A Necessity - 4 Marian Doctrines

[ralliann]

It does indeed make Mary your spiritual mother if you accept that you can be the adopted son of God. [John 1:12]. If you are the adopted son of God you are bother of Jesus Christ when "born again". Those who are "born again" are living when cleansed in the fonts of the Church are the eternally living sons and daughters of Mary. Those remaining sons and daughters of Eve will die in corruption, thus they are not living.

Yes, all of man's linage can be traced to a single individual, Eve. But this individual was found unjust and condemned to death, corruption. It's interesting that the creature taken out of the rib of Adam which was called "woman" [Genesis 2:13] reappears as the New Eve as "woman" [John 2:4; 19:26].

God is a person, three persons to be exact. Adultery is an immoral act between persons.

ADULTERY: Sexual intercourse of a married person and another who is not the wife or husband. Forbidden by the sixth commandment of the Decalogue, it was extended in meaning by Christ, who forbade divorce with the right to remarry during the lifetime of one’s legitimate spouse. [Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J, Modern Catholic Dictionary]

If Mary as the "handmaiden" of the Lord had engaged in such intercourse with Joseph, then both would have engaged in an immoral act found in the sixth commandment of the Decalogue. We know however Mary didn't sin so too Joseph as a just man.

Oh, she did declaring herself the handmaid of the Lord. [Luke 1:38] This is reinforced by the fact the Holy Ghost overshadowed her before taking Joseph as her earthly husband. A "state of marriage implies four chief conditions: 1. there must be a union of opposite sexes; it is therefore opposed to all forms of unnatural, homosexual behavior; 2. it is a permanent union until the death of either spouse; 3. it is an exclusive union, so that extramarital acts are a violation of justice; and 4. its permanence and exclusiveness are guaranteed by contract; mere living together, without mutually binding themselves to do so, is concubinage and not marriage." [Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J, Modern Catholic Dictionary]

They are indeed Catholic tradition however the evidence is found in Scripture.

And there you have it, being a just man "while he thought on these things, behold the angel of the Lord appeared to him in his sleep, saying: Joseph, son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her, is of the Holy Ghost." [Matthew 1:20]

A just man wouldn't need to be told. Eck pointed out that the problem with Protestants is they have no fear of God. For Joseph to have intercourse with Mary would have been desecrating a what God had sanctified, a spiritual suicide.

Then the Holy Spirit isn't the Father of Jesus Christ? You can't have it both ways.

Let's see, the suggestion here is that Mary is just another milk sow?

Only because in you mind.

JoeT

The issue Here seems to be lacking Scripture, or cultural norms ( by law) among Jews.
The mohar (bride price), the Ketubah (later) was a contract (covenant), before conjugal relations. This is what was joining together as the wife of the covenant. Therefore betrothal joined them together, and she was not a mere concubine wife, divorcement bills were necessary due to the covenant (ketubah). Mary remained the wife of covenant (ketubah) in their joining as husband and wife.
Protestant ideas or Catholic matter not. What does scripture say? IMO, we see this same distaste for scripture with Abraham and Sarah. Neither was faithless or mistakes made in giving Hagar for a CONCUBINE. No matter how deplorable one may consider such practice. Are we to sit in Judgment of the law?
Mary was the wife of the Ketubah, making her distinctly a wife as an helpmeet in the covenant.
Abraham also took Keturah after Sarah's death. She also was a concubine. Sarah was the only wife of covenant no matter how many concubines Abraham might take.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

It does indeed make Mary your spiritual mother if you accept that you can be the adopted son of God. [John 1:12]. If you are the adopted son of God you are bother of Jesus Christ when "born again". Those who are "born again" are living when cleansed in the fonts of the Church are the eternally living sons and daughters of Mary. Those remaining sons and daughters of Eve will die in corruption, thus they are not living.

Not at all. Mary was not the spiritual mother of Jesus. She contributed only to his flesh. Thus my being Jesus' brother (by faith) does not make Mary my mother in any sense. Also, it is not necessary to be "cleansed in the fonts of the Church" to be saved. Salvation is by faith alone.

Yes, all of man's linage can be traced to a single individual, Eve. But this individual was found unjust and condemned to death, corruption. It's interesting that the creature taken out of the rib of Adam which was called "woman" [Genesis 2:13] reappears as the New Eve as "woman" [John 2:4; 19:26].

God is a person, three persons to be exact. Adultery is an immoral act between persons.

ADULTERY: Sexual intercourse of a married person and another who is not the wife or husband. Forbidden by the sixth commandment of the Decalogue, it was extended in meaning by Christ, who forbade divorce with the right to remarry during the lifetime of one’s legitimate spouse. [Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J, Modern Catholic Dictionary]We use the word "persons" to try and understand the Trinity. Scripture itself does not use that word. We are using human terms to try and express something beyond words. God created marriage for His human creations. God Himself cannot be married. Your quote from John Hardon clearly assumes "married human person" in his definition of adultery. Marriage is for humans. Scripture uses anthropomorphic and symbolic language for our sake. When the OT speaks of the "arms of God" or "God's strong right arm", it does not mean God literally has an arm (although the Mormons use that as "proof" God is a man). When we are covered by "the wings of the Lord" it does not mean God has wings. When the church universal is called the "bride of Christ", it is using the human marriage union as a type or analogy of the church's relationship with Christ but not a literal marriage. Adultery is a term that applies to human marriage only.

If Mary as the "handmaiden" of the Lord had engaged in such intercourse with Joseph, then both would have engaged in an immoral act found in the sixth commandment of the Decalogue. We know however Mary didn't sin so too Joseph as a just man.

This is another use of imagery. Mary calling herself a handmaiden didn't mean she was a handmaiden in the same sense a human handmaiden was to a human master. Once again, anthropomorphic language is being used. Paul called himself a bondslave of the Lord. God does not keep slaves.

