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

[adrift]

Good point Cachonga,

Is there any supporting historical evidence that temple virgins were regularly given into a “celibate marriage” relationship? Or even that they were customarily put out of the temple and into the care of elderly widowers?

Proof such as that would at least strengthen your argument.

Ginger

There were no such things as temple virgins in the Jewish faith. However, we find in Numbers 30

When a woman, while still a maiden in her father's house, **makes a vow to the LORD**, or binds herself to a pledge,

if her father learns of her vow or the pledge to which she bound herself and says nothing to her about it, then any vow or any pledge she has made remains valid.

Women in the society of the times weren’t able to go down to the local fast food place to get a job. Their options were few. When a vow of virginity was made they would have relied on living with an older man as wife in name only. Joseph was thought to have been an older man or that he had made a vow as well.

 

[Ginger2]

Oh? Why couldn’t Joseph have been the father? God could have done it that way. Mary wouldn’t have known God’s plans. You are seeing this through the lens of what happened not how Mary would have understood it.

No, I am trying to see it thru Mary’s understanding or lack there of.

Let’s use your “proof” text to see if Mary’s reaction makes sense:

Angel says: “…you have found grace before the Lord of all things and shall conceive of His Word.”

Mary asks: “Shall I conceive of the Lord, the Living God, as every other woman bears?”

Angel says: “Not so, Mary; for the power of the Lord shall overshadow you; wherefore also that thing which is born of you shall be called the Son of the Highest.”

Mary answers: “…be it to me according to your word.”

Notice your proof text doesn’t have Mary ask how it can be since she is a virgin, but the Angel tells her right away she is going to conceive the Word of the Lord. **Then she asks if she will conceive and bear in the normal fashion as do other women!!
**
Now the Gospel of Matthew:
His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

If Mary were pledged to lifelong virginity, why does the above verse state “before they came together”? If she was a lifelong virgin her pregnancy would be a fatal scandal whether she and Joseph and begun cohabitation or not!

 

[Ginger2]

There were no such things as temple virgins in the Jewish faith. However, we find in Numbers 30

Yet you are convinced Mary was a member of this non-existent sect?

When a vow of virginity was made they would have relied on living with an older man as wife in name only.

Show me the historical proof to support your claim.

Joseph was thought to have been an older man or that he had made a vow as well.

lol If Joseph had made this same vow, how could Jesus’ brothers be Joseph’s sons from a previous marriage???

You have already acknowledged temple virgins in the Jewish faith didn’t exist, so now you switch directions and say Joseph might have taken a vow of celibacy.

All this is speculation. Where is the proof of anything you claim?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Interesting text you have there, Ginger.

et’s use your “proof” text to see if Mary’s reaction makes sense:

Angel says: “…you have found grace before the Lord of all things and shall conceive of His Word.”

Mary asks: “Shall I conceive of the Lord, the Living God, as every other woman bears?”

Angel says: “Not so, Mary; for the power of the Lord shall overshadow you; wherefore also that thing which is born of you shall be called the Son of the Highest.”

Mary answers: “…be it to me according to your word.”

Even using the Protoevangelium, it still does not contradict Catholic teaching.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

of course you’ve already found the Protoevangelium ‘spurious’ and false so I’m surprised you are using it instead of the Bible but oh well. It still doesn’t contradict Catholic teaching.

 

[Ginger2]

of course you’ve already found the Protoevangelium ‘spurious’ and false so I’m surprised you are using it instead of the Bible but oh well. It still doesn’t contradict Catholic teaching.

lol But Catholics treat it as Holy so it makes sense to use what you trust to show you are wrong.

I also used Matthew which I trust.

When I witnessed to witnesses, I also use the corrupt text they respect and trust to show them they are mistaken.

And I show Muslims their errors from the text the trust and believe.

Afterall, is no use to show a Muslim a Christian Bible as they believe Christian Bibles are corrupt. And JWs trust their corrupted version of Scriptures, so it is no use to show them a reliable translation.

Since Catholics have shown they trust this pseudo texts, I included it my response.

It just goes to show that no matter how men corrupt the Word of God, truth is always protected from error concerning God’s children.

I use the texts that people trust and believe to dispel the myths they hold to,

 

[Ginger2]

This whole discussion could be put to rest if you simply come up with one supporting piece of historical evidence that temple virgins were regularly given into a “celibate marriage” relationship? Or even that they were customarily put out of the temple and into the care of elderly widowers?

Or even with men who took a vow of celibacy as was just claimed. Although that one is really funny as it is placing people in a position of temptation and the Hebrew people tried to avoid such situation.

Ginger

 

[Cachonga]

adrift:

The fact that she asked such a strange question shows that they were not planning a “normal” marriage. Betrothed does not mean the same today as it did then. Today it means a promise of marriage then it WAS marriage.

