Virgin Mary

Safehands

The RC church teaches that Mary and Joseph were married. However, if Mary remained a virgin throughout her life, (ever virgin) then could they have been husband and wife, given that a wedding and consummation of the marriage would have been necessary to have been considered a married couple? They were betrothed but when did they actually become man and wife? Would this fact not mean that Joseph was in no way related to Jesus and therefore Jesus was not of the house of David?

hotmail.com

The plausibility of the immaculate conception is in shreds these days. Joseph was Jesus' biological father, that's if there was a Jesus at all.

hinault

Safehands wrote: »

The RC church teaches that Mary and Joseph were married. However, if Mary remained a virgin throughout her life, (ever virgin) then could they have been husband and wife, given that a wedding and consummation of the marriage would have been necessary to have been considered a married couple? They were betrothed but when did they actually become man and wife? Would this fact not mean that Joseph was in no way related to Jesus and therefore Jesus was not of the house of David?

Mary was from the tribe of Judah.

St Matthew Chapter 1 answers all of your questions

Peregrinus

hotmail.com wrote: »

The plausibility of the immaculate conception is in shreds these days. Joseph was Jesus' biological father, that's if there was a Jesus at all.

Nitpick: You don't mean the Immaculate Conception; you mean the Virgin Birth.

Mellor

Safehands wrote: »

given that a wedding and consummation of the marriage would have been necessary to have been considered a married couple?

Required by who to be considered married?

(I don't necessarily disagree with you poking holes in it. This is where your theory falls down)

Peregrinus

Safehands wrote: »

The RC church teaches that Mary and Joseph were married. However, if Mary remained a virgin throughout her life, (ever virgin) then could they have been husband and wife, given that a wedding and consummation of the marriage would have been necessary to have been considered a married couple? They were betrothed but when did they actually become man and wife? Would this fact not mean that Joseph was in no way related to Jesus and therefore Jesus was not of the house of David?

Well, famously, Matthew and Luke give completely different genealogies by which they trace Jesus back to David (and beyond). The conventional explanation is that Luke is tracing Jesus's descent through Mary, and Matthew his descent through Joseph. (Another explanation is that both genealogies are theological constructs. This is what most scripture scholars assert. But let that pass for the moment.)

If that's correct, then Jesus is of the House of David through his mother, and therefore even if his was a virgin birth he is still of the House of David.

But reflect that Matthew simultaneously asserts the virgin birth of Jesus and links Jesus to David through Joseph, not Mary. What this suggest is that for Matthew (and for the wider culture of the day) family heritage isn't simply a matter of genetics; it can also be secured through what we would describe as something like adoption or fostering or step-parenting.

Bear in mind that there are other examples of this. Under Jewish law, if a man married a woman and then died, leaving her childless (and leaving himself without an heir), the woman could marry the man's brother, and the first son of that marriage would be regarded as the son (and heir) of the deceased first husband, and not of the second. Or, since we are discussing Jesus's membership of the royal line of David, we should bear in mind that David's kingly role didn't transfer by simple descent, and a genetic connection wasn't always required to become king of Judah.

And these examples could be multiplied. The point is that a preoccupation with genetic inheritance is a relatively modern one. Family, house and line were, for first-century Jews, more complex and more flexible than that. Matthew clearly didn't see the virgin birth as an obstacle to Jesus's membership of the House of David, and he didn't need to rely on Mary to provide a needed biological connection. And presumably he didn't think his readership would have a problem with this either.

I note your point that, if Mary was ever-virgin, as the Catholic and Orthodox traditions assert, then her marriage to Joseph was never consummated, and therefore was it a marriage at all? For Matthew, again, there's no doubt; Joseph "took Mary to wife" - it says so in as many words at Mt 1:24. Was this union consummated sexually? Matthew doesn't say. Evidently, at least in his view, it's not relevant to the question of whether they were married. So perhaps the culture of the day wasn't focussed on consummation as the sine qua non of a marriage. Or, Matthew didn't think that a consummated marriage to Mary was necessary to give Joseph the kind of connection to Jesus which would establish a link to the House of David.

