Mary ever-virgin?

[RyanL]

Attention, all: Mary is not the ark?!? I’m sorry…was that an “Infallible Proclaimation from the Holy See of Mike”? It sure sounded like an infallible pronouncement…if you weren’t being “infallible”, could you please let me know? Or perhaps you could use logic to refute what I have posted, rather than knee-jerk a definitive statement that isn’t based on anything other than opinion.

Let’s forget for a moment that God writes history like men write books, and ignore the fact that the above parallels are *certainly *there and are there by the power of God Himself, and let’s look at your “until” statement first:

Now, does Matthew’s use of “until” mean what [Mike] says it does? Not necessarily. The Greek word for “until” (heos) does not imply that Mary had marital relations after the birth of Christ. In 2 Samuel 6:23, we read that Michal, the daughter of Saul, had no child “until” the day of her death. (Rest assured that she didn’t have any children after that day, either.) Hebrews 1:13 and 1 Timothy 4:13 are similar examples.

When we interpret any passage, we must consider what the author was trying to say. Matthew’s intent here is not to explain what happened after the birth of Christ. He is only concerned with the fact that Joseph and Mary had no relations before then. It is the virgin birth, not later siblings, that Matthew is concerned with.
catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0007sbs.asp

So “until” clearly** does not mean** “absolutely must have afterwards” according to Sacred Scripture. That kinda’ destroys your argument here, Mike.

 

[RyanL]

mikeabele:

I have a feeling someone will post about aramiac having no distinction between blood brother and near relative, but that arguement does not bear true because the NT was written in mostly Greek, including these verses. You will also note if you read I Corinthians 9 that the apostles and Peter had wives, which the Catholic church chooses not to make priests those who are not celibate. Peter was married, now no one can be. Is this really the apostolic church from the pages of the NT?

Actually, Mike, you’re wrong on several counts. I really wish you would read the links I provide, as I offer you the same courtesy. Again, from catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0007sbs.asp

**
“But there was a Greek word for cousin, anepsios. If the brothers of the Lord were really his cousins, why wasn’t that word used?”**

Here is a common misconception to be on the lookout for: “Catholics teach that the brothers were actually cousins.” That’s not the Catholic position. In fact, we can’t tell if any of the “brothers” were cousins. All the Church affirms is that they were not children of Mary. They could have been children of Joseph from a prior marriage. But the specific word for cousin (anepsios) probably would not have been used in Matthew 13:55 unless all the “brothers” were cousins. If even one of them was not a cousin, the more general term " adelphoi" covers the situation. Even if all of them were cousins, the term “brother” could still be used by Matthew to appropriately describe them.

These things were taken for granted by the early Christians, who were familiar with the biblical languages and who knew that Mary was a lifelong virgin. In A.D. 380, Helvidius proposed that Mary had other children because of the “brothers” in Matthew 13:55. He was rebutted by Jerome, who was arguably the greatest biblical scholar of the day. The Protestant reformer John Calvin seconded Jerome: “Helvidius has shown himself too ignorant, in saying that Mary had several sons, because mention is made in some passages to the brothers of Christ” [quoted by Bernard Leeming, *Protestants and Our Lady, 9]
. Martin Luther agreed with Calvin that Mary was always a virgin, as did Ulrich Zwingli: “I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary” [E. Stakemeier, *De Mariologia et Oecumenismo, K. Balic, ed., 456].

Now, Mike, I believe that by your own admission you will tell us that “brothers” does not mean “brothers”, as to be true “brothers” you must share a mother AND father, and **you yourself don’t believe this. ** You believe that they were half-brothers, but notice that there is absolutely no basis for believing this OVER believing that they were step-brothers.

What say ye?
RyanL

 

[FuzzyBunny116]

"Then, the angel told him to lead her into the house as a wife (paralambano gunaika), but the language that describes marital relations is not used here. It was used, however, in Luke 1:35: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.” To “overshadow” a woman was a euphemism for having a marital relationship, as was the phrase “to lay one’s power” over a woman. The Holy Spirit had espoused Mary, and she had been consecrated, set apart for God.

Also, it appears that Mary** had made a vow of virginity**. When the angel said that she would conceive and bear a son, she asked, “How can this be, since I do not know man?” She knew how babies were made, and she was about to be married.** “How can this be?” would seem like a pretty silly question unless she had made a prior vow of virginity**."

 

[RyanL]

Oh, and if you want to discuss the celibacy of the clergy as being “biblical”, start a new thread.

