Did Mary remain a virgin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter marian12
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This pastor demonstrates 1) his profound ignorance of scripture and 2) His virulent anti-Catholic hatred. Hatred as in disdain, disbelief, disrespect. As with many such private enterprise, for-profit pastors for hire, he must divide and conquer to make a living. I have enough sins on my soul, but I will not answer for that.

EDIT: If he would only consider the scriptural information in this video, he would appear far smarter than he does now.

 
Last edited:
marian12 said:
So I found the line he used:
Matthew 1:25 “but he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son.” (NIV)
He emphasized on the word ‘until’ meaning that they did have relations and was no longer a virgin.

From usccb website:
(NABRE) " He had no relations with her until she bore a son"

[1:25] Until she bore a son: the evangelist is concerned to emphasize that Joseph was not responsible for the conception of Jesus. The Greek word translated “until” does not imply normal marital conduct after Jesus’ birth, nor does it exclude it.

I’m not sure I understand that explanation.
Click to expand...
Similar to this bible passage

Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death - 2 Samuel 6:23

The emphasis is on the interim not what happen after. Michal certainly couldn’t have children after she died 🙂
 
The poor pastor has no knowledge of ancient Hebraic language or culture. He must think that our Lord spoke King James English. Of course, he only has 91% of the bible to work with. Had he the Book of Tobit, he would know that “brothers and sisters” were those of one’s own tribe of the 12 tribes of Israel. He would know that a man referred to his wife as “sister” since she was of the same tribe. To wit:
Tobit 7:16 "And Rag′uel called his wife Edna and said to her, “Sister, make up the other room, and take her into it.”
Click to expand...
Tobit 8:9 And now, Lord, thou knowest, that not for fleshly lust do I take my sister to wife, but only for the love of posterity, in which thy name may be blessed for ever and ever.
Click to expand...
This poor, pathetic (i.e. pathos) pastor denigrates the Mother that our Lord created for Himself. He shows more animus toward the Catholic Church than he does love of truth. What did our Lord say about blind leaders of the blind?

As to Matthew 1:25, the purpose was to show that it was a virgin birth, as that was always in doubt. By poor pastor’s reasoning, Jesus stopped loving His Apostles when he was crucified. To wit:
John 13:1 “Now before the feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world to the Father, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end.”
Click to expand...
So, our Lord clearly stopped loving them at the end of His life.
 
Last edited:
Also, when Jesus was lost at the temple at age 12, he was the only son of Joseph and Mary. This would indeed imply that she had no more children.
 
When the angel Gabriel announced to Mary that she would bear a son, she said “How can this be, since I do not know man?”

Mary was betrothed to Joseph. She knew how babies came about. But she said ‘how can this be?’ She didn’t ask about the timing of the conception, but “how can this be?” The implication is that she had no intentions of “knowing” man, possibly because she had taien a vow of virginity. Someone who is betrothed and is told she will bear a child would not normally respond “how can this be?”
 
webmasterpdx said:
Also, when Jesus was lost at the temple at age 12, he was the only son of Joseph and Mary. This would indeed imply that she had no more children.
Click to expand...
To be fair, this is the weakest argument. Mary was 14-16 when she had Jesus, making her only 26-28 when Jesus was 12. If she only had daughters then Jesus would have been the only son up to that point. Women with 12 yo’s frequently have more children. It didn’t happen either way, but the fact Jesus had no brothers at age 12 tells us less than nothing.
 
The traditional Catholic interpretation of when the Scriptures speak of the Lords brothers are that they were his half brothers.

The tradition is that Joseph was a widower and had children from his previous marriage, and these are Jesus’ kinfolk according to the flesh.

If one understands ancient Jewish culture this actually makes perfect sense.
 
I find it sick that Protestants and even some American Catholics would make these baseless accusations about Our Mother.

Our Lady remained a virgin her entire life. There isn’t a shred of evidence to the contrary. People will try to throw around the “brethren of the Lord…” verses which don’t hold up to scrutiny. They’ll even try to say that she just had to have had more children, because that’s what any normal person would have done. This is because (thanks to our hyper-sexualized culture) people just can’t fathom that someone might retain their virginity throughout their life. Honestly, people would rather assume a heresy, against all evidence, just because they can’t see themselves not having sex.

