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

  • Thread starter Thread starter lax16
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Stephen168 said:
You have done some IF’ing in the past, why stop now. A woman on the eve of her wedding or very newly married is told she will have a child. A woman expecting a normal marriage would have said something like “duh.” Why would she have to ask how this could happen because she does not know man?
Click to expand...
Good observation.😉 Well put:)
 
ERose said:
This is the thing that I have seen. Mormons and new age Protestants do not have the foundation to properly interpret scripture as it has been evidenced by the “I just don’t know” answers that we keep getting and the “You have to prove your position because we cannot defend ours” responses.

This should at least make you at least question your foundation. Which you have shown to us is very weak.
Click to expand...
ERose, I’m a mere student at these things - i’m proud to admit i don’t know everything but I make an honest effort and am learning. With that said, i resent your generalization that we may be lacking because we don’t know the answers to everything you ask.

Remember that you are often asking about things we do not see as essential to salvation or faith in God. This fact explains why our different churches do not have clear dogma on your topics.
 
Todd520 said:
ERose, I’m a mere student at these things - i’m proud to admit i don’t know everything but I make an honest effort and am learning. With that said, i resent your generalization that we may be lacking because we don’t know the answers to everything you ask.

Remember that you are often asking about things we do not see as essential to salvation or faith in God. This fact explains why our different churches do not have clear dogma on your topics.
Click to expand...
Then go and ask someone knowledgable in your church concerning these verses and come back to us with your church’s knowledge. You are here as an apologist for the LDS right? So if you are you need to come with something more than I do not know or I can’t prove anything so you prove it. It shows lack of knowledge and understanding about the subject.

Imagine if I came on a LDS site and started arguing whatever topic and I kept saying I don’t know. Would that make any sense to you?

If this isn’t an important topic to your church then why is it LDS members who are fighting over something that is “unimportant”. Your proper response should be “Who cares”. Yet that isn’t your response.

We have shown that there is more evidence from scripture for her perpetual virginity by far than your evidence for her sexual activity. In fact you have nothing to argue except for “Why not?”. That is all you and Diana and the others have offered as you argument. Well that is not an argument. I have been dealing with that argument in the Social Justice section of this forum for same-sex marriage and I will tell you the same as I told them. That is not an argument.

So go back to your church and find out what your church believes on this and bring an argument back with you. Until then, all we are doing is beating our collective heads against a wall.

God bless.
 
Todd520 said:
Dang, you don’t seem to be listening so here it goes again.

Your post 529 clearly states HEOS can be translated to: while; even to the point; since; still; until. I don’t question you knowledge of Greek These are your alternate translations of heos that clearly change the meaning of a sentence in english

I stated that you proved Matt 1:25 was translated poorly BECAUSE the official translation using ‘until’ has a very specific implication, that Joseph ‘knew’ Mary after the birth of Jesus. The alternative translations you suggested would not have specificly implied the same meaning, that he ‘knew’ Mary!
I don’t know why they chose UNTIL but I’m with you that it was a poor choice of english words to convey the meaning of perpetual virginity

Now one question, since we agree divine inspiration led to Matt 1:25, to clearly state Jesus had a virgin birth.

If perpetual virginity was true and important, why wasn’t it clearly stated in scripture?
“Joseph did not know mary until the end of her days” would have solved all our problems here.
Click to expand...
And yet again - you’re putting words in my mouth.
Get this once and for all:
I do NOT now - nor have I EVER contended that the use of “until” is a bad translation.

YOU claim it is a bad translation - NOT me.
**For your argument to be valid, you would also have to throw out words like Adelphos (brother) because it also has more far-reaching applications that uterine sibling. You simply have no grasp on linguistics or translation.

As for why Mary’s perpetual virginity not being “clearly stated” in the Bible - you continue to tread down the rocky path of Sola Scriptura. You and Diane claim that because you are LDS - you are NOT adherents to Sola Scriptura, yet you BOTH go running back to the shelter of this false doctrine everytime you get the chance.