RyanL

 

[mikeabele]

RyanL,

Of course I know that the children of Mary and Joseph were only half-brothers of Jesus. If these were children of Joseph from another marriage(which Scripture never mentions Joseph having any prior marriages-why not think of Joseph as a virgin too?), they would have NO relation to Jesus at all. The same is true if they were children of “another” Mary.

This will cover all your objections, as well as fuzzy’s,
justforcatholics.org/a105.htm

God bless

 

[RyanL]

mikeabele:

To all,

The ark of the convenant is not Mary.

just thought I might re-visit this, but only briefly (as it is easily proved incorrect).

mikeabele:

Notice the differences:

1. God dwelled above the ark not within

Well…the Holy Spirit “OVERSHADOWS” Mary…seems like “above” to me…also seems like the exact same language used in both…unless you’re claiming that the Holy Spirit is not God…

mikeabele:

1. No one died from touching Mary

Joseph wasn’t dumb enough to try! Thanks for re-affirming the perpetual virginity of Mary!

mikeabele:

1. No one camped around Mary

Except Jesus, for the first 30 or so years of His life. Oh, and the Apostle Christ loved, John, for the rest of Mary’s earthly life.

mikeabele:

1. The ark was built, Mary was born

Mary was “constructed”, so to speak, without sin. Sounds like part of a “design”… unless you think that God doesn’t build souls, and use humans to bring them into this word…

Finally, you **admit **that “brother” does not mean “brother”. Good. That’s one step closer to truth! You claim that if they were step-brothers they would have “no relation to Jesus”, and this is simply not biblical. According to Levitical Law, adopted family has the same legally binding status as natural children, and are to be reconned as “children”. This is why we have two different geneologies in Matthew and Luke - I don’t believe you can disagree here. It would be best not to try.

As for your link, I read it the first time you posted it and it was as weak a presentation then as it is now, and it answers next to none of the responses given to your charges. The Church does not hold celibacy above marriage, nor is marriage to be held above celibacy. If you think celibacy has no value, think of Christ having a wife and kids! Why did he not? Because what is concecrated to God is God’s alone, and to dishonor that is to dishonor God.

May Mary’s soul magnify the Lord for you, and may you learn to call her “Blessed”!

RyanL

 

[mikeabele]

RyanL,

I actually was quite puzzled as to the mention of the mary/ark statement. I did some searching and found its origin…

catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9112fea1.asp

December 1991 article by
*Patrick Madrid, a staff member of *Catholic Answers, is a Catholic apologist and evangelist
in response to this:

"His face stiffened, and his eyes narrowed to slits. Until now the Calvary Chapel pastor had been calm as he “shared the gospel” with me, but when I mentioned my belief in Mary’s Immaculate Conception, his attitude changed.

“The problem with you Roman Catholics,” he said, thin forefinger stabbing the air a few inches from my face, “is that you’ve added extra baggage to the gospel. How can you call yourselves Christians when you cling to unbiblical traditions like the Immaculate Conception? It’s not in the Bible–it was invented by the Roman Catholic system in 1854. Besides, Mary couldn’t have been sinless, only God is sinless. If she were without sin she could be God!”

Note the author of this piece is not a member of the Magisterium nor a Pope. I have not found it taught in the Catechism, and appears to be an invention of men(a very recent one at that) who have no divine protection in faith or morals.

He is also internally inconsistent in his statements within a single paragraph:

Granted, none of these verses “proves” Mary’s Immaculate Conception, but they all point to it. After all, the Bible nowhere says Mary committed any sin or languished under original sin. As far as explicit statements are concerned, the Bible is silent on most of the issue, yet all the biblical evidence supports the Catholic teaching.

RyanL, did you think I wasn’t paying attention to what you said?

RyanL:

As for your link, I read it the first time you posted it and it was as weak a presentation then as it is now, and it answers next to none of the responses given to your charges. The Church does not hold celibacy above marriage, nor is marriage to be held above celibacy. If you think celibacy has no value, think of Christ having a wife and kids! Why did he not? Because what is concecrated to God is God’s alone, and to dishonor that is to dishonor God.

Peter and the apostles had wives, but Rome does not allow this. So if you think that celibacy and marriage are of equal value to your church, then I suggest you find a married priest.

Christ did not have a wife and children because that was not the Father’s will, He was here to do the Father’s will(not Mary’s in His public ministry), He was sent to save His people from their sins.

Matthew 1:20-25

20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS**: for he shall save his people from their sins.** 22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. 24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

God bless

 

[FuzzyBunny116]

Celibate priests is a disciplinary measure. Paul even preached against married priests, if I’m not mistaken, saying that a priest married is concerned with pleasing his wife. A priest unmarried is concerned with pleasing God.

