Mary's Perpetual Virginity

[rev_kevin]

Hello rev kevin,

It’s been a long time.

I’ve only quoted a part of your quote to give you some food for thought. It appears some will pick out the one that endorses a ‘newer’ thought on the subject. I put marks around newer because those beliefs arose since the reformation even though the main reformers believed Mary remained ever virgin.

Martin Luther

John Calvin

Hay your correct its been a long time.
I know what you mean by “newer” but just because something was believed to be true way back when don’t mean it was true. To date no one has shown where it states in Scripture that Mary did not have children.

We have gone round and round in the past about this and got nowhere. But its good discussion.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Hay your correct its been a long time.
I know what you mean by “newer” but just because something was believed to be true way back when don’t mean it was true. To date no one has shown where it states in Scripture that Mary did not have children.

We have gone round and round in the past about this and got nowhere. But its good discussion.

Because something new was thought of doesn’t make it correct as well.

The point I was trying to make was, if it was believed by the reformers, at what point in time do you think it became an ‘incorrect’ teaching prior to their belief?

Martin Luther on Mary’s Perpetual Virginity

Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.

{Luther’s Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.22:23 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }

Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that ‘brothers’ really mean ‘cousins’ here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.

{Pelikan, ibid., v.22:214-15 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }

A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ . . .

{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:199 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }

Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . .

When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.

{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:206,212-3 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }

Editor Jaroslav Pelikan (Lutheran) adds:

Luther . . . does not even consider the possibility that Mary might have had other children than Jesus. This is consistent with his lifelong acceptance of the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary.

{Pelikan, ibid.,v.22:214-5}

John Calvin on Mary’s Perpetual Virginity

Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s ‘brothers’ are sometimes mentioned.

{Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), vol. 2 / From Calvin’s Commentaries, tr. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55}

[On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called ‘first-born’; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.

{Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 107}

Under the word ‘brethren’ the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity.

{Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, (7:3) }

Huldreich Zwingli

He turns, in September 1522, to a lyrical defense of the perpetual virginity of the mother of Christ . . . To deny that Mary remained ‘inviolata’ before, during and after the birth of her Son, was to doubt the omnipotence of God . . . and it was right and profitable to repeat the angelic greeting - not prayer - ‘Hail Mary’ . . . God esteemed Mary above all creatures, including the saints and angels - it was her purity, innocence and invincible faith that mankind must follow. Prayer, however, must be . . . to God alone . . .

‘Fidei expositio,’ the last pamphlet from his pen . . . There is a special insistence upon the perpetual virginity of Mary.

{G. R. Potter, Zwingli, London: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1976, pp.88-9,395 / The Perpetual Virginity of Mary . . ., Sep. 17, 1522}

Zwingli had printed in 1524 a sermon on ‘Mary, ever virgin, mother of God.’

{Thurian, ibid., p.76}

I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonourable, impious, unworthy or evil . . . I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity.

{Thurian, ibid., p.76 / same sermon}

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

rev kevin,

This link will show you early Church Fathers, as far back as 248AD, believed in the perpetual virginity.

Origen

The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first fruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first fruit of virginity (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).

Again, please tell us when you think this ‘incorrect’ teaching arose?

 

[rev_kevin]

Post 17 please read.

That isn’t what she was saying. It makes no sense for her to have said that as she was in the first part of her marriage. Anyone in her position would have assumed that the father would be her husband’s. As been pointed out numerous times, until by definition only means up to a certain point without indicating what happens after that point.

What was being pointed out to you is that in the culture of the time there was no such thing as a single woman being able to provide for herself. I don’t think anyone ever told you it was in the bible.

Yes she was in the prosess of getting married but that don’t mean she had sex with Joseph prior to the marriage. When the angel told Mary she would have a baby she was troubled, its not everyday a angel comes to someone and tells them they were going to have a child. “When Mary saw him, (the angel) she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.” (KJV) Mary said to the angel, 'How can this be, seeing I know not a man." I know not a man, meaning: I have not slept with a man, I have not had intercourse with a man, I have not had sex with a man. Mary could not understand what the angel was telling her and thats when the angel explained to her how this was going to happen.

 

[campeador]

Ya I have read post 17 and don’t buy it.

Then, by all means, refute it. I look forward to seeing your evidence against the inspired Word of God.

 

[Nicea325]

According to Scripture there were 4 boys and sisters, plural sisters, so its safe to say at least 2 sisters bringing the total to at least 6 + sibblings.

Now where does it say she did not have other children?

There are names in Scripture to at least suggest she had other children. No where does Scripture suggest she remained a virgin all her life.

