![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Hi All, The ref to the phrase "This argumentation was repeated, not only by later Catholic theologians, but by the magisterial Protestant Reformers as well" is given as "D. MacCulloch, The Reformation: a History (Penguin Books, 2003) pp. 614.". From a couple of sites I have the title as "Reformation : Europe's House Divided". There is a book "The Reformation: a History" but it is a different book, and under 300 pages, so I guess that the error in the ref is with the title, and I will amend accordingly. Springnuts ( talk) 21:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
In the section currently called Biblical Passages and their Historical Interpretation the Protoevangelium of James is mentioned or quoted twice. Clearly, it doesn't belong. While it is called apocryphal, its very presence in this section is (and has been for a long time) wrong and misleading. It has far less (="no") value for helping to determine the Biblical background or basis of the doctrine, and ought to come out or move to a different section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LindsayH ( talk • contribs) 06:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC) Whoops, forgot to sign, now i see some bot did it. Oh well. Cheers, Lindsay ( talk) 06:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it might be worth a mention that this position is rejected by mainstream evangelical Christianity today. 78.145.39.64 ( talk) 17:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Previously the claim that this was a doctrine of the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox churches was cited all by a reference to the Cathechism of the "Catholic Church". Obviously this cite is only sufficient for the RCC at best, and therefore the cite was moved to merely the Roman Catholic part of that claim, and a citation needed was added next to both Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox.
A cite recently was added next to the Eastern Orthodox part, but the link did not work so it has been removed and the citation needed put back up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.231.188.215 ( talk) 04:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
No cite was provided as proof of the universal teachings of the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, so the claim was changed and qualified. Deusveritasest ( talk) 23:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The first sentence in the current version of this page states that this is a dogma of the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox Churches. I believe this is incorrect. I think it is a dogma of the Roman Catholic Church, but I believe it is only a doctrine, not a dogma, of the Eastern Orthodox Church. I have no idea where it stands among the Oriental Orthodox, so I hesitate to edit this sentence. Orthodox hillbilly ( talk) 04:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not very experienced at this but I've noticed that this page is very imbalanced. There is no representation for modern interpretations other than those in support of this doctrine. Can we get a criticism section at the very least? Many historical interpretations are stated which are easily countered by a modern interpretation but there is no section for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.192.217 ( talk) 08:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Where would it be appropriate to add this case against the doctrine of perpetual virginity? The case starts with psalm chapter 69. Verse 9 is this - "I have become an outcast to my kin, a stranger to my mother's children." It is clearly a psalm from Christ's perspective and a prophecy as it is the source for the famous line "instead they put gall in my food; for my thirst they gave me vinegar." which is mentioned as a fulfilled prophesy in the New Testament. Next, we can know the brothers and sisters mentioned were not children of Joseph from a prior marriage because Jewish people didn't have more than one "firstborn". This is evidenced in Genesis 49:3 when Jacob calls his sons from different mothers and tells Reuben that he is the firstborn - obviously because he was chronologically born first. If Joseph had children from a previous marriage, someone else would have been the first born. Luke 2:22 "When the time of their purification according to the Law of Moses had been completed, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord 23(as it is written in the Law of the Lord, "Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.192.217 ( talk) 08:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
The modern opposition is quite simple, and encompasses what most Protestants believe about the subject: the idea of Mary's perpetual virginity not only has no basis in scripture, it is flatly contradicted by the most obvious literal interpretation of the Gospels. Catholic and Orthodox doctrine bends over backwards to reinterpret the text is a less plausible way to get around the contradiction. It's understandable that they don't have a problem with the lack of scriptural basis; Catholic and Orthodox Christianity are not sola scriptura. But the idea that non-scriptural doctrines can contradict scripture and still be Christian makes no sense to me. 75.76.213.106 ( talk) 22:42, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
hello, i just want to comment that i have done a paper on this subject, and i tackle it from a fresh perspective, which to be honest, its weird that nobody has done it before me (that i know of)and i wish to add this view to this article, just want some feedback, to see what others think, here ill outline the basics of my results
so the deal is this, insted of tackling this subject from the gospels, i try to sustain that mary had at least one more brother, the one the apostle paul met according to (Gal 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.)
