Biblical Proofs Against Mary's Perpetual Virginity

  • Thread starter Thread starter obvious_ron
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
O

obvious_ron

Guest
Greetings,

I’ve been attending a Wesleyan church. At one of the bible studies that the pastor has, it was mentioned that Christ had brothers and sisters from Mary and Joseph’s union after Christ was born. It seemed so matter of fact.

I grew up Catholic and never questioned her being ever Virgin. I still don’t for the most part, but I have been reading some articles from the Protestant perspective.

Is the Perpetual Virginity of Mary a Biblical View?

The Alleged Perpetual Virginity of Mary

How would you counter these arguments?

Thanks!
 
That’s all well and good, but one of those articles refutes explicitly that writing as it is not scripture.
 
obvious_ron said:
That’s all well and good, but one of those articles refutes explicitly that writing as it is not scripture.
Click to expand...
For one, why does it not being scripture mean it doesn’t matter? This is how the early Church understood Mary’s perpetual virginity and specifically how it understood the scriptural passages the Protestants take issue with. If Protestants wish to believe something other than what the early Church believed regarding a particular scripture passage, it’s on them to substantiate it. If they wish to make a “best guess reconstruction” of the faith and what scripture meant 1600 years (and more) removed from it, I see no reason to go with that over what the apostolic and early Church confessed.

Second, there are two other alternatives. First, perhaps one of the most common views of the Church Fathers, Saint Joseph has often been understood to have been a widower who had previously been married. The “brothers of Jesus” therefore could quite simply be Jesus’ step brothers (and sisters): the children of Joseph raised under the same roof and who Jesus grew up with. A second alternative: cousins. It was not uncommon for adult brothers and sisters to raise their families in close quarters with each other. Jesus could very likely have, after the family’s return from Egypt, grown up alongside many of his cousins/kinsmen (whether the Blessed Virgin Mary’s family or Saint Joseph’s family). Aramaic and Hebrew didn’t have a specific word for cousin, and the translation into the Greek could easily have been a translation of how Jesus was commonly referred to in the Aramaic with his kinsman, who may have been first cousins, second cousins, once removed cousins, uncles, aunts, step-nieces, step-nephews. If in the native language (Aramaic) the cousins of Jesus were casually referred to as his brothers, then that will carry over into the Greek, even though Greek does have the distinction, because it’s still how they referred to themselves. Recall that Lot was Abraham’s nephew, but many translations of the Bible use the word “brother” to describe their relationship in some passages.
 
obvious_ron said:
Greetings,

I’ve been attending a Wesleyan church. At one of the bible studies that the pastor has, it was mentioned that Christ had brothers and sisters from Mary and Joseph’s union after Christ was born. It seemed so matter of fact.
Click to expand...
  1. Each and every uniquely protestant doctrine is man-made. In this case, John Wesley. 1,700 years later.
  2. The devil is prevented from attacking Mary. Thus, he dupes well-meaning Christians into doing his work for him. Gabriel told Mary that she would bear “a Son” - singular. Ask them to name the “Children of Mary” from the bible. Jesus.
  3. Where did Jesus teach that those who follow Him must run to a collection of scriptures to know the truth? He did not. Man did.
 
I would ask the teacher who was wrong about Mary. The early reformers agreed with the Catholic teaching of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity. Are they wrong or is the interpretation this group holds wrong. Which of course leads to the obvious ?, if there is differences in views who is going to “decide” who is right without guidance from the Holy Spirit to lead without error in matters of faith and morals? THE PROTESTANT REFORMERS ON MARY
When Fundamentalists study the writings of the “Reformers” (or founders of their particular sect)* on Mary, the Mother of Jesus, they will find that the “Reformers” accepted almost every major Marian doctrine and considered these doctrines to be both scriptural and fundamental to the historic Christian Faith.

