Did Mary stay virgin?

[tulliusatellus]

To me, what’s important first and foremost is that we abide by Jesus’s lessons. All I have to do is believe in the teacher and trust enough to accept advice from the teacher. I don’t have to know precisely “who the teacher is.”

Again, it’s critically important, but I say it is in an academic sense.

Alan

In most cases, yes, the teacher does say: “Love my teachings,” or, “you ought to die for the sake of my teachings” (and philosophers and religious men have said this). But Jesus is not like this. Jesus says, “love me,” and “you ought to die for my sake.”

Why? Does Jesus need this love? Is Jesus, in some way, insecure?

No. Jesus says this, on account of who he is. Jesus says these things, not because he is merely bringing some new idea to the table, but because he is God.

See, once you understand this, the message of the Gospel becomes clear, and the various teachings of the Church start to make sense. We state our beliefs not on some teaching, but on some person. See, once the apostles realized that YHWH was walking and moving among them, then they wanted to learn everything about this man. They talked to people he spoke with, they recorded the various teachings he gave, they interviewed people present at his passion, death, and resurrection. Inevitably, they must have come across his mother, and asked her what happened, about how he was conceived and born.

This is where we get our knowledge of the perpetual virginity of Mary. This is why Catholics believe in this, because it is a defining factor on who Jesus is.

 

[inkaneer]

Oded Golan, the man on trial in Jerusalem for forging the ossuary marked as, and claimed to be, the burial box of Jesus’ brother James, was acquitted today. What does that mean, or will it mean, for our faith if it’s ever determined that Jesus had a brother and or other siblings?

Well it means that the church taught error and the scriptures contain error. That’s just for starters. Of course then if the church and scripture were wrong about Mary how can you or anyone else even possibly assume they are correct about Jesus? You take it from there.

 

[StPatsSI10]

Mary’s virginity is absolutely a defining factor of who Jesus is. In my opinion, the “Mother of God” isn’t fit to have relation with man even after the birth of our Lord, so I’m glad that Church teaching is what it is… There are people out there who claim she did have relation after (brothers and sisters, etcI. ) … My post was made to see the responses…

Thanks to everyone who contributed.

 

[Faith1960]

Well it means that the church taught error and the scriptures contain error. That’s just for starters. Of course then if the church and scripture were wrong about Mary how can you or anyone else even possibly assume they are correct about Jesus? You take it from there.

Yeah, it’s kind of a scary thought.

 

[Cat_Herder]

To me, what’s important first and foremost is that we abide by Jesus’s lessons. If I were going to get a black belt in karate, all I have to do is believe in the teacher and trust enough to accept advice from the teacher. I don’t have to know precisely “who the teacher is.”

The only problem is, to teach a black belt course you must be a black belt yourself. To become a black belt you must take a course from someone that already has one. For someone else to already have a black belt, the martial art must first exist. You cannot just pick up a karate manual and declare yourself a 10th dan black belt. If you were to do that, start calling yourself sensei and then open a dojo, you would get yourself knocked out very quickly both physically by actual 10th dan black belts and in court by 10th dan deceptive-trade-practice trial lawyers.

But that is exactly what you are doing with the Bible, you are actually saying you do not need a teacher because you have the Bible and that means you know better than the Catholic Church which has been training spiritual 10th dan black belts for 2,000 years.

What is more, you have failed to take into account that there was no Bible for the common man until the 1500s. That’s well over a thousand years in which the only way to know what Christianity was was to learn from a spiritual sensei, i.e., a Catholic priest. Going back to the karate analogy, in order for you to prove that you are a real sensei you must prove that your karate is the real karate taught by the grand master, i.e., Jesus Christ. And in order to prove that, you have to demonstrate that the art of karate was lost for 1,500 years until Martin Luther came along, printed a copy of a karate manual he got from a real sensei and declared himself the only real sensei. Obviously, you cannot do that, because then there would have been no karate (or Christianity) at all for you to copy your manual from.

Full explanation here.

 

[Cat_Herder]

I would have said that if it was what I meant.

I have no doubts, I just don’t care. I don’t see what intimate knowledge of Mary’s medical history does for me in terms of my ability to follow Jesus. Getting hung up on academic details is a stumbling block in itself and certainly is of no merit, as scripture clearly indicates. How can you read 1 Cor 13 and then tell me that someone else must busy themselves learning and memorizing what the scholars say? St. Paul is telling us in no uncertain terms what our priorities should be.

It means that He is Who He claims to be, namely the Messiah, because the perpetual virginity of Mary is necessary to fulfill the Prophet Ezekiel as explained in post #4 and post #14.

That is why we insist on Her perpetual virginity: to defend Christ as the Messiah.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

We listen to Jesus in many ways, including by using our minds and meditating on the facts and drawing logical conclusions. Our minds are gifts from God.

Actually I think this extends what I was suggesting, because these are in fact good reasons to care. I venture to add that an isolated fact such as Mary’s virginity, is in itself nothing any given Christian actually needs to know for salvation. That said, the more related facts one knows the more one can ponder in depth. I say you have a good point here.

In most cases, yes, the teacher does say: “Love my teachings,” or, “you ought to die for the sake of my teachings” (and philosophers and religious men have said this). But Jesus is not like this. Jesus says, “love me,” and “you ought to die for my sake.”

I’m not sure about the “ought to die for my sake,” part … I’m not sure I’d have generalized it that way, but that’s ok because it doesn’t change my point or yours, I don’t think.

No. Jesus says this, on account of who he is. Jesus says these things, not because he is merely bringing some new idea to the table, but because he is God.

But you’re not saying Jesus ever personally uttered a word about the virginity issue, right?

This is where we get our knowledge of the perpetual virginity of Mary. This is why Catholics believe in this, because it is a defining factor on who Jesus is.

OK, I’m not saying it’s unimportant for the Church to hold to her teachings. And I think you two have made cases that it is important at least for the Christian to have access to this information in seeking full understanding.

That said, on a day-by-day basis, the fact of Marys’ virginity, in and of itself, being present in my conscious mind, is not something I need to know.

That is why we insist on Her perpetual virginity:to defend Christ as the Messiah.

To be fair, if I were arguing against myself I’d probably say that since it is important for “some” Catholics to know under “some” conditions, then it’s important. Period. I know that because the facts about Mary have helped me in my purgative times. I can say, though, that I think we focus strangely on the virginity in comparison to other miraculous conditions. Like we bow during Mass about Christ being born of the virgin (which was an unearned gift from God for her) but not where Jesus was tortured and was buried.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

If you were to do that, start calling yourself sensei and then open a dojo, you would get yourself knocked out very quickly both physically by actual 10th dan black belts and in court by 10th dan deceptive-trade-practice trial lawyers.

I like your example. I studied for a bit with Tom Kelly of American Kenpo. He was the highest (8th) that grandmaster Ed Parker ever assigned before he died, though there have been a couple students “notch themselves up” a bit and pretend.

I did watch him award a 5th degree to a 4th degree that Parker awarded. To Jeff Speakman, star of “The Perfect Weapon.” Jeff was great; I met him and we talked a couple times, plus I took a master class with him. He was great at sizing up the opponent to prepare for what kind of attack to expect, hopefully at least a split-second before the attack is actually launched.

But that is exactly what you are doing with the Bible, you are actually saying you do not need a teacher because you have the Bible and that means you know better than the Catholic Church which has been training spiritual 10th dan black belts for 2,000 years.

I’m saying that I do not need to have a focus on issues that are not directly a part of my training. As far as knowing better than them, I look at what the Church is doing now and see there are vast problems, some of which I understand to the point where bishops are finally listening to me in terms of some of the policies that do not include official teachings.

For authority for having this attitude, I call up the parable of the dishonest steward. The Church is an institution erected for sinners and run by sinners. Sinners vary in their ability to know how to handle things among other sinners – and somebody who’s been in my situation both in parish and diocese leadership and “in the trenches” as Synod liaison among other positions, has an opportunity to suggest how we might reach people better than those running things that never knows how it feels to be under their own rule.

What is more, you have failed to take into account that there was no Bible for the common man until the 1500s. That’s well over a thousand years in which the only way to know what Christianity was was to learn from a spiritual sensei, i.e., a Catholic priest. Going back to the karate analogy, in order for you to prove that you are a real sensei you must prove that your karate is the real karate taught by the grand master, i.e., Jesus Christ. And in order to prove that, you have to demonstrate that the art of karate was lost for 1,500 years until Martin Luther came along, printed a copy of a karate manual he got from a real sensei and declared himself the only real sensei. Obviously, you cannot do that, because then there would have been no karate (or Christianity) at all for you to copy your manual from.

I think you’re saying that historically it was important to focus on things that were most memorable to people. Like tell person A that a man says to forgive, and person B that a man was born of a virgin, which will be longer remembered? Tell many people many small parts, and together then will remember better. Am I close here?

But your reference to Luther brings an interesting point, and I think that the Church would not be nearly as strong as she is without all that happening. By the time we had the technology to print copies of the manuals, it took somebody to come in and steal them so they may be distributed and everybody can be directly inspired. Like Ed Parker wrote some excellent books that are not tecnically needed by students on a weekly basis, but can improve your mind and help see Parker’s point of view.

Alan

 

[tulliusatellus]

die for my sake," part … I’m not sure I’d have generalized it that way, but that’s ok because it doesn’t change my point or yours, I don’t think.
Alan

I was referring to Mt 10:37-39 and similar passages. Jesus doesn’t say, “He who loves his father and mother, or even his life more than my teachings is not worthy of me,” no rather he says, “he who loves … more than he loves me is not worthy of me”

I’m saying that this is no small demand, and can only legitimately come from the authority of God himself. Jesus’ primary mission was not to teach the people (even though he did do that), no rather his primary mission was to suffer, die, and resurrect so that our sins may be forgiven.

The early christians are intensely interested in who Jesus is, and by virtue of his character, they are interested in his teachings. If you don’t believe me, look over Paul’s letters, the first written work of the New Testament. You can hardly find a word of Jesus’ teachings. But what you do find over and over again is, “He rose from the grave.”

 

[Cat_Herder]

But your reference to Luther brings an interesting point, and I think that the Church would not be nearly as strong as she is without all that happening. By the time we had the technology to print copies of the manuals, it took somebody to come in and steal them so they may be distributed and everybody can be directly inspired. Like Ed Parker wrote some excellent books that are not tecnically needed by students on a weekly basis, but can improve your mind and help see Parker’s point of view.

So you are okay with saying “God is love, but He let everyone go unsaved for a thousand years until someone stole and mutilated the Bible.”

 

[AlanFromWichita]

So you are okay with saying “God is love, but He let everyone go unsaved for a thousand years until someone stole and mutilated the Bible.”

I am OK with your saying that, but I don’t see it that way.

I’m saying that the Catholic Church, as an institution, admirably did keep the word safe over many centuries, by creating a tough shell with martyrs and everything. Now it’s time to use the technology we have, and the freedom of speech we have, to break open the “time capsules” if you will of the Church … that would be for example the cloisters and the mystics … and start delivering some of the real saving product, which is guidance by the Holy Spirit, not a focus on academic facts.

Oh, and btw, a Protestant who beats up the Catholic Church is either a fool or an self-righteous, pompous jerk … most likely both. I’ve known some in “real life.” They literally don’t even realize who gave them the Bible in the first place so they can turn around and use it as a weapon against us. These people aren’t a threat to the Church directly, but they are to themselves and others.

But I am saying that without Protestants going around quoting the Bible and embarassing Catholics, I’m not confident that Catholics would be encouraged to read the Bible like we are these days – for evidence ask anybody over 50 years old whether the Church used to downplay the value of reading the Bible ourselves, if not downright discouraging it.