You still have not provided a single bit of evidence to support your claim that someone with a vow of virginity would even get betrothed, much less married.

adrift:

Women in the society of the times weren’t able to go down to the local fast food place to get a job. Their options were few. When a vow of virginity was made they would have relied on living with an older man as wife in name only. Joseph was thought to have been an older man or that he had made a vow as well.

You are correct to point out the issue of daughters and vows. However, if a woman did make such a vow (and her father confirmed it), she would have remained in her fathers house so long as he lived (who better to safeguard her vow than her father?), then she would very likely have gone into the care of some other relative. I have never seen or heard of anyone with a vow of virginty getting married in order to protect their vow. Come to think of it, I’ve never heard of any Jewish person ever making such a vow! Have you?

 

[Ginger2]

You are correct to point out the issue of daughters and vows. …

Those verses never mention a vow of celibacy. Catholics talk like celibacy is the only possible vow a woman can make to God.

It goes on to say if a married woman makes a vow…

For a married woman to vow celibacy without first getting permission from her husband (and even then) would be a contradiction to God’s law.

 

[adrift]

Yet you are convinced Mary was a member of this non-existent sect?

Don’t be so disingenuous. I have disputed that she was a temple virgin but that does not mean that I don’t believe she made a vow of virginity. The question she asks is a strange one .

Mary asks: “Shall I conceive of the Lord, the Living God, as every other woman bears?”

But she didn’t say this did she? She said she was a virgin that does not fit into your imaginary question.

Those verses never mention a vow of celibacy.

According to Torah scholar Jacob Milgrom it is interpreted by ancient Jews as referring to fasting and refraining from sexual intercourse. As you have pointed out, even married women made such a vow. Mary made such a vow. Her husband Joseph following the law would not have had relations with her.

But if her husband says nothing to her from day to day, then he establishes all her vows, or all her pledges, that are upon her; he has established them, because he said nothing to her on the day that he heard of them. But if he makes them null and void after he has heard of them, then he shall bear her iniquity."

It was probably why he was so shocked at her pregnancy she had broken her vow.

 

[Cachonga]

Ginger2 - in regard to a vow of virginity (celibacy). I also said - I’ve never heard of any Jewish person ever making such a vow!

adrift:

According to Torah scholar Jacob Milgrom it is interpreted by ancient Jews as referring to fasting and refraining from sexual intercourse. As you have pointed out, even married women made such a vow. Mary made such a vow and her husband Joseph and following the law

1 Cor 7:5 says, “Defraud not one another, except, perhaps, by consent, for a time, that you may give yourselves to prayer; and return together again, lest Satan tempt you for your incontinency.” (DR emphasis added). You continue to assert that Mary made such a vow (of virginty), but you have yet to prove it.

adrift:

It was probably why he was so shocked at her pregnancy she had broken her vow.

Of course, knowing that he had nothing to do with his wife’s pregnancy doesn’t matter, right?

 

[Ginger2]

It was probably why he was so shocked at her pregnancy she had broken her vow.

Yes, Joseph thought she broke her vow to him as his wife.

She said she was virgin which would be expected and required of a betrothed woman.

 

[Ginger2]

According to Torah scholar Jacob Milgrom it is interpreted by ancient Jews as referring to fasting and refraining from sexual intercourse. As you have pointed out, even married women made such a vow. Mary made such a vow. Her husband Joseph following the law would not have had relations with her.

Did you by any chance get this idea from Brant Pitre’s exegesis of Milgrom’s work?

I have only started researching Milgrom, but the first Website that popped up was about how Brant Pitre has misrepresented Milgron’s statements.

The site says:
"Pitre wrote: …The key is in the final section; the chapter is concerned with a woman’s vows to “afflict herself,” which, as the great Torah scholar Jacob Milgrom points out, was interpreted by ancient Jews as referring to fasting and refraining from sexual intercourse. …Once this terminology is clear, the whole chapter makes sense. It is discussion (sic) three kinds of vows:

1. Vows of sexual abstinence taken by a young, unmarried woman.
2. Vows of sexual abstinence taken by a married woman.
3. Vows of sexual abstinence taken by a widow or divorced"

This site claims Pitre took Milgrom’s statement out of context by using Milgroms statements concerning Lev and applying them to Numbers.

According to this site :
What Pitre failed to notice in his study of Numbers 30 is that the injunctions of Pseudo-Jonathan, which Milgrom quoted, are exhortations to the priests to abstain from sexual relations on the Day of Atonement. This fact is made explicit in the Mishna Yoma 8:1, which Milgrom also mentioned in his commentary on Leviticus. Yoma 8:1 reads: “On the Day of Atonement it is forbidden to eat, drink, bathe, put on any sort of oil, put on a sandal, or engage in sexual relations.”