Jewish customs were such that when the husband dies, the care of his wife passes to the closest male relative of the husband. Joseph likely didn’t have any relatives by the time of his death, except for Jesus. If Jesus had any biological brothers, then He would have entrusted Mary into their company at the time of His death. However, He gives her to John the son of Zebedee, who is not related to Him. This only makes sense if there were no other male relatives in the family.
When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing beside her, he said to his mother, “Woman, here is your son.” Then he said to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” And from that hour the disciple took her into his own home" -John 19:26-27
Click to expand...
 
Along with the very good information and evidence in above posts, I would also say it just wouldn’t make sense for her to have other children. She’s already raising the Son of God! That’s a full time job!
 
“Brothers of the Lord Argument” is so old! And so easily refuted. Lot is referred to as the brother of Abram in the OT. Yet we know he wasn’t his brother but rather Abram’s uncle’s son.The fact is that in ancient Israel they used the term “brother” or “brethren” to refer to blood relations. Furthermore, if Mary had other children why did Jesus place her in the care of the Apostle John as Christ died? If there were other children they would be required to care for her. Hmm. Additionally, on another occasion someone tells Jesus that his mother and “brothers” are outside demanding to see Him. Now, since Jesus was first born, these “brothers”, if they really were biological siblings would be younger than Jesus and Hebraic culture would not allow for a younger sibling to demand an older sibling to do anything. Pray for you friend sincerely to the Lord to open his mind to the Truth!

Is 7:14.God obviously will selects a virgin who is a pure vessel. The perpetual virginity of Mary is a Marian doctrine taught by the Catholic Church and held by a number of group since Christianity which asserts that Mary (the mother of Jesus was “always a virgin, before, during and after the birth of Jesus Christ.” because Jesus came out of her like a light, a miraculous birth. John 1:4, 5 in Him was life and the life was the light of all people.5 The light shines in the darkness and the darkness did not overcome it. Those people who twist scripture as young women give silly excuse to discredit Mary’s status and of being a virgin.
 
marian12 said:
I went to a protestant church (my bf’s church) and was surprised to hear the pastor say that Mary did not remain a virgin, that she and Joseph had many children after Jesus… This is something I have never heard before.

He mentioned it in scripture (but I forgot what it was).

So what I want to know is how to defend her being the Blessed Virgin Mary and to know what verse in the bible he used to come to that conclusion.

Thanks in advance for the replies! <3

For background : (I grew up catholic but never lived out my faith, as my parents didn’t really take us to church or teach us anything about it. I have very little knowledge of the catholic faith, but I am getting back into my faith.
Click to expand...
The Pastor is ill-informed; NOT surprisingly following common Protestant beliefs out of an ignorance of Scriptura; which by the way IS a CATHOLIC bOOK.

Matt.12: is an example that THEY USE:
[48] But he replied to the man who told him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?”
[49] And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers!

FROM Fr. Hardon’s Dictionary
BROTHERS. **A generic name that originally referred to all members of a religious community, END QUOTES

Strong’s Greek Lexicon Search Results
Result of search for “brother”:
  1. adephos ad-el-fos’ from 1 (as a connective particle) and delphus (the womb); a brother (literally or figuratively) near or remote (much like 1):–brother.
    Strong’s Hebrew Lexicon Search Results
267 ‘Achuwmay akh-oo-mah’-ee perhaps from 251 and 4325; brother (i.e. neighbour) of water; Achumai, an Israelite:–Ahumai.

Here is biblical evidence of the term used generically:

Mt 5: 22-24 “ [22] But I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council. And whosoever shall say, [24] Leave there thy offering before the altar, and go first to be reconciled to thy brother: and then coming thou shalt offer thy gift”

Mt 7: 3-5 “[3] And why seest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye; and seest not the beam that is in thy own eye?[5] Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam in thy own eye, and then shalt thou see to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

Eph.4: [18] they are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart

2nd Peter 1:19-21 “[ [20] First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, [21] because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

May God guide your path HOME

Pray very much,
Patrick [PJM} here on CAF
 
po18guy said:
This pastor demonstrates 1) his profound ignorance of scripture and 2) His virulent anti-Catholic hatred. Hatred as in disdain, disbelief, disrespect. As with many such private enterprise, for-profit pastors for hire, he must divide and conquer to make a living. I have enough sins on my soul, but I will not answer for that.
Click to expand...
I’m having trouble finding where, in the OPs post, the pastor said anything directly about Catholics. He apparently expressed a common Protestant belief that Mary had other children and gave Scriptural support for that. I disagree with the pastor, but wondering how this sermon is disdainful or disrespectful.

