mary, the eternal virgin?

[wmscott]

not trying to challenge, but if they were joseph’s children from another marriage, wouldn’t they have been mentioned on the trip to the census around the time of Jesus’ birth?

and i am reading the Bible, which is just breeding more questions.

Questions are a good thing.

Now to the questions of St Joseph’s other children being mentioned on the trip to answer to the census. Could it be that they were already adults at this time? Or perhaps traveling with an aunt or uncle or adult son of St Joseph? A few possibilities to think about.

 

[Nicea325]

I’m sorry, I should have been more specific.

Matt 13:55-57: “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? (56) And are not all his sisters with us?” (57) And they took offense at him. But Jesus said unto them, “Ap prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and in his own household”

Matt 13:55-57: “Is not this THE carpenter’s son? …”

Now,if Jesus had other siblings,then why would the Gospel writer say:

THE and not: one of the carpenter’s son or is not this a son of the carpenter?

My question is if Jesus did indeed have brothers/sisters conceived by Mary,why not mention them at all? Second, scripture gives us no hints of Mary giving birth to other children. The common verses used by many where it says:brothers and sisters is a dead horse being beat over and over again.

What I do not understand is why so many people insistent Mary had to have other children? Why? Because it goes against their own personal choices and decisions to marry and conceive children?

Why is it so hard for them to accept Mary remained a virgin her whole life? Is it IMPOSSIBLE? That would be like stating that not one woman today has the possibility of remaining a virgin. It is absurd to insist on something (not remain a virgin) when some people choose to live it out their entire lives.

 

[wanderingbaptis]

wmscott-- very good points.

nicea-- I’m extremely sorry if I’ve offended you. I was raised in a different faith and idea of Mary as the perpetual virgin is very new to me, and I’m just trying to figure some things out, and I thought that this would be an appropriate place to ask the question. I’m not against the idea, or insisting that Mary did not in fact remain a virgin. I’m just new to exploring the scriptures and am simply trying to find out the truth. Again, I’m extremely sorry if I’ve offended anyone by my question, I was just trying to find out where the belief of the perpetual virgindom came from. Thank you to everyone who has answered my questions/comments with constructive criticism and instructions, and I appreciate the prayers offered while I continue to study the Bible.

 

[cruisin]

I tend to look at Luke’s text more than matthews when trying to decide if Mary was ever virgin.

Luke is writing to a none Jew convert, Theophilus. Luke seems to be determined to give a precise account of what had Transpired from the begining.

Luke: 3Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Luke reports Joseph and Mary where already pledged to be married before the angel came. So when did Joseph understand this unique role he was suppose to play? And your evidence is?

IIf Mary had sworn an oath to God to remain a virgin as contended why would Luke not report it here? If Joseph had this unique role of protector only, why would Luke Not report it here? If this information is so critical, why is it not mentioned? espeicially if what the CC claims about Mary was taught from the beginning, and Lukes intention is to support what Theopholius was taught?

26In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary.

Luke also uses brother to describe Jesus siblings and the children of Mary. If he was being as accurate as he claims, and wished Theophilus to know the THRUTH, why where words and sentence structure not choosen to be more specific, correctly reflecting that these siblings where only cousins or half brothers and not children of Mary?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

wmscott-- very good points.

nicea-- I’m extremely sorry if I’ve offended you. I was raised in a different faith and idea of Mary as the perpetual virgin is very new to me, and I’m just trying to figure some things out, and I thought that this would be an appropriate place to ask the question. I’m not against the idea, or insisting that Mary did not in fact remain a virgin. I’m just new to exploring the scriptures and am simply trying to find out the truth. Again, I’m extremely sorry if I’ve offended anyone by my question, I was just trying to find out where the belief of the perpetual virgindom came from. Thank you to everyone who has answered my questions/comments with constructive criticism and instructions, and I appreciate the prayers offered while I continue to study the Bible.

Actually, the belief that Mary was ever virgin was one held at the very beginnings of Christianity. First, the Bible never lists any child of Mary other than Jesus and never says that she had any children other than Jesus. In fact she is never explicitly said to have relations with Joseph at all. Indeed, to have Mary ‘loaned’ as a vessel, for God to ‘take’ her virginity, have a Son through her, and then say to Joseph, “OK, you use her now” would be horrible behavior. It would be like making Jesus a kind of ‘demi-god’. Greek and Roman myths are full of stories of Zeus/Jupiter having ‘relations’ with human woman and the women giving birth to ‘god-like’ children. In fact, many of the women had twin pregnancies where they conceived one child by the god and one by the human husband (look up Castor and Pollux)

The very earliest written prayer to Mary (the Subtuum, circa about 250AD) addresses her as Virgin. This is during the time that Christianity was being persecuted. Furthermore, when heresies popped up as they frequently did (pelagianism, Arianism, gnosticism, monophyitism, iconoclasty, etc.) they were dealt with. If the idea of Mary being ‘ever Virgin’ had been a new or heretical belief, it would have been addressed.

The very founders of the Reformation–Calvin, Luther, Zwingli et. al–referred to Mary as perpetual Virgin.

Between AD 250 and AD 1600 then we see and hear nothing but that Mary is ever-Virgin. And then suddenly, a ‘different gospel’ based on cherry picking of Scripture and a deep-rooted desire to cast off all things seen as overtly ‘papist’ led to the great misunderstanding of some (not all) Protestants regarding Mary.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I tend to look at Luke’s text more than matthews when trying to decide if Mary was ever virgin.

Luke is writing to a none Jew convert, Theophilus. Luke seems to be determined to give a precise account of what had Transpired from the begining.

Luke: 3Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Luke reports Joseph and Mary where already pledged to be married before the angel came. So when did Joseph understand this unique role he was suppose to play? And your evidence is?

IIf Mary had sworn an oath to God to remain a virgin as contended why would Luke not report it here? If Joseph had this unique role of protector only, why would Luke Not report it here? If this information is so critical, why is it not mentioned? espeicially if what the CC claims about Mary was taught from the beginning, and Lukes intention is to support what Theopholius was taught?

26In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary.

Luke also uses brother to describe Jesus siblings and the children of Mary. If he was being as accurate as he claims, and wished Theophilus to know the THRUTH, why where words and sentence structure not choosen to be more specific, correctly reflecting that these siblings where only cousins or half brothers and not children of Mary?

Can you tell me why, if Mary planned to have sexual relations with Joseph, she said to the angel, “How can this be since I do not know man?”

Remember, the angel had said, “You will conceive and bear a son.” The NORMAL reaction of a woman who was engaged and about to marry would have been, "Oh, so Joe and I are gonna have a boy, hurrah.’

But Mary says, “How?”

She is not stupid. She isn’t asking “How do babies get borned”. . .she is saying that she KNOWS men and women marry and conceive children, normally, but how is this going to happen to HER because she does not know man. . .not just now BEFORE the wedding but not planning to ever.

 

[Nicea325]

wmscott-- very good points.

nicea-- I’m extremely sorry if I’ve offended you. I was raised in a different faith and idea of Mary as the perpetual virgin is very new to me, and I’m just trying to figure some things out, and I thought that this would be an appropriate place to ask the question. I’m not against the idea, or insisting that Mary did not in fact remain a virgin. I’m just new to exploring the scriptures and am simply trying to find out the truth. Again, I’m extremely sorry if I’ve offended anyone by my question, I was just trying to find out where the belief of the perpetual virgindom came from. Thank you to everyone who has answered my questions/comments with constructive criticism and instructions, and I appreciate the prayers offered while I continue to study the Bible.

wanderingbaptis:

Oh not at all. You did not offend me by asking your questions. That is what one needs to do. Ask all you want and we will answer.

I was only expressing my feelings as to why many people insist she had other children and I do not understand why?

 

[Nicea325]

Actually, the belief that Mary was ever virgin was one held at the very beginnings of Christianity. First, the Bible never lists any child of Mary other than Jesus and never says that she had any children other than Jesus. In fact she is never explicitly said to have relations with Joseph at all. Indeed, to have Mary ‘loaned’ as a vessel, for God to ‘take’ her virginity, have a Son through her, and then say to Joseph, “OK, you use her now” would be horrible behavior. It would be like making Jesus a kind of ‘demi-god’. Greek and Roman myths are full of stories of Zeus/Jupiter having ‘relations’ with human woman and the women giving birth to ‘god-like’ children. In fact, many of the women had twin pregnancies where they conceived one child by the god and one by the human husband (look up Castor and Pollux)

The very earliest written prayer to Mary (the Subtuum, circa about 250AD) addresses her as Virgin. This is during the time that Christianity was being persecuted. Furthermore, when heresies popped up as they frequently did (pelagianism, Arianism, gnosticism, monophyitism, iconoclasty, etc.) they were dealt with. If the idea of Mary being ‘ever Virgin’ had been a new or heretical belief, it would have been addressed.

The very founders of the Reformation–Calvin, Luther, Zwingli et. al–referred to Mary as perpetual Virgin.

Between AD 250 and AD 1600 then we see and hear nothing but that Mary is ever-Virgin. And then suddenly, a ‘different gospel’ based on cherry picking of Scripture and a deep-rooted desire to cast off all things seen as overtly ‘papist’ led to the great misunderstanding of some (not all) Protestants regarding Mary.

Very true. If the belief of Mary remaining an ever-virgin was a novel belief or heretical,the early church would have addressed it and would have attacked it like other heresies. But it does not at any ecumenical council.

 

[cruisin]

Can you tell me why, if Mary planned to have sexual relations with Joseph, she said to the angel, “How can this be since I do not know man?”

Remember, the angel had said, “You will conceive and bear a son.” The NORMAL reaction of a woman who was engaged and about to marry would have been, "Oh, so Joe and I are gonna have a boy, hurrah.’

But Mary says, “How?”

She is not stupid. She isn’t asking “How do babies get borned”. . .she is saying that she KNOWS men and women marry and conceive children, normally, but how is this going to happen to HER because she does not know man. . .not just now BEFORE the wedding but not planning to ever.

So your implication is that a first century Jewish betrrothed couple would be having intercourse during the betrothal period, which is before the wedding day?

interesting…

where does it say that she never planned to have intercouse and have children. you are unable to definativly proove this from the text. above.you are adding your own interpretation into what Mary said.

remember they where engaged before the Angel came. Did they plan to have kids then not plan to have more kids? did they some how know that this was going to happen?

Why wouldn’t Luke report these ideas of yours to Theophilus, if what you are saying was believed from the very beiginning. Didn’t he wish to reinforce his charges beliefs… ??

Again, In view of the relationship between Luke and Theophilus, and Lukes intent, why didn’t Luke report these things as you say?

 

[Nicea325]

So your implication is that a first century Jewish betrrothed couple would be having intercourse during the betrothal period, which is before the wedding day?

interesting…

where does it say that she never planned to have intercouse and have children. you are unable to definativly proove this from the text. above.you are adding your own interpretation into what Mary said.

remember they where engaged before the Angel came. Did they plan to have kids then not plan to have more kids? did they some how know that this was going to happen?

Why wouldn’t Luke report these ideas of yours to Theophilus, if what you are saying was believed from the very beiginning. Didn’t he wish to reinforce his charges beliefs… ??

Again, In view of the relationship between Luke and Theophilus, and Lukes intent, why didn’t Luke report these things as you say?

where does it say that she never planned to have intercouse and have children. you are unable to definativly proove this from the text. above.you are adding your own interpretation into what Mary said.

And where does it say she planned to have intercourse and more children? You also cannot prove it and are adding your own interpolations. Your argument is circular.

 

[benidict]

So your implication is that a first century Jewish betrrothed couple would be having intercourse during the betrothal period, which is before the wedding day?

interesting…

where does it say that she never planned to have intercouse and have children. you are unable to definativly proove this from the text. above.you are adding your own interpretation into what Mary said.

remember they where engaged before the Angel came. Did they plan to have kids then not plan to have more kids? did they some how know that this was going to happen?

Why wouldn’t Luke report these ideas of yours to Theophilus, if what you are saying was believed from the very beiginning. Didn’t he wish to reinforce his charges beliefs… ??

Again, In view of the relationship between Luke and Theophilus, and Lukes intent, why didn’t Luke report these things as you say?

interesting you should bring this up. why would Mary make this statement to the angel, since she was betrothed. the angel did not tell her before this when the child was to be born. since she was betrothed, she could have just assumed it was going to be a natural child, between her and Joseph, if she were planning on having relations with him. her question of the angel, if anything, shows there was a very good chance she had taken a vow of virginity. and that she never intended to have relations, or have a child with Joseph. peace

 

[cruisin]

interesting you should bring this up. why would Mary make this statement to the angel, since she was betrothed. Why would she? she had never slept ( ie: had intercourse)with a man? the angel did not tell her before this when the child was to be born. I think she was chose because she was betrothed.since she was betrothed, she could have just assumed it was going to be a natural child, huh? between her and Joseph, if she were planning on having relations with him. her question of the angel, if anything, shows there was a very good chance she had taken a vow of virginity. only a good chance? but not conclusive? and that she never intended to have relations, or have a child with Joseph. peace

Where ther is no evidence there is evidence… go figure? I wouldn’t want to take any of these arguements into a court of law…

I was really hoping someone would come up with something better…

 

[StevenFrancis]

can someone help me understand this?

i thought Jesus had at least one brother–James, if not more (mentioned somewhere in Matthew in the same sentence as His “sisters”). but i keep seeing on here that Mary was a virgin till the end, so both can’t be true…?

help please!

