Talk:Perpetual virginity of Mary

MacCulloch Book

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)

Biblical Passages

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)

Good point - it overlapped with the section on 'Antiquity', so I have moved it there and merged the two paragraphs. It is now better, I think, but perhaps unwieldy. Springnuts (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Unwieldy? Maybe, but it flows well. Good work. The other mention, since it illustrates an eary interpretation of adelphoi can surely stay. I slightly twiddled with the language, so i hope it's good and clear. Cheer, Lindsay (talk) 13:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Cites for denominational teachings

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)

criticism

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)

Original investigation refuting the virginitas post partum aspect of the perpetual virginity of mary

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)

Per Wikipedia policies original research is not permitted. Please read the article WP:NOR Marauder40 (talk) 14:37, 10 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)

especificly, let me show you where and why my investigation is a logical and relevant add, there is a part of the article named "biblical passages and their interpretation" which for some reason omits the passage where this is investigation is based upon, galatians 1:19, and its one of the many passages used with the others mentioned there, to refute the post partum aspect of the perpetual virginity. so if the results of this investigation are to be added, they would be added only as a small, cited, neutral, explanation of the very relevant and very important passage of gal 1:19. thanks Gabrielsol (talk) 06:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Immaculate conception

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)

Yes. Done. History2007 (talk) 00:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Claims that Count Saint Germain is Saint Joseph

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)

Hi, although interesting, it is clearly original research and WP:OR disallows its use, even if it is 100% true. The missionsaintgermain site is not a reliable 3rd party type site either. But in any case, this is clearly a WP:OR siuation. History2007 (talk) 03:09, 21 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)

Section on Protestantism

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)

You are perfectly right about the opening sentence. It is obviously incomplete. I have endeavoured to complete it, so that it makes sense. The heading of the section is indeed misleading: the section is not about Protestantism, but only about the Protestant Reformation. I have fixed that too. It would be good to include views of modern Protestants, who in this matter do not agree with Luther and his contemporaries. Can you help by adding a section on their views? Lima (talk) 18:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Not being familiar with Protestant views I can not say that I agree or disagree. But whenever I read "majority of X believes Y" I wonder who did a formal survey on that. Given that there are multiple Protestant views, could whoever adds anything please be sure to have exact references for each assertion on majority of X believes Y. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 18:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I too think that this section is oddly constructed, and that the "Biblical passages and their interpretations" section is too weighted in the "pro" perpetual virginity position. TuckerResearch (talk) 05:20, 24 August 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)

This article fails to be a balanced and NPOV presentation bu overstating Protestant belief that Jesus could emerge from Mary's uterus without rupturing her hymen, or that her hymen was miraculously restored after expanding so his head could pass through. Protestants I have heard discuss it only go so far as to grant her getting pregnant without having intercourse, but assume a natural delivery. Edison (talk) 20:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Virginity during birth

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)

The meaning is: with hymen intact. Lima (talk) 19:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

this Belief is not supported by any face - it is from a RELIGION - that speak volumes!