I was looking for what other early church fathers had to say (a point raised on this thread as important to the discussion).

 

 

Tertullian advocated the virgnity of Mary but not perpetually so:

 

Tertullian (155/160-240/250) was born in Carthage. He affirms Mary's virginal conception of Jesus:

 

Now it will first be necessary to show what previous reason there was for the Son of God's being born of a virgin. He who was going to consecrate a new order of birth, must Himself be born after a novel fashion, concerning which Isaiah foretold how the Lord Himself would give a sign. What, then, is the sign? 'Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son' (Isaiah 7:14). Accordingly a virgin did conceive and bear 'Emmanuel, God with us' (Matthew 1:23). This is the new nativity; a man is born in God. And in this man God was born, taking the flesh of an ancient race, without the help, however, of the ancient seed, in order that he might reform it with new seed, that is, in a spiritual manner, and cleanse it by the removal of all its ancient stains. But the whole of this new birth was prefigured, as was the case in all other instances, in ancient type, the Lord being born as a man by a dispensation in which the virgin was the medium. The earth was still in a virgin state, reduced as yet by no human labor, with no seed as yet cast into its furrows, when, as we are told, God made man out of it into a living soul. As, then, the first Adam is thus introduced to us, it is a just inference that the second Adam likewise, as the apostle has told us, was formed by God into a quickening spirit out of the ground - in -- other words, out of flesh which was unstained as yet by any human generation.22

 

Tertullian, while affirming Mary's virginal conception of Jesus, did not hold that Mary was virginal in childbirth. He also considered the "brothers and sisters" to be blood brothers and sisters.

 

 

 

Please take the time to look over this article: http://campus.udayton.edu/mary/resources/virofmary.htm

 

There is a lot of pro and con on the argument on this page and most all of the pro tends to go from a Catholic perspective. (Very, Very heavy from a Catholic perspective)

 

I found it an interesting observation that after the publication of "Gospel of James" that many later Church fathers (Origen, Athanasius, St. Ambrose, et al) pick up the debate on her perpetual virginity and agree.

 

However Tertullian (see above), does not agree and he is a contemporary of the Origen era.

 

I wonder how much the early heresies had to do with the making of this doctrinal stance.

 

In the book: Mary in the New Testament, a group of Lutheran and Catholic scholars came to these conclusions regarding this issue:

 

1.The continued virginity of Mary after the birth of Jesus is not a question directly raised by the New Testament.

2.Once it was raised in subsequent church history, it was that question which focused attention on the exact relationship of the "brothers" (and "sisters") to Jesus.

3.Once that attention has been focused, it cannot be said that the New Testament identifies them without doubt as blood brothers and sisters and hence as children of Mary.

4.The solution favoured by scholars will in part depend on the authority they allot to later Church insights and dogmatic definitions, such as that at the Council of Chalcedon.

 

 

I also wonder that with all the references throughout the various parts of the NT to "brothers", etc; Why would they all be so ambigious if they did not clearly mean a brother of some form.

 

I've also wondered why the importance of perpetual virginity for Mary other than making her iconic for believers? I'll try to do some more digging now that I'm back from the Beach. :cry:

 

 

Read St. Augustine, St. Jerome or St. Ignatius.

 

From Vatican.va

 

As well, here is a source that cites scriptural support.

 

You may also enjoy this passage, or even this one, or perhaps this one, or possibly this discussion, or this one.

 

The full explanation of the Church's dogma is here.

 

Pope Pius XII's encyclical on the subject.

Read St. Augustine, St. Jerome or St. Ignatius.

 

From Vatican.va

 

As well, here is a source that cites scriptural support.

 

You may also enjoy this passage, or even this one, or perhaps this one, or possibly this discussion, or this one.

 

The full explanation of the Church's dogma is here.

 

Pope Pius XII's encyclical on the subject.

 

Just had time to look at this one for a second and immediately was taken by the "reach" (IMO) of the definition of the Hebrew "almah" in Isaiah 7:14 as scriptural reference to Mary.

