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

[Dokimas]

Your point might not stick. Despite what you insist, there can be a translational or a transliteral anomaly here in Matthew 1,25. If there is my bet would be on transliteral. It is difficult even today to literally translate well known common languages one only from another, even if they originate from a common original language, and in their own time of usage. How much moreso do you think it was for however late of a modern English edition of whatever version, first back to First King James let’s say, then from “vulgar” Latin later copies back to “vulgar” Latin original from Classical Latin from (I think I might be skipping a step here) Ancient Greek of about what 250AD? Then realize that that manuscript had to be translated at least once from either Aramaic or Yiddish, as we know for a fact that St. Matthew or whoever actually first wrote it down was not Greek?

We can see how the SAME Greek word is used in other verses, can’t we? Maybe that could and would shed light on this topic.

 

[Dokimas]

The point might not stick for another reason: . If St.Matthew under inspirational control would have wanted us to know definetly that they then had sexual relations, he must make it pointedly and clearly understood. The question that would arise was not lost on him, that we can be sure of. But what is the next (and only) thing we are told after “…he had no relations with her until she bore a son”? “And he named him Jesus”. The next direction of his mind is toward the newly born baby, Jesus.

Matthew said ‘first born’. Using your logic the writer should have said ‘only born’ if Jesus was the only child in Mary’s womb.

 

[KathleenGee]

Dokimas,

As stated on a previous post, Firstborn was a Jewish term applied to all first born children whether they had siblings or not, this primacy of birth going back to Exodus…that all firstborn of hte womb and of animals were the Lord’s…and dedicated to His temple…parents could have their firstborn removed from this duty with their priest and payment of shekels.

There is quite a bit of good information on this thread from various people, that will give you a good picture of the reasoning behind why we believe in the particularly sanctity of the Blessed Virgin and her life long consecration to God.

 

[Dokimas]

Dokimas,

As stated on a previous post, Firstborn was a Jewish term applied to all first born children whether they had siblings or not, this primacy of birth going back to Exodus…that all firstborn of hte womb and of animals were the Lord’s…and dedicated to His temple…parents could have their firstborn removed from this duty with their priest and payment of shekels.

There is quite a bit of good information on this thread from various people, that will give you a good picture of the reasoning behind why we believe in the particularly sanctity of the Blessed Virgin and her life long consecration to God.

The point was to Brumano about how Matthew would have written to make things clearer.

BTW, isn’t Jesus God’s “Only Begotten Son”? The Holy Spirit used this phrase to make it VERY clear God’s has NO other begottens but Jesus. I’m wondering why the Holy Spirit didn’t have Matthew use that same phrase for Mary?

 

[david_ruiz]

David, I did a quick search on: biblegateway.com
This is what I found in two well-respected Protestant Bible translations…

**Psalm 69:5 (New King James Version) **
5 O God, You know my foolishness;
And my sins are not hidden from You.

Psalm 69:5 (New American Standard Bible)

5O God, it is You who knows my folly,
And my wrongs are not hidden from You.

Now, unless you plan on arguing that this verse from the same Psalm also applies to Jesus Christ, you’re going to have to forgive us for not taking your assuming that this Psalm is about Our Lord.

Psalm69 :8,9 “I am become a stranger to my brethren ,and an alien unto my mother’s children. For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up,and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are upon me”
John 2:17, after Jesus turning the tables over in the Temple in anger,“his disciples remembered that it was written,the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up”. Mark 6:4"Only in his country,amongst his relatives, AND HIS OWN HOUSE,is a prophet without honor". Do you see how the apostles equated the psalms 69:8,9 prophecy to Jesus?(it has 36 verses,not all are about Jesus ,some are of David.-It is a beautiful weaving of David’s life with the Lord’s .Only the Lord could orhestrate such double-edged truth in poetry) .Do you see the three entities in psalms and mark: #1-country ,#2-relatives ,#3-family.Feel the reproach ,“for the son of man hath nowhere to lay his head”. It is like Jesus saying, " Hey ,I am being rejected by my countrymen ,by my relatives ,and even my own brothers and sisters .See the progression ?,the three entities ? From your scenario (no siblings) whom is in "His house " ? Is he saying that Mary did not honor Him ? Some say Mary was with those friends who wanted to bring Him back home at Capernum -to “rest” after just starting his ministry and some thought Jesus was beside himself Mark 3. That is another story .I will only say Jesus was referring to His siblings.His mother’s children, His house.