Safehands

Peregrinus wrote: »

I note your point that, if Mary was ever-virgin, as the Catholic and Orthodox traditions assert, then her marriage to Joseph was never consummated, and therefore was it a marriage at all? For Matthew, again, there's no doubt; Joseph "took Mary to wife" - it says so in as many words at Mt 1:24. Was this union consummated sexually? Matthew doesn't say. Evidently, at least in his view, it's not relevant to the question of whether they were married. So perhaps the culture of the day wasn't focussed on consummation as the sine qua non of a marriage. Or, Matthew didn't think that a consummated marriage to Mary was necessary to give Joseph the kind of connection to Jesus which would establish a link to the House of David.

I believe that the culture of the day was very much focussed on consummation. But why would any person or organisation have a problem with this whole issue? I think that the waters have been muddied and that a few "scholars" introduced this ridiculous concept because it fitted a "pure" image of Mary. Jesus had brothers. The bible tells us so. Scholars can interpret this simple fact so that it appears that they were in fact, cousins or some other relative, in order to preserve the "ever virgin" myth. There is nothing wrong with Mary and Joseph having a very normal marriage. It never mentions Mary or Joseph going to the Loo, but are we to read from that that they did not because it is somehow, dirty?

Festus

Safehands wrote: »

I believe that the culture of the day was very much focussed on consummation.

Do you not mean the culture of today? You seem to be very focused on this issue.

Safehands wrote: »

But why would any person or organisation have a problem with this whole issue?

Would those persons also include Isiah who predicted a virgin birth and Matthew and Luke who both record that Mary conceived as a virgin?

Safehands wrote: »

I think that the waters have been muddied and that a few "scholars" introduced this ridiculous concept because it fitted a "pure" image of Mary.

Just what is your problem with Isiah, St. Matthew and St. Luke ?

For me the concept is no more ridiculous than an man calling Himself God and raising Himself from the dead and is more than fitting with the concept of the Miraculous and the Divine.

Safehands wrote: »

Jesus had brothers. The bible tells us so. Scholars can interpret this simple fact so that it appears that they were in fact, cousins or some other relative, in order to preserve the "ever virgin" myth.

The Bible tells us He had cousins but uses the term brothers. Are you reading in the original Greek or are you interpreting from an English translation? If you are reading the original Greek then you should know that the word used does not mean biological brothers but also means familial and spiritual.
Nowhere in the Bible are these brothers of Jesus referred to as children of Mary. Why to you think that is?

You appear to be trying to sell a "never virgin" lie with no substantiation.

Safehands wrote: »

There is nothing wrong with Mary and Joseph having a very normal marriage.

There are plenty of normal marriages where the couples don't have sex. The reason you don't hear so much about it is because it is part of their private life. In some cases the couples have never consummated their marriage but that is none of your business.

Safehands wrote: »

It never mentions Mary or Joseph going to the Loo, but are we to read from that that they did not because it is somehow, dirty?

You can read from it whatever you want and I suggest you apply whatever you read from it to every other book or movie or TV show that never writes about or shows characters in the loo.
Hollywood seems to have no issue with showing men committing sodomy but it rarely if ever shows them taking a dump.

What can you read from that?

indy_man

Safehands, you do know Martin Luther had no issue with Our Blessed Mother, Mary and believed her to be a perpetual Virgin. Christ was the only begotten Son of God, born miraculously of a virgin. This has always been the Apostolic teaching. You sound non-christian in your original post.

Because Joseph assumed the parental responsibility, he was the father of the child by Jewish law, and since Jesus was part of the earthly family headed by Joseph (from the line of David), Jesus was de facto from the House of David, fulfilling prophecy.

Joseph was the foster father of Jesus. His descent was from David.Which is why the gospel of St. Matthew began by giving us the genealogy of Jesus. He did this following the Hebrew system of disregarding women. Why shouldn't his lineage also also from his mother.

martinedwards

the gospels clearly state that Joseph did not have sex with Mary until Jesus was born

heres a dozen different translations of the verse......

http://biblehub.com/matthew/1-25.htm

All mainstream denominations teach a virgin birth.

THAT's the big issue.

whether or not Mary and Joseph had a normal marriage thereafter is where the RC and protestant churches disagree, and franky it doesn't change the good news of the Gospel.

there is much talk of Jesus having brothers

mark 3: 32: A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, "Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you."

