Another point concerning the perpetual virginity of Mary the mother of Jesus.

If Mary was engaged to marry Joseph, I would imagine that she envisaged a normal marriage with him, with sexual relations. Then the Angel of the Lord informed her of her impending motherhood, with impregnation by the Holy Spirit.

After Jesus birth, I wonder what happens in her marital relationship with Joseph. I would imagine Joseph would expect normal marital relations to exist, otherwise I would imagine divorce would occur.

Also, the vows in Christian marriages say the body of one partner belongs to the other. To not fulfil the marriage vows, by sexual intercourse, is against the reason for marriage, ie. to produce offspring.

So Mary would have always believed in normal marital relations by the act of becoming engaged to Joseph. Stories regarding her “nunship” do not ring true to me.

The concept of sex being sinful came in during the 6th century, in an age of error by leading priests. This, along with the misinterpreted bible section about Mary being the source of all grace (due to Latin bible error), and the influx of pagan ideas coming into the early church (worship of Isis, being translated into worship of Mary) - all these combined errors have led to Mary being considered without sin, perpetual virgin etc

See mariology

Ken

So Mary would have always believed in normal marital relations by the act of becoming engaged to Joseph. Stories regarding her “nunship” do not ring true to me.

It’s a pity that you manage to lock horns on ignorance so close to your return to posting priviledges, Ken… *wonders if there is any point replying*

You are doing as much conjecture here to assume Mary was “just another girl”, as tradition does in holding her to be a virgin post the birth of Jesus. The base line is: we don’t know. And to some extent, we can’t know.

Besides, it may not be in Scripture plainly spelled out (and let’s face it, the various words and phrases are ambiguous)… Sure thing, whatever can’t be found in Scripture can’t become an obligation of belief for us Anglicans. But just because it *isn’t* in Scripture doesn’t make it anathema, or unworthy of belief. I believe in the right to wash my car on a Saturday morning (albeit with a bucket and sponge *rolleyes*). That’s not plainly written in Scripture - because it isn’t necessary that it be in Scripture.

And another thing: it being in Scripture doesn’t mean it isn’t true. What one has to remember is that in the first 300 or so years of the church’s history - and even beyond that - people weren’t 100% sure of the nature of Christ and his work of salvation. If Christ and salvation are the most important aspects of faith, and they were not solidified until at least 400 or so, how much more so ambiguity is there about other things?

Having said that, the perpetual virginity of Mary was an item of belief for many in the first 300 years of the church. I don’t have time right now to do searches for the info, but I know it’s out there; my Catholic friends were very fond of quoting the polemic at me… ;)

The concept of sex being sinful came in during the 6th century, in an age of error by leading priests. This, along with the misinterpreted bible section about Mary being the source of all grace (due to Latin bible error), and the influx of pagan ideas coming into the early church (worship of Isis, being translated into worship of Mary) - all these combined errors have led to Mary being considered without sin, perpetual virgin etc

I am going to point out also, that the Calvinist belief in the total depravity of humankind is related to the Hellenistic belief that sex is vile. Calvinism draws heavily on some select parts of St Augustine (I say select parts, because if Calvinism drew on the greater part of St Augustine, everyone would be catholic), and St Augustine had a very famously distorted view of the body and sex post his conversion. The Confessions are all about seeking God through “the mansions of the mind” as an antidote and recompense for all the sins of the flesh he committed before his conversion.

In fact, it’s not strictly fair to restrict the bad influence of Augustine to Calvinism. Augustine’s view of the corrupt nature of the flesh, and sinful nature of sex, pervaded the entire Western Christian world. It is unfair in any case, Ken, to lay the blame for the despite of sex at the feet of the catholic church; Protestantism has been no less to blame for a twisted view of human sexuality.