Mary was betrothed to Joseph. It takes a certificate of divorce to break a betrothal. To get pregnant by another during a betrothal is adultery, not fornication. Mary later having children with Joseph, her husband, would not be breaking the sixth commandment. She was in no way married to God. God is spirit. God doesn't marry. There was no permanent union formed. The Holy Spirit briefly "overshadowed" her and made her pregnant. No marriage, no permanent union.

Oh, she did declaring herself the handmaid of the Lord. [Luke 1:38] This is reinforced by the fact the Holy Ghost overshadowed her before taking Joseph as her earthly husband. A "state of marriage implies four chief conditions: 1. there must be a union of opposite sexes; it is therefore opposed to all forms of unnatural, homosexual behavior; 2. it is a permanent union until the death of either spouse; 3. it is an exclusive union, so that extramarital acts are a violation of justice; and 4. its permanence and exclusiveness are guaranteed by contract; mere living together, without mutually binding themselves to do so, is concubinage and not marriage." [Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J, Modern Catholic Dictionary]

The first point says there must be a union of opposite sexes. God is genderless. He uses anthropomorphic language in calling himself "Father" and Jesus "Son" but the Holy Spirit is not called a wife, son, or daughter. There was no contract, no marriage ceremony, etc. God did not have to marry Mary to avoid adultery. Adultery is between two human persons.

They are indeed Catholic tradition however the evidence is found in Scripture.

And there you have it, being a just man "while he thought on these things, behold the angel of the Lord appeared to him in his sleep, saying: Joseph, son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her, is of the Holy Ghost." [Matthew 1:20]

A just man wouldn't need to be told. Eck pointed out that the problem with Protestants is they have no fear of God. For Joseph to have intercourse with Mary would have been desecrating a what God had sanctified, a spiritual suicide.

Then the Holy Spirit isn't the Father of Jesus Christ? You can't have it both ways.

You are greatly mistaken if you think Protestants have no fear of God! "Father" is another anthropomorphic term. The Holy Spirit was not the father of Jesus in the same way my father was my father. The Holy Spirit is genderless. It was through the HS God made Mary pregnant. You are trying to put this all in human terms and you just can't.

Let's see, the suggestion here is that Mary is just another milk sow?

What??? That's a pretty degrading term for a mother of a child. Mary's role with Jesus was far greater than providing breast milk! She was not his or our spiritual mother but she was his earthly mother which was a great honor. You degrade that which God has proclaimed good.

Only because in you mind.

JoeT

 

[JoeT]

The issue Here seems to be lacking Scripture, or cultural norms ( by law) among Jews.
The mohar (bride price), the Ketubah (later) was a contract (covenant), before conjugal relations. This is what was joining together as the wife of the covenant. Therefore betrothal joined them together, and she was not a mere concubine wife, divorcement bills were necessary due to the covenant (ketubah). Mary remained the wife of covenant (ketubah) in their joining as husband and wife.
Protestant ideas or Catholic matter not. What does scripture say? IMO, we see this same distaste for scripture with Abraham and Sarah. Neither was faithless or mistakes made in giving Hagar for a CONCUBINE. No matter how deplorable one may consider such practice. Are we to sit in Judgment of the law?
Mary was the wife of the Ketubah, making her distinctly a wife as an helpmeet in the covenant.
Abraham also took Keturah after Sarah's death. She also was a concubine. Sarah was the only wife of covenant no matter how many concubines Abraham might take.

Jesus didn't come to us keeping secular law, or posited law, but God's law. However even secular and posited law were kept by Mary and Joseph. Mary’s betrothal with Joseph was for the maintenance of Mary and here child; Mary need a man for her to raise the Christ Child. We can see this in the vow of Mary’s chastity, “because I know not man”. This required Joseph to decide whether or not to expose Mary as a harlot or permit her to fulfill her vow. Being a “just man” Joseph needed only a dream like visitation to convince him not to put aside Mary to be stoned to death at the gate of the villiage. A characteristic of a just man is one of selflessness and charity.

11 If the wife in the house of her husband, hath bound herself by vow and by oath, 12 If her husband hear, and hold his peace, and doth not disallow the promise, she shall accomplish whatsoever she had promised. 13 But if forthwith he gainsay it, she shall not be bound by the promise: because her husband gainsaid it, and the Lord will be merciful to her. 14 If she vow and bind herself by oath, to afflict her soul by fasting, or abstinence from other things, it shall depend on the will of her husband, whether she shall do it, or not do it. 15 But if the husband hearing it hold his peace, and defer the declaring his mind till another day: whatsoever she had vowed and promised, she shall fulfill: because immediately as he heard it, he held his peace. [Numbers 30:11-15]​

Thus, Joseph accepts Mary as his wife in a platonic love transcending our physical existence. Thus, Joseph also vows chastity through his acts. Afterall what just man in Israel would touch the Ark of the New Covenant. Thus we see no customs or laws were broken.

Instead we observe this in Mary’s vow to God through the angel Gabriel “How shall this be done, because I know not man?” The New Eve, Mary, response to Gabriel is a vow of chastity. The Catholic understanding comes from the Church’s memory the historical truth that such vows were common in the first century. According to Susanna Elm, author of Virgins of God: The Making of Asceticism in Late Antiquity, asceticism was common. Sometimes the ascetic made vows of their physical prowess, suffering training as an athlete suffers building strength. Others made vows of abstinence, perhaps limiting food or drink, not unlike fasting. One obvious biblical example is Christ's fasting for 40 days and 40 nights.