 

[STIOFAN]

mikeabele:

There may well been a 12 year gap, or perhaps the children were with the rest of their family. The Bible only mentions Jesus as a young man once, if there was a 12 year gap it explains more fully why Jesus did not leave His mother with younger children who could not care for her. On the other hand, we are told that Jesus’ brothers did not believe in Him until after His resurrection so Jesus left the care for His mother with a believer whom He loved…John.

mikeabele, who do you say John at the foot of the cross was ? I mean when he was standing along with Mary, when Jesus died.

 

[RyanL]

mikeabele:

I actually was quite puzzled as to the mention of the mary/ark statement.

You should be. The Truth of God confounds the wise… The parallels are too striking to ignore.

mikeabele:

I did some searching and found its origin…
December 1991 article by
*Patrick Madrid, a staff member of *Catholic Answers, is a Catholic apologist and evangelist

I suggest you fire your fact-checker. Let’s look and see what was said sometime prior to 1991:

O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all. O [Ark of the New] Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides. Should I compare you to the fertile earth and its fruits? You surpass them. . . . If I say that heaven is exalted, yet it does not equal you. . . . If we say that the cherubim are great, you are greater than they, for the cherubim carry the throne of God, while you hold God in your hands.

—St. Athanasius, quoted by L.Gambero in Mary and the Fathers of the Church (Ignatius Press, 1999), pp. 106-7

St. Athanasius

Bishop of Alexandria; Confessor and **Doctor of the Church**; **born c. 296; died 2 May, 373

**

Pat Madrid was about 1620 years behind on this one…and that’s what I found after about 5 minutes of searching…

mikeabele:

Note the author of this piece is not a member of the Magisterium nor a Pope. I have not found it taught in the Catechism, and appears to be an invention of men(a very recent one at that) who have no divine protection in faith or morals.

One need not be infallible to correctly exegete scripture. We, as Catholics, are encouraged to exegete scripture on our own - the limitation is placed when it contradicts official Church teaching (which this doesn’t).

mikeabele:

did you think I wasn’t paying attention to what you said?

well…actually…no, I didn’t think you were paying attention.

mikeabele:

Peter and the apostles had wives, but Rome does not allow this. So if you think that celibacy and marriage are of equal value to your church, then I suggest you find a married priest.

There are actually some 80 or so modern day Roman Catholic priests who are married - they were converts from Protestant ministries, who received dispensations. Additionally, Eastern Rite Catholics (who are still faithful to Rome) allow married clergy, with the support and consent of Rome. They are not necessissarily of equal value, but rather they are of different value and cannot really be compared. Again, if you would like to discuss the biblical basis for a celebate clergy…start a new thread.

RyanL

 

[RyanL]

mikeabele:

Christ did not have a wife and children because that was not the Father’s will, He was here to do the Father’s will(not Mary’s in His public ministry), He was sent to save His people from their sins.

After re-reading this, it seems like you have just made a fairly decent argument for a celebate priesthood. They are called to be living emissaries of Christ, and as such they make a vow to emulate Him as closely as possible.

While we are all called to immitate Christ, we are obviously not all to be celebate. Again, if you want to discuss a celebate priesthood being compatible with scripture, a new thread would really be more appropriate.

RyanL

 

[puzzleannie]

I am curious about the origin of disbelief among certain professed Christians in the perpetual virginity of Mary. It was unvarying belief of the early Church, held until the Reformation, the reformers believed it and it remains in the Apostles Creed and Nicene Creed most Christians profess. Barring the early heretics, who were answered definitively in early Church councils, when, where and among whom did this denial of doctrine first occur? Upon what authority did they challenge teaching. If the authority claims to be scripture, upon what authority did they interpret scripture differently than the Church? Thank you for the (name removed by moderator)ut. I am pretty well versed historical on events and personages of the Reformation, but not on 19th & 20th century movements and sects.

 

[Church_Militant]

RyanL:

Again, if you would like to discuss the biblical basis for a celebate clergy…start a new thread.
RyanL

Don’t bother with a new thread on Celibacy, the thread is already here : forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=43272
and you may find that you’re beatin’ a dead horse.
Pax vobiscum,

 

[DeFide]

For those who are interested, Tim Staples uses some other Bible verses besides what’s in the Catholic.com tracts to demonstrate the perpetual virginity of Mary:

geocities.com/thecatholicconvert/staplesmaryevervirgin.html

To sum up, from the Bible we can show that:

1. “Brethren” should not be assumed to mean uterine brotherhood.
2. “Until” should not be assumed to mean a reversal of condition afterwards.
3. Mary intended to lead a virginal life, consecrated to God.

