Building a mythic hero

[Hans Rancke-Madsen]

Originally Posted by combatmedic

Actually, no, it doesn't say what you seem to think it says.

You are bringing up old errors which were dealt with a long, long time ago.

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

[Hans Rancke-Madsen]

Originally Posted by combatmedic

ignoring tradition, the writings of the Church Fathers, and of course the nuances of translation.

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?

And please note that this is not a sectarian issue. Martin Luther and most of the other Reformers of note supported or at the least did not question this teaching.

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

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by combatmedic

The Bible is a set of books written by human beings and collected over the course of centuries. It is not a single work by a single author. It is very complex and not always easy to understand. It uses metaphor, similes, poetic language, historical and religious allusions and idioms not always obvious to the layman. It needs to be read in context. Reading verses out of context can lead to confusion and error. Tradition helps to provide the needed context. The work of scholars helps.

But I'll do you one more, Hans. If you accept the authority of the Bible...
then don't you by definition accept the authority of the church councils, scholars, and bishops who complied, collated, argued about, and ruled on the canonicity and interpretation of the texts?

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.

[Hans Rancke-Madsen]

Originally Posted by combatmedic

The Bible is a set of books written by human beings and collected over the course of centuries. It is not a single work by a single author. It is very complex and not always easy to understand. It uses metaphor, similes, poetic language, historical and religious allusions and idioms not always obvious to the layman. It needs to be read in context. Reading verses out of context can lead to confusion and error. Tradition helps to provide the needed context. The work of scholars helps.

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

But I'll do you one more, Hans. If you accept the authority of the Bible...
then don't you by definition accept the authority of the church councils, scholars, and bishops who complied, collated, argued about, and ruled on the canonicity and interpretation of the texts?

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

[Hans Rancke-Madsen]

Originally Posted by combatmedic

Sure, if you read certain 'bits' in translation, out of context, and without knowledge of scholarship or tradition, you might misread or misinterpret certain matters. A reasonable man wouldn't do that, IMO.

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.

If you have read the links I provided, you are aware of how apparent discrepancies have been reconciled.

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

[jason taylor]

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.

[combatmedic]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

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.

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

[Hans Rancke-Madsen]

Originally Posted by combatmedic

It's a fair question you ask, Hans. You default assumption is reasonable, but IMO mistaken.

The Bible does not appear to explicitly state one way or another if Mary remained a virgin for her entire life.

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

It's clear that she was a virgin when she conceived Jesus.

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

I'm breaking it down to a basic level here, but there was some question in the early Church as to whether she had remained a virgin for her entire life.

Some people, like you, have thought that references to 'brothers' indicated that Jesus had siblings, the offspring of Mary and Joseph.

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.

But as scholars have noted many times, the term 'brothers' in a Jewish 1st Century context is rather vague and could just as easily mean brothers in-law, children from a previous marriage (of Joseph), or male cousins.

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?

Similar exegesis neatly dismisses all the other points raised in objection to Mary's perpetual virginity.

But where's the evidence to support it?

So why believe one way or the other, as to the question of Mary's perpetual virginity?

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.

We have a long and deep tradition of Mary's perpetual virginity from the early Christians, one grounded in religious arguments. It's not just something made up 'whole cloth.'

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

Many things believed by not only Catholics and Orthodox, but also by quite a lot of Protestants, are grounded in the writings of the Fathers and the rulings of church councils. Indeed, 'The Bible' (as a collection of canonical texts, not the individual books) is a creation of church councils. It one accepts those councils as right in regards to collecting and agreeing upon the canonicity of texts, why would one not also accept their rulings on things like the perpetual virginity of Mary?

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

[combatmedic]

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.

[Hans Rancke-Madsen]

Originally Posted by combatmedic

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.

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