 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
jsking1964
Member
| Joined: | Sat Dec 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | Texas USA |
| Posts: | 58 |
| First Name: | Benedict | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Basically I have been a Christian all my life, and ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 23rd, 2007 10:31 pm |
|
Ever since I started my personal journey home, I have developed an appreciation for certain protestant ministries. There are those that I have followed over the years, and even one that I support. However, there is this one ministry that got me to thinking about some things that have challenged what I believe. One of the major things that I have had to think about is about Mary. Now, unless something has changed in the world of medical science, a virgin is someone who has not had a child by birth.
That being said, and knowing that Mary has given birth to Christ, how is it that we think of her as the virgin Mary? Also, it seems to me that she ultimately married Joseph because the New Testament makes reference to Christ having brothers, and yet still we refer to Mary as the virgin Mary.
Now, I am not going to sit here and say that I am going stop my search and revert back to Protestantism. In fact, wheather there is a proven answer to this question or not, I am still going to pursue my journey. I just think that this is intresting, and it is something that I never thought about before until it was brought up to me in this program.
____________________
Your friend in Christ, +
JS Benedict
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemed. Mark 16:16
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2096 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 23rd, 2007 10:57 pm |
|
Indeed, Jason, this is something that you must consider.
Here’s what I see. Mary herself defines her virginity informally in scripture as not having had sexual relations (Luke 1:34: “I do not know man”). This is also the dictionary definition. (From The Collaborative International Dictionary online: “A woman who has had no carnal knowledge of man; a maid.”) Furthermore, it is accepted in other parts of the bible, for instance, in Revelation 14:4 it refers to the pure as “they who were not defiled with women; for they are virgins.” Again in Judges 21:12 the text refers to “young virgins who had not known man.” This is quite different from the definition you are proposing.
David
|
|
|
jsking1964
Member
| Joined: | Sat Dec 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | Texas USA |
| Posts: | 58 |
| First Name: | Benedict | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Basically I have been a Christian all my life, and ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 24th, 2007 12:53 am |
|
Hi David,
Please know that I was not trying to argue the point or anything like that. As I said, I was watching a Protestant minister on TV and this was stuff that he pointed out. His original question, and title of his message, was 'Jesus-Fact or Fiction.' I guess that he was trying to see if the birth story of Jesus was put into the same group of stories that float around during the Christmas season (i.e., Rudolph, Santa Claus.)
Now, eventhough I am still following some of my favorite ministers on TV, I do not think I am going to follow this one because he looked only at the New Testament in forming his answer to this question. I guess some are good, and some are bad. The good thing though is that MOST of the ministries that I follow are on EWTN.
____________________
Your friend in Christ, +
JS Benedict
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemed. Mark 16:16
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5353 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 24th, 2007 01:12 am |
|
jsking1964 wrote: a virgin is someone who has not had a child by birth.
Actually, that's not a correct definition. A woman who has had a child by Caesarean section is not a virgin. A woman who has never been pregnant but has had sexual intercourse is not a virgin.
A virgin is a person who has not had sexual intercourse. A man may be a virgin as well as a woman. It is not a gender specific term.
The tradition of the Church, as found in the non-canonical Protoevangelion of James (also called the Infancy Gospel of James), is that Joseph was a widower with children from a prior marriage. You'll find a link to that gospel at Early Christian Writings. This is not considered an inspired writing and its contents are not binding on the faithful, but it is considered an authentic text apparently written by James the Less, one of Jesus' half brothers who later became head of the Church at Jerusalem. (Joseph was legally Jesus' father so his other children would have been Jesus' half-siblings even though they had no true blood relationship.)
Also, it is well known that in Semitic languages such as Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic, even today, there is no word for "cousin" and that the term "brother" is commonly used to refer to any close male relative.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 1659 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Evangelical (1977): Diverse Protestant Influences / Catholic in 1990 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 24th, 2007 04:36 pm |
|
One must understand that Mary's Virginity is miraculous in every aspect. Jesus' conception was miraculous (since it did not come about through the natural means). And the birth was miraculous. The Church teaches that Mary was a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Jesus (hence, "perpetual virgin."). The teaching concerning "during" the birth (referred to in Latin as in partu), however, is not specifically set out in all details.
