Can someone go through all the evidence for the perpetual virginity of mary for me?

[patrickconnell]

Here is a link to some articles my friend Kenneth wrote

timeimmortal.net/?s=mary

Scroll down and you’ll find a number of articles on the perpetual virginity of Mary.

 

[Robbinson]

Its a fair question. The short answer is that it wasn’t necessary that Mary be ever virgin - but it was “fitting” that she was. That being said, I believe she was for a few reasons.

First and foremost, because the Church/Deposit of Faith says she was and that is the ultimate authority.

Second - there is nothing in scripture that suggests, definitively, that she was not. There are various references you cited (“until”) and (“brothers”), but there are plausible explanations for those refrences cited in the earlier replies (until being an expression not necessarily meaning she ceased to be a virgin after Christ’s birth) and brothers meaning bretheren.

Third - as noted in the immediately preceding reply, from the very early Church years we see historical references to the “ever virgin Mary” - as a believer in apostolic succession and that the oral treachings of the apostles were passed down to their successors, we have every reason to believe that this doctrine has always been part of the deposit of faith.

For a protestant, I sound pretty Catholic (can’t wait to finish the swim!)

Blessings,

Brian

 

[grandfather]

But, without wishing to be too sceptical, I can’t help wondering why there would be several things in the Bible which suggest (without proving) that Jesus might have had siblings, if he in fact didn’t. I just mean that on the surface of looking at all those things put together, wouldn’t you be likely to conclude that the evidence still stacks up in favour that he might well have done?
(Does that sentence make sense?? LOL)

 

[mmplps7783]

going back to the the sacrifice of Christ. Where was Joseph and could this also be a possible clue to the relationship between Joseph and Mary after the birth of Christ?
Another question…why get married if it’s not to be “fruitful and multiply”?

 

[Robbinson]

going back to the the sacrifice of Christ. Where was Joseph and could this also be a possible clue to the relationship between Joseph and Mary after the birth of Christ?
Another question…why get married if it’s not to be “fruitful and multiply”?

We can only speculate as to your first question, but perhaps he had died (the most likely explanation).

As to why not be fruitful and multiply? Well, clearly the family of Mary, Jospeh and Jesus was a unique one with a special purpose (raising the incarnate God who would become Saviour of the world)- and pro-creation was not part of that purpose.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[blue_skies_1]

I’ve had a look at catholic answers where it has all the quotes from the Fathers affirming the perpetual virginity of God, and I’m quite happy with that - if they understood it like that then I’m pretty sure I should too
Thank you!

 

[bmds]

Think about it: Who did Mary give birth to? Jesus. Who was Jesus? The Son of God. And because He was the Son of God, Mary is the Mother of God. Now if Mary had other children besides Jesus, how could she be the Mother of God and Jesus the only Son of God?

I understand where you’re trying to go, but for non-Catholics this is illogical. Lets say a woman, call her Jackie has a baby, Moe by a man John. By your logic, it is impossible for her to have a child by another man because she’s the mother of Moe and Moe is the only son of John.

The question really is what evidence do we have that Mary made the CHOICE to remain celebate. I don’t think you can find direct evidence other than what was cited with Christ on the cross, but I think its visible within her character as Mother of God. If you think about it, if you knew in your heart that you were entrusted with God, would you desire other children to distract you from your life mission as the primary caregive and protector of God? Would that be fair to the other children? Its kind of like the story of the man who finds the pearl of great price. Hides the pearl and sells all he has to buy the field where he hid the pearl. She gave all she had for the pearl of great price. Therefore since she is perfection in womanhood, it, to me, follows that she would choose celibacy.

 

[po18guy]

I’ve got myself a bit confused about this doctrine.

Basically this is what I think the Church teaches, and the evidence she uses to back that up:

Mary was a virgin all her life, she never had any children other than Jesus. This has to do with her being incredibly special and the ‘Ark’ of the New Convenant. I do sort of get that, although I don’t understand why having marital relations would have been such a bad thing, Catholics on here have talked about it being a ‘violation’ etc but this is not how we view marital sex.

In the Bible, where it talks about ‘brethren of the Lord’ it uses a word that can also mean cousins (so that proves nothing). I understand it doesn’t prove anything either way so I’ll leave that one (although it’s certainly confusing on the surface!)

