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

[tqualey]

Hi, Bruno211,

Your various ideas on why you reject the Church founded by Christ on Peter - have all be previously displayed, discussed and refuted. Maybe you would like to look at these prrevious threads to see how these objections have been answered.

For now, may I recommend you stick to the thread listed above on Mary’s Virginity? Concerning the ‘brothers and sisters’ of Jesus, I think the biggest single issue is taking the words we use in our modern culture and try to make it fit First Century Judea.

Maybe recalling that you are on Catholic Answers Forum and as a new member, just dropping the attitude, you can benefit from being on the site. Try it…

There is no proof that the Apostle Peter was ever in Rome. He could not have been the been the first Pope. Peter went to Babalon and not Rome. When Peter died the Apostle John was still alive and if there was ever a Pope he would be in line to be the next Pope.
Only one Apostle was chosen after the death of Judas. No other Apostles were chosen for other aspostles that died.

Jesus had brothers and sisters and therefore Mary could not be an eternal virgin. It would be pure paganism to worship a human, Mary.

The Bible says not to go beyond that which is written. The Bible warns about following traditions.

The Church is not an organization and has no headquarters. Jesus said, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel (good news). He that believeth and is baptised (immersed in water) will be saved. He that believeth not will be damned.” One one obeys the gospel, the Lord adds you to his church.

brunro211

God bless

 

[Tomb54]

That’s hilarious coming from a Catholic.

It is too with those that believe Sola Scriptura since they pick some and ignore others to fit their personal interpretation.

 

[Jason_1977]

Has anyone considered the possibility that maybe the vows may be vows of fidelity?

 

[panevino]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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…

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ginger2
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.”

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

I believe we all agree on this point.

• thought I already addressed Numbers 30 *

It seems the evidence to support its meaning was taken out of content by the
'scholar" who cited it. The original source was talking about a passage in Lev that was totally unrelated to Numbers, but the man/scholar who cited his comments **arbitrarily **applied them to Numbers.

Numbers 30 is not talking about a vow of virginity, so you can’t use it to support your personal interpretation of 1 Cor 7:

Ginger

just to clarify i wrote ‘correct’ in the above post, in agreement with you that it would not of been a sin to begin marital relations…

I wanted to clarify what I was trying to say above…as you know (per my post #114), there are quite a few versus that discuss abstinance from sex for the sake of the kingdom. matt 19:12, Luke 18:28, 1 cor 7:7, 1 cor 7:32
in Ex19:14 NIV it also says (After Moses had gone down the mountain to the people, he consecrated them, and they washed their clothes. 15Then he said to the people, “Prepare yourselves for the third day. Abstain from sexual relations.” ) … KJV changes the to ‘come not at your wives’… …

So absitnance/celibacy/chastity (i’m confused, but you know what i mean) is biblical for the sake of the kingdom.

having said this 1Cor7:36 really does seem to clearly say that a man can ‘resolve’ to keep ‘his virgin’ a virgin. or marry her ‘if his passion is so strong’

I am certain joseph had this ‘resolve’
and this ‘resolve’ would have been Magnified once he discovered(matt1:20) that the child was the son of the most high/of the holy ghost.

and marriage was then required given the arrival of a baby, baby jesus.

It is pretty clear to me that given this biblical ‘resolve’ and the known signifigance of the child, that this couple, would of continued in thier ‘resolve’. imagine the responsibility they would of felt.

I understand protestant questions about no sex in a marriage is abnormal. but this is a unique couple, in a very unique situation, who were both very devout believers in God.

numbers 30:6- still reads to me to be relevant to this discussion, though I understand that you have dismissed it.

this is combined with my previous posts #88 & #89 regarding the bretheren
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5700889&postcount=88
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5701110&postcount=89 - i did not see any comments on this one (ie: Papias) which spells out relationship as cousins around 115 to140AD

I hope all the quote things work out and make sense…

 

[Steven_John]

and marriage was then required given the arrival of a baby, baby jesus

Did Joseph (pbuh) begot Yeshua (pbwh)?