This is what we believe:

Mary – “ever-virgin”

499 The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary’s real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man.154 In fact, Christ’s birth "did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it."155 And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the “Ever-virgin”.156

500 Against this doctrine the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus.157 The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, “brothers of Jesus”, are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls “the other Mary”.158 They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression.159
501 Jesus is Mary’s only son, but her spiritual motherhood extends to all men whom indeed he came to save: "The Son whom she brought forth is he whom God placed as the first-born among many brethren, that is, the faithful in whose generation and formation she co-operates with a mother’s love."160

Mary’s virginal motherhood in God’s plan

502 The eyes of faith can discover in the context of the whole of Revelation the mysterious reasons why God in his saving plan wanted his Son to be born of a virgin. These reasons touch both on the person of Christ and his redemptive mission, and on the welcome Mary gave that mission on behalf of all men.

503 Mary’s virginity manifests God’s absolute initiative in the Incarnation. Jesus has only God as Father. "He was never estranged from the Father because of the human nature which he assumed. . . He is naturally Son of the Father as to his divinity and naturally son of his mother as to his humanity, but properly Son of the Father in both natures."161
504 Jesus is conceived by the Holy Spirit in the Virgin Mary’s womb because he is the New Adam, who inaugurates the new creation: "The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven."162 From his conception, Christ’s humanity is filled with the Holy Spirit, for God "gives him the Spirit without measure."163 From “his fullness” as the head of redeemed humanity "we have all received, grace upon grace."164

505 By his virginal conception, Jesus, the New Adam, ushers in the new birth of children adopted in the Holy Spirit through faith. "How can this be?"165 Participation in the divine life arises “not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God”.166 The acceptance of this life is virginal because it is entirely the Spirit’s gift to man. The spousal character of the human vocation in relation to God167 is fulfilled perfectly in Mary’s virginal motherhood.

506 Mary is a virgin because her virginity is the sign of her faith “unadulterated by any doubt”, and of her undivided gift of herself to God’s will.168 It is her faith that enables her to become the mother of the Savior: "Mary is more blessed because she embraces faith in Christ than because she conceives the flesh of Christ."169

507 At once virgin and mother, Mary is the symbol and the most perfect realization of the Church: "the Church indeed. . . by receiving the word of God in faith becomes herself a mother. By preaching and Baptism she brings forth sons, who are conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of God, to a new and immortal life. She herself is a virgin, who keeps in its entirety and purity the faith she pledged to her spouse."170

 

[cruisin]

And where does it say she planned to have intercourse and more children?

Lu 8:19 And his mother and his brothers came to him, and they were not able to get near him because of the great number of people.
Lu 8:20 And someone said to him, Your mother and your brothers are outside desiring to see you.

Joh 2:12 After this he went down to Capernaum, with his mother, his brothers, and his disciples, and they were there not more than two or three days.

Ac 1:14 And they all with one mind gave themselves up to prayer, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.

You also cannot prove it and are adding your own interpolations. I am reading the text as written.Your argument is circular.

are you saying that I am incompetent and unable to read and understand the written word?

so you admit, that you are unable to completely an unequivocally prove the CC position on Mary being ever virgin? Because you can’t prove it from the text. you must use Tradition to satisfy your argument.

Tell me why would Luke use Brother in the above text to Theophilus if they where not blood brothers? Why would he not make sure that he used a word for cousin, or word his text to specifically, and purposefully make sure there would be no confusion if they where not brothers.

Remember, Luke’s intention was to reinforce what Theophilus was being taught.

