Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is a verse that refutes Mary's perpetual virginity. Matthew 13:55-56: Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brethren James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all of his sisters with us?
The perpetual virginity of Mary has always been reconciled with the biblical references to Christ’s brethren through a proper understanding of the meaning of the term "brethren." The understanding that the brethren of the Lord were Jesus’ stepbrothers (children of Joseph) rather than half-brothers (children of Mary) was the most common one until the time of Jerome (fourth century). It was Jerome who introduced the possibility that Christ’s brethren were actually his cousins, since in Jewish idiom cousins were also referred to as "brethren." The Catholic Church allows the faithful to hold either view, since both are compatible with the reality of Mary’s perpetual virginity.
What is sinful about a wife having sex with her husband?
Mt 1:25 But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
There is no sin involved, but from a theology point of view Virgin Mary needs to be special because she is the mother of God. There is more than just perpetual virginity. Do not forget:
The Immaculate Conception is a dogma of the Catholic Church maintaining that from the moment when she was conceived in the womb, the Blessed Virgin Mary was kept free of original sin, [1][2] so that she was from the start filled with the sanctifying grace normally conferred in baptism. It is one of the four dogmas in Roman Catholic Mariology.[3]
There is no sin involved, but from a theology point of view Virgin Mary needs to be special because she is the mother of God. There is more than just perpetual virginity. Do not forget:
The Immaculate Conception is a dogma of the Catholic Church maintaining that from the moment when she was conceived in the womb, the Blessed Virgin Mary was kept free of original sin, [1][2] so that she was from the start filled with the sanctifying grace normally conferred in baptism. It is one of the four dogmas in Roman Catholic Mariology.[3]
WIKI
Yes, but you are supporting dogma that is flatly contradicted by scripture.
I think something to consider is that everyone thinks the Virgin Birth was some kind of unique phenomenon when, in truth, it was rather common currency at the time. Caesar Augustus was ascribed a virgin birth. Egyptian pharaohs had them, too, as did Krishna, Lao Tze, Horus, Plato, Buddha, Mithra, etc. The list of putative virgin births goes on and on. I'm thinking that the entire Virgin Birth business was borrowed from other traditions, chiefly because the original authors of scripture wanted to point out Christ's historical importance.
Yes, but you are supporting dogma that is flatly contradicted by scripture.
I think something to consider is that everyone thinks the Virgin Birth was some kind of unique phenomenon when, in truth, it was rather common currency at the time. Caesar Augustus was ascribed a virgin birth. Egyptian pharaohs had them, too, as did Krishna, Lao Tze, Horus, Plato, Buddha, Mithra, etc. The list of putative virgin births goes on and on. I'm thinking that the entire Virgin Birth business was borrowed from other traditions, chiefly because the original authors of scripture wanted to point out Christ's historical importance.
The whole thing is mythology including the writings in the Bible.
Within that framework it would make sense to keep the Virgin Mary a perpetual VIrgin and to consider the Immaculate Conception. It only makes sense within the context of religion and mythology because Mary is the MOther of God. Do not try to apply any other kind of logic to this. If you do then you have moved outside the realm of theology and religion.
The whole thing is mythology including the writings in the Bible.
Within that framework it would make sense to keep the Virgin Mary a perpetual VIrgin and to consider the Immaculate Conception. It only makes sense within the context of religion and mythology because Mary is the MOther of God. Do not try to apply any other kind of logic to this. If you do then you have moved outside the realm of theology and religion.
No. I am pointing out that virgin births were rather common among chroniclers of the age. What's more, you're really employing a circular argument here, basically saying that Mary is the mother of God, therefore she needs to have a virgin birth, because the mother of God needs to have a virgin birth, etc. etc. But really? Why is a virgin birth necessary in the first place? If we could somehow prove that Christ did not have a virgin birth, would that change your faith in Him at all? Would it really matter? I think that is really the central problem with the theology you're trying to defend, for it needs the encrustation of myth and signs to support the notion of Christ's divinity when His words and actions should be sufficient.
Meanwhile, the Gospel according to Matthew is rather clear on this. It simply states that Mary did not have sex with Joseph until after Jesus was born. When it comes to Christ's virgin birth, I suppose we could take that at face value despite the fact that virgin births were standard fare back then. But the assertion of Mary as perpetual virgin actually contradicts what is stated rather clearly in the scripture. I think, in that situation, you have an instance where the internal logic of dogma actually denies scripture rather than supporting it.
The perpetual virginity of Mary has always been reconciled with the biblical references to Christ’s brethren through a proper understanding of the meaning of the term "brethren." The understanding that the brethren of the Lord were Jesus’ stepbrothers (children of Joseph) rather than half-brothers (children of Mary) was the most common one until the time of Jerome (fourth century). It was Jerome who introduced the possibility that Christ’s brethren were actually his cousins, since in Jewish idiom cousins were also referred to as "brethren." The Catholic Church allows the faithful to hold either view, since both are compatible with the reality of Mary’s perpetual virginity.
Source: catholicanswers.org
RESPONSE:
But Jerome's big blunder was overlooking the fact that the gospels were written in Greek, neither Hebrew nor Aramaic. And koine Greek had a common word for cousins (as opposed to brothers and sisters). In fact Paul used this word in one of his Epistles.
anepsioi (e.g., Colossians 4:10). When a nephew was meant
"Aristarchus my fellow prisoner greets you, as does Mark the cousin of Barnabas, concerning whom you have received instructions—if he comes to you, welcome him.
Mary has to be pure because she is the mother of God. It is rather simple.
RESPONSE:
Are you saying that marital sex and childbearing are somehow sinful, and not "pure"?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