Mark 6:3: Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him

also Matt 13:55

the BIBLE says he had brothers. The Bible also says that Joseph and Mary remained celibate UNTIL AFTER JESUS BIRTH. Only the Roman Catholic church came up with the Mary Mother of God eternal virgin concept.

this does not change the virgin birth, just paints the picture that sex is sin (after it being Gods 1st command to Adam & Eve..... go forth and multiply.....)

believe that Mary remained a virgin or not? makes no difference to Jesus redemptive message, but there is as much mention of Jesus being a skilled Unicyclist in the Bible as there is of Mary's continued Virgin state

lazybones32

Safehands wrote: »

The RC church teaches that Mary and Joseph were married. However, if Mary remained a virgin throughout her life, (ever virgin) then could they have been husband and wife, given that a wedding and consummation of the marriage would have been necessary to have been considered a married couple? They were betrothed but when did they actually become man and wife? Would this fact not mean that Joseph was in no way related to Jesus and therefore Jesus was not of the house of David?

Jewish culture was macho; it was literally 'a Man's World'. Women were practically the possession of their Father, Husband or Son. There was no such thing as a woman retaining her own surname (or the Jewish equivalent) after marriage, rather she became part of his family - a graft, if you will. King David's Great-Grandmother - Ruth - was a Moabite but became part of the lineage through marriage.
Using today's methods, rules and biological criteria, maybe Jesus wasn't strictly part of the House of David but using the criteria and standards of the culture in which He was born, it appears He is/was.

Safehands wrote: »

I believe that the culture of the day was very much focussed on consummation. But why would any person or organisation have a problem with this whole issue? I think that the waters have been muddied and that a few "scholars" introduced this ridiculous concept because it fitted a "pure" image of Mary. Jesus had brothers. The bible tells us so. Scholars can interpret this simple fact so that it appears that they were in fact, cousins or some other relative, in order to preserve the "ever virgin" myth. There is nothing wrong with Mary and Joseph having a very normal marriage. It never mentions Mary or Joseph going to the Loo, but are we to read from that that they did not because it is somehow, dirty?

The focus was on having lots of sprogs, rather than the sex (some Jews still use the sheet to separate their bodies), which was interpreted as a sign of God's blessing. The flip-side was that no babies was seen as a punishment from God.

Jesus' brother's: The argument is that the same word for brother/cousin is used - you might disagree with it but if Jesus had biological brothers, why did Jesus 'give' Mary to John and John to Mary as a dying request/command on the Cross? John would have no Right under Jewish customs if Mary had a living Son to whom she would be transferred to.

Sex being distorted as 'impure' by R.C. theology: I can't ever recall sex being taught as 'impure' but there was always a pervasive theme that sexual purity was a big thing. Scripture seems to lend weight to this; before Moses went up the Mt. to receive the 10 Commandments, God told Moses to tell the people to purify themselves for 3 days beforehand and to refrain from sexual relations. Also in Revelation, God sets aside those who kept themselves free from sexual relations and they can sing a song only they know*. Jesus Himself spoke about Marriage and gave the teaching that 'some people don't marry for the sake of the Kingdom. Let he who can accept it, do so'** There are other references to sex too throughout Scripture but you can find them if you want them.


* Having sex versus singing a song doesn't seem like much of a competition but it appears to be that t is viewed as a gift from God.

** RC theology implies that celibacy is a gift that is received from God; a way of saying to Him "You alone are enough for me"

Safehands

Festus wrote: »

Nowhere in the Bible are these brothers of Jesus referred to as children of Mary. Why to you think that is?
You appear to be trying to sell a "never virgin" lie with no substantiation.

The Bible, as far as I know, never says that Mary remained a virgin. Why should she? I believe that the story was made up to fulfil the prophecy, rather than the other way round.
There are dozens of religions where miraculous or virgin births happen. It was a very popular element in literature and folklore of the time.
Festus, I don't believe in Angels who come down from wherever and have conversations with people. I believe that it is a very handy way to explain unsubstantiated claims.
Do you think that they still exist, that they still talk to people while they are asleep? Or do you think we have a much better understanding of what is really happening when people today hear voices?

Festus

Safehands wrote: »

The Bible, as far as I know, never says that Mary remained a virgin. Why should she?

There are lots of reasons why she should. Her womb bore Jesus, The Messiah, The Christ, God.
The Jews were expecting the Messiah. If a non-virgin bore someone calling himself the messiah and then she bore other children the Jews were not going to buy it. The fact that she bore The Messiah and the Jews rejected Him is beside the point.

Safehands wrote: »

I believe that the story was made up to fulfil the prophecy, rather than the other way round.

Believe what you like if you want to consider the Bible to be part of your conspiracy theory rather than a record of history and truth.