 

[Jason_1977]

When did they ever marry? My understanding was that mary was both the concubine of Joseph & that of God. both parties played a different role & had a different relationship w. mary, but in a spiritual sense she was the concubine of God.

 

[panevino]

When did they ever marry? My understanding was that mary was both the concubine of Joseph & that of God. both parties played a different role & had a different relationship w. mary, but in a spiritual sense she was the concubine of God.

Please disregard the marraige line, in my last post.
i’d hate the thread to start going on about it… … and miss the idea of ‘resolve’ continuing after the birth of jesus… it is in their because of a discussion i was having with ginger2and others earlier on in the thread about idea of virginity vow (for lack of better word) after birth of jesus and implications of 1cor7:36…

 

[Ginger2]

That’s because you don’t understand the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written.”

The assumption of Mary is no where found in Scripture, …

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
"The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the **apocryphal **treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century.

Notice this document "bearing the name of St. John, was written in the forth or fifth centuries - hundreds of years after John was dead. Yet the Catholic belief is “founded” in this document???

It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite.

“spurious” & “falsely ascribed” mean these documents are fake.

Ginger

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Ginger2,

I think I really do understand your postition… I just disagree with it. But you neatly identified the principle you appear to be working from - and, I think this should be briefly addressed;

Perhaps you don’t understand my position.
I acknowledge the virgin birth. It is Biblical.
2.
I do not claim Mary had other children - only that the status of children after Jesus cannot positively be proven one way or the other.
3.
I dislike either side making absolute claims that are not absolutely supported by factual evidence.

Ginger

We will only get all ‘factual evidence’ when we stand before the White Throne - prior to that we are required to walk by Faith. The ‘evidence’ will either be the ‘evidence’ of Faith - or, nothing at all in this life. Christ was miraculously conceived in the womb of the Virgin Mary. There is no ‘evidence’ He had a special relationship with His Mother if you just go by Scripture: at age 12, it looks like He tried to run away from His Mother and foster Father, He appears to dismiss His Mother’s concern about a lack of wine at a wedding, He appears to distance Himself from Her when told that she and other family members were wanting to see Him, and finally, He gives Mary away on the Cross. I guess it all deptends on how you look at it, eh?

So, if the Early Church (and that would be the Catholic Church) at the Lateran Council viewed Mary as Ever Virgin, and the 1st and 2nd generation ‘Reformers’ never denied that Mary was Ever Virgin, what furher ‘evidence’ are you requiring? The ‘middle ground’ you appear to have carved out for yourself is really non-existant. The ‘light switch’ of Faith is either ‘On’ or "Off’ - there is no ‘Dimmer Switch’ where you can choose the parts you want.

The bottom line is that Christ had a very special relationship with His Mother from all eternity. She was conceived without Original Sin through the unique Grace of God, she continued to enjoy God’s special Graces throughout her life - because, just like it was foretold, a sword of sorrow would pierce her heart. And, at the end of her life, her Ever Virgin and Sinless body was taken up to heaven by another Special Grace of God.

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Dchsknight,

Hold on there “Knight” - you are jousting at windmills! If not ‘impatient’ then surely intolerant of the work of your fellow Catholics.

While I would be interested in knowing what distinction you are making between a Dogma of Faith and a Dogma of the Church - I’ll simply tell you that you have made a distinction without a difference: they are one in the same. The following link may be helpful: absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Perpetual_virginity_of_Mary#encyclopedia

It is not that i am impateint it is just very stupid to argue about this when it does not matter. AND NO it is not a Dogma of Faith it is a Dogma of the Church While just as important to learn it does not have anything to do with Faith.

Believeing if Mary was a virgin or Not, does not get you into heaven. It has no merit or baring for entrance into heaven in any way shape or form.