 

First, the prophecy originally speaks to Isaiah's day and to Ahaz. Read the context of the whole chapter and tell me what strikes you. Verse 14 is lifted by NT people because Matthew lifted it as prophecy for Jesus in Matthew 1. I do not debate that it was a good use of Matthew but his intent (IMO) was to point out that while God revealed he was with us in Isaiah's day (see prophecy in that section), he was REALLY with us in the person of Jesus, the ultimate Emmanuel.

 

Saying that, the Source you cite mentions Isaiah 7:14 and the obvious fight that "Almah" is a Virgin rather than a maiden. Sources of other places used are lifted to support this, however a couple of problems arise if you are looking at this scholastically. The actual meaning is the feminine of a young person of puberty or a girl of marriagable age.

 

This would make sense in the context of Isaiah who is telling Ahaz that by the time that child is weaned the crisis will be gone.

 

Here are the verses that follow v. 14:

 

15 He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. 16 But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. 17 The LORD will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah—he will bring the king of Assyria."

 

These articles usually cite a text in Genesis and several Wisdom pieces of the OT. The problem is that these texts were written at different times over centuries and the changes in language between the Genesis writers, the Proverbs writers, and Isaiah are substantial. (Imagine using the word "gay" in your writing in 1900 and using it today. It immediately conjures different interpretations)

 

In fact most Jewish scholars treat Isaiah 7:14 as "a young woman" because they do not interpret it through the Septuigant's rendering or the lens of Christian doctrine.

Which begs another question about this consecration of Mary to God. Was this known by Joseph from the beginning and hence that is why he takes her as his wife? If that is true, why does he believe that she has become with child by some nefarious means and seeks a divorce from her during the betrothal period? (see the Gospels)

 

Perhaps he assumed that she had broken her vows? His first assumption would not be that God had worked through her, would yours?

Considering the extensive doctrine of the Catholic Church regarding Mary, it seems more than just a little odd to me that the actual Bible is virtually silent on the topic.

 

Much of the doctrine was formulated outside of canon, because they can't be proven with scripture. However, what they did was to prove that it wasn't "impossible" based on what scripture did or didn't say. Again, "because its not impossible" based on the scriptures isn't enough for a doctrine...it has to be clearly found in the text for me to be comfortable.

 

But, as always, that goes back to your view of Scripture vs. Tradition and Magisterium.

You are right that the Bible doesn't speak much on the topic, and that it is a matter of sola scriptura.

 

However, SINCE the Bible doesn't say much on it, and since other sources corroborate the idea that Mary was a perpetual virgin, and since all major early Christian figures (besides Tertullian and maybe one other unorthodox monk who I read about), and since multiple key Protestant figures (such as Martin Luther and John Wesley, as noted) believed it, I think it is more than a possibility.

 

It is not clearly found in the text that she had relations with a man after Jesus in the text, yet you are very comfortable believing that. Since the Bible never definitively says anything, we have both looked to other means to find what we believe. I've chosen other sources (such as early writings and beliefs of Church fathers), you've chosen to rely on an assumption (that Mary and Joseph would have had relations after Jesus). That's fine, but it's still an assumption, and equally unspecified in the Bible.

You are right that the Bible doesn't speak much on the topic, and that it is a matter of sola scriptura.

 

However, SINCE the Bible doesn't say much on it, and since other sources corroborate the idea that Mary was a perpetual virgin, and since all major early Christian figures (besides Tertullian and maybe one other unorthodox monk who I read about), and since multiple key Protestant figures (such as Martin Luther and John Wesley, as noted) believed it, I think it is more than a possibility.

 

It is not clearly found in the text that she had relations with a man after Jesus in the text, yet you are very comfortable believing that. Since the Bible never definitively says anything, we have both looked to other means to find what we believe. I've chosen other sources (such as early writings and beliefs of Church fathers), you've chosen to rely on an assumption (that Mary and Joseph would have had relations after Jesus). That's fine, but it's still an assumption, and equally unspecified in the Bible.

 

The difference is that mine doesn't form the foundation for one of the more important doctrines of my faith.

