How can I prove that the Virgin Mary has always been a virgin?

[PJM]

Please review the following bible verses. All reference “BROTHERS”; in “BLUE’ are when the term “brothers” actually means, “blood relative Bothers.” In “RED” are examples of the term “BROTHERS” referring to Apostles, deciples, and followers. NOT blood-relatives.

The term is “interchangeable!”

**Mt. 4; 18 “**As he walked by the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon who is called Peter and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishermen. 19 And he said to them, "Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.”

**Mt. 7: 3 **“Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?”

1 Cot. 8: 13 “Therefore, if food is a cause of my brother’s falling, I will never eat meat, lest I cause my brother to fall.”

Luke 14: 12 “He [Jesus] said also to the man who had invited him, "When you give a dinner or a banquet, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your kinsmen or rich neighbors, lest they also invite you in return, and you be repaid. “
**
1 Tim. 5: 1”** Do not rebuke an older man but exhort him as you would a father; treat younger men like brothers, 2 older women like mothers, younger women like sisters, in all purity”.
**
Mark 10: 28** “Peter began to say to him, “Lo, we have left everything and followed you.” 29 Jesus said, "Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, 30 who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life.”
**
1 Cor. 9: 1** “ Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are not you my workmanship in the Lord? 2 If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you; for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord. 3 This is my defense to those who would examine me. 4* Do we not have the right to our food and drink? 5 Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?”
**
Luke 21: 16 **“You will be delivered up even by parents and brothers and kinsmen and friends, and some of you they will put to death”

There are many more, but this makes the point.

 

[Ginger2]

Now lets look at what the Bible says. Luke, Chapter 1, starting at verse 26.

… And Mary said to the angel, "How shall this be, since I have no husband?"

You are focusing on this word being “husband” to prove your point.
What you ignore is:

The word you translate as “husband” could actually be translated “man”

“know” is a reference to sexual intercourse, and could easily be translated, “since I have not had sexual relations with my husband [yet]”.

Married couples, often had a betrothal period of one year. Is their anywhere in Scripture that states how long they had been betrothed before the angel came to Mary?

But the most damning verse to your assertion is, Matthew 1:20
But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

Why use the word “wife” if Mary was merely to be his ward.

You might want to look this word up to see if it is ever even used of single, unbetrothed women.

Look at 1Cr 7:34
There is difference [also] between a wife (gynē as seen in Luke) and a virgin (parthenos). The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please [her] husband.

If Mary were to never marry, but remain an eternal virgin, why isn’t it clear in the language? Instead it is open to assume she is a virgin until after the birth of Jesus - only, thereby fulfilling the prophecy, but not the extra-biblical doctrine of “ever-virgin”.

Ginger

 

[DennyO]

Point 1. God is and has to be Perfect. God can be described as “everything Good Perfectly.” Agree?

Point 2. Jesus is God ties in with Point 3

Point 3. If Jesus is God and Mary is the Mother of Jesus, then Mary is the 'Mother of God." Agree?

Now lets look at what the Bible says. Luke, Chapter 1, starting at verse 26.

*26 “In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to *a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. And he came to her and said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!” But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be. And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus.He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end.” And Mary said to the angel, “How shall this be, since I have no husband?” 35 And the angel said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.

Point 4. Mary was according to God a “virgin.” V. 26

Pint 5. Mary was impregnated by “The Spirit of God / The Holy SPIRIT” [Not a man but by a miracle by the Spirit of God." So to this point she is “still virgin.”

Point 6. Because Jesus retained His Complete Nature as God [verse 35] He is Perfect. Jesus assumed, that is willingly became human with a fully Human Nature, so we have One Person [Jesus /God] with two complete and separate natures. That of God and that of man. Because both natures were conjoined to the same person, BOTH Natures HAD to Be PERFECT.

Point 7. In order to have a Perfect Human nature, Mary His Mother had to be perfected by God as a singular privilege of God. Were she too not Perfect, she would have passed this imperfection on to her Son, Jesus. Take a moment a read Exodus Chapter 26 and see what God demanded from Moses for “His Ark” which only carried the “spirit of God.” Not actually God, as did the womb of Mary.

