through the thread.

Also, sorry for the delayed responses, between the festivities and other work, been busy. You guys are busy bees posting, couldn't nearly find this thread lol. :lol:

your the one playing ..

i'm seriously asking you for a scripture which states that mary is perpetually a virgin. because there is NONE.

so the theory is a fairy tale . its man made rubbish.

i didn't ask you for a dissection of plain scripture ..look at the hoops you try to jump through to twist manipulate and force fit scripture into your false doctrine .

with truth you never have to do that .

 

[Josiah]

i'm seriously asking you for a scripture which states that mary is perpetually a virgin. because there is NONE.

There's also no Scripture that says she DID have intercourse after Jesus was born.

If you dogmatically say she did NOT remain a virgin - you are in EXACTLY the "boat" as the one who dogmatically says that she DID. You both have nothing in Scripture.

its man made rubbish

As is the view you are promoting.





.

 

[psalms 91]

However the fact she had more children speaks strongly that she did, where is the scripture that can make you believe that she didnt

 

[Josiah]

However the fact she had more children speaks strongly that she did, where is the scripture that can make you believe that she didnt

There is no verse that states she had other children. There's no verse that says she did not. There is no verse that says she had sex. There's no verse that says she did not. Both "sides" on this in terms of "dogma" are in the same situation - with nothing in Scripture to clearly support their view. And Tradition doesn't help much either - while the "no sex ever" view DID eventually gain traction and become universally embraced, that was preceded for centuries by an older Tradition that was SILENT on this issue and by some lively debate before the "PVM" view took hold.


Again, I'm okay with those holding AS PIOUS OPINION that Mary did or did not remain a virgin. I think there are WEAK HINTS both ways and there is Tradition both ways. Personally, I can't see why it matters all that much.... and I can't see why any should be so interested in such normally private marital matters. But I'm okay with the view - EITHER WAY and don't debate it EITHER WAY. My "issue" is simply with holding to such dogmatically - as a divisive, mandated point of highest importance (dogma)


I was partially banned at CF for holding to my position that we don't KNOW. And it probably doesn't matter and maybe isn't even any of our business. That view of mine got me several warnings and a partial ban. It seems CF doesn't allow people to note what Scripture does NOT say and to be neutral on this - not dogmatically holding that she was or was not a perpetual virgin. REALLY got the Admins there upset, REALLY mad at me. To the point of circumventing all there OWN rules, protocol, etc. to issue me a ban that actually didn't exist. Still scratching my head over that one (too) .... just one of the many, many, many odd injustices for which that site is notorious.



- Josiah




.

 

[meluckycharms]

The official position of the Roman Catholic Church claims that Mary remained a Virgin throughout her entire life. Before I begin to explain what the bible says about the issue, I must first explain why the RCC believes in the "perpetual virginity" of Mary.

The Catholic Church has given Mary titles such as the "Mother of God" and the "Queen of Heaven". Many Catholics believe that she is exalted in Heaven, and thus having the closest access to Jesus and God the Father. These beliefs are not found anywhere in Scripture and even if those things were true, her having sexual intimacy with her husband would not prevent her from gaining those positions. It is not a sin to have sex within the confines of marriage so Mary would in no way would have "defiled" herself in going so. The perpetual virginity of Mary is based on an unbiblical teaching that she is the "queen of heaven" and an unbiblical understanding of sex.

Here is what the bible says about the topic. The bible says:

"He had no relations with her, Mary, until she bore a son, and named him Jesus" (Matthew 1:25) NAB.

The emphasis on the word until makes it obvious that Mary had sex with her husband after she gave birth to Jesus. Furthermore, it is important to mention this:

"Is He (Jesus) not the carpenter's son? Is not his mother named Mary and His brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas?" (Matthew 13:55-56) NAB

Now, to be fair, Catholics are correct in the fact the the Greek word used to describe "brothers and sisters" could also be used for relatives such as cousins. However, the context is clearly saying that Mary had other children including multiple unnamed sisters. To say otherwise is to stretch the meaning when "brothers and sisters" is used when mentioning Jesus' mother and father. Also:

"While He was still speaking to the crowds, His mother and His brothers appeared outside, wishing to speak with Him" (Matthew 12:46) NAB

Also, (Mark 3:31-34) (Luke 8:19-21) (John 2:12) and (Acts 1:14) reference Jesus' other siblings. So if they were actually cousins and not brothers and sisters, why then are they mentioned so often with Mary? The RCC position of the "perpetual virginity " cannot be derived from scripture. In fact, it clearly contradicts what scripture clearly states.

