Mary

[ad_orientem]

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.

I would argue that the rejection of Mary's perpetual virginity has its roots in a deficient understanding of the Incarnation., but that is the problem of Protestantism. It is essentially a rehash of the Iconoclast heresy.

Hiya AO. I would suggest that it is partly due to Mary's alleged perpetual virginity seeming to be at odds with Scripture. Mt 1:25 (NIV) saying of Joseph, "But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus."

If I say I did not get home until 6pm yesterday, that implies that I did get home (though it was not until 6 pm). If the NIV translation is correct then it implies that Mary and Joseph did consummate their marriage.

Do you have any linguistic reason for thinking the NIV is wrong here?

I already pointed this out. It's an idiom. All it's meant to prove is that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth. Nothing less nothing more. I gave another example from the scriptures that uses the same idiom. The Lord said to my Lord: Sit Thou at my right hand until I make Thy enemies Thy footstall. Are you going to argue then that Christ will no longer be at the right hand of the Father? Blessed Jerome goes into some depth on this in his tract against the heretic Helvidius.

[Dicky Underpants]

Anchorman, do you think it would be acceptable, even beneficial, to have another idea of the divine feminine within Christianity?

Incidentally, some neo-pagans include Mary in their pantheon, especially those who follow a Goddess path.

Rhiannon

There is an interesting quote from Jung's "Answer to Job" (a fascinating book to which Jack Knave and I have recently been referring):

" One could have known for a long time that there was a deep longing in the masses for an intercessor and mediatrix who would at last take her place alongside the Holy Trinity and be received as the ‘Queen of heaven and Bride at the heavenly court.’ For more than a thousand years it has been taken for granted that the Mother of God dwelt there.  I consider it to be the most important religious event since the Reformation. " (Jung: Answer to Job)

I have often poo-pooed the rather literal way that Catholics seem to approach this doctrine, even more so since it is one of the only two infallible statements made by all the Popes of history. However, Jung is viewing the whole matter as providing a more integrated view of the godhead - all these matters not being objective realities (as Catholics believe), but simply workings within the human psyche itself.
On the simplest level, this suggests that patriarchal societies with exclusively male gods are psychologically more than a little unbalanced - as we can see in some of the loathsome violence done to women in countries where fundamentalist Islam is the dominant faith, such as Afghanistan.

I'll leave it to the Jung expert Jack Knave to amplify, if he's around. Just so long as a certain BA doesn't start pissing around with his infantile comments.

[Owlswing]

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.

I would argue that the rejection of Mary's perpetual virginity has its roots in a deficient understanding of the Incarnation., but that is the problem of Protestantism. It is essentially a rehash of the Iconoclast heresy.

Hiya AO. I would suggest that it is partly due to Mary's alleged perpetual virginity seeming to be at odds with Scripture. Mt 1:25 (NIV) saying of Joseph, "But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus."

If I say I did not get home until 6pm yesterday, that implies that I did get home (though it was not until 6 pm). If the NIV translation is correct then it implies that Mary and Joseph did consummate their marriage.

Do you have any linguistic reason for thinking the NIV is wrong here?

I already pointed this out. It's an idiom. All it's meant to prove is that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth. Nothing less nothing more. I gave another example from the scriptures that uses the same idiom. The Lord said to my Lord: Sit Thou at my right hand until I make Thy enemies Thy footstall. Are you going to argue then that Christ will no longer be at the right hand of the Father? Blessed Jerome goes into some depth on this in his tract against the heretic Helvidius.

Ah I see! God got Mary pregnant with a turkey baster!

Definition of a heretic - anyone who disagrees with Ad O's version of Christian doctrine.

[Dicky Underpants]

Anchorman, do you think it would be acceptable, even beneficial, to have another idea of the divine feminine within Christianity?

As Anchorman has pointed out, God is not masculine, and Mary is not divine

You see, this is the kind of literalism that I've just been referring to above. It's not really a question of what God or Mary are or are not. It's a question of how humanity perceives them, and how these things work in their lives. I'd say most believers have a tendency to regard their God as "He" - after all, Christ was a bloke. I know perfectly well that  in some parts of the Bible, God is depicted with feminine characteristics (and I believe the ancient Yahweh seems to have had a female consort), and that the God of many of the Christian mystics is not at all a "He". But yer ordinary believers, guvnor, that's a different matter.

