Posted on 11/20/2002 6:41:02 PM PST by az4vlad
Was Mary perpetually a Virgin? Are Catholics right to challenge people to be virgins for life like nuns and priests?
The box of bones is exciting as a "find." But for Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox theologians, it poses a real problem that could take some of the fun out of it.
These two branches of Christendom believe that Mary was perpetually a virgin. That is, obviously, she and husband Joseph never enjoyed God’s good gift of sex in marriage.
Of course, there is no biblical support for this. In fact, biblical support states that the two had sex. Matthew 1:25 states just that; that is, that after Jesus was born, Mary and Joseph enjoyed conjugal relations. Further, Mark 6:3 lists Jesus’ four brothers’ names, and mentioned that He had "sisters."
So there you have it. And when you have it, you can’t have it both ways.
Yet why is this perpetual virginity such a big deal to Catholic and Orthodox? Could it be because celibacy is such a big deal for priests and nuns? So youths are then challenged to be virgins for life like unto the Blessed Mother.
However, once again, there is no biblical backing for this. Instead, the Scriptures state just the opposite regarding Mary.
(The Orthodox believe that Joseph had James by a first spouse. After she died, he married Mary, she birthing only Jesus, thus remaining virginal for life. This is legend with no historical foundation.
Catholics footnote their Bibles by stating that Jesus had no brothers and sisters but that such scriptural statements refer to His cousins. The trouble here is that, in Greek, the terms for "brothers" and "sisters" is not the same as the term for "cousin.")
Other articles by Joseph Grant Swank can be found in the Men's News Daily archive. Therefore, when Andre Lemaire, a specialist in ancient inscriptions at France’s Practical School of Higher Studies, writes in Biblical Archaeology Review that there is very probably an authentic reference to Jesus of Nazareth on an ossuary—the box of bones—it sets up a major problem for Catholics and Orthodox.
The find was in Israel. It would give us the oldest archaeological evidence of Jesus Christ as an historical figure. "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" appears in Aramaic (the language of Jesus) on an empty ossuary—the limestone burial box for bones. Lemaire speculates its date to be 63 AD. He banks that the writing style sets the inscription smack in the time of Jesus and James, leader of the Early Church in Jerusalem.
He states that only 20 Jameses would have had Joseph as father and Jesus as brother in the holy city at that time. Further, inscribing the name of both father and brother on an ossuary was "very unusual." Therefore, this Jesus must have had some unusual notoriety.
Two Israeli scientists with the Geological Survey, having seen through a microscopic exam of the box, inform that there is "no evidence that might detract from the authenticity."
Josephus, first century Jewish historian, scribed that "the brother of Jesus. . .James by name" was martyred by stoning in AD 62. If his bones were stored in a box, such could date to AD 63.
The ossuary’s anonymous owner had not known the value of his possession until Lemaire examined it last spring. Mr. Anonymous says he does not want to deal with pesty reporters or the cost of insurance and protecting the artifact. We might also add that his anonymity will also keep the packs of excited theologians from his door...
No one could come close to it except the high Priest one time a year..and then only with many cermonial washings..
You are guilty of breaking the 1st commandment.
The Ark of the Covenant (Exodus 25:10-22) inside the Holy of Holies represented Christ our all in all The Ark was made of acacia wood overlaid with gold. The wood represented the humanity of Christ and the gold, the deity. The combination represented the Lord Jesus Christ, the uniquely born Son of God perfect humanity and undiminished deity. The Lord Jesus Christ was uniquely qualified to satisfy the demands of a Holy and Righteous God and bear the sins of the world. As deity, He was equal with God. As humanity, He was equal with mankind. As deity, He was acceptable to God. As humanity, He could represent mankind. The Lord Jesus Christ, thus, became the mediator between God and man.
The Ark of the Covenant contained three things: A golden pot of manna, Aaron's rod that budded, and the Tablet of the Ten Commandments (Hebrews 9:4).
The Ark was covered with a Mercy Seat of pure gold, which represents Christ, our propitiation (Romans 3:25; Hebrews 9:5 Greek). The blood was sprinkled on the Mercy Seat on the Day of Atonement; and God was satisfied, which means that God the Father was satisfied (propitiated) by the work of Christ on the cross on behalf of mankind.
That the ark was designed to be a symbol of the presence of God in the midst of His people is the common teaching of the Old Testament. According to the Elohist the ark was made to serve as a comfort to the people for this, that they were to leave the mountain where God had caused them to realize His presence (Exodus 30:6). According to the Priestly Code (P), God purposed to speak with Moses from the place between the cherubim upon the ark. According to Judges 2:1, the angel of Yahweh spoke in Bethel (Bochim) in reproof and exhortation to the people, after the ark of the covenant had been brought to that place; for the comparison of Numbers 10:33 and Exodus 23:20 shows that Judges 2:1 is to be understood as speaking of the transfer of the ark to Bethel. When Israel in the time of Eli was overpowered by the Philistines, the Israelites sent for the ark, in order that Yahweh should come into the camp of Israel, and this was also believed to be the case by the Philistines (1 Samuel 4:3). After the ark had come to Bethshemesh and a pestilence had broken out there, the people did not want to keep the ark, because no one could live in the presence of Yahweh, this holy God (1 Samuel 6:20); and Jeremiah says (3:16,17) that an ark of the covenant would not be again made after the restoration of Israel, but then Jerusalem would be called the "throne of Yahweh," i.e. it would so manifestly be the city of God that it would guarantee the presence of God at least just as much as the ark formerly did.