**Read the following verses, then come back and tell me that ALL truth is encapsulated in the Bible. You - a Mormon - can’t possibly believe this false notion: ******Luke 10:16, **1 Cor. 11:22, Thess. 2:15, **2 Thess 2:15, **2 Thess. 3:6
**
 
adrift said:
No sir this is using the English poorly. We have standard definitions. You are using a made up definition. Until only denotes a period of time up to a point not after. You never address this. I have **challenged **you to provide a reliable dictionary that supports your claim. You cannot so you resort to your own definition. Sorry your definition is incorrect and is not the meaning of until. Elvis has provided the Greek which does not contradict the English definition. Elvis gave you the meanings but he did not say that each meaning applied to the scripture used. Matthew was not intending to say anything about what happened after Jesus’ birth. It does not prove one way or another Mary’s virginity. I don’t think anyone here is saying that it does. Mary is the one who says it in Luke.
Click to expand...
If the translators want the scripture to mean something like “up to” they should have used
“up to” it or “before”.
from wiki
Tasker[57] and Hill[58] argue that this passage implies that Mary and Joseph had customary marital relations after the birth of Jesus, with Tasker quoting McNeile as saying that the Greek construction “always implies in the New Testament that the negatived action did, or will, take place after the point of time indicated”.[59] Hill comments that “if the notion of Mary’s perpetual virginity had been familiar to the evangelist or to the milieu in which he wrote, he would surely have been more explicit”.
Click to expand...
’Until’ used in its full contemporary English sense signifies that Joseph and Mary’s chaste relationship changed after the birth.
I have repeatedly asked for usage examples of until a past event, that support your interpreations, none have been provided.

So I’m arguing for a future change in translation to reflect contemporary english usage of until.
 
dianaiad said:
You are both right…and wrong.

When it comes to the Book of Mormon, the whole thing comes down to Moroni’s challenge. Remember? Go ask God and see what HE has to say about this?

In all the discussion regarding Mary being a perpetual virgin, have you seen any Catholic say 'go pray about it and see what the Holy Spirit has to say about the validity of our sources?"

That, to me, is rather important.
Click to expand...
We don’t need to go and pray about knowing it, we already know it, we pray that we can know it more fully and even enter into it. The Holy Spirit is the validity of our sources. We are constantly over our entire life’s course understanding that there is the calling to go further and deeper not only in our prayer life, but in the virtues, in the Sacramental life, in the life of the True Church, in …everything. A good example of someone who did this was Mother Theresa.
 
Todd520 said:
ERose, I read Luke as stating she was still a virgin when the Angel visited: “How shall this be done, because I know not man?”

I would agree with you if the scripture was explicit, like:
  • How shall this be done, because I cannot know man?
  • How shall this be done, because I will never know man?
  • How shall this be done, because I must not know man?
Click to expand...
So, you’re stating that Mary was a moron. Do you honestly believe that she had NO idea that she could become pregnant if she had relations with Joseph??
She was an engaged girl who KNEW about the birds and the bees. She understood FULLY what sex was. Her question to Gabriel was one of puzzlement and confusion because she intended to remain a virgin.
She said:
****"How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?"
She did NOT say:
"How can this be, since I have had no relations with a man?"
IF** she had no intentions or remaining a virgin after she was married – she would NEVER have asked Gabriel the question she did.
 
elvisman said:
So, you’re stating that Mary was a moron. Do you honestly believe that she had NO idea that she could become pregnant if she had relations with Joseph??
She was an engaged girl who KNEW about the birds and the bees. She understood FULLY what sex was. Her question to Gabriel was one of puzzlement and confusion because she intended to remain a virgin.
She said:
****"How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?"
She did NOT say:
"How can this be, since I have had no relations with a man?"
IF** she had no intentions or remaining a virgin *after ***she was married – she would NEVER have asked Gabriel the question she did.
Click to expand...
Elvis,
The text says what it says - and you are reaching to infer she claimed perpetual virginity from a short question. :eek:

Please don’t put insults in my mouth I have not uttered :mad:
 
Todd520 said:
Elvis,
The text says what it says - and you are reaching to infer she claimed perpetual virginity from a short question. :eek:

Please don’t put insults in my mouth I have not uttered :mad:
Click to expand...
Todd,

What do you think is the intent of Matthew’s verse?
 
ERose said:
Then go and ask someone knowledgable in your church concerning these verses and come back to us with your church’s knowledge. You are here as an apologist for the LDS right? So if you are you need to come with something more than I do not know or I can’t prove anything so you prove it. It shows lack of knowledge and understanding about the subject.

Imagine if I came on a LDS site and started arguing whatever topic and I kept saying I don’t know. Would that make any sense to you?

If this isn’t an important topic to your church then why is it LDS members who are fighting over something that is “unimportant”. Your proper response should be “Who cares”. Yet that isn’t your response.

We have shown that there is more evidence from scripture for her perpetual virginity by far than your evidence for her sexual activity. In fact you have nothing to argue except for “Why not?”. That is all you and Diana and the others have offered as you argument. Well that is not an argument. I have been dealing with that argument in the Social Justice section of this forum for same-sex marriage and I will tell you the same as I told them. That is not an argument.