Safehands wrote: »

There are dozens of religions where miraculous or virgin births happen. It was a very popular element in literature and folklore of the time.

Not being an atheist I am not familiar with them. Perhaps to assist my internet search you could name some.

Safehands wrote: »

Festus, I don't believe in Angels who come down from wherever and have conversations with people. I believe that it is a very handy way to explain unsubstantiated claims.
Do you think that they still exist, that they still talk to people while they are asleep? Or do you think we have a much better understanding of what is really happening when people today hear voices?

Ah, you are attempting to lead this into an existence of God debate. Well, I think the charter has something to say on that if you missed the mods recent reminder. (on another thread)

katydid

Festus wrote: »

"f you want to consider the Bible to be part of your conspiracy theory rather than a record of history and truth."...

Not being an atheist I am not familiar with them. Perhaps to assist my internet search you could name some.
.

You don't have to consider the Bible to be part of a conspiracy theory to understand that it is not an accurate true record. It is a collection of texts written over a period of a thousand years or more, and is riddled with inaccuracies. In terms of the gospels, each writer has a different style and had a different way of portraying Jesus, so it's not unreasonable to suggest that they may have massaged it a bit in favour of their agendas.

You don't have to be an atheist to be aware of cultural connections around the world. It's well known that the Virgin Birth myth was in existence in the Middle East and the Eastern Mediterranean before Christianity. The Greek myths are fairly well known, and there are instances in those, that Dionysos was the son, by Zeus, of the virgin Persephone. There are Egyptian and Mesopotamian legends too.

Safehands

Festus wrote: »

Believe what you like if you want to consider the Bible to be part of your conspiracy theory rather than a record of history and truth.

Nobody is talking about conspiracy theories Festus. The Bible is not a record of history, you know that. So you are wrong on that count.

Festus wrote: »

Not being an atheist I am not familiar with them. Perhaps to assist my internet search you could name some.

Glad to help Festus. Go into Google and type something like 'religions with virgin births" Don't forget to press 'enter' or the little symbol with the magnifying glass. Does that help?[/QUOTE]

Festus

Safehands wrote: »

Nobody is talking about conspiracy theories Festus. The Bible is not a record of history, you know that. So you are wrong on that count.

No I don't know that and you know that I don't accept that. For Christians it contains an eye witness account of the ministry of Christ and as such is a record of history.

But if you don't consider it a record of history then what do you consider it to be? Fiction perhaps?

If you are suggesting it is fiction and not a record of history then you are suggesting that God does not exist.

Safehands wrote: »

Glad to help Festus. Go into Google and type something like 'religions with virgin births" Don't forget to press 'enter' or the little symbol with the magnifying glass. Does that help?

already tried that and do you know what I found? Nothing other than Jesus Christ.
Oh, don't get me wrong, it does produce multiple hits but nothing that stands up to scrutiny on closer examination.

Safehands

Festus wrote: »

But if you don't consider it a record of history then what do you consider it to be? Fiction perhaps?

Absolutely, based on the existence of a real historical figure, Jesus. I do accept that he lived and seems to have been an extraordinary character. I think we have established that the old testament was folklore and of course, is not based in any way, on historical fact. The whole virgin birth issue really falls apart if the old testament is untrue, which it is. Its very very similar to some other pre-Christian 'pagan' beliefs.

Festus wrote: »

already tried that and do you know what I found? Nothing other than Jesus Christ.

You have to read it Festus.
Virgin births were very popular in those times. Loads of religions had them. Christianity was in no way unique, with their virgin miraculous conception.

mdebets

Festus wrote: »

No I don't know that and you know that I don't accept that. For Christians it contains an eye witness account of the ministry of Christ and as such is a record of history..

That's a very simple view of the New Testament and I would doubt that any educated Christian would believe that the whole New Testament is an eye witness report.
Even if you forget all about the discussions of potential authorship and date of writing of the Gospels, you can clearly see, that part of the Gospels can't be eye witness accounts, because it is clear that no one was around to witness it. Look at the story around Jesus' birth. We don't have a Gospel according to Marry, Joseph, the three wise men or the shepherds, so clearly, no eye witness account. Same with the temptation of Christ, no Gospel of Jesus and no Gospel of Satan, so no eye witness account.
Similar, with direct quotes from Jesus. It's very unlikely, that whoever wrote the Gospels (if you believe them to be actual eye witnesses), to follow Jesus around with a bunch of papyri rolls, writing down everything Jesus said.