i know this text in itself may not amount to much, since the word being used is adelphos, the same used in the gospels, and thus it could easly mean cousins, which is one of the official postures of the catholic church.
but this text united with the following, give new life to the traditional interpretation of adelphos, the text is COL 4:10 which reads: (Aristarchus my fellow prisoner greets you, with Mark the cousin of Barnabas (about whom you received instructions: if he comes to you, welcome him)
as of the time of the apostle paul the word anepsios (g431 strong) was exclusive for cousin
(according to vines expository dictionary on the new testament, it reads the followin: in Col 4:10 denotes a "cousin" rather than a nephew (AV, "sister's son"). "Cousin" is its meaning in various periods of Greek writers. In this sense it is used in the Sept., in Num 36:11. In later writings it denotes a nephew; hence the AV rendering. As Lightfoot says, there is no reason to suppose that the Apostle would have used it in any other than its proper sense. We are to understand, therefore, that Mark was the cousin of Barnabas)
now this is true specialy if you are a sola scrptura beliver,the word is only used in the LXX in Num 36:11 (For Mahlah, Tirzah, and Hoglah, and Milcah, and Noah, the daughters of Zelophehad, were married unto their father's brothers' sons) LXX (11 και εγενοντο Θερσα και Εγλα και Μελχα και Νουα και Μααλα θυγατερες σαλπααδ τοις ανεψιοις αυτων )
what does this mean then? this means that the apostle paul knew and used the word for cousin in greek in one of his epistles, so he was not respecting hebrew tradtion (as some debate the evangelist did) by using adelphos to mean cousin.
conluding, had the apostle ment to say that James was kin or cousin to the lord, we now have ample evidence that he wouldve used the correct word, yet he said brother. therefore, mary did in fact had other sons, wich would rebuke the belif of the perpetual virginity.
just want to add that this is only refering to the virginitas post partum aspect of the perpetual virginity, and not to the virgin conception or birth, which of course all branches of christianity adhere to. Gabrielsol ( talk) 02:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Obviously i would not use this article to "publish" my original investigation, let me quote of the article you linked "This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources."
just want my published investigation to form part of this subject, specialy since it is done on the subject, of course, it would be writen in a neutral way, just adding some information, which i belive is relevant. Gabrielsol ( talk) 06:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
In many cases, the Perpetual Virginity is confused or confounded with the Immaculate Conception, and this may just as well be noted. ADM ( talk) 00:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I have found this interesting claim that Saint-Germain/ Enoch/Metatron was also Saint Joseph, the husband of Mary. This would mean theologically that Joseph is an incarnation of the Holy Spirit and that he is divine in his non-incarnated form. Now, Metatron cannot sin, therefore any special relationship between Joseph and Mary would not be counted as sin. This would explain why many Catholics give a special cultus to Joseph and the Holy Family. [1] ADM ( talk) 03:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
This seems to be factually in error. I am not Catholic, but I hardly believe that this thesis explains why such emphasis is given to the "holy family." Whatever the reason is it can hardly be explained in terms of Joseph being divine, otherwise he would play a larger role in Catholic theology than Mary, but as it is he not only does not play such a role, but is often neglected in comparison to the other Saints. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.62.119.81 ( talk) 06:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
This section is utterly useless and contains statements that are either incomprehensible or completely wrong. For example, the opening sentence states: "From the fifth century on no opposition whatever to the doctrine was expressed in either East or West." What does the statement even *mean*? That no Protestants have opposed the doctrine? This is patently absurd as most Protestants do not believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. The entire section cherry picks various Protestant figures and tries to establish their belief in this doctrine, but makes no mention of the majority of Protestant leaders that do not support the belief. The entire section needs a rewrite because as it stands now it is nothing more than a POV love letter to the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity. Supertheman ( talk) 12:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
The line that is given to Calvin's views on the matter should either be eliminated, expanded, qualified or made to link to the article on his views. As it stands, it is misleading: it gives the impression that he (like Wesley and Luther, the theologians he is sandwiched between) affirmed the doctrine. In reality he rejected it more emphatically than most Protestants, since he thought virginity within marriage would violate the nature of the marriage covenant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.62.119.81 ( talk) 06:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
The last sentence of the second paragraph says: "However, since the Desert Fathers these individuals have been interpreted by some as possibly cousins or relatives of Jesus." It is confusing. Is it saying that the Desert fathers had this interpretation, or is it saying that this interpretation dates to the time of the Desert Fathers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.27.111.8 ( talk) 20:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Esoglou, it would appear that Josephus believed that James was the brother of Jesus, as did the early Jewish sources. I will leave it to you to work it into the article from a NPOV. Cheers - Ret.Prof ( talk) 11:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
In order to prevent an edit war, I wanted to explain why I would like to change the following statement:
"The doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary, which is believed de fide, i.e. held as having the highest degree of certainty among doctrines, states that..."