The vow a woman takes in Numbers 30 has nothing to do with sexual abstinence for life. Rather, as Baruc Levine has shown is his commentary on Numbers (p. 425), the legislation about vows made by women deals with “the legal status of women who have pronounced vows and taken oath, and by so doing have assumed binding obligations, often involving cost.”

Keep in mind, this is just one source and I have not read Milgrom not Pitre to verify these claims.

 

[panevino]

This whole discussion could be put to rest if you simply come up with one supporting piece of historical evidence that temple virgins were regularly given into a “celibate marriage” relationship? Or even that they were customarily put out of the temple and into the care of elderly widowers?

Or even with men who took a vow of celibacy as was just claimed. Although that one is really funny as it is placing people in a position of temptation and the Hebrew people tried to avoid such situation.

Ginger

while not directly to the point the following suggest celibacy for the lord and refraining for the lord

jesus - For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. matt 19:12kjv

Then Peter said, Lo, we have left all, and followed thee. 29 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God’s sake, 30 Who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting. Luke 18:28 KJV

paul - For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. 8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. 9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. 1 cor 7:7-KJV

He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: 33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife. 1 cor 7:32KJV

These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed F22 from among men REV 14:4 KJV - i know this is controversial…

Apparently jewish tradition is that moses refrained from his wife after meeting god and that his children were born before this. i think the tradition is in part based on this, though I know nothing really about jewish tradition
And Moses went down from the mount unto the people, and sanctified the people; and they washed their clothes.And he said unto the people, Be ready against the third day: come not at your wives.Ex 19:14-kjv

Also - check out the Essenes a jewish group that existied at the time of jesus

“…Among their neighbours they were noted for their love of God and their concerns with piety, honesty, morality, philanthropy, holiness, equality, and freedom…”
“…The holy Essenes did not marry and lived a celibate life, and practiced communal residence, money, property, food and clothing. …”
“…The accounts by Josephus and Philo show that the Essenes led a strictly celibate and communal life – often compared by scholars to later Christian monastic living – although Josephus speaks also of another “rank of Essenes” that did get married…” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essenes

another thing regarding the brothers of jesus
The following early church writting is liekly older than ‘proto… of james’ and I dont think it is considered as questionable. it puts all the ‘brothers’ of the jesus as children of aunties.

The work of Papias was evidently written in his old age, say between the years 115 and 140. called by St. Irenæus “a hearer of John, and companion of Polycarp, a man of old time”.

Fragments of Papias (X)

(1.) Mary the mother of the Lord; (2.) Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphæus, who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, and of Simon and Thaddeus, and of one Joseph; (3.) Mary Salome, wife of Zebedee, mother of John the evangelist and James; (4.) Mary Magdalene. These four are found in the Gospel. James and Judas and Joseph were sons of an aunt (2) of the Lord’s. James also and John were sons of another aunt (3) of the Lord’s. Mary (2), mother of James the Less and Joseph, wife of Alphæus was the sister of Mary the mother of the Lord, whom John names of Cleophas, either from her father or from the family of the clan, or for some other reason. Mary Salome (3) is called Salome either from her husband or her village. Some affirm that she is the same as Mary of Cleophas, because she had two husbands.
newadvent.org/fathers/0125.htm

 

[Luke65]

I do

Excellent! Okay, I’ve put together a full typology for readers to consider.

Jesus Christ is the Bridegroom, and the Church is His Bride. But it is a mystical, spiritual marriage, not a carnal marriage (Eph. 5:32); it is a legal (covenantal) marriage, but not a consummated marriage. In the same way, Joseph and Mary had a legally binding, covenantal marriage, but not a consummated marriage…

Blessed Virgin Mary: “How shall this be, seeing a husband I do not know?” (Luke 1:34 YLT)

So, Mary is a type for the Church - “a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.” (Eph. 5:27) She is the mother of all the spiritually living - the “brethren” of our Lord Jesus (John 20:17); just as the Church is the mother of all Christians: those baptized - “born again” into the household of the living God. And Joseph, as the head of the household of God, is a type for Jesus, the Head of the Church; and as such, he is also a type for the Pope (“Papa”), our foster father whom God has appointed to care for His children here on Earth. So Joseph, like Jesus and Mary, was a virgin…

St. Jerome: “You say that Mary did not continue a virgin: I claim still more, that Joseph himself on account of Mary was a virgin, so that from a virgin wedlock a virgin son was born.”

Now, the Church was immaculately conceived at the Cross, when “blood and water” - the Sacraments - flowed from the side of the immaculate Jesus; just as Eve, “the mother of all the living”, was created immaculately from the side of the immaculate first Adam. So once again we see that Mary was immaculately conceived, and reversed the disobedience of Eve with her obedience; just as our Lord Jesus reversed the curse of death wrought by Adam’s disobedience with His obedience unto death - both Jesus and Mary always being at “enmity” with the devil (Gen. 3:15).