Point 8. As a direct result of the merits of Her Son Jesus, God kept Mary perfect in every way. Because she agreed to become the Mother of God; because she agreed to travel to Bethlehem; Because she did not complain about giving Birth is a stable; because she agreed to leave family, home and friends and move the pagan country of Egypt to keep Jesus safe, because when Jesus was “lost to her” in the Temple for three days, she did not lose hope or faith, because, prompted by the HS, she urged Jesus to perform His first Public Miracle [water into wine at Cana] knowing that it would mean painful things for both Jesus and herself, and because she was with Her Son Jesus for His Passion and Death. Not only losing her only son, but also seeming and sharing is painful death. Mary NEVER-EVER said NO to God.

Because She is the Mother of God, and God has to be perfect, Mary too had to be made perfect, and was kept perfect by God’s Will and Power in appreciation for all of her “I am the handmaid of the Lord, do with me as YOU WILL.”

Love and prayers,

Although it breaks the point in my first post, I will join the argument.

Your points from #1 to #5 are logical enough and supported by what has been recorded.

But your points #6 to #8 seem to be esoteric arguments, and just your conjecture. I am not sure what a perfect “nature” is. I understand that Mary was conceived without sin. Is that what you mean? We know Mary is not a “perfect” person, she died a natural death for starters. Nor do we see any biblical statement that Mary lived a sin free life. (I know, we don’t see any evidence of her sinning either.)

But, I am not clear at all on why or how this relates to her marital relationship with Joseph. Or how anything she would have done after the birth of her son has the least impact on the perfection of Jesus.

Could we not equally take your arguments with respect to Mary’s perfect state back further in time, to Mary’s geneology? If its imperative that Mary have a perfect “nature” to conceive a perfect son, then would it not be logical enough to assume that Mary’s mother and father would also need to have a perfect nature to conceive a perfect child?

 

[PJM]

=DennyO;5720523]Although it breaks the point in my first post, I will join the argument.

Your points from #1 to #5 are logical enough and supported by what has been recorded.

But your points #6 to #8 seem to be esoteric arguments, and just your conjecture. I am not sure what a perfect “nature” is. I understand that Mary was conceived without sin. Is that what you mean? We know Mary is not a “perfect” person, she died a natural death for starters. Nor do we see any biblical statement that Mary lived a sin free life. (I know, we don’t see any evidence of her sinning either.)

But, I am not clear at all on why or how this relates to her marital relationship with Joseph. Or how anything she would have done after the birth of her son has the least impact on the perfection of Jesus.

Could we not equally take your arguments with respect to Mary’s perfect state back further in time, to Mary’s geneology? If its imperative that Mary have a perfect “nature” to conceive a perfect son, then would it not be logical enough to assume that Mary’s mother and father would also need to have a perfect nature to conceive a perfect child?

One need to go back no further than Mary. It was Mary’s Virginal womb that God came forth as the “God-man.” Read Exo. 26 and see waht Yahweh demanded simply for His Spirit.

Keep in mind that Adam and Eve were too “born perfect” but they blew it. Mary did not.

It is Catholic belief [a Dogma of the CC] that Mary was taken up into heaven, Body and Soul, much like the imperfect Enoc and Elishia. Neither of them freely consented to be “The Mother of God.”

No mention is made of the place Mary was burried, nor has any physical evidence of death ever been located.

Love and prayers,

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Doesn’t it seem the least bit strange that it’s the protestants coming forth with all the ‘extra Biblical’ and different doctrines, when they always seem to be accusing the Catholics of those practices?

The first reformers believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity–and believed in it from the Scripture alone.

The Orthodox (so sadly neglected and ignored by protestants here, who are continually questioning “Catholic” belief but seem to be totally clueless that it is Orthodox belief as well) believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity.

The teaching in the Christian Church for centuries was that Mary was perpetually virgin.

So which people are teaching a ‘strange’ doctrine? Not the Catholics or the Orthodox, not indeed the first protestants to depart from the faith in other ways.

 

[Ginger2]

The first reformers believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity–and believed in it from the Scripture alone.

Of course they did!!!
First, they were raised Catholic. They had been taught so virtually since birth.

Second, A person doesn’t throw out his entire belief system simply because he discovers a few or even many of the leaders within his faith are distorting one aspect of it.

However, once you discover one lie and find no one is willing to do anything about it, but instead it feels as tho the entire hierarchy is turning against you as a scapegoat, you eventually start looking to see if there are any lies you have been taught.

That is what Martin Luther and the reformers experienced. They felt the RC was lying to the flock and over time, their followers begin to try and verify other teachings due to the sense of mistrust developed in the RC.

Think about it…if your best friend whom you had trusted with your life was discovered to be lying to you on important issues, trust would be broken and you begin to question everything he told you.

Ginger

 

[Verbum]

Hi Juan,

Mary’s virginity after Jesus’ birth cannot be proven from scripture alone. You have to accept the authority of the Church first.

Verbum

 

[Tantum_ergo]

or. of course, you could find that some of your best friend’s friends had **forged his name **onto things and made it **look **as if he was lying. and you lost trust even though he actually was trustworthy. and because you lost the trust you started figuring that he **must **have done **other **lies. and in order to justify yourself, the more ‘lies’ you found the more you could keep on believing that he really **was **lying after all.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Cachonga,

Your bitterness is astounding. But, let’s just take a look at content and use some logic

I have faith in God, but I have no faith in your Church.** How odd you announce it used to be yours, too!** God thought it was important enough to give us His inspired, inerrant word in the Scriptures, and He made it clear that to go beyond what Scripture says is dangerous (see Proverbs 30:6). ** Apparently, Christ telling Peter that he now had the authority to bind and lose (Matt 16). And then the Church that you have turned your back on was the very one that gave you the Bible you claim is Inspired and Inerrant. And, of course you have a reference on where Christ removed His Promise of the Holy Spirit protecting the Church (and that would be the Catholic Church) from teaching error. **

If it’s something we need to know, wouldn’t God make it clear? ** Off course He would… Do recall that the Messiah was promised from Genisis on - and the scholars of the Law kept on missing the fact that their ‘savior’ would not be a military leader but a “Suffering Servant”. It was so clear that all the prophecies about Christ’s death would be completely fulfilled at the hands of the Pharisees. **Why wouldn’t God just come out and tell us in His word that Mary was a perpetual virgin rather than “suggest” this was the case? ** Well the real reason is that God’s Ways are not our ways. The more you try to compact God’s Will into your will the more you totally lose the message just as the Pharisees lost the Message Christ was giving to them. Doesn’t God love us enough to tell us what He considers important? I believe He does! ** Really? It sounds like delusional thinking to me. Honest. It is not a matter of “love” to present everything out so you can understand it. God demands your belief and your behavior to follow Him - for you to dictate to God how He is to present his Love is a bit much - even for you.

As far as being the “pillar and foundation of the truth” (you forgot to include “the”), what does it say about your concept of truth when you rely on spurious documents for some of your doctrines (and dogmas)? Doesn’t a pillar and foundation hold something up (like “the Truth”)? ** This is truly the example of straining out the gnat. And, for a while there, I thought this was a lost art.Let’s look at the entire verse from 1Tim 3: 14-16…**

14
I am writing you about these matters, although I hope to visit you soon.
15
But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.
16
Undeniably great is the mystery of devotion, Who was manifested in the flesh, vindicated in the spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed to the Gentiles, believed in throughout the world, taken up in glory.

If the Bereans checked Paul’s teaching against the OT Scriptures, then how much more should we rely on the NT (and all of Scripture) to check out and verify Church doctrines and dogmas? ** What makes the Bereans so interesting - at least from this standpoint - is that the OT is all they had and Paul was showing them the OT references for Christ. We have that message - and we have something that Paul did not have - the complete Canon of Scripture - form the Church founded by Christ on Peter!**

God bless

 

[Jason_1977]

Well, firstly, she has never known a man. Even when the angel went to talk to her & asked her to bear the son of man, etc, even after being married for some time, she STILL hadn’t “known a man” up to that point. She remained so until the end of her days and her assumption into heaven was a sort of reward for that. Also, logically, if Mary was to be the mother of Jesus, she’d need to be a worthy vessel, right>? Free from the stain of sin? Faith would dictate that God took care of that little detail. Besides, if Jesus DID in fact have real blood brothers & sisters, then why would he ask John to care for his mother? That would imply that there would be nobody to take care of her, right? The use of common sense is allowed when reading the scriptures, it’s ok…Jesus also said he’d come to create a division among us & to set the world on fire& how he wishes it were already ablaze…fundamentalism & catholocism. I submit that fundamentalism is a sort of evil in itself in that it takes scripture, from a source of good & they bend it for their own purposes & winning an arguement, or whatever the case may be. They spat scripture left & right. Keep in mind that the sort of people Jesus made as his apostles were NOT the sort that could roll up a scroll, insert a pin & know every word the pin would pierce, but rather, big strong, muscular, smelly fishermen, rather than scholars. Keep that in mind. ALL of you! PEACE!

