John 19 and the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary

[Classicist]

When Protestant, I always saw Luke 1:1-4 as rather a strong argument for Sola Scriptura.

Note that the evangelist claims the ability to make orally-taught doctrines trustworthy by putting down a written account of them. Theophilus could not be 100% sure if what he heard was orthodox; Luke had to give a history in writing. This rather hurts oral tradition than upholds it.

Thankfully, there’s more to life than Luke 1:1-14.

 

[Edmundus1581]

When Protestant, I always saw Luke 1:1-4 as rather a strong argument for Sola Scriptura.

Note that the evangelist claims the ability to make orally-taught doctrines trustworthy by putting down a written account of them. Theophilus could not be 100% sure if what he heard was orthodox; Luke had to give a history in writing. This rather hurts oral tradition than upholds it.

Thankfully, there’s more to life than Luke 1:1-14.

Thanks for the reply. Good points. I’ll leave it there as this a digression, and I have to get to work.

 

[Offdoodykcrn]

No reaction to Matthew 13:55-56?

 

[po18guy]

When Protestant, I always saw Luke 1:1-4 as rather a strong argument for Sola Scriptura.

Note that the evangelist claims the ability to make orally-taught doctrines trustworthy by putting down a written account of them. Theophilus could not be 100% sure if what he heard was orthodox; Luke had to give a history in writing. This rather hurts oral tradition than upholds it.

Thankfully, there’s more to life than Luke 1:1-14.

Quite a leap of faith to take it that way. I do not see Luke as attempting to make anything trustworthy, but rather pointing out of the inherent trustworthiness of that which pre-dated his writing. And, for over 30 years, Peter, Paul and the eleven others had already taught much more than Luke wrote of. He mentions the incompleteness of his Gospel at** 3:18**. Luke’s Gospel is icing on the cake, but I do not see it as the cake. This would imply that Christ’s teaching was incomplete unless written down, and Christ chose not to write it.

 

[adrift]

No reaction to Matthew 13:55-56?

Yeah post 21, 25, 27, and 28

 

[po18guy]

No reaction to Matthew 13:55-56?

Nothing on Genesis 11:8 and 13:27? Was Lot nephew or brother? He could not be both.

As to brothers and sisters, the Twelve were not all His 'brothers" (those of the same town), as Peter, Andrew and Philip came from Bethsaida. Nathanael was likely from Cana. Those who came from Nazareth would be His brothers and sisters. James was of Nazareth and so was a “brother” of the Lord.

The “Mary had other children” argument is a recently invented canard that is fostered by the private interpretation of scripture combined with the incomplete nature of scripture. Since it does not affect our salvation one bit if Mary was ever virgin, I truly wonder why so many these days are obsessed with Mary having other children. That would only raise the specter that one of her other children was actually the Messiah and that we are following a false christ.

 

[godisgood77]

Why didn’t our Lady simply assume she would have sexual relations with St Joseph and Jesus would be conceived? Especially when we consider St Joseph was a descendant of David it would correlate with the angel’s message that Jesus would be the son of David…Wouldn’t it have been reasonable for Mary to assume this rather than ask “how can this be, I do not know man?”

According to the ancient custom Mary and Joseph were practically married, Check out this link. Given this, I find it very stranger Mary asking the question “How can this be, I do not know man”…

I wouldn’t speculate on what Mary was thinking. I’m not questioning the dogma of immaculate conception. I’m wondering how we came up with perpetual virginity and saw fit to declare it with certainty. Seems reasonable to think that the word ‘until’ could imply that things changed after the event. Otherwise, why even mention it?

What I’m looking for is any reference to Mary’s perpetual virginity. Actually, I care more to hear opinions on why is this topic important? Why did we Catholics see fit to declare authoritatively on this subject? Seems to me it takes more grace to live in uncertainty…

 

[godisgood77]

So what do you think this means? You do know that the definition of until is up to a period of time? It is only commenting on what happened before Jesus was born it does not comment on what happened after unless of course you think women have children after they are dead.
2 Sam. 6:23
Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death"

All I’m saying is that it is reasonable to interpret the use of the word “until” to mean that things could have changed afterward… otherwise why mention it at all? Or why not say Mary did not know man before, during or after her marriage to Joseph? Or Mary never knew man in her life on earth… As I’ve mentioned though, I think the more important question is why is Mary’s perpetual virginity important? Genuinely curious what opinions are out there?