 

[psalms 91]

The official position of the Roman Catholic Church claims that Mary remained a Virgin throughout her entire life. Before I begin to explain what the bible says about the issue, I must first explain why the RCC believes in the "perpetual virginity" of Mary.

The Catholic Church has given Mary titles such as the "Mother of God" and the "Queen of Heaven". Many Catholics believe that she is exalted in Heaven, and thus having the closest access to Jesus and God the Father. These beliefs are not found anywhere in Scripture and even if those things were true, her having sexual intimacy with her husband would not prevent her from gaining those positions. It is not a sin to have sex within the confines of marriage so Mary would in no way would have "defiled" herself in going so. The perpetual virginity of Mary is based on an unbiblical teaching that she is the "queen of heaven" and an unbiblical understanding of sex.

Here is what the bible says about the topic. The bible says:

"He had no relations with her, Mary, until she bore a son, and named him Jesus" (Matthew 1:25) NAB.

The emphasis on the word until makes it obvious that Mary had sex with her husband after she gave birth to Jesus. Furthermore, it is important to mention this:

"Is He (Jesus) not the carpenter's son? Is not his mother named Mary and His brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas?" (Matthew 13:55-56) NAB

Now, to be fair, Catholics are correct in the fact the the Greek word used to describe "brothers and sisters" could also be used for relatives such as cousins. However, the context is clearly saying that Mary had other children including multiple unnamed sisters. To say otherwise is to stretch the meaning when "brothers and sisters" is used when mentioning Jesus' mother and father. Also:

"While He was still speaking to the crowds, His mother and His brothers appeared outside, wishing to speak with Him" (Matthew 12:46) NAB

Also, (Mark 3:31-34) (Luke 8:19-21) (John 2:12) and (Acts 1:14) reference Jesus' other siblings. So if they were actually cousins and not brothers and sisters, why then are they mentioned so often with Mary? The RCC position of the "perpetual virginity " cannot be derived from scripture. In fact, it clearly contradicts what scripture clearly states.

Thank you for debunking this issue, excellent post

 

[Josiah]

Here is what the bible says about the topic. The bible says:

"He had no relations with her, Mary, until she bore a son, and named him Jesus" (Matthew 1:25) NAB.

The emphasis on the word until makes it obvious that Mary had sex with her husband after she gave birth to Jesus.

I've had SEVERAL who know koine Greek who have informed me that the force of that word in Greek BY NO MEANS WHATSOEVER means or even remotely implies that she LATER, after that, had sex. The force is simply and only that she did not have sex to the point.... it states and implies NOTHING about after that. We can pursue that, but you might want to check with a Greek prof at that sem.....

"Is He (Jesus) not the carpenter's son? Is not his mother named Mary and His brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas?" (Matthew 13:55-56) NAB

1. This verse says that JESUS was Mary's son. It says NOTHING WHATSOEVER about who is the mother of James, Joseph, Simon and Judas. It says nothing whatsoever about who bore them.


2. The word for "brother" in the NT is very, very, very loose and generic. YOU are my brother.... it doesn't mandate that we have the same biological father. The great majority of time in the NT, the term does NOT mean biological bother at all - much less of the same mother. And there's no word in koine Greek for step-brother so the very, very ancient Tradition that these 4 are sons of Joseph is textually permissible.

"While He was still speaking to the crowds, His mother and His brothers appeared outside, wishing to speak with Him" (Matthew 12:46) NAB

Again, it ONLY identifies Mary as JESUS' mother. It refers to "His brothers" simply as His brothers - NOT Mary's sons.

See point #2 above.

Also, (Mark 3:31-34) (Luke 8:19-21) (John 2:12) and (Acts 1:14) reference Jesus' other siblings. So if they were actually cousins and not brothers and sisters, why then are they mentioned so often with Mary?