The virgin has illustrious models to follow: the five wise virgins of Gospel of Matthew, Mary, and the famous Thecla, heroine of the Apocryphal Acts of Paul. Moreover, her bridegroom is not swayed by superficiality: 'Are you bereft of parents? You are not bereft of God. . . . Have courage, because the bridegroom Christ does not regard fading beauty...whether you are short or tall' [c. Matthew 25:1-13; Apocryphal Acts of Paul 8.105- 09, [Susanna Elm, `Virgins of God' The Making of Asceticism in Late Antiquity: The Making of Asceticism in Late Antiquity]​

St. Paul alludes to asceticism when he asks, “Know you not that they that run in the race, all run indeed, but one receiveth the prize? So run that you may obtain.” [1 Corinthians 9:24]. St. Paul chastised his body in self-denial in ”subjection”. Mary and Joseph lived out her vows in the customs of Judaism dedicating their lives to God. Those who practiced a divinely inspired asceticism usually take a solemn vow in the Temple; "He who takes a solemn vow contracts a spiritual marriage with God, which is much more excellent than a material marriage" (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa). Such a vow espouses Mary to God, a vow that not even the Sanhedrin can break; only Joseph can do that.

“[The] Greek present tense used for Mary’s words in Luke 1:34 corresponds…to the Hebrew and Aramaic active participle indicating a permanent condition. Mary’s words in Aramaic were ki enneni yodaat ish, the yodaat indicating a permanent condition of virginity” (Warren Carroll summarizing and quoting from Manuel Miguen’s “indispensable” work, The Virgin Birth: an Evaluation of Scriptural Evidence (p.81) in The Founding of Christendom, Vol. I, p.310).​

Manuel Miguen notices that the expression has obvious Hebrew idiomatic roots. “It is well known that the biblical language a paraphrase to describe a virgin stricto sensu [in the strictest sense] is this: “a woman who did not know man” (Gen 19:8; Jude 11:39, see verse 37; 21:12; basically the same are Num 31:10, 35; Jude 21:11 cfr. Wisdom 3:13) – which, incidentally, shows that the same expression in Luke 1:34 points to virginity proper. These are all passages where the Bible refers to women who “did not know man.” Miguen continues to point out how interesting the present tense is never used with regard to virginity in the Old Testament. Miguen further suggests that the Greek translation makes the best of the Aramaic it can by using the Greek aorist tense. [source The virgin birth : an evaluation of scriptural evidence : Miguéns, M. (Manuel) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive ]

Consequently, we hear Mary to vow before the emissary of God, (in my words), ‘How can this be when I did not know a man, do not now know a man, and will never know man. ‘ Mary vows virginity in the presence of a Divine Messenger as well as expressing her own astonishment.

JoeT

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Jesus didn't come to us keeping secular law, or posited law, but God's law. However even secular and posited law were kept by Mary and Joseph. Mary’s betrothal with Joseph was for the maintenance of Mary and here child; Mary need a man for her to raise the Christ Child. We can see this in the vow of Mary’s chastity, “because I know not man”. This required Joseph to decide whether or not to expose Mary as a harlot or permit her to fulfill her vow. Being a “just man” Joseph needed only a dream like visitation to convince him not to put aside Mary to be stoned to death at the gate of the villiage. A characteristic of a just man is one of selflessness and charity.

Except, Mary was betrothed to Joseph before the angel Gabriel spoke to her. She did not agree to marry Joseph to have a father for a child she did not yet know she was having! It was not "for the maintenance of Mary and her child."

Secondly, Mary's statement "since I am a virgin" is in the Greek present tense. It is a statement about her current state, not a pledge of future chastity.

11 If the wife in the house of her husband, hath bound herself by vow and by oath, 12 If her husband hear, and hold his peace, and doth not disallow the promise, she shall accomplish whatsoever she had promised. 13 But if forthwith he gainsay it, she shall not be bound by the promise: because her husband gainsaid it, and the Lord will be merciful to her. 14 If she vow and bind herself by oath, to afflict her soul by fasting, or abstinence from other things, it shall depend on the will of her husband, whether she shall do it, or not do it. 15 But if the husband hearing it hold his peace, and defer the declaring his mind till another day: whatsoever she had vowed and promised, she shall fulfill: because immediately as he heard it, he held his peace. [Numbers 30:11-15]​

Thus, Joseph accepts Mary as his wife in a platonic love transcending our physical existence. Thus, Joseph also vows chastity through his acts. Afterall what just man in Israel would touch the Ark of the New Covenant. Thus we see no customs or laws were broken.

How about a husband who loved his wife and wanted to provide for them children as was normal and not forbidden by God and would provide Jesus with siblings?

Instead we observe this in Mary’s vow to God through the angel Gabriel “How shall this be done, because I know not man?” The New Eve, Mary, response to Gabriel is a vow of chastity. The Catholic understanding comes from the Church’s memory the historical truth that such vows were common in the first century. According to Susanna Elm, author of Virgins of God: The Making of Asceticism in Late Antiquity, asceticism was common. Sometimes the ascetic made vows of their physical prowess, suffering training as an athlete suffers building strength. Others made vows of abstinence, perhaps limiting food or drink, not unlike fasting. One obvious biblical example is Christ's fasting for 40 days and 40 nights.

The virgin has illustrious models to follow: the five wise virgins of Gospel of Matthew, Mary, and the famous Thecla, heroine of the Apocryphal Acts of Paul. Moreover, her bridegroom is not swayed by superficiality: 'Are you bereft of parents? You are not bereft of God. . . . Have courage, because the bridegroom Christ does not regard fading beauty...whether you are short or tall' [c. Matthew 25:1-13; Apocryphal Acts of Paul 8.105- 09, [Susanna Elm, `Virgins of God' The Making of Asceticism in Late Antiquity: The Making of Asceticism in Late Antiquity]​

St. Paul alludes to asceticism when he asks, “Know you not that they that run in the race, all run indeed, but one receiveth the prize? So run that you may obtain.” [1 Corinthians 9:24]. St. Paul chastised his body in self-denial in ”subjection”. Mary and Joseph lived out her vows in the customs of Judaism dedicating their lives to God. Those who practiced a divinely inspired asceticism usually take a solemn vow in the Temple; "He who takes a solemn vow contracts a spiritual marriage with God, which is much more excellent than a material marriage" (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa). Such a vow espouses Mary to God, a vow that not even the Sanhedrin can break; only Joseph can do that.