Festus wrote: »

If you are suggesting it is fiction and not a record of history then you are suggesting that God does not exist.

There is more between a record of history and fiction. Especially, if you look from today's perspective of what we consider a record of history and what people 200 years ago considered a record of history. Yes, people were writing histories in Greek and Roman times, but they were not so concerned about the accuracy, as they were concerned about the message they want to bring across. So for someone writing a history in 70 AD, it was more relevant, to show what type of person the person was they were writing about, then to record exactly what happened. So it's know that historians at the time changed facts, added facts, didn't mention facts so the history would fit what they wanted to tell. Why would the writers of the Gospel be any different.

Peregrinus

martinedwards wrote: »

the BIBLE says he had brothers. The Bible also says that Joseph and Mary remained celibate UNTIL AFTER JESUS BIRTH. Only the Roman Catholic church came up with the Mary Mother of God eternal virgin concept.

Well, actually, that's not entirely true. The tradition of a perpetually virgin Mary is not exclusively Catholic; it's common to the Catholic, Orthodox and Oriental Traditions. It's the Protestants that are the outliers here, and the belief that she wasn't perpetually virgin that is the innovation. It's not uncommon in some Protestant circles to assert that Protestant reading of the scriptures were held by the early church until later "corruption", but we have no evidence that this is correct.

Of course, we must say at once that the scriptures don't assert the perpetual virginity of Mary. While it's possible to read scriptural references to Jesus' brothers, etc, as references to half-brothers, cousins and so forth, nothing in the scriptures compels such a reading. If you read the sciptures as a pure narrative with no signficance beyond what is narrated, you would undoubtedly come away with the impression that, e.g., James the Brother of the Lord was just that; Jesus' brother.

In other words, the perpetual virginity of Mary emerges from a theological reading of the scriptures, the opposing view from a more literal reading.

Festus

Safehands wrote: »

Absolutely, based on the existence of a real historical figure, Jesus. I do accept that he lived and seems to have been an extraordinary character. I think we have established that the old testament was folklore and of course, is not based in any way, on historical fact. The whole virgin birth issue really falls apart if the old testament is untrue, which it is. Its very very similar to some other pre-Christian 'pagan' beliefs.

So what you are saying is that in your opinion the Bible is all lies and God does not exist.

Safehands wrote: »

Virgin births were very popular in those times. Loads of religions had them. Christianity was in no way unique, with their virgin miraculous conception.

Well actually it is. The other religions virgin births were arranged by having someone ejaculate over the genitals of a virgin.

That is not how Jesus was conceived.
Further, as He was conceived in a virgin free from original sin the birth pangs promised in Genesis do not apply and He was born without loss to her virginity.
Now, being the most sacred Woman in history, the Mother of God, she cannot behave like any other married woman last aspertions be cast on her role as the Mother of God and her sinless nature.

But as you are an atheist it is impossible for you to understand these mysteries. Your arguments may find favour with some who follow forms of Christian belief already given over to heretical thought but even so your argument lacks substance.

Festus

mdebets wrote: »

Why would the writers of the Gospel be any different.

Becasue they were guided by the Holy Spirit.

All of history is written after the event. Even in the last century many of the records were written decades after the events occurred yet we accept them as true.

Today much of our history is written by news channels, media organisations and on the internet. How much if it is believable?

katydid

Festus wrote: »

No I don't know that and you know that I don't accept that. For Christians it contains an eye witness account of the ministry of Christ and as such is a record of history.

But if you don't consider it a record of history then what do you consider it to be? Fiction perhaps?

If you are suggesting it is fiction and not a record of history then you are suggesting that God does not exist.

Not all Christians believe that the Bible is an exact historical record, Festus. It would be impossible to do so if you know much about the Bible, since the New Testament alone is full of inconsistencies. The four gospels were written by different people at different times. One small example is the different accounts of what happened to Judas and where he was buried.

And that's not even going to the Old Testament, where the earth is described as having four corners and the earth being created in six days.

To insist that all, or even most Christians, think that the Bible is an exact historical document is totally wrong.

Just because something is not totally accurate doesn't mean it's essentially untrue.

Safehands

Festus wrote: »

So what you are saying is that in your opinion the Bible is all lies and God does not exist.

Festus, you are an extraordinary person. I am not saying that the Bible is all lies at all. That is like saying any mythological literature is lies. The story of Cú Chulainn is wonderful, but just because it is not true does not make it a lie. Anyone who thinks that it is is seriously misguided.