1. A QUESTION is not support.

2. Could it be they were close to her and she to them? My wife is with me a lot - and we have different biological mothers. Is being associated with someone proof of once sharing the same womb?



See post # 28 for my position on this.



Pax Christi



- Josiah



PS The few Anglicans I've known are all very much embracing of the POV..... Not the Episcopalians (THEY don't seem to be embracing of much at all) but all the Anglicans. Just noting.

 

[meluckycharms]

Thank you for debunking this issue, excellent post

Thank you.

 

[meluckycharms]

I've had SEVERAL who know koine Greek who have informed me that the force of that word in Greek BY NO MEANS WHATSOEVER means or even remotely implies that she LATER, after that, had sex. The force is simply and only that she did not have sex to the point.... it states and implies NOTHING about after that. We can pursue that, but you might want to check with a Greek prof at that sem.....






1. This verse says that JESUS was Mary's son. It says NOTHING WHATSOEVER about who is the mother of James, Joseph, Simon and Judas. It says nothing whatsoever about who bore them.


2. The word for "brother" in the NT is very, very, very loose and generic. YOU are my brother.... it doesn't mandate that we have the same biological father. The great majority of time in the NT, the term does NOT mean biological bother at all - much less of the same mother. And there's no word in koine Greek for step-brother so the very, very ancient Tradition that these 4 are sons of Joseph is textually permissible.






Again, it ONLY identifies Mary as JESUS' mother. It refers to "His brothers" simply as His brothers - NOT Mary's sons.

See point #2 above.






1. A QUESTION is not support.

2. Could it be they were close to her and she to them? My wife is with me a lot - and we have different biological mothers. Is being associated with someone proof of once sharing the same womb?



See post # 28 for my position on this.



Pax Christi



- Josiah



PS The few Anglicans I've known are all very much embracing of the POV..... Not the Episcopalians (THEY don't seem to be embracing of much at all) but all the Anglicans. Just noting.

You still cannot deny the fact that there is much scriptural evidence that supports the argument that Mary had other children and you blatantly avoid the fact that there is absolutely no evidence in Scripture that supports the notion that Mary remained a virgin.

Can you provide any scriptural evidence that supports the "perpetual virginity" rather than blindly reject all the evidence that suggest otherwise? If not, tell us...why should we believe in the perpetual virginity other than because that is what the RCC tells us to believe?

 

[Josiah]

You still cannot deny the fact that there is much scriptural evidence that supports the argument that Mary had other children and you blatantly avoid the fact that there is absolutely no evidence in Scripture that supports the notion that Mary remained a virgin.

I respectfully disagree. There is NOTHING in Scripture (and a mixed-bag in Tradition) to support OR deny the PVM. Nothing.


You quoted verses that indicate that Mary is the mother of JESUS - but you offered nothing that remotely states she bore any other children.

You quoted verses that speak of "brothers" and "sisters" but these are SO broad and generic that they don't REMOTELY indicate that a common mother is involved. MOST of the uses of these terms in the NT do NOT indicate a shared biological mother. Furthermore, the term equally can refer to step-brother and there is a very ancient tradition (NOT supported or contradicted in the Bible) that JOSEPH had children prior to marrying Mary, and that Tradition would be in line with those verses.

because that is what the RCC tells us to believe?

... actually, it comes from an Ecumenical Council and the belief predates the RCC. It's also a view in the EOC and OOC. It's not distinctively Roman Catholic at all. But in any case, I don't agree that a view is ERGO wrong simply because the RCC, EOC and OOC teach it. I"d have to reject the Trinity, the Two Natures of Christ and most of the teachings of Christianity if I held to that rubric.

Now, as you know from post 28, I do NOT accept the POV as DOGMA. But equally, nor do I accept the NON-POV as dogma. Just because I don't accept we can dogmatically insist Mary DID have sex after Jesus was born IN NO WAY remotely indicates that I dogmatically insist that Mary did not. There is a third view: silence (at least dogmatically). Which is actually the oldest Tradition in this regard. And is the position of Scripture. And the position of nearly every denomination on the planet.



Thank you.


