Mary not a Virgin

  • Thread starter Thread starter Montie_Claunch
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mary was a consecrated virgin to the Temple. Joseph according to some traditions, was her appointed guadian. It was not uncommon for very young virgins to be put under the protectorate of an older, devote and dedicated member of the elders of the temple, who probably included widowers.

I do not know if that is true between Mary and Joseph but it would account for him dying before the start of the Lords public ministry. It also accounts for the Lord’s brothers and sisters.

But in Hebrew, it was not uncommon for cousins and even uncles and aunts to be called ‘brothers and sisters’.

It is my belief that Mary was a consecrated virgin all her life.
 
I just got a book called “Aquinas’s Shorter Summa.” Has anyone in here ever read it? His theology on Mary is beautiful and pretty deep.

I think it was Cardinal Newman who said it best “The more we focus on Mary, the more we focus on Christ. And the less we focus on Mary, the less we focus on Christ.” I understand what he means now.

God bless everyone.
 
Sixtus said:
Mary was a consecrated virgin to the Temple. Joseph according to some traditions, was her appointed guadian. It was not uncommon for very young virgins to be put under the protectorate of an older, devote and dedicated member of the elders of the temple, who probably included widowers.

I do not know if that is true between Mary and Joseph but it would account for him dying before the start of the Lords public ministry. It also accounts for the Lord’s brothers and sisters.

But in Hebrew, it was not uncommon for cousins and even uncles and aunts to be called ‘brothers and sisters’.

It is my belief that Mary was a consecrated virgin all her life.
Click to expand...
This could be true and I concede the possibility that it could. But it could also be made up to support the catholic position. I have no way of knowing, as Scripture doesn’t say.
 
The_Catholic said:
I just got a book called “Aquinas’s Shorter Summa.” Has anyone in here ever read it? His theology on Mary is beautiful and pretty deep.

I think it was Cardinal Newman who said it best “The more we focus on Mary, the more we focus on Christ. And the less we focus on Mary, the less we focus on Christ.” I understand what he means now.

God bless everyone.
Click to expand...
I have not read that book by Aquinas; please let us know how it was when you are done.

I’d like to understand how you understand what he means by that. I could accept that the more we show honour to Mary the more we will love Christ but I can’t understand how we can focus more on Christ if we focus more on Mary.

God bless you too.
 
Study the Church’s teachings about Mary, the grace that was bestowed upon her because of Jesus Christ’s Blood. Her humblness, her sinlessness, is all because of God and the shedding of Christ’s blood. So we don’t simply say “oh, she was perfect they say, never did wrong when everyone else sins,” but that everything she did, she was, she IS is all due to God’s glory and Jesus’ death on the cross. She was the temple for the Lord. Mind boggling!

I hope that helps.
 
That does help. Thank you. Anything about her or anything she did was all because of God. I don’t believe she was sinless but even if she were, it would still be because of God. Up til your post I got the impression that people believed she was “vrituous” for lack of a better word in her own strength.
 
hoosierdaddy said:
That does help. Thank you. Anything about her or anything she did was all because of God. I don’t believe she was sinless but even if she were, it would still be because of God. Up til your post I got the impression that people believed she was “vrituous” for lack of a better word in her own strength.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the kind words. Yeah, honestly, there have been some Catholics who have gone way overboard about Mary, there was even a group in the early centuries that worshipped her as a godess, but the Church condemed them.

But over all the Catholic Church always teaches that the purness of Mary comes 100% from Christ!
 
The_Catholic said:
Thanks for the kind words. Yeah, honestly, there have been some Catholics who have gone way overboard about Mary, there was even a group in the early centuries that worshipped her as a godess, but the Church condemed them.

But over all the Catholic Church always teaches that the purness of Mary comes 100% from Christ!
Click to expand...
You’re welcome. I am glad the church condemned them for worshipping her as a goddess (as long as they left room for repentance).

Yes, Mary’s purity came from Christ just as ours does.👍
 
I’ve heard a few priests as well as apologists, who have studied ancient Aramaaic, state that the language did not have words for “cousin”, “aunt” or “uncle”.
The Aramaaic word for “Brethren” actually meant “kin”.

I believe this can be verified by doing an online search. (I just woke up a few minutes ago and haven’t had time to look it up yet.) If I find it, I’ll post it a little later.

God Bless, and I wish you all a Happy, Healthy and Holy New Year! 🙂
 
hoosierdaddy said:
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?
Click to expand...
Human sexuality has been corrupted by original sin such that, though marraige was made for man so that those that have not the virtue of continence may live without sin, the act itself is corrupting.

If you find that hard to accept, consider the man who is forced to make his living as a second-hand car salesman. His primary duty is to his family, so it is not sinful to take the job. He need not actually lie to his customers. However if you’ve ever done sales you will know that the whole process engenders a cyncial attitude to other people … “What’s your full name?” Eyes down. First one to speak loses …
 
Malcolm_McLean said:
Human sexuality has been corrupted by original sin such that, though marraige was made for man so that those that have not the virtue of continence may live without sin, the act itself is corrupting.

