Is Mary not a Virgin? The German Bishops’ New Bible Translation Leaves it... Unclear

LifeSite News ^ | 9/21/16 | Jan Bentz

[ealgeone]

But there’s the rub. There was not unanimous consent on this issue.

[ealgeone]

If we accept your position the the Greek church, and not Rome, should be the final authority on issues. You willing to concede that?

[Claud]

It refutes nothing of the sort. Joseph having children from a previous marriage is completely consistent with the doctrine of perpetual virginity, and as I understand, it is the common belief among the Orthodox. I think it helps explain a lot myself.

If Tertullian is your only witness against the doctrine, and I’d have to check what he said, but whoopdeedoo. That’s ONE Church Father against all the rest. And remember, though he wrote works in Greek, he likely learned it as a second language through his education. He was a Latin from Africa—not an area of the Empire known for Greek speakers.

[ealgeone]

I'm not hanging my hat on Tertullian as you suggest. I posted the info to show the claim that it was always believed Mary remained a virgin to be a false claim. There was no 100% agreement on this issue

So are you willing to concede authority to the Greek church and take it away from Rome??

[ealgeone]

No one but Greeks can learn Greek? Does this mean only Italians can learn Latin? Can only someone born in France learn French?

The Catholic disdain for the ability to learn and use the NT Greek is amazing.

[af_vet_1981]

The Apostles actually did know the Messiah personally, having seen, heard, and touched Him.

We can know Him by repentance, faith, and obedience.

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations: That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ: Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory: Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.


I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see. As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent. Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

First Peter, Catholic chapter one, Protestant verses one to nine,

Revelation, Catholic chapter three, Protestant verses eighteen to twenty one,

as authorized, but not authored, by King James,
boldness mine

[ealgeone]

The Christian knows Him personally.

[Verginius Rufus]

Romans 16.7 mentions Andronikos and Iounias, but both are in the accusative case with the ending -n. Iounias is a masculine name, Iounia (Junia) is feminine, but would have the same form in the accusative case. The only difference would be in the accent and I don't know how many of the early manuscripts have the accents.

So I don't know if they have any "new evidence" to favor Iounias over Iounia.

Similarly in Romans 16.15 there is a name which may be Ioulia (Julia), as most manuscripts have it, but there is an alternative reading which could be either Iounias or Iounia (again, in the accusative case so spelled the same way).

[Claud]

No I am not willing to concede it.

The Churches at Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch were all originally ethnically and linguistically Greek as far as I am aware. They just eventually shifted over to their native tongues, so they do not have as clearly unified a 2000-year linguistic tradition. That’s why I concentrated on the Greeks.

All the ancient Churches agree on the ever-virginity of Mary, and it was held by a number of Reformers as well, as others have shown here. Fr. Hunwicke just made the case that there is no ground for opposing it in the Church of England either:

http://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/2016/09/the-tome-of-s-leo.html

[af_vet_1981]

Have you ever heard of someone learning a second language and then trying to dictate to the *original* speakers what a passage MUST mean? Despite unanimous opinion to the contrary?

Internet and websites; very few of them speak Hebrew or Greek; what's the security term for novices with hacking tools ? Script kiddies, and they do a lot of damage to unprotected computers.

[Claud]

I posted the info to show the claim that it was always believed Mary remained a virgin to be a false claim.

If the characterization of Tertullian is found to be correct then yes, I will admit that it is not true to say that "everyone" believed it. So we're down to "almost everyone".

I'm just not sure how we get from "almost everyone accepted it" to how it's being treated here--like it's an abominable heresy.

Will you concede, at least, the ever-virginity of Mary is a theological proposition that may be held by a Christian? That it is not heretical?

[Salvation]

I guess they haven’t read the Bible. Both the Old Testament prophecies and the New Testament account of the Nativity of Jesus.

[Salvation]

Perpetual virginity
Is the Perpetual Virginity of Mary a Biblical View?
Aeiparthenos (An Anglo-Catholic Priest on Mary's Perpetual Virginity)
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

[MHGinTN]

Paul predates your traditions. HE spoke of the brother of Jesus. That is sufficient for me. Your mileage will be gauged by the religious institution and its man-made traditions which you favor over The Word of God.

[MHGinTN]

Non sequitur at its most egregious ... I don’t see anyone of note disputing that Jesus was born of a virgin. THAT is the nativity of Jesus. Want to try again, with words you understand better?

[ealgeone]

No they don’t all agree on this. Perhaps beginning in the 4th century but not always prior to this. What this illustrates is how false beliefs can encroach in the church. Paul and John had to deal with false teaching as we have to contend with now over this issue.

[Claud]

I’m not saying don’t learn Greek. I’m saying learn Greek but just know your place, and learn from the people that spoke it natively. Don’t tell them what their language means because it suits your theology.

Humility. That’s all.

By the way, the Greeks do it to us too. Some Orthodox tell us we are heretical because we hold the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son. To make a long story short, our “procedere” doesn’t mean exactly the same as their corresponding word, so we do not actually hold the heresy that they think we hold. To them I say the same. Don’t tell us what the Latin verb means. :)

[maro]

I didn’t comment on the Pope, yea or nay. I’m a Protestant myself.

[MHGinTN]

IIRC there are existing manuscripts which predate the Septuagint for Isaiah.

[TBP]

There is a good bit more than that — starting with the fact that the Bible was written in Greek, but Jesus spoke Aramaic, meaning that his words were already translated when transcribed, and many words in Aramaic have multiple meanings. How are the original scribes (and/or those who were telling the stories orally before they were transcribed) sure they got the right one?

But that’s just the first problem. There are whole sections added and deleted from the early versions that we hve, as well as what appear to be transcription errors that potentially could change the meaning of a passage.

(What if I hand-wrote “change” but you transcribed it as “charge”? A whole different meaning.)