Mary's Perpetual Virginity

[rev_kevin]

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?

Cyril’s, " The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, S. Cyril, Archibishop of Jerusalem" Here from Cyril’s words alone, one can argue tht some of the early church fathers not only gave the thought some consideration but actually believed it to be true.

Leo the Great, another early church father, penned “The Nicene and Post-Nicene fathers 2nd series, vol 12, the letters and sermons of Leo the Great, Epistle 15.”
Saying that he not only considered the idea but also believed it to be true.

The Ecumenical council fo the church, “the 7 ecumenical conucils of the undivided church, the canons of the council in Trullo; A.D. 692 cannon 32.”
Clearly shows that as late as 695 A.D. was a strong body of belief that Jesus of Nazareth had at least one sibling.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Cyril’s, " The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, S. Cyril, Archibishop of Jerusalem" Here from Cyril’s words alone, one can argue tht some of the early church fathers not only gave the thought some consideration but actually believed it to be true.

Leo the Great, another early church father, penned “The Nicene and Post-Nicene fathers 2nd series, vol 12, the letters and sermons of Leo the Great, Epistle 15.”
Saying that he not only considered the idea but also believed it to be true.

The Ecumenical council fo the church, “the 7 ecumenical conucils of the undivided church, the canons of the council in Trullo; A.D. 692 cannon 32.”
Clearly shows that as late as 695 A.D. was a strong body of belief that Jesus of Nazareth had at least one sibling.

rev kevin,

You have always argued about Jesus having a sibling, but never about Mary having another child. Most if not all Eastern Christians, both Catholic and Orthodox, subscribe to the traditions that are reflected in the Protoevangelium of James. Jesus having siblings is not something rejected by Catholics. The issue is are these siblings the children of Mary? I have yet to see any evidence from you to support this claim. You keep arguing that James is indeed the sibling of Jesus. Yes he is. But prove please that he is the son of Mary and not of Joseph by a previous deceased wife.

 

[rev_kevin]

rev kevin,

You have always argued about Jesus having a sibling, but never about Mary having another child. Most if not all Eastern Christians, both Catholic and Orthodox, subscribe to the traditions that are reflected in the Protoevangelium of James. Jesus having siblings is not something rejected by Catholics. The issue is are these siblings the children of Mary? I have yet to see any evidence from you to support this claim. You keep arguing that James is indeed the sibling of Jesus. Yes he is. But prove please that he is the son of Mary and not of Joseph by a previous deceased wife.

Ok lets make this simple. A sibling is a brother or sister; that is, any person who shares at least one of the same parents.
A blood relative that comes from the same set of parents.

Now Joseph was not the father of Jesus, so that knocks him out. The only person that leaves is Mary. Now Jesus was the son of Mary and not of Joseph. If Joseph had other children from a previous marriage, which there is no proof of, Joseph’s children would not be Jesus’ siblings. So in order for Jesus to have siblings they would have to have come from Mary.

 

[zarthan]

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.

No, the catechism does not use the word, but that is what “virginitas in partu” means in Catholic teaching. Mary remained a physical virgin while giving ‘birth’, or one should say, miraculous birth to Jesus.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Ok lets make this simple. A sibling is a brother or sister; that is, any person who shares at least one of the same parents.
A blood relative that comes from the same set of parents.

Now Joseph was not the father of Jesus, so that knocks him out. The only person that leaves is Mary. Now Jesus was the son of Mary and not of Joseph. If Joseph had other children from a previous marriage, which there is no proof of, Joseph’s children would not be Jesus’ siblings. So in order for Jesus to have siblings they would have to have come from Mary.

Ok, here’s the problem as I see it rev. Did those people in scriptures who referred to those ‘brothers’ and ‘sisters’ accept the fact that Christ was begotten from the Father, through the Holy Spirit? No, they did not. Therefore they would have referred to Joseph’s children as ‘siblings’ of Christ. You have to also consider the implications it would have placed Mary in if those other people considered Jesus to be fathered by other than her husband, Joseph.

Edited to add: You have already seen the translation of the word which was ‘a brother (literally or figuratively) near or remote’.

 

[rev_kevin]

Ok, here’s the problem as I see it rev. Did those people in scriptures who referred to those ‘brothers’ and ‘sisters’ accept the fact that Christ was begotten from the Father, through the Holy Spirit? No, they did not. Therefore they would have referred to Joseph’s children as ‘siblings’ of Christ. You have to also consider the implications it would have placed Mary in if those other people considered Jesus to be fathered by other than her husband, Joseph.