Is my parish priest “virulently” antisemitic if he preaches on Jesus as God-made-flesh? Is he “dividing and conquering” the Baptists if he preaches on infant baptism?
 
It’s not directly in the bible. Most arguments from the bible simply show how the doctrine is not incompatible with scripture. It is however considered a part of Sacred Tradition, and the oldest written source we have relating to it an apocryphal gospel purported to have been written by James, the brother of Jesus. Some scholars claim a later dating of it being written in the late 2nd century, because they’re skeptical that there was a practice of temple virgins in Judaism as the text describes.

It is where we get the names for Mary’s parents, but in the 5th century, Pope Innocent I condemned it with other books as inauthentic. But of all the Apocrypha books, it remains relatively popular and referenced more as evidence for traditions.

In it, Mary is described as a consecrated temple virgin. She lived there and basically tended to maintaining it with the other young virgin girls (all under the age of puberty). She’s then described as consecrating her virginity to God for life, which, if I remember from reading the text years and years ago, was not well received as it created problems as to who would take care of her as she got older. She wouldn’t be allowed to live in the temple into adulthood.

St. Joseph is described as an older widower. He agrees to enter the marriage with Mary in order to take more of a guardianship role (especially considering the vast age difference between them). James is the son of Joseph from his previous wife and is thus considered older than Jesus and not Mary’s son.

I know Aquinas also attacked the text for stating there were midwives present at the birth of Jesus. He insisted that Mary gave birth unassisted.

It’s generally not regarded as dangerous Apocrypha like the Gospel of Thomas is (for its Gnosticism). As such, Catholics are free to look over it and consider it. If you’re interested, you can find a translation here: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0847.htm
 
That kinda falls on its face with the fact that it would be seen with suspicion if Jesus was the only kid in the family. I opt for His brothers being stepbrothers, sons of Joseph from another marriage.
 
James was a common name back then. So it wouldn’t be impossible to have three different dudes named James around the group.
 
Gabriel announced that Mary would bear “a Son” - Singular.
No other “child of Mary” is named or even alluded to in the scriptures - quite the opposite.
Since Jesus was from Galilee, those who came to Jerusalem with Him were His “brothers” and “sisters” since they had also made the journey.

A little prophecy:
Zechariah 12:10 On David’s clan, on all the citizens of Jerusalem,
I will pour out a gracious spirit of prayer; towards me they shall look,
me whom they have pierced through. Lament for him they must, and
grieve bitterly; never was such lament for an only son,
grief so bitter over first-born dead.
Click to expand...
If any part of a prophecy is false, the entire prophecy must be discarded. Jesus was the fulfillment of Zechariah’s prophecy, being first-born as well as an only Son, and He was indeed “pierced through.”

It is jaw-dropping to see the lengths (and fabrications) that some non-denoms will go to simply to oppose and attack Catholic doctrine, i.e. revealed truth. The very same who are so quick to condemn “adding to scripture”

Yeah…
 
Last edited:
I’m not talking about socially it wouldn’t make sense, I’m saying that I don’t think God would put more work on the back of the Mother of God than would be necessary. She was chosen by God from the beginning, and to think such a vital and important role in our salvation could possibly be risked by her having more children is something I don’t think God would do. Having more children leads one to spend less time with the other children (because humans aren’t omnipotent and can’t be everywhere) thus not giving as much care as she can for the Son of God to be raised right and ready for His Passion. It is especially more risky since people died often and early in these times.
 
Fail to see how your argument makeshift sense when people like Moses had kids and were God’s servants full time. This makes more sense if you think of Jesus’s brothers as His older brothers. Regardless of what I think John 7:5 says that these so called brothers didn’t believe in Him; this makes a lot of sense if He was seen by them as the Son of another woman.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top