The statement implies that all religions follow this doctrine, particularly if you don't know what "de fide" means. The definition of de fide listed there implies that it is a certain, verified truth. I'll reword it to make it clearer. ~ Araignee ( talk • contribs) 19:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Both sources mentioned are Catholic sources and neither reference a reason why the Muslims might believe it, instead simply stating that the Qur'an affirms the perpetual virginity. However, while the Qur'an does clearly support the virgin birth of Jesus, it does not state or imply celibacy or virginity after the fact, nor does this notion mesh with Muslim culture. ~ Araignee ( talk • contribs) 22:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
The lead section correctly states that early reformers supported the concept of perpetual virginity. Current doctrine of diverse protestant churches, including Lutheran and Anglican however, does not. The citations do not support the statement. This needs correcting. Rlsheehan ( talk) 17:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I was going to post a comment about this, but I see it was already discussed. However, the introduction seems to contradict both what was said here and what the sources say. The introduction currently says "The doctrine of perpetual virginity is, however, currently maintained by some Anglican and Lutheran theologians". I find no support for that in the four sources. Two of them deal exclusively with what some Anglicans and Lutherans thought 400 year ago, obviously irrelevant for the current situation. I don't have Jackson's book and don't know what it says; does it really say that some Anglican and Lutherans currently believe Mary remained a virgin? I do have Webster's, though don't with me right now but I'll check what it says. In the meantime, I'm removing the two sources that lack any relevance for a discussion of what Lutherans and Anglicans currently believe. Jeppiz ( talk) 15:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps I have misunderstood, but I feel that the following line (from the section about the Early Church) would be more accurate with the insertion of the word in italics: "The document discusses Mary’s virginity before birth, the absence of labor pains, and how a midwife’s examination demonstrated Mary’s virginity during birth, thus asserting the virginity of Mary before, during, and immediately after the birth of Jesus." WookMuff ( talk) 01:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
While references in ledes are not normally required it is required that ALL QUOTATIONS are referenced even when in the lede. Afterwriting ( talk) 11:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
What is the significance of this statement, which comes up multiple times in the article? Why would a virgin before giving birth lose her status in virtue of having done so? Was there a tradition that babies being delivered were, in the process of birth, metaphorically engaged in intercourse with their mothers? -- Gargletheape ( talk) 14:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
As we know, there have been many, who have opposed the Virginity of Mary. So I would like to know about such section of this page, or if it can be created, if there's none right now. Bladesmulti ( talk) 06:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Willthacheerleader18 thanks for writing the new sentence in the lead that notes the Biblical references to Jesus's brothers and sisters. 2602:304:788B:DF50:8CDD:5461:389A:631B ( talk) 21:40, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Perpetual virginity of Mary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:01, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
·I ended up at this article by chance, but I gave it a read because it somehow never popped up in my ~15 years of Catholic schooling. I found most of the article starting at 'History' both uninformative and uninteresting. I understand that most available sources are pretty heavily biased, but the section on Scripture was just different sides taking turns rejecting invariably weak points. I understand that these arguments do take place rather frequently, but the repetitive, unproductive squabbling of ideologue apologetics is neither informative nor of general interest. That seems like the sort of content that belongs in encyclopedias geared toward Christian readers. The relevant drama played out in ~200-500 AD, and the Bible, especially the passages frequently discussed now, were never what drove the different sides of the controversy. The movement to Mary as perpetual virgin was spurred by an apocryphal text that the church had and still has no respect for. The idea slowly grew from there and worked its way into the mainstream with the help of some timely developments:the rise of asceticism and the growing religious fervor for Mariology. The two Doctors of the Church who really went after Helvidius and Jovinian were largely motivated by obscure and/or harmful notions about virginity and sex. Catholic apologists defend them generally, but it's noteworthy that their theological and ideological arguments for Mary's perpetual virginity have fell out of favor or were outright rejected relatively quickly. Augustine cleaned up the church's explanation for their position with some reasonably strong writings, and from there on