 

If it simply stopped with believing Mary was a virgin her whole life and, thus, had no children, I still wouldn't agree with it, but it might be more understandable. However, as it is, it leads on to Mary remaining "free from the stain of orginal sin" and being called the "Co-Redeemer, Mediatrix, etc." (names typically applied to the Godhead)...

 

A doctrine of that importance would clearly be found in the Bible, IMO. It wouldn't be just a "possibility". It's "possible" either of us are correct. But, since Mary's children or lack thereof, and perpetual virginity in no way, shape or form affects my salvation through Jesus Christ, I see no reason for formulating an extensive doctrine about her because it's "possible" due to the silence of scripture on the topic. I have no problem with holding Mary in high honor, but I don't deem her a notch above any other heroes of the faith who were saved by the blood of Jesus, just like she was. And, I really can't run with assigning titles to her that are reserved for the Trinity.

 

That's the difference. Not so much the initial question, but what your answer ultimately leads to.

The difference is that mine doesn't form the foundation for one of the more important doctrines of my faith.

 

If it simply stopped with believing Mary was a virgin her whole life and, thus, had no children, I still wouldn't agree with it, but it might be more understandable. However, as it is, it leads on to Mary remaining "free from the stain of orginal sin" and being called the "Co-Redeemer, Mediatrix, etc." (names typically applied to the Godhead)...

 

A doctrine of that importance would clearly be found in the Bible, IMO. It wouldn't be just a "possibility". It's "possible" either of us are correct. But, since Mary's children or lack thereof, and perpetual virginity in no way, shape or form affects my salvation through Jesus Christ, I see no reason for formulating an extensive doctrine about her because it's "possible" due to the silence of scripture on the topic. I have no problem with holding Mary in high honor, but I don't deem her a notch above any other heroes of the faith who were saved by the blood of Jesus, just like she was. And, I really can't run with assigning titles to her that are reserved for the Trinity.

 

That's the difference. Not so much the initial question, but what your answer ultimately leads to.

 

What titles are assigned to Mary that are reserved for the Trinity?

Perhaps he assumed that she had broken her vows? His first assumption would not be that God had worked through her, would yours?

 

It depends. If she had taken this vow as much of the people you cited build up, it just seems that it would be odd to immediately cast a disparging eye on one who was so openly Holy and had taken a vow of chastity.

 

It all boils back to whether this doctrine is that important to the saving activity of God and which sources will you trust to establish such a doctrine. :thumb:

What titles are assigned to Mary that are reserved for the Trinity?

 

Is she not called Co-Redeemer and Mediatrix?

 

If I'm mistaken about that, then I apologize.

Is she not called Co-Redeemer and Mediatrix?

 

If I'm mistaken about that, then I apologize.

 

I've never heard either of those terms used in reference to Mary....

Is she not called Co-Redeemer and Mediatrix?

 

If I'm mistaken about that, then I apologize.

 

 

Would this article be of use to what you are trying to say?

 

 

http://www.religion-cults.com/mary/coredeemer.htm

I've never heard either of those terms used in reference to Mary....

 

Are you Catholic?

 

Mediatrix is in the Catechism.

 

I was wrong about Co-Redeemer. It is found in some Catholic writings, but not in the Catechism itself (to my knowledge anyway). So, I'll leave that one alone.

Would this article be of use to what you are trying to say?

 

 

http://www.religion-cults.com/mary/coredeemer.htm

 

Yes...it was. I already read it, but thanks anyway. :lol:

Are you Catholic?

 

Mediatrix is in the Catechism.

 

I was wrong about Co-Redeemer. It is found in some Catholic writings, but not in the Catechism itself (to my knowledge anyway). So, I'll leave that one alone.

 

I am, but I have zero desire to open the Catechism....

I'd never heard the term Mediatrix ever, but I haven't read the whole Catechism. Anyone know what it means? As far as I know, it means a mediator. I'll look around.

I'd never heard the term Mediatrix ever, but I haven't read the whole Catechism. Anyone know what it means? As far as I know, it means a mediator. I'll look around.

 

There's a definition in the link I provided in my last post. :thumb: