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

[aemcpa]

Must admit i am ignorant of the teachings calling Mary the second Eve (even in my previous 25yrs as a professing RC)

I imagine you are ignorant of many of the teachings of the Church, given that you left the Church after 25 years.

 

[Jim19]

We do not believe that Jesus’ brethren were Joseph’s children, but Jesus’ cousins. There wasn’t any word for ‘cousin’ back then, so due to the closeness of the relation, brother/sister was a better word than relative, which, even today, sounds very cold and distant.
Hi, It was a commonly held belief not a universally held belief. Many early theologians held that the brethren were the children of Mary.

But it doesn’t matter who they were historically. The thing that mattered was that many of them did not accept Jesus as the Messiah. Rather, they saw Him as the son of the carpenter, the little boy who grew up with them.

I think many if not most involved in this thread would disagree! Whether Mary was ever virgin or not, does not detract or add to the finished work of Christ, my contention is the acceptance of only 1 possible variance and the doctrines sprouting from it.

If St. Joseph himself were dead, I do think his father would have been long gone. Mary had to be totally alone for Jesus to entrust her to John while she was still here on earth.

If Joseph was dead, then yes it is possible even likely his father was also dead, but not certainly so! Therefore any views put forward based on the fathers death would be conjecture.

The beloved disciple was supposed to represent all Christians.

Mmmm! Again conjecture, to support a doctrine founded on conjecture.

That is why he’s never named, although we know for sure that he’s John.

John 19:27 encourages the Christian to accept Mary as his mother and to take her into his home.

No it only shows John took her unto his OWN home.

 

[Jim19]

There wasn’t any word for ‘cousin’ back then, so due to the closeness of the relation, brother/sister was a better word than relative, which, even today, sounds very cold and distant.

Hi,

In the Septuagint the Hebrew word that includes both brothers and cousins was translated as adelphos, which in Greek usually has the narrow meaning that the English “brother” has. Unlike Hebrew or Aramaic, Greek has a separate word for cousin, anepsios, but the translators of the Septuagint used adelphos, even for true cousins.

You might say they transliterated instead of translated, importing the Jewish idiom into the Greek Bible. They took an exact equivalent of the Hebrew word for “brother” and did not use adelphosin one place (for sons of the same parents), and anepsios in another (for cousins).

Taken from “Brethren of the Lord Tract”, catholic.com/tracts/brethren-of-the-lord

 

[Jim19]

Eve’s flesh did not rebel against her spirit, inclining her to sin; she made a wholly spiritual and rational decision to sin.

Mary’s flesh did not rebel against her spirit, inclining her to sin; she made a wholly spiritual and rational decision not to sin

My reply was based on the initail post as to Concupiscence being the desire to sin.

Being free of original sin, did not stop Eve from sinning,
Why is it assumed Mary did not sin?
RC teaching is baptism cleanses from original sin, yet a child will still sin after.
Where can it be shown Mary was never even shall we say, disobedient to her parents, or not guilty of any sin? If Mary was so sinless, why did God need to send His only begotten Son, why not send Mary to the cross?

 

[aemcpa]

My reply was based on the initail post as to Concupiscence being the desire to sin.

Being free of original sin, did not stop Eve from sinning,
Why is it assumed Mary did not sin?
RC teaching is baptism cleanses from original sin, yet a child will still sin after.
Where can it be shown Mary was never even shall we say, disobedient to her parents, or not guilty of any sin? If Mary was so sinless, why did God need to send His only begotten Son, why not send Mary to the cross?

It is not because Christ was sinless that He was an acceptable sacrifice. It is because He is God. Don’t waste your time with strawman arguments.

Baptism does not take away concupiscence.

It is within the power of any person to never commit a sin. Every sin is an act of the will, and even with concupiscence sin is always a choice made by the sinner.

 

[Jim19]

I imagine you are ignorant of many of the teachings of the Church, given that you left the Church after 25 years.

Yes, i am ignorant of many teachings of Roman Catholicism as are very many “practicing” Roman Catholics.
After 25yrs, i left RC, not the Church!

 

[aemcpa]

Yes, i am ignorant of many teachings of Roman Catholicism as are very many “practicing” Roman Catholics.

Sad but true. That is why Catholic Answers exists.

After 25yrs, i left RC, not the Church!

You can’t give back your baptism, but you traded the Barque of Peter built by Christ for a house of straw built by man.

 

[Jim19]

It is not because Christ was sinless that He was an acceptable sacrifice. It is because He is God. Don’t waste your time with strawman arguments.