out the idea spread without too much resistance until the Reformation. The best academic Catholic book I could find supported much of what I've mentioned (he was pretty clear about his view that Ambrose and Jerome were morally and intellectually superior to the heretics.) He acknowledged how flawed the arguments that helped spread the belief were, and he affirmed the idea that the spread of the idea benefited hugely from the cultural and religious trends occurring concurrently. His view is that this extraordinary path to acceptance shows just how powerful the Holy Spirit is. I don't think it's unfair to say that much of the church's confidence stems from the fact that they trust that God wouldn't allow heresy to take hold in a lasting way. I'm not religious, but if I have any religious bias it's in favor of Catholics. From my perspective, the history described seems to reflect the Catholic notion that the nitty-gritty is irrelevant and the important thing is that the Holy Spirit slowly but surely guided the church to the proper conclusion. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's not an adequate way to recount events for a general, religiously diverse audience.
Just my thoughts. I mainly relied on books by Luigi Gambero and David Hunter for information. Both were noticably biased (Catholic and anti-Catholic, repectively), but their well-sourced, detailed breakdowns of the history of Mary as perpetually virgin differed more in interpretation than fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwervinAround ( talk • contribs) 05:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
The word "until" certainly takes a beating in theology. My question is - who cares. Joseph appears to get a roomy not a wife by some interpretations. If the "brothers and sisters" were half-siblings then would be order and they could criticize their baby brother all they wanted to. Tiring to twist the Bible to match theology sure creates a mess. 2601:181:8301:4510:C4CF:57BE:308F:B6E8 ( talk) 02:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
In Brief: I suggest putting the Arguments for the Thesis that Mary was a perpetual Virgin in the header of this article. I only found two good ones, but maybe there are more? (the arguments I found are Mary's reply to the angel, and the words of Jesus on the cross) (and then there are some authority based arguments that would be relevant for catholics, such as the opinion of former popes). EDIT: And, also put in the header then the counter arguments, i.e. the fact that Jesus had brothers, and the fact that nowhere in the Bible is this perpetual virginity mentioned. FreieFF ( talk) 11:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC) I would do this, unless some good reason not to do it is given?
My reasoning: I came to this article with the aim of looking for the arguments that support the thesis that Mary was a perpetual virgin. The reason is, that I am reading the Bible, and couldn't find any argument there. FreieFF ( talk) 11:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Another point: what does the virginity refer to? Maybe a definition of virginity could be included?
For one thing; it is known these days that many ideas about the Hymen are myth; they highly vary among women; for some it is bigger, for some smaller; some are born without it. I understand that it dissapears after giving birth.
So what else can it mean? Does it mean that she had no penetrative sex, for instance? Because that also clear things up a bit more, then we could write "it is assumed by the catholic church that Mary never had penetrative sex". Maybe including a passage about the relevance of this. (because for me as non-catholic, this sounds rather irrelevant). FreieFF ( talk) 11:41, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
So post-Reformation Protestantism abandoned this dogma, true. But it seems that they went further and created a new doctrine: that Mary had other children after Jesus. It seems to be positively formulated, based on evidence they claim they found in Sacred Scripture. It is not simply that Mary did not remain a virgin, Protestants hold that she entered a conventional marriage with St. Joseph and definitely had children. (<-- This is all OR and I don't know what sources would back it up.) Elizium23 ( talk) 06:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I thank all those who have, presumably, been watching as I've revised this article. I've tried to represent opinion fairly, but of course that may not be the case, and so I invite anyone who wishes to now either edit the article directly or make suggestions here, while I stand back. Thank you again. (Just one request - if you edit directly, could you please use the sfn format for srouces, both for neatness and because it makes future editing easier by reducing clutter within the text) Achar Sva ( talk) 06:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is one of the worst articles I've ever read on Wikipedia. The perpetual virginity of Mary was attested among the earliest church fathers and, despite what your article purports, by all the major founders of the Protestant Reformation churches. There are numerous typological references to Mary that the early church used as scriptural evidence for her virginity, and had she had other children than Jesus, he would not have needed to entrust her to his disciple John at his crucifixion.