So go back to your church and find out what your church believes on this and bring an argument back with you. Until then, all we are doing is beating our collective heads against a wall.

God bless.
Click to expand...
ERose,
This thread was started by a Cahtolic to ask for our (name removed by moderator)ut - not LDS trying to disuade Catholics on their beliefs. Remember that and rethink your above post.

We have provided our honest assessment and also stated Mary’s perpetual virginity is not core doctrine or essential to our faith. Since it is incidental rather than essential, opinions vary.

Why can’t you accept and acknowledge our comments, and let it go? Why do the Catholics contintue to try brow beat other posters into believing their doctrine:confused:
 
Todd520 said:
If the translators want the scripture to mean something like “up to” they should have used
“up to” it or “before”.
from wiki

’Until’ used in its full contemporary English sense signifies that Joseph and Mary’s chaste relationship changed after the birth.
I have repeatedly asked for usage examples of until a past event, that support your interpreations, none have been provided.

So I’m arguing for a future change in translation to reflect contemporary english usage of until.
Click to expand...
So you would have all current versions of the Bible thrown out because you don’t like it?
Centuries of versions all because Todd can’t comprehend the meaning of a verse? This is TYPICAL of the mentality that the leaders of the Protestant Revolt succumbed to.
As for usage examples of “unti”l that have no future implications – you have already been given some (Psalm 110:1, 2 Samuel 6:23, Matt 22:44, Acts 2:34-35) but you have rejected them as “weak” examples. This is a clear-cut case of spiritual pride, my friend.
 
elvisman said:
**So you would have all **current versions of the Bible thrown out because you don’t like it?
Centuries of versions all because Todd can’t comprehend the meaning of a verse? This is TYPICAL of the mentality that the leaders of the Protestant Revolt succumbed to.
As for usage examples of “unti”l that have no future implications – you have already been given some (Psalm 110:1, 2 Samuel 6:23, Matt 22:44, Acts 2:34-35) but you have rejected them as “weak” examples. This is a clear-cut case of spiritual pride, my friend.
Click to expand...
Now you are being mean, I rejected those examples because their sentence structure changed the meaning. My challenge is to give an example using the same sentence structure as Matt 1:25. And how can you ignore contemporay usage as not being an issue?

I will repeat my two unanswered questions:

Question 1: If perpetual virginity was true and important, why wasn’t it clearly stated in scripture? “Joseph did not know mary until the end of her days” would have solved all our problems here.
**
Question 2**: Provide an example using this sentence structure, where the negative does not occur after the event. Again, ‘until now’ is excluded from the sentence structure.
“he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son”.
She/he (insert action), but did not (insert action) until (past event occured)
 
Todd520 said:
ERose,
This thread was started by a Cahtolic to ask for our (name removed by moderator)ut - not LDS trying to disuade Catholics on their beliefs. Remember that and rethink your above post.

We have provided our honest assessment and also stated Mary’s perpetual virginity is not core doctrine or essential to our faith. Since it is incidental rather than essential, opinions vary.

Why can’t you accept and acknowledge our comments, and let it go? Why do the Catholics contintue to try brow beat other posters into believing their doctrine:confused:
Click to expand...
It may have started as such but it surely has evolved into something different which I think we can both agree.

But concerning whether or not it is essential, I think truth is essential. This world has gotten to the point where many believe truth isn’t essential but rather our opinions are more important than the truth. Which is ridiculus.

This this was just about acknowleging your comments this would have been over along time ago. Your comments have been acknowledged and other comments have been made and since those comments are opposite of your comments you have challenged them have you not? We in response have challenged yours. It is an argument now and has been one for most of this thread.

You are talking about us brow beating yet you are doing the same whether you want to accept that or not.
 
Todd520 said:
If the translators want the scripture to mean something like “up to” they should have used
“up to” it or “before”.
from wiki

’Until’ used in its full contemporary English sense signifies that Joseph and Mary’s chaste relationship changed after the birth.
I have repeatedly asked for usage examples of until a past event, that support your interpreations, none have been provided.

