Questions about Mary

[luckymom]

I have read that some Christian faiths believe that Mary remained a virgin and I am confused. I thought the Bible mentions Jesus having siblings. If so, were they from Mary and Joseph? If so, then how did she remain a virgin? If not, then who were these brothers of Jesus and who had them? I really do not know anything about this and am interested in learning. Thanks.

[Avila]

I will give you two possible explanations on this. Catholics believe Mary remained a virgin. The most often used explanation is that the "siblings" were actually cousins, since the ancient world was not always precise with terminology. Another possible explanation is that Joseph was a widower and that the siblings mentioned were Joseph's children but not Mary's.

 

Mary's perpetual virginity is also supported by the fact that Jesus gave Mary over to the care of St. John the apostle at the crucifixion, which he would have had no reason to do if Mary had other children.

 

(really hoping this one doesn't turn into an argument ...)

[luckymom]

trying to start an argument. I just never knew and want to understand. Just looking for info.

[Avila]

trying to start an argument. I just never knew and want to understand. Just looking for info.

 

I believe you! Really! But not everyone else always plays nice around here.

[mcconnellboys]

Yes, I have also read the belief that the siblings were children of Joseph before he and Mary married, however, I believe that at least some of them were younger than Jesus. It's been several years since I've read about this, so I'm not clear now on how to get around this conundrum....

[specialmama]

Mathew 1:25 states: "But he (Joseph) had no union with her (Mary) until she gave birth to a son (Jesus.) And he gave him the name Jesus."

 

Several references are found in Scripture regarding Jesus' brothers and sisters. To say they are cousins is wrong, because, lo and behold there is a term in scripture for cousin.... and that term is... cousin. Luke 1:36 says: "Luke 1:36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. Luke 1:58 And her neighbours and her cousins heard how the Lord had shewed great mercy upon her; and they rejoiced with her. "

[specialmama]

Also, the original greek renders the firstborn as prototokos. Had Jesus been an only child, and had this been important, the word monogenes would have been used (Luke 7:12;8:42;9:38) to mean only child.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

Mathew 1:25 states: "But he (Joseph) had no union with her (Mary) until she gave birth to a son (Jesus.) And he gave him the name Jesus."

Good point. I was told that his siblings did not put faith in him (were not Christians) and that is probably why he told John to take care of his mother.

[elizabeth]

 

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4010/is_200411/ai_n9462517/ Kinship in ancient semitic-greek communities The words cousin, brother etc did not mean the same thing in the ancient world. Great article from a magazine I have read for years.

[specialmama]

See, this is bringing up an important aspect of Jewish culture. A Jewish father would always have the youngest son on his right hand side (at the table) so that the child could learn from him, and be close enough to whisper a question without the others to hear. It was a mentoring role. John was the youngest, so he always sat at the right side of Jesus. Jesus loved John the best, he is the only one of the 12 who died a natural death, as opposed to martyrdom or torture. Jesus giving Mary to John was just an extention of that love, a love that a teacher has for his favourite follower. We know James was Jesus' brother and had faith in Him. The others? Well, I bet they knew in their minds, but they were jealous or struggling with it somehow.. I mean, that's a difficult spot to be in! Having God in the flesh for a sibling, man, one could never compete with that! ;)

Edited August 6, 2009 by specialmama

[Lovedtodeath]

 

See, this is bringing up an important aspect of Jewish culture... We know James was Jesus' brother and had faith in Him.

Interesting. I thought that James converted to Christianity after Jesus' death. ??

[specialmama]

Interesting. I thought that James converted to Christianity after Jesus' death. ??

 

I have heard the same thing, so perhaps I didn't communicate that effectively, sorry! Well let's suppose that he didn't fully believe He was God until after His death.... it's really not that surprising. People who witnessed miracle after miracle, prophesy fulfilled to prophesy fulfilled, well, many struggled until after they saw Him defeat death. On the day of Pentecost when the Spirit came down on them, they were finally able to see it better, with God IN them. Think about this: when Jesus was being flogged and crucified, most of His followers fled. Why? Because they feared to stand up for what they knew to be true. Perhaps they even doubted what they had experienced and seen. BUT... when He appeared to over 500 people, and Thomas the doubter even put his hand in his side, well, they knew! They all died testifying to the truth that Jesus is the Messiah, the King of the Jews (except for John who died naturally.) Nobody will die for (what they KNOW to be) a lie, but thousands have died refusing to deny what they know to be truth. It is reasonable to assume, therefore, that once James saw Jesus resurrect, that it changed him, he could no longer fight it. "Every knee shall bow..."