Alan

 

[inkaneer]

…Oh, and btw, a Protestant who beats up the Catholic Church is either a fool or an self-righteous, pompous jerk … most likely both. I’ve known some in “real life.” They literally don’t even realize who gave them the Bible in the first place so they can turn around and use it as a weapon against us. These people aren’t a threat to the Church directly, but they are to themselves and others.

But I am saying that without Protestants going around quoting the Bible and embarassing Catholics, I’m not confident that Catholics would be encouraged to read the Bible like we are these days – for evidence ask anybody over 50 years old whether the Church used to downplay the value of reading the Bible ourselves, if not downright discouraging it.

Alan

Well, I am 67 years old which in the old math meant I am older than 50 but in the new math I may not be especially if I exceeded the speed of light for a time. But in any event I do not recall any down playing of reading the scriptures. I do recall that there was importance attached to using an approved translation version. In fact I recall there was a version of the New Testament with Latin on one page and the English translation on the opposing page. The same was true for the Roman Missal used at Mass.

Jerome was able to capture more of the Greek in his Vulgate Latin translation than we are able to do in our English translations because Latin is more related to the Greek than English is. In fact, initially, Latin was a dialect of the Greek which then became a separate language much like the so called romance languages are related to Latin. So it wasn’t the reading of scripture that was problematic. It was the interpretation based upon the English translation that was at issue. Thus the concern over using only approved translations. All one need do is look at the state of Bible interpretation in protestantism and the myriad of denominations with their own take of scripture to see that the concern was ideed real.

In addition, the Catholic view of scripture was different than that of protestants. Catholics held the scriptures as being a liturgical book that was meant to be read in church and not as some self study guide to christianity as did the protestants. Afterall, that was the purpose of the codification of the canon, that churches in different locales would have the same canon as a defense from Gnosticsm?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

In addition, the Catholic view of scripture was different than that of protestants. Catholics held the scriptures as being a liturgical book that was meant to be read in church and not as some self study guide to christianity as did the protestants. Afterall, that was the purpose of the codification of the canon, that churches in different locales would have the same canon as a defense from Gnosticsm?

We were told that we should stick with our “Children’s Bibles” which had watered down feel-good-ized versions of the major stories like Jonah, Abraham, etc.

I agree that the Bible should not be a stand-alone self-study handbook. It could work eventually but one needs more.

I don’t know about Gnosticism and all; I’m quite a non-scholar considering how many opinions I have. So I’m taking your word on that part.

Alan

 

[Cat_Herder]

I am OK with your saying that, but I don’t see it that way.

I’m saying that the Catholic Church, as an institution, admirably did keep the word safe over many centuries, by creating a tough shell with martyrs and everything. Now it’s time to use the technology we have, and the freedom of speech we have, to break open the “time capsules” if you will of the Church … that would be for example the cloisters and the mystics … and start delivering some of the real saving product, which is guidance by the Holy Spirit, not a focus on academic facts.

Oh, and btw, a Protestant who beats up the Catholic Church is either a fool or an self-righteous, pompous jerk … most likely both. I’ve known some in “real life.” They literally don’t even realize who gave them the Bible in the first place so they can turn around and use it as a weapon against us. These people aren’t a threat to the Church directly, but they are to themselves and others.

But I am saying that without Protestants going around quoting the Bible and embarassing Catholics, I’m not confident that Catholics would be encouraged to read the Bible like we are these days – for evidence ask anybody over 50 years old whether the Church used to downplay the value of reading the Bible ourselves, if not downright discouraging it.

