Posted on 09/21/2013 3:07:58 PM PDT by NYer
Except for the superficial wax face and hands masks painted to appear "incorrupt", she really isn't. Consecrating one's life to God CAN be done within marriage or outside it, but to GET married with the intent to both be always celibate pretty much corrupts the point OF marriage. And....isn't a non-consummated marriage grounds for an annulment in the Catholic Church???
Thanks for bring up the verses I could not remember, learning them has always been my down fall.
The one thing we do know about that time period is they married off girls shortly after their menses started, it was their way of stopping the garbage we are witnessing in today’s society of immorality.
Except that Judaism didn't have consecrated virgins.
The Protoevangelium of James (7-8), and the writing entitled “De nativit. Mariae” (7-8), state that Joachim and Anna, faithful to a vow they had made, presented the child Mary in the Temple when she was three years old; that the child herself mounted the Temple steps, and that she made her vow of virginity on this occasion.
The Gospel of James, also known as the Infancy Gospel of James or the Protoevangelium of James, is an apocryphal Gospel probably written about AD 145
Infancy gospels are not apocryphal, they are pseudepigraphal - without author or provenance - They are spurious works, and the very fact that the Protoevangelium of James injects pagan consecrated virgins into Judaism proves without a doubt that it is purely fiction (and poorly written).
I do so wish that our Romish FRiends would stop using spurious works as proofs.
When the Archangel Gabriel visited Mary and declared unto her that she was called to be the Mother of God,
The ones who argue the other side of the issue insists that since Jesus had brothers and sisters that Mary absolutely had to have other Children but can not come up with one scripture that says anything about Mary having any other child except Jesus.
And this is the way with so many arguments concerning religion, both sides does this in arguing against Mormonism they take one little scripture that has nothing to do with the issue they are discussing and try to say it says something it does not say.
I liked the alliteration sound of it. ginger Jesus, ginger Jesus, walking through the glenn, with his band of men.
Having re-read the article and posts this morning, I have determined a solution:
We will form two new religious denominations, one that is that Mary and Joseph were married in modern sense and the other that they were not.
That difference will be the entire theological basis of these 2 new Christian religions.
Just being light-hearted and sarcastic.
And perceptive ;-).
As another said, this writer of the article has way to much time on his hands. See also my various posts including #85
see my post #85
But when we focus on other things and beings, particularly lesser beings and physical things, we have disagreements. This is not bad, good will come of it. After all, He did not make us with a cookie cutter.
I referenced all materials from the online Catholic Encyclopedia.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm
But that being said, casting aspersions on some myths but not others is walking on thin ice. An awful lot of research and scholarship has been devoted to this. The cherry-picking used in the creation of the Bible is as much a part of it as anything else.
That being said, Catholics embrace some things that other religions do not, and no provable “right” or “wrong” doctrines exist.
As I mentioned before, Judaisms views of chastity do not mesh with Christians views of chastity. “Consecrated virgin” is a Christian term that would make no sense to the Jews of the period. However, this does not mean that the Jews didn’t have very complex ideas on the subject.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/4263-chastity
But in turn, this places odd constraints on those Christian authors after the fact, trying to explain foreign ideas in Christian terms, to a Christian audience unfamiliar with the Jewish concepts.
Don’t believe Joseph and Mary were particularly holy, at least not on the level of Jesus or even John the Baptist.
No, 'consecrated virgin' is a pagan concept, which is where it's foundation lies (see 'Vestal Virgins').
But in turn, this places odd constraints on those Christian authors after the fact, trying to explain foreign ideas in Christian terms, to a Christian audience unfamiliar with the Jewish concepts.
No, one of the unique hallmarks of the House of YHWH is that novelty is *not* permitted. Since there is no evidence of 'consecrated virgins' in the Early Church whatsoever (except in spurious works, falsely attributed to that time), one can readily rely on the introduction of such a thing as bowing to syncretism, something the Roman church has a peculiar penchant for, and something which YHWH hates passionately.
The reliance upon spurious invention where there is otherwise a paucity of proof should be a big clue.
Well, argue all you like with Catholics, but I assure you, Han Solo fired first.
LOL! It does not apply.
YHWH fired first (in the beginning) - It is the Roman church that is trying to alter the scene after the fact.
None of this matters. the Bible says nothing about Mary’s perpetual virginity ... period.
The other side points out scripture where it names the brothers of Jesus, but do not provide any scripture to prove Mary had other children, neither side proves anything.
And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God,
While technically true, the Protestant position has the convenience of leaning upon the norm - IOW, without some special circumstance being otherwise mentioned in the Scriptures, one can readily assume the Hebrew conventions of normalcy apply. Since no exception is mentioned (like with the 12 sons of Abraham from two different mothers, as specified), the normal condition seems to apply.
The Roman church must fall back to unattributed, spurious works to grasp for a condition wherein Mary can remain ever virgin - Something not required in the Scriptures, and having no value whatsoever in the Gospel message... Ergo the rather strained outcome with many unnecessary convolutions. But they *need* it to be true, lest the entire ecosystem of mariology should crumble into nothing, and they can't have that.
Essays for Lent: Mary Ever-Virgin
Why is the perpetual virginity of Mary so important to Catholics? [Ecumenical Vanity]
Is the Perpetual Virginity of Mary a Biblical View?
Aeiparthenos (An Anglo-Catholic Priest on Mary's Perpetual Virginity)
The Heõs Hou polemic is over: Radio Debate Matatics VS White & Svendsen on Perpetual Virginity Mary
The Early Church Fathers on Mary’s Perpetual Virginity - Catholic/Orthodox Caucus
The Heõs Hou polemic is over: Radio Debate Matatics VS White & Svendsen on Perpetual Virginity Mary
Luther, Calvin, and Other Early Protestants on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary
Luther, Calvin, and Other Early Protestants on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.