This is all wild speculation. Paul's analogy in 1 Cor. 9:24 is not about asceticism. All athletes discipline themselves in diet, training, and sleep in order to maximize their performance. They do this in the hope they will attain a prize. Do you consider all athletes ascetics? That is not the generally accepted definition of an ascetic. Simply disciplining oneself as an athlete does not make one an ascetic.

“[The] Greek present tense used for Mary’s words in Luke 1:34 corresponds…to the Hebrew and Aramaic active participle indicating a permanent condition. Mary’s words in Aramaic were ki enneni yodaat ish, the yodaat indicating a permanent condition of virginity” (Warren Carroll summarizing and quoting from Manuel Miguen’s “indispensable” work, The Virgin Birth: an Evaluation of Scriptural Evidence (p.81) in The Founding of Christendom, Vol. I, p.310).​

First of all, Luke was written in Greek, not Aramaic. The inspired text has her using a Greek present tense which does not indicate a permanent condition. That alone is enough to reject what is written above. In one Aramaic Bible, Luke 1:34 is translated like this:

ܐܡܪܐ ܡܪܝܡ ܠܡܠܐܟܐ ܐܝܟܢܐ ܬܗܘܐ ܗܕܐ ܕܓܒܪܐ ܠܐ ܚܟܝܡ ܠܝ
34 And Maryam {Mary} said unto The Malaka {The Heavenly Messenger}, “How can this be, because, no gabra {man} has known me?”

Notice how they render it "has known me" which is not a statement of permanence. It's saying, "How can this be since I have never been with a man?"

One must accept that the NT was written in, and inspired in Greek, not Aramaic. You act as though their Aramaic words were inspired and our reverse translation from Greek to Aramaic is what is divinely inspired. It is not. It is the Greek text that is divinely inspired. It is not an accident Luke used the present tense. He was not translating from an Aramaic original. The Holy Spirit was moving him to pick those precise Greek words. Besides, nowhere in Scripture do we see any statement saying Mary remained a virgin or pledged herself to remain a virgin. To the contrary, Scripture speaks of her having children and Jesus having siblings (yes, the RC church tries to offer alternative understandings but has no proof such alternatives are in fact accurate).

Manuel Miguen notices that the expression has obvious Hebrew idiomatic roots. “It is well known that the biblical language a paraphrase to describe a virgin stricto sensu [in the strictest sense] is this: “a woman who did not know man” (Gen 19:8; Jude 11:39, see verse 37; 21:12; basically the same are Num 31:10, 35; Jude 21:11 cfr. Wisdom 3:13) – which, incidentally, shows that the same expression in Luke 1:34 points to virginity proper. These are all passages where the Bible refers to women who “did not know man.” Miguen continues to point out how interesting the present tense is never used with regard to virginity in the Old Testament. Miguen further suggests that the Greek translation makes the best of the Aramaic it can by using the Greek aorist tense. [source The virgin birth : an evaluation of scriptural evidence : Miguéns, M. (Manuel) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive ]

Consequently, we hear Mary to vow before the emissary of God, (in my words), ‘How can this be when I did not know a man, do not now know a man, and will never know man. ‘ Mary vows virginity in the presence of a Divine Messenger as well as expressing her own astonishment.

JoeT

As always, the RC argument rests on a misunderstanding of the divine text, how inspiration works, and much speculation. It is eisegesis. An attempt to work backward from a conclusion to create support in the Biblical text which does not exist.

 

[JoeT]

Except, Mary was betrothed to Joseph before the angel Gabriel spoke to her. She did not agree to marry Joseph to have a father for a child she did not yet know she was having! It was not "for the maintenance of Mary and her child."

The point of my post was that she had already committed to chastity. She didn't "pick" Joseph, never the less she was betrothed to him. Without Joseph the Mother of God would have been left without a protector.

Secondly, Mary's statement "since I am a virgin" is in the Greek present tense. It is a statement about her current state, not a pledge of future chastity.

"I know not man" is a Greek translation of a Hebrew idiom.

“[The] Greek present tense used for Mary’s words in Luke 1:34 corresponds…to the Hebrew and Aramaic active participle indicating a permanent condition. Mary’s words in Aramaic were ki enneni yodaat ish, the yodaat indicating a permanent condition of virginity” (Warren Carroll summarizing and quoting from Manuel Miguen’s “indispensable” work, The Virgin Birth: an Evaluation of Scriptural Evidence (p.81) in The Founding of Christendom, Vol. I, p.310).​

Manuel Miguen notices that the expression has obvious Hebrew idiomatic roots. “It is well known that the biblical language a paraphrase to describe a virgin stricto sensu [om the stroct semse] is this: “a woman who did not know man” (Gen 19:8; Jude 11:39, see verse 37; 21:12; basically the same are Num 31:10, 35; Jude 21:11 cfr. Wisdom 3:13) – which, incidentally, shows that the same expression in Luke 1:34 points to virginity proper. These are all passages where the Bible refers to women who “did not know man.” Miguen continues to point out how interesting the present tense is never used with regard to virginity. Miguen further suggests that the Greek translation makes the best of the Aramaic it can by using the Greek aorist tense. [source The virgin birth : an evaluation of scriptural evidence : Miguéns, M. (Manuel) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive ]

How about a husband who loved his wife and wanted to provide for them children as was normal and not forbidden by God and would provide Jesus with siblings?

A normal marriage or siblings aren't forbidden, never suggested otherwise. Mary's perpetual virginity would seem to exclude siblings.

