Mary's perpetual virginity

[jean8]

Actually the bible does not say that Mary had other children … the quote that names the supposed brother and sisters … goes like this …

"Is he JEsus] not the carpenter’s son? Are not his brothers … "
If these named persons are siblings … they are the children of Joseph … No named siblings are listed as being the children of Mary …

Taking this passage on its clear andliteral meaning also has Jesus being the son of Joseph …

The other passage has his “mother and brothers” asking to seak with him … pretty vague this one … when brother can refer to any male relative and even a male from the same village … Abraham and Lot being a perfect example …

And as others have pointed out - all of the protestant reformers also held to the perpetual virginity …

So you are left with your personal interpretation of scripture that is based upon the modernist view that grew out of the Enlightenment period … a relatively new idea in Christian history [being 200 years old in practice and thought] …

I am sorry but your posts lack historical support, biblical support [its really rather tortured IMHO] … and the insults that you throw out regarding Jesus vs the Church … Jesus founded the Church and promised to protect it from the very Gates of Hell!

yada,
I’ m not here to insult anyone, and I haven’t done so.
I can preface what I say with scripture. You can do the same by quoting the Bible correctly and giving the location of the passage that you gave.
To have a different point of view isn’t insulting , This is a forum dialog. I respect what you have to say and I also would like you to extend the same

God bless,
jean8

 

[GailMac]

In response to LilyM -

I’m no expert - just an ordinary Catholic woman and I’ll try to explain in simple terms - the reason St. Joesph and Mary maintained a state of chasity during their marriage is simply because those who were watching them, the Isrealites needed a confirmation that the Son born to Mary wasn’t an ordinary man. Those observing Jesus, Mary and Joesph on a day to day basis saw first hand how things were in their household and I’m quite sure those 30 hidden years were very spoken of during the time of Jesus’ earthly mission and all the more after His Passion Death and Resurrection. There were those among the people of Jerusalem and the surrounding area who were the neighbors of Jesus, Mary and Joseph! If Joseph and Mary had other children by natural generation, this would have been known by others and it would have cast a shadow of a doubt upon His supernatural generation.

What I’ve always thought is that Joesph was an older man and a widower who had sons by his first wife and needed a woman around the house. Mary was a temple virgin from the time she was very young, set aside for ministry in the temple. Joesph was allowed to take her into his home so his children’s needs would be met. It wasn’t necessary or expected that it was an ordinary marriage, it was a “convienence.” There simply wasn’t anyway to support those women who frequented the temple as we have convents today, so they were often “sent” to minister to others in this respect. St. Paul even mentions the handling of “virgins” in one of his letters to the Corinthians. Virginity was a special calling then and as hard to fathom as that is in our sex-as-neccessity society it was respected back then as now in our church.

I have really never had a hard time accepting Mary’s special status among the people of God, nor any of the Marian doctrines. They are only a clear way to see the Wisdom of God and are how the Church ensures that what we teach is done so in an orderly way.

As for all the “controversy” that Bible thumping anti-catholics do in regard to the teachings surrounding Mary, Joesph and Jesus, etc., but especially Mary, it has been my experience that most of it is done so as to prove one’s protestant stance; they simply refute catholic teaching so as to distance themselves from the Church. It is that simple.

I will pray for you and hope that God will help you understand His Mother better and you can come to honor her as your own Mother too!

Peace,

Gail

P.S. I think that all those day-to-day neighbors in Jerusalem and Bethlehem, etc. by speaking among themselves were the kernel of truth about Mary and Joseph that was handed on through the Church in suceeding generations.

 

[turtle18]

I think raising Jesus was a full time job. If you knew God was in the next room, would you really want to have sex with your spouse? I’m sorry-I know if God was in the room with me or in the room next to me, I’d prefer to be with him than with my spouse.

 

[SF3CHURCH]

I’ve been reading this tread with interest and noticed that one very important verse from Isaiah has been overlooked:

Isaiah 7:5-7
5 Ask for a sign from the LORD, your God; let it be deep as the nether world, or high as the sky!
12
6 But Ahaz answered, “I will not ask! I will not tempt the LORD!”
13
Then he said: Listen, O house of David! Is it not enough for you to weary men, must you also weary my God?
14
7 Therefore the Lord himself will give you this sign: the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.

The perpetual virginity of Mary is a sign of Christ’s divinity. Otherwise this verse has no meaning.

 

[RobHom]

you can stumble and fumble through Mary’s PV until you are blue.

As can you in trying to disprove it.

Catholic teachings however defy scriptural proof opposing the PV.

Not so. Where “precisely” is your scriptural proof opposing it?

The New Testament was written in Greek, not Aramaic.

That is a debatable issue.

In Greek there are words both for brother adelphos and for cousin anepsios (as in Colossians 4:10).

Perhaps an accurate reading of the cited scripture will show how you are grasping at straws: drbo.org/ Also, you might want to visit this site and see that based on the KJV…and the following site denies your context as well: biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=431&version=kjv
It defines anepsios as not only “cousin”…but as “SISTERS SON”.

Which I fully understand why the Catholic church teaches her people that the bible really says “cousins” when in fact, …upon using PROPER study…proves otherwise.

Not so. Again you have gone completely out of context, and cited a passage where in the word was used “once” in the Bible according to the KJV site…and it regarded Mark the “cousin” of Barnabus…which is “way off the mark”. Sorry. No sale.

The Holy Spirit who inspired the New Testament could have employed anepsios if James, Joses and the others were merely Jesus’ cousins. He could have used the word suggenes (as in Luke 1:36) if they were relatives. But of course He didn’t. The Holy Spirit chose the word adelphos that means brothers! REAL LIVE BIOLOGICAL BROTHERS!