Where it says that Mary and Joseph had no relations ‘until’ she gave birth to Jesus, it’s not the kind of ‘until’ that implies that anything went on afterwards (I have trouble getting my head
around that I must admit).

I do agree that Jesus entrusting Mary into John’s care at his crucifixion implies a lack of any other family (like siblings), so I’m ok with that bit…

But still, I don’t see that there is any real proof either way… can someone explain it to me, if there is?

On Catholic answers, I have seen the ‘Gospel of James’ cited as extra support for the perpetual virginity of Mary, that she was dedicated to the Lord from her birth & Joseph was just a kind of protector for her.

But…the Gospel of James was deliberately excluded from the Bible (by the Catholic church!), I believe it was declared as heretical? And what historical value does it acually have, in terms of information on Mary’s life? Even if it tells us about popular piety of the time, we still know that it was not included in the Bible, and there were a lot of writings and ideas around that had to be condemned by the Church.

I’d really appreciate some very clear responses on this…

Go to: www.biblechristiansociety.com/

John Martignoni has free cassettes/CDs that explain this, and most all other Catholic doctrines. He is a plain speaker and will not steer you wrong. The truth of this very teaching was revealed to me only two years ago at a Catholic bible study lead by a Dominican priest. As with all scripture, when it is taken in context of the times and the fulness of scripture. it makes perfect sense.

Also realize Mary’s role in salvation history. She was chosen by God, from all eternity, to give flesh to His son. Her womb became sacred the moment she said “Yes” and the Holy Spirit overshadowed her. Once her womb bore God in Christ, how could it be profaned with human desire or pleasure? Its purpose was served, for all time, by giving birth to the only child needed for man’s salvation. To birth other children would have taken Mary away from Christ, and He was the sole purpose of her life. Notice that Mary was with Christ from annunciation to resurrection, to the descent of the Holy Spirit. Thus, she was more than just a common woman, a bit player as many Protestants now claim.

Here is one of two posts that might help:

It was only Mary: who was present and necessary at the Annunciation; whose words of obedience allowed the Holy Spirit to act; who visited Elizabeth while she carried John Baptist in her aged womb; who was at the Presentation on the eighth day (even though a normal woman would have been considered “unclean” under the Mosaic law and excluded from the Temple); who was directly addressed by Simeon; who was present at the wedding feast in Cana; whose words of obedience (“Do whatever he tells you”) began Christ’s public ministry; who remained with Christ throughout His teaching; who was not scattered when the Shepherd was struck; who was present at the crucifixion; who Christ Himself, in His last physical act on earth before dying (John 19:26-27), gave to the beloved disciple (John) as his mother; and who was present when the Apostles received the Holy Spirit. If all of this, as well as all that I have missed, is not evidence of her very special role in God’s final Covenant with man, what is?

Would the pure and perfect God choose sin, which He hates, to carry His Covenant to us? Through Eve’s disobedience, mankind was lost to sin. Through Mary’s obedience, mankind was restored to God. No normal woman would have been filled with grace or chosenby God for this role. If she had sin, she would not have been full of grace.

The evidence abounds, but only if you look for it. Non-Catholics are generally not taught to look for this, but it’s there in scripture.

Christ’s peace.

 

[po18guy]

Here is the second post:

There was to be only one woman in the course of eternity destined to give God a human nature. Did He send the angel Gabriel to a run-of-the-mill girl? No. Since Mary was so young, what on earth could she have accomplished as a teenager to be addressed as “full of grace” or “highly favored” by the Angel Gabriel? No one else in scripture was so addressed - especially not by the angel Gabriel, who stands in God’s presence. Since nothing is written about Mary prior to the annunciation other than Isaiah 7:14, we firmly believe that she was “highly favored” by God, Who preserved her from sin. Consider the contrast from scripture:

Psalm 30:7 (of King David) O LORD, when you favored me, you made my mountain stand firm;

Luke 1:28 The angel went to her (Mary) and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.”

Luke 1:43 (Elizabeth) But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

King David, and Elizabeth, by their own reckoning, were “favored”. Only Mary was “highly favored”, spoken by the Angel of the Lord, not by her own reckoning. Yet, we absolutely believe that Mary was created, 100% human, just as you or I - only that God, her Savior, preserved her from sin because of the absolutely unique role He had for her.