Rubbish. Hellenism (ie the belief that the soul was immortal and pure, and the body was vile and corrupt) was an issue in the church from earliest times. Sex was sinful, not in and of itself, but because the body in sex usurped the domination of the will. The monastic movement - which initially was exactly about celibate, ascetic people living in community or as hermits - was in full swing by 200. This shows the belief in the body as a thing of contempt, sinful, corrupt, was very much the flavour of the month that early on. It was yet another thing for debate in the early church.

Misinterpreted phrase about Mary being the source of all grace being a Latin error? Um, I hadn’t heard that one before. Besides, by all means continue to disdain Catholicism and all things catholic, but the whole purpose of the Vulgate was so those who only spoke and read Latin could read the Scriptures in their own tongue. Of course there are going to be translational errors, just as there are translational errors today even in spite of the huge amount of biblical scholarship that has been done to date. And also remember, this Vulgate was the main way the Scriptures were preserved until the rediscovery of Greek in the 12th Century. Even then, the Greek texts relating to biblical works were not available (or discovered) until the dawn of the Reformation, when the Printing press was invented. THat’s a period of about 1200 years between the translation of the Vulgate and the discovery of texts that would throw other light on the subject.

In spite of this though, there were other Latin translations floating around in the 400s - we don’t hear about them much today because they were superceded by the Vulgate, it being the more complete and full translation, and probably for its time, more accurate.

And how many times do we have to tell you: Mary is not to be worshipped. No catholic believes she should be worshipped: worship belongs to God alone. The misconception in Protestant circles that Mary is worshipped is a gross slur made against catholics out of spite, hatred, and ignorance. The meaning of “venerate” when used of the Blessed Virgin means for me: respecting her for her willingness to obey God, honouring her as the mother of Christ, and loving her because it was through her body that Jesus was made incarnate. Any dulia ascribed to Mary is only ascribed because of the importance of her role in salvation. Mary does not save. But her son did and does.

There is no evidence, save tradition, to support this, but the common belief is that Joseph, when he married Mary, was an elderly chap. Considering that Mary is supposed to have only been about 14 or 15 at the time, all sorts of things could be conjectured about the nature of the relationship between Joseph and Mary. For all we know, he may simply have been desirous of giving her a home, and looking after her. He may simply have been looking for someone to cook and clean for him. Who really knows?

However, your other posts here have shown me that what I have probably said will fall on deaf ears. You can bring a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink. I suppose I shouldn’t react and attempt to dispell ignorance when those who are ignorant don’t want to be disillusioned of that ignorance. But I do know there are people on this forum who DO want to know - and it is for their sake I have answered your appalling claims, Ken.

What an ugly rant, Nunc. I was sorry to read it.

But there’s one point I want to make.

And how many times do we have to tell you: Mary is not to be worshipped. No catholic believes she should be worshipped: worship belongs to God alone. The misconception in Protestant circles that Mary is worshipped is a gross slur made against catholics out of spite, hatred, and ignorance.

I understand fully. I disagree. Simple really.

You state that you are answering ignorance. Please leave room for another possibility: that you have communicated well & frequently, but that I (& perhaps others too) are far from convinced.

[quote author="Chris Little"]

And how many times do we have to tell you: Mary is not to be worshipped. No catholic believes she should be worshipped: worship belongs to God alone. The misconception in Protestant circles that Mary is worshipped is a gross slur made against catholics out of spite, hatred, and ignorance.

I understand fully. I disagree. Simple really.

You state that you are answering ignorance. Please leave room for another possibility: that you have communicated well & frequently, but that I (& perhaps others too) are far from convinced.

So, what you are saying Chris, is that no matter what Catholics/catholics say, you believe they worship Mary.

If you are not going to accept what people say, why the hell should anyone bother saying anything.  And a logical conclusion is why don’t I just say Sydney Evangelicals are Calvinistic morons who worship the Bible—and I don’t care if you say it isn’t true: as I’m not convinced by your arguments!?!? 

There is really no point in any discussion if people are simply going to ignore facts presented before them.  And to my mind, there is absolutely no point being here and having discussions if people are going to persist in ill-informed and uninformed opinion.