Festus wrote: »

In other religions virgin births were arranged by having someone ejaculate over the genitals of a virgin.

Where do you get this stuff?

todders

hotmail.com wrote: »

The plausibility of the immaculate conception is in shreds these days. Joseph was Jesus' biological father, that's if there was a Jesus at all.

A priest told me that it was Mary who was the immaculate conception, is this true?

katydid

todders wrote: »

A priest told me that it was Mary who was the immaculate conception, is this true?

Yes, according to RCC theology, Mary was conceived without sin, making her the suitable vessel to carry Jesus. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception arose because of the problem that it's believed that all humans were born in a state of original sin. So they had to come up with a reason why Mary was different.

martinedwards

but sex between a married couple isn't a sin.

anyone born in marriage was born without sin.

katydid

martinedwards wrote: »

but sex between a married couple isn't a sin.

anyone born in marriage was born without sin.

Original sin. Adam and Eve and all that.

Festus

Safehands wrote: »

Festus, you are an extraordinary person.

Thank you !

Safehands wrote: »

I am not saying that the Bible is all lies at all. That is like saying any mythological literature is lies.

Semantics. You are saying it is fiction and not true which is not far from saying it is lies.

Safehands wrote: »

Where do you get this stuff?

same place you get your stuff.

Peregrinus

martinedwards wrote: »

but sex between a married couple isn't a sin.

anyone born in marriage was born without sin.

The doctrine of the immaculate conception has nothing to do with sex or virginity. Catholics hold that Mary was conceived in the conventional fashion, through an act of intercourse between her parents, named by tradition as Joachim and Anne. The doctrine is not that Mary was conceived virginally, but that she herself was unmarked by original sin; she did not suffer the consequences of the Fall.

Safehands

Peregrinus wrote: »

The doctrine of the immaculate conception has nothing to do with sex or virginity. Catholics hold that Mary was conceived in the conventional fashion, through an act of intercourse between her parents, named by tradition as Joachim and Anne. The doctrine is not that Mary was conceived virginally, but that she herself was unmarked by original sin; she did not suffer the consequences of the Fall.

That is correct, but really it is nonsense. How could the church possibly know such a fact, if indeed such a fact ever existed. To think a pure baby could have sin on its soul is so wrong. Men in the Church come up with some ridiculous notions. The virginity of Mary is one such irrelevant notion.

silverharp

Do catholics not suspect that the whole Mary thing was a bit of a made up yarn that enterened into church lore later? There is no mention of in the nt and also contradicts the idea that Jesus was the only one "without sin" .
I'd also imagine that being without "original sin" she wouldn't have died at all or did she munch on an apple at some stage?

Festus

silverharp wrote: »

Do catholics not suspect that the whole Mary thing was a bit of a made up yarn that enterened into church lore later? There is no mention of in the nt and also contradicts the idea that Jesus was the only one "without sin" .
I'd also imagine that being without "original sin" she wouldn't have died at all or did she munch on an apple at some stage?

Nope.

There is much of interest to discuss but a thread such as this that has been set up to mock and insult Catholic beliefs is not the place for it.

Safehands

silverharp wrote: »

Do catholics not suspect that the whole Mary thing was a bit of a made up yarn that enterened into church lore later? There is no mention of in the nt and also contradicts the idea that Jesus was the only one "without sin" .

A huge number do, me included!

Peregrinus

silverharp wrote: »

Do catholics not suspect that the whole Mary thing was a bit of a made up yarn that enterened into church lore later? There is no mention of in the nt and also contradicts the idea that Jesus was the only one "without sin" .

Well, it's obviously wrong to say that "the whole Mary thing" is not mentioned in the OT. Mary is repeatedly mentioned in scriptures by different authors.

You'd be on slightly stonger grounds if you narrowed your comment down to Mary's perpetual virginity, which isn't mentioned in as many words. As already noted, this emerges from a theological reading of the scriptures, and obviously it's not a reading that anyone is compelled to share.

But this isn't just a problem for Catholics. You could say exactly the same about the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation, neither of which are explicitly spelled out in scripture. And obvlously when you raise those questions, they are relevant to Christians from all traditions.

silverharp wrote: »

I'd also imagine that being without "original sin" she wouldn't have died at all . . .