Pax Christi


- Josiah

 

[meluckycharms]

I respectfully disagree. There is NOTHING in Scripture (and a mixed-bag in Tradition) to support OR deny the PVM. Nothing.


You quoted verses that indicate that Mary is the mother of JESUS - but you offered nothing that remotely states she bore any other children.


... actually, it comes from an Ecumenical Council and the belief predates the RCC. It's also a view in the EOC and OOC. It's not distinctively Roman Catholic at all. But in any case, I don't agree that a view is ERGO wrong simply because the RCC, EOC and OOC teach it. I"d have to reject the Trinity, the Two Natures of Christ and most of the teachings of Christianity if I held to that rubric.

Now, as you know from post 28, I do NOT accept the POV as DOGMA. But equally, nor do I accept the NON-POV as dogma. Just because I don't accept we can dogmatically insist Mary DID have sex after Jesus was born is unrelated to my dogmatically insisting that Mary did not. There is a third view: silence (at least dogmatically). Which is actually the oldest Tradition in this regard. And the position of nearly every denomination on the planet.

I will concede that there is nothing that specifically denies the PVM. I also will agree with your statement that nothing specifically confirms the PVM. However, when reading the scriptures (which were cannonized by the same people who favored the PVM), the only possible conclusion that anyone can assume is that Mary had other children. If anyone simply read the bible, it would be impossible to conclude otherwise.

I do find it rather strange that the ecumenical council would declare the PVM to be true and not canonized any scripture to support such a claim. Which makes me wonder, if all the canonized scripture only leads someone to reject the PVM, where did the idea of the PVM come from and why was that source not canonized in the bible to prevent any confusion?

 

[psalms 91]

I will concede that there is nothing that specifically denies the PVM. I also will agree with your statement that nothing specifically confirms the PVM. However, when reading the scriptures (which were cannonized by the same people who favored the PVM), the only possible conclusion that anyone can assume is that Mary had other children. If anyone simply read the bible, it would be impossible to conclude otherwise.

I do find it rather strange that the ecumenical council would declare the PVM to be true and not canonized any scripture to support such a claim. Which makes me wonder, if all the canonized scripture only leads someone to reject the PVM, where did the idea of the PVM come from and why was that source not canonized in the bible to prevent any confusion?

Good questions and yes any reasonable person will arrive at that conclusion by reading

 

[George]

If he never 'knew her' they weren't even married and then Joseph would also be an ever virgin.

No? Sex doesn't constitute a marriage lol. If so, then all these people who are having sex are therefore married regardless of them being engaged/united, etc.

And Joseph was older than Mary. All the mention of Christ's brothers are implied to have been Joseph's children.

 

[meluckycharms]

Btw...I just wanted to say that I was born and raised Roman Catholic and I remained a Catholic for 22 years. My entire family for the most part is Roman Catholic so I have no problems with Catholics. I do not "hate" Catholics or have any problems with anyone because they are Catholic. I strongly disagree with Catholic theology and I will provide biblical explanations as to why I disagree. However, I believe Catholics are Christians and I love them just as much as any other denomination. I just did not want anyone to take my comments the wrong way or taken personally.

 

[George]

your the one playing ..

i'm seriously asking you for a scripture which states that mary is perpetually a virgin. because there is NONE.

so the theory is a fairy tale . its man made rubbish.

i didn't ask you for a dissection of plain scripture ..look at the hoops you try to jump through to twist manipulate and force fit scripture into your false doctrine .

with truth you never have to do that .

Sure Alithis, please keep calling the kettle pot black. I have no reason to twist Scripture, whereas you have done multiple times and seem that unless your flavor of Christianity is accepted, it's not right.

 

[George]

Btw...I just wanted to say that I was born and raised Roman Catholic and I remained a Catholic for 22 years. My entire family for the most part is Roman Catholic so I have no problems with Catholics. I do not "hate" Catholics or have any problems with anyone because they are Catholic. I strongly disagree with Catholic theology and I will provide biblical explanations as to why I disagree. However, I believe Catholics are Christians and I love them just as much as any other denomination. I just did not want anyone to take my comments the wrong way or taken personally.

Welcome to CH, I hope you enjoy it here. Threads like this might get heated, but we're a good bunch.