**Martin Luther:
**Perpetual Virginity
Again throughout his life Luther held that Mary’s perpetual virginity was an article of faith for all Christians - and interpreted Galatians 4:4 to mean that Christ was “born of a woman” alone.
"It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a Virgin."2

John Calvin:
It has been said that John Calvin belonged to the second generation of the Reformers and certainly his theology of double predestination governed his views on Marian and all other Christian doctrine . Although Calvin was not as profuse in his praise of Mary as Martin Luther he did not deny her perpetual virginity. The term he used most commonly in referring to Mary was “Holy Virgin”.
"Elizabeth called Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary was at the same time the eternal God."7
“Helvidius has shown himself too ignorant, in saying that Mary had several sons, because mention is made in some passages of the brothers of Christ.” Calvin translated “brothers” in this context to mean cousins or relatives.
"It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of his Son, granted her the highest honor.
“To this day we cannot enjoy the blessing brought to us in Christ without thinking at the same time of that which God gave as adornment and honour to Mary, in willing her to be the mother of his only-begotten Son.”
*
****“It was given to her what belongs to no creature, that in the flesh she should bring forth the Son of God.”
“I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.”

Zwingli

used Exodus 4:22 to defend the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity.
“I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary.”
"Christ … was born of a most undefiled Virgin."Ulrich Zwingli:

“It was fitting that such a holy Son should have a holy Mother.”
“The more the honor and love of Christ increases among men, so much the esteem and honor given to Mary should grow.”

catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/general/mary.htm
 
obvious_ron said:
Greetings,

I’ve been attending a Wesleyan church. At one of the bible studies that the pastor has, it was mentioned that Christ had brothers and sisters from Mary and Joseph’s union after Christ was born. It seemed so matter of fact.

I grew up Catholic and never questioned her being ever Virgin. I still don’t for the most part, but I have been reading some articles from the Protestant perspective.

Is the Perpetual Virginity of Mary a Biblical View?

The Alleged Perpetual Virginity of Mary

How would you counter these arguments?

Thanks!
Click to expand...
Hhmm? How odd Jesus had siblings and not one ever bothers to join Him for three years?
 
obvious_ron said:
That’s all well and good, but one of those articles refutes explicitly that writing as it is not scripture.
Click to expand...
As another poster touched upon, just because a certain truth is not written explicitly, does not mean that the the truth is not there to be found. In fact, when one begins to excavate the truth in Scripture, as demonstrated here by other posters in rightful defence of Our Lady’s Perpetual Virginity, then the treasure is revealed and shines most brightly.
 
obvious_ron said:
That’s all well and good, but one of those articles refutes explicitly that writing as it is not scripture.
Click to expand...
But Scripture itself does not offer ‘proof’ against Mary’s perpetual Virginity.

Here’s the thing – even Martin Luther and John Calvin, among the first and most ‘successful’ Protestants-- believed in Mary’s perpetual Virginity.

Yes, they --reading ‘non Latin’ bibles, reading ‘for themselves’, reading the very same texts that later were cited as ‘proof’–argued FOR the perpetual Virginity, and criticized as wrong the citations dragged out now of ‘Brethren’ and ‘until’.

Why is that?

And why do the ‘Biblical proof’ articles never mention just how ‘new’ this teaching is, so new that the first Protestants themselves never believed it?

Do they really believe that never in 1500 years of people reading the Bible --and yes, Virginia, there were ‘non-Latin’ bibles so that ye good olde English ‘brethren’ and ‘until’ were known (and their ‘variants’ to French and other ‘vernacular’ languages as well)–did people ‘catch’ these texts?

Or is it possible that it was a redefinition and an insistence on only ‘one’ definition, such narrowing and redefining taking place only from the 17th century or so, which caused this ‘proof text’? Is it possible that it was only by redefining the word ‘until’ to mean only a conditional to be used in situations where there is a before and an after, and that, always and forever, actions which were ‘not’ done in the ‘before’ were always done ‘in the after’, without exception?

