Catholics and Non-Catholics: Do you believe in the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mother?

[GaryTaylor]

No in fact thats part were missing? Its not that nobody understands what you are saying, and you are entitled to your belief. But where is it coming from? Not the Bible. All it could possible be is an assumption.

 

[adrift]

I’m not making a claim here. I am simply assuming that, absent any proof to the contrary, that Joseph and Mary would behave as any other devout Jewish couple would. The requirement to prove that it did not happen that way is yours…

To say that you are assuming is a claim. To say that absence of proof constitues that it must have happened is your claim. To say there is no proof does not than mean that something else happened. If I say it rained but have no proof, does not mean than that it did not rain.

After all, if I plant a bunch of carrots, the assumption is that they will grow green side up and orange side down. Someone claiming that he has carrots that grew the other way around needs to prove that–I don’t have to prove that his carrots grew like all carrots, well…grow; that would be the natural assumption.

If someone challenged you and did not accept your assumption you would then have to provide proof.

grin) Well, no…wishing doesn’t make it so, elvisman, and declaring that you have been proven right does not mean that you have been proven right. Sorry.

Originally Posted by elvisman
The points made on the Catholic side have been pretty much ignored by the nay-sayers in this thread. The argument about the use of the word “until” has been all bud obliterated.

Well no, not really.

Really. Neutral sources have been quoted. All that have been offered in rebuttal is opinion without acknowledging the source. There is no legitimate base for the word until meaning something comes after when the definition says it doesn’t.

Not it wasn’t. She was speaking in present tense…and the event in question was happening ‘present tense.’

She was speaking as a married woman. As such, she would have expected to become pregnant by her husband. But she didn’t say that her and Joseph weren’t having sex. She said she didn’t have sex period.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, however you express it.

Even you

 

[GaryTaylor]

[To the chief Musician upon Shoshannim, [A Psalm] of David.]] Save me, O God; for the waters are come in unto [my] soul.

Has nothing to do with Mary, how do you get Mary out of Psalm 69? It clear from the into into 69, and verse 1.

 

[elvisman]

Psalm 69:,8,9 " I am become a stranger to my bretheren ,and an alien unto my mother’s children. For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.The reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen on me". It is about: # 1- the world (anyone who “reproaches” God), # 2-Israel (reproach God also ) by estranged bretheren, # 3-his siblings-children of Mary are “alien” to the Lord . Yes context ,context context .They ALL reject the Messiah. It is an amazing specific prophecy .It is just not the world and Israel , it is also his brothers and sisters -very specific and you can not get much worse in being rejected than your own family. Notice a stranger to His bretheren but alien to his siblings -an alien is far worse than stranger -the pain progresses as only a Psalm could poetically portray.It is a heartbreaking ,dark prophecy .The next verse is very specific also where His zeal eats him up as He overturns the tables at the temple.Very specific ,wow!
How can Mary bear or give birth to a rejecting Israel ? A poor symbolism at best. Why do you not symbolize also In Revelations , that the woman is Israel ,and not the Assumed Mary ,as I have seen stated.CC is very specific there. Anyways you give no valid reason for the children not being uterine siblings-they were part of a rejecting Israel .Surely there must be a better rebuttal .

Gosh - where to begin?
First of all - this is a direct allusion to Israel. Israel is the mother, the brethren are the people of Israel at the time. This is hermeneutics 101 . . .

The same is true for the Woman in Rev 12. She is Mary AND Israel. This is what is referred to as polyvalent symbolism - multiple prophecies in on type or symbol.

 

[adrift]

Has this been talked about yetsalm 69:8 - " I am become a stranger unto my bretheren,and an alien unto my mother’s children. 9:For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up,and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me".Verse 9 is aid to be referring to Jesus according to the gospels .So I gather is verse 8.Pretty specific to me -Mary had children .What has been rhe Cathoilc response thru the ages ?

I question your interpretation.