Alan

The problem with this view is that God did not will for only people with literacy and printed Bibles to have full knowledge of the truth. He also meant for the illiterate and those without Bibles to know:

[BIBLEDRB]1 Tim 2:3-4[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[AlanFromWichita]

The problem with this view is that God did not will for only people with literacy and printed Bibles to have full knowledge of the truth. He also meant for the illiterate and those without Bibles to know:

[BIBLEDRB]1 Tim 2:3-4[/BIBLEDRB]

I think I agree with you. I’m not sure how it is a problem with my view.

edit: Actually you know what? Maybe I don’t. Maybe I don’t think God wanted all people to have the “full truth” whatever that means. They just need enough Truth for each of them. If He wanted us to each have “full knowledge of the truth” or something like that, then why was St. Paul so specific in saying that knowledge means nothing in and of itself?

Alan

 

[Cat_Herder]

I think I agree with you. I’m not sure how it is a problem with my view.

edit: Actually you know what? Maybe I don’t. Maybe I don’t think God wanted all people to have the “full truth” whatever that means. They just need enough Truth for each of them. If He wanted us to each have “full knowledge of the truth” or something like that, then why was St. Paul so specific in saying that knowledge means nothing in and of itself?

Alan

[BIBLEDRB]Hebrews 1[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[inkaneer]

I think I agree with you. I’m not sure how it is a problem with my view.

edit: Actually you know what? Maybe I don’t. Maybe I don’t think God wanted all people to have the “full truth” whatever that means. They just need enough Truth for each of them. If He wanted us to each have “full knowledge of the truth” or something like that, then why was St. Paul so specific in saying that knowledge means nothing in and of itself?

Alan

But what makes you think that the “full truth” is presented in scripture? That very idea seems to be unscriptural if the words of John are considered. John essentially said that not everything was recorded but only that which one could base his belief on. Even Jesus told his disciples that He had more to tell them that they could not bear to hear right then but that He would reveal it through the Holy Spirit. And while we say that all public revelation ended with the last apostle, there is nothing in the scriptures that says that all revelation has ended. We understand the Trinity today only as a result of church councils held in the 4th and 5th centuries and not from what the apostles taught us. Those sola scripturists who deny the Trinity have shut themselves out from the ongoing revelation of God.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

But what makes you think that the “full truth” is presented in scripture? That very idea seems to be unscriptural if the words of John are considered. John essentially said that not everything was recorded but only that which one could base his belief on. Even Jesus told his disciples that He had more to tell them that they could not bear to hear right then but that He would reveal it through the Holy Spirit. And while we say that all public revelation ended with the last apostle, there is nothing in the scriptures that says that all revelation has ended. We understand the Trinity today only as a result of church councils held in the 4th and 5th centuries and not from what the apostles taught us. Those sola scripturists who deny the Trinity have shut themselves out from the ongoing revelation of God.

Thank you for writing this; I found it very interesting. No, the “fullness of truth,” whatever that is, IMO is not completely contained in scripture or for that matter one particular religion. I’m sorry to say this, but there is truth that stands in addition to the RCC. That said, I see the Bible as kind of holographic, and it appeals to each soul a little differently.

Alan

 

[inkaneer]

We were told that we should stick with our “Children’s Bibles” which had watered down feel-good-ized versions of the major stories like Jonah, Abraham, etc.

I agree that the Bible should not be a stand-alone self-study handbook. It could work eventually but one needs more.

I don’t know about Gnosticism and all; I’m quite a non-scholar considering how many opinions I have. So I’m taking your word on that part.

Alan

Who told you to stick with your “Children’s Bibles”? That was never a policy of the Catholic Church. But there is in scripture something sort of the equivalent. In Hebrews chapter 5 Paul writes:

“12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need some one to teach you again the first principles of God’s word. You need milk, not solid food; 13 for every one who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a child. 14 But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their faculties trained by practice to distinguish good from evil.”

Maybe whoever told you to stick with your “Childrens Bibles” thought you were not mature enough for the meat and potatoes?

A for gnosticism I recommend you read up on it. It was the most serious challenge of all the early heresies and is still with us today. All you need do is tune into the History Channel or Discovery and watch a program on the “Lost Books of the Bible”. These books were never lost. They were rejected as heretical uninspired works and rightfully so.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Answer.