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.
The fact is that we know from the Apostolic Tradition and the Fathers that Mary was perpetually virgin. Therefore, we read Scripture in that context. We don't read Scripture blindly and make blind conclusions based on our own individual interpretation of the text.
Modern Protestants already believe that Mary and Joseph had sexual relations, so they base their interpretation of the readings on that presupposition.
The Apostolic Churches already believe that Mary was perpetually virgin, so we base our interpretation of the readings on that presupposition.
Both Protestants and Catholics are reading and interpreting Scripture through a lens. The question is: which lens is the trustworthy one; the lens of personal interpretation, or the lens of Apostolic Tradition?
Luk 1:31**And, behold, (Mary) thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
Luk 1:34**Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
Quote:
Mat 1:18**Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
Correct - This reinforces Jesus' father is not Joseph. It does not imply anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur
I guess my biggest question would be, why on earth would she have taken such an oath?
Quote:
Mary's parents, Joachim and Anne, who had been childless, received a heavenly message that they would have a child.
In thanksgiving for the gift of their daughter, they brought her, when still a child, to the Temple in Jerusalem to consecrate her to God.
Mary’s presentation in the temple draws parallels to that of the prophet Samuel, whose mother Hannah, like Anne, was also thought to be barren, and who offered her child as a gift to God.
Before marriage, girls were virgin. Any sex outside of marriage was considered adultery.
Quote:
John 8:4 “Teacher,” they said to Jesus, “this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 The law of Moses says to stone her. What do you say?”
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur
Would she somehow be defiled by having relations with the man to whom is was married? Is there something wrong with intimate relations between married couples?
Of course not, but Mary was not an average woman or wife.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
There is no way she'd be pledged to get married if she'd taken that vow.
Until recently, women had few rights or means of supporting themselves. Pre 19th century, marriage was not a love match, but a financial arrangement with little input from the woman.
Not saying women rights were perfect before Protestantism. However, in the beginning of Christianity, women were more active and respected in religion. Can't help thinking this had something to do with Mary's role.
The downplaying of Mary's role suited a shrew King Henry VIII. He had wives to divorce and required money (from selling the Catholic Church's land).
Quote:
In England, the Reformation began with Henry VIII’s quest for a male heir. When Pope Clement VII refused to annul Henry’s marriage to Catherine of Aragon so he could remarry, the English king declared in 1534 that he alone should be the final authority in matters relating to the English church. Henry dissolved England’s monasteries to confiscate their wealth and worked to place the Bible in the hands of the people. Beginning in 1536, every parish was required to have a copy.
After Henry’s death, England tilted toward Calvinist-infused Protestantism during Edward VI’s six-year reign and then endured five years of reactionary Catholicism under Mary I. In 1559 Elizabeth I took the throne and, during her 44-year reign, cast the Church of England as a “middle way” between Calvinism and Catholicism, with vernacular worship and a revised Book of Common Prayer.
Martin Luther asserted an ideal of women as unequal. So a Virgin Mary above men was not going to please him.
Quote:
Marriage was at the heart of Martin Luther’s break with Rome and the Reformation that followed. He preached sermons praising marriage beginning in 1519 and several years later wrote his first formal treatise attacking the value of vows of celibacy and arguing that marriage was the best Christian life. In 1525 he followed his words by deeds and married a nun who had fled her convent, Katharina von Bora.
Luther continued to attack the celibate life of Catholic clergy and nuns and to celebrate marriage as a godly estate throughout his career, in sermons, formal treatises, lectures, advice manuals, letters, comments on legal cases, and casual conversation. In all of these, he both praised marriage and family life and commented on its burdensome side, moving from theoretical speculations while he was a celibate monk to reflecting on his own experiences as he became a family man, though his basic theology of marriage did not change much after the early 1520s. His words were direct and blunt, even in formal treatises.
He agreed with St. Augustine on the three purposes of marriage, in the same order of importance: the procreation of children, the avoidance of sin, and mutual help and companionship. He praised spousal love but asserted that the ideal of reciprocal love in marriage was not an ideal of equality. Proper marital households were hierarchical, for the wife was and had to be the husband’s helpmeet and subordinate.
I can't read Greek, or Hebrew either, for that matter. But I'm familiar with translations in general, and all translations of the Bible are full of uses of words translated "until." And those have to be read, like everything else, in context.
Context is key. If the context indicates that "until" means "up to the point that it is no longer possible," then we conclude that it did not happen. E.g. "Michal had no children until the day of her death." This is an exceptional, emphatic usage. We do not conclude that she had children after that, because it's impossible.
But if the context is the ordinary one of "up to the point that something else happens, but no longer," then we give "until" its ordinary meaning:
"Then Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him until daybreak." This means that after daybreak, they stopped wrestling.
"But Hannah did not go up, for she said to her husband, "I will not go up until the child is weaned." We conclude that after the child was weaned, she went up.
The very straightforward statement that Joseph had no relations with Mary until she gave birth to a son seems clearly to be a usage of the word's ordinary meaning, not the exceptional one. After the baby was born, they had relations.