How ever i will choose to honor my ever virgin queen, because it is unwise to insult the CREATOR of the universe’s mother. the same being that can wipe you off the face of the earth with a bat of his eye lash. IT is unwise to mock the King’s mother, that is stupid.

That is like walking up to Mary and slapping her in the face and calling her a whore, Very stupid to do in front of Jesus and his knights( which i belong to), Even worse to do it when Jesus is not looking.

It is better to just accept it or not and move on and when we get to heaven God will correct us and show us the truth.

We should be discussing things that have more baring with Salvation.

Maybe you would like to look for such a thread … but, it is inappropriate to try and derail this thread…

Best wishes on finding a thread more in keeping with your wishes,

God bless

 

[Angel_Showri]

scripturecatholic.com/ble…rgin_mary.html

If you have any further questions read the article on the above url…very well explained.

 

[Ginger2]

scripturecatholic.com/ble…rgin_mary.html

If you have any further questions read the article on the above url…very well explained.

That was indeed one of the best answers I have received from a Catholic source thus far

 

[Tantum_ergo]

For those for whom that link didn’t work, here is what is in Scripture Catholic on IV,“Mary Ever Virgin”. Ginger even liked it!

** Mary is Ever Virgin**

				Exodus 13:2,12 - Jesus is sometimes referred to as the "first-born" son of Mary.  						But "first-born" is a common Jewish expression meaning the first child to open  						the womb. It has nothing to do the mother having future children.
				Exodus 34:20 - under the Mosaic law, the "first-born" son had to be sanctified.  						"First-born" status does not require a "second" born.
				Ezek. 44:2 - Ezekiel prophesies that no man shall pass through the gate by which  						the Lord entered the world. This is a prophecy of Mary's perpetual virginity.  						Mary remained a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus.
				Mark 6:3 - Jesus was always referred to as "the" son of Mary, not "a" son of  						Mary. Also "brothers" could have theoretically been Joseph's children from a  						former marriage that was dissolved by death. However, it is most likely,  						perhaps most certainly, that Joseph was a virgin, just as were Jesus and Mary.  						As such, they embodied the true Holy Family, fully consecrated to God.
				Luke 1:31,34 - the angel tells Mary that you "will" conceive (using the future  						tense). Mary responds by saying, "How shall this be?" Mary's response  						demonstrates that she had taken a vow of lifelong virginity by having no  						intention to have relations with a man. If Mary did not take such a vow of  						lifelong virginity, her question would make no sense at all (for we can assume  						she knew how a child is conceived). She was a consecrated Temple virgin as was  						an acceptable custom of the times. 					
				Luke 2:41-51 - in searching for Jesus and finding Him in the temple, there is  						never any mention of other siblings. 					
				John 7:3-4; Mark 3:21 - we see that younger "brothers" were advising Jesus. But  						this would have been extremely disrespectful for devout Jews if these were  						Jesus' biological brothers. 					
				John 19:26-27 - it would have been unthinkable for Jesus to commit the care of  						his mother to a friend if he had brothers.
				John 19:25 - the following verses prove that James and Joseph are Jesus' cousins  						and not his brothers: Mary the wife of Clopas is the sister of the Virgin Mary. 					
				Matt. 27:61, 28:1 - Matthew even refers to Mary the wife of Clopas as "the other  						Mary."
				Matt. 27:56; Mark 15:47 - Mary the wife of Clopas is the mother of James and  						Joseph.
				Mark 6:3 - James and Joseph are called the "brothers" of Jesus. So James and  						Joseph are Jesus' cousins.
				Matt. 10:3 - James is also called the son of "Alpheus." This does not disprove  						that James is the son of Clopas. The name Alpheus may be Aramaic for Clopas, or  						James took a Greek name like Saul (Paul), or Mary remarried a man named  						Alpheus.

Look at this, my friends! We brought up all these points over and over. And as Ginger said, all our arguments are “the best answers she has received from a Catholic source thus far!”