If you find that hard to accept, consider the man who is forced to make his living as a second-hand car salesman. His primary duty is to his family, so it is not sinful to take the job. He need not actually lie to his customers. However if you’ve ever done sales you will know that the whole process engenders a cyncial attitude to other people … “What’s your full name?” Eyes down. First one to speak loses …
Click to expand...
I disagree that sex between a husband and wife is “corrupting.” As long as it’s done pure and not lustfully. Sex is meant for bonding with your mate and to have children.
 
Have them read the bible. Thats a great start. The accusations against Mary not being a virgin her whole life is not something they can prove. God chose Mary and gave her sanctifying grace and kept her from the original stain of sin. She gave her life to God and accepted it. Was she subject to sin?, yes but she did not. Even though scripture mentions Jesus’ brothers and cousins doesn’t not imply Mary conceived children after him. When you start looking at the context of scripture and the language used it does not imply Mary had additional children. Read “Catholicism and Fundamentalism” by Karl Keating. In it you will find a chapter on this topic in very great detail. Worth your time. I pray to all those asking the why’s and what’s that the holy Spirit helps them seek the answers. God bless you.
 
ddmason said:
Have them read the bible. **Thats a great start. The accusations against Mary not being a virgin her whole life is not something they can prove. **God chose Mary and gave her sanctifying grace and kept her from the original stain of sin. She gave her life to God and accepted it. Was she subject to sin?, yes but she did not. Even though scripture mentions Jesus’ brothers and cousins doesn’t not imply Mary conceived children after him. When you start looking at the context of scripture and the language used it does not imply Mary had additional children. Read “Catholicism and Fundamentalism” by Karl Keating. In it you will find a chapter on this topic in very great detail. Worth your time. I pray to all those asking the why’s and what’s that the holy Spirit helps them seek the answers. God bless you.
Click to expand...
Why do we have to prove a negative? Shouldn’t you instead have to prove that Mary was a virgin her whole life? Where does Scripture say that Mary didn’t sin? Just as you Catholics are offended by certain things I and others say, I am offended that you would declare a “thus saith the Lord” when the Lord hadn’t saith.
 
hoosierdaddy said:
Why do we have to prove a negative? Shouldn’t you instead have to prove that Mary was a virgin her whole life? Where does Scripture say that Mary didn’t sin? Just as you Catholics are offended by certain things I and others say, I am offended that you would declare a “thus saith the Lord” when the Lord hadn’t saith.
Click to expand...
If I told you that there is a sale on bed linens at Walmart, would you believe me? Or would I have to write it down for you?

If the early Church said that Mary remained ever-Virgin, would you believe it? Or would it have to be written down for you?

The Early Church Fathers of the Church did both. They told their disciples about the Perpetual Virginity of Mary AND they wrote of this in their letters to the Churches and to one another.

Since you were not there (and they were), what documentation can you provide that what the ECF’s said is wrong?
 
Luther, Calvin and Zwingli all held to the perpetual virginity of Mary and they based their views on Scripture.

And the great evangelical preacher John Wesley also based his view that Mary remained a virgin and bore no other children on Scripture. And this was a couple hundreds years after the “reformers” left the Church.

Gene
 
Randy_Carson said:
If I told you that there is a sale on bed linens at Walmart, would you believe me? Or would I have to write it down for you?

This is just being disrespectful and confrontational. Go find someone else to fight with.

If the early Church said that Mary remained ever-Virgin, would you believe it? Or would it have to be written down for you?

The fact that it is not written down in Scripture is a pretty good indication to me that it’s not true. But feel free to add to God’s Word. Don’t expect me to join you.

The Early Church Fathers of the Church did both. They told their disciples about the Perpetual Virginity of Mary AND they wrote of this in their letters to the Churches and to one another.

**Where does the Scriptures say that Mary was a perpetual virgin? **

Since you were not there (and they were), what documentation can you provide that what the ECF’s said is wrong?

Scripture. And I see that you can’t provide Scripture to prove them right.👍
Click to expand...
 
40.png
dafalax:
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.
Click to expand...
I think Ezekiel 44:1-2 might be a good explanation for why Joseph did not have relations with Mary after the birth of Jesus:
Then he brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary, facing the east; but it was closed. He said to me: This gate is to remain closed; it is not to be opened for anyone to enter by it; since the LORD, the God of Israel, has entered by it, it shall remain closed.
Click to expand...
 
hoosierdaddy said:
Doesn’t the term “brothers of Jesus” qualify as proof that Mary had other children?
Click to expand...
Acts 1:15 tells us,
During those days Peter stood up in the midst of the brothers (there was a group of about one hundred and twenty persons in the one place).
Click to expand...
120 brothers? That’s not Mary Ever Virgin, that’s Mary Ever Pregnant! :eek:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top