 

[Offdoodykcrn]

However, this passage

Matthew 13:55-56
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude:
56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence therefore hath he all these things?
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
by Public Domain

specifically lists names of family members. There is a discrepancy between versions of the bible in only one of the brothers: Jude -v- Judas

 

[godisgood77]

Please understand that attacks on Mary are demonic in origin. Why is this? They directly or indirectly attack the flesh that Jesus chose and created to become incarnate through. Attacks on Mary relate to attacks on Jesus and His divine act of creation - God’s plan.

If you do not think that Mary is important, do not take my word for it! Listen to the words of an exorcist Priest who routinely confronts demons face to face. From an interview with exorcist Fr. Pedro Barrajon: Mary is the woman of Genesis 3:15 “I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed” The reign of evil began with the devil and a woman, and it ends with the devil and a woman. No matter how well-intentioned the attack on the woman is, it helps the devil.

Do you believe that somehow I’ve attacked Mary? If so, would you please help me understand your thinking?

 

[D_Martin]

St. Joseph was surely dead by this time. If he were living, he would have been there too as you say, and we know he was a pious man.

That is speculative at best, you have no scripture that states that.

Jesus would have had no reason to give his mother to John in that case. It would be deeply perverse to give a man’s wife away to another man.

How is it you read something perverse into some one like Joseph, asking some one to watch over the well fair of his wife when he might not be able to, or might not be there for some other reason? You’ve never asked some one you trusted to watch over some you cared for before, it seems.

Regarding the examples from Matthew 12 and 13, you know well that “brother” in the Jewish idiom does not mean sibling, but kinsman. It is an idiom, not a metaphor. Calvin would refer you to Jerome on this point.

I’ve checked 23 translations including the “The Jerusalem Bible” and all say brothers or brethren in the context of carpenter’s son with his mother Mary and sisters, a family unite. What a Hebrew thinks of the English word “Brethren” is irrelevant to the translation. The translation is the English view of what ever Greek words that are translated, in the case of the NT. Nice very lame try.

Besides why are you using Calvinism which is contrary to Catholicism to try and prove a Catholic view for?

 

[po18guy]

However, this passage

specifically lists names of family members. There is a discrepancy between versions of the bible in only one of the brothers: Jude -v- Judas

You are reading familial relationships into the scripture. It does not say that they are children of Mary - just that they are called brothers and sisters. Abram called Lot his “brother”, and Lot is clearly not a child of Sarai.

Do you believe that for 1,500 years, all of this huge family was, for some unknown reason, concealed by and from the faithful? For what purpose? As much as he came to hate the Pope and the Catholic Church, Martin Luther firmly believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. We must ask what has happened since the scriptures were turned over to every Thomas, Richard and Harry to interpret privately. Even Calvin himself spoke against “impious speculation” regarding Mary.

As well, the bible teaches us, without error, that scripture needs authoritative interpretation. Nehemiah 8:5-8 and Acts 8:26-35 teach this. Who interprets for you, and from where did they get their authority?

 

[po18guy]

That is speculative at best, you have no scripture that states that.

Since Jesus did not hand us the bible, we must speculate that it is true.

How is it you read something perverse into some one like Joseph, asking some one to watch over the well fair of his wife when he might not be able to, or might not be there for some other reason? You’ve never asked some one you trusted to watch over some you cared for before, it seems.

Where is the scripture to back this up? We can’t have it both ways.

I’ve checked 23 translations including the “The Jerusalem Bible” and all say brothers or brethren in the context of carpenter’s son with his mother Mary and sisters, a family unite.

You just added to scripture. The bible does not say that.

 

[Offdoodykcrn]

You are reading familial relationships into the scripture. It does not say that they are children of Mary - just that they are called brothers and sisters. Abram called Lot his “brother”, and Lot is clearly not a child of Sarai.