So I’m arguing for a future change in translation to reflect contemporary english usage of until.
Click to expand...
I assume that you have not read what is being posted. The translators DID use up to because that is what until means. Your statements are false. You start from a false premise. When you provided a cite a dictionary with your false definition than and only than will your comments and challenges carry weight. It is then that you can legitimately ask for examples. Until then you are asking for things that are not based on truth. Why don’t you just admit that you have no source to substantiate your false definition? . Interesting however how you edited. Here is what it was cut out of and it really doesn’t support your position.
Matthew 1:25, states that Jesus was Mary’s “firstborn son” (although Tasker says that there is strong evidence for omitting the word firstborn)[56] and that Joseph “had no marital relations with her until (ἕως) she had borne a son.” Tasker[57] and Hill[58] argue that this passage implies that Mary and Joseph had customary marital relations after the birth of Jesus, with Tasker quoting McNeile as saying that the Greek construction “always implies in the New Testament that the negatived action did, or will, take place after the point of time indicated”.[59] Hill comments that “if the notion of Mary’s perpetual virginity had been familiar to the evangelist or to the milieu in which he wrote, he would surely have been more explicit”.[60] Debate on this point is sometimes obscured by the fact that the Greek preposition ἕως could either occur with a clausal complement in its temporal sense or with a nominal complement in a spatial sense, where it meant something like up to.[61] John Hainsworth remarks: “'The use of ‘until’ in Matthew 1:25, then, is purely to indicate that Christ was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, not conceived by Joseph and Mary, since they did not ‘know’ each other ‘until’ the birth. In this context ‘until’ is really synonymous with ‘before’. If on the contrary it were meant in its full contemporary English sense—that is, if it really meant that Joseph and Mary’s chaste relationship changed after the birth—then the stylistics present another big problem: the reader would have to believe that Matthew was actually inviting contemplation of the couple’s later sexual activity. This is doubtful to say the least.”[62] Although in the English translation the phrase with “until” is ambiguous, it is less so in the original Greek text.[63]
Click to expand...
Oops I just realized that your quote is not here. Perhaps there is another article you would care to link to. This is the Link to the article I found
 
Just sticking my head in to comment on a PP saying that Catholics go by “it may have been…” or “it is possible that…” or “it was not uncommon…”

This is not what Catholics go by. We go by the truth that has been handed down to us. The original Apostles knew Mary, in the flesh. They would have known whether or not Jesus had real (uterine) siblings because they were there.

Since (some) people reject the fact that Mary’s perpetual virginity was common knowledge in the early church and in the church for over 1500 years before it was seriously questioned, and since some people argue that virginity within marriage would have been absurd [because they do not understand the culture], it is only then that Catholics point to the culture and the fact that it would not be unlikely at all, and certainly not absurd.

FWIW, My trust in the Church is essentially because of my trust in Christ and His words to be with us always, though history proves the Church’s consistency, as well. We know from countless Bible verses that God is not a God of chaos. And yet non-Catholic Christians cannot seem to see that departing from Christ’s Church has done exactly that–created chaos that isn’t necessary or beneficial. Take the Eucharist, for example, which many non-Catholic Christians mock. If they are right, no harm done, except for being rude and divisive. But if Catholics are right, if Jesus meant what He said, and if the Eucharist is everything the Church teaches it is, then imagine the delight that Satan must take in having people who claim to be followers and servants of Christ mocking (or at least treating flippantly) the Sacrament that is the single greatest gift that Christ has given us–Himself, wholely and truly, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity?

Sorry–did not mean to get off topic!
 
ERose said:
It may have started as such but it surely has evolved into something different which I think we can both agree.

You are talking about us brow beating yet you are doing the same whether you want to accept that or not.
Click to expand...
My intention has been to challenge misuse of scripture and false logic. To be candid, Catholics could learn from this discussion and stick to arguments that support their assertation, stop trying to convince people with holy scripture.
Holy Scripture is clear and specific on the virgin birth
Holy Scripture is unclear on perpetual virginity
Holy Tradition is clear and specific on perpetual virginity

I have never debated Catholic Holy Tradition on this subject, as my goal is not to disuade Catholics in their belief.
 
Most Protestants claim that Mary bore children other than Jesus. To support their claim, these Protestants refer to the biblical passages which mention the “brethren of the Lord.” As explained in the Catholic Answers tract Brethren of the Lord, neither the Gospel accounts nor the early Christians attest to the notion that Mary bore other children besides Jesus. The faithful knew, through the witness of Scripture and Tradition, that Jesus was Mary’s only child and that she remained a lifelong virgin.

An important historical document which supports the teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity is the Protoevangelium of James, which was written probably less than sixty years after the conclusion of Mary’s earthly life (around A.D. 120), when memories of her life were still vivid in the minds of many.