This is all wild speculation. Paul's analogy in 1 Cor. 9:24 is not about asceticism. All athletes discipline themselves in diet, training, and sleep in order to maximize their performance. They do this in the hope they will attain a prize. Do you consider all athletes ascetics? That is not the generally accepted definition of an ascetic. Simply disciplining oneself as an athlete does not make one an ascetic.

You seem to jump to a lot of conclusions I said St. Paul "alludes to asceticism". But yes, asceticism was more widely practiced in the first century than now. You could say that St. Paul himself had ascetic tendencies by the fact that he wasn't married.

First of all, Luke was written in Greek, not Aramaic. The inspired text has her using a Greek present tense which does not indicate a permanent condition. That alone is enough to reject what is written above. In one Aramaic Bible, Luke 1:34 is translated like this:

ܐܡܪܐ ܡܪܝܡ ܠܡܠܐܟܐ ܐܝܟܢܐ ܬܗܘܐ ܗܕܐ ܕܓܒܪܐ ܠܐ ܚܟܝܡ ܠܝ
34 And Maryam {Mary} said unto The Malaka {The Heavenly Messenger}, “How can this be, because, no gabra {man} has known me?”

Notice how they render it "has known me" which is not a statement of permanence. It's saying, "How can this be since I have never been with a man?"

One must accept that the NT was written in, and inspired in Greek, not Aramaic. You act as though their Aramaic words were inspired and our reverse translation from Greek to Aramaic is what is divinely inspired. It is not. It is the Greek text that is divinely inspired. It is not an accident Luke used the present tense. He was not translating from an Aramaic original. The Holy Spirit was moving him to pick those precise Greek words. Besides, nowhere in Scripture do we see any statement saying Mary remained a virgin or pledged herself to remain a virgin. To the contrary, Scripture speaks of her having children and Jesus having siblings (yes, the RC church tries to offer alternative understandings but has no proof such alternatives are in fact accurate).

Look, none of us know what language the book of the New Testament were written in. For all we know they were dictated in one language and scribes wrote them in another. Many believe that Matthew was first written in Aramaic and translated by Matthew himself to Greek. None of the original books have survived the ages.

As always, the RC argument rests on a misunderstanding of the divine text, how inspiration works, and much speculation. It is eisegesis. An attempt to work backward from a conclusion to create support in the Biblical text which does not exist.

Not at all, I'm appealing to reason and commonsense. The perpetual virginity of Mary is not new news, it comes to us in the second century Protoevangelium of James, in the 3rd century Hippolytus of Rome, and the Second Council of Constantinople of 553 AD where it was made doctrine of the Church. I don't contend that Mary was an Essene rather that chastity and asceticism was alive and well in Christ’s day and the historical centuries surrounding Christ birth, and her vow is just as valid as if said and recorded in the Temple.

JoeT

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

The point of my post was that she had already committed to chastity. She didn't "pick" Joseph, never the less she was betrothed to him. Without Joseph the Mother of God would have been left without a protector.

She did pick Joseph in agreeing to be betrothed to him. Gabriel didn't tell her who to get betrothed to. She was already betrothed.
"I know not man" is a Greek translation of a Hebrew idiom.

“[The] Greek present tense used for Mary’s words in Luke 1:34 corresponds…to the Hebrew and Aramaic active participle indicating a permanent condition. Mary’s words in Aramaic were ki enneni yodaat ish, the yodaat indicating a permanent condition of virginity” (Warren Carroll summarizing and quoting from Manuel Miguen’s “indispensable” work, The Virgin Birth: an Evaluation of Scriptural Evidence (p.81) in The Founding of Christendom, Vol. I, p.310).[/QUOTE]​

[/QUOTE]
The first thing to note is that "I know not man" is only one possible English translation. His is a list of some of the English translations used of this verse:

Luke 1:34​

ESV And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?”
NIV How will this be,' Mary asked the angel, 'since I am a virgin?'
NASB But Mary said to the angel, 'How will this be, since I am a virgin?'
CSB Mary asked the angel, "How can this be, since I have not had sexual relations with a man? "
NLT Mary asked the angel, 'But how can this happen? I am a virgin.'
KJV Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
New American Bible But Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?” (Catholic English translation)

Manuel Miguen notices that the expression has obvious Hebrew idiomatic roots. “It is well known that the biblical language a paraphrase to describe a virgin stricto sensu [om the stroct semse] is this: “a woman who did not know man” (Gen 19:8; Jude 11:39, see verse 37; 21:12; basically the same are Num 31:10, 35; Jude 21:11 cfr. Wisdom 3:13) – which, incidentally, shows that the same expression in Luke 1:34 points to virginity proper. These are all passages where the Bible refers to women who “did not know man.” Miguen continues to point out how interesting the present tense is never used with regard to virginity. Miguen further suggests that the Greek translation makes the best of the Aramaic it can by using the Greek aorist tense. [source The virgin birth : an evaluation of scriptural evidence : Miguéns, M. (Manuel) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive ]

The Greek literally says "How can this be since a man not I know" which harkens to a Hebrew euphemism meaning "I haven't had sex." To "know" someone, in this type of context, meant to have had sexual relations with them. Mary is simply stating that she hasn't had sexual relations with any man so how could she become pregnant? Unstated is that she was betrothed to Joseph and the Law said you were to remain virgins during the betrothal period and only after marriage engage in sex. There is nothing about her statement that implies a permanent pledge to virginity.

Minor correction, your list of Scriptures in the second line above includes Jude 11:39. Jude only has one chapter. I believe you meant Judges 11:39.