[Alien]

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.

I would argue that the rejection of Mary's perpetual virginity has its roots in a deficient understanding of the Incarnation., but that is the problem of Protestantism. It is essentially a rehash of the Iconoclast heresy.

Hiya AO. I would suggest that it is partly due to Mary's alleged perpetual virginity seeming to be at odds with Scripture. Mt 1:25 (NIV) saying of Joseph, "But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus."

If I say I did not get home until 6pm yesterday, that implies that I did get home (though it was not until 6 pm). If the NIV translation is correct then it implies that Mary and Joseph did consummate their marriage.

Do you have any linguistic reason for thinking the NIV is wrong here?

I already pointed this out. It's an idiom. All it's meant to prove is that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth. Nothing less nothing more. I gave another example from the scriptures that uses the same idiom. The Lord said to my Lord: Sit Thou at my right hand until I make Thy enemies Thy footstall. Are you going to argue then that Christ will no longer be at the right hand of the Father?

Thanks for this, AO. It's not quite the same phrase though, is it? In Psalm 110 (and its quotation in Hebrews 1) it surely has the meaning of "while". There is it is ἕως ἂν whereas in Mt 1:25 it is ἕως οὗ. Whether this is important, I am not sure, but the Psalm 110/Hebrews 1 meaning cannot surely apply to Mt 1:25 anyway. "While" does not fit into Mt 1:25 in any sensible manner. If you wish to use Psalm 110 as an example of why "until" is a wrong translation, then your example needs to be usable in the translation Mt 1:25 and, unless I have missed something, it can't.

How should Mt 1:25 be translated, bearing in mind that it includes reference to Mary giving birth to Jesus. Why did Matthew not just say, "he did not know her (ever)" rather than "he did not know her (until/your word) she bore a son..."?

[ad_orientem]

As I said, it's an idiom. I strongly suggest reading Blessed Jerome's tract.

[Alien]

As I said, it's an idiom. I strongly suggest reading Blessed Jerome's tract.

OK, done that. I think you've suggested this a previous time. It was familiar.

One of the arguments Jerome put forward was, "But when he continues, the Evangelist would never have applied the words, before they came together to persons who were not to come together, any more than one says, before he dined, when the man is not going to dine, I know not whether to grieve or laugh. Shall I convict him of ignorance, or accuse him of rashness? Just as if, supposing a person to say, Before dining in harbour I sailed to Africa, his words could not hold good unless he were compelled some day to dine in harbour. If I choose to say, the apostle Paul before he went to Spain was put in fetters at Rome, or (as I certainly might) Helvidius, before he repented, was cut off by death, must Paul on being released at once go to Spain, or must Helvidius repent after death, although the Scripture says In sheol who shall give you thanks?"

We do need to be careful, all of us including me, when we are comparing Greek constructions (and Hebrew) and English. However, there does seem to be a significant difference between Jerome's argument and what is said in Mt 1:25. Matthew says that Joseph did not know Mary until she bore a son. None of Jerome's examples have that negative (that I could see). Thus there is a significant difference between:

1) Before dining in harbour I sailed to Africa.
2) I did not dine in harbour until I sailed to Africa.

Better would be

a) Before eating the fish and chips, I set sail for Africa.
b) I did not eat the fish and chips until I set sail for Africa.

As Jerome argues a) does not clearly tell us whether I ever ate the fish and chips, but b), with its negative, does indeed imply that I did. Mt 1:25 has that negative in it.

That is one area, at least, where Jerome's argument falls down, at least in English (as does the Psalm 110 comparison).

It might indeed be that Mary remained a virgin, but Mt 1:25 seems to say that she did not. If it is important to us whether she did, then I would have thought that the NT-writers would have made more of it and said it.

Might be wrong though

[Rhiannon]

Anchorman, do you think it would be acceptable, even beneficial, to have another idea of the divine feminine within Christianity?