[Brindee]

 

(In addition to this, the belief in the ever-virgin Mary was standard Christian faith until about 150 years ago. What makes us so smart that we suddenly "get it" and the rest of the Christians through history are chopped liver?)

Just FYI, It wasn't standard Christian faith for all Christian Religions. :001_smile:

[elizabeth]

It was common in that time to refer to cousins, step-siblings as brothers. "Father" was applied to teachers and older people. That was just common standard practice.

 

But stop for a minute and think about it this way: You are Joseph. An angel has come to you and said that your betrothed will bear the Son of God. You change your plans to "put Mary away quietly", and wait and see. You see. The Angels. The Shepherds. The Magi. You obey God even unto taking the family to Egypt to preserve the life of this infant.

 

Then you go sleep with Mary.

 

The Theotokos--bearer of God--was in union with GOD, in her "fiat"--let it be unto me according to thy word. She yielded her whole self to God. She was the New Ark of the Covenant as she carried the Word of God in her womb.

 

If you are a holy man, what do you think you would do?

 

(In addition to this, the belief in the ever-virgin Mary was standard Christian faith until about 150 years ago. What makes us so smart that we suddenly "get it" and the rest of the Christians through history are chopped liver?)

 

Just me, chiming it. I've had quite a chime-in day, frankly.

 

 

Kind regards,

Patty Joanna

As a Catholic who was raised Syrian Orthodox I find your explanations to be just beautifully stated with great respect and reverence. You have a real gift for explaining ideas that are incredibly subtle and often complex without ever oversimplifying . You are a treasure here.

[WishboneDawn]

I think the idea of Mary's virginity comes from Matthews use of Isaiah 7:14; "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

 

The greek word that Matthew or later Christians took as virgin actually means young woman.

[mommaduck]

Some of the Reformers also kept a high view of Theotokos and believed her to be ever-virgin....*cough* Calvin (and Luther continued using a rosary).

 

 

Now whether that meant that Joseph simply never touched her (unheard of in Jewish culture), or due to the lack of Viagra, or because he died shortly after Christ's birth...it is unknown. If the other "siblings" were in fact Mary's children, it would've been unheard of for Christ to turn care of Mary over to John regardless of their belief. For some reason Mary was going to be alone, obviously long widowed, and given the way that relationships were referred to in various cultures throughout time, it would be plausible that these "siblings" were not Mary's children.

 

 

A couple of years ago I came to the point where I didn't see enough evidence on either side to say that it's die hard one way or the other. I'm on the fence and leaning :)

[Brindee]

Please elaborate! I am not the world's expert on history (I am not even the house's expert...) and I am always willing to learn.

 

Kind regards,

Patty Joanna

I'm not a house expert either, both my sons do so much better than I in all things historical! :001_smile:

 

I'm just thinking of people I know--I have Four-Square, Baptist, Seventh-day Adventist and some non-denominational friends that believe that she was a virgin until after Jesus birth, then she and Joseph had normal marital relations. There may be other denominations that believe that as well, these are just people I know.

 

I'm not trying to argue, I hope you can tell that, just adding that some Christian believe differently. :001_smile:

[Pamela H in Texas]

Joanna (and others)...

 

what do you take the wheat and weeds story to mean?

(depending on your answer, you may or may not see the relevance of this question)

 

Another similar question: what does the light gets brighter (Prov 4:18) mean?

[Pamela H in Texas]

Thanks for your answer Patty Joanna. I think those interpretations are great for personal growth. They don't seem to make it relevant to the thread, but that is okay. I was just wondering.

[tricia]

I believe you! Really! But not everyone else always plays nice around here.

 

 

Sorry, messed up my post and don't know how to delete it. I'll try again.

Edited August 7, 2009 by tricia

[tricia]

trying to start an argument. I just never knew and want to understand. Just looking for info.

Here is what I wanted to write but copied the wrong quote. Silly me.