There is no evidence that Luke was written in Hebrew or Aramaic. All we have or have ever found is Luke in Greek. To say it was a translation of an Aramaic or Hebrew text is pure speculation. Luke wrote his gospel, and the Book of Acts, to Theophilus who was likely a Gentile and possibly living in Rome as the title ("the most excellent") was commonly used by the Romans. Luke would not have written a Gentile living in Rome in Aramaic or Hebrew. Neither language was commonly spoken by Gentiles. Luke was a Gentile who wrote in a high, classic style of Greek showing great education. Luke knew Paul who spoke Greek so it's questionable that Luke even knew Hebrew or Aramaic much less would have written to Theophilus in them. So any speculation on what Mary's words might have been in Aramaic is just that - speculation. Luke wrote in Greek and was inspired by the Holy Spirit in his Greek writings therefore it is the Greek words and verb tenses we must stand upon not speculation about Hebrew or Aramaic expressions.

Had Luke understood Mary's statement to mean a pledge to permanent virginity he most likely would have stated that expressesly since it was not in any way implied by the Greek. Not only does Luke not plainly state that but there are NO other NT statements indicating Mary remained a virgin or had pledged herself to remain a virgin.

This is again typical RC reasoning. They start with a belief (Mary remained a virgin) and then try and build support from the Bible often by making assumptions about how something might have been said in Aramaic or based on a Latin translation when the inspired text gives no such support. They find one scholar to suggest something and state it as fact when no other scholar would agree.

A normal marriage or siblings aren't forbidden, never suggested otherwise. Mary's perpetual virginity would seem to exclude siblings.

You seem to jump to a lot of conclusions I said St. Paul "alludes to asceticism". But yes, asceticism was more widely practiced in the first century than now. You could say that St. Paul himself had ascetic tendencies by the fact that he wasn't married.

Look, none of us know what language the book of the New Testament were written in. For all we know they were dictated in one language and scribes wrote them in another. Many believe that Matthew was first written in Aramaic and translated by Matthew himself to Greek. None of the original books have survived the ages.

Not at all, I'm appealing to reason and commonsense. The perpetual virginity of Mary is not new news, it comes to us in the second century Protoevangelium of James, in the 3rd century Hippolytus of Rome, and the Second Council of Constantinople of 553 AD where it was made doctrine of the Church. I don't contend that Mary was an Essene rather that chastity and asceticism was alive and well in Christ’s day and the historical centuries surrounding Christ birth, and her vow is just as valid as if said and recorded in the Temple.

JoeTPaul stated his reason for being single. It was to have more time to devote himself to the Lord. It was about time management, not some ascetic belief. Many missionaries throughout history, especially those traveling to dangerous places, have chosen to remain single so as not to have to worry about a spouse or children. That doesn't make them ascetics. In fact, Scripture says it is a gift from God.

Very few people believe Matthew was written in Aramaic. It is not the majority view.

Mary being a perpetual virgin is not common sense. It was not an established RC doctrine until centuries later. It has no support in the NT. Catholic support sometimes refers to non-canonical writings in defending their position. There are no clear Scriptures showing Mary ever made such a vow. It is a RC invention to defend a belief they want to hold.

 

[concretecamper]

Had Luke understood Mary's statement to mean a pledge to permanent virginity he most likely would have stated that expressesly since it was not in any way implied by the Greek. Not only does Luke not plainly state that but there are NO other NT statements indicating Mary remained a virgin or had pledged herself to remain a virgin.

Don't you love these types of statements. Given that scripture does not fully teach on the doctrines of the Trinity or the Incarnation, or doesn't give us a table of contents for scripture, this type of statement is useless.

This is again typical RC reasoning. They start with a belief (Mary remained a virgin) and then try and build support from the Bible often by making assumptions about how something might have been said in Aramaic or based on a Latin translation when the inspired text gives no such support. They find one scholar to suggest something and state it as fact when no other scholar would agree.

This isn't a RC issue. This is a Christendom issue. The Universal Church taught Mary's perpetual virginity, and it was broadly accepted. It was only in the mid sixth century that the Churches needed to infallibly define it. Your post displays that old heresies die a slow death.

These are the first 2 anathemas from the Council. Funny how many who call themselves Christian will accept the first teaching despite the fact that the canonical books do not fully develop the idea, but will reject the second teaching because the canonical book do not fully develop the idea. It is the height of PRIDE.


1. If anyone will not confess that the Father, Son and holy Spirit have one nature or substance, that they have one power and authority, that there is a consubstantial Trinity, one Deity to be adored in three subsistences or persons: let him be anathema. There is only one God and Father, from whom all things come, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and one holy Spirit, in whom all things are.

2. If anyone will not confess that the Word of God has two nativities, that which is before all ages from the Father, outside time and without a body, and secondly that nativity of these latter days when the Word of God came down from the heavens and was made flesh of holy and glorious Mary, mother of God and ever-virgin, and was born from her: let him be anathema.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Don't you love these types of statements. Given that scripture does not fully teach on the doctrines of the Trinity or the Incarnation, or doesn't give us a table of contents for scripture, this type of statement is useless.

My point doesn't prove anything but so many Marian doctrines are like this. No clear support but one forced interpretation of a single verse or word. Total silence from the rest of Scripture. Mary has become a central figure in Catholic doctrine yet she is scarcely mentioned after the Resurrection. The Trinity is clearly taught in the Bible. As is the Incarnation. Not in infinite detail but then we probably couldn't understand all the details. Mary's supposed perpetual virginity is simply not found in Scripture.

This isn't a RC issue. This is a Christendom issue. The Universal Church taught Mary's perpetual virginity, and it was broadly accepted. It was only in the mid sixth century that the Churches needed to infallibly define it. Your post displays that old heresies die a slow death.

The perpetual virginity of Mary was not taught during the first 3 centuries. It wasn't until the late 300s or early 400s that some church fathers began to write about this. So it was not universally taught for three centuries. It was a later development.