This article is written from a feminist/postmodern political viewpoint and creates false dialectics to assert that early Christian doctrine was driven by conflict over marriage vs. asceticism; indeed, to imply that all developments in the Christian church were motivated by political conflict. This is so superficial and dim-witted to be beyond the reach of an appropriate insult. Anonymous "scholars" (anyone from the German "Historical Jesus" school of the 19th century and their idiot followers) are cited as experts, while the unanimous testimony of the church fathers, beginning in the 1st century, is ignored. What could those old fools have known? They were only getting their theology from the apostles themselves. Surely our 21st century experts are much wiser. After all, we have computers now. (But not "Q", the imaginary collection of Jesus sayings that was dogma in the academic world a generation ago and now has been discarded faster than the geocentric theory of the universe).
I give the article an F. I came to it trying to find when the denial of Mary's perpetual virginity entered Protestantism. It did not come from the Reformers. Your article lies in saying that it did (and then contradicts itself) and skews a topic that requires much more deference and detail than has been given. Somehow I suspect this was intentional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.167.246.243 ( talk) 09:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Calkins's work is theology not history. He is thoroughly biased for the truth of Catholic dogma, unlike Catholic Bible scholars, who put evidence, rationality and historical fact above any dogma. E.g., he creams John P. Meier for not kowtowing to official Church dogma. His (Calkins's) book is therefore a highly biased source. It may only be used to establish vanilla facts, otherwise WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV will have to be used. If you want to know the POV of conservative cardinals, his book is a useful source. It is not useful for establishing the prevalent view among Bible scholars.
And about objective fact: there is simply no Bible verse postulating that Mary remained a virgin after giving birth, or anything remotely similar with that. In fact, Mary herself is scarcely mentioned in the Bible. Pharisees get more attention than her. Just as Muggles get more attention in Harry Potter than she does in the Bible. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 04:14, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
This section puts forward the POV that there is "no Biblical evidence for the perpetual virginity" and it goes down from there. Great prominence is given to the Jerome thing, for some reason, and precious little evidence is admitted in favor of the perpetual virginity of Mary. Elizium23 ( talk) 22:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
This line in the article seems like it would be disputed. Catholics have made appeals to at least a typological basis in the Bible for the perpetual virginity, for example the daughter of Jephthah in Judges 11, the Ark of the Covenant, and Eve. Here are links to some of those arguments: https://catholicexchange.com/what-this-heroic-old-testament-virgin-teaches-us-about-mary https://stpaulcenter.com/understanding-marys-perpetual-virginity/ 122.58.153.247 ( talk) 21:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
The middle way is to say that there is “no explicit biblical basis for Mary’s perpetual virginity,” by alas, a Protestant zealot deleted that edit. Bibleguy2020 ( talk) 07:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
A more experienced editor ( Special:MobileDiff/1033084559) has been suggesting his edits are better, the editor appears to have been tracking my edits and undoing a number of my edits using "partial" Wikipedia jargon in the past few days. On this page editors are of the opinion that "early" Christian is appropriate for the Antiquity AKa Ancient period of Christian History
If you go into Early Christianity (internal link), it's apparent that the Ancient Period AKA Antiquity of Christian History has been split into Early and Late.
Similarly the middle ages in Christian history have been spilt into Early Middle and Late
Only Origen is the "Early" theologian of the Christian Antiquity who lived in between 33-324 AD ie "Early" Christian.
Augustine of Hippo, Jerome, and Athanasius of Alexandria by paying attention to their individual dates, spent their adulthoods and were theologically active in the Late Antiquity (325–476) they are technically not " Early Christianity" of Christian Antiquity.