It also says

I clothed myself in sackcloth; I became a byword for them

Jesus was not clothed in sackcloth. This Psalm is about the falsely accused and this is what applies to Jesus not every statement made. What Gospel are you referring to?
The only thing I know is when Jesus says “they hated me without cause”

 

[adrift]

[To the chief Musician upon Shoshannim, [A Psalm] of David.]] Save me, O God; for the waters are come in unto [my] soul.

Has nothing to do with Mary, how do you get Mary out of Psalm 69? It clear from the into into 69, and verse 1.

Who are you talking to? It is you have brought up Psalms in regards to Mary.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Right, Psalm and 69:9 is also referrenced in John 2:17. Psalm 69, is a “Cry of Distress” of the people of Israel. Powerfull writing for sure.

 

[elvisman]

The rules of logical discourse. They are fairly standard. Being unable to prove that something is not true does not prove that it is true. The responsibility for proving a claim is ALWAYS on the head of the one making it. Always.

I’m not making a claim here. I am simply assuming that, absent any proof to the contrary, that Joseph and Mary would behave as any other devout Jewish couple would. The requirement to prove that it did not happen that way is yours.

After all, if I plant a bunch of carrots, the assumption is that they will grow green side up and orange side down. Someone claiming that he has carrots that grew the other way around needs to prove that–I don’t have to prove that his carrots grew like all carrots, well…grow; that would be the natural assumption.

…and remember, I’m not claiming that the lack of proof for Mary’s perpetual virginity is any sort of absolute declaration that she had kids. I’m simply claiming that you haven’t proven your case.

And I’m not claiming that the evidence is rock-solid. That’s an assumption on your part.
I am merely stating that the Catholic position is far** sturdier **than the weak arguments that have been offered up as “evidence” from the Protestant and LDS side.

Of course. That’s not what you claimed for yourself, though.

Sure it is. The fact that you refuse to accept my explanation is not my problem – it’s yours.

(grin) Well, no…wishing doesn’t make it so, elvisman, and declaring that you have been proven right does not mean that you have been proven right. Sorry.

You certainly HAVE ignored most of my proof - choosing instead to derail the conversation down a path of remarks about the use of** colors **and other formatting.

Well no, not really.

Sure they have. You haven’t responded to one single proof that I’ve laid out regarding these so-called “brethren”. Your silence speak volumes . . .

Not it wasn’t. She was speaking in present tense…and the event in question was happening ‘present tense.’

WRONG**.**
**She said, “How can this be, since I do not know a man?” (Luke 1:34)Mary was a betrothed girl who knew about marital relations. She didn’t say “How can this be, since I have not known a man?” She said “How can this be, since I do not know a man?” **
She was stating her intention to remain a virgin and was puzzled by Gabriel’s announcement that she was to have a child. She knew that God was aware of her intentions. Her bewilderment and the words “I do not know”, as opposed to I have not known”, is clear evidence that she had no intention of having marital relations.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, however you express it.

It’s merely an observation based on the conversation thus far.

 

[dianaiad]

To say that you are assuming is a claim. To say that absence of proof constitues that it must have happened is your claim. To say there is no proof does not than mean that something else happened. If I say it rained but have no proof, does not mean than that it did not rain.

If someone challenged you and did not accept your assumption you would then have to provide proof.

Really. Neutral sources have been quoted. All that have been offered in rebuttal is opinion without acknowledging the source. There is no legitimate base for the word until meaning something comes after when the definition says it doesn’t.

She was speaking as a married woman. As such, she would have expected to become pregnant by her husband. But she didn’t say that her and Joseph weren’t having sex. She said she didn’t have sex period.

Even you

She was not ‘married’ yet…remember, Jews had at that time (and still do, actually) two stages of this relationship. NOW, a Jewish wedding does both stages at the same time, but when Mary and Joseph were 'betrothed," the first stage (which COULD include sexual intercourse, but often did not, if the woman were too young…) during which the woman lived with her parents while the man took the time to make a home for her—and then the second part, when she left her parent’s home to live with her husband.

in fact, it was quite possible for a girl to be betrothed when she was every, very young indeed; even in infancy.