Mmmmm, always thought that it was because He was the Lamb without spot or blemish, that made His sacrifice acceptable! 1 Pet1:19
And that the Man Jesus Christ shed His blood for us. (Not that i declare Christ was nor God).

Baptism does not take away concupiscence.

Did not say it did!

I

t is within the power of any person to never commit a sin. Every sin is an act of the will, and even with concupiscence sin is always a choice made by the sinner.

Paul in Romans 7 would disagree.

 

[Jim19]

Sad but true. That is why Catholic Answers exists.

You can’t give back your baptism, but you traded the Barque of Peter built by Christ for a house of straw built by man.

 

[godisgood77]

Firstly, let me apologise for not using the quote function properly, i am just getting used to the layout. Think i have it sussed now!

Secondly, i now understand the thrust off your question in the light of your above comment.
Mary, asks how the angels declaration could be so as she states she was a virgin, why she never reasoned Joseph into the equation, i can give no dogmatic reply! It could be argued that having an angelic visitation which caused her to be troubled and fearful, would be enough for anyone to give a reply that would seem strange, when viewed from a calm and untroubled viewpoint! I am sure that many hypothesis could be put forward, that would not detract from her declaration.
But as i said, i could give no scriptural or otherwise dogmatic answer.
Scripture attests to the virgin birth of Christ, there is much in the way of scripture that would support the belief that Mary was not ever virgin, and i also know that “brethren, brother”, does not always mean children from the same mother/father, (though in many cases it would seem the proper rendition).
But to infer, Mary’s declaration can only logically mean, she never planned to have marital sex with Joseph and to build a doctrine of “ever virgin” on postulation, is shaky to say the least!
She may have been ever virgin, she may not have been.
To give such weight to a doctrine that has no clear scriptural basis, and in no way adds to the finished work of Christ, i would leave to those who would chase a moot point.

I stated there is no Scriptural basis, where is the dishonesty in that?
Where does it say scripture is not sufficient?
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 2 Tim 3:16

I felt it was appropriate as the Lord would make reference to scripture in support of many, (not “all”, i retract “all”)(though i have never seen/read in the bible where his teachings had no scriptural basis) of his teachings, but never (that i am aware of), to the traditions of men, which posts on this thread have done.
It is not my claim that you have done such directly.

1. Where have i rejected the word of God?
2. So only catholics (assume you mean Roman Catholic), embrace the word of God? Perhaps that is a thread you would care to instigate?
   Because i hold opinions not held by catholics, does not make me “anti catholic”, just as disagreeing with a gay lifestyle does not make me homophobic.

Bravo…

 

[adrift]

Sad but true. That is why Catholic Answers exists.

My head being sprinkled as a baby is of no scriptural consequence.
I look always to scripture as the inspired word of God for direction, not to man made houses. The foundation of my faith is Christ,not any elitist institution. 1Cor 3:11

I would love to discuss this point but it is off topic. If you would be interested in a thread on why baptism is not man made but God made and how Scripture shows that it is necessary, I will be happy to start it. Our foundation is on the Church 1 Timothy 3: 14-15 So now let us go back to the subject of the thread.

 

[Erich]

To give such weight to a doctrine that has no clear scriptural basis…

Ezekiel 44:2 - And the Lord said to me: This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it: because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it, and it shall be shut

Jim19, perhaps you can tell us what the “clear scriptural basis” is for the following:

1. the Bible’s Table of Contents
2. the sanctity of human life (consider: neither testament gives a clear understanding of the status of unborn life, and the indirect ways in which Scripture addresses this are very oblique and open to multiple interpretations)
3. the universal Christian condemnation of polygamy

(BTW, there are other examples of “rock-bottom, non-negotiable, grade A, can’t-do-without-'em beliefs” that are weakly-attested in the Bible, in The Lens in My Eye.)

Joseph recognized Mary’s special consecration as God’s living vessel, the Ark of the New Covenant. Note that because God’s presence overshadowed the tabernacle, Moses was not able to enter: “Then a cloud covered the tent of the congregation, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle. And Moses was not able to enter into the tent of the congregation, because the cloud abode therein, and the glory of the the Lord filled the tabernacle.” (Ex 40:34-35)Just as Moses was not able to enter the tabernacle due to God’s presence, Joseph was not able to have marital relations with Mary because God’s presence, in the same way as in Exodus 40:34-35, had overshadowed her. Another example is seen in Uz’zah, who aroused the anger of God simply for touching the Ark: “And when they came to Na’chon’s threshing floor, Uzzah put forth his hand to the Ark of God, and took hold of it; for the oxen shook it. And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Uz’zah, and God smote him there for his error; and there he died by the Ark of God.” (2 Sam 6:6-7)Don’t think that Joseph wasn’t aware of this story - the fact that Uz’zah was killed immediately simply for reaching out to steady the Ark being shaken by the oxen. He knew that Mary, as the New Ark of the Covenant, was not to be touched, either. This is why Joseph refrained from intercourse with Mary during her miraculous pregancy and afterwards as well, because if God’s Presence had indeed “overshadowed” Mary’s womb, then Mary’s womb had become the dwelling place of the Lord, something like the Eastern Gate mentioned by JM3.