Is it possible that a broad and well-known understanding that ‘brethren’ expressed degrees of kinship which were not limited to ‘uterine siblings’ was ‘redefined’ so that the word ‘brethren’ always and only meant those who were full-blood siblings, and never any other kind of relationship?

There is no ‘Biblical proof’ against Mary’s perpetual Virginity. There was not at the time of the apostles. There was not at the time of the setting of the Scriptural canon, either in the 4th century or yet the 16th (take yer choice). There was no proof when the first Christians ‘broke away’ from the universal Church. There is no proof now.

There are only those who seek to redefine Scripture and reinterpret it, some perhaps from honest conviction (people can be wrong without malice), others from long term indoctrination and obstinate determination. They’re still wrong and, God willing, if they are sincere in their desire for Christ, they will be led to the Truth.
 
obvious_ron said:
That’s all well and good, but one of those articles refutes explicitly that writing as it is not scripture.
Click to expand...
The One Holy Catholic (Universal) and Apostolic Church has always taught that there are two sources of Divine Revelation, namely Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. May Our Blessed Lord have mercy on your parents and catechists for not having given you a deeper understanding of the faith into which you were born. To discount that which the Lord has passed down to us through Tradition because it didn’t come from scripture directly is to reject part of His divine revelation which, unless we guard it whole within our hearts, we cannot be saved.

I assume the Wesleyan Church celebrates the Nativity of Our Blessed Lord on December 25. Is that correct? Does your pastor have an explanation of why he celebrates this on December 25, since that date is not mentioned even once in the Holy Scriptures?
 
obvious_ron said:
Greetings,

I’ve been attending a Wesleyan church. At one of the bible studies that the pastor has, it was mentioned that Christ had brothers and sisters from Mary and Joseph’s union after Christ was born. It seemed so matter of fact.

I grew up Catholic and never questioned her being ever Virgin. I still don’t for the most part, but I have been reading some articles from the Protestant perspective.

Is the Perpetual Virginity of Mary a Biblical View?

The Alleged Perpetual Virginity of Mary

How would you counter these arguments?

Thanks!
Click to expand...
Here is an old debate link I found helpful some years back

DID MARY HAVE OTHER CHILDREN?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7485548&postcount=8 Link Randy Carson
 
obvious_ron said:
Greetings,

I’ve been attending a Wesleyan church. At one of the bible studies that the pastor has, it was mentioned that Christ had brothers and sisters from Mary and Joseph’s union after Christ was born. It seemed so matter of fact.

I grew up Catholic and never questioned her being ever Virgin. I still don’t for the most part, but I have been reading some articles from the Protestant perspective.

Is the Perpetual Virginity of Mary a Biblical View?

The Alleged Perpetual Virginity of Mary

How would you counter these arguments?

Thanks!
Click to expand...
Hi, Ron!

…I looked it up: “Methodist.”

What is Methodism?

Did you know that their history goes as far back as the 18th century… they are only missing a small chunk of Church history (about 1700 years) so it is not surprising that they would not understand but rather challenge Catholic theology.

…many people believe in ufos; many in sash quash; many in chupa cabra; some in “Biblical proof” of extra terrestrials; some in becoming gods and populating the universe… they all express their belief in a “matter-of-factly” way. Are all of these people correct, because they hold to their belief in a staunch and unyielding way?

There’s not one single passage in Scriptures that states, explicitly, that anyone other than Jesus is the Virgin’s birth child.

If you could travel through time you would find that the early Church believed in the Virgin Birth and that the Virgin did not give birth to any other child.

…now, before you go into your lab and start tinkering with contraptions… just pick up the writings of the early Church (which in a way that is a mode of time travel) and you will discover many Catholic Doctrines that were observed and celebrated from Apostolic times!

Maran atha!

Angel

PS: You’re searching in the wrong place for the Fullness of Faith.
 
obvious_ron said:
That’s all well and good, but one of those articles refutes explicitly that writing as it is not scripture.
Click to expand...
Hi, Ron!