Well spotted. It is precisely this consideration which brings us to the doctrine of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary (or the Dormition, as it's known in Eastern Christianity).

silverharp

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, it's obviously wrong to say that "the whole Mary thing" is not mentioned in the OT. Mary is repeatedly mentioned in scriptures by different authors.

You'd be on slightly stonger grounds if you narrowed your comment down to Mary's perpetual virginity, which isn't mentioned in as many words. As already noted, this emerges from a theological reading of the scriptures, and obviously it's not a reading that anyone is compelled to share

I meant that she was anything more than a normal woman. Any reasonable reading of the nt says that that Jesus had siblings and that she was a normal wife that was "known" to her husband. It appears that anyone putting the nt together wasn't aware of this whole theology which presumably includes Jesus himself

Festus

Safehands wrote: »

A huge number do, me included!

You're a Catholic

Your postings suggest otherwise. While you may have been born to a Catholic family your postings suggest you are now atheist.

Can you clarify?

It is a little disingenuous for you to call yourself a Catholic while at the same time attacking the Church, and then on another thread attack posters who believe that God exists and that the Bible is true.

Safehands

Festus wrote: »

You're a Catholic

Your postings suggest otherwise. While you may have been born to a Catholic family your postings suggest you are now atheist.

Can you clarify?

Glad to. Once baptised a Catholic always a Catholic. Doesn't mean I have to agree with all of the nonsense they go on with. I was asleep when I formally entered the RC community. Maybe they should change that too, would you agree?

Peregrinus

silverharp wrote: »

I meant that she was anything more than a normal woman. Any reasonable reading of the nt says that that Jesus had siblings and that she was a normal wife that was "known" to her husband.

The NT is explicit and detailed on the subject of the virgin birth, surely? A reading which ignores this is hardly "reasonable". However else the NT presents Mary, it does not present her as "normal"

silverharp wrote: »

It appears that anyone putting the nt together wasn't aware of this whole theology which presumably includes Jesus himself

Sorry, am I misunderstanding you or are you suggesting that Jesus had a hand in putting together the NT?

silverharp

Peregrinus wrote: »

The NT is explicit and detailed on the subject of the virgin birth, surely? A reading which ignores this is hardly "reasonable". However else the NT presents Mary, it does not present her as "normal"


Sorry, am I misunderstanding you or are you suggesting that Jesus had a hand in putting together the NT?

I meant post birth, as for Jesus what I'm saying is that he wouldn't have recognised all the mary theology as he clearly isn't recorded talking about it .

Peregrinus

silverharp wrote: »

I meant post birth, as for Jesus what I'm saying is that he wouldn't have recognised all the mary theology as he clearly isn't recorded talking about it .

He doesn't talk about the Trinity or the Incarnation either. In fact he doiesn't talk about himself very much, and when he does he is very guarded and elliptical in what he says (and the disciples have great difficulty understanding him).

And he doesn't talk about his mother at all, as far as I know, beyond (a) indicating that he will repudiate her if she will repudiate her if she does not support his mission, and (b) asking the beloved disciple to look after her when he is crucified. The fact that he doesn't mention her virginity is very much of a piece with the fact that he barely mentions her at all.

Look, it's accepted on all sides that the perpetual virginity of Mary is not plainly attested in the NT scriptures. While that may mean the case is in one sense weak, it also means you can't attack the case by pointing out that the scriptures mention Jesus' brothers, fail to mention Mary's virginity, etc.

Festus

Safehands wrote: »

Glad to. Once baptised a Catholic always a Catholic. Doesn't mean I have to agree with all of the nonsense they go on with. I was asleep when I formally entered the RC community. Maybe they should change that too, would you agree?

No I wouldn't

For the purposes of clarity would it not be more prudent for you to call yourself a former Catholic or lapsed Catholic or even a Catholic atheist?

katydid

Safehands wrote: »

That is correct, but really it is nonsense. How could the church possibly know such a fact, if indeed such a fact ever existed. To think a pure baby could have sin on its soul is so wrong. Men in the Church come up with some ridiculous notions. The virginity of Mary is one such irrelevant notion.

They "know" such a fact because they read the Bible and came up with the doctrine of original sin based on the story of humanity's expulsion from Paradise. Basically we are all tained by the fall of Adam and Eve.

Safehands

katydid wrote: »

They "know" such a fact because they read the Bible and came up with the doctrine of original sin based on the story of humanity's expulsion from Paradise. Basically we are all tained by the fall of Adam and Eve.