 

[Dchsknight]

That was indeed one of the best answers I have received from a Catholic source thus far

No it is very much approriate. last time people came up trying to challenge the Church with questions that really dont matter, The Reformation happened and People like John Calvin and Weaselly came along and raped the doctrines of the church and created the excuse to break away from the Church and lead millions of people into the lie of Protestantism and it all because people did stop them.

 

[Jason_1977]

Ginger’s not here for clarity, there’s too much on the agenda for keeping an open mind, lol

 

[Ginger2]

… last time people came up trying to challenge the Church with questions that really dont matter, The Reformation happened …

So you deny the** fact** that Catholics were selling indulgences and that is what started the reformation?

Luther wanted to end the exploitation of Christians by a few unscrupulous people. He succeeded in a sense as the Trent took care of that problem and ended the practice of selling indulgences as a means to buy your way into heaven early.

But because of this one unfortunate incident, combined with the reaction of the church hierarchy, thousands lost faith in the RC and left.

It is unfortunate, but why would you continue to follow a system that proved it can’t be trusted?

Luther would have never left the RC if the pope had responded appropriately when Luther reported the misconduct. Instead, Luther came to the conclusion the pope was in on it, which I personally believe is true.

Ginger

 

[Tantum_ergo]

A. Certain catholic priests were selling indulgences. . .a practice which the CATHOLIC CHURCH does not permit.
B. The protestant ‘split’ came about for a lot of reasons. . .some of them in reaction to things like the above (which could have been handled 'in house) and some of them for other reasons.

Henry VIII wanted a divorce in order to have a son.
John Knox wanted to get the Catholics off the throne in Scotland.
The ‘indulgences’ which I REPEAT are not, by Church teaching, to be ‘sold’, had nothing to do with Henry’s decision, or later still his son Edward or his daughter Ellizabeth or, to put the ones actually more involved in the 'new religion, Lord Burleigh, Walsingham, Cranmer, et. al.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

And now not only is Ginger knocking the ones guilty of going against the Church and imputing the whole debacle to them (without any acknowledgment of the other factors nor indeed that Luther could have, and should have, stayed put), but she has accused the pontiff of being ‘in on it’. Her ‘personal opinion’ of course. Duly noted as such.

 

[Dchsknight]

So you deny the** fact** that Catholics were selling indulgences and that is what started the reformation?

Luther wanted to end the exploitation of Christians by a few unscrupulous people. He succeeded in a sense as the Trent took care of that problem and ended the practice of selling indulgences as a means to buy your way into heaven early.

But because of this one unfortunate incident, combined with the reaction of the church hierarchy, thousands lost faith in the RC and left.

It is unfortunate, but why would you continue to follow a system that proved it can’t be trusted?

Luther would have never left the RC if the pope had responded appropriately when Luther reported the misconduct. Instead, Luther came to the conclusion the pope was in on it, which I personally believe is true.

Ginger

I dont Deny that PEOPLE are evil and fallen. i dont deny that PEOPLE can twist the truth which is what teh Reformation was, a twisting of the Truth.

I will not deny that the Church has gone through dark times and that we have now come out of it a more solid church.

Again i will not deny that People are evil. I will not deny that People like to point fingers and instead of taking the blame ofr misconduct and try to be apart of the solution.

either learn to follow the truth that has been laid down for over 2000 years of continue on the breaking of CHrist heart and follow in the tradtion of Divorce which is what Luther did. He divorced his first love and chased after another woman called Protestant.

I marriage jsut because one spouse has an issue you don’t just run You stay and try to fix it and be apart of the solution and work towards holiness. not Divorce become an adulterer.

 

[Jason_1977]

And now not only is Ginger knocking the ones guilty of going against the Church and imputing the whole debacle to them (without any acknowledgment of the other factors nor indeed that Luther could have, and should have, stayed put), but she has accused the pontiff of being ‘in on it’. Her ‘personal opinion’ of course. Duly noted as such.

I think ginger may be a bit tetched.