I know the dates and periods because I studied it and contributed a piece of information to the article
I couldn't describe these early and late ones as "antique" theologians for Antiquity as required by Special:MobileDiff/1033084559. Keeping in mind common sense as per MOS:HON, Ancient was the right adjective to describe these theologians of the Early antiquity and the Late antiquity ie Ancient period, in one word.
Also "Ancient Christian" is not so farfetched or unheard of that it violates WP:MOS, it's used by publishing houses and authors too. Let's not make a fuss about it:
Rookie edits don't necessarily become "inappropriate" as often as they are being made to be
I have explained my position and I would appreciate if editors would not take sides ( Special:MobileDiff/1033131591) and hope WP:BITE was being practised. Nolicmahr ( talk) 22:32, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
The views of majority of Christians ie Pope leader 1.2 billion Christians, followed by the Orthodox Church, and the Oriental Churches is being silenced in the Lead.
Both the Pontific Church and the Orthodox Church have since the ancient times, maintained that the Adelphoi of Christ has multiple meanings apart from "biological brothers", it can also mean cousins or step brothers in the Greek Bible and the Hebrew Bible.
The crux of the argument is the simple fact: the Bible was not originally written in English, and therefore human errors in translation are possible.
A different interpretation and a lack of Biblical fundamentalism/ does not mean that "there is no biblical basis" for the doctrine.
References
https://web.archive.org/web/20210120122352if_/https://www.catholic.com/tract/brethren-of-the-lord
https://web.archive.org/web/20050310112601/http://www.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/e-bks/bk/new/ap080300.htm Nolicmahr ( talk) 22:15, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Fringedoes not means terrorist or something like that, but it has for us the meaning defined at the guideline WP:FRINGE (please read it).
Current scholarship opposes the author Pitre on every account. His stance is fundamentalist at best. His writing style is that of a high school freshman. ... If you want to learn something, read a book by Dr. Paula Fredriksen or even Dr. John P. Meier, who may have taught Brant Pitre while he was a student at Notre Dame. It's obvious that Pitre didn't pay much attention in class. — T. Bill, Amazon.com
The Greek text literally reads "I do not know man", which refers to Mary's virginal status rather than her marital status. Her concern is not that she is unmarried but that she is a virgin at present and that she intends to remain one in the future. The announcement of a miraculous conception (1:31) thus causes Mary to wonder aloud how God will bless her with a son and yet preserve her virginal purity. Her words are inexplicable otherwise. For nothing about the angel's announcement should have perplexed Mary--whose betrothal to Joseph was already a legally binding marriage--unless she intended to forego ordinary sexual relations even as a married woman. [1]
Jesus honors his Mother by entrusting her to the protective care of the Apostle John, presumably because Mary had no other children to assume the responsibility. [2]
CosmicLycanroc ( talk) 05:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)It is unlikely that Jesus would entrust his Mother to the Apostle John at his Crucifixion if she had other natural sons to care for her (Jn 19:26-27). [3]
I am not saying I have no agendas and no biases. Let me be emphatic. I DO have an agenda and I DO have biases. My agenda is to propagate a scholarly understanding and appreciation of the Bible. And my bias is that a scholarly understanding can NOT be determined by theological dogmas.That would be the POV of mainstream Bible scholars, i.e. what separates them from theologians. Again, using WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV we write something like
According to Catholic theologians, some Bible verses imply that Mary remained a virgin.But we don't say that in the voice of Wikipedia. I.e. we don't claim that it would be an objective fact about the Bible.
CosmicLycanroc ( talk) 08:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Is a " red herring" not allowed to be used on Wikipedia? Nolicmahr ( talk) 17:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Those scenarios and speculation mentioned above are minority views ie WP:Fringe. More specifically Biblical literalists, non denominational Bible believers, and Evangelicals ( Born again). Nolicmahr ( talk) 20:06, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
the Catholic Church believes this, evangelicals believe that.And then every POV of every big church gets represented in the article. I don't think you are on the same page with me: the Bible could be construed by some as evidence against the eternal virginity, it can never be construed as evidence for the eternal virginity. Mary gets barely mentioned in the whole Bible and her sexuality is simply not described in the Bible. So, there is no biblical evidence addressing the sexuality of Mary. There is no biblical evidence that she has sexual relations and no biblical evidence that she did not have sexual relations. The Bible simply is not concerned with the question if Mary ever had sexual relations. tgeorgescu ( talk) 20:34, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
theologically trueor
theologically false. I'm saying that it is a later theological development, i.e. later than the Bible. And I've WP:CITED two WP:RS to that extent, one is a theological encyclopedia which was already cited in the article, and the other is a secular scholarly source from Oxford University Press.
