How do we know that Mary was without sin and forever a virgin

[Michael_Francis]

i66.photobucket.com/albums/h244/corona_stellarum/Smilies/Off-Topic–Alert.gif

Thread is about “How do we know that Mary was without sin and forever a virgin.” and nothing else.

Get back on topic or the thread will be closed.

 

[adrift]

my bolding

Gregory Thaumaturgus [213-275 AD] Four Homilies
“But Mary, the glorious Mother of Christ, **who is believed to be a virgin both before and after she bore him, **has, as we said above, been translated into paradise, amid the singing of the angelic choirs, whither the Lord preceded her” (ibid., 1:8).

Ephraim the Syrian, St [306-373 AD] The Nisibene Hymns
“You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than any others, for there is no blemish in you **nor any stains upon your Mother. **Who of my children can compare in beauty to these?” (Nisibene Hymns 27:8 [A.D. 361]).

Ambrose of Milan, St [340-397 AD] Concerning Virginity (Book II)
“Mary’s life should be for you a pictorial image of virginity. Her life is like a mirror reflecting the face of chastity and the form of virtue. Therein you may find a model for your own life . . . showing what to improve, what to imitate, what to hold fast to” (The Virgins 2:2:6 [A.D. 377]).

Augustine of Hippo, St [354-430 AD] Tractate 7 (John 1:34-51)
“That one woman is both mother and virgin, not in spirit only but even in body. In spirit she is mother, not of our head, who is our Savior himself-of whom all, even she herself, are rightly called children of the bridegroom-but plainly she is the mother of us who are his members, because by love she has cooperated so that the faithful, who are the members of that head, might be born in the Church. In body, indeed, she is the Mother of that very head” (Holy Virginity 6:6 [A.D. 401]).

Origen [185-254 AD] Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book X)
“The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. **For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the firstfruit of virginity” (**Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).

 

[pocohombre]

Well done adrift but I gotta bail, have no evidence for it.

 

[adrift]

Well done adrift but I gotta bail, have no evidence for it.

No evidence for It?
Is that “no evidence” that answers what I posted because a lot of evidence was posted for Mary being ever virgin and sinless.

 

[pocohombre]

No evidence for It?
Is that “no evidence” that answers what I posted because a lot of evidence was posted for Mary being ever virgin and sinless.

I meant well done with your evidence but I can not add any (nor agree) hence can’t stick to the thread topic, as per moderator. But good job on your part.

 

[davidmlamb]

I meant well done with your evidence but I can not add any (nor agree) hence can’t stick to the thread topic, as per moderator. But good job on your part.

The compelling evidence on all mariology is in antiquities as well as Tradition. Even the Protestant Reformers believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary, her immaculate conception and a life without sin. It wasn’t until the mid to the late 19th century that protestants began to reject these teachings as unbiblical.

Peace,

David

 

[adrift]

I meant well done with your evidence but I can not add any (nor agree) hence can’t stick to the thread topic, as per moderator. But good job on your part.

Thank you. I agree that there will be no agreement. I have enjoyed your participation. God Bless You.

 

[pocohombre]

Thank you. I agree that there will be no agreement. I have enjoyed your participation. God Bless You.

ditto

 

[fisherman_carl]

In answering the original OPs question I think we have to consider the available live options. For instance of the question of Mary’s perpetual virginity. There are two possibilities, one she remained a perpetual virgin and two she did not. But the scriptural data is not absolutely conclusive either way. That is there is no scripture passage that directly says Mary remained a virgin or that she did not. There are only passages that both sides use to argue their opinion. But it is not possible to be absolutely certain with scriptural data alone.

Consider the case of Jesus’ brothers. Are these Jesus’ blood brothers, step brothers, cousins, relatives? Are they sons of Mary, or of Joseph from another marriage as the early document the Protoevangelium of James suggests, or of a close relative like an uncle? So it is not possible with certainty to say that these brothers of Jesus are indeed sons of Mary or not.

So the only other data we would have to consider is the historical data. And we see in the historical data from the early church evidence for the belief in the perpetual virginity. Since we see evidence for it in the early church we would then ask ourselves how did this belief arise?I can think of 3 possible explanations. Is it something passed down as a tradition from ultimately Mary herself? Or was it the result of a vision or apparition? Or was it the result of a theological opinion?

If Mary never had any more kids this is something that would be known very easily by the contemporaries of Mary. And thus, if Mary never had any other children then it would seem very likely she remained a virgin. So it seems likely that explanation one that it is a tradition handed down is a plausible explanation. Since a fact like Mary not having other kids would be known by the disciples and Mary’s contemporaries.

