Re: Building a mythic hero
 

Not really. On this subject Catholics appear to me to indulge in a mental sleight of hand that reverses the burden of proof. It seems to me that the default aqssumption must be that God would want Joseph and Mary to live together as the Bible tells us he wants married people to live together. That the Bible doesn't explicitly mention that they did means nothing. Does it explicitly say that they didn't? You'd expect married people to consumate their marriage on their wedding night, and so the Bible explicitly tells us that Joseph and Mary didn't. But you'd also expect married people to live together as man and wife, and the Bible does not say that they did not, once Jesus was born. Hence Mathew 1:25 does in fact say exactly what Rob thinks it says; it can be twisted to mean something else, but the straightforward interpretation is the most reasonable one. The other interpretation seems to me to be made up of whole cloth without any support from the Bible.


Hans

Re: Building a mythic hero
 

Not ignoring. Submitting the opinion that tradition and the writing of the Church Fathers seem to be made up of whole cloth without any support from the Bible.

As for the nuances of translation, are you telling me that the original text CANNOT be interpreted to mean that Joseph and Mary lived together as man and wife and had more children after Jesus?

I agree that it is not a sectarian issue, so I don't see what Martin Luther and other reformers of note have to do with the case.

Just to be clear: I'm not setting up as an authority on the Bible. I merely state that I've never seen any quotes from the Bible that supported the notion of Mary's perpetual virginity.


Hans

Re: Building a mythic hero
 

Evangelicals don't necessarily. That is unfortunately because they play down the scholarship. They are admirable at clothing the naked, visiting the sick, and coming unto the imprisoned, etc but less so at meditating on the Word of God. Few of them know much about the early history of the Church etc. That is changing with the political and social alliance with Catholics in recent years. Kind of like sturdy Romans meeting sophisticated Greeks.

By the way the "they" is deliberate. I nondenominationalized myself awhile ago(over exclusivism; I think Catholics are closer to being right on that one and that an Arminianism that ends at physical death is a de facto Calvinism which is intolerable). As guests are allowed to take Communion there is no problem.

Re: Building a mythic hero
 

In other words, there is no evidence of Mary's perpetual virginity to be found in the Bible?

Who says I accept the authority of the Bible? But to answer your question, even if I did, it does not follow. That was the essence of many of the Reformation movements. That interpretation of the Bible was a matter for each individual.

But be that as it may, the question under discussion is about what the Bible says and doesn't say. What tradition and the Church Fathers say is not evidence of what the Bible says. That would merely be surrendering my own judgement to that of Authority.

Would a reasonable man reading the Bible without benefit of the Wisdom of the Church Fathers get the impression from Matthew 1:25 and other bits of scripture that Joseph and Mary had a perfectly traditional marriage after the birth of Jesus? I believe so.


Hans

Re: Building a mythic hero
 

So tell me which part of the original text of the Bible says that Mary remained a perpetual virgin.

As I said, I consider the default assumption to be that she didn't.

What apparent discrepancies? As far as I can tell, the discrepancies is between what the Bible actually says and what the Church Fathers would have preferred it to say.

(I read up on it the last time we had this discussion. Not this time, I admit).


Hans

Re: Building a mythic hero
 

I wonder if we should separate religious heroes as a sub-category. The stories about them are usually a different cup of tea in the major religions. Some religious heroes are warriors and comparable to the old myths. But others are contemplatives or missionaries or something of the kind and their stories don't sound the same. A saint's tale or equiv has it's own aesthetic attraction but it isn't the same as that of a saga.

Re: Building a mythic hero
 

Maybe, although the line between hero and saint can be blurry, or no line at all.

Re: Building a mythic hero
 

Obviously. If it did, there wouldn't be any controversy.

And when she gave birth to him. The Bible explicitly says so.

You're wrong there as far as I'm concerned. I think that Joseph and Mary consummated their marriage after Jesus was born because that's supposed to be God's purpose with the institution of marriage. I don't need to point out the grammatic implications of the Greek word for 'until' or the mention of Jesus' brothers to prove that, because I don't think it requires proof. I think the opposite view is the one that requires proof. And I don't think it exists.


Yes, yes, I get that there's no proof (as opposed to evidence) that Mary didn't remain a virgin her whole life. As I pointed out above, if there were any such proof, there wouldn't be any discussion about it, would there?

But where's the evidence to support it?

In addition to the argument above, I also think... no, better not; my other reason is somewhat irreverent, and I don't want to cause offense.

All I can say that I've never seen any arguments except those that show why the Bible doesn't actually disprove the notion.

Because what they say seems wrong to me. So I'm asking for proof by evidence. Proof by Authority doesn't really work for me.


Hans

Re: Building a mythic hero
 

I've provided links. If you are interested in learning more about the tradition of Mary's presentation to the temple, beliefs about her vow of lifelong virginity, the special nature of her role as Mother of God, where and why text of the Bible actually supports the idea of her only child being Jesus (it's explained in the magazine articles I linked) it's all there. Just read the material when you have time, and PM me your comments once you are familiar with the material.

Re: Building a mythic hero
 

Ewan, I read that link the first time you provided it. I've just reread it, and it does not show where and why the text of the Bible actually support the idea of Mary's only child being Jesus. It simply asserts that such is the case and claims that the Bible doesn't disprove such an assertation. Unless, of course, it shows it somewhere other than in the section headlined "Mary's perpetual virginity' -- I have not read the whole text from top to bottom.

If it does show any such thing anywhere, please provide an actual quote from the text you linked to. If you can't, we've reached the same impasse that we reached the first time you made this claim.


Hans