I always understood the main objection to the Roman Catholic doctrines of the immaculate conception, perpetual virginity and bodily ascension into heaven of the Blessed Virgin Mary, to be that members of that church did not just have the option of believing them (as Nunc you seem to) but were actually required to believe them, and were in grave error if they did not.

As to veneration/worship, I think we have probably all seen television pictures of those Mediterranean countries where statues of the Virgin Mary are held aloft in the strees, midst all sorts of strange rituals.  I am sure if you asked the priests what they were doing, they would correctly point out that it was ‘veneration’ and not ‘worship’ - but I wonder if the less educated laity are well acquainted with the distinction.

Surely a significant problem with venerating the Virgin Mary is that it might draw the credulous into worship, and thereby lead a ‘weaker brother’ away from rather than towards the Lord.

Also, the vows in Christian marriages say the body of one partner belongs to the other. To not fulfil the marriage vows, by sexual intercourse, is against the reason for marriage, ie. to produce offspring.

Hmmmmmm - remind me to let my quadraplegic friend know this.  That he is not legally married to his wife before God because they’ve never been able to have sex at all.  I’m sure he’ll love you for it Ken.

Who Wrote The New Testament

I don’t completely know all that happened, but I believe people are willing to draw a long bow to bow to Catholic dogma about Mary.

Talk about a Perpetual Virgin, Nunc Dimittis must surely be the Perpetual Fly in the Ointment on this website.

Also Mike said:

Hmmmmmm - remind me to let my quadraplegic friend know this. That he is not legally married to his wife before God because they’ve never been able to have sex at all. I’m sure he’ll love you for it Ken. 

Does your friend and his wife do anything sexual in their relationship? I am sure they may have a very loving relationship despite his handicap.
(Also in logical argument there is a rule that the exception only proves the rule, it doesn’t disprove it.)

Ken

Re: Who Wrote The New Testament

[quote author="Ken Austin"]
Talk about a Perpetual Virgin, Nunc Dimittis must surely be the Perpetual Fly in the Ointment on this website.

!!!  What the hell is that about?!?!

Heaven forbid Nunc should want to try and correct an uninformed tirade...perhaps everyone who disagrees should be banned from these boards: then all you Sydney evangelicals can have endless discussions congratulating yourself on being correct and being proud that you are inheritors of “The One Truth Faith”—and all the pagan catholics out there are misguided and on their way to Hell.

I know I am done here.

Ken… you really have a problem.  Get some help.

Re: Who Wrote The New Testament

Ken,

[quote author="Ken Austin"]Talk about a Perpetual Virgin, Nunc Dimittis must surely be the Perpetual Fly in the Ointment on this website.

This is a tactless, hurtful and completely unwarranted attack. I strongly suggest you retract it and apologise to Nunc. You can respectfully disagree with her in far more constructive and loving words than these.

Ian, please recall that although many of us here see things from you differently, we have been able to put our diverging opinions to one another cordially and helpfully, enabling us both to understand each other’s perspective. Recall that you have shared this respectful dialogue with many others here, such as Enkidu, Matthew, Hannah, Dani, etc. Don’t let one (or even a few) untimely remarks cause you bitterness and a hasty departure.

Let’s all go easy on one another’s perceived weaknesses and remember the logs blocking our own eyes first.

James 1:19-20
19 Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger; 20 for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness that God requires.
James 3:9-10
9 With our tongues we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in the likeness of God. 10 From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers and sisters, these things ought not to be so.

Timbo

Who Wrote The New Testament

Hello dear brothers and sisters in Christ.

In the light of recent posts I sincerely hope the following quote from Ephesians 4:2-6 is helpful:

Be completely humble with each other and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love.  Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit - just as you were called to one hope when you were called - one Lord, one faith of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

Also the following:

Colossians 3: 12-16:

Therefore, as God’s chosen peolpe, holy & dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another.  forgive as the Lord forgave you. And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity. Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace. And be thankful. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach & admonish one another with all wisdom, & as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God.