I'm moving this from the article because I can't see any connection with perpetual virginity - and even if there is one it doesn't need so much length. Nevertheless it's well written and perhaps could be spun off as a separate article?
As of the fourth century, in discussing God's plan of salvation, a parallel theme began to appear in which Mary's obedience ("be it unto me according to thy word" in Luke 1:38) and the doctrine of perpetual virginity were counter-positioned against Adam and Eve, just as Jesus' obedience was counter-positioned against that of Adam in Romans 5:12–21. [5] [6]
The concept of Mary as the Second Eve was first introduced by Justin Martyr around 155 AD. [7] In this perspective, which was discussed in detail by Irenaeus, supported by Jerome, and then grew further, the vow of obedience and virginity of Mary positioned her as the "Second Eve" as part of the plan of salvation, just as Jesus was positioned as the Second Adam. [5] [6]
The theme developed by the Church Fathers ran parallel to the theme developed by Apostle Paul in Romans 5:19 when he compared Adam's sin with the obedience of Jesus to the will of the Father: "For just as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous." [8] In the same manner, Mary's obedience to the statements of the angel, and her adherence to her vow of perpetual virginity, was seen as a remedy for the damage caused by Eve. [9]
The Second Eve teaching continued to grow among Catholics, and in discussing perpetual virginity, the 1566 Catechism of the Council of Trent explicitly taught that while Eve by believing the serpent brought malediction on the human race, Mary by believing the angel brought benediction to mankind. [10] [11]
The concept of the Second Eve has continued to remain part of Catholic teachings, e.g. Pope Pius XII referred to it in the encyclical Mystici corporis Christi and Pope John Paul II referred to it in a General Audience at the Vatican in 1980. [12] [13]
References
ThemeM2
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Rahner896
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Error in Template:Reply to: Username not given. there is an article on the New Eve and New Adam already for anybody interested in them Nolicmahr ( talk) 19:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Just noticed the disappearance of the discussion Special:Diff/1042259160 into the archives, it's just about two months old.
I am unable to know what the reason is for this action
Another editor had commented just last week, so must still be kept open for debates for some time, at least 6 months or so. Nolicmahr ( talk) 18:56, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Any idea on how long should discussions can be kept open as per WP guidelines? Nolicmahr ( talk) 19:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
User Rafaelosornio, let's stop the endless edit-warring and discuss the alternatives. Here is what I regard as the best version of the lead - three paras, in bullet form. Please tell me what you regard as unacceptable (and why), and what as acceptable. Achar Sva ( talk) 21:58, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Some of the early reformers, including Martin Luther, accepted the belief, but modern Protestants have largely rejected it. [9]
References
Achar Sva ( talk) 23:07, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
The New Testament explicitly affirms her virginity only prior to the conception of Jesus and mentions his brothers ( adelphoi). [3] [4] For the Catholic Church the adelphoi are cousins of Jesus, while for the Orthodox Church they are step-brothers, children of Joseph from a previous marriage. The official acts of the Fifth Ecumenical Council held at Constantinople in 553 refer to Mary as Aeiparthenos (ever-virgin in Greek). [5] Several ancient Christian theologians such as Athanasius of Alexandria, Jerome, Augustine of Hippo, and Origen staunchly defended the dogma of the perpetual virginity. [6]
The word adelphos only very rarely carries any other meaning than a physical or spiritual sibling. [7] The most natural inference for adelphos is that these may have been sons of Mary and Joseph, born after Christ; [8] although the Septuagint, the translation used by the New Testament authors, [9] does use adelphoi to refer to non-fraternal relatives, notably in Genesis 14:14, where Lot is referred to as adelphos of Abraham, even though he is not a blood brother. [10] [11]
References
Rafaelosornio ( talk) 22:51, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
I've merged the two new threads you started into the original one so that the whole discussion can be more easily followed. As I said when I started the thread, I think the best way forward is to take one version of the lead and discuss it, without introducing material not contained in it. You've done that with regard to the following sentence which you'd like to see kept at the end of the first paragraph:
I have no objection to saying the Perpetual Virginity is one of the four Marian dogmas or spelling out who holds it - in fact I think that's essential information. But the sources you use aren't RS - they're websites of unknown authority. If you can find acadenmic sources that give the same information I'll be happy to use them. (In fact the line about the four Marian dogmas was one I wrote myself, long ago, but I used different sources - if those could be recovered it would be useful)
Let's stick to this one point for now, as a shotgun approach will only lead to confusion.
