Mary"s Perpetual Virginity

Here

Pretty cut and dry there folks....

Truthfully this is not one of the more important issues in Christian Doctrine. But the Christian Fellowship I attended taught that James was the half brother of Jesus (son of Joseph and Mary). That was why James was called the brother of the Lord. I was also taught that there were other siblings of Jesus. After all Joseph and Mary were good pious Jews and would have followed God's commandment ("Be fruitful and multiply'.)

Originally posted by AshleyD
reply to post by oliveoil

 

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Mary had other children.

But I'm not sure where it states she was an eternal virgin either. 'Know' is a euphemism for sex and it states Joseph 'knew' Mary after she gave birth to Jesus, like in your OP.

It's my belief she did have other children but we can put that debate aside right now and focus on the main question. I don't see anything enforcing the perpetual virginity doctrine of Mary- the opposite seems to be implied.

Although I think she had children, you can still have sex without having children, and it sounds like Mary and Joseph did.

?

Matthew 1:25 (New International Version)

25But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

The word here would be "UNTIL". In Greek (heos hou) refers only to the time prior to Jesus' birth and does not imply that Mary had sexual relations with Joseph later. Mary was also a devout Jew and would not have sex without having children.

[edit on 7-5-2010 by oliveoil]

reply to post by oliveoil

But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son.

They way I am interpreting that is 'until' being a definitive word. That is to verify there was no doubt Mary was a virgin and that Christ was born of a virgin. Then, they finally consummated the marriage so there would be no doubt of Mary's virginity.

Like 'You can have no dessert until you finish your peas, Son!' Not, 'You may not have dessert!' Silly analogy but that's the way I see it. 'Until.' Nothing happens until...

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Here

Pretty cut and dry there folks....

So we are always to take "Your Opinion" as cut and dried?
With a link to some pretty colored pages!

Before this gets out of hand, only a fool would worship Miriam (Mary).
We can agree that Miriam (Mary) gave birth to Our Savior, G_D Lord Jesus Christ. And when we are in heaven, we can ask Him!
In the mean time, let's not see the forest from the trees.
Peace of Our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.

Originally posted by Violater1
Ancient Greek did not have a word for brother or sister; they did have a word for male or female relative.

I have just looked up the word ADELPHOS (or "brother") in the largest Greek lexicon I can find (Thayer, 1901 edition).

Apparently the Greek etymology is A+DELPHUS, meaning literally "from the same womb".

The editor makes a very interesting point, in his article on the word. he points out, referring to Luke ch2v7, that;
"Had Mary borne no other children after Jesus, instead of HUION PROTOTOKON, the expression HUION MONOGENE would have been used".

That is, he sees significance in the fact Luke describes Jesus as "Firstborn" rather than "Only-born". Ths point may be relevant.


[edit on 7-5-2010 by DISRAELI]

We can agree that Miriam (Mary) gave birth to Our Savior, G_D Lord Jesus Christ. And when we are in heaven, we can ask Him!

Agreed. I never let myself get too heated in these discussions. Perpetual virginity, rapture doctrine, KJV vs. NIV, Works vs. faith and all those other heated topics.

We're all family and can ask Him at the right time.

reply to post by DISRAELI

That is, he sees significance in the fact Luke describes Jesus as "Firstborn" rather than "Only-born". Ths point may be relevant.

This is relevant however, It still stands that nowhere in the bible does it say that Mary had other children.

Originally posted by oliveoil
reply to post by DISRAELI

 

That is, he sees significance in the fact Luke describes Jesus as "Firstborn" rather than "Only-born". Ths point may be relevant.

This is relevant however, It still stands that nowhere in the bible does it say that Mary had other children.

It's a common sense deduction from other things said in the Bible, namely that Jesus had brothers and sisters. And since the Word also says that Jesus was God's "only begotten" Son, then the only other way a man or woman could be a brother or sister of Jesus would be if they were sons or daughters of Mary.

There is no other explanation.

While on the Cross Jesus gives His mother Mary to the Apostle John for her care (John 19:26-27). This would be very strange, if Mary had other children, especially sons. Jesus spoke few words from the Cross, because it is extremely painful to speak while being crucified. If Mary had another son or even if John were her son, Jesus would not have wasted His words on the obvious. Not only would this be strange, but it would have been a grave insult to her other sons. This insult would not only be from Jesus but also from Mary, since Mary did not stop Jesus. This passage only makes sense, if Mary had no other children to care for her.

[edit on 7-5-2010 by oliveoil]

Originally posted by oliveoil
While on the Cross Jesus gives His mother Mary to the Apostle John for her care (John 19:26-27). This would be very strange, if Mary had other children, especially sons. Jesus spoke few words from the Cross, because it is extremely painful to speak while being crucified. If Mary had another son or even if John were her son, Jesus would not have wasted His words on the obvious. Not only would this be strange, but it would have been a grave insult to her other sons. This insult would not only be from Jesus but also from Mary, since Mary did not stop Jesus. This passage only makes sense, if Mary had no other children to care for her.

No, James chiefly, was not a convert to Christianity until after the resurrection of Christ. And you're looking at it backwards, Jesus was giving the very young John to His mother as a son, John was around 14 years old, not the other way around. Who knows what happened to John's biological parents, but at the time of Christ's crucifixion they were either dead, or had disowned John for being with Jesus.