As Anchorman has pointed out, God is not masculine, and Mary is not divine

You see, this is the kind of literalism that I've just been referring to above. It's not really a question of what God or Mary are or are not. It's a question of how humanity perceives them, and how these things work in their lives. I'd say most believers have a tendency to regard their God as "He" - after all, Christ was a bloke. I know perfectly well that  in some parts of the Bible, God is depicted with feminine characteristics (and I believe the ancient Yahweh seems to have had a female consort), and that the God of many of the Christian mystics is not at all a "He". But yer ordinary believers, guvnor, that's a different matter.

See Hildegarde of Bingen.

I think it startling that patriarchy seems to have become more entrenched since her time. Not just Jesus being a bloke - I've heard it said that the Holy Spirit is 'definitely male' and for all Christians generally declare God to be both male and female any attempt to introduce feminine names for God is generally met by many of those I know with eye-rolling and sniggering at 'irrelevant attempts to be PC'.

[Anchorman]

ad_o:
You wrote:

The Church isn't founded on the scriptures. It is founded on the Incarnation. If you think you separate the scriptures from the life of the Church then, quite frankly, you're mad. The perpetual virginity of the Blessed Theotokos doesn't need to be explicit in the scriptures because it is already implicit in figures (the Ark of the Covenant) and the natural consequence of the Incarnation itself.

 -
er....and where do we find stuff about the Incarnation, the Ark of the Covenant&, etc, if not in the Scriptures?
I rest my case.
-
As for the authority of the Church, I'll throw it right back at you. Why should I accept your stance above the Church? Why should I accept personal opinion above the mind of the Church? As I said, even heretics use the scriptures to "prove" their doctrines so there must be an authority that can judge which one is actually orthodox and which one is heterodox. You accept the Creed yet reject the authority on which formulated it. It's no good just saying you accept it just because it's scriptural. Who says so? Ever heard of Arius? Sola scriptura is a joke.
[/quote]

-
Because the church speaks with many voices. It is not a movement, or an organisation, or (thank God) a theology club for clergy; it is God's people, coming from various faith stances. If a governing body 'imposes' what it thinks doctrine must be now and always, on everyone, then that stifles our growth and understanding, and makes us little better than JWs.


* - I may have missed a bit when I read the Pentateuch for the umpteenth time: so, what the blood and stomach pills has the Ark of the Covenant got to do with the supposed perpetual virginity of Mary?

[ad_orientem]

The Ark of the Covenant was holy and contained the tablets of the tablets of stone. Likewise Mary's womb is the Ark of the New Covenant having contained him who the whole world could not contain, the Word made flesh. The Ark of the Covenant was to be kept holy. The same goes with womb of the blessed virgin.

[Anchorman]

The Ark of the Covenant was holy and contained the tablets of the tablets of stone. Likewise Mary's womb is the Ark of the New Covenant having contained him who the whole world could not contain, the Word made flesh. The Ark of the Covenant was to be kept holy. The same goes with womb of the blessed virgin.

-
Phew:
I thought I'd missed a Christophany there - but I didn't.
All I missed was a reading of the Ark story which really isn't there.
There is nothing there to prove your idea, simply wishful thinking on the part of a theologian.

[ippy]

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?

Yes indoctrination is a powerfull wepon, don't these religios know it, you try to get them out of our educational system, you'd almost need to go nuclear to do it.

It's the youngest children they're after, before they have acquired the ability to challenge, they're the most vunerable and the religious vultures are well aware of this and see them as the next sad generation of our resident delusional community.

ippy

[ippy]

The Ark of the Covenant was holy and contained the tablets of the tablets of stone. Likewise Mary's womb is the Ark of the New Covenant having contained him who the whole world could not contain, the Word made flesh. The Ark of the Covenant was to be kept holy. The same goes with womb of the blessed virgin.

Mad.

Ippy

[ad_orientem]

I know you are.

[BashfulAnthony]

I know you are.

That's given.   
 

[Shaker]

I know you are.

That's the sort of response that would embarrass six-year-olds at break time.

Between the astonshing array of arse gravy that you purport to believe in (which seems to change on a fairly regular basis according to which dogmatic and authoritarian, do-your-thinking-for-you brand of Christianity you're claiming as the absolute and final truth this particular month) and anything that ippy has ever written, any rational visitor to this forum will have no difficulty whatever in discerning who's mad, and it ain't ippy.