All you are saying is she didn’t have other children. Nothing to back up what you are saying. Just saying NO don’t make it TRUE.

At least I can give you names of the boys that are in Scripture, but I’m sure you already know the names.

And all you are saying she did because names are provided? Just because names are provided does NOT make it a fact or concrete proof. Many here have explained to you in great detail and on the matter of linguistics,which you simply refuse to listen or accept.

And no where does Scripture suggest and even mention Mary conceiving other children…no where. And where does Scripture say she did not remain an ever-virgin?

 

[Nicea325]

Kevin -
Where does it say that Mary (Jesus’ mother) had other children?
NOWHERE does it say this in ALL of Scripture.

You have been shown on this and many other threads that these so-called siblings were not uterine siblings. I know this because I have shown you this proof many times, yet you persist in saying that they were. You are being dishonest here. However, I’m happy to educate you again on this matter:

You are attempting to prove that Mary had other children and list the names given in the Bible. The names of these adelphoi, James, Joseph (Joses), Jude (Judas) are in Matt. 12:46; Matt. 13:55; Mark 3:31–34; Mark 6:3; Luke 8:19–20; John 2:12, 7:3, 5, 10; Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 9:5.

The “other Mary” at the foot of the cross is described as being the mother of James and Joses and Salome. She is also described as being Mary’s (mother of Jesus) “sister” *(adelphe) *(John 19:25).

James is elsewhere described as the son of Alphaeus(Matt. 10:3), which would mean this other Mary, whoever she was, was the wife of both Clopas and Alphaeus. However, Alphaeus and Clopas are the same person, since the Aramaic name for Alphaeus could be rendered in Greek either as Alphaeus or as Clopas.

What do the Scriptures have to say about the women standing at the cross and their children?
Matt. 27:56** says,* “…among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee”***.

Mark 15:40** states, "There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome**").

Finally,John 19:25 states, "But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene".

When you compare the different accounts of the crucifixion, they clearly show the mother of James and Joseph to be the wife of Clopas (also called, Alphaeus) – not Mary, the Mother of Jesus. Any attempt to connect these people as uterine brothers of Jesus are squashed by the Bible.

Bottom line, Kevin - there is FAR more Scriptural evidence in *favor *of Mary’s perpetual virginity than not.

elvisman,

Does not matter how many times one tells him,he continues to believe she gave birth to other children.

 

[rev_kevin]

elvisman,

Does not matter how many times one tells him,he continues to believe she gave birth to other children.

Thats right and I will continue to say she had other children.

 

[Erich]

lol,Marys Perpetual Viginity has been so often discussed is now is a Search=Copy/Paste exercise. Yup, you quickly become introduced to every BIblical verse relevant.

Apparently we missed a few verses

Then, by all means, refute it. I look forward to seeing your evidence against the inspired Word of God.

As do I. I can’t imagine what the relevant verses might be… and how they might be interpreted in light of “Scripture interprets Scripture” (which, as I understand it, means that obscure passages in Scripture must be understood in light of clearer ones).

There probably aren’t any clearer relevant passages than the ones in earlier posts on this thread… and there probably aren’t any more obscure relevant passages than the ones rev kevin will be posting in refutation.

 

[ConstantineTG]

According to Scripture there were 4 boys and sisters, plural sisters, so its safe to say at least 2 sisters bringing the total to at least 6 + sibblings.

This is accurate to tradition. Only thing is they are Joseph’s children but not Mary’s. Thus they are (half) siblings of Jesus.

Now where does it say she did not have other children?

Where does it say that she did? Was James called the son of Mary, or Mary the mother of James? Mary was always called the Mother of Jesus, but not of the other siblings. Simply because they had a different mother who passed away years before Mary was bethrothed to the widower Joseph.

There are names in Scripture to at least suggest she had other children. No where does Scripture suggest she remained a virgin all her life.

There is nothing in scripture that suggests they were her children. Nothing, nowhere.

All you are saying is she didn’t have other children. Nothing to back up what you are saying. Just saying NO don’t make it TRUE.

At least I can give you names of the boys that are in Scripture, but I’m sure you already know the names.

Again, nothing in Scripture says that she did have other children.

 

[ConstantineTG]

rev kevin,

How important is it in Baptist faith that Mary did have other children?

The funniest thing about this argument is those who argue that Mary had other children have no special place for Mary in their faith and theology. Mary could have been anything and anyone and it wouldn’t have mattered to their belief. So why argue at all? How does it change your faith if she did remain a virgin?