Edited to add: You have already seen the translation of the word which was ‘a brother (literally or figuratively) near or remote’.

Where is the evidence that Joseph had other children? There is none in Scripture. The only evidence is that some members of the early Christian church believe he had other children from a previous marriage which is only speculation. So until you provide evidence that Joseph had other children from a previous marriage, your arguement won’t work.

I must say you make a good point on this but the Scriptures were written long after Jesus assended to heaven and by those who believed that Jesus was the Son of God. They also knew that Jesus was not the son of Joseph which is evident when telling the story of his birth.

Yes and you have already seen what the word “adelphoi” means. If you look at what you wrote Literally or figuratively, near or remote. This would mean they could be blood brothers and sisters or they may not be blood brothers and sisters.

Now the church says that the brothers and sisters were from Joseph’s previous marriage. The Church also says the brothers and sisters were cousins.
Which is it? Can the church make up its mind on this?

 

[RedDawgMCM]

Once again Rev Kevin are you going to address my point in post 34 or not? Is it too damaging for your nonsensical argument?

 

[rev_kevin]

Once again Rev Kevin are you going to address my point in post 34 or not? Is it too damaging for your nonsensical argument?

Didn’t know it was manditory to answer every post. Since I have a nonsensical argument nothing I say will make a difference.

 

[adrift]

The problem is that Rev has no historical reference. I believe someone already mentioned this. Without knowing the culture you make the obvious errors. Adoption by a Jew made the child the same as if born to the Father. Reading the text it is understood that the “brothers” had to be older than Jesus which rules out their being Mary’s children.

Once again Rev Kevin are you going to address my point in post 34 or not? Is it too damaging for your nonsensical argument?

I didn’t know it was manditory to answer every post. Since I have a nonsensical argument nothing I say will make a difference

I guess the answer is he can’t.

 

[John_Paul_Jones]

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).

There are no sins that pass through the umbilical, even with chemical dependencies for an infant that is only a physical condition, the child doesn’t inherit sin or is sinful. The only sin passed on is Original Sin, which isn’t an actual personal sin. Mary was the Immaculate Conception, still Mary even born without original sin had to preserve in grace (with the help of the Lord) and she did till end of her life on Earth.

 

[rev_kevin]

In the OT the same word is used to call Abraham Lot’s brother. Now we know from reading the OT that Abraham was his UNCLE. Ergo don’t be so dismissive of this argument.

[BIBLEDRB]Gen 14:14[/BIBLEDRB]

The languages the bible was written in simply didn’t have a word to express a near relation.

The word brother did indicate a relative. But one must put into context on how the word is being used.

 

[rev_kevin]

The problem is that Rev has no historical reference. I believe someone already mentioned this. Without knowing the culture you make the obvious errors. Adoption by a Jew made the child the same as if born to the Father. Reading the text it is understood that the “brothers” had to be older than Jesus which rules out their being Mary’s children.

I guess the answer is he can’t.

Hay adrift I answered the question so so much for your he can’t remark.

Now where does it say that they were older than Jesus?

Now answer my post 106 adrift.

 

[adrift]

Hay adrift I answered the question so so much for your he can’t remark.

Now where does it say that they were older than Jesus?

Now answer my post 106 adrift.

The word brother did indicate a relative. But one must put into context on how the word is being used.

I am glad you have come around to what was being said to you. In context of scripture Jesus could not have had brothers or sisters.

As I said you have to have knowledge of the culture. It would be unthinkable of a younger relative to address an older as they do in Mark 3:21. What it shows is that Jesus was younger.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Where is the evidence that Joseph had other children? There is none in Scripture. The only evidence is that some members of the early Christian church believe he had other children from a previous marriage which is only speculation. So until you provide evidence that Joseph had other children from a previous marriage, your arguement won’t work.

I must say you make a good point on this but the Scriptures were written long after Jesus assended to heaven and by those who believed that Jesus was the Son of God. They also knew that Jesus was not the son of Joseph which is evident when telling the story of his birth.

Yes and you have already seen what the word “adelphoi” means. If you look at what you wrote Literally or figuratively, near or remote. This would mean they could be blood brothers and sisters or they may not be blood brothers and sisters.

