Mary

[Hope]

The perpetual virginity of the Blessed Theotokos is a natural consequence of bearing God in her womb.

Why?  Or perhaps it would be better to ask 'How'?  It implies that Jesus wasn't the only Son (or Daughter) of God, since we know that Jesus had siblings.  This would therefore invalidate the whole Christian message, that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God?  Furthermore, if James and Jesus' other siblings were not purely human, why wern't they brought back to life after their deaths and taken back to heaven?

[Sassy]

The perpetual virginity of the Blessed Theotokos is a natural consequence of bearing God in her womb.

Why?  Or perhaps it would be better to ask 'How'?

Mary did NOT remain a virgin and she had other children.

[Anchorman]

Can you show me a verse in Scripture which confirms your position, ad_o?

[ad_orientem]

The perpetual virginity of the Blessed Theotokos is a natural consequence of bearing God in her womb.

Why?  Or perhaps it would be better to ask 'How'?

Because her womb had been consecrated for holy use, the ark of new covenant, where the Incarnation dwelt for nine months. Or an analogy I have often used is that of consecrating a chalice for the holy blood. It is improper for it to be used anymore as a regular drinking vessel.

[ad_orientem]

It implies that Jesus wasn't the only Son (or Daughter) of God, since we know that Jesus had siblings.  This would therefore invalidate the whole Christian message, as why would Jesus be resurrected and taken back to heaven but not James and the other siblings?

Eh?

[Hope]

It implies that Jesus wasn't the only Son (or Daughter) of God, since we know that Jesus had siblings.  This would therefore invalidate the whole Christian message, as why would Jesus be resurrected and taken back to heaven but not James and the other siblings?

Eh?

If your explanation is correct, you should have any problem explaining this (or the amended version of the same post)

[Hope]

Can you show me a verse in Scripture which confirms your position, ad_o?

Bumped for ad_o's response.

[Anchorman]

The perpetual virginity of the Blessed Theotokos is a natural consequence of bearing God in her womb.

Why?  Or perhaps it would be better to ask 'How'?

Because her womb had been consecrated for holy use, the ark of new covenant, where the Incarnation dwelt for nine months. Or an analogy I have often used is that of consecrating a chalice for the holy blood. It is improper for it to be used anymore as a regular drinking vessel.

-
Nice theological jargon.
You can, of course, give Gospel verses to confirm them?

[Sassy]

18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Mary and Joseph did come together, have sex with Joseph but only after the birth of Christ.. For if they had not 'come together' then there would be no reason to write she was found with child before they came together. Joseph and Mary were already engaged when she became pregnant with Jesus.

24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.

As you can see Mary and Joseph did have sex after the birth of Christ.

[ippy]

It's the 21st century and there's still people around that really believe this rubbish?

ippy

[Shaker]

Alas 

[Hope]

Or an analogy I have often used is that of consecrating a chalice for the holy blood. It is improper for it to be used anymore as a regular drinking vessel.

But even the 'chalice for the holy blood' is washed out with ordinary water.  That alone would 'contaminate' the chalice.  In other words, it isn't the vessel that is holy but the contents.

[Hope]

It's the 21st century and there's still people around that really believe this rubbish?

ippy

Yup; it's the 21st Century, and there are still people around who believe that science is the be-all and end-all.

[ad_orientem]

Can you show me a verse in Scripture which confirms your position, ad_o?

Bumped for ad_o's response.

It's a nonsense question. It's sola scriptura, which I reject. Anyway, scripture does not contradict the perpetual virginity. Not one verse. It is the scriptures properly understood.

[ad_orientem]

18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Mary and Joseph did come together, have sex with Joseph but only after the birth of Christ.. For if they had not 'come together' then there would be no reason to write she was found with child before they came together. Joseph and Mary were already engaged when she became pregnant with Jesus.

24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.

As you can see Mary and Joseph did have sex after the birth of Christ.

That is the passage that is always bought up, but it's not meant to show anything more than that she was a virgin when she gave birth. It's not meant to suggest anything else. Here's another example from the scriptures: The Lord said to my Lord: Sit thou at my right hand: Until I make thy enemies thy footstool. Is this meant to suggest that Christ will no longer be at the right hand of the Father?

[Hope]

It's a nonsense question. It's sola scriptura, which I reject. Anyway, scripture does not contradict the perpetual virginity. Not one verse. It is the scriptures properly understood.

Sola Scriptura is rather like the understanding that 'faith without works is dead', ad_o.  In other words, any Church tradition that contradicts Scripture, or isn't supported by Scripture, should be questioned.  This is the case with your idea of perpetual virginity.  The reason scripture doesn't contradict the idea is because it never even mentions it, something that one would expect it to do if the idea was true.  Lack of reference to something isn't proof of that something.

[floo]

It's the 21st century and there's still people around that really believe this rubbish?

ippy

Yup; it's the 21st Century, and there are still people around who believe that science is the be-all and end-all.

Well at least scientists have to provide evidence to back up their claims, unlike theists who have no evidence whatsoever for theirs!

[ad_orientem]

It's a nonsense question. It's sola scriptura, which I reject. Anyway, scripture does not contradict the perpetual virginity. Not one verse. It is the scriptures properly understood.

Sola Scriptura is rather like the understanding that 'faith without works is dead', ad_o.  In other words, any Church tradition that contradicts Scripture, or isn't supported by Scripture, should be questioned.  This is the case with your idea of perpetual virginity.  The reason scripture doesn't contradict the idea is because it never even mentions it, something that one would expect it to do if the idea was true.  Lack of reference to something isn't proof of that something.