 

 

I have a question too. Why does everyone have to be sooooo on the defense? Are we not all civil, loving, mature adults? And I am NOT trying to be a smart aleck either. I just think it's kind of sad that we can't respect one another's thoughts, feelings, and ideologies.

[Lovedtodeath]

I have a question too. Why does everyone have to be sooooo on the defense? Are we not all civil, loving, mature adults? And I am NOT trying to be a smart aleck either. I just think it's kind of sad that we can't respect one another's thoughts, feelings, and ideologies.

It is sad that we can't ask questions without prefacing them isn't it?

 

In any case, for me, the answer to whether Mary remained a virgin or not is not a teaching that I would consider central enough to make me determine which denomination to choose.

 

Pamela, for me the point of the wheat and the weeds that I think of first is that they grow together, indistinguishable from one another for a time. The scripture that I thought of was 2 Thes 2:3, though I would like to look into it further...

Edited August 7, 2009 by Lovedtodeath

[Joanne]

I mean no disrespect to the denominations which hold the ever virgin view.

 

But I have a huge problem with it.

 

It elevates *virginity* (post marriage) to a desirable state. It imbues abstinence in marriage with virtue. It denigrates the physicalness of marriage, the desire for coupling AND God's own design for marriage.

 

Sex is a good, healthy, functioning part of a good marriage. I can't understand why God would want to deny Mary and Joseph the reality of marriage he created.

 

Part of the miracle of Jesus is his very humanity. That includes living in a fully human, normally functioning family of his culture.

 

Christians have enough issues around sexuality. I think Mary as ever virgin is a part of that and I believe it to be extra Biblical.

[happygrrl]

As a Catholic who was raised Syrian Orthodox I find your explanations to be just beautifully stated with great respect and reverence. You have a real gift for explaining ideas that are incredibly subtle and often complex without ever oversimplifying . You are a treasure here.

 

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

[OrganicAnn]

I mean no disrespect to the denominations which hold the ever virgin view.

 

But I have a huge problem with it.

 

It elevates *virginity* (post marriage) to a desirable state.

 

Catholics definitely believe that s*x within marriage is good, recommended and even required. The idea of the Virgin Mary is not a comment on s*x or no s*x in marriage, but may be more an idea of purity/godliness in relationship to Jesus.

 

You never hear Catholics trying to get science classes to change to allow that a virgin can have a baby. It is more an exception, an idea of faith that it is was so over reason, and for some more of a metaphor/symbol.

[iwka]

The majority of Christendom believes in Mary's perpetual virginity (Catholics and Orthodox). As the OP asked for the info, not a debate :-), here are the basics from the Catholic point of view:

 

A good and to the point explanation would be here (answering some of the concepts voiced already in this thread):

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0007sbs.asp

 

Catholic Catechism on perpetual virginity:

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resource.php?n=37

 

Early church fathers believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary(this belief is known today from a document written in 150 AD) http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9112frs.asp

 

and more is here:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp

 

Historically, once established, Christian Church (Catholic) believed in Mary's perpetual virginity until Reformation. Luther never argued with it, as far as I remember. Since then different Protestant denominations have different opinions, and we have over 25,000 of them.

Edited August 7, 2009 by iwka

[Lovedtodeath]

 

The idea of the Virgin Mary is not a comment on s*x or no s*x in marriage, but may be more an idea of purity/godliness in relationship to Jesus.

I don't understand this comment. It still seems that purity and godliness are related to not having sex in marriage. That is simply not true. It is abundantly clear that one can have sex within marriage and still be chaste, pure, and godly. In fact, the scriptures say not to deprive your mate of it.

[Lovedtodeath]

Historically, once established, Christian Church (Catholic) believed in Mary's perpetual virginity until Reformation. Luther never argued with it, as far as I remember. Since then different Protestant denominations have different opinions, and we have over 25,000 of them.

 

Just a comment that the Christian congregation was established well before Catholicism. Acts chapter 15 shows us how the Christian congregation was organized.

[CherylG]

I think Iwka meant holy, catholic, apostolic Church. Catholic meaning the one true Church, like in the Nicene Creed that was established in the 300s.

Edited August 7, 2009 by CherylG

[5kidsforME]

I mean no disrespect to the denominations which hold the ever virgin view.

 

But I have a huge problem with it.

 

It elevates *virginity* (post marriage) to a desirable state. It imbues abstinence in marriage with virtue. It denigrates the physicalness of marriage, the desire for coupling AND God's own design for marriage.

 

Sex is a good, healthy, functioning part of a good marriage. I can't understand why God would want to deny Mary and Joseph the reality of marriage he created.

 

Part of the miracle of Jesus is his very humanity. That includes living in a fully human, normally functioning family of his culture.

 

Christians have enough issues around sexuality. I think Mary as ever virgin is a part of that and I believe it to be extra Biblical.

 

Mary was either always a virgin or a virgin until she and Josph consumated the marriage. It is what it is, we may never know the truth until we go to heaven and are able to find out.

 

I don't see this one thing that certain people believe as hurting marital sex. I have a feeling even without this some people have a problem with sex, this isn't the thing they go around saying caused their problem.

 

Have you read Song of Soloman?? If not I encourage you to read it.

[LMA]

I don't understand this comment. It still seems that purity and godliness are related to not having sex in marriage. That is simply not true. It is abundantly clear that one can have sex within marriage and still be chaste, pure, and godly. In fact, the scriptures say not to deprive your mate of it.

 

There's more to it than just that. Mary is the Mother of God. This is Catholic belief and it means more than just giving birth. She was conceived without any Original Sin. This is the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin. She did not have relations with St. Joseph and remained a virgin. She also did not die like an ordinary human. Another dogma is that she was assumed into heaven, meaning she was taken body and soul into heaven (Assumption dogma). The key to all of this is that she was not stained by Original Sin, as the rest of the human race.

 

Of course, I have to go now. More errands to run.

[LMA]

Just a comment that the Christian congregation was established well before Catholicism. Acts chapter 15 shows us how the Christian congregation was organized.

 

The Catholic Church was established with St. Peter.

[Joanne]

Mary was either always a virgin or a virgin until she and Josph consumated the marriage. It is what it is, we may never know the truth until we go to heaven and are able to find out.

 

I don't see this one thing that certain people believe as hurting marital sex. I have a feeling even without this some people have a problem with sex, this isn't the thing they go around saying caused their problem.

 

Have you read Song of Soloman?? If not I encourage you to read it.

__________________

 

:confused:

 

I do believe in the miracle of Jesus' conception. I do believe Mary and Joseph abstained until after Jesus' birth.

 

I think you read a lot into my post that doesn't quite "fit" or belong.

 

And the earthy, raw, passionate love in the Song of Solomon is one reason I celebrate the physical union God gave married couples and why putting "ever virgin" on Mary is anathema to me.

 

I've read the whole Bible, btw.

[MyFourSons]

The problem is in translation, which is a tricky business at best, a downright dangerous business at worst because it can lead to so many misinterpretations and misunderstanding. Here is an explanation as to why the translation of "brother and sisters" from the original Hebrew to Greek is dicey and may be misleading-

 

 

"Hebrew, which is the original language of the Old Testament, and Aramaic, which is the language spoken by the Jews of Israel in Jesus’ day, do not have a word for cousin, nephew, or various other kinsmen. To say “cousin†in Hebrew or Aramaic, one must either say “son of my father’s brother†or, the more common choice, “brother†(Heb. ach). Your Bible in English will probably tell you in Genesis 14:14 that Lot is Abraham’s “nephew†or “kinsman.†There is no question that Lot is the son of Abraham’s brother (Gen. 12:5) and thus his nephew. But the typical translation of Genesis 14:14, as “nephew†or “kinsman,†is a dynamic one. The literal translation of Genesis 14:14 actually says that Lot is Abraham’s brother. Why?

When Jews translated the Old Testament into Greek -- the version called the “Septuagint†or “LXX†-- they had two options. They could translate Genesis 14:14 dynamically, because Greek has a word that means “nephew.†On the other hand, they could translate it literally as “brother,†following the Hebrew expression or idiom. Because they were Jews who understood the Hebrew idiom, they chose the Greek word adelphos (brother) as a translation of ach (brother, relative). This is a consistent practice in the Old Testament.[2] In contrast, the English translators use a dynamic translation and call Lot Abraham’s nephew.