[ad_orientem]

That's the sort of response that would embarrass six-year-olds at break time.

That's because you're a boring old fart.

Between the astonshing array of arse gravy that you purport to believe in (which seems to change on a fairly regular basis according to which dogmatic and authoritarian, do-your-thinking-for-you brand of Christianity you're claiming as the absolute and final truth this particular month) and anything that ippy has ever written, any rational visitor to this forum will have no difficulty whatever in discerning who's mad, and it ain't ippy.

You exaggerate, having nothing of any substance to say, much like Ippy. Go away!

[Owlswing]

Who wsas it said give me a child at some young age, I forget the exact quote and I'll have him/her for life?

Wasn't it some one religious?

[Owlswing]

You exaggerate, having nothing of any substance to say, much like Ippy. Go away!

Having nothing of substance to say is better than talking perpetual rubbish.

[floo]

Who wsas it said give me a child at some young age, I forget the exact quote and I'll have him/her for life?

Wasn't it some one religious?

Probably! Fortunately I escaped!

[Shaker]

That's because you're a boring old fart.

Better a boring old fart than a dribbling mentalist.

You exaggerate

So you deny, then, that the Orthodontic Church or whatever you call it as the final suppository of all divine truth, holy, pure, perfect and immutable, isn't spoken about by you now in the exact same terms in which you spoke of Catholicism - when was it? Earlier this year? Last year? Eighteen months ago?

having nothing of any substance to say, much like Ippy.

Here's a recent post of mine:

The measure of a body's reflectivity is known as its albedo. Earth's albedo varies; liquid water isn't that strongly reflective whereas ice at the poles and white cloud are - in the latter case this is why Venus is so amazingly bright in the sky first and last thing in the day, since it's shrouded in thick white cloud that throws back so much of the sunlight it receives. Moon dust is a light grey, which gives it a reasonably high albedo when it reflects light, as it does in the case of a full moon for instance.

and here's a recent post of yours, posted not only on the same day (yesterday) but within a few hours:

The Ark of the Covenant was holy and contained the tablets of the tablets of stone. Likewise Mary's womb is the Ark of the New Covenant having contained him who the whole world could not contain, the Word made flesh. The Ark of the Covenant was to be kept holy. The same goes with womb of the blessed virgin.

If that's what passes for "substance" in your world you know where you can keep it - somewhere warm, safe and brown.

Go away!

No, I will not. I am entitled to be a member here as much as you are and to post as I see fit so long as I remain within the terms of the house rules as maintained and enforced by the moderation team. That means that I will not be going away, I will not be shutting up, I will not be keeping silent, I will not be ceasing to challenge, criticise, mock, point and stare at, fold, spindle, mutilate and generally piss all over idiotic and irrational balls, bullshit, bollocks and poppycock wherever I find it.

[Hope]

Who wsas it said give me a child at some young age, I forget the exact quote and I'll have him/her for life?

Wasn't it some one religious?

Probably! Fortunately I escaped!

IIRC, 'twas Aristotle.  “Give me a child until he is 7 and I will show you the man.”  Not quite sure what you escaped from, Floo, in view of the context.

[Shaker]

IIRC, 'twas Aristotle.  “Give me a child until he is 7 and I will show you the man.”  Not quite sure what you escaped from, Floo, in view of the context.

It's often attributed to St. Ignatius Loyola, in view of which it is more aptly abbreviated to "Give me a child."

[floo]

Who wsas it said give me a child at some young age, I forget the exact quote and I'll have him/her for life?

Wasn't it some one religious?

Probably! Fortunately I escaped!

IIRC, 'twas Aristotle.  “Give me a child until he is 7 and I will show you the man.”  Not quite sure what you escaped from, Floo, in view of the context.

Nowadays that statement is generally attributed to both male and female, and often used in a religious context. I escaped from the shackles of my religious upbringing thank goodness.

[Hope]

It's often attributed to St. Ignatius Loyola, in view of which it is more aptly abbreviated to "Give me a child."

In fact, it's often attributed to a whole host of people, Shaker.  The Jesuits; Francis Xavier; Loyola. Even Hitler and other dictators have used the principles behind the comment.