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

  • Thread starter Thread starter JUAN_DIEGO
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Steven_John said:
I am not sure this actually helps your argument, what does “know” mean here?

If it is to assert how you say it, no “till” is needed and then it would be as you assert.

I guess the other big question is in Jewish law can you be married if you are never in union.

I understand that Christians see it as essential.
Click to expand...
sure the ‘know’ means 'know!", not denying that.

this verse is all about the fact that jesus was born of a virgin, and joseph had nothing to do with the conception, and thats all.

Reading the word ‘till’ in the sense (modern sense) you imply makes the whole verse change direction and makes it sound as if the goal of the author is to tell us that hey they did get to ‘know’ eachother afterwards. regardless of your views on perpetual virginity, that is a pretty odd goal.

the word till IS included intenionally to underline the fact that the did not ‘know’ eachother to produce the pregnancy
 
It must mean heos considering to non Catholics

Matthew 1:25 (New International Version)

25But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

Matthew 1:25 (New Living Translation)

25 But he did not have sexual relations with her until her son was born. And Joseph named him Jesus.

Matthew 1:25 (English Standard Version)

25but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And(A) he called his name Jesus.

Matthew 1:25 (King James Version)

25And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS

Matthew 1:25 (New King James Version)

25 and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son.[a] And he called His name JESUS.

Here is the clanger,
To Catholics it fits that she could be ever virgin

The Jerusalem Bible reads:
…he took his wife to his home and though he had not had intercourse with her she gave birth to a son and named him Jesus.

the New Jerusalem bible reads

25 he had not had intercourse with her when she gave birth to a son; and he named him Jesus.

HMM how do only Catholic itranslator of the original text get it so different???
Is there a conspiracy of all other translators against the Catholics?
 
Steven_John said:
Peace and blessings Br Rich,
do you know when the revelation was received and by whom?

Bless ya
Click to expand...
Thanks for trying to help get an answer to my question. Is anyone going to address this?
kepha1 said:
What God MAKES holy, STAYS holy.
To understand what holy means, you have to look at the Old Testament Ark that forshadow the New Testament Ark. The parallels are unmistakeable.
see
Click to expand...
God chooses those who are deemed unworthy by men.
The pharisees and scribes thought they were better than others, but Jesus made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: (Phl 2:7 )

God does not choose the wise, nor rich, nor perfect. God chose Abraham an adulterer, Moses a stammering murderer, Jacob a cheat and a trickster.

Mary didn’t need to be perfect by human standards.

Ginger
 
Steven_John said:
Peace and blessings Br Rich,
do you know when the revelation was received and by whom?

Bless ya
Click to expand...
We know that it was well known in the 300’s and was challenged and defended by some Fathers in the 200’s and so it would most likely have been passed down thru the teaching of the Apostles.
 
Steven_John said:
I am not sure this actually helps your argument, what does “know” mean here?

If it is to assert how you say it, no “till” is needed and then it would be as you assert.

I guess the other big question is in Jewish law can you be married if you are never in union.

I understand that Christians see it as essential.
Click to expand...
Consummation is not required for validity of a Marriage in either religious tradition.
 
Br.Rich_SFO said:
Consummation is not required for validity of a Marriage in either religious tradition.
Click to expand...
That is true in part, but misleading.

A couple was considered legally married when betrothed even tho they did not begin living together until later. So consummation was not required at the time a couple were first betrothed.

However, marital relations were indeed an important - even vital - part of the marriage relationship. Children were considered a sign of God’s love, blessing and approval of married couples. The more children they had the more blessed they appeared to be.

Ginger
 
Br.Rich_SFO said:
We know that it was well known in the 300’s and was challenged and defended by some Fathers in the 200’s and so it would most likely have been passed down thru the teaching of the Apostles.
Click to expand...
i would suggest that maybe the Catholic church has got the idea from the Protoevangelium of James [A.D. 120]
Bless ya
 
Br.Rich_SFO said:
Consummation is not required for validity of a Marriage in either religious tradition.
Click to expand...
Protoevangelium of James 4, 7 [A.D. 120]) would argue against this as Joesph was to be guardian over her as an ever virgin for the Lord.