For various arguments and dialogues with Protestants about the "brothers" of Jesus, see my articles:
Replies to Protestants' Alleged Biblical Disproofs of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary
Dialogue on Supposed Biblical Disproofs of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary: Round Two (+ Part Two / Part Three)
Dialogue on Supposed Biblical Disproofs of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary: Round Three
Luther, Calvin, and Other Early Protestants on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary
Why Catholics Believe in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary
Blog Group Discussion on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, With Protestants (Part II - includes the entire section on this subject from my book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, starting here)
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 2000+ papers & web pages (absolutely free) & 16 apologetic books (for sale):
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 1659 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Evangelical (1977): Diverse Protestant Influences / Catholic in 1990 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 24th, 2007 04:51 pm |
|
Here is sampling of some of the exegetical reasoning that I use in my book, mentioned above:
* * * * *
1) In Luke 2:41-51: the story of Mary and Joseph taking Jesus to the temple at the age of twelve, it is fairly obvious that Jesus is the only child. Since everyone agrees He was the first child of Mary, if there were up to five or more siblings, as some maintain (arguing, for example, from Matthew 13:55), they were nowhere to be found at this time. This passage alone furnishes a strong argument for the implausibility of the "literal brothers" theory.
2) Jesus Himself uses "brethren" in the larger sense. In Matthew 23:8 He calls the "crowds" and His "disciples" (23:1) "brethren." In other words, they are each other's "brothers" (that is, the brotherhood of Christians). In Matthew 12:49-50 He calls His disciples and all who do the will of His Father "my brothers."
3) By comparing Matthew 27:56, Mark 15:40, and John 19:25, we find that James and Joseph -- mentioned in Matthew 13:55 with Simon and Jude as Jesus' "brothers" -- are also called sons of Mary, wife of Clopas. This other Mary (Matthew 27:61, 28:1) is called Our Lady's adelphe in John 19:25 (it isn't likely that there were two women named "Mary" in one family -- thus even this usage apparently means "cousin" or more distant relative). Matthew 13:55-56 and Mark 6:3 mention Simon, Jude and "sisters" along with James and Joseph, calling all adelphoi. Since we know for sure at least James and Joseph are not Jesus' blood brothers, the most likely interpretation of Matthew 13:55 is that all these "brothers" are cousins, according to the linguistic conventions discussed above. At the very least, the term "brother" is not determinative in and of itself.
[ . . .]
5) Mary is committed to the care of the Apostle John by Jesus from the Cross (John 19:26-27). Many Protestant interpreters agree with the Catholic view that Jesus likely wouldn't have done this if He had brothers (who would all have been younger than He was). Many Church Fathers held this interpretation, including St. Athanasius, St. Epiphanius, St. Hilary, St. Jerome, and St. Ambrose, and used it in the defense of Mary's perpetual virginity.
[ . . .]
These conclusions are not merely the result of "Catholic bias" and special pleading, as many charge. For example, the prominent Protestant Commentary on the Whole Bible, by Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, comments on Matthew 13:55: An exceedingly difficult question here arises - What were these "brethren" and "sisters" to Jesus? Were they, First, His full brothers and sisters? or, Secondly, Were they His step-brothers and step-sisters, children of Joseph by a former marriage? or, Thirdly, Were they His cousins, according to a common way of speaking among the Jews respecting persons of collateral descent? On this subject an immense deal has been written, nor are opinions yet by any means agreed . . . In addition to other objections, many of the best interpreters, . . . prefer the third opinion . . . Thus dubiously we prefer to leave this vexed question, encompassed as it is with difficulties.
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 2000+ papers & web pages (absolutely free) & 16 apologetic books (for sale):
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
Current time is 04:48 am | |
|
|
|
|
|