In olden times these things appeared more realistic to the people than they do to us; and when the ark was considered the visible representation of the presence of Yahweh, and as guaranteeing His presence, a close material connection was thought to exist between the ark and Yahweh, by virtue of which Divine powers were also thought to be present in the ark. The people at Bethshemesh were not willing to keep the ark any longer in their midst, because they could not live in its near presence. David's dancing before the ark is regarded by him and by the narrator of the event as a dancing before the Lord (2 Samuel 6:5,14,21), and in 2 Samuel 7:5 God says, through Nathan, that He had wandered around in a tent since He had led the Israelites out of Egypt. But the view advocated by some of the modern critics, that the Israelites had thought that the ark was the dwelling- place or the throne-seat of Yahweh, is nevertheless not correct. This opinion cannot be harmonized with this fact, that in the sources, dating from the same olden times, mention is made of His dwelling in many places in Canaan and outside of Canaan, so that the idea that His presence or even He Himself is confined to the ark is impossible.
Repent Tonto and give God His glory!
My point was that Mary's perpetual virginity is not relevant to SALVATION.
Is that wrong?
If it is not wrong, then, perhaps, it is pointless for Catholics and Protestants to argue over the issue.
Don't you try to lead them to salvation?
Can someone who is not a virgin take on a vow of chastity?
Mary is the ultimate example of obedience to the Lord. In effect, she is the perfect example of a human who has been saved.
If her perpetual virginity is not relevant, why are some so determined to sully this ancient Christian belief?
What do you think Satan would like us to believe about her?
Let me rephrase the question. If a Catholic did not believe in Mary's perpetual virginity, would that prevent the Catholic's salvation?
With regard to why there are those who wish to sully Mariology, the motive is obviously to sully Catholicism. My point is that a Christian's primary interest is salvation and that in Catholicism Mariology has nothing to do with what a person needs for salvation. Therefore, attacking Mariology to attack Catholicism is an irrelevant line of attack because Mariology is not fundamental to the most important things one must do to be a Catholic and to achieve salvation. I do not believe that Mary has a necessary role in any of the seven Sacraments.
I see her constantly doing two things on these threads. She says she is not really concerned with thus and such about Mary AND I see her making post after post after post after post in trying to attack Christian Doctrine about Mary. Her words say one thing, her actions another....good job, Tantumergo
Obviously, that belief would not have a direct effect but there may be an indirect effect that we simply shouldn't ignore.
Consider this analogy, has anyone ever not been saved because they ate meat on a Friday? That would be very difficult to accept, correct?
Now, has anyone ever not been saved because they reject some aspects of Church teaching or authority? Well, maybe yes, and maybe no. It becomes very difficult for us to say with certainty.
Clearly, this mattered to the early Christians. We should not be so willing to discard it at this point.
With regard to why there are those who wish to sully Mariology...
[Insert brief Eastern Orthodox cringe at the term. ;-)]
...the motive is obviously to sully Catholicism.
Correct.
I do not believe that Mary has a necessary role in any of the seven Sacraments.
Also correct.
I think we see, as always, a faulty understanding of the Incarnation going on. Mom sees the Ark as Jesus, because she sees Jesus as a human who happens to be inhabited by God. So she sees the Ark like a human shell for God to come into.
This, of course, is an heretical understanding of the hypostatic union between Jesus' divine and human natures.
SD
If a Catholic did not believe in Mary's perpetual virginity, would that prevent the Catholic's salvation?
There are several thigns to keep in mind here. First of all, one could not participate in Mass fully if on denied Mary's Perpetual Virginity, as she is invoked at least once. So one would have to have a type of doublethink going on in his mind, or the "cafeteria" type mentality of rejecting certain elements of the liturgy.
Secondly, and most importantly, it is Truth, and it is Truth that has been handed down from the Church. If one can not submit to the Church on this issue, what is to guarantee a similar "picking and choosing" of the Church's teaching does not go on as well?
Certainly Mary's Truths are secondary to the central Truths of Jesus, but how much of the Church He left behind can we reject and still remain, under condition of damnation, "subject" to the Church?
Lastly, there is the idea of maximizing our truths. Fundamentalists, as the name implies, are content with the barest of collections of truths. Is that all that Jesus gave us? A "Mere Christianity" and no way of knowing for certain anything else?
SD
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.