According to the world-renowned patristics scholar, Johannes Quasten: “The principal aim of the whole writing [Protoevangelium of James] is to prove the perpetual and inviolate virginity of Mary before, in, and after the birth of Christ” (Patrology, 1:120–1).

To begin with, the Protoevangelium records that when Mary’s birth was prophesied, her mother, St. Anne, vowed that she would devote the child to the service of the Lord, as Samuel had been by his mother (1 Sam. 1:11). Mary would thus serve the Lord at the Temple, as women had for centuries (1 Sam. 2:22), and as Anna the prophetess did at the time of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:36–37). A life of continual, devoted service to the Lord at the Temple meant that Mary would not be able to live the ordinary life of a child-rearing mother. Rather, she was vowed to a life of perpetual virginity.

However, due to considerations of ceremonial cleanliness, it was eventually necessary for Mary, a consecrated “virgin of the Lord,” to have a guardian or protector who would respect her vow of virginity. Thus, according to the Protoevangelium, Joseph, an elderly widower who already had children, was chosen to be her spouse. (This would also explain why Joseph was apparently dead by the time of Jesus’ adult ministry, since he does not appear during it in the gospels, and since Mary is entrusted to John, rather than to her husband Joseph, at the crucifixion).

According to the Protoevangelium, Joseph was required to regard Mary’s vow of virginity with the utmost respect. The gravity of his responsibility as the guardian of a virgin was indicated by the fact that, when she was discovered to be with child, he had to answer to the Temple authorities, who thought him guilty of defiling a virgin of the Lord. Mary was also accused of having forsaken the Lord by breaking her vow. Keeping this in mind, it is an incredible insult to the Blessed Virgin to say that she broke her vow by bearing children other than her Lord and God, who was conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit.

The perpetual virginity of Mary has always been reconciled with the biblical references to Christ’s brethren through a proper understanding of the meaning of the term “brethren.” The understanding that the brethren of the Lord were Jesus’ stepbrothers (children of Joseph) rather than half-brothers (children of Mary) was the most common one until the time of Jerome (fourth century). It was Jerome who introduced the possibility that Christ’s brethren were actually his cousins, since in Jewish idiom cousins were also referred to as “brethren.” The Catholic Church allows the faithful to hold either view, since both are compatible with the reality of Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Today most Protestants are unaware of these early beliefs regarding Mary’s virginity and the proper interpretation of “the brethren of the Lord.” And yet, the Protestant Reformers themselves—Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli—honored the perpetual virginity of Mary and recognized it as the teaching of the Bible, as have other, more modern Protestants.
 
“And behold, an angel of the Lord stood by [St. Anne], saying, ‘Anne! Anne! The Lord has heard your prayer, and you shall conceive and shall bring forth, and your seed shall be spoken of in all the world.’ And Anne said, ‘As the Lord my God lives, if I beget either male or female, I will bring it as a gift to the Lord my God, and it shall minister to him in the holy things all the days of its life.’ . . . And [from the time she was three] Mary was in the temple of the Lord as if she were a dove that dwelt there” (Protoevangelium of James 4, 7 [A.D. 120]).

“And when she was twelve years old there was held a council of priests, saying, ‘Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, lest perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord?’ And they said to the high priest, ‘You stand by the altar of the Lord; go in and pray concerning her, and whatever the Lord shall manifest to you, that also will we do.’ . . . [A]nd he prayed concerning her, and behold, an angel of the Lord stood by him saying, ‘Zechariah! Zechariah! Go out and assemble the widowers of the people and let them bring each his rod, and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. . . . And Joseph [was chosen]. . . . And the priest said to Joseph, ‘You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the Virgin of the Lord.’ But Joseph refused, saying, ‘I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl’” (ibid., 8–9).

“And Annas the scribe came to him [Joseph] . . . and saw that Mary was with child. And he ran away to the priest and said to him, ‘Joseph, whom you did vouch for, has committed a grievous crime.’ And the priest said, ‘How so?’ And he said, ‘He has defiled the virgin whom he received out of the temple of the Lord and has married her by stealth’” (ibid., 15).

“And the priest said, ‘Mary, why have you done this? And why have you brought your soul low and forgotten the Lord your God?’ . . . And she wept bitterly saying, ‘As the Lord my God lives, I am pure before him, and know not man’” (ibid.).

Origen

“The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the firstfruit of virginity” (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).

Hilary of Poitiers

“If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, ‘Woman, behold your son,’ and to John, ‘Behold your mother’ [John 19:26–27), as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate” (Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354]).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top