If Adam and Eve were real people, which they were not.

Festus

Safehands wrote: »

If Adam and Eve were real people, which they were not.

Can you prove that?

Peregrinus

Safehands wrote: »

If Adam and Eve were real people, which they were not.

Safehands, Christian belief about the significance of the story of the Fall and about original sin does not depend on Adam and Eve having been real people.

You may be a biblical literalist, unable to understand the story in any other terms, and of course you're quite entitled to be. I wouildn't dream of telling you what to believe or how to form your beliefs.

But Christians generally are not biblical literalists, and if you think they are it just shows that you have misunderstood them.

katydid

Safehands wrote: »

If Adam and Eve were real people, which they were not.

I know that. I'm just explaining the source of the doctrine.

You don't have to believe in a literal Adam and Eve to know that humans have a basic fault, which prevents them from being totally good. It's that "devil" inside us that can be used for great good when it drives us to go out and discover things but can be used for great evil too, if used for perverted purposes. The Genesis story is an attempt to explain that flaw in our make up, our "original sin".

silverharp

Peregrinus wrote: »

He doesn't talk about the Trinity or the Incarnation either. In fact he doiesn't talk about himself very much, and when he does he is very guarded and elliptical in what he says (and the disciples have great difficulty understanding him).

And he doesn't talk about his mother at all, as far as I know, beyond (a) indicating that he will repudiate her if she will repudiate her if she does not support his mission, and (b) asking the beloved disciple to look after her when he is crucified. The fact that he doesn't mention her virginity is very much of a piece with the fact that he barely mentions her at all.

Look, it's accepted on all sides that the perpetual virginity of Mary is not plainly attested in the NT scriptures. While that may mean the case is in one sense weak, it also means you can't attack the case by pointing out that the scriptures mention Jesus' brothers, fail to mention Mary's virginity, etc.

But does not suggest that the whole view of Mary has all the appearance of being a later import from other religions ?

Safehands

Festus wrote: »

Can you prove that?

Can you offer any proof at all, even the tiniest bit of proof, that they were? Remember, the onus is on the one making the claim for their existence. Show me any evidence and I will believe.

silverharp

Festus wrote: »

Can you prove that?

Dinosaurs.

Safehands

katydid wrote: »

I know that. I'm just explaining the source of the doctrine.

You don't have to believe in a literal Adam and Eve to know that humans have a basic fault, which prevents them from being totally good. It's that "devil" inside us that can be used for great good when it drives us to go out and discover things but can be used for great evil too, if used for perverted purposes. The Genesis story is an attempt to explain that flaw in our make up, our "original sin".

And baptism gets rid if that fault?

Peregrinus

silverharp wrote: »

But does not suggest that the whole view of Mary has all the appearance of being a later import from other religions ?

The fact that Jesus doesn't talk about her suggests that much of the beliefs about her are imports from other religions? No, not at all. There's a huge gap between "Jesus said it" and "we got this from the Zoroastrians". The world contains more possiblities than this.

First things first; the belief in a virgin birth is very ancient. It' indpendentlyh recorded in Matthew and Luke, and their nativity accounts are completely different so there is no question of one of them having got it from the other, or either of them having made it up. The likelihood is that they are both recording an existing virgin birth tradition which predates both their gospels, and was widespread before they were written.

Second: It follows that the virgin birth tradition was circulating during the lifetime of many people who had known Jesus, or his Mothers, brothers and sister. So it was circulating at a time when there were plenty of people around in a position to refute it, if it needed refuting.

That doesn't prove it is true, of course. You could speculate that the surviving family and friends of Jesus entered into a cynical conspiracy not to deny this story but to milk it for all it was worth. It's a wild speculation - there's no evidence at all of this, and it's unlikely that a conspiracy with so many necessary parties (who we know were at odds on other issues) could hold together for very long. But it's possible.

But even so, we have to accept that a belief in the virgin birth, true or not, was current from a very early time in the church's history. It's one of the earliest Christian beliefs we know of. Once you accept that, you don't need to look to influences from "other religions" to account for theological reflection on the reason for, significance of and implications from Mary's virginity, and for extrapolations of that belief.

And, att least in the early stages of this process of reflection, the community would have been unbothered by the fact that Mary's perpetual virginity was unmentioned in the NT scriptures; none of the NT scriptures had been written at the time. The community was working off its own knowledge, memories and experience of Jesus.