Mary's Perpetual Virginity

[elvisman]

I have given you Scripture that says these are Jesus’ brothers. You just don’t want to accept it. Now where does it say in Scripture that Mary stayed a virgin all her life. It don’t.

I have given you what the word Adelphos means but you insist that it could only mean one thing which is not true.

They are common names.

John 19:25, “Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Cel’-o-phas and Mary Magda-lene.” (KJV)
John 19:25 “Standing near the cross were Jesus’ mother and his mothers sister, Mary (the wife of Clopas) and Mary Magdalene.” (Life Application Study Bible)
I have given you 2 translations of John 19:25 and I don’t see no description, but what I do see is that there seems to be a lot of Mary’s so why can’t there be more than one Simon, James, Jose and Jude.

James is also described as the brother of Jesus.

All common names.

Remember Jesus’ brothers did not believe or follow Jesus in his ministry so they would not be mentiones much in the Bible. There are only a few passages that mention Jesus’ brothers and sisters.

Kevin - WRONG.
**It is generally accepted by Protestant scholars that the apostle James the Less was the “Brother of the Lord”. Here’s why that doesn’t work.

The mother of James, son of Zebedee was at the foot of the cross with Mary, Mother of Jesus.

Mary’s sister (Adelphe) was also at the foot of the cross. She was the wife of Alphaeus (Clopas) and the mother of James the Less. Not only have you run out of James’s - your theory about Adelphos/Adelphe meaning literal uterine siblings dies along with this fact and here’s why:**
The gospels call her Mary’s sister (Adelphe). Mary (Jesus’s mother) could NOT have had a uterine sister also named “Mary”. It is against Jewish custom to name your child after a living relative.

You lose, Kevin. The weight of Scripture, history AND Jewish tradition are ALL against you.

 

[Nicea325]

Kevin - WRONG.
It is generally accepted by Protestant scholars that the apostle James the Less was the “Brother of the Lord”. Here’s why that *doesn’t *work.

The mother of James, son of Zebedee was at the foot of the cross with Mary, Mother of Jesus.

Mary’s sister (Adelphe**) was also at the foot of the cross. She was the wife of Alphaeus (Clopas) and the mother of James the Less. Not only have you run out of James’s - your theory about Adelphos/Adelphe meaning literal uterine siblings dies along with this fact and here’s why:
The gospels call her Mary’s sister (Adelphe). Mary (Jesus’s mother) could NOT have had a uterine sister also named “Mary”. It is against Jewish custom to name your child after a living relative.

You lose, Kevin. The weight of Scripture, history AND Jewish tradition are ALL against you.

Amen! Part of the problem I notice from many Protestants such as Kevin is their failure to understand Jewish cultue and tradition. They interpret scripture to give the impression Jesus lived in the Western part of the world in terms how they use terminology-Jesus was an eastern man…end of case!

 

[bluelake]

Hhhhhmmmm… Wait a minute!!!

Who was it that said something very similar??

Oh, that’s right, it was Billy Graham.

And similarly, who was it that said after years of silence and even denial that “abortion is not a Roman Catholic problem, it’s a morals problem”??

Oh, that’s right, it was Jerry Falwell.

Wait a minute. . . . . . . .I think y’all are onto something!!

Fear of being to catholic?
Whats wrong with catholics. We all love and worship one God, Jesus Christ.
We just have to follow our ancestors. They were doing the same debating .
But they too loved the same Savior.
I don’t judge anyone’s walk with the Lord. We will be judged with the same mearsure we use on our Christian brothers. Be careful.
See mt.7:1-5
I think it’s a church memebership race. lol

God bless,
bluelake

 

[Erich]

I have given you Scripture that says these are Jesus’ brothers. You just don’t want to accept it.

And we have given you Scripture that says these brothers of Jesus are not the children of Mary. You just don’t want to accept it.

Where does it say in Scripture that Mary stayed a virgin all her life?

Guess you didn’t follow the link in post #8 in this thread, so I will repeat it here for your convenience:

Catholics believe that Mary represents the Ark of the New Covenant, which has special significance to the Catholic belief in Mary’s Perpetual Virginity.

Perhaps this link will help explain why it’s a “big deal.”