Do you believe that for 1,500 years, all of this huge family was, for some unknown reason, concealed by and from the faithful? For what purpose? As much as he came to hate the Pope and the Catholic Church, Martin Luther firmly believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. We must ask what has happened since the scriptures were turned over to every Thomas, Richard and Harry to interpret privately. Even Calvin himself spoke against “impious speculation” regarding Mary.

As well, the bible teaches us, without error, that scripture needs authoritative interpretation. Nehemiah 8:5-8 and Acts 8:26-35 teach this. Who interprets for you, and from where did they get their authority?

(reference: post #32 of this thread)
No, the fact that the brothers are named (with only the discrepancy of the name of one brother: Jude -v- Judas), immediately after identifying that Jesus was the son of the carpenter and his mother is Mary in Matthew 13:55-56, had been the most persuasive (IMO) in the debate, on the side that argues for the possibility that Mary and Joseph had other children. As far as whether or not Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus, I think this passage to be most persuasive (on that side of the debate)

Matthew 1:24-25
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
24 And Joseph [a]awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, 25 but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

I’m not debating Lot or any other Old Testament issues, I’m puzzled why you bring that up.

Note to others: I respect the position of the Church, and I understand the perpetual virginity of Mary is a precious concept to many Catholics. For me, the focus of my faith is in Christ. Whether Jesus was an only child or had numerous siblings, it doesn’t change his message or sacrifice. This conversation is in the spirit of friendly debate. I’ll debate almost anything, just tell me which side to argue. Some topics I feel passionate about and I’ll only argue the side I believe in, but this is not one of those topics.

 

[Augustine3]

Seems reasonable to think that the word ‘until’ could imply that things changed after the event. Otherwise, why even mention it?

“Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death” (2 Sam. 6:23) – Does this mean that Michal had children after she died?

“So they went up to Mount Zion with gladness and joy, and offered burnt offerings, because not one of them had fallen till they returned in safety” (1 Macc. 5:54) – Are we to read this verse to mean that the soldiers were killed after they returned from battle?

“And there was a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher; she was of a great age, having lived with her husband seven years from her virginity, and as a widow till she was eighty-four” (Lk 2:36-37) – Does this mean that Anna was no longer a widow after the age of eighty-four?

 

[adrift]

All I’m saying is that it is reasonable to interpret the use of the word “until” to mean that things could have changed afterward… otherwise why mention it at all? Or why not say Mary did not know man before, during or after her marriage to Joseph? Or Mary never knew man in her life on earth… As I’ve mentioned though, I think the more important question is why is Mary’s perpetual virginity important? Genuinely curious what opinions are out there?

No it is unreasonable to make up your own definition. The purpose of using it was to talk about the period of time before Jesus was born that is the meaning of until.

CATHOLIC: Actually, it does matter. Every doctrine about Mary tells us something about Christ or something about ourselves or the Church. Mary’s perpetual virginity demonstrates her purity of heart and total love for God. In 388, St. Ambrose of Milan wrote that Mary’s virginity was “so great an example of material virtue” because it demonstrated her total devotion to Jesus. In Mary, we see an example of the purity our own hearts must have in total dedication to God. Her virginity also tells us something about the Church, which, like Mary, is both mother to the faithful and “pure bride to her one husband” (2 Cor. 11:2).

 

[adrift]

I’ve checked 23 translations including the “The Jerusalem Bible” and all say brothers or brethren in the context of carpenter’s son with his mother Mary and sisters, a family unite. What a Hebrew thinks of the English word “Brethren” is irrelevant to the translation. The translation is the English view of what ever Greek words that are translated, in the case of the NT. Nice very lame try.

Besides why are you using Calvinism which is contrary to Catholicism to try and prove a Catholic view for?

Interesting that you say translation. How do you believe that the scripture came to be written. Do you believe that it was dictated by God word for word? Or was it written down by someone who was told by a witness? What language do you think the towns people spoke? The common language would have been Aramaic which had no word for cousin. Relationships were expressed as brothers as already been mentioned Abraham called his nephew brother. As I have already posted

I think the brothers and sisters term is quite easily accepted as the Greek translation of the Aramaic which did not distinguish between brother, half-brother, adopted brother, nephew, cousin, uncle etc.