 

[Jason_1977]

It could also be said that between Mary & Joseph, there was a marriage in that she did her duties, he provided money & protection, but as far as intimately, she belonged to the Lord? Has anyone…considered this?..at all???

 

[RobbyS]

Well, firstly, she has never known a man. Even when the angel went to talk to her & asked her to bear the son of man, etc, even after being married for some time, she STILL hadn’t “known a man” up to that point. She remained so until the end of her days and her assumption into heaven was a sort of reward for that. Also, logically, if Mary was to be the mother of Jesus, she’d need to be a worthy vessel, right>? Free from the stain of sin? Faith would dictate that God took care of that little detail. Besides, if Jesus DID in fact have real blood brothers & sisters, then why would he ask John to care for his mother? That would imply that there would be nobody to take care of her, right? The use of common sense is allowed when reading the scriptures, it’s ok…Jesus also said he’d come to create a division among us & to set the world on fire& how he wishes it were already ablaze…fundamentalism & catholocism. I submit that fundamentalism is a sort of evil in itself in that it takes scripture, from a source of good & they bend it for their own purposes & winning an arguement, or whatever the case may be. They spat scripture left & right. Keep in mind that the sort of people Jesus made as his apostles were NOT the sort that could roll up a scroll, insert a pin & know every word the pin would pierce, but rather, big strong, muscular, smelly fishermen, rather than scholars. Keep that in mind. ALL of you! PEACE!

Plus there is a lot of stuff that the Gospels don’t tell us. We don’t know why Joseph chose to marry Mary. We don’t even know if Joseph and Mary were alone on the journey to Bethlehem, or the circumstances that caused Jesus to be born in a stable. We don’t know why James “the Brother of the Lord” is so prominent in the Jerusalem Church when he plays–so far as we know–no role in Jesus’ ministry. The story that James might have been the half-brother of Jesus might explain that. We also don’t know the relationship between Jesus and the “beloved disciple,” presumably John. We can’t rule out that he was a kinsman of Our Lord. etc.

 

[RobbyS]

Hi Juan,

Mary’s virginity after Jesus’ birth cannot be proven from scripture alone. You have to accept the authority of the Church first.

Verbum

There is also a kind of drift in Protestantism toward unitarianism and hence the abandonment of the classical formulations of the Councils and even the early Confessions.

 

[Jason_1977]

dude, if you look at luke chapter 1, it pretty much tells you that mary & joseph were BETROTHED. hmmm. love it, Also, in luke chapter 2, it states that he was born in a manger because there was no room at the inn. Does anyone read before they post? LMAO, lol!!!

 

[Jason_1977]

Joseph and Mary arrived seperately, um…Luke, again…Just read chapter 2. In fact, just read Luke.

 

[Jason_1977]

Dude, I just caught the John bit, Seriously, if John & Jesus were family, then it would be understood that John would be taking care of Mary instead of being instructed. This is where I start getting aggrevated w. my own kind, LOL

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Steven John,

While I appreciated your short statements… you missed a major point. Maybe I can help…but, it I can not do it in a sentence…

My guess A man taught you this
Blind men lead blind men in holes Jesus is THE teacher.

That cant be true if i ask the church where it bet its authority will it refer to the bible to explain apostleistic succession?
.
Maybe the earth isn’t flat after all LOL

Dot Dot Dot

Since you claim Jesus to be THE teacher, I find it odd you would reject His Teachings. For example:

Jesus founded His Chruch on Peter and gave Peter the authority to bind and lose (Matt 16). Christ promised that the Holy Spirit would protect the Church for error - yet, you apparently reject this.

Jesus gave the Apostles the delegated Power of God to forgive sin (John 20) - yet, you apparently do not believe this is the intended way God has given for men to be forgiven.

There is a clear and unbroken line of succession fro the Apostles to the bishops today. There is also a clear and unbroken line from Peter to Benedict XVI. Somehow you feel that this can be dismissed as inconsequential.

