Mary not a Virgin

  • Thread starter Thread starter Montie_Claunch
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Montie_Claunch

Guest
How should one responde to the accusation against Mary’s Perpetual Virginaty when people quote Matthew 1:25 (I think) with the infomous “Not Until”? Thanks and God bless.
 
Until, means up to an event, but dosen’t have to mean after the event. God loved her until the day she died. Did God not love her after she died? She bore no children till the day she died. Did she bear children after her death? Until we meet again, may God bless you…etc… etc…
 
Go here
scripturecatholic.com/
Scroll down to the topic “Virgin Mary” on the left side of the page – click.
Scroll down to VIII “Misunderstandings about Matthew 1:25”
There are eleven Scripture references on the use of the word “until,” showing that it does not imply subsequent events.
 
Montie_Claunch said:
How should one responde to the accusation against Mary’s Perpetual Virginaty when people quote Matthew 1:25 (I think) with the infomous “Not Until”? Thanks and God bless.
Click to expand...
If I say I will not have another alcoholic drink until the day I die does that mean I will have one after I am dead??
 
Also ask them if, as a man, they would feel comfortable having relations with a woman who had conceived by God. Joseph would have had to be an ego-maniac.
 
Hi Dafalax,

That is a gratuitous statement and has no apologetical value.

Verbum
 
1 Corinthians 15:25 Christ “must reign until He has put all his enemies under His feet” does this mean that “after” He has put His enemies under His feet, christ will cease to reign?? NO Christ will reign forever Luke 1:32-33.
 
You know, I can’t remember where I read it, but the early church fathers covered this exact point, with the same responses that these posters are using. That was nearly 1600 years ago, why do people still bring up these issues.
When I first heard the Catholic answers apologists used these arguements, I thought wow, they are pretty smart, until I realized that all they did was research the Fathers, and repeat what the Church taught and believed a very long time ago.
 
Montie_Claunch said:
How should one responde to the accusation against Mary’s Perpetual Virginaty when people quote Matthew 1:25 (I think) with the infomous “Not Until”? Thanks and God bless.
Click to expand...
How did we miss “not until” for 2000 years? I guess Catholics really don’t read the bible.
 
Montie_Claunch said:
How should one responde to the accusation against Mary’s Perpetual Virginaty when people quote Matthew 1:25 (I think) with the infomous “Not Until”? Thanks and God bless.
Click to expand...
The same way one responds to Matthew 28:20. “And behold, I am with you always until the end of the age.” Does one really believe that Jesus will leave us ***after ***the end of the age? Matthew 1:25 was stated this way to stress the fact that Joseph could in no way be the biological father of Jesus. There are many other biblical verses that I’m sure other posters alluded to where the word “until” did not refer to an event occuring after the fact. It’s so hard to express 2000 years of historical Christianity when one wants to proof-text one biblical verse but those are the cards we’re dealt.:hmmm:
 
Dare 'em to say it again. :whistle:

Seriously though, they love to trot out “until” and “brothers of Jesus”, but where is it mentioned “sons/daughters of Mary”?
If they want to deny Our Lady’s Perpetual Virginity make them produce evidence of Mary having other children. They can’t, because there is none.
 
Hi

There Are Five Good Arguments That Mary
Was Ever Virgin In The 3rd Part Of Summa
Theologica. Its Good Proof But It May Not
Work In A Protestant Who’s Mindset Is
Full Of Fables
Ronald44481
 
Verbum said:
Hi Dafalax,

That is a gratuitous statement and has no apologetical value.

Verbum
Click to expand...
Father Mitch Pacwa made the same argument (different words, obviously) last night on EWTN. But hey, what does he know about apologetics?
The apologetical argument might more properly be worded in explaining biblical references where people were set aside for God and did not have relations. Peter left his family to follow Christ and establish His church, but was still married enough to have Jesus heal his mother-in-law.
 
Doesn’t the term “brothers of Jesus” qualify as proof that Mary had other children?

With all due respect everyone, what harm is done if Mary had other children? Would that be some sort of evil? (Edited by Moderator as unneccesary) What say you?
 
Ok, I wasn’t aware that our posts get edited for no reason. I can see already that I’m the new guy therefore I must be the bad guy. I’ll have to keep my posts to a bare minimum and not really say anything I guess.

Thanks for the links. I still think since Mary was with Joseph, that they had “natural marriage activities” (is that ok?). I also think it’s too easy for Catholics to say “brethren in the Lord”. I’d rather stick with Scripture and go with “Jesus’ brothers”. Oops…I already said too much.:confused:
 
Hi Hoosier__,

Try to read all the posts. It is not a question of whether it would be a “bad thing” for Mary to have children. It’s a question of what God’s revealed truth (scripture + Tradition) is.

See reference on my post (third from the top).

Verbum
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top