Her messenger and God’s mission came directly from the Throne of the Most High. He alone gave her a personal mission, one requiring her to honor Him and in turn be honored, (Luke 1:48) to give human nature to God at the risk of her own flesh. Can you see the parallel with Christ Himself here? Both Adam and Eve were conceived without sin, and both were created to be the major part of God’s plan, the only part of creation which could return the Father’s love. It is consistent that God would act in the same way (preserving Mary from sin to bear Christ’s sinless nature) as He introduced His plan of man’s redemption.

Veneration of Mary often appears as worship to unbelievers, or those who do not practice as Catholics do. Catholic practice can be difficult to understand, as God Himself is difficult to understand. Our practices came from Him, and bear His same mysterious ways.

Now, know that I was Catholic for almost two decades before the Lord revealed the truth about Mary to me. Such is God. He sends His Spirit where He wills, and when He wills. The fact that I am here, defending church teaching on Mary, is a miracle in itself.

I would rather explain to the Lord why I venerated His chosen, than why I denigrated her memory, especially since her veneration is in Luke 1:48.

Christ’s peace.

 

[Church_Militant]

The Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

 

[edjco]

Poguy, you beat me to it with John Martignoni.
This is something I copied from one of his discussions. It looks a bit strange at first because it’s actually the middle of a debate.
Hope this helps:

Your website mentions Mary in perpetual virginity. The bible makes it clear that Jesus has one or two (maybe more) brothers. Where does the “perpetual virginity” come from?
Before I answer you specifically as to where that came from, would you do me a favor and answer a question for me. In Galatians 1:19, it identifies James as both an apostle and the Lord’s brother. And, in Mark 6:3, it mentions four of Jesus’ “brothers” and one of them is named James. Is the James, the brother of Jesus, in Mark 6:3 and the apostle James, the brother of the Lord, in Gal 1:19, the same person?
The reason I ask if the James in Gal 1:19 and the James in Mark 6:3 are the same person, is because if they are, then the “brothers” of Jesus mentioned in Mark 6:3, cannot be sons of Joseph and Mary. This is because the two Apostles named James were the sons of Zebedee and Alphaeus (see Matthew 10:2-4).
So, if the James of Galatians 1:19, who is referred to as the Lord’s brother, is the same as the James in Mark 6:3 who is referred to as the Lord’s brother, then we see that the “brothers” of the Lord are not sons of Mary and Joseph and, therefore, Mark 6:3 does not “prove” that Mary had other children. And, if someone says that the James of Gal 1:19 and the James of Mark 6:3 are not the same James, then the question is, “How many brothers named James did Jesus have?” And, one other question, “Where in the Bible does it say that they aren’t the same James?”
7. Mary - we’ll never agree so who cares
I care. You said that Mary had other children besides Jesus. I say you are spreading false teaching by saying that. So, either you’re spreading false teaching or I am. And all you can say about that is, “Who cares?” I say, and Christians for 2000 years have said (even non-Catholics like Martin Luther and John Calvin agree) that Mary was a perpetual virgin. I asked you about the Apostle James in Galatians 1:19 who is described as being the “Lord’s brother.” And, in Mark 6:3 it says that the Lord had “brothers” and “sisters.” One of those was named James. So, James the Apostle mentioned as the Lord’s brother in Galatians 1, must indeed be the James mentioned as the Lord’s brother in Mark 6:3, right? Well, he has to be the same unless the Lord had two brothers named James. But, there is a bit of a problem, here. Matthew 10:2-3 gives us a list of the Apostles. There are two Apostles named James. Now, one of those must be the son of Mary and Joseph, according to what you believe. After all, there is an Apostle named James who is the Lord’s “brother.” But, we have a problem when we actually read the list in Matthew 10. The two James’ are the sons of Zebedee and Alphaeus, respectively. Well, that just can’t be, can it? Doesn’t one of them have to be the son of Joseph? Well, one of them does have to be the son of Joseph if you interpret “brother” in an absolute sense as being a son of Mary and Joseph. But, if you interpret the word “brother” as the Jews of the time did, then it keeps Scripture from contradicting itself. The Jews did not have a word for cousin or nephew or uncle or brother-in-law or step-brother - they used one word for all of these close relations…brother. So, the Catholic intepretation, that the “brothers” of Christ were actually cousins or some other family relation, fits all of scripture in this regard…the common Evangelical interpretation, which is your interpretation, does not.