These are just some of the teaching of Christ. You really do need to be attentive to the entire lesson and not just the parts that you agree with.

God bless

 

[Tomb54]

Of course they did!!!
First, they were raised Catholic. They had been taught so virtually since birth.

Second, A person doesn’t throw out his entire belief system simply because he discovers a few or even many of the leaders within his faith are distorting one aspect of it.

However, once you discover one lie and find no one is willing to do anything about it, but instead it feels as tho the entire hierarchy is turning against you as a scapegoat, you eventually start looking to see if there are any lies you have been taught.

**That is what Martin Luther and the reformers experienced. They felt the RC was lying to the flock and over time, their followers begin to try and verify other teachings due to the sense of mistrust developed in the RC.

Think about it…if your best friend whom you had trusted with your life was discovered to be lying to you on important issues, trust would be broken and you begin to question everything he told you. **

Ginger

How come this same thought process does not hold for many protestant churches today when a member find something that does not match with scripture that is taught by their pastor or church leaders? Or do they even look to see if all the beliefs of this church matches with scripture or if any prediction made did not come true over time? I find many protestant do not know how their churches changed overtime to fit in with each generation and/or their core believes, that they do not seem to want to peach on often because some people might leave if these beliefs were published much or changed because they caused friction. If these protestants found one thing that was wrong would they leave since they could not believe anything else they taught?

 

[Ginger2]

Well, firstly, she has never known a man. Even when the angel went to talk to her & asked her to bear the son of man, etc, …

Luke 1:31 Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus.
32 He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High,

Two Things:
The angel didn’t say Mary would bear the son of a man, he sais she would bear a son and this son would be called “Son of the Most High”.
Who is the “Most High”?

…even after being married for some time, she STILL hadn’t “known a man” up to that point.

WE don’t know how long or short a time Mary had been betrothed, but we do know couples didn’t begin cohabitation for about a year after being legally married/betrothed to one another.

Ginger

 

[panevino]

I hope this post does not kick us over a page, i really liked the post by luke65, but i found this interesting, regarding a betorthed virgin who could possibly remain a virgin.

*36If a man thinks he is not behaving properly toward his virgin,[t] and if his passion is so strong that he feels he ought to marry her, let him do what he wants; he isn’t sinning. Let them get married. 37However, if a man stands firm in his resolve, feels no necessity, and has made up his mind to keep her a virgin, he will be acting appropriately. 38So then the man who marries the virgin acts appropriately, but the man who refrains from marriage does even better. *1 Corinthians 7:36 ISV

the virgin has the following footnote
[t] 7:36 I.e. virgin fiancée, but possibly virgin daughter
I noticed that a similar footnote is also in the NIV
NIV has it as "…If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged to…

This was good so I looked it up and read the whole chapter. 36 If anyone thinks he is behaving improperly toward his virgin, and if a critical moment has come and so it has to be, let him do as he wishes. He is committing no sin; let them get married.

This, if it is indeed a note on a vow of celibacy by a virgin who was taken under guardianship of a man, indicates it would be no sin to at some point to begin marital relations.

Ginger

correct. i also think though… let assume it is correct that Joseph had ‘resolved’ to ‘keep her a virgin’ before the preganancy,

the pregnancy would not of changed his ‘resolve’, particularly when they both knew that the child is the son of the highest.

the below verse offered previously by luke 65 seems to mirror 1cor7:36
and provides more info regarding a ‘vow to the lord’

numbers 30:3-8 combined with 1cor7:36 seem to show that
there is a vow to the lord that can be released by a husband…
this vow has got to be a vow of virginity…for the lord.

I guess it would of been difficult not to formalise the marriage when she was found to be pregnant. (i know a lot could be said to refute this… but not enough time on my hands…)

Numbers 30 (NIV)

3 "When a young woman still living in her father’s house makes a vow to the LORD or obligates herself by a pledge 4 and her father hears about her vow or pledge but says nothing to her, then all her vows and every pledge by which she obligated herself will stand. 5 But if her father forbids her when he hears about it, none of her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand; the LORD will release her because her father has forbidden her.

6 “If she marries after she makes a vow or after her lips utter a rash promise by which she obligates herself 7 and her husband hears about it but says nothing to her, then her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand. 8 But if her husband forbids her when he hears about it, he nullifies the vow that obligates her or the rash promise by which she obligates herself, and the LORD will release her.”