These are the first 2 anathemas from the Council. Funny how many who call themselves Christian will accept the first teaching despite the fact that the canonical books do not fully develop the idea, but will reject the second teaching because the canonical book do not fully develop the idea. It is the height of PRIDE.


1. If anyone will not confess that the Father, Son and holy Spirit have one nature or substance, that they have one power and authority, that there is a consubstantial Trinity, one Deity to be adored in three subsistences or persons: let him be anathema. There is only one God and Father, from whom all things come, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and one holy Spirit, in whom all things are.

2. If anyone will not confess that the Word of God has two nativities, that which is before all ages from the Father, outside time and without a body, and secondly that nativity of these latter days when the Word of God came down from the heavens and was made flesh of holy and glorious Mary, mother of God and ever-virgin, and was born from her: let him be anathema.

The first point is taught clearly in the Bible. The council put more words around it to clarify what the Bible taught but it was there in Scripture. The perpetual virginity of Mary is simply not taught by Scripture. There is nothing there to further develop. It is a belief that came from outside of Scripture.

 

[concretecamper]

Mary has become a central figure in Catholic doctrine yet she is scarcely mentioned after the Resurrection.

You clearly do not know Church teaching. Every teaching about Mary reveals something about Her Son. Maybe that is the hurdle you keep tripping on.

I'll give you a chance to redeem yourself. Give me the Book, chapter, and Verse of Scripture that teaches

1. That the Father, Son and holy Spirit have one nature or substance.
2. That They have one power and authority.
3. That there is a consubstantial Trinity, one Deity to be adored in three subsistences or persons.

 

[prodromos]

No clear support but one forced interpretation of a single verse or word. Total silence from the rest of Scripture.

Total silence about any other children born after Jesus in the Gospel accounts of His childhood.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Total silence about any other children born after Jesus in the Gospel accounts of His childhood.

Three different gospel writers specifically mention the brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ, including providing the names of His brothers.

 

[prodromos]

Three different gospel writers specifically mention the brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ, including providing the names of His brothers.

During His childhood? Really?

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

You clearly do not know Church teaching. Every teaching about Mary reveals something about Her Son. Maybe that is the hurdle you keep tripping on.

I'll give you a chance to redeem yourself. Give me the Book, chapter, and Verse of Scripture that teaches

1. That the Father, Son and holy Spirit have one nature or substance.
2. That They have one power and authority.
3. That there is a consubstantial Trinity, one Deity to be adored in three subsistences or persons.

I am not interested in "Church teaching", only Biblical teaching. What we know about Jesus is what is found in Scripture.

I would refer you to an excellent article by the late Dr Walter Martin. I could write something similar, and have in the past somewhere buried in this topic, but why reinvent the wheel?

The Trinity (Triunity) of God | Bible.org

Introduction Because the word trinity is never found in the Bible some wonder about whether this is a biblical doctrine or not, but the absence of a term used to describe a doctrine does not necessarily mean the term is not biblical. The issue is, does the term accurately reflect what the...

bible.org

Words like nature, substance, persons, etc, are not found in the Bible but are words theologians came up with to better describe what the Bible teaches. They are not new revelations not found in the Bible. All three points you make can be found in the NT and in Dr. Martin's article. It is the understanding of all the verses on the Godhead that drive us to these conclusions.

The Trinity is not an easy doctrine. It is not as plain to understand as many other doctrines. It's there though. From the OT to the NT. Church councils helped put language around it to make it more understandable but did not come up with new revelations. I applaud the work they did but I don't credit them with something novel.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

During His childhood? Really?

I don't believe I said during his childhood.

 

[concretecamper]

I am not interested in "Church teaching", only Biblical teaching. What we know about Jesus is what is found in Scripture.

I would refer you to an excellent article by the late Dr Walter Martin. I could write something similar, and have in the past somewhere buried in this topic, but why reinvent the wheel?

The Trinity (Triunity) of God | Bible.org

Introduction Because the word trinity is never found in the Bible some wonder about whether this is a biblical doctrine or not, but the absence of a term used to describe a doctrine does not necessarily mean the term is not biblical. The issue is, does the term accurately reflect what the...

bible.org

Words like nature, substance, persons, etc, are not found in the Bible but are words theologians came up with to better describe what the Bible teaches. They are not new revelations not found in the Bible. All three points you make can be found in the NT and in Dr. Martin's article. It is the understanding of all the verses on the Godhead that drive us to these conclusions.

The Trinity is not an easy doctrine. It is not as plain to understand as many other doctrines. It's there though. From the OT to the NT. Church councils helped put language around it to make it more understandable but did not come up with new revelations. I applaud the work they did but I don't credit them with something novel.

Punt.

I read the article and this fellow comes up short on scriptural references that helps us answer my challenge questions. A lot of opinion. And anyway, you need scripture, not opinion, you need scripture

I can see why you couldn't answer on your own. Didn't think anyone would read the article?

One last chance to answer my challenge.

Give me the Book, chapter, and Verse of Scripture that teaches

1. That the Father, Son and holy Spirit have one nature or substance.
2. That They have one power and authority.
3. That there is a consubstantial Trinity, one Deity to be adored in three subsistences or persons.

Hint: don't use the article you posted cause there is nothing in there that will help you.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Total silence about any other children born after Jesus in the Gospel accounts of His childhood.

As you know, Scripture says very little about Jesus' childhood. It is the subject of some apocryphal literature but not of the inspired text. The focus of the Gospels is on Jesus' ministry starting at the age of 30. We don't need to know the details of when each sibling was born to know he had siblings.

Here is my opinion on where the ever-virginity of Mary came from. Some church fathers 3-4 centuries after the time of Christ, were sitting around pondering the story of his birth. It didn't seem proper to them that the womb that bore the Savior would go on to bear regular children. They felt that would be demeaning to that womb and that woman. This was their personal reasoning. It was not taught in Scripture. So they began to teach that Mary remained a virgin thus alleviating their issue with her having other children.

