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

[Todd520]

Which he did before the birth of Jesus. Joseph was married to Mary before the birth of Jesus both parts of the ceremony being completed.

adrift, could you please restate your point, I’m not following the controversy and response you are stating

 

[PhilipCal]

Short answer. “Yes”. I believe in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. This is a matter of accepting what the Church teaches as part of the Deposit of Faith, and what has been passed down as a matter of Sacred Tradition. To believe as Catholics do on this matter, many more too, essentially requires faith as a gift of the Holy Spirit. It’s far more of an acceptance of what the Church teaches than it is an intellectual exercise.

 

[adrift]

adrift,
plagarism requires claiming text or an idea as your own. As said above, I have never made such a claim here. In fact I’ve claimed the opposite, that all my ideas came from other sources.

I’m also not submitting any of this work for a shool class.

Are you taking this tact because you don’t have the mental horsepower to argue the points?

Aren’t you the one who threatened the mods? Yeah you were and this is more aggressiveness than what I said then. No I won’t turn you in. When you write you are automatically claiming that you are writing your own thoughts unless you say otherwise. If you take a thought of another without giving them credit you are stealing, that is what plagiarism is. Not only did you take a thought of another but you twisted it to mean the exact opposite. The only way you can answer by insulting me. Go for it honey. It doesn’t put you in a good light . I believe there is a rule regarding this that you broke.

What I have found however is that you are unable to defend your position. You either misrepresent what is written or insult.

When you have evidence to support your position , I am sure everyone here will be suspicious because you have proved yourself unreliable. In reality, however, you cannot provide anything but your own unsubstantiated opinion.

 

[brumano]

Sure, all kinds of things could have happened but in those example, it’s silly to think a change did NOT happen. That’s precisely our point. The only thing that can change for a husband and wife who ‘knew not each other’ until her 1st born came into this world is to have sex.

BTW, thanks for making our point.

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?

 

[Todd520]

Aren’t you the one who threatened the mods? Yeah you were and this is more aggressiveness than what I said then. No I won’t turn you in. When you write you are automatically claiming that you are writing your own thoughts unless you say otherwise. If you take a thought of another without giving them credit you are stealing, that is what plagiarism is. Not only did you take a thought of another but you twisted it to mean the exact opposite. The only way you can answer by insulting me. Go for it honey. It doesn’t put you in a good light . I believe there is a rule regarding this that you broke.

What I have found however is that you are unable to defend your position. You either misrepresent what is written or insult.

When you have evidence to support your position , I am sure everyone here will be suspicious because you have proved yourself unreliable. In reality, however, you cannot provide anything but your own unsubstantiated opinion.

Why can’t you stay on topic?

This is a fast debate where the posts need to stand on their own feet.
When citing a higher authority, it is good to provide a link, but not required for stating logical statements

Do you have a thing for me? I don’t like stalkers

 

[Todd520]

adrift, could you please restate your point, I’m not following the controversy and response you are stating

adrift

If you clearly post your postion, I will respond and defend myself where I disagree with you. I will also clearly state where I agree with you.

Right now, I’m not clear what you think is an open issue to resolve.

 

[adrift]

Why can’t you stay on topic?

This is a fast debate where the posts need to stand on their own feet.
When citing a higher authority, it is good to provide a link, but not required for stating logical statements

Do you have a thing for me? I don’t like stalkers

:tsktsk::bowdown:

 

[adrift]

adrift

If you clearly post your postion, I will respond and defend myself where I disagree with you. I will also clearly state where I agree with you.

Right now, I’m not clear what you think is an open issue to resolve.

You are not the one who was being spoken to. You know everything is not about you.

 

[Todd520]

You are not the one who was being spoken to. You know everything is not about you.

Well, you were quoting me in your posts, so I just assumed you were speaking to me.

Again, please clearly state your disagreement with me and I will give a sincere reply, referencing scripture where appropriate and possible.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Listen there is not an existing Bible anywhere that the scripture is translated, then explained any differnt than exacly how I explained Matthew 1-25 above. Its doesn’t exist. If you have one explaining differntly, please show it because I would love to see it. Nor is there a Bible existing anywhere in eternity where Mary and Joesph had Children. Nor is there any other verse which could possibly be interpreted as such. Its an untruth, lie, thats evil at work for ya. Its didn’t happen. And 1:12 Matthew indicates no such thing.

I read a 1869 Rev. Roswell NY Seminary first edition. And calaborate that with a newer King James and New American? Its false heretic teaching…PERIOD! NO children, NO sex.

 

[ERose]

I believe that it is time for us to look at where we have been on this topic. This is what we have learned so far:

1. Luke 1: *[26] And in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, called Nazareth, [27] To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. [28] And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. [29] Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be. [30] And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God.

[31] Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus. [32] He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever. [33] And of his kingdom there shall be no end. [34] And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man? [35] And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

[36] And behold thy cousin Elizabeth, she also hath conceived a son in her old age; and this is the sixth month with her that is called barren: [37] Because no word shall be impossible with God. [38] And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her. *

From this entry we see that at this point Mary was already bethothed to Joseph, which in Jewish tradition, she was already married to him. Yet she was still a virgin.

