✝️Shalltear🦇Stan💒 on Nostr: HyperBeroeanWave I agree that it shouldn't matter. I didn't care even if she were a ...
HyperBeroeanWave (npub1wh3…0yvx) I agree that it shouldn't matter. I didn't care even if she were a perpetual virgin. The problem is because of late heretical doctrines like asceticism it became a "holier state" to be a virgin so because Mary became through extrabiblical late apocryphal tales the "queen of Heaven" she had to become sinless and immaculately conceived and worshipped and praised. It's actually funny to claim that Mary did not fulfill her marital duties because refusing each other is a sin, therefore that means if she were a perpetual virgin not only would it not have been necessary for Joseph to marry her, but it means she is not 'full of grace'
So the issue then become important because rome and the east both claim you MUST believe in the sinless perpetual virgin who hears your prayers and all that idolatry. But in the bible it clearly says that Joseph "knew her not until she bore a Son" and literally every single other time in the bible knowing in a marital context means intercourse. Some people try to argue that Jesus' brothers are either His cousins or Joseph's children but it's funny we have to throw Joseph under the bus and ignore his role in the Lord's upbringing
I personally wouldn't mind if somebody believed Mary was perpetually virgin and it was Jesus' cousins, although I'd argue James using his title as "The Lord's brother" is tarnished by the thought that Mary wasn't his biological mother. I also think it besmirches Mary's character to state she never wanted to have other children and be a loving mother and dutiful wife. She has no real teaching or speaking role at all, and monasticism didn't happen until a few centuries later
I once saw somebody say, "I find it disgusting that we have to talk about Mary having sex and get into the gross details of her having a natural birth because these these churches make these false arguments" and yeah, it's an unpleasant but necessary point to knock down
So the issue then become important because rome and the east both claim you MUST believe in the sinless perpetual virgin who hears your prayers and all that idolatry. But in the bible it clearly says that Joseph "knew her not until she bore a Son" and literally every single other time in the bible knowing in a marital context means intercourse. Some people try to argue that Jesus' brothers are either His cousins or Joseph's children but it's funny we have to throw Joseph under the bus and ignore his role in the Lord's upbringing
I personally wouldn't mind if somebody believed Mary was perpetually virgin and it was Jesus' cousins, although I'd argue James using his title as "The Lord's brother" is tarnished by the thought that Mary wasn't his biological mother. I also think it besmirches Mary's character to state she never wanted to have other children and be a loving mother and dutiful wife. She has no real teaching or speaking role at all, and monasticism didn't happen until a few centuries later
I once saw somebody say, "I find it disgusting that we have to talk about Mary having sex and get into the gross details of her having a natural birth because these these churches make these false arguments" and yeah, it's an unpleasant but necessary point to knock down