The bottom line is this is only a stance by anti-Catholics trying to prove that the Catholic Church is wrong. Then again, isn’t that what is integral in their faith? That the Catholic Church is wrong?

 

[rev_kevin]

rev kevin,

How important is it in Baptist faith that Mary did have other children?

The funniest thing about this argument is those who argue that Mary had other children have no special place for Mary in their faith and theology. Mary could have been anything and anyone and it wouldn’t have mattered to their belief. So why argue at all? How does it change your faith if she did remain a virgin?

The bottom line is this is only a stance by anti-Catholics trying to prove that the Catholic Church is wrong. Then again, isn’t that what is integral in their faith? That the Catholic Church is wrong?

Not as important as Catholics believe Mary stayed a virgin all her life.

It wouldn’t change my faith if she remained a virgin but it probably would change yours.

I have said time and time again here that I am not anti-Catholic and that I have nothing against Catholics. I am not trying to prove the Catholic church is wrong. I am discussing what I believe and my belief only, no church, or religion belief, just my own.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Not as important as Catholics believe Mary stayed a virgin all her life.

It wouldn’t change my faith if she remained a virgin but it probably would change yours.

I have said time and time again here that I am not anti-Catholic and that I have nothing against Catholics. I am not trying to prove the Catholic church is wrong. I am discussing what I believe and my belief only, no church, or religion belief, just my own.

Sorry, the second part wasn’t aimed at you. I should have made it more clear, I apologize. It was more of a general statement about those who argue for Mary having other children are generally anti-Catholic. Or at least have anti-Catholic sentiments.

But that was my point. Why argue for it when it really means nothing to you and your faith one way or another? Yes, it is important to our faith and essential to our belief, that is why we defend it. This is not the first time we’ve butted heads in these forums over this topic. So why continue to argue for it if its non-essential to you? You know why we Catholics and even the Orthodox would do it, its essential to us.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Thats right and I will continue to say she had other children.

Hey again rev kevin,

You may have missed my last two posts so I want to ask you one more time. What time period do you think, or know, to be the time period the ‘incorrect’ belief came about? I’ve shown you where the reformers, themselves, believe in the perpetual virginity and I’ve shown you where it was dated as a belief in the 200’s, according to one of the early Church fathers.

 

[campeador]

I am discussing what I believe and my belief only, no church, or religion belief, just my own.

I’m ready to discuss. I’m just waiting on you to supply some scriptural support refuting the scriptural points Elvisman and Erich have already made.

 

[elvisman]

Thats right and I will continue to say she had other children.

Care to answer my response to you - Post #36?

 

[gus]

Anyone who denies the perpetual virginity of Mary is the Anti-Christ
See John I
Because in rejecting this you reject the Divinity of Christ
These two facts can not be mutually exclusive

 

[rev_kevin]

Jesus had brothers and sisters as stated in Aramaic Matthew 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56. In the canonical Gospels they name only James is known to history.
As a doctrine of Peretual Virginty of Mary developed, predominantly in the East. Christians began to requard the siblings of Jesus as children of Joseph by an eariler marriage and Jerome went on to argue that the brothers and sisters were cousins.

Now the most matural conclusion from what is written in the NT is that Jesus’ siblings were childrend of Mary and Joseph as accepted by some members of the early Christian church.

According to the Gospel of Mark, Jesus’ mother and brothers wer at first sceptical of his ministry but later became part of the Christian movement.

The NT names James, Joses, Simon and Jude as the Adelphoi of Jesus. Now Delphys is the Greek word for womb which the words Dolpin and Delphi deverive from this meaning.
So Adelphos would literally mean those from the womb in this context.

 

[rev_kevin]

Sorry, the second part wasn’t aimed at you. I should have made it more clear, I apologize. It was more of a general statement about those who argue for Mary having other children are generally anti-Catholic. Or at least have anti-Catholic sentiments.

But that was my point. Why argue for it when it really means nothing to you and your faith one way or another? Yes, it is important to our faith and essential to our belief, that is why we defend it. This is not the first time we’ve butted heads in these forums over this topic. So why continue to argue for it if its non-essential to you? You know why we Catholics and even the Orthodox would do it, its essential to us.

Because its my view and what I believe.

 

[rev_kevin]

Anyone who denies the perpetual virginity of Mary is the Anti-Christ
See John I
Because in rejecting this you reject the Divinity of Christ
These two facts can not be mutually exclusive

What???
I don’t reject the Divinity of Christ, What does that have to do with Mary’s Perpetual Virginity?
Anyone who denies the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is the Anti-Christ??? Are you for real???