Also wiki offered

“Regular sexual relations are expected between husband and wife. This obligation is known as “onah.”:”

i checked the source onah from my take exactly as these words state but the sight from my reading assumed sex and went further to say with holding is grounds for divorce. Now also this appears to be current to me but knowing the little i do not much would have changed.

One of my wives and I celebrated our marriage in a Catholic parish it was made quite clear to me that if you could not commit to having children and making them catholic it was not marriage in the eyes of the Church.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven John
i would suggest that maybe the Catholic church has got the idea from the Protoevangelium of James [A.D. 120]
Bless ya
Ginger2 said:
Is this the document on which the perpetual virginity is founded?
Click to expand...
dont know?, I recently saw this aswell below

St Ignatius of Antioch (born~35, died~117AD)
Second Epistle to St. John
His friend Ignatius to John the holy presbyter.

“If you will give me leave, I desire to go up to Jerusalem, and see the faithful saints who are there, especially Mary the mother, whom they report to be an object of admiration and of affection to all. For who would not rejoice to behold and to address her who bore the true God from her own womb, provided he is a friend of our faith and religion? And in like manner * the venerable James, who is surnamed Just, whom they relate to be very like Christ Jesus in appearance, in life, and in method of conduct, as if he were a twin-brother of the same womb. They say that, if I see him, I see also Jesus Himself, as to all the features and aspect of His body. Moreover, * the other saints, both male and female. Alas! why do I delay? Why am I kept back? Kind teacher, bid me hasten [to fulfil my wish], and fare well. Amen.” newadvent.org/fathers/0114.htm*

someone else took (of the same womb) to mean that they must of been of the same womb. I dont, it seems pretty clear to me that Ignatius is saying they looked so alike that they “could” of been from the same womb.
I’m no expert but thats how I read it. I also dont know exact date of the letter, but it has got to be before 120AD as Ignatius apparently died before 117.*
 
panevino said:
someone else took (of the same womb) to mean that they must of been of the same womb. I dont, it seems pretty clear to me that Ignatius is saying they looked so alike that they “could” of been from the same womb.
I’m no expert but thats how I read it. I also dont know exact date of the letter, but it has got to be before 120AD as Ignatius apparently died before 117.
Click to expand...
I agree with you. He is talking about their similarities in life, not suggesting they are blood brothers who look a like. The reference to “the same womb” is to emphasize that point.

I certainly hope the Protoevangelium of James is not the source of this doctrine as it disappoints me greatly when Catholics, or anyone for that matter, point to apocryphal writings to defend doctrines.
 
It looks as tho the Protoevangelium of James is indeed the source of this doctrine. 😦

catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp

The Protoevangelium of James is an apocryphal work the directly contradicts Scripture.

Most, if not all church fathers cite this pseudo text to prove Mary was "ever-virgin.
 
It should be pointed out that the Second Epistl to John (from Ignatius) is a spurious letter (the title on the link is “Spurious Epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch”). The same is true of the Protoevangelium of James (fascinating work of fiction). To base any kind of doctrine on these writings is very questionable. As far as the “revelation” of her perpetual virginty coming from the Apostles, without any kind of solid evidence, why should anybody be expected to accept it? Didn’t revelation cease with the death of the last Apostle? If this is the case, and you cannot tell us which Apostle taught her perpetual virginity, then I would suggest that it is not an Apostolic teaching and should never have been made a dogma!

Going back to Matt 1:19-27, we notice that Joseph and Mary were engaged before she became pregnant (this is also noted in Luke’s gospel). When Joseph found out she was pregnant, he was going to divorce her quietly (he knew he wasn’t the father, and to be accused of adultery could cause her to be killed). While he thought about this, an angel came to him in a dream and told him not to be afraid to take Mary as his wife; not as a “protector” or “guardian”, but to be her husband. Joseph did so, but did not engage in marital relations until after the birth of Jesus, thus ensuring the virgin birth. The discussion on the meaning of the word “until” is a red herring. Nowhere does the angel tell Joseph to never have relations with Mary; nowhere do we find evidence of Mary taking a “vow of virginity”. There is no evidence anywhere in Scripture that would indicate that Joseph and Mary had anything other than normal marital relations AFTER the birth of Jesus. Keep in mind, her virginity was only necessary until His birth.

