Mary's continued virginity...

[oneflewoutofthecuckcoosnest]

I think the doctrine of Mary's continued virginity is a function of the early church's asceticism and erroneous views on sex that equated virginity with moral purity - an unfortunate development. The doctrine of the virgin birth I think originated for reasons concerning the uniqueness of Jesus. The perpetual virginity came later and has more to do with mistaken notions around purity and sexuality. Saint Paul didn't seem interested in either doctrine.

[oneflewoutofthecuckcoosnest]

(08-01-2011 08:34 PM)Donb123 Wrote:  

(08-01-2011 08:28 PM)oneflewoutofthecuckcoosnest Wrote:  I think the doctrine of Mary's continued virginity is a function of the early church's asceticism and erroneous views on sex that equated virginity with moral purity - an unfortunate development. The doctrine of the virgin birth I think originated for reasons concerning the uniqueness of Jesus. The perpetual virginity came later and has more to do with mistaken notions around purity and sexuality. Saint Paul didn't seem interested in either doctrine.

There were several other writers of the NT.

Yeah thanks for that Don

My point was that the doctrine of the virgin birth is not in the earliest layers of the Christian tradition (Paul, Q, Mark). To me the reason is obvious - the doctrine came later. The teaching of perpetual virginity is much later still. With respect to the virgin birth, the reason the doctrine developed makes sense to me and I have no problem affirming it as a part of my faith. I don't think it is necessary though, since I don't think Paul or other early Christians believed it since there is no evidence the doctrine was in existence at that time. With respect to the doctrine of perpetual virginity, I think the doctrine developed for all the wrong reasons and I find it warps human sexuality by suggesting that moral purity is negatively impacted by sex. This to me is gravely mistaken and so I find the teaching unhelpful if not potentially harmful. I realize that people hold the view and have a very healthy view of sex. I am suggesting that in its origin the doctrine was born out of unhealthy views on sex.

[Jo A]

(08-01-2011 06:45 PM)fundyvangelicalcatholic Wrote:  

(08-01-2011 05:09 PM)Jo A Wrote:  I am not 100% convinced that they were Jesus' brothers and sisters, but it seems the most likely explanation to me and I've yet to hear a convincing argument that they weren't. If there wasn't the need to prove Mary's perpetual virginity, why would this relationship be questioned?
Also can you tell me where it is an established fact that Joseph was old? I know he is thought to have died at some point between Jesus's appearance in the temple at the age of 12 and his public ministry as he is not mentioned after this point. But this is no reason to believe he was already old when he married Mary. I read recently that the average lifespan for a Jewish man 1st Century Israel would be around 40. So Joseph could have married Mary in his early twenties and it would have been quite normal for him not to be around when Jesus was thirty.
My father wasn't alive when I was thirty but this was nothing to do with the age he got married, just that he died young.

Jo A - there is nothing mentioned in scripture that establishes Joseph's age. Oral teaching and beliefs held and passed down from people who knew Joseph is where we get his age. If you want to stick solely (no pun intened) with Sola Scriptura - then your guess (and whatever article you are citing) is logical.

On a side note, you can read an article about the lifespan of a Jewish man and take that on its face. We discuss a tradition held by EO and RCC started by those who would have been contemporaries of Mary and Joseph yet you quesiton that......

HI Steve - my information about the lifespan comes from 'The Changing Faces of Jesus' by Geza Vermes, who has studied 1st C Judaism for over 50 years. 'today a thirty year old man is considered young, in his prime, but in the 1st Century AD he would have counted as mature, middle-aged, verging on old age... only a few of the skeletons exhumed from the Qumran cemetery belonged to men who were over forty. '
Of course this does not prove that Joseph was a young man when he married, and I'm not saying that it does. He could have lived a life that was exceptionally long for the period. But it does say that he need not have been old when he married to have died before the eldest child reached 30.
Also we are told by Luke that Zechariah and Elisabeth were old, as this is relevant to the birth of John the Baptist. We are not told anything abou the age of Joseph which implies that there was nothing significant or unusual about his age.

[steve95054]

(08-02-2011 04:36 PM)Jo A Wrote:  

(08-01-2011 06:45 PM)fundyvangelicalcatholic Wrote:  Jo A - there is nothing mentioned in scripture that establishes Joseph's age. Oral teaching and beliefs held and passed down from people who knew Joseph is where we get his age. If you want to stick solely (no pun intened) with Sola Scriptura - then your guess (and whatever article you are citing) is logical.

On a side note, you can read an article about the lifespan of a Jewish man and take that on its face. We discuss a tradition held by EO and RCC started by those who would have been contemporaries of Mary and Joseph yet you quesiton that......

HI Steve - my information about the lifespan comes from 'The Changing Faces of Jesus' by Geza Vermes, who has studied 1st C Judaism for over 50 years. 'today a thirty year old man is considered young, in his prime, but in the 1st Century AD he would have counted as mature, middle-aged, verging on old age... only a few of the skeletons exhumed from the Qumran cemetery belonged to men who were over forty. '
Of course this does not prove that Joseph was a young man when he married, and I'm not saying that it does. He could have lived a life that was exceptionally long for the period. But it does say that he need not have been old when he married to have died before the eldest child reached 30.

All that tells me is that the men of the Qumran community that managed to get a burial there were under 40. It says nothing of the overall actuarial tables of ancient Judea.

Quote:Also we are told by Luke that Zechariah and Elisabeth were old, as this is relevant to the birth of John the Baptist. We are not told anything abou the age of Joseph which implies that there was nothing significant or unusual about his age.

You are inferring where it does not imply. Zechariah and Elizabeth were explicitly mentioned as being old because they conceived John, which at that was an impossibility, much like Abraham and Sarah. The mention of their age is to show that this was miraculous.

Joseph did not conceive Jesus with Mary, so there is no need to mention his age.

[elfdream]

I keep seeing one aspect of fundyism showing itself here and in other threads which is the either/or approach to issues. If Mary was a perpetual Virgin then it means that state is better than normal marital relationships. If some Christians honor Mary then they are dishonoring Christ.
Many things are and/both. Being married and being called to a single life are BOTH holy. Its possible to WORSHIP Christ and honor Mary.
It can apply to so many issues apart from these and it can be hard to re-arrange your thought patterns. This idea might deserve its own thread.

[fundyvangelicalcatholic]

What the militant fundy ignores is that we both worship Jesus. Just because there are other quasi-fundamentals we argue, the basis of faith is Christ crucified.

[myotch]

In my experience, Fundies *know* Catholics worship Jesus (there's a few exceptions). They just think fundies worship Jesus better and more biblically.

Words mean things. The fundy paradigm has a very narrow definition of "prayer" and a very loose definition of "idolatry".

[Ricardo]

Oh no. I'm in a couple discussions right now about the new bible Version "La Palabra." One of the attacks against the publishers and translators from the Sociedades Biblicas is that they consort with Catholics.