Now the church says that the brothers and sisters were from Joseph’s previous marriage. The Church also says the brothers and sisters were cousins.
Which is it? Can the church make up its mind on this?

You put a lot on the scriptures. That is demanding all proof come through them. Where in scriptures does it say scriptures are the final authority? I know it’s off topic, but merely trying to make a quick point here.

It does not matter when the scriptures relayed the story, it was written in a present tense so that we know what was said, at that time. At that time those in the synagogue (Mark 6:2) did not know that Jesus was the only begotten Son of God, conceived through the Holy Spirit. As I have already mentioned, the implications for Mary would have been great in those times, in that culture, had they thought Mary conceived prior to her marriage with Joseph.

Once again I give you the translation for adelphos. I am including the term it compares it to as H1. We can see it can be used literally or figuratively.

G80
ἀδελφός
adelphos
ad-el-fos’
From G1 (as a connective particle) and δελφύς delphus (the womb); a brother (literally or figuratively) near or remote (much like [H1]): - brother.

H1
אב
'âb
awb
A primitive word; father in a literal and immediate, or figurative and remote application: - chief, (fore-) father (-less]), X patrimony, principal. Compare names in “Abi-”

To automatically assume it is literal then are we to assume that Joseph was the son of David?

**Mat 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold the Angel of the Lord appeared to him in his sleep, saying: Joseph, son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her, is of the Holy Ghost. **

I’m not sure how you get that the Church ‘now’ states Joseph could have had children prior to his marriage to Mary. You are the one who brought up Jerome who, in 383, stated, ‘But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proven from the gospel—that he [Victorinus] spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship, not by nature.’ The Church knows the term was used literally and figuratively. The Church also knows the legend of Joseph’s other children.

I provided a copy of what Origen said about Mary’s perpetual virginity, dated 248AD. That was only some 148 years after John had written Revelation, the last book of the New Testament. This was approximately 112 years prior to the canon of the New Testament being defined. During all that time, the men of the Church had access to many writings, not to mention the much more recent transfer of oral teachings/traditions that went along with the Church. Just as St. Paul wrote about those teaching errors the Church throughout it’s history has been disputing people teaching errors. Paul did not end it and it has existed through to present times.

 

[Reuben_J]

Where is the evidence that Joseph had other children? There is none in Scripture. The only evidence is that some members of the early Christian church believe he had other children from a previous marriage which is only speculation. So until you provide evidence that Joseph had other children from a previous marriage, your arguement won’t work.

Tradition has it that Joseph had children from his earlier marriage. He was much older than Mary and therefore may have married before and have children. So there is a possibility that those other ‘brothers’ and ‘sister’ could be from that previous marriage. There are early documents that stated this. This however, as far as I know, is not an official Church’s stance. The Church’s stance is that Mary was a perpetual virgin in real life and as a doctrine. The brothers and sisters mentioned in the Gospels and the Epistles as connected to Jesus were therefore close relatives, cousins being the most probable.

The Middle Eastern language of Aramaic that was spoken by Jesus’ tribe does not have word for blood brothers and that’s why you also could not categorically prove that he had them. We can only speculate what could have happened and most of these are just common sense assuming that Jesus’ family and relatives were ordinary Jews of their days and thus would behave accordingly.

In the Bible and also Christianity, the term brothers and sisters convey very wide scope of usage and meaning. I think you had admitted that everyone who believed are brothers, sisters and mothers of Jesus. Thus I personally believe we have to depend on tradition and also theology regarding the ever virginity of Mary.

While I can understand Protestants’ view of not considering her ever virgin – most of this thought centered on the belief that Mary was just an ordinary girl and led an ordinary married life, Catholics do not think in that term. Other than a human being, there is nothing usual about Mary, her role and her marriage. One of the factors that can be considered regarding her virginity is that she is the ‘spouse’ of the Holy Spirit. The child Jesus is conceived by the Holy Spirit. And God the Father is Jesus’ Father.

Though we would not consider Mary as the wife of God the Father, God forbids because that’s blasphemy, in the human understanding, no human male should touch Mary in order that she kept her chastity and fidelity to the Father God and to carry her mission as the vessel for the Word incarnate. Though this is supposed to be understood in the spiritual way, but I think that make strong reasoning for Mary should be ever virgin.

God bless.

 

[rbarcia]

rev kevin;7433744:

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.