She also asked *How shall this be done, because I know not man? * This would be classified as a silly statement for someone already married, unless her intent was to remain a virgin. But anyhow we know that even though they were already married in a Jewish sense, she and Joseph was not sexually active.

1. Luke 1: *[18] When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child, of the Holy Ghost. [19] Whereupon Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing publicly to expose her, was minded to put her away privately. [20] But while he thought on these things, behold the angel of the Lord appeared to him in his sleep, saying: Joseph, son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her, is of the Holy Ghost.

[21] And she shall bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his name JESUS. For he shall save his people from their sins. [22] Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which the Lord spoke by the prophet, saying: [23] Behold a virgin shall be with child, and bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. [24] And Joseph rising up from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and took unto him his wife. [25] And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. *

From reading the highly contested verse 25 it is obvious at this point that they were not having intercourse during the pregnancy. We also know that the INTENT of verse 25 is to highlight the fact that this was a virgin that gave birth to Jesus and that there is no way He belonged the Joseph or anyone else. The INTENT was never to discuss the sexlife of Mary and Joseph.

1. So at this point we know two things: 1) There was no sex before the conception of Jesus even though it was in their marital rights to do so. 2) There was no sex after the conception of Jesus even though it was in their marital rights to do so. So the question is why would this fact change? Holy Writ teaches that the parents of Jesus were not sexual active.

Of course the response is that the secondary intent of v 25 was to show that they did have sexual relations afterwards. This I would disagree about for this is calling people to meditate upon the sexlife of Joseph and Mary and that would be an anomaly in Scripture.

1. We also know that the marriage of Joseph and Mary was unique because the child is unique. So standards and customs do not apply to a unique situation. Perfect example is Jesus remaining celibate throughout his life even though it is custom for young men to be married and yet He did not marry.
2. You would also figure that if Joseph and Mary were sexually active there would be children since there is not proof that either was sterile. Of course the challengers have used the few verses in the Bible that refer to Jesus’ brothers and sisters. Yet it has been shown in other posts that these were in fact close relatives. The brothers and sisters of Jesus that were named were Jame the Less, Jude (both Apostles), Joseph, Simon, and Salome. We know that these are actually the children of Alpeaus and Mary of Clopas. Mary is referred to as a sister of Mary but having two Marys being siblings would be a stretch so it is assumed that Mary of Clopas was actually Mary’s Cousin.

So we know six of Jesus’ cousin’s names but no where is mentioned a name for a sibling of Jesus. That in my opinion would be extremely odd. One if there were sisters I believe that they would have been involved in preparing Jesus’ body for burial. But only his cousins and Mary Magdalene and most probably Martha were involved.

 

[ERose]

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.

 

[SteveVH]

Come to think of it, we don’t really know the exact words she actually used, do we? Nobody witnessed this except the angel and Mary. Who DID write that script?

Yes we do know who wrote it. It was the Holy Spirit. The one holding the pen is only an instrument. God is the author.

 

[SteveVH]

Come to think of it, we don’t really know the exact words she actually used, do we? Nobody witnessed this except the angel and Mary. Who DID write that script?

The Holy Spirit wrote that script. The one holding the pen was an instrument. God is the author.

 

[Zooey]

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 ?

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.

 

[brumano]

Sure, all kinds of things could have happened but in those example, it’s silly to think a change did NOT happen. That’s precisely our point. The only thing that can change for a husband and wife who ‘knew not each other’ until her 1st born came into this world is to have sex.

BTW, thanks for making our point.

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.

 

[KathleenGee]

Sacramental marriage to bear children and raise them Christian is different from the bond of the Holy Family that had a unique and special mission to raise the Christ Child and prepare Him for His future work.

Reading the Catholic posts here and the learning gained, my conviction of Mary as Perpetual Virgin is most clearly explained and supported.

Catholic spirituality is different than Protestant spirituality in its devotional depth, and where the Holy Spirit teaches us through our members the fullness of the spiritual life in Christ.

 

[Dokimas]

No he didn’t say that at all.

Yes, that is what Luke 1:31-35 says also.

I will assume that English is not your native language.

It is my native language so you can see why I haven’t tried to learn any other language.

Luke 1:
31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

So what are you saying these verses are saying? Please highlight what you are refering to.

 

[Dokimas]

Then, why do you think Mary asked the angel, "How can this be since I have no relations with a man"?

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?

 

[Dokimas]

That is a completely bogus answer, given the examples that have been supplied (2 Sam. 6:23, Psalm 110:1, Matt 22:44**).**

Here is another one that I’m sure you and your buddy Todd will say is a weak example.
Deut. 34:6 tells us that nobody knows where the grave of moses is located “until this present day”.

**Does this mean that everybody knew AFTER **that present day when Deuteronomy was written??

You guys are dead wrong when you limit the word "until" to one definition.

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.