This left them with some problems. How do you explain the references to his brothers and sisters? Well, they could have been cousins since the Greek word used can be used of cousins. Maybe Joseph had children from a previous marriage and was a widower when betrothed to Mary? Maybe Mary and Joseph later adopted children perhaps left by some dead relatives? While none of these alternative explanations are taught in Scripture, and the plain understanding would be that Jesus had half-siblings, to those already convinced of the perpetual virginity of Mary, the mere existence of some possible explanations was good enough for them. They also tried to make linguistic arguments based on how something might have been said in Aramaic even though the inspired text is in Greek (oh but maybe it was originally written in Aramaic and later translated into Greek...). Maybe it was orally given in Aramaic but the scribe then wrote it down in Greek. Such thinking denies God-inspired the written text. Apparently only what the speaker verbalized was inspired but not what the Scribe wrote. That is a troubling thought since many of Paul's epistles were dictated to a scribe. If only Paul's spoken words were inspired then how do we know the scribe wrote them down faithfully?

These men and the RC church ever since have been trying to work backward from human beliefs about Mary to find support in the Bible. They rely on obscure arguments and "it's possible" type arguments rather than looking at the plain teaching of Scripture. Such arguments came centuries later. The Catholic faithful believe them because they believe their church is THE church and cannot err. Those of us who stand on Scripture alone, must protest and declare these doctrines unscriptural. They are the inventions of men. I have no problem believing Mary had other children. It does no disservice to Mary. Children are considered a great blessing in the Bible. Why wouldn't God's Son have siblings? Why do we continue to put virginity on a pedestal when the Bible does not? There is nothing superior for a married woman to remain a virgin. God created us to reproduce and commanded us to do so. Gabriel did not instruct Mary of Joseph to never consummate the marriage. It would be normal and natural for them to have gone on to have their own children.

 

[concretecamper]

I applaud the work they did but I don't credit them with something novel.

You applaud them for the work they did on stuff you agree with. The same people you applaud on further defining the Trinity further defined the virginity of Mary, and you reject them on Mary only. Ok then.

 

[prodromos]

I don't believe I said during his childhood.

I did, so what was the point of your response?
<edit>My apologies, I though you were @bbbbbbb, seeing as you replied to my response to @bbbbbbb </edit>

 

[prodromos]

As you know, Scripture says very little about Jesus' childhood. It is the subject of some apocryphal literature but not of the inspired text. The focus of the Gospels is on Jesus' ministry starting at the age of 30. We don't need to know the details of when each sibling was born to know he had siblings.

Here is my opinion on where the ever-virginity of Mary came from. Some church fathers 3-4 centuries after the time of Christ, were sitting around pondering the story of his birth. It didn't seem proper to them that the womb that bore the Savior would go on to bear regular children. They felt that would be demeaning to that womb and that woman. This was their personal reasoning. It was not taught in Scripture. So they began to teach that Mary remained a virgin thus alleviating their issue with her having other children.

This left them with some problems. How do you explain the references to his brothers and sisters? Well, they could have been cousins since the Greek word used can be used of cousins. Maybe Joseph had children from a previous marriage and was a widower when betrothed to Mary? Maybe Mary and Joseph later adopted children perhaps left by some dead relatives? While none of these alternative explanations are taught in Scripture, and the plain understanding would be that Jesus had half-siblings, to those already convinced of the perpetual virginity of Mary, the mere existence of some possible explanations was good enough for them. They also tried to make linguistic arguments based on how something might have been said in Aramaic even though the inspired text is in Greek (oh but maybe it was originally written in Aramaic and later translated into Greek...). Maybe it was orally given in Aramaic but the scribe then wrote it down in Greek. Such thinking denies God-inspired the written text. Apparently only what the speaker verbalized was inspired but not what the Scribe wrote. That is a troubling thought since many of Paul's epistles were dictated to a scribe. If only Paul's spoken words were inspired then how do we know the scribe wrote them down faithfully?

These men and the RC church ever since have been trying to work backward from human beliefs about Mary to find support in the Bible. They rely on obscure arguments and "it's possible" type arguments rather than looking at the plain teaching of Scripture. Such arguments came centuries later. The Catholic faithful believe them because they believe their church is THE church and cannot err. Those of us who stand on Scripture alone, must protest and declare these doctrines unscriptural. They are the inventions of men.

You on the other hand have started with your belief that Mary had other children, based on your own interpretation of Scripture, and have constructed the above from your imagination, including a few strawman arguments.

I have no problem believing Mary had other children. It does no disservice to Mary. Children are considered a great blessing in the Bible. Why wouldn't God's Son have siblings? Why do we continue to put virginity on a pedestal when the Bible does not? There is nothing superior for a married woman to remain a virgin. God created us to reproduce and commanded us to do so. Gabriel did not instruct Mary of Joseph to never consummate the marriage. It would be normal and natural for them to have gone on to have their own children.

Their family was not normal or natural. No other family has ever raised the creator of the universe as a child in their home.

 

[prodromos]

As you know, Scripture says very little about Jesus' childhood. It is the subject of some apocryphal literature but not of the inspired text. The focus of the Gospels is on Jesus' ministry starting at the age of 30. We don't need to know the details of when each sibling was born to know he had siblings.

There is enough in the Gospels about Jesus' childhood to recognise there is a complete absence of siblings mentioned. At the age of 12 when He had stayed back at the Temple, Luke doesn't say that Joseph and Mary left their children in the care of others and went back to Jerusalem. Are you claiming they didn't have any other children until Jesus turned 12. According to you they had at least 6 other children. If they started having children after Jesus was born, as Protestants are wont to interpret Matthew 1:25, at least one of them would have been nursing still and Mary could not have left her child with others in order to go look for Jesus.