 

[Zooey]

puzzleannie:

I am curious about the origin of disbelief among certain professed Christians in the perpetual virginity of Mary. It was unvarying belief of the early Church, held until the Reformation, the reformers believed it and it remains in the Apostles Creed and Nicene Creed most Christians profess. Barring the early heretics, who were answered definitively in early Church councils, when, where and among whom did this denial of doctrine first occur? Upon what authority did they challenge teaching. If the authority claims to be scripture, upon what authority did they interpret scripture differently than the Church? Thank you for the (name removed by moderator)ut. I am pretty well versed historical on events and personages of the Reformation, but not on 19th & 20th century movements and sects.

I can tell you that in the 18th century, that John Wesley believed in & taught that Mary was a perpetual virgin…So, I think we have to look to the 19th century, unless someone knows of an earlier date for denying it?
It seems to have popped up out of nowhere, as far as I can tell. As late as the '60s, I was taught in the Methodist tradition that Mary was a virgin her entire life. (I’m not saying it was that recent, only that her perpetual virginity was still being taught by Protestant pastors, as truth at that time). I was appalled the 1st time I heard someone suggest otherwise…

 

[Axion]

mikeabele:

Matt 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? 56 "And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” 57 And they took offense at Him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his home town, and in his *own *household.”

Mike,

I notice you have **still ** not responded to posts 7 and 8 which deal with these quotes which you still **spamming ** the thread with.

So that you do not miss them a third time I now post again the response I made at the start of the thread with respect to the so-called brothers of Jesus.

There is a problem with trying to understand 1st Century texts reporting ancient Hebrew culture, on the basis of twenty first century suburban western attitudes and a poor English translation.

The words “brothers” and “sisters” in Aramaic - and in many other languages has a meaning that extends to all close kinsfolk.

In fact while James and Joses are mentioned as Jesus’s brothers in Matthew 13:55, it is made clear in Mathew 27:56 and Mark 15:40 that their mother was ANOTHER Mary.

Matthew 27.55 There were also many women there, looking on from afar, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him; 56 among whom were Mary Mag’dalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zeb’edee.

This other Mary is identified in John 19:25, where a literal translation of the original Greek states. “But by he cross of Jesus the Mother of Him AND the sister of the Mother of Him, Mary the wife of Cleopas AND Mary the Magdalene.”

The precise positioning of the ANDs makes it clear that there were three women called Mary here, and that Mary the wife of Cleophas (called the Virgin Mary’s sister) is the same as the mother of Joses and James.

Jude/Judas identifies himself in his epistle as BROTHER of James, but significantly only as SERVANT of Jesus. To have identified himself as Jesus’s blood brother would have added enormous weight to his epistle, but he doesn’t so identify himself here. We know the reason, because James and Joseph are identified as sons of the OTHER Mary in Matthew 27 and Mark 15. Judas then seems to be another son of Mary the wife of Clopas.

 

[Axion]

My other response was this…

The Third Apostle James?

In order to allege that the Apostle James, “brother” of Jesus was a Son of Mary, you have to invent a shadowy third Apostle called James. Is this credible?

James “Brother of Jesus” is referred to as one of the APOSTLES by Paul in Galatians 1.9. Yet we know from Matthew 10:2-4 that neither of the Apostles named James was actually a Son of the Virgin Mary! One of the Apostles James, is however, the Son of ALPHAEUS, who most bible scholars agree is the same person as Clopas - already identified as Father of James and Joseph.

So if James “brother of Jesus” was an Apostle, he cannot have been a son of Mary.

One can argue that a third James, supposed blood brother of Jesus, was elevated to the Apostleship at some time after the resurrection. However this presents a number of difficulties.

a) Why is this “third James” never mentioned in the gospel accounts?
b) Why would the Apostles take a non-apostle as their leader in Jerusalem?
b) Why is the 3rd James’s elevation to Apostle not mentioned in scripture?
c) Why did Jesus give Mary as Mother to John, if this “third James” existed?
d) What happened to the “second” James, son of Alphaeus after the resurrection? If we imagine a “third James”, then James the Apostle, son of Alphaeus disappears from history mysteriously at exactly the same time the supposed “third James”, just as mysteriously appears.

Is it not obvious that it is James the Apostle, Cousin of Jesus, who is the Apostle and “brother of the Lord” of the early church in Jerusalem?