It’s All Greek to Me

When the New Testament authors wrote in Greek, they too were faced with a choice. Jesus, His family, and His disciples spoke Aramaic. The audience of these authors generally used the Septuagint version of Sacred Scripture and were accustomed to the Aramaic idiom. The authors could follow the example of the Septuagint[3] and the Aramaic idiom, calling cousins and other kinsmen “brothers,†or they could use a dynamic translation, such as the Greek word anepsios (cousin). They chose to follow the Aramaic idiom, which was the most natural choice given their sources, and thus used the word adelphos (or the plural, adelphoi) for cousins and kinsmen. In contrast to the dynamic translations of the Old Testament, English translations often translate the New Testament literally and use the word “brother.â€

The Greek word for “cousin†does not appear in the Gospels, perhaps indicating the use of the Aramaic idiom for “cousin.†Nor does the use of the word “relative†(kinswoman) for Elizabeth in Luke 1:36 disprove that the idiom for “cousin†was intended elsewhere. However, we know that the New Testament writers followed the Aramaic idiom because certain people were not “brothers†or “sisters†even though the literal translation implies it.

Matthew 27:56 and Mark 15:40 speak of Mary, the mother of James and Joseph. In Matthew 27:61 and 28:1, she is referred to as “the other Mary.†John 19:25 identifies this Mary as the wife of Clopas, the adelphe (sister) of Jesus’ mother, Mary. When reading these gospels, particularly John’s, it is clear that three different women were at the foot of the cross, and all three had the name “Mary.†Were Mary the wife of Clopas and Jesus’ mother actually sisters as the Gospel of John states? It is very unlikely that two children of the same parents would be given the same name, so adelphe seems to be used by the New Testament authors in a broader sense here (cousin, kinswoman).

As noted above, Mary, the wife of Clopas is also the mother of James and Joseph. However, both men are described as the “brothers†(adelphoi) of Jesus in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3. How can this be? If Mary the wife of Clopas is the cousin (adelphe) of Mary the mother of Jesus, and she is also the mother of James and Joseph, then clearly these men are not Jesus’ biological brothers. Rather, they are His cousins. In other words, in Matthew 13:55 adelphoi is being used in the Aramaic idiom (“cousinsâ€) rather than its literal Greek meaning (“brothersâ€). In addition, because James and Joseph are grouped with Jesus’ other “brothers and sisters†in Matthew 13 and Mark 6, we can logically conclude that these other brothers and sisters are Jesus’ cousins too.

There is no linguistic reason to believe that this is not true of all Jesus’ “brothers and sisters.†Because adelphoi does not always refer to literal brothers in New Testament Greek usage, Jesus’ “brothers and sisters†cannot form the basis of a conclusive argument against Mary’s Perpetual Virginity."

 

If you want to read the rest of the article which explains the other arguments for Mary's virginity according to Catholic doctrine, you can do so here:

 

http://www.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=27

 

I'm not trying to be argumentative either, just trying to shed some light on what is actually taught in the Catholic church.

[MyFourSons]

By the way, the fact that various translations can so distort the orginal meaning of a text is the reason why the church was so weary to allow the Bible to be translated from Latin into modern languages. It was not to supress the information, if you attend church regularly you will hear the entire Bible read as part of the liturgy. It was to ensure that the sacred text was not distorted due to incomplete or inaccurate translations, and the interpretation and meaning would be preserved. That is how Christianity managed to maintain the same set of orthodox beliefs for 1500 years. It is interesting that today, when we have thousands of different translations, there are so many disagreements over what this passage or that passage, what that word means, or what this word means, that many people today are turned off and confused by the Bible. Just my own take on the history of it all.

[CatMomof3]

Nothing to add, just wanted to say I agree with the last two posts.

[MyFourSons]

Just a comment that the Christian congregation was established well before Catholicism. Acts chapter 15 shows us how the Christian congregation was organized.

 

I don't think you understand, Catholicism was not established after Christianity, they were one in the same until the schism with the Eastern Orthodox church. Even then, the two churches split over political reasons, not doctrinal issues, and the Orthodox church holds the same views about the virginity of Mary. It wasn't until the reformation that certain people started holding the view that "Christianity" could be seperated from "Catholocism" because it was the Catholic Church that defined what it meant to be a Christian.