 

[Jim19]

Jim19, perhaps you can tell us what the “clear scriptural basis” is for the following:

Hi, I have no desire to go off thread at the moment, would prefer to concentrate on the issue at hand, hence just a short follow on.

1. the Bible’s Table of Contents

The bibles TOC is not a doctrine! Nor presented as such to require scriptural refutation that i am aware of?

1. the sanctity of human life (consider: neither testament gives a clear understanding of the status of unborn life, and the indirect ways in which Scripture addresses this are very oblique and open to multiple interpretations)

How can i give clear scriptural basis for something you attest has none? There are many issues the bible doesn’t give clear guidance on, hence my objection to doctrines being built around issues we cant be dogmatic about!

1. the universal Christian condemnation of polygamy

I suggest you read Matt 19:1-10. Yes i know Christ is dealing with the issue of divorce, but verse 5, “For this cause shall a man leave father and mother,
and shall cleave to his wife:
and they twain shall be one flesh” “Gen. 2.24”
would suggest wife not wives, was Gods ordinance.

Then a cloud covered the tent of the congregation, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle. And Moses was not able to enter into the tent of the congregation, because the cloud abode therein, and the glory of the the Lord filled the tabernacle." (Ex 40:34-35)

Yes this is true, but did not the priests and high priest?

“And when they came to Na’chon’s threshing floor, Uzzah put forth his hand to the Ark of God, and took hold of it; for the oxen shook it. And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Uz’zah, and God smote him there for his error; and there he died by the Ark of God.” (2 Sam 6:6-7)

This does not support Mary being ever virgin, rather it could be rendered to support Mary as the Ark. (which would require another thread).

 

[Jim19]

I would love to discuss this point but it is off topic. If you would be interested in a thread on why baptism is not man made but God made and how Scripture shows that it is necessary, I will be happy to start it. Our foundation is on the Church 1 Timothy 3: 14-15 So now let us go back to the subject of the thread.

Yes it is off topic and must admit just covering this thread takes more time than i should give, (i have neglected in some measure my personal prayer times, which i will/have rectified), maybe in the near future! Also to clarify, my saying “My head being sprinkled as a baby is of no scriptural consequence”, is not a denial of scriptural baptism though.

 

[aemcpa]

Also to clarify, my saying “My head being sprinkled as a baby is of no scriptural consequence”, is not a denial of scriptural baptism though.

But it is, though. At least it’s a denial of your baptism. Denying the validity of infant baptism is a modern innovation, unheard of in the Scriptures and in the early Church.

 

[Jim19]

The tradition of men I find you posting so there we are.

Not aware i posted the traditions of men in support of argument! ??

Thats o.k. I know it is more your ignorance than the truth.

Jesus establishes a Church. You reject that Church.

I don’t reject the church. I merely participated in this thread, that Mary was sinless and ever virgin.

No but we embrace the fullness.

Always thought the bible was the revealed word of God! What is fuller than that? Wasnt aware i did not embrace it.
Roman Catholic has three camps maybe more

1. Those who don’t care

Unfortunately, there are too many who associate with christianity, and dont care. They think, “im catholic/protestant/whatever/”,and that is all i need to know or care about and are ignorant off their professed faiths teachings/beliefs.

1. Those who rejoice in being associated with the Pope

So some catholics do not rejoice in this association?

1. Those who resents the pejorative term and prefer the more accurate term Catholic.

Didn’t realise Roman catholic was a pejorative term! But i guess that is infighting and not my concern. “Within the Catholic Church there are a number of individual churches, sometimes called rites. One of these is the Roman rite or Roman church. It includes most of the Catholics in the Western world. A Roman Catholic is a Catholic who is a member of the Roman rite”.catholic.com/quickquestions/what-is-the-difference-between-the-roman-catholic-and-the-catholic-religion.
Is it safe to assume that you are Roman catholic due to your posting,

Roman Catholic has three camps maybe more

??