 

[benidict]

Where ther is no evidence there is evidence… go figure? I wouldn’t want to take any of these arguements into a court of law…

I was really hoping someone would come up with something better…

you want better? fine i can do that. but it really wont matter, because you are unable and/or unwilling to accept the truth. its pretty plain in the gospel of luke, that Mary knew she would be married soon. why ask the angel how can this be. if she was planning on having children. she states, "how shall this be done, because I KNOW NOT MAN? showing she had already made a vow of celibacy. otherwise, she would have had no reason to ask the angel this question. he had not told her yet, that this would be done through the power of the Holy Spirit. we can also go into the prophetic passages about Mary from the O.T. and we can also show a direct parellel between the Blessed Mother and the Ark of the covenant. i can give a more compelling argument if you like. but what would it profit? the Holy Spirit has not opened your eyes to the truth of the Blessed Mother. and that is what it takes. no one will be able to find a satisfactory amount of evidence for something you have willfully chosen not to believe anyway. Peace

 

[benidict]

Oh yes Cruisin. i forgot to mention. the early reformers, Luther, Zwingli,Calvin. none of these ever abandoned their beliefs about Mary. they accepted the Catholic Churches views on Her. it is a relatively new phenomenon, that some protestants deny these teachings. so the question should be. how do you come to your conclusions that the Church, and that includes the Coptics the Orthodox. and the reformers were all wrong about Mary? and why do you deny 2000 years of accepted Church history? i think the burden for proof would lie on you. if all you have is “its not in the bible.” then i would say your evidence is weak. Peace

 

[Wesley7]

I’m sure there are teachings and dogmas about Mary. In the Orthodox Church she is venerated and honored as Theotokos,Ever Virgin,God bearer, Panagia and its well defined in Church tradition.

 

[LilyM]

not trying to challenge, but if they were joseph’s children from another marriage, wouldn’t they have been mentioned on the trip to the census around the time of Jesus’ birth?

and i am reading the Bible, which is just breeding more questions.

And if they’d been Mary’s children, wouldn’t they ALSO have been mentioned (and mentioned AS being her children) elsewhere - the trip to the Temple when He was 12, for example? His death and burial? Would they not have been there for their mother at her time of grief, or taken her into their homes instead of leaving her to the unrelated John?

The Gospels are about Jesus, not about all of His relatives, so there’s no reason it would specifically mention any of them unless they were relevant to His ministry.

Yes, James is called Jesus’ brother. So are all the 120 gathered in the upper room at Pentecost called ‘brothers’. Were they all related? We can be sure the 12 weren’t. So does Paul call the entire Christian communities of the towns to which he wrote his ‘brothers’. The word clearly doesn’t imply biological relationship of any kind.

 

[benidict]

And if they’d been Mary’s children, wouldn’t they ALSO have been mentioned (and mentioned AS being her children) elsewhere - the trip to the Temple when He was 12, for example? His death and burial? Would they not have been there for their mother at her time of grief, or taken her into their homes instead of leaving her to the unrelated John?

The Gospels are about Jesus, not about all of His relatives, so there’s no reason it would specifically mention any of them unless they were relevant to His ministry.

Yes, James is called Jesus’ brother. So are all the 120 gathered in the upper room at Pentecost called ‘brothers’. Were they all related? We can be sure the 12 weren’t. So does Paul call the entire Christian communities of the towns to which he wrote his ‘brothers’. The word clearly doesn’t imply biological relationship of any kind.

:clapping::bowdown:

 

[Church_Militant]

Oh yes Cruisin. i forgot to mention. the early reformers, Luther, Zwingli,Calvin. none of these ever abandoned their beliefs about Mary. they accepted the Catholic Churches views on Her. it is a relatively new phenomenon, that some protestants deny these teachings. so the question should be. how do you come to your conclusions that the Church, and that includes the Coptics the Orthodox. and the reformers were all wrong about Mary? and why do you deny 2000 years of accepted Church history? i think the burden for proof would lie on you. if all you have is “its not in the bible.” then i would say your evidence is weak. Peace

The Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

From the blog article above…

Even all three of the “pillars of the reformation” wrote in support of it.
My thanks to San Juan Catholic Seminars for publishing this in their Beginning Apologetics # 5 booklet.
**
The Perpetual Virginity of Mary:**

** Martin Luther:** “ It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin… Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact.” ( Works of Luther, Vol. 11, pages 319-320; Vol. 6, page 510.)

** John Calvin:** “ There have been certain folk who have wished to suggest from this passage [Matthew 1:25] that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph’s obedience and to show that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company… And beside this Our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or no there was any question of the second.” (Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25. Published in 1562.)

** Ulrich Zwingli:** “I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel, as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.” ( Zwingli Opera, Vol. 1, page 424.)