 

[Erich]

1 Cor 15
6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.

Five hundred brothers and sisters? That would not be Mary Ever Virgin, that would be Mary Ever Pregnant :bigyikes:

 

[bluelake]

You assume to much about what Catholicism truly teaches. Explain how it would change our faith? If you are not trying to prove the church wrong,then why you consistently argue against Catholic doctrine? Case in point,sacrament of reconciliation?

How many think this issue is a salvation topic?
Does it matter if Mary had other children? She did have a husband. there are passages that mention other siblings.
However, Why aren’t they mentioned when Mary and Joseph were searching for Jesus when he was twelve years old. The others were not included in the search.
They are not mentioned at the crucifixion.
We’ll find out when we get to heaven.

bluelake

 

[Erich]

We’ll find out when we get to heaven.

Actually, I think we’ll find out before then (i.e. when we get to purgatory)

 

[RedDawgMCM]

Kevin you still haven’t addressed my points in post 34. Would you care to attempt that?

 

[John_Paul_Jones]

I have given you Scripture that says these are Jesus’ brothers. You just don’t want to accept it. Now where does it say in Scripture that Mary stayed a virgin all her life. It don’t.

It does, but it is hidden, there are clues you just have to look for them. I think part of the problem is that most people are not aware that the ancient Hebrew language was basic and certain words didn’t exist in the language. There were no words for “grandmother,” grandfather," “uncle,” "aunt,"or “cousin” and no superlatives either. So there is chance if they were talking of Jesus’ cousins it would be necessary for them to use the word “brother.” So you can’t insist every time “brother” is mentioned it means a sibling. When Jesus said John Mary was his mother, it would lawful if Jesus had brothers who could take care of Mary.

Another argument which is a philosophical one is that God in his mercy kept Mary free all sin, even the slightest sin since she is the closest person to the Lord Jesus Christ (being the fact she was His mother).

 

[zarthan]

The argument over the sexual virginity of Mary seems to pale over the fact that the Roman Catholic church teaches that Mary remained a physical virgin while giving birth to Jesus Christ. (which seems to be a contradiction). How could Jesus be said to have been born of the Virgin Mary if he was not naturally born through the birth canal of Mary? Does this mean that there was no umbilical cord, and no placenta? This almost makes Jesus Christ unhuman, and his mother not a natural mother. This teaching veers toward the Gnosticism that says that Jesus had the ‘appearance of flesh’.

 

[Reuben_J]

"Reuben J:

Gal 1
18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas** and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. 20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.

1 Cor 15
6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

I am quite confused by your explanation. I just want to know your reason, that’s all.

You said, James which is described as Jesus’ brother was the one in 1Cor 15:7 but not the one in Gal1:19.

For a person who based his argument on the Bible, you have not been convincing, in fact there is nothing to support your contention.

In Gal 1:19, Paul said James, the Lord’s brother. And yet you say this is not James the brother of Jesus.

In 1 Cor 15:7, Paul was only mentioning Jesus appeared to James – he did not say James was Jesus’ brother and yet you said this is the James in John 7:5 where James is not mentioned by name at all.

How do you prove that James was one of the brothers in John 7:5 since his name was not mentioned there nor did Paul categorically stated that the James in 1 Cor 15:7 was Jesus’ brother?

Look like you have to review your reason again, as this one does not make sense, at least to me, as I listen to your clarification.

This James it the Lord’s brother, not James the brother of John the apostle, but James the brother of the Lord, named in Acts 12:17 15:13 and 21:18. This James was not one of the 12 but her rose to great dignity and influence in the church at Jerusalem. He is called the brother of the Lord, to distinguish him from James the son of Zebedee and James the son of Alpheus, who were of the 12.
The writer of the book of James, a leader of the church in Jerusalem was James, Jesus’ brother, not James the apostle.

**

I am questioning you here because you seem to base your argument on the Bible alone and your fact does not tie up.

The conflict here which I pointed out to you is regarding Paul’s usage of the term, the Lord’s brother in Gal 1:19 which you denied as James the brother of Jesus. Instead you referred to James in 1 Cor 15:7. You have to explain why the James in Gal 1:19 is not the same person as the one in 1 Cor 15:7. Why would you don’t believe in Paul usage of the word ‘brother’ as brother in Gal 1:19 but not the Gospels’ usage of the same word?