Perhaps that is a thread you would care to instigate?

Seems like more than 1 thread! Will give a miss for the moment.

Not because you hold a different opinions but how you express that difference.

I make no claims on being a politician or educated in the wording of debate.( i have made enough mistakes in my short time as a member of this forum, to more than convince me of that) There are many teachings of Catholicism/Roman Catholicism,which i embrace and many which i don’t. Just as there many “protestant” teachings i either embrace or dont. The Lord has shown me often some hidden sin in me and how much baggage i have accumulated as regards to believing something of Him and His Word “because thats what i have always believed and made that belief " a god of my vain imagination”, hence i seek not to blindly submit to a teaching whether it be “established” “catholic/protestant”. My apologies if my mode of expression is/has been offensive, it has never been my purpose to be offensive in taking part in this forum.

 

[adrift]

Yes this is true, but did not the priests and high priest?

What? I am confused by your answer

This does not support Mary being ever virgin, rather it could be rendered to support Mary as the Ark. (which would require another thread).

I am not sure if you so my comment which is very simiar to this one. It supports the virginity of Mary

1. It demonstrates how God felt about even an accidental touch to His Ark
2. Mary carrying Jesus becomes the New Ark.
3. How could anyone touch what God had overshadowed?
4. Would a devout Jew approach where God had been?
   Ezek. 44:2 Speaks of the gate that the Lord will enter and will be shut after Him.

Don’t think that Joseph wasn’t aware of this story - the fact that Uz’zah was killed immediately simply for reaching out to steady the Ark being shaken by the oxen. He knew that Mary, as the New Ark of the Covenant, was not to be touched, either. This is why Joseph refrained from intercourse with Mary during her miraculous pregancy and afterwards as well, because if God’s Presence had indeed “overshadowed” Mary’s womb, then Mary’s womb had become the dwelling place of the Lord, something like the Eastern Gate mentioned by JM3.

 

[adrift]

I am afraid my signature has come to life. I wanted to clear this up as for the other parts of your post they to are off topic and unimportant to this discussion. If you feel you would like any of them answered please send a private message as not to sidetrack this thread.

Let me restate.

We are not Roman Catholics but Catholics. There are those who don’t mind the title, there are those that resent it and than there are those that it makes no difference to. I hope that is clearer as to what I meant by camps.

I am Catholic of the Latin Rite.

RITE
In general, the manner and form of a religious function. Hence the words and actions to be carried out in the performance of a given act, e.g., the rite of baptism, or the rite of consecration, the Roman Rite. The term in its widest ecclesiastical sense refers to the principal historic rituals in the Catholic Church, whose essentials are the same as derived from Jesus Christ. The four parent rites in Catholicism are the Antiochene, Alexandrine, Roman, and Gallican. Some religious orders have their own rites. In all cases, however, the ritual must be approved by the Holy See. (Etym. Latin ritus, religious custom, usage, ceremony

Yes to me it is a pejorative term since it was first applied as insult.

 

[Jim19]

But it is, though. At least it’s a denial of your baptism.

Hi I may be wrong (wouldn’t be the first time) But i remember hearing at some point in my life, that i am still considered a Catholic as i was baptised according to catholic tradition!
Which your quote “You can’t give back your baptism, but you traded the Barque of Peter built by Christ for a house of straw built by man”. seemed to imply this to me also? And it is this baptism which i reject as off no scriptural consequence.

Denying the validity of infant baptism is a modern innovation, unheard of in the Scriptures and in the early Church.

Infant baptism/baptismal regeneration, is a wholly new subject. ever noticed how easy it is to be dragged off subject!

 

[Jim19]

I am afraid my signature has come to life.

I wanted to clear this up as for the other parts of your post they to are off topic and unimportant to this discussion. If you feel you would like any of them answered please send a private message as not to sidetrack this thread.

I merely answered your allegations, perhaps it would be best if such were not made, to steer one off topic

Let me restate.

We are not Roman Catholics but Catholics. There are those who don’t mind the title, there are those that resent it and than there are those that it makes no difference to. I hope that is clearer as to what I meant by camps.

I am Catholic of the Latin Rite.

It seems that there are so many rites, that i am bound to be wrong

Yes to me it is a pejorative term since it was first applied as insult.

I hold myself to belong to the catholic church (universal) as there is only 1 true church.
When i was younger i always called myself a roman catholic, my school was called a roman catholic, school etc. Hence my point of differentiation previously, no pejorative expression was knowingly or willingly implied.