…just had a thought…there has been some speculation that perhaps Joseph was chosen to be Mary’s husband because he was elderly–that he would be a protector.

If that’s so, he could have moved her into his home immediately…if he were chosen to protect her, wouldn’t part of his qualifications be that he could physically support her? I can see a young man having to take a year to get his act together and a home built, but—an older man?

Hmmn…Joseph WERE an older man chosen as a sort of ‘father figure’ for her, then about the only reason he would leave her with her parents was because she was too young…not old enough for sexual intercourse (whether they intended to have it or not, the woman needed to be old enough…that is, having gone through puberty…before moving in with her husband).

Therefore…it is quite reasonable to figure that she was ‘married’ and still not having marital relations with her husband. We do know that she was very young…thirteen or fourteen. IT’s quite possible that she simply wasn’t quite done with the changes of puberty yet.

Therefore her declaration is not proof that she was a consecrated/lifelong virgin…just that she was not engaged in that aspect of a marriage that wasn’t, yet, complete.

 

[GaryTaylor]

We also have the early Church, and what she taught regarding our Lady’s perpetual virginity. A few of the early quotes are available, referring to the Blessed Virgin as “ever virgin” in the Creed of Epephanius, 374 AD; Second Council of Constantinople 553 AD; Lateran Council 649 AD; St. Athanasius in Discourses against the Arians 358 AD. Her life-long virginity is attested to in St. Ambrose’s The Virgins 377 AD, and in St. Basil the Great’s Hom. in S. Christi Generationem 379 AD.

There has never been a time in all of Church history when anyone other than a heretic challenged the notion of the perpetual virginity of our Lady. We are all called to think about important things and not just gloss over them. Read Scripture as a critically thinking Catholic and see if you don’t agree.

 

[GaryTaylor]

She was not ‘married’ yet…remember, Jews had at that time (and still do, actually) two stages of this relationship. NOW, a Jewish wedding does both stages at the same time, but when Mary and Joseph were 'betrothed," the first stage (which COULD include sexual intercourse, but often did not, if the woman were too young…) during which the woman lived with her parents while the man took the time to make a home for her—and then the second part, when she left her parent’s home to live with her husband.

in fact, it was quite possible for a girl to be betrothed when she was every, very young indeed; even in infancy.

…just had a thought…there has been some speculation that perhaps Joseph was chosen to be Mary’s husband because he was elderly–that he would be a protector.

If that’s so, he could have moved her into his home immediately…if he were chosen to protect her, wouldn’t part of his qualifications be that he could physically support her? I can see a young man having to take a year to get his act together and a home built, but—an older man?

Hmmn…Joseph WERE an older man chosen as a sort of ‘father figure’ for her, then about the only reason he would leave her with her parents was because she was too young…not old enough for sexual intercourse (whether they intended to have it or not, the woman needed to be old enough…that is, having gone through puberty…before moving in with her husband).

Therefore…it is quite reasonable to figure that she was ‘married’ and still not having marital relations with her husband. We do know that she was very young…thirteen or fourteen. IT’s quite possible that she simply wasn’t quite done with the changes of puberty yet.

Therefore her declaration is not proof that she was a consecrated/lifelong virgin…just that she was not engaged in that aspect of a marriage that wasn’t, yet, complete.

Understanding early Jewish/Hebrew would also be to understand that lifelong virginity of Women and Men in devotion to God was not uncommon. Nothing new, thats already been kicked around on this thread also?

 

[Todd520]

The linguistic issues surrounding the Greek "heos" and the English "until" were already addressed in posts 335 & 340.

**Heos doesn’t necessarily mean that there is a subsequent change in circumstance.

’Nuff said.