The second explanation seems less plausible since we have no record of such an apparition occurring.

The third explanation of it being introduced for theological reasons is a possibility but it has some crippling problems. First, in order to introduce it as a new belief it would have to overcome resistance that any new belief has and that is criticism. Why should it be believed by orthodox Christians who never held that belief? And, It is more than a theological claim but a historical claim which could be refuted by historical data. Yet we don’t see it being refuted by early church fathers, which would be relatively easy to do if they had historical data to the contrary on Mary having other children. So, it seems to me that the idea that it was introduced at some later time seems less plausible.

Thus, my view is that the best explanation of the early belief of Mary’s perpetual virginity is in fact that it was an early tradition or knowledge handed down from Mary’s contemporaries. It is more plausible. And this makes belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity the best option.

 

[fisherman_carl]

www.catholic.com/video/how-did-the-church-fathers-explain-the-perpetual-virginity-of-mary

 

[Erich]

So it is not possible with certainty to say that these brothers of Jesus are indeed sons of Mary or not.

Oh, but it is. There are only four brethren of Jesus named in the Gospels: **Matthew 13:55 ** “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?”

**Mark 6:2-3 ** - “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?”

Let’s begin with James. There are two men named James among the disciples. One, of course, is the brother of John and the son of Zebedee. This cannot be him then. So, this is the other James, called in Scripture James the less: Mark 15:40: “There were also women looking on afar off: among whom were Mary Magdalene, and ** Mary the mother of James the less, and of Joseph,** and Salome.” (emphasis added)
So James is indeed the son of a woman named Mary. Not only that, but Joseph is his brother. That’s two of the four, right? Then, in Matthew, reciting the names of the twelve: Matt 10:3: “…'James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddeus.” (emphasis added)
This too is talking of James the less, as the other James, son of Zebedee, is spoken of in the previous verse. It is NOT a trick or really that hard! * Alphaeus* is this James’ father, not Joseph, the husband of Mary, mother of the Lord.

Now go to John also speaking of those witnessing the Crucifixion: John 19:25: “Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother (Mary) and His mothers sister, *** Mary the wife of Cleophas***, and * Mary Magdalene*.” (emphasis added)
Look up John 19:25 at blueletterbible.org/ and click the ‘C’ icon (for the Strong’s Concordance), then click the Strong’s number for the name Cleophas. It comes up “father of James the less, the husband of Mary the sister of the mother of Jesus.”

Did you get that? That Mary, who was the mother of James the less, and of Joseph, from Mark 15:40, is the wife of Cleophas, the father of James the less, and she is called the ‘sister’ of Our Lord’s mother - Mary!

So, two of the four ‘brothers’ have been identified as the children of parents other than Joseph and the Virgin Mary. Of the brothers named, that still leaves Jude and Simon. Next, Jude: Acts 1:13 ** "…James, the son of Alphaeus , and Simon Zelo’tes, and ** Jude the brother of James…" (emphasis added)
There goes Jude out of the mix! *** Matter of fact, Jude says the same in his own epistle: Jude 1:1 "Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ *** and brother of James…" (emphasis added)
Lastly, Simon. Simon, called the Zealot, is identified as coming from Cana, not Nazareth as were Joseph, Mary and the Christ! Luke 6:15 "and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and ** Simon who was called the Zealot," (emphasis added)

Mark 3:18 “Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and ** Simon the Cananaean**…” (emphasis added)

Matt 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene. (emphasis added)
Simon is a Cananean, while Jesus is a Nazarene!

We see that Simon the Zealot being from Cana, and a ‘brethren’ or ‘brother’ of the Christ. Let’s go to John’s Gospel, chapter 2. Mary and Our Lord are invited to a wedding there! So, close business associates, maybe, of Joseph from the carpentry trade, or more likely - family, or brethren, relatives, are having this wedding! Like, maybe the Holy Family had actual kinfolk in Cana, be they cousins, in-laws, nephews, aunts, uncles, all of which are routinely called ‘brethren’!

Remember what Mary said to the servants? She told them to ‘Do as He says.’

Think about that a second? What would give this humble woman from Nazareth any position to so speak to the servants of someone else in an entirely different town, at their wedding? The simplest and most easily understood answer would be – she is a family relation to those giving the wedding feast…

So Simon is from Cana, and a ‘brother’ of the Lord! He’s not a sibling though, but very likely related. And James, Joseph and Jude all have the same father and mother, and it is not Joseph and the Virgin Mary, but their mother is named Mary and called the sister of Jesus’ mother Mary. Even here ‘sister’ may not mean blood sibling, or we have two sisters with the same name in the same family.