…quite rightly so; it is not Biblical and it is not non-Catholic; ever exchange words with Jehovah Witnesses? Their “scholars” and “theologians” have correctly translated Scriptures and only their interpretation is true to the Word of Yahweh God–oops, they reject Yahweh God in favor of “Jehovah” a derivative of Yahweh (which I believe was coined by a Catholic Priest)!

…get my drift?

…I am pretty sure that your pastor reads and recommends books authored by Methodists and perhaps all other non-Catholic sources… but they are not Biblical are they?

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Wesrock said:
For one, why does it not being scripture mean it doesn’t matter? This is how the early Church understood Mary’s perpetual virginity and specifically how it understood the scriptural passages the Protestants take issue with. If Protestants wish to believe something other than what the early Church believed regarding a particular scripture passage, it’s on them to substantiate it. If they wish to make a “best guess reconstruction” of the faith and what scripture meant 1600 years (and more) removed from it, I see no reason to go with that over what the apostolic and early Church confessed.

Second, there are two other alternatives. First, perhaps one of the most common views of the Church Fathers, Saint Joseph has often been understood to have been a widower who had previously been married. The “brothers of Jesus” therefore could quite simply be Jesus’ step brothers (and sisters): the children of Joseph raised under the same roof and who Jesus grew up with. A second alternative: cousins. It was not uncommon for adult brothers and sisters to raise their families in close quarters with each other. Jesus could very likely have, after the family’s return from Egypt, grown up alongside many of his cousins/kinsmen (whether the Blessed Virgin Mary’s family or Saint Joseph’s family). Aramaic and Hebrew didn’t have a specific word for cousin, and the translation into the Greek could easily have been a translation of how Jesus was commonly referred to in the Aramaic with his kinsman, who may have been first cousins, second cousins, once removed cousins, uncles, aunts, step-nieces, step-nephews. If in the native language (Aramaic) the cousins of Jesus were casually referred to as his brothers, then that will carry over into the Greek, even though Greek does have the distinction, because it’s still how they referred to themselves. Recall that Lot was Abraham’s nephew, but many translations of the Bible use the word “brother” to describe their relationship in some passages.
Click to expand...
Hi!

It matters to them because they reject the Authority of the Church; hence, the previous 1500 years of Church history must remain silent or their construct of apostasy and the disappearance of the Holy Spirit for around 1500 years only to be conjured up by Luther and his peers to finally establish Christ’s many churches cannot work.

…they say that in one of his grand gestures Napoleon commissioned a painting and though his mother was not present he commanded the artist to paint her in… Protestantism cannot but use similar tactics to insert themselves as Christ’s Founded Church.

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Nicea325 said:
Hhmm? How odd Jesus had siblings and not one ever bothers to join Him for three years?
Click to expand...
Hi, Nicea!

…that’s why Jesus gave His mom away; He could not bear to die on the cross knowing that His brethren that rejected Him would enjoy taking care of His mom–I think Jerry Springer got the scoop on this dysfunctional Nazarene family… the title goes something like: ‘Jesus of Nazareth, the King Crucified, the man that would not forgive the trespass of the Virgin’s other children.’

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Disclaimer: I have not physically checked every bible I have. But, I can say with confidence that not a single one of them has the “Gospel according to John Wesley.”

And they will try to tell you that Catholics follow a man.
 
po18guy said:
Disclaimer: I have not physically checked every bible I have. But, I can say with confidence that not a single one of them has the “Gospel according to John Wesley.”

And they will try to tell you that Catholics follow a man.
Click to expand...
Hi!

…yeah, that’s the guys with the planks checking the guys with the specks–‘hey guys, you have a speck keeping you from seeing in front of you…’

Maran atha!

Angel
 
I haven’t read everything you’ve written yet but thanks for all the information! 👍
 
I’ll second the thanks for (name removed by moderator)'s work. It caused me to look up the Proto-Evangelium and print it out. (Now to read it.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top