Of course, some Catholics will say, “Well, nothing says Joseph and Mary DID have marital relations, either!” This is quite true, however, I would suggest that, in the abscence of contradictory evidence, it is reasonable to believe that they did what any other married couple would do.
 
Ginger2 said:
It looks as tho the Protoevangelium of James is indeed the source of this doctrine. 😦

catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp

The Protoevangelium of James is an apocryphal work the directly contradicts Scripture.

Most, if not all church fathers cite this pseudo text to prove Mary was "ever-virgin.
Click to expand...
Being apocryphal does not mean everything in it contradicts Scripture, nor does it mean that everything in it is untrue.

The Catholic Church honors Mary’s parents as saints, and the only early written source we know of for their names are this document.

Anyway…it’s not correct to say that the source of the doctrine is the Protevangelium of James. The source is God. The Protevangelium of James is one of example of this belief being handed on very early in written form.
 
diggerdomer said:
Being apocryphal does not mean everything in it contradicts Scripture, nor does it mean that everything in it is untrue.
Click to expand...
The best most successful lies are those that mix some truth.
diggerdomer said:
Anyway…it’s not correct to say that the source of the doctrine is the Protevangelium of James. The source is God. The Protevangelium of James is one of example of this belief being handed on very early in written form.
Click to expand...
Do you realize what you have just said? You are suggesting God uses false information to convey the truth! :eek:

This is not the first time I have seen Catholics refer to spurious documents to support their beliefs:

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.

The sermons of St. Jerome and St. Augustine for this feast, however, are spurious."

“spurious” & “falsely ascribed” mean these documents are fake. Yet the RC cites them in its “evidences”???
The Bible says:
1Thess 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
Acts 17:10-12 ….carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so.

I do my best to verify the claims people make about God and the Holy Word. When I discover certain doctrines are founded in false writings, I really don’t care if a little or a lot of truth is mixed in.

Just because a document contains some truth does not mean the whole thing is true.

Ginger
 
But the Protoevangelium does not contradict Scripture.

Every mention of a so-called “brother of the Lord” can be proven, by Scripture itself, to show that the mother of that brother is NOT Mary, mother of Jesus. Therefore, a mention of ‘brother’ does not imply uterine brother.

Furthermore, the use of until does not mean that after a certain action, another action can be said to have occurred with certainty. Michal, wife of David, had no children until her death–did she have children afterward? NO!

Scripture tells us that Christ will reign, and I quote, “until all his enemies are under his feet.” So, gee, after that will he STOP reigning? NO!

In Luke 2 we are told that Mary and Joseph go up to Jerusalem every year for Passover. . with Jesus. Not “with the whole fam dambly”, not with “Jesus and his brethren” even. It is said that they think JESUS is with others in the family (and younger brothers and sisters would not be the ones he’d be with, as if HE is not of legal age and thus needs the care of elders, they would, being younger than he, need them too.) And when they realize He is not, they head back. The two of them. No mention of taking others. If they’ve already lost ONE child, you’d think they’d be extra careful of bringing the OTHER children with them. But no.

Furthermore, one of the earliest prayers to Mary (the subtuum) dated approximately AD 250, refers to her as ever-virgin. This time period of 200 years after the death and resurrection of Jesus and the end of Mary’s life on earth is still a period where ‘living memory’ can exist. That is, an old man in AD250 could have known, as a child, an old man who HIMSELF had seen or known Mary (as a child). That being so, IF Mary were known to have other children, there would have been those who knew, with certainty, that this was so–and since every OTHER instance of a heresy or wrong teaching in Catholicism was dealt with by the Church, this would have been dealt with. It wasn’t. . .because the fact that Mary was and is ever Virgin is TRUE.

Even the first ‘protestants’ believed in this–using the VERY SAME BIBLE we use today.

The idea that Mary is not ever Virgin is the ‘tradition of man’.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top