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

[blue_skies_1]

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…

 

[Nickkname]

Jesus is the only Son of God. How could Mary have other children if she is the Mother of God and Jesus is the only Son of God?To say Mary had other children would be to say there are other Sons of God.

 

[blue_skies_1]

Jesus is the only Son of God. How could Mary have other children if she is the Mother of God and Jesus is the only Son of God?

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

 

[mmplps7783]

ask this question on the forum about why catholics worship mary and someone will answer this question. it’s a very good one and I also would like to know the answer.

 

[Nickkname]

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

It would have an effect on Mary being the Mother of God.

 

[Nickkname]

ask this question on the forum about why catholics worship mary and someone will answer this question. it’s a very good one and I also would like to know the answer.

We don’t worship Mary, we ask for her intercession. It’s really that simple.

 

[blue_skies_1]

No, but it would have an effect on Mary being the Mother of God.

No it wouldn’t . Please don’t argue based on that because

a) it simply doesn’t make sense. Mary could in theory be the mother of Jesus (i.e. God) AND other children

b) you’re using one Catholic idea (calling Mary ‘Mother of God’) to back up another one, which isn’t helpful for someone who is already questioning one Catholic belief anyway.

Also, I am looking for responses to the specific things I brought up in my opening post.

 

[Nickkname]

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?

 

[blue_skies_1]

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?

No, really… It’s NOT helpful (or logical). Thank you for trying but just… no.

 

[Nickkname]

No it wouldn’t . Please don’t argue based on that because

a) it simply doesn’t make sense. Mary could in theory be the mother of Jesus (i.e. God) AND other children

b) you’re using one Catholic idea (calling Mary ‘Mother of God’) to back up another one, which isn’t helpful for someone who is already questioning one Catholic belief anyway.

Also, I am looking for responses to the specific things I brought up in my opening post.

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

 

[blue_skies_1]

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

Ok, but that doesn’t help me much
Nickname, I really appreciate your speedy responses But I think you and I are coming at this from a very different angle!

 

[mmplps7783]

We don’t worship Mary, we ask for her intercession. It’s really that simple.

I already know this because they have already cleared that up for me in that forum. I just said to ask it over there because they seem to have answers that actually make sense.

 

[blue_skies_1]

I already know this because they have already cleared that up for me in that forum. I just said to ask it over there because they seem to have answers that actually make sense.

LOL

I think I’d better try posting elsewhere!

 

[AMDGtoo]

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?

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

Perhaps the apologetic site on SC Borromeo (scborromeo.org/index2.htm ) can help you understand about the Dogma of Mary as Perpetual Virgin. It’s under “Point Papers”.

 

[blue_skies_1]

Perhaps the apologetic site on SC Borromeo (scborromeo.org/index2.htm ) can help you understand about the Dogma of Mary as Perpetual Virgin. It’s under “Point Papers”.

Thank you, I’ve had a look through & it is explained very clearly there actually. It is pretty convincing in dealing with the objections (‘brethren of the Lord’, the whole ‘until’ thing, calling Jesus ‘firstborn’ & the fact that sexual intercourse within marriage had divine blessing). It is a really helpful website

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)

Also, with the ‘until’ thing. It says that in usage at the time, the word until didn’t necessarily mean that anything happened afterwards, giving this as one example of the usage:

“And so Saul’s daughter Michal was childless until the day of her death”.
The thing about this is, it’s so obvious from the *context *that it doesn’t mean she had children after her death.
But the quote about Mary DOESN’T have that same obvious context that she and Joseph clearly didn’t have relations after Jesus was born. I just wonder why it doesn’t say something like ‘He knew her not until he died’ or something rather than specifically saying ‘until she had borne a son’.

Do you see what I mean? Just that it does imply, being worded like that, that there’s at least quite a strong possibility they had relations after she had borne a son.

Mary’s perpetual virginity is such an important dogma in Catholicism, so I don’t understand why these parts of the Bible would be so confusing about it, if that makes sense. After all there aren’t any disputes about the wording of Jesus feeding the five thousand or anything like that, it’s all as clear as day, so you can see why we believe it. The doctrine of Mary’s perptetual virginity isn’t like that which is why I’m having trouble

 

[Chesster]

But the quote about Mary DOESN’T have that same obvious context that she and Joseph clearly didn’t have relations after Jesus was born. I just wonder why it doesn’t say something like ‘He knew her not until he died’ or something rather than specifically saying ‘until she had borne a son’.

Because St. Matthew did not intend to show Mary’s perpetual virginity here, his main concern was to show that Jesus was born of a virgin.