With man these things are impossible, but with God all things are possible. The marriage of Joseph and Mary was not a typical marriage; the Holy Family was not a typical family. It was a family completely dedicated to serving God, that didn’t get involved in “civilian affairs” (2 Tim. 2:4). Joseph and Mary were called by God to make themselves eunuchs for His Kingdom, and they accepted the call. Love the truth, it’s much more beautiful than the lie. God bless.

The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary (St. Jerome - a must read)

Perpetual virginity of Mary (Wikipedia - fair, balanced, informative)

 

[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…

 

[Steven_John]

Just so you are all sure where i am, the “I do” Br. Luke has quoted me on is not connected to his post.

The i do i offered was in response to his suggestion that there was a possibility i did not believe Mary (bbhn) was a virgin when she conceived Yahooshua (pbwh).

Given that i would be un fair for me to respond to his post but unfortunately i did read the first few lines.

The marriage between the Church and Christ is indeed “consummated” The Church is not carnal we just see it here as so.

But i testify before you all Luke is wrong this marriage has produced much fruit if it had not for filled the completion of union it could not have done so.

A barren bride produces not.

Indeed Our Brother Yahooshua (pbwh) has gone into his wife the Church and she be not barren as her accuser Br Luke asserts.

This i do not testify by offer as a guess, Br Luke this is not from your heart but from others. If so why use their words, does the spirit not live in you? Ahh how can it speak you accuse your Mother of being barren.

If barren she be no words of the spirit will come from you you will be a mere echo as word of others bounce around the emptiness in you.

Read revelation and beg Father to be born again, so you may have a white stone of judgement with a new name, one that respects his Mother and her fruit.

I know i am being hard on you but first stop quoting me without reason and before firstly MY MOTHER IS NOT BARREN

 

[Luke65]

I know i am being hard on you but first stop quoting me without reason and before firstly MY MOTHER IS NOT BARREN

You’re not being hard on me, but you are misunderstanding again. I said I wouldn’t try to convince you of the perpetual virginity of Mary unless I knew you already believed in the virgin birth. You said you did believe in the virgin birth so I proceeded to try to convince you. As for your point, it is written:

Galatians 4 (NIV)

26But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. 27For it is written:

“Be glad, O barren woman,
who bears no children;
break forth and cry aloud,
you who have no labor pains;
because more are the children of the desolate woman
than of her who has a husband.”****

 

[Mannyfit75]

Juan,

The simple answer is that there is no Scripture that supports Mary having no other children. However, while there are Scriptures that suggest Mary may have had other children, there is no Scripture that positively confirms siblings.

So I ask you this, What difference does it make if Mary had other children with Joseph after the birth of Jesus?

It would not be a sin as they were legally married according to Jewish law.

It would not change who Jesus was nor deter his mission.

It would not change God not His sovereign nature.

So what difference does it make?

Actually, there is. That is base solely, how the Early Church have always interpret Scripture. You can even look at the Church Ecumenical Council that defined the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. It was in the Lateran Synod in the year 649 under Pope Martin I. This was long before the East-West Schism of 1054 AD and at the time, the early Christian belief that Mary had other children is no where taught by the Church Fathers. The general consensus of the Fathers of Mary as Ever-Virgin is that Mary is a Virgin before, during, and after the birth of her only Begotten Son.

It is also this same Church that gave you the doctrine of the Holy Trinity in 325 AD. This Church is the Catholic Church. There were no Protestant beliefs during those times at all.

The Evangelical Protestant rejection of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity is rejection of the truth that the Holy Spirit has revealed to the Church. It is also foreign. I also heard that the founders of Protestantism also believed that Mary remain a Virgin all her life. Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli, all of them believed it because they were taught that way.

I like to asked those reject the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, why do you believe in the Trinity since it was defined by the Church in the Council of Nicea in 325 AD? You might as well reject that doctrine. If the Catholic Church got it wrong in her own teachings, you might as well reject the Trinity as well. In fact, you might as well reject the entire Bible as whole. Since the Chapter and Verses and the order of the Books in the Bible was put together by Catholic monks long before the Protestant Reformation.

 

[diggerdomer]

Actually, there is. That is base solely, how the Early Church have always interpret Scripture. You can even look at the Church Ecumenical Council that defined the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. It was in the Lateran Synod in the year 649 under Pope Martin I.

RIght, Scripture can support the idea of perpetual virginity, but nothing in Scripture requires or proves such a teaching.

The Synod in 649 is not considered an Ecumenical Council by the Catholic Church. Just a clarification.