Just think about it. You’re language does not distinguish a brother from a cousin. They are both refereed to as brother. You write a letter calling them a brother. The translator is not going to use cousin but what you called them, brother. Even today we know that Abraham was the Uncle and Lot the nephew but you don’t see it translated that way. They are called brother even though we know better. Same with this translation into the Greek. They use the usage of the Aramaic because the Aramaic does not have a word for cousn.

 

[Immacolata]

“Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death” (2 Sam. 6:23) – Does this mean that Michal had children after she died?

“So they went up to Mount Zion with gladness and joy, and offered burnt offerings, because not one of them had fallen till they returned in safety” (1 Macc. 5:54) – Are we to read this verse to mean that the soldiers were killed after they returned from battle?

“And there was a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher; she was of a great age, having lived with her husband seven years from her virginity, and as a widow till she was eighty-four” (Lk 2:36-37) – Does this mean that Anna was no longer a widow after the age of eighty-four?

Very good argument — I’ve seen it used before by Catholics defending Our Immaculate Lady’s perpetual virginity; the use of the word ‘until’ does not signify Joseph consummated his marriage with Mary any more than it means Michal had children after she had died, or Anna suddenly became unwidowed after the age of eighty-four.

I find something considerable to note, that was also noted by you; if Mary did intend to “know man,” why would she question Gabriel about the conception of Our Lord? Would she not simply assume this angel was telling her of an upcoming consummation (and subsequent conception) if she intended for this marriage to consummated? It would make sense that she did not intend to “know man,” given her confusion as to how exactly she was to conceive the “Son of the Most High.”

 

[PeaceInChrist]

Respectfully, there is one possible submition:

I’ve never understood why people get upset about the possibility of Mary having other children, but they do! I once made the mistake of suggesting after natural childbirth, the proof of virginity is gone. That was not well recieved, as you might guess. I respect the position of the Church, and I understand the perpetual virginity of Mary is a precious concept to many Catholics. For me, the focus of my faith is in Christ. Whether Jesus was an only child or had numerous siblings, it doesn’t change his message or sacrifice.

Nowhere does that say “Mary, the mother of Judas, ect”. A woman married to a widower can have children that aren’t hers. This is actually a very old tradition (first seen in writing in around 145 AD). Additionally, we come to the fact that extended family often lived together and were essentially considered brothers and sisters. When the Holy Family traveled to Jerusalem, notice they traveled with many relatives among which they assumed Christ was dwelling. You know, His brothers and sisters by other parents? Also known today as cousins. They were obviously close enough that Mary and Joseph would allow their only Son to be sight unseen for days while assuming He was with them, so it wouldn’t be unreasonable for them to be considered brothers and sisters, no?

I’ve never understood why people get so upset about the possibility of Mary not having other children, but they do! I once made the mistake of suggesting that focusing on Christ includes focusing on His friends and family, and the thousands of years of theological development discerned by those He appointed to guide us to Truth. That was not received well, as you might guess. For me, the focus of my faith is in Christ. Whether I choose to believe in His One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church solely on faith or whether I delve deeper into thousands of years of divine wisdom guided in Truth, it doesn’t change His message or sacrifice.

 

[po18guy]

(reference: post #32 of this thread)
No, the fact that the brothers are named (with only the discrepancy of the name of one brother: Jude -v- Judas),

From the Haydock bible commentary: Verse 55 His brethren. These were the children of Mary, the wife of Cleophas, sister of our blessed Lady; (Matthew xxviii. 56.; John xix. 25.) and therefore, according to the usual style of the Scripture, they were called brethren, that is, near relations to our Saviour. (Challoner)

Still, your opinion is your own, despite what the bible says.

I’m not debating Lot or any other Old Testament issues, I’m puzzled why you bring that up.

Please do not duck the question. An answer would be really helpful.

I respect the position of the Church

You say so. Your condescending and dismissive language says otherwise.

For me, the focus of my faith is in Christ.

Therefore, ours is not?