I love this web-site and can do nothing BUT love each and every member of the family He has chosen for me to live with for all eternity. God is so very good.

Angela

Well written Tim.  Here here!!

Who Wrote The New Testament

Furthermore to my theory about the marriage of Mary and Joseph, and of Mary’s perpetual virginity.

It has been said that Joseph was elderly. Where does that theory come from? Elderly in that day was over thirty, because that was the average life span.

The gospels say that Joseph was told by the angel of the Lord, in a dream, to marry Mary despite her pregnancy. If he was too old to have normal marital relations, why would he baulk at the marriage? But if he were still able to have sex, (and I am told that with men, eighty year olds plus, still enjoy marital sex) he could, and would probably want to. The gospels are not clear on all the details. Matt 1:18-24 But I would be suprised if Jesus “parents” did not have a normal and healthy marriage.

We know that Joseph was still alive when Jesus was 12 years old, but we do not hear of him after that, as far as I know. People died like flies in those days, and not necessarily of old age.

There is much summation and theory about exactly happened, and we can only go on the most reliable testimony, the gospel stories. My theory on what possibly could have occured, was only based on how I read the gospels on this matter. Is there another reliable source?

And Nunc, please excuse me for venting my spleen.

Ken

Frankly, Ken, you’ve missed the point completely, and when challenged on it have refused to step back. (Your remarks about sex=marriage above are a case in point.)

This doesn’t bother me in the slightest; my belief is secure and not open to challenge by mere vitriol - although sound, reasoned arguments using my language might be persuasive.

I am simply staggered that you seem to see fit to try to return to the subject of Joseph and Mary when all this other stuff has happened in between. Don’t you care for what other people have to contribute? Or how they react to your posts?

I have to say that since I calmed down (:P :P ) and having met many of the folks who post on here, I know that they are capable of calm, reasoned debate free from vitriolic attack. We understand each other and for the most part respect other peoples’ views, even if we disagree. For the most part we are willing to listen to each other. (And shock horror, I even *liked* all of those I met… :P)

I’ve told you what I think. You’re welcome to your opinion. But don’t go making sweeping ignorant generalisations until you know the facts.

Who Wrote The New Testament

Nunc, your last contribution gave no answer to how you have determined your “facts”. It is just one sweeping vitriolic generalisation.

You do not explain how you know the ages of Mary and Joseph. You spout superior airs, with no real argument against my claims. I am not covinced that you have a real argument to produce.

It is not logical to claim all knowledge on your part, with no attempt to deal with the available facts.

Your arguments are usually not relevant, and over emotional.

Ken

G’day Ken, I think I will stand up here for Nunc.

You said,

Your arguments are usually not relevant, and over emotional.

That is a very nasty saying, and though I stand on oppisite sides to Nunc in theology - I will have to say this about her.

WHAT SHE SAYS IS USUALLY RELEVANT AND IS NOT OVERLY EMOTIONAL

All of us at times get emotional about our beliefs, that is good, I nearly cry every time I think about Christ dieing for me on the cross, i have no idea what is going to happen when I see the passion.

An emotionless Christian is the worst type of legalistic hardhearted relgious person one can meet - I for one hope you are not that type of person.

I will agree I have doubts about Mary and do not go that way myself, nor do I think I will, however Nunc usually backs her thoughts up with well reasoned and thought out research and I will give her credit for that.

There is no reason to be so nasty Ken, and that is what I think you are being, I hope you are not like that in real life?

Pull your head in, you can engage with others in a style that is not belittleing nor nasty - even if you totally disagree with them.

Your last comment is like a little boy in a slanging match saying, “My daddy’s bigger than your daddy so there”

craig - who was very angry about your last post - Ken I happen to like all who post here even though we all have disagreeances with each other on some points .