Mary's Perpetual Virginity

[PC_Master]

“Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death.” 2 Samuel 6:23

If until is always used in the manner you’re suggesting, then you appear to think that she was able or expected to have children after she died?

No…once again, “X until Y” statements are often used to correct invalid assumptions. Everyone knows you don’t have children after death, but it is often assumed that you may indeed have children while still alive. Thus, a clarification is in order.

2 Kings - Jeroboam used Bethel as the centre of his idolatrous worship. Sounds like a deliberate insult to Yahweh who was worshipped there.

I’ll look into it.

It’s called the Holy LAND, darl. Everywhere Christ TROD is still considered holy 2,000 years later, much less the womb where He became flesh.

I see, so we’d best treat it like the burning bush, and only walk barefooted around Israel if we think Jesus might have walked in a particular place?

Oh, on a side note – the reason Israel is the “holy land” is not because that’s where Jesus was, for he certainly did not step foot in even most of the land. It’s the holy land because it’s the land that was “set apart” by God for his chosen people. They are still, even though they have largely turned from him, his chosen people and he has plans for them yet.

 

[mlchance]

The early church simply doesn’t show any indication of the perpetual virginity of Mary.

Putting aside the New Testament implications themselves, Christians were writing of