They are brothers and sisters of Jesus, but they are not children of Mary.
Again, where in scripture does it say that they are the children of Mary?

John quotes Psalm 69 in Reference to Jesus, 2 other times.

John 2:17
His disciples remembered that it was written, "Zeal for your house will consume me."

John 15:25
25But the word that is written in their Law must be fulfilled: 'They hated me without a cause.'

It is clear then that Psalm 69 is a prophecy about Jesus. I color match those prophecy. The scripture in between states my mother’s son

4 More in number than the hairs of my head
are those who hate me without cause;
mighty are those who would destroy me,
those who attack me with lies.
What I did not steal
must I now restore?
5O God, you know my folly;
the wrongs I have done are not hidden from you.

6Let not those who hope in you be put to shame through me,
O Lord GOD of hosts;
let not those who seek you be brought to dishonor through me,
O God of Israel.
7For it is for your sake that I have borne reproach,
that dishonor has covered my face.
8I have become a stranger to my brothers,
an alien to my mother’s sons.
9For zeal for your house has consumed me,
and the reproaches of those who reproach you have fallen on me.

(I am sure though a devote catholic will say I am not authoritative, and verse 8 is not about Jesus, just the ones around it) .

John 7:5
For not even his brothers believed in him.

Can be seen as fulfilling verse 8.

 

[RedDawgMCM]

Didn’t know it was manditory to answer every post. Since I have a nonsensical argument nothing I say will make a difference.

So it appears I was write that one verse deflates your whole argument because that was a weak response.

 

[Reuben_J]

It is clear then that Psalm 69 is a prophecy about Jesus. I color match those prophecy. The scripture in between states my mother’s son …

8I have become a stranger to my brothers,
an alien to my mother’s sons.
9For zeal for your house has consumed me,
and the reproaches of those who reproach you have fallen on me.

You have to come out better than that. Of course you can interpret it that way but I am sure, and this include Protestants Biblical scholars, will tell you that you can interpret this in a number of possibilities. Such is how we see the prophecies of the Old Testaments.
In the Gospels God was said to send his Son but his own accepted him not. Who were this ‘his own’? The answer is quite clear, is it not?

Looking at Ps 69 that you quoted. How is that Jesus a stranger to his brothers? It does not make sense for a brother to be a stranger among his own real brothers. Even if you say that is because his brothers did not believe in him, then that too is not exactly right. Jesus was not sent only to his blood brothers but to the people of Israel as a Messiah.

WE can only say that these brothers are also his ‘own’. These were the people whom he was sent to but they rejected him. And so he said, “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing …”

 

[elvisman]

ConstantineTG;7433843:

rev kevin;7433744:

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.

John quotes Psalm 69 in Reference to Jesus, 2 other times.

John 2:17
His disciples remembered that it was written, "Zeal for your house will consume me."

John 15:25
25But the word that is written in their Law must be fulfilled: 'They hated me without a cause.'

It is clear then that Psalm 69 is a prophecy about Jesus. I color match those prophecy. The scripture in between states my mother’s son

4 More in number than the hairs of my head
are those who hate me without cause;
mighty are those who would destroy me,
those who attack me with lies.
What I did not steal
must I now restore?
5O God, you know my folly;
the wrongs I have done are not hidden from you.

6Let not those who hope in you be put to shame through me,
O Lord GOD of hosts;
let not those who seek you be brought to dishonor through me,
O God of Israel.
7For it is for your sake that I have borne reproach,
that dishonor has covered my face.
8I have become a stranger to my brothers,
an alien to my mother’s sons.
9For zeal for your house has consumed me,
and the reproaches of those who reproach you have fallen on me.

(I am sure though a devote catholic will say I am not authoritative, and verse 8 is not about Jesus, just the ones around it) .

John 7:5
For not even his brothers believed in him.

Can be seen as fulfilling verse 8.
"A stranger to my brothers" and “My mother’s sons” is a clear reference to his rejection by Israeel

 

[elvisman]

No, the catechism does not use the word, but that is what “virginitas in partu” means in Catholic teaching. Mary remained a physical virgin while giving ‘birth’, or one should say, miraculous birth to Jesus.

Virginitas in partu simply means that she remained a virgin duing child birth.
You have a strange idea of what it means to be a virgin. As others have already stated, intercourse is what takes a woman’s viginity away.