So what you are saying is: All of the people who wrote the books of the Bible…we merely “automatons”…who were literally possessed and were merely a writing instrument? Far-fetched at best. You are also making the assumptions that all of the writers were completely literate in a language that was not their mother tongue. This is not a safe claim to make. Insofar as “suggenes” is concerned…you are not quite right there either… see here: biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=431&version=kjv
You will note that it says the following:

*The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon

Strong’s Number: 4773 Browse Lexicon
Original Word Word Origin
suggenhvß from (4862) and (1085)
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Suggenes 7:736,1097
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
soong-ghen-ace’ Adjective
Definition

1. of the same kin, akin to, related by blood
2. in a wider sense, of the same nation, a fellow countryman

Seems you are prone to “stretching” definitions to fit your own particular agenda or desires… Sorry, it doesn’t work that way.

However, they were UNBELIEVERS.

Proof???

Now, here’s a little more on “adelphos”…

*The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon

Strong’s Number: 80 Browse Lexicon
Original Word Word Origin
ajdelfovß from (1) (as a connective particle) and delphus (the womb)
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Adelphos 1:144,22
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
ad-el-fos’ Noun Masculine
Definition

1. a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother
2. having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman
3. any fellow or man
4. a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection
5. an associate in employment or office
6. brethren in Christ
   1. his brothers by blood
   2. all men
   3. apostles
   4. Christians, as those who are exalted to the same heavenly place

King James Word Usage - Total: 346
brethren 226, brother 113, brother’s 6, brother’s way 1* from:
biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=80&version=kjv

So, as you can see…you are taking many “liberties” to try and make your agenda work… Sorry, again…no sale!

 

[RobHom]

I believe that the Catholics here do not understand exactly what they have been taught when it comes to Mary and how it is exactly worship they are performing.

Not true.

Do not take me lightly…she is blessed among women. Respected beyond reproach. She is to be exemplified, and her willingness and openheart sought after.

At least you got that right.

However, she is given praise, honor and glory that does not belong to her.

In your opinion…but it is not your opinion that our faith and beliefs hinge on.

Catholics can not attribute their saving grace without her. I did, my family does.

Wrong on the first count. I’ve never been taught that. Apparently you misunderstood or never were actually a Catholic.

It is understood that without Mary, Jesus would not be here to save.

And, this…this is wrong.

Yes, no, maybe… That is only something that God could answer, neither you or me can even hope to answer that question one way or the other.

But where you come up with these “ditties” is amazing! You guys have a “playbook” you work from?

I am a cradle Catholic, born and raised Catholic, educated Catholic…and you have been completely off base with your claims on every account and allegation. I seriously doubt your veracity insofar as your claims to have been Catholic.

 

[BRB]

My question is this: if God is loving, as we all teach, and marriage is sacred, WHY would God deny Joseph those rights? By denying Joseph those rights, it’s as if one is saying that marriage, with all of its rights and obligations, is NOT holy and sacred. By having sex in marriage this would make Mary “unclean and unholy.” SO, with that in mind…sex would then be bad, unclean, and not to be done. I just can’t imagine that God would be that selfish to Joseph to deny him his rights and the love that he and Mary shared.

!!

People in that day/age believed that fasting, chastity, and prayer were key ways to heighten spirituality. Christ reinforced these ideas in his Gospel message.

Joseph may have entered marriage with Mary fully aware of her decision to remain chaste. If not, he quickly learned he was also honored, by association with Mary & Christ, … and that God was honoring Him/Mary — not being ‘selfish’ to them.

 

[RobHom]

Something that I think may have been missed in this thread was that “Mary” was “betrothed”…which in reality means that she was promised in marriage to Joseph…married is married, betrothed is engaged. If you read Mathew 1:16-20 and the following commentaries. drbo.org/chapter/47001.htm Then move on to Luke 1: 26-50… drbo.org/chapter/49001.htm you will find that the Douay-Rheims version uses the word “espoused”…as opposed to “betrothed”… however…both words have the same meaning in that Mary and Joseph were not yet married.

In so far as Joseph being “denied”…marital or conjugal rights…Nay, nay…he was not. He had free will as do all of us. He accepted the mission or charge given him by God through the Angel that appeared to him…as in Matthew 1: 24… Its really that simple.

 

[Michael_G]

**Zechariah 12:10 Predicts the Messiah will be an only child. **
Zec 12:10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth **for **his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

Ezek. 44:2 - Ezekiel prophesies that no man shall pass through the gate by which the Lord entered the world. This is a prophecy of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Mary remained a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus.

Ver. 2-3. Opened. No man perfectly understands the Scriptures but the Son of God, Matthew xi. 27. (St. Jerome) — This also insinuates, that Mary ever remained a pure virgin. (St. Augustine, &c.) (Worthington) — Shut, even for the prince. Some (Haydock Commentary on Ezek 44:2)

Many of the Fathers see in the gate through which God alone passes a figure of our Lady’s perpetual virginity. (A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture Father Bernard Orchard Ezekiel 44:2)

 

[BRB]

**

Ezek. 44:2 - Ezekiel prophesies that no man shall pass through the gate by which the Lord entered the world. This is a prophecy of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Mary remained a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus.**

]
Many of the Fathers see in the gate through which God alone passes a figure of our Lady’s perpetual virginity. (A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture Father Bernard Orchard Ezekiel 44:2)

There is the answer to the mystery … the Fathers knew them all.