 

[blue_skies_1]

Because St. Matthew did not intend to show Mary’s perpetual virginity here, his main concern was to show that Jesus was born of a virgin.

But St Matthew makes it perfectly clear earlier in the passage that Jesus was born of a virgin, like here: ‘When his mother Mary had been betrothed Joseph, **before they came together **[this also clearly implies that they were going to ‘come together’ in the full marital sense]she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit’

Then a little later he quotes the prophecy: ‘Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear forth a son’

Leading to the end of that little passage where it says ‘When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took his wife, but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus’

I’m sorry, but with that final quote it seems to so obviously imply that they DID have relations AFTER Jesus was born. Yes, the word ‘until’ may not have always carried that connotation but it did sometimes. Common sense suggests (to me) that this is one of those places.

 

[AMDGtoo]

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)

Also, with the ‘until’ thing. It says that in usage at the time, the word until didn’t necessarily mean that anything happened afterwards, giving this as one example of the usage:

“And so Saul’s daughter Michal was childless until the day of her death”.
The thing about this is, it’s so obvious from the *context *that it doesn’t mean she had children after her death.
But the quote about Mary DOESN’T have that same obvious context that she and Joseph clearly didn’t have relations after Jesus was born. I just wonder why it doesn’t say something like ‘He knew her not until he died’ or something rather than specifically saying ‘until she had borne a son’.

Do you see what I mean? Just that it does imply, being worded like that, that there’s at least quite a strong possibility they had relations after she had borne a son.

Mary’s perpetual virginity is such an important dogma in Catholicism, so I don’t understand why these parts of the Bible would be so confusing about it, if that makes sense. After all there aren’t any disputes about the wording of Jesus feeding the five thousand or anything like that, it’s all as clear as day, so you can see why we believe it. The doctrine of Mary’s perptetual virginity isn’t like that which is why I’m having trouble

Normally I’d break posts down to answer the separate questions, but I just don’t know where to begin. (Besides, I need a “point of reference” in my post.)

First we know that the epistles do include parts that are, as Paul wrote and is stated in Peter 3:15, “some things hard to be understood and that the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.” Then we know that our Bibles are simply translations. The Sciptures were written in other languages about events in still other languages and other cultures. So I guess that’s why things can seem so confusing when we try to interpret Scriptures by ourselves. That’s why we need the Church to help us interpret them correctly.

Now about the other children thing. In my opinion, it’s actually quite obvious that Jesus is Mary’s only child. (It’s not just that the early Protestant reformers, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli also defended it. And it’s not just that the Hebrew and Aramaic languages spoken by Christ do not have separate words for "near relative"or “cousin”, referring to near-relatives as “brother”. (In the OT Lot is called Abraham’s “brother”, yet we know that he is really Abraham’s nephew.) If you look close (cross referencing the Matthew 27:56 with Mark 15:40 and even the Epistle of Jude), the claimed “brothers” of Jesus in Matthew 13:55-56 are actually the children of another Mary–the wife of Cleophus (also known as Alphaeus).

And about that thing about “until”, I think that the Michal illustration is used because it’s so obvious. “Until” doesn’t necessarily mean that after a certain point in time, a different action occurred. (Look at 1 Corinthians 15:25–does that mean that after God "puts His enemies under His feet, He will cease to exist?)

Yes, the Dogma of the Perpetual Virginity is an important doctrine. It “guards” the fact that Jesus is not just an ordinary baby.

 

[FCEGM]

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

This article addresses your concern:

bringyou.to/apologetics/a82.htm

And this article addresses the issue of Jewish law in Mary and Joseph’s regard:

cin.org/users/james/files/talmud.htm

 

[Cattitude]

blue_skies,
Have you considered when the idea that Mary was not a perpetual virgin arose? It was not too long ago, maybe a few hundred years.

When I start to have doubts, I look the Early Church Fathers to see if their teachings line up with Catholic doctrine. And they do. So this teaching stood for 1600+ years until protestant reformers" got a hold of it.

Another piece of evidence from scripture is Mary’s answer to Gabriel’s proclamation in Luke 1:31-34:

Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus. He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father, and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end." But Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?”

At this time, Mary and Jospeh were betrothed, and soon to be married. If an angel came to you and told you you were going to have a baby, why would you ask “How” unless you were not planning to have sexual relations with your husband, ever. It doesn’t make sense to ask that question otherwise.

We can presume she knows where babies come from because she said “relations with a man”, so that answer doesn’t work. She didn’t say “yet” either; and why would she if she was planning to have relations soon? I mean Gabriel did not specifically tell her it would happen before her marriage - he gives no time frame.

When you put all the Catholic evidence together, it makes sense.

Bible Christian Society has a good downloadable mp3 on the topic.