Really.....

This discussion was over at Matthew 13:55...... You either believe scripture or not.... Mary was not divine... Just chosen... Her Son is divine... She is not... Yeshua said Himself... "NO ONE comes to the Father but by ME".... Not Miriam.. Or saints... Just Yeshua... How simple is that? Catholics have turned Miriam into a goddess... Much like Semiramus... Paganism...
She was NOT a perpetual virgin.. Scripture backs that up......

I pray through Yeshua.... That was Gods command.... Keep your pagan crap...

Originally posted by Yissachar1
Really.....

This discussion was over at Matthew 13:55...... You either believe scripture or not.... Mary was not divine... Just chosen... Her Son is divine... She is not... Yeshua said Himself... "NO ONE comes to the Father but by ME".... Not Miriam.. Or saints... Just Yeshua... How simple is that? Catholics have turned Miriam into a goddess... Much like Semiramus... Paganism...
She was NOT a perpetual virgin.. Scripture backs that up......

I pray through Yeshua.... That was Gods command.... Keep your pagan crap...

AMEN!

reply to post by Violater1

if that was the case they would not be his half brothers they would be his step brothers

I think Mary is sick and tired of being called a virgin.

So where does this leave the RC church?

A church based on lies from the Vatican, I think.

While on the Cross Jesus gives His mother Mary to the Apostle John for her care (John 19:26-27).

Actually, to the Beloved Disciple. There's nothing in John that identifies who that is.

This insult would not only be from Jesus but also from Mary, since Mary did not stop Jesus. This passage only makes sense, if Mary had no other children to care for her.

The only male follower of Jesus who stayed with him through the crucifixion was the Beloved Disciple. If there were any living biological brothers, then they had made themselves as scarce as the male apostles-to-be.

The passage, then, makes perfect sense: Jesus is disowning the others, whether kin or colleagues, and sensibly entrusting the welfare of his (apparently widowed) mother to a man who can be relied upon to stick around when the going gets tough.

Jesus spoke few words from the Cross, because it is extremely painful to speak while being crucified.

Fully agreed. So, what may be difficult to explain is why Jesus is wasting hard-to-produce breath on this issue when he knows that he is only going away for the weekend.

As to the larger issue of virgin birth, the image is a shopworn figure of speech that means someone was distinguished from birth.

One difficulty with promoting Jesus as a spiritual leader is that he is an "adult onset" public holy man. Another difficulty is that he arrived on the public scene literally in the shadow of John the Baptist.

The Buddha and Saint Paul have similar adult-onset problems. Paul doesn't confect a "miraculous" birth for himself, but does volunteer that he was a big deal from birth. The issue is clearly there.

The "fact claim," then, is not that somebody's mother didn't have sex, but rather that the holy man's life was fully sanctified from infancy.

(In Gautama and Paul's cases, that lifelong holiness would be despite some enormous wrong turns during adulthood on the path to grace. In Jesus' case, who knows? The less said about his pre-baptismal adulthood, the better, apparently.)

Matthew handles the matter delicately. The "burden of proof" is carried by a dream. After all, who was Matthew to insist whether any married couple had sex, and if so, when?

Luke goes for the two-fer. Both John the Baptist and Jesus have anomalous births, but Jesus' is more anomalous. Thus, Jesus is a spiritual leader from the outset, and the Baptist is his inferior, also from the outset, but still special enough that being endorsed by the Baptist is worth something.

(One can imagine the fetal conversation when Luke's Mary visits Elizabeth:

John: My mom's post-menopausal.

Jesus: Oh yeah? Well, my mom's a virgin!

John: Doh.)

But it is noteworthy that Luke embeds any literal discussion of Mary's sex life within Gabriel's flowery speech to her. Perhaps that's because Gabriel, lacking a body, is shaky on the mechanics of carnal begetting, or perhaps it's because Luke wants to distance himself from the issue. Whichever, there is plenty of room in Luke for Mary to have had a very special baby, whose conception is duly noted by supernatural superstars, by very ordinary means.

I think it is to the Gospel of John's credit that it avoids this issue altogether. That can be attributed to two factors, in my opinion.

First, whatever the Beloved Disciple was a witness to, it wasn't Mary and Joseph's sex life. Second, the author of the text of John was an accomplished writer, and so would plausibly be familiar with figurative religious expressions, and what they mean.

Thus, in John, the solution to the inconveniently adult onset of Jesus' public holiness is to place Jesus at the creation of the world. It doesn't get any more "he was a big deal from the beginning" than that. Jesus gets out from under the Baptist's shadow by the simple expedient of surviving him, and hitting the road with renewed vigor to continue, and expand, the good fight.

That's how an expert writer elegantly dramatizes the point that the Baptist's role was to prepare the way of the Lord.

reply to post by oliveoil

How could Mary having more children be anything but an ongoing confirmation of life, the reconfirming of God's creation through Women???

Also, Mary's first Son comes to save the World - she knows it and is at peace to have more children.

More people, mothers, need this kind of peace.
It's a beautiful thing...

peace

[edit on 8-5-2010 by silo13]