I know we're not going to agree, or I would be a Catholic (or you would be a Protestant!) I am simply explaining why interpreting "until" to mean the basic meaning of "until" in the passage about Mary is the way any unprejudiced person--I mean someone coming to the Scripture for the first time--would read it.
Indeed, as the Greek word translated “until” does not clearly imply normal marital conduct after Jesus’ birth, nor does it even exclude it, I agree that we won't be able to agree without considering additional information.
I'm guessing for you that would be include scripture (in english) and modern english language construction only;
for me it would include scripture in english AND the original language(s) construction understanding that we have available to us , reason, AND tradition (which scripture tells us 'hold the traditions which ye have been taught' , since Mary and Joseph were both Jewish, that means also tying into the OT which Dr. Hahn has done wonderfully in the previously posted video.
I agree with you there. But if so, then why did Mary have to be born free of sin, in order to have a child who was free of sin? Her half of the fertilized was already sinless. As you said, an egg can't be sinful.
I know I sound like I'm arguing but it has always perplexed me. The New Testament has four entire books about the life of Jesus, and many more books written about Jesus's teachings. That was obviously important enough to write down. But you can write what the Bible explicitly says about Mary on one page. The importance of Mary to Catholics is way out of proportion to anything said about her in Scripture; it just seems odd.
There's a lot of early Christian writing all sorts of gospels and epistles and histories of the times of Christ. When the Bible was being compiled at the early church councils it seems that only the Christ-centric writings were included in the official NT scriptures.
The other writings weren't ignored. All these were read and given relative importance. In these writings we learn how Joachim and Anna had Mary in old age, gave her to live in the temple, how Mary took a vow of virginity, how when she got too old to stay in the temple Joseph was selected to care for her. Joseph's problems dealing with his guardianship and the pregnancy. Etc, etc, etc.
Before this thread I thought all Christians believed that the Theotokos remained a Virgin all her life. I know protestants are against prayer for intercession of Mary and other saints but they still sing these Christmas songs "yon virgin, mother and child". So, I assumed that the vast majority of Christians believed in the Trinity and in the eternal virginity of Mary. Now I'm wondering what other major points we disagree on.
I'm not going to read all 13 pages, but by now, everyone should know the word "alma" does not mean "virgin", but instead, "young woman".
The correct ancient Hebrew word for virgin is "bethulah". And the ancient Hebrews pointed this out to the Greeks, but for what ever reason, they persisted with the deception.
Mary was not a virgin, even if she existed at all. She was, however, a young woman, as least as the Hebrew scriptures tell us.
I'm not going to read all 13 pages, but by now, everyone should know the word "alma" does not mean "virgin", but instead, "young woman".
The correct ancient Hebrew word for virgin is "bethulah". And the ancient Hebrews pointed this out to the Greeks, but for what ever reason, they persisted with the deception.
Mary was not a virgin, even if she existed at all. She was, however, a young woman, as least as the Hebrew scriptures tell us.
When the angel told Mary she would conceive and bear a son, do you really think Mary would reply, “How will this be, since I am a young woman?”
Of course not. Mary wasn't stupid. A young woman having a baby is the most usual thing in the world.
I'm not going to read all 13 pages, but by now, everyone should know the word "alma" does not mean "virgin", but instead, "young woman".
The correct ancient Hebrew word for virgin is "bethulah". And the ancient Hebrews pointed this out to the Greeks, but for what ever reason, they persisted with the deception.
Mary was not a virgin, even if she existed at all. She was, however, a young woman, as least as the Hebrew scriptures tell us.
Where did you get "alma" from? The Greek word used in Luke 1:27 is παρθένον (parthenos).
At any rate, our belief in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is not based on quibbles with verbiage.
Before this thread I thought all Christians believed that the Theotokos remained a Virgin all her life. I know protestants are against prayer for intercession of Mary and other saints but they still sing these Christmas songs "yon virgin, mother and child". So, I assumed that the vast majority of Christians believed in the Trinity and in the eternal virginity of Mary. Now I'm wondering what other major points we disagree on.
Protestants believe in the Trinity, yes. We believe that Mary conceived Jesus as a virgin and remained a virgin through her pregnancy. The song "Silent Night"--written many centuries later in Austria--references the actual night when Jesus was born. Of course, Mary was still a virgin then!
But most do not see the eternal virginity of Mary as a fact. And if she did in fact remain a virgin her entire life, which is something most Protestants will say can't be known for sure, it would not be considered of any real consequence. Mary's example and significance to Protestants has nothing to do with her being an eternal virgin.
But most do not see the eternal virginity of Mary as a fact.
"Most"? Nearly 2/3 of the world's Christians are Catholic or Orthodox; both of which affirm the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saibot
And if she did in fact remain a virgin her entire life, which is something most Protestants will say can't be known for sure, it would not be considered of any real consequence. Mary's example and significance to Protestants has nothing to do with her being an eternal virgin.
I know. It's a shame because you don't even know what you're missing out on
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.