 

So to say that Christianity was founded before Catholocism is a historical inaccuracy. Although the term Catholocism wasn't used until 110 AD, there was a continuity of leadership and doctrine from the very beginning until that point. It was the year 110 AD when St. Ignatius of Antioch is credited with being the first to use the term Catholic (which means universal) to refer to the church. Although people started using this new descriptive term to describe the church, because it was the first truly universal religion, the new name did not change the beliefs or the practices, and people still called themselves Christians. It remained the same church founded by Jesus and spread by the apostles.

 

Ignorance of history is ignorance of your own faith.

Edited August 7, 2009 by MyFourSons

[5kidsforME]

:confused:

 

I do believe in the miracle of Jesus' conception. I do believe Mary and Joseph abstained until after Jesus' birth.

 

I think you read a lot into my post that doesn't quite "fit" or belong.

 

And the earthy, raw, passionate love in the Song of Solomon is one reason I celebrate the physical union God gave married couples and why putting "ever virgin" on Mary is anathema to me.

 

I've read the whole Bible, btw.

 

What I'm trying to say in reference to your first post, is that just because some people believe that Mary was always a virgin, does not mean that sex is wrong nor should the conclusion from that be that being a virgin inside the marriage be a sought after thing.

 

Basically what I'm trying to say is, I highly doubt people are having a problem with virginity (or lack thereof) because some believe Mary was a married virgin.

[Joanne]

Basically what I'm trying to say is, I highly doubt people are having a problem with virginity (or lack thereof) because some believe Mary was a married virgin.

 

Ok. I think I get what you are trying to say.

 

I am trying to say that asserting Mary as an ever virgin is on a continuum of "sexual discomfort and issues" that I see the Christian community struggle with.

 

It's also important to know that while I respect and value Catholic tradition, history and culture, I do not agree with some of the doctrine. Protestant fits me.

[mommaduck]

Ok. I think I get what you are trying to say.

 

I am trying to say that asserting Mary as an ever virgin is on a continuum of "sexual discomfort and issues" that I see the Christian community struggle with.

 

It's also important to know that while I respect and value Catholic tradition, history and culture, I do not agree with some of the doctrine. Protestant fits me.

 

Only certain people within the Christian community have a wrong view of sex and intimacy. Their views stem more from unbalanced thinking on the subject or past abuses...much the same as non-Christian people that also have a wrong view of sex and intimacy. Some of these ppl will pull from certain things (like parts of religious belief), twist it, and use it as a tool to back up their wrong view. The belief itself does not CAUSE these wrong views though ;)

 

Oh, and there are Protestants that hold to this same view of Mary.

Edited August 7, 2009 by mommaduck

[mommaduck]

I don't think you understand, Catholicism was not established after Christianity, they were one in the same until the schism with the Eastern Orthodox church. Even then, the two churches split over political reasons, not doctrinal issues, and the Orthodox church holds the same views about the virginity of Mary. It wasn't until the reformation that certain people started holding the view that "Christianity" could be seperated from "Catholocism" because it was the Catholic Church that defined what it meant to be a Christian.

 

So to say that Christianity was founded before Catholocism is a historical inaccuracy. Although the term Catholocism wasn't used until 110 AD, there was a continuity of leadership and doctrine from the very beginning until that point. It was the year 110 AD when St. Ignatius of Antioch is credited with being the first to use the term Catholic (which means universal) to refer to the church. Although people started using this new descriptive term to describe the church, because it was the first truly universal religion, the new name did not change the beliefs or the practices, and people still called themselves Christians. It remained the same church founded by Jesus and spread by the apostles.

 

Ignorance of history is ignorance of your own faith.

 

They split over both reasons ;)

[OnTheBrink]

Only certain people within the Christian community have a wrong view of sex and intimacy. Their views stem more from unbalanced thinking on the subject or past abuses...much the same as non-Christian people that also have a wrong view of sex and intimacy. Some of these ppl will pull from certain things (like parts of religious belief), twist it, and use it as a tool to back up their wrong view. The belief itself does not CAUSE these wrong views though ;)

 

Oh, and there are Protestants that hold to this same view of Mary.

 

Excellent post.:iagree:

[lionfamily1999]

Jesus loved John the best, ;)

THANK YOU! I've been trying to figure out who was the most loved (they didn't mention his name?!?)