Elvis, If your statement was true, then the translators should not have used “until” in their sentence. It must be a translation error into english

 

[adrift]

Elvis, If your statement was true, then the translators should not have used “until” in their sentence. It must be a translation error into english

It is because the definition of until is being rejected for a definition that is not what until is.
The Greek word means an undetermined time. What word in English would convey the same meaning? I can’t think of one. The closest is until which definition is a period of time.

 

[Todd520]

It is because the definition of until is being rejected for a definition that is not what until is.
The Greek word means an undetermined time. What word in English would convey the same meaning? I can’t think of one. The closest is until which definition is a period of time.

adrift,
proper translation is not a word for word best effort.
proper translation requires retaining the meaning of the original text which may require a chance in sentence structure.

Net, if using until to describe a past event changes the greek meaning, then the translation was faulty.
Many alternatives could have indicated mary remained a virgin for a longer period, or been a perpetual virgin.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Elvis, If your statement was true, then the translators should not have used “until” in their sentence. It must be a translation error into english

Some contend that Matt. 1:24-25 indicating that Joseph had no relations with Mary until she bore her first-born son indicates somehow that he had relations with her afterward. It indicates no such thing. Until (Greek: heos) simply means hither to or up to and makes no statement at all about any future activity. For example, 1 Cor. 15:25 statement that Jesus must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet does not mean that He will not reign afterward.

 

[dianaiad]

Understanding early Jewish/Hebrew would also be to understand that lifelong virginity of Women and Men in devotion to God was not uncommon. Nothing new, thats already been kicked around on this thread also?

Even if this is so, having something be ‘not uncommon’ doesn’t prove that Mary was one of these. That’s the problem with all of this; a whole lot of 'well, it could be…" and ‘this was not uncommon…’ evolved into an absolute 'yes, she was."

I just think that this is too far reaching a doctrine/dogma to be based on ‘not uncommon’ and 'it could be."

 

[Todd520]

Some contend that Matt. 1:24-25 indicating that Joseph had no relations with Mary until she bore her first-born son indicates somehow that he had relations with her afterward. It indicates no such thing. Until (Greek: heos) simply means hither to or up to and makes no statement at all about any future activity. For example, 1 Cor. 15:25 statement that Jesus must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet does not mean that He will not reign afterward.

Gary, please read back abit, now we are repeating.

I don’t argue what heos meant in Greek
I do argue that using UNTIL in the past event sentence structure indicates Joseph knew Mary after the birth of Christ
Your 1 Cor 15:25 example is faulty, it is a different sentence structure since it is tied to a future event. Find me an example that doesn’t use ‘until now’ or ‘until some future event’

 

[adrift]

adrift,
proper translation is not a word for word best effort.
proper translation requires retaining the meaning of the original text which may require a chance in sentence structure.

Net, if using until to describe a past event changes the greek meaning, then the translation was faulty.
Many alternatives could have indicated mary remained a virgin for a longer period, or been a perpetual virgin.

You avoided the question. What word would you have used that would have conveyed the meaning. The Greek word translated “until” does not imply normal marital conduct after Jesus’ birth, nor does it exclude it.
That you try to say that it was a bad translation hinges on your bad definition. It is your definition that is at fault

 

[Todd520]

I’m repeating this challenge to posters

adrift, the smart move is to side with Elvis and state HEOS was not translated correctly.

If it was translated correctly, then you should be able to provide plenty of usage examples with a past event where there was no change - this excludes using ‘until now’ as cited in above posts. Please give us usage examples where it is neutral (past event, not present or future)

Using the same sentence structure as: “he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son”.
Try filling in the () ****he ****(action), **but did not **(action) **until **(past event)

 

[GaryTaylor]

Gary, please read back abit, now we are repeating.

I don’t argue what heos meant in Greek
I do argue that using UNTIL in the past event sentence structure indicates Joseph knew Mary after the birth of Christ
Your 1 Cor 15:25 example is faulty, it is a different sentence structure since it is tied to a future event. Find me an example that doesn’t use ‘until now’ or ‘until some future event’

No difference in either sentence. Both are speaking of the future in past tense.