References
Achar Sva ( talk) 23:07, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Ok, I've added a sentence on modern acceptance (and non-acceptance), with proper academic sources, all drawn from the body of the article. Is this acceptable to you? (Bear in mind that the lead has to be a brief overview, not a detailed exposition).
References
Rafaelosornio, I'm dealing here with some points you raise in recent edit summaries.
Please note that all my editing I'm scrupulous about using sources correctly. If you poiunt out errors - and of course I can make mistakes - I'll be happy to correct them. Achar Sva ( talk) 07:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
I reverted the lead to the original wording. Richard Losch's wording is: "it (meaning Mary's perpetual virginity) is accepted primarily by the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, as well as by some Anglican and Lutheran theologians." Acceptance by 'some' theologians (how many?) doesn't imply acceptance in the pews. It can be put in the body of the article, but doesn't belong in the lead. Achar Sva ( talk) 03:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
An editor ( User:Yonatan Mikhael) has added this paragraph to the section treating arguments and evidence. I'm extremely dubious about its value and relevance - it deals with just one theologian's views, and is sourced from primary sources only (which makes the final sentence original research). Any other views?
"In his second century work Against Heresies, the bishop Irenaeus points out that it was "before Joseph had come together with Mary" to mean "while she therefore remained in virginity"[56] that "she was found with child of the Holy Ghost." Matthew 1:18 He goes on to draw a connection between Adam and Jesus through Mary, stating that while Adam had his substance from "untilled and yet virgin soil" so Jesus, in order to gather up Adam into himself, did rightly receive a birth from Mary, who was similarly "as yet a virgin."[57] To preserve the analogy, something Irenaeus states is very important, if it is unnecessary that the ground remain untilled and therefore virgin it follows that it is also unnecessary that Mary remain a virgin postpartum. Nowhere in this work does Irenaeus explicitly claim anything to the contrary." Achar Sva ( talk) 00:07, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
User:Rafaelosornio: Craig Blomberg and Cross and Livingstone are saying pretty much the same thing. Here are the texts:
1. Cross and Livingstone, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 2005, pp.237/8: After a brief introductory sentence giving the names of the adelphoi ("brethren of the Lord") comes this: "They may have been (1) Sons of the Virgin Mary and Joseph, born after Christ. This is the most natural inference from the NT..."
2. Craig Blomberg, "From Pentecost to Patmos", 2006, p.387, fn. 1: "[T]he most natural reading from Matthew 1:25 is that Joseph and Mary had other children after Jesus was born, and adelphoi only very rarely means anything other in Koine Greek other than a physical or spiritual sibling."
If you want to keep the line in the article that "the word adelphos only very rarely carries any other meaning than a physical or spiritual sibling" then you'll have to keep Blomberg as the source, because it isn't in Cross and Livingstone. And you can't have "and the most natural inference is that they may have been sons of Joseph and Mary", because this tortures the sense of what Cross and Livingston say: "the most natural inference" is that the adephoi were "[s]ons of the Virgin Mary and Joseph, born after Christ." Achar Sva ( talk) 02:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Incidentally, I very much doubt that Blomberg is basing his words on Cross and Livingstone. He's a respected scholar in his own right, albeit a rather extreme evangelical (not saying that in a derogatory way), and quite capable of writing his own books. Achar Sva ( talk) 02:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)