> -----Original Message-----
> From: george murphy [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 12:33 PM
> To: Adrian Teo
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: Virgin Birth
> Adrian Teo wrote:
> > I would not exactly say that there is no biblical
> justification for it.
> > Consider why, if Mary had other children, did Jesus entrust
> the care fo Mary
> > to John, instead of one of his brothers, which would have
> been expected in
> > that culture? While you may find some way to explain that
> away, it is an
> > issue of interpretation or differing attempts at
> justification, not the lack
> > of biblical justification.
> 1) This isn't quite the same thing. To be technical
> one has to
> 2) Virginal conception: Mary conceived Jesus without sexual
> 3) Virgin birth: Mary gave birth as a virgin. This
> is often taken (as
> I noted) to include _virginitas in partu_, that Mary retained
> her virginity in
> giving birth to Jesus.
> 4) Perpetual virginity: Mary remained a Virgin
> after giving birth to
> You are referring to 4), while I was speaking of 3).
> I think there is
> more justification for 4 than for 3. One does, however, have
> to take into
> account the "brothers" & "sisters" of Jesus - who may have
> been cousins or
> half-brothers &c, but maybe not.
> It's interesting to note that Luther seems to have
> accepted both
> _virginitas in partu_ and perpetual virginity, & Mary is
> called "ever virgin" in
> one place in the Lutheran Confessions.
Your numbering is kind of screwy - there are only 3 options. ;-)
Yes, I was referring to (4), and so was probably mistaken in my read on
"retained her virginity." Well, if (4) as you say, has more justification
than (3), then (3) would also be well justified because doesn't (4)
logically imply (3)? Perhaps that is why Luther accepted both (Zwingli too I
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 28 2002 - 14:46:24 EST