 

[Erich]

My personal favorite in this regard is Acts 1:13-15,

13 When they entered the city they went to the upper room where they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James son of Alphaeus, Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. 14 All these devoted themselves with one accord to prayer, together with some women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers. 15 During those days Peter stood up in the midst of the brothers (there was a group of about one hundred and twenty persons in the one place)."

120 minus the Eleven minus Mary the mother of Jesus minus some women (presumably at least 3) equals as many as 105 brothers.

That’s not Mary Ever Virgin, that’s Mary Ever Pregnant

 

[unacanta]

Mary having other children would have no effect on Jesus being the only son of God.

No, but it would effect the concept of perpetual virginity.

 

[unacanta]

The title Mother of God completely reveals who Mary is. Hence, I will use the Catholic dogma to defend Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Actually, it reveals nothing concerning Mary, but rather speaks of Jesus Christ the God Man. The fact is, she was a only a vessel by which the Son of God was brought into the world. If not her, then any virgin female chosen by God to accomplish His purpose would have have been sufficient.

 

[AMDGtoo]

If not her, then any virgin female chosen by God to accomplish His purpose would have have been sufficient.

But it can’t be denied that God did choose Mary–the “woman” of Genesis 3:15.

 

[po18guy]

Actually, it reveals nothing concerning Mary, but rather speaks of Jesus Christ the God Man. The fact is, she was a only a vessel by which the Son of God was brought into the world. If not her, then any virgin female chosen by God to accomplish His purpose would have have been sufficient.

You are expressing your personal, Protestant/Fundamentalist/Evangelical/non-Denominational interpretation of the Catholic Bible. That is prohibited by the Bible itself! (2 Peter 1:19-20). It is a recent man made belief. You must take off those blinders to see church history.

“All generations will call me blessed”. Read Luke 1. Really. Before you again profane the name of the Mother of God by calling her no more than a womb, read what God’s word has to say about her. It’s right there in Luke.

You can love or hate the Catholic Church, but that does not change God’s truth one bit! Know this: God chose Mary from the beginning of time to give flesh to His Son, our Savior. She was the only woman ever to bear such an honor. It was her “Let it be done to me according to thy word” which brought the incarnation.

She was present at the annunciation, all through Christ’s life, at its end, and after, at the descent of the Holy Spirit. Christ loved her so much that he gave her a replacement son in John 19:26-27 to take care of her. Explain that one, please, if she had so many other children (who would have been younger).

I pray for you. You have been greatly mislead.

 

[rosarygirl7]

This is very helpful, at least I liked it! biblechristiansociety.com/download It’s the ninth one down, “Mary & the Bible; plus Purgatory & the bible”, if you take the time to download it.

 

[po18guy]

This is very helpful, at least I liked it! biblechristiansociety.com/download It’s the ninth one down, “Mary & the Bible; plus Purgatory & the bible”, if you take the time to download it.

If we can only get the anti-Catholics to actually download it and read it. Well, back to prayer for them.

 

[juliasmith]

This is a ‘splitting hairs’ argument. The focus should be on Christ. Does Mary being ever-virgin change , at all, what Christ did for us on the cross?
Absolutely not.
Then, I ask, why all the fuss? Her virginity would be her business and none of ours as it would be with any woman. Seriously, people leave the Blessed Mother alone. Were I her, I would be embarrassed that my children went about arguing about my virginity. Really. Can we back to Christ?

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

… I’d really appreciate some very clear responses on this…

The explanation that works for me is that Mary is the spouse of the Holy Spirit.

…why get married if it’s not to be “fruitful and multiply”?

I think Joseph had to marry Mary for two reasons:
i) To protect the holy family, especially in that time of the baby massacre
ii) To make Jesus a descendant of David

I also subscribe to the “pious theory” which I learnt the other day. It’s a bit controversial, but it suggests that Joseph recognised Mary as the spouse to the Holy Spirit and that’s why he wanted to secretly divorce her.