The “Third James” hypothesis doesn’t hold water.

 

[Axion]

mikeabele:

**Matthew 1:18-19(DRV)**18 Now the generation of Christ was in this wise. When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child, of the Holy Ghost. 19 Whereupon Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing publicly to expose her, was minded to put her away privately.

Another rope of sand.

“Before Sarah entered the taxi Mark gave her a lift.”

By the same reasoning you try to use, this is “proof” that after Mark gave her a lift, Sarah got in a taxi anyway!

I will shortly post some verses to PROVE that Mary had children after Jesus.

There are no such verses.

 

[RyanL]

mikeabele:

I actually was quite puzzled as to the mention of the mary/ark statement. I did some searching and found its origin…

Mike,
Since you’re taking your time replying, I decided to look into the “origin” of this a bit more. The earliest written mention of this I could find was from St. Gregory of Neocaesarea:

**St. Gregory of Neocaesarea: Born at Neocaesarea in Pontus (Asia Minor) about 213; died there 270-275

Gregory

of Neo-Caesarea (3rd Century) quotes Psalm 132 as referring to Mary: “Arise O Lord to Thy resting place; Thou and the ark of Thy sanctification” (Psalm 132:8). In this regard, he said, “For the holy Virgin is in truth an ark, wrought with gold both within and without (Exodus 25:10-11, 37:1-2), that has received the whole treasury of the sanctuary” (Homily I on the Annunciation).**

If you assume this was written at the end of St. Gregory’s life, this still places the thought some 100 years or so before the cannonization of the NEW TESTAMENT! So quite literally, this teaching is older than the Bible! I say that tongue-in-cheek; I know when the various books were written. Yet, there is an element of truth to this. The NT was still being hotly disputed, but this guy comes along preaching ‘Mary: Ark of the Covenant’, and no one seems to even lift an eyebrow. Makes you wonder how old this teaching really is!

‘spiritual ark’: Modestus of Jerusalem (7th Century).
‘The the ark prefigured the Virgin who gave birth to God, the propitiation of the world, for in it lay the urn with the manna that fed Israel’: Romanos Melodes (550 AD).
‘She is the ark, guilded inside and outside, sanctified in body and spirit, where were found the thurible of gold and the urn with manna’: Pseudo-Proclus (8th-9th Century).
‘spiritual and divine ark of the New Covenant’: St. Germanus of Constantinople (634-732 AD).
‘See here the new ark of the glory of God in which lies the golden urn that contained the manna that fed Israel’: St. Andrew of Crete (660-740 AD).

So it would seem that this idea arises from the earliest Christians, and is fairly consistantly taught throughout the centuries. Oh, and so you don’t think it’s some subsequent application by Rome, it is interesting to note that the Orthodox recognize this as well. While there are 1.1 billion Roman Catholics, some 70 million Baptists, 77 million Anglicans, and 60 million Lutherans, we largely ignore the 220 million Orthodox. This is a particularly western phenomenon, and I can’t really explain it. That said, the Orthodox do not recognize Rome as an authority, and haven’t since about 1000 AD, and they believe this as well (some of the names above are Eastern Fathers of the Church).

As the Anglican Church (who, needless to say, does not recognize Rome as an authority) recently signed a joint agreement with the Vatican that said the Blessed Virgin remaining a virgin is compatible and consistant with scripture, it would put you in the extreme minority of all christians who have ever walked the planet to continue to hold this view.

As far as Mary having sexual relations - again, none of the Reformers believed this, none of the Church Fathers believed this, none of the 1st-4th century christians believed this (including heretics), and the overwhelming majority of the christian world today still believes the same christian beliefs as all of the above. It doesn’t hurt your theology to cede the point, and it may just please our Lord Jesus Christ to quit calling His mother names (like “one who bears the child of one, yet has conjugal relations with another” - I think you know the name I have in mind).

Finally,
If you think the Ark/Mary parallel was something, ask about the Eve/Mary parallel - it will blow your mind! You will never be able to read the Bible again without seeing Mary all over the place!

RyanL

 

[mikeabele]

To answer the above posts,

Psalm 69:8-9

8 I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother’s children. 9 For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me.

If you want to argue that “brethren” are not children of Mary, but some other relation or some other Mary, fine. But they are His mother’s children. So either Mary is a virgin and never bore Jesus, or she isn’t ever-virgin. I agree with you that she was a virgin when she gave birth to Christ, that blessed event is unmistaken. If you think I’m misquoting this prophetic psalm, read John 2:17. Scripture is clear, Mary was not ever-virgin.