That's just a non sequitur.

[jjohnjil]

It's the 21st century and there's still people around that really believe this rubbish?

ippy

What you have to remember, Ippy, is that this myth has been bred into them , mostly from early childhood.  If you have been taught that the Bible is God's word and everything in it is the truth, it must be very difficult to even consider the possibility that's it's all rubbish from start to finish.

Religion has a great carrot and an horrific stick, unless you are caught in that web it's impossible to understand how hard it is to see things differently.  You and I are no different, no amount of words would convince me that there is anything in it. 

I always liken it to a blindfolded guy who is told there is a gun pointing at his head (when in fact it's a cigarette lighter) and he is told that if he moves he'll get a bullet through his brain.  Now it wouldn't matter how many people were telling him it was just a lighter, he daren't risk it because the guy with the gun just keeps telling him the others are all liars.

You must ask yourself, would you risk it?

[Anchorman]

Can you show me a verse in Scripture which confirms your position, ad_o?

Bumped for ad_o's response.

It's a nonsense question. It's sola scriptura, which I reject. Anyway, scripture does not contradict the perpetual virginity. Not one verse. It is the scriptures properly understood.

-
Er.....
I didn't ask if you had Scripture which contradicted Mary's 'perpetual virginity'. I asked if there were any Scriptures CONFIRMING it?
I take it that's a 'no', then?
There are no such scriptures, and therefore nothing to confirm your position save 'tradition'?

[Rhiannon]

I don't think it unreasonable for AM to take the point of view that Joseph and Mary had sex and produced other children, assuming that there's a possibility that they are historical characters.

One thing that differs in paganism/Goddess spirituality is the understanding that every womb is sacred. No exceptions.

[Hope]

That is the passage that is always bought up, but it's not meant to show anything more than that she was a virgin when she gave birth. It's not meant to suggest anything else. Here's another example from the scriptures: The Lord said to my Lord: Sit thou at my right hand: Until I make thy enemies thy footstool. Is this meant to suggest that Christ will no longer be at the right hand of the Father?

ad_o, 'The Lord' is God; 'my Lord' is David.  Yes, I accept that this Psalm is also one of the messianic Psalms, but you have to be careful that you don't read overmuch into it.  Otherwise you make out that God is talking to himnself - since Jesus is God in human form.

[Rhiannon]

It's the 21st century and there's still people around that really believe this rubbish?

ippy

What you have to remember, Ippy, is that this myth has been bred into them , mostly from early childhood.  If you have been taught that the Bible is God's word and everything in it is the truth, it must be very difficult to even consider the possibility that's it's all rubbish from start to finish.

Religion has a great carrot and an horrific stick, unless you are caught in that web it's impossible to understand how hard it is to see things differently.  You and I are no different, no amount of words would convince me that there is anything in it. 

I always liken it to a blindfolded guy who is told there is a gun pointing at his head (when in fact it's a cigarette lighter) and he is told that if he moves he'll get a bullet through his brain.  Now it wouldn't matter how many people were telling him it was just a lighter, he daren't risk it because the guy with the gun just keeps telling him the others are all liars.

You must ask yourself, would you risk it?

I don't think that really applies any more. I can only think of a handful of Christians that I've encountered who think that Christianity is about avoiding hell. Faith as most people encounter it is much more about finding a sense of support, meaning and structure - yes, even love - in this life. Of course losing that is scary - been there, done that - but it is losing your whole understanding of your existence and not knowing what to do next. Worrying about the next life barely figures.

[Anchorman]

Scripture actually mentions Jesus' brothers and sisters, Rhi - even nanes a few.
Note that the words aren't 'step-brothers' or 'half-brothers'' phrases for which existed in Hebrew, Armaic and Greek, but which are not employed in the Gospels.
So I'm arguing from a Scriptural, rather than a traditional, pov here.

Of course, even if Scripture hadn't mentioned them, Mary and Joseph going on to have a few other children would take absolutely nothing away from Jesus being, as Christians believe, God Incarnate.

[Hope]

What you have to remember, Ippy, is that this myth has been bred into them , mostly from early childhood.  If you have been taught that the Bible is God's word and everything in it is the truth, it must be very difficult to even consider the possibility that's it's all rubbish from start to finish.

Unfortunately, for you jj, it isn't "all rubbish from start to finish".  There is a considerable amount of historical fact in the Bible, in the same way that there is a considerable amount of poetry, theology and revelation.  To assume that 'it's all rubbish from start to finish' is to actually show your lack of education. 

Religion has a great carrot and an horrific stick, unless you are caught in that web it's impossible to understand how hard it is to see things differently.  You and I are no different, no amount of words would convince me that there is anything in it.

You could have equally started this paragraph with word 'society', jj.

I always liken it to a blindfolded guy who is told there is a gun pointing at his head (when in fact it's a cigarette lighter) and he is told that if he moves he'll get a bullet through his brain.  Now it wouldn't matter how many people were telling him it was just a lighter, he daren't risk it because the guy with the gun just keeps telling him the others are all liars.

You must ask yourself, would you risk it?

This anaology points out just how blind you are yourself.  When you add the other assertions you've provided in this post, tht blindness becomes even more apparent.  I suspect its a confirmation bias blindness.