You have no evidence that James of the church in Jerusalem is the brother of Jesus and not one of the disciples. You are only postulating and I cannot see how that can be a strong argument to support your assertion that he is Jesus brother.

In your earlier post you said James was being singled out in Paul’s letter as the Lord’s brother but could that be in the same way as John being singled out by Jesus to be the son of his mother (Mary)?

 

[Reuben_J]

Five hundred brothers and sisters? That would not be Mary Ever Virgin, that would be Mary Ever Pregnant :bigyikes:

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I said that the siblings of Jesus from Mary and Joseph were accepted by some members of the early Christian Church.

Your emphasis above I have said many times in other threads about this. I said it word for word just like you have.

You emphasize the term ‘some’ in your post above. Would you please tell us who, of the early Christian Church, was among the first to teach Mary had other children?

It really appears it was a belief/teaching of the early Church and accepted as such up until the reformation when even the reformers themselves believed in the perpetual virginity. This demonstrates ‘oral’ tradition with scriptures and how it was applied to those times before everyone had their own Bible to translate for themselves.

You mentioned Jerome’s argument. I would think St. Jerome’s understanding of the ancient Greek language would surpass anyone of today. Now I don’t remember if you support the idea of ‘sola scriptura’ or private interpretation but I have to ask if you believe St. Jerome, and also Origen, Hilary of Poitiers, Anthanaius and Epiphanius, received the wrong interpretation through their own private interpretations, if we exclude the teaching being passed through the men of the Church?

I am trying to show you who we trust on this teaching, through the oral tradition being passed down through the men of the Church with scriptures and why. It doesn’t make sense to me that an incorrect teaching survived through 1500 years of generations, to be corrected in the 1500s/1600s.

Again, I ask that you please tell us who of the early Christians taught that Mary had other children, so we can try to see the ‘logic’ of your argument?

 

[StJudePray4Me]

The argument over the sexual virginity of Mary seems to pale over the fact that the Roman Catholic church teaches that Mary remained a physical virgin while giving birth to Jesus Christ. (which seems to be a contradiction). How could Jesus be said to have been born of the Virgin Mary if he was not naturally born through the birth canal of Mary? Does this mean that there was no umbilical cord, and no placenta? This almost makes Jesus Christ unhuman, and his mother not a natural mother. This teaching veers toward the Gnosticism that says that Jesus had the ‘appearance of flesh’.

I don’t understand this. A virgin is a woman who has not had sexual intercourse. Are you saying that a broken hymen makes a woman not a virgin? As far as I know, that is non-sense.

 

[zarthan]

I don’t understand this. A virgin is a woman who has not had sexual intercourse. Are you saying that a broken hymen makes a woman not a virgin? As far as I know, that is non-sense.

According to the Catechism, her hymen remained intact while ‘giving birth’ to Jesus.

 

[Erich]

Another argument which is a philosophical one is that God in his mercy kept Mary free all sin, even the slightest sin since she is the closest person to the Lord Jesus Christ (being the fact she was His mother).

Makes sense… otherwise even that “slightest sin” would have been passed through the umbilical cord to Jesus (along with everything else… perhaps in a way analogous to how infants can be born with chemical dependencies if their mothers were “users”).

But, we already know that Jesus was a man like us in all things but sin: “We do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathise with our weaknesses, but one who has similarly been tested in every way, *yet without sin” *(Heb 4:15).

 

[elvisman]

According to the Catechism, her hymen remained intact while ‘giving birth’ to Jesus.

Can you point me to the quote in the Catechism that states this?

 

[zarthan]

Can you point me to the quote in the Catechism that states this?

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

 

[Reuben_J]

Funny I don’t see any mentioning of anything about hymen at all in CCC 499.

I suppose we have to decide on the definition of virginity. ‘sigh’

Is it about ruptured hymen or about never having sexual relation with a man?

In certain societies, a woman would simply go to a plastic surgeon and has her hymen reconstructed, an lo and behold, she is a ready made virgin again! Or is it so?

 

[elvisman]

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

Yes, I’ve read this. And again, I ask you:
******Can you point me to the quote in the Catechism that states this?
**I want you to address the point about her hymen. The Catechism NEVER addresses her hymen. As others have already pointed out - the state of her hymen has NOTHING to do with her virginity.