 

anyway, thanks, I needed that information :)

I mean no disrespect to the denominations which hold the ever virgin view.

 

But I have a huge problem with it.

 

It elevates *virginity* (post marriage) to a desirable state. It imbues abstinence in marriage with virtue. It denigrates the physicalness of marriage, the desire for coupling AND God's own design for marriage.

 

Sex is a good, healthy, functioning part of a good marriage. I can't understand why God would want to deny Mary and Joseph the reality of marriage he created.

 

Part of the miracle of Jesus is his very humanity. That includes living in a fully human, normally functioning family of his culture.

 

Christians have enough issues around sexuality. I think Mary as ever virgin is a part of that and I believe it to be extra Biblical.

Paul says that there should be sex in marraige. He also says that if it's okay for both, abstainence is better for you anyway. At one point, it seems like marraige, according to Paul, is specifically for sex. IOW, if you can't stop thinking about it, then get hitched.

 

It really doesn't matter to me one way or another, whether or not Mary stayed a virgin. She was a virgin when she had him, she raised him and only lost him once :lol: (that makes me feel better for misplacing kids in a store, at least I was only a few feet away). He loved her, but he did not elevate her above anyone else (who is my mother?), so I don't try to either.

[CLHCO]

I am trying to say that asserting Mary as an ever virgin is on a continuum of "sexual discomfort and issues" that I see the Christian community struggle with.

 

 

And your evidence for this is your personal experience with Christianity and s*x, or do you have something documented to base this on? From the studies I have seen in the last few years (not going back to the pervert Kinsey), it's the conservative Christian women having the most fun in the bedroom. I think it's an assumption put forth through secular views that says anything that gives restrictions to sensual pleasure of any kind must have discomfort and issues, but there's nothing like a bit of clean living to relax the baggage and let the fun take over. :D

 

My grandparents were devout Catholics who birthed 14 children and believed in the virginity of Mary. I'm guessing they didn't have discomfort issues?

[mommaduck]

She was a virgin when she had him, she raised him and only lost him once :lol: (that makes me feel better for misplacing kids in a store, at least I was only a few feet away).

 

:lol::lol:

[MyFourSons]

They split over both reasons ;)

 

Yes, but the doctrinal issues that they disagreed on were not important enough for the differing views to be considered unorthodox. The only real difference was the Western take on the Trinity, and their clarification in the Creed that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son," while the Eastern Church wanted to maintain the wording within the creed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, without mentioning the Son. This difference seems quite small, and almost petty, but to the Eastern Church it was seen as very important. But it can be seen as the proverbial straw that broke the camels back. The split was the culmination of years of conflict caused by cultural (latin vs. greek, the use of icons, etc.) and political (the power of the Patriarch and Church Councils vs. the authority of the Pope), and even geographical differences. The fact that both traditions are still seen as being doctrinally orthodox is why the Eastern Orthodox church is invited to participage in the Eucharist during Roman Catholic masses, while Protestants are asked to refrain from taking communion as their beliefs are not "in communion" with Catholics when it comes to the sacrament. The same is allowed of Catholics in Orthodox churches, they may take communion and participate as though they were regular adherents.

 

So while the split was doctrinal to some degree, the political and cultural differences came to head with a power struggle between East and West that ended in schism.

Edited August 7, 2009 by MyFourSons

[japhmi]

One of the clearest thing is in Luke 1. The Angel Gabriel says that Mary "will conceive in your womb, and bring forth a son" to which Mary is confused, because she is a Virgin. Note however, that the Angel uses the future tense. He goes to an engaged woman and tells her that at some future time she will conceive. If she was expecting normal marital relations with Joseph, she would haven't have been confused.

[Joanne]

One of the clearest thing is in Luke 1. The Angel Gabriel says that Mary "will conceive in your womb, and bring forth a son" to which Mary is confused, because she is a Virgin. Note however, that the Angel uses the future tense. He goes to an engaged woman and tells her that at some future time she will conceive. If she was expecting normal marital relations with Joseph, she would haven't have been confused.

 

This thread isn't about Mary being a virgin when Jesus was conceived. I don't think Christians dispute her virginity up to the birth of Jesus at all.