 

[ERose]

The point was to Brumano about how Matthew would have written to make things clearer.

BTW, isn’t Jesus God’s “Only Begotten Son”? The Holy Spirit used this phrase to make it VERY clear God’s has NO other begottens but Jesus. I’m wondering why the Holy Spirit didn’t have Matthew use that same phrase for Mary?

Friend, this is not meant to be disrespectful, but I would recommend to you to do research on first born sons in Jewish law and custom. You are loosing credibility.

 

[Dokimas]

Friend, this is not meant to be disrespectful, but I would recommend to you to do research on first born sons in Jewish law and custom. You are loosing credibility.

No disrespect taken. You are welcome to your opinion.

I don’t believe I made any comment about Jewish law and custom. I made a comment about the Holy Spirit making things clear as He did saying Jesus was God’s Only Begotten Son. I believe my statement was a response for someone that used that logic to me.

 

[david_ruiz]

Dokimas,

As stated on a previous post, Firstborn was a Jewish term applied to all first born children whether they had siblings or not, this primacy of birth going back to Exodus…that all firstborn of hte womb and of animals were the Lord’s…and dedicated to His temple…parents could have their firstborn removed from this duty with their priest and payment of shekels.

There is quite a bit of good information on this thread from various people, that will give you a good picture of the reasoning behind why we believe in the particularly sanctity of the Blessed Virgin and her life long consecration to God.

Yes ,firstborn meant many things .It could mean most excellent-“Christ is the firstborn of every creature”.It also was a legal term ,which gave certain rights to the first born of the family.The whole term came about because there were second born and third born children etc. .I believe an only child did not require the term for redundancy sake .You could go to court and say, “he is my only child” and it would mean the same as "first born ".Again , scripture is precise and double-edged and beautifully crafted .I see many meanings in Matt, Luke saying Jesus was Mary’s firstborn,First to confirm virgin birth,second for his excellency,and His priestly role ,and lastly and what should be most obvious, the intended original meaning ,the first amongst other siblings. That being said ,I would not use this scripture to put forth(scripturally prove) that idea of other siblings,but it does compliment those scriptures that do.

 

[ERose]

Are you guys serious? You really don’t understand the importance of ‘firstborn’ in Mosaic law.

All firstborn children, including animals, belong to God. There was a special ceremony and sacrifices had to be given for the firstborn. Also the FB was heir to his father’s house. Firstborn was a legal title. Don’t read something into this that isn’t there. Again do some research. You really are loosing credibility.

 

[Dokimas]

Are you guys serious? You really don’t understand the importance of ‘firstborn’ in Mosaic law.

All firstborn children, including animals, belong to God. There was a special ceremony and sacrifices had to be given for the firstborn. Also the FB was heir to his father’s house. Firstborn was a legal title. Don’t read something into this that isn’t there. Again do some research. You really are loosing credibility.

Have a good night (or morning depending where you live)

 

[ERose]

Have a good night (or morning depending where you live)

May God bless and don’t forget that research!

 

[Dokimas]

May God bless and don’t forget that research!

Thank you.

Thanks for the reminder but I trust your research. It’s of no consequence to my discussion, IMO.

 

[elvisman]

I wasn’t there so I can’t say for sure.

My guess is that there was an urgency in the voice of the angel that caused the young, very startled, Mary to respond as she did.

Remember courtship could last up to one year. If this was in the first month of her courtship to Joseph and if Mary understood that she would be delivering Jesus before the time of concumation of her marriage to Joseph, it is very understandable that she’d make that comment.

Having the mind of a first century young female would be quite helpful here, wouldn’t you say?

**The major flaw in your theory is that the angel never told her WHEN she was to have this baby. **

**That makes ALL of the difference in the world . . . **

 

[elvisman]

If mine is bogus for your stated reason, then what’s this answer of yours given the fact that many times I’ve given verses that use until and it is obvious a change will be made after the allotted time.

Funny how you say I’m limiting the Word when you’re just as guilty by telling us that there’s NO chance that Matthew 1:25 meant that Mary may have had sex with her husband after the birth of Jesus. Funny how that seems to work with you often.

Nope.
I am simply debunking the myth created by you Todd and Diana that the word, “until” has only one application.

I - and others - have presented 4 or 5 BIBLICAL texts with a different use of this word and all you and Todd can do is call them weak examples . . .

 

[david_ruiz]

Continued…

1. John 19 *[26]When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son. [27] After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own. *

Here is the last bit of evidence we have. Jesus was the first born Son, which meant that after Joseph’s death, Jesus would have inherited all of the family property and the responsibility of caring for His Mother. When a first-born son dies without an heir then the 2nd born son becomes the inheritor and the Mother becomes his responsibility along with the wife of the first-born if there is one. Yet Jesus in this passage give His mother to John. This would have been a big no-no if there were other siblings. Unless there were no siblings. This is the only way this could have happened.

So what do we conclude:

1. No sex before conception.
2. No sex during pregnancy.
3. No children besides Jesus.
4. No proof of infertility.

Thus it must have been a celibate marriage and Mary’s virginity was protected and perpetual.

Not so fast there sister (just trying to be funny). Your scenario at the cross is understandable .I get it .However ,there is another scenario,and a catholic brother at least said it was plausible or at least he understood the argument.If there were siblings ,the bible says they did not believe Mark 6;4 “a prophet is without honor in his country ,amongst his relatives and in his own house” and John7:5, “for neither did his brethren believe in Him”.Furthermore ,spirit is thicker than blood -“He who does the will of my father is my mother ,brother…” So tell me ,if you had an older relative needing care ,would you commit them to an non-believing relative or a family in the church ,who knows and loves your older relative ,and WHO HAVE GONE THRU TOGETHER THE MOST TRAUMATIC,HEARTBREAKING EVENT THE WORLD HAS EVER KNOWN ? Jesus would not fulfill His responsibility and put Mary in disbelieving, forsaking household but in the hands of a beloved John-no one in the world could have done better .No one in the world could empathize more with Mary than John -they both stood at His cross. Anyways , both scenarios are at best circumstantial evidence and should not be used as scriptural proof for or against…Alleluia that we agree to the main thing ,#1,2,and #4-mainly a virgin birth. Your point #3 is debateable ,and has been now for 1800 years. The simplest of readings lend to believing in siblings.It was not until celibacy began to be viewed as superior did Mary"s ever-virgin status emerge.

 

[Dokimas]

The major flaw in your theory is that the angel never told her WHEN she was to have this baby.

That makes ALL of the difference in the world . . .

We weren’t there nor do we understand the specifics of the 1st century Jewish girl’s mind.

 

[Dokimas]

Nope.
I am simply debunking the myth created by you Todd and Diana that the word, “until” has only one application.

I - and others - have presented 4 or 5 BIBLICAL texts with a different use of this word and all you and Todd can do is call them weak examples . . .

If 4 or 5 texts are pretty good then I beat you. I have more that proves my usage. Bingo; I win. :extrahappy:

 

[elvisman]

We weren’t there nor do we understand the specifics of the 1st century Jewish girl’s mind.

That’s the weakest argument yet. In fact - it’s a cop-out.

You could use that excuse for everything that has ever been said or done in the history of the world. OR - you could use, logic, reason, Scriptural prophecy and tradition . . . like WE have.

 

[elvisman]

If 4 or 5 texts are pretty good then I beat you. I have more that proves my usage. Bingo; I win. :extrahappy:

Sorry, pal - but you’ve been out Scriptured, out-evidenced, out-reasoned and just plain proven wrong . . .

**The fact that you cannot pigeonhole the word *“until” *into yours and Todd’s tight little parameters is ONE thing. **
It is QUITE another that many of us have crushed you argument with the linguistic facts . . .

 

[guanophore]

If you do not accept them as CATHOLIC, then they are apostate. “Apostate,” to a greater or lesser degree means falling away from the truth…and if, as you claim, Catholicism is Truth, then anything that is not Catholicism MUST BE, to some extent, apostate.

No Diana, this is not the case. In order to qualify as “apostate”, one must have been holding to the Truth in the first place. Our separated brethren, through no fault of their own, have inherited a religious tradition that was separated from the Truth 500 years ago. Though the original reformers were, indeed, apostate, their spiritual progeny inherited a set of beliefs that were incomplete from the beginning.

They have never known the fullness of the Apostolic faith. Most of them think that Catholics “added” those portions that they are missing.

Whether it is apostate enough to throw completely under the bus the way you guys did us is irrelevant…if they do not, say, believe in transubstantiation or other specific dogma, then they are apostate, by definition.

No, Diana. The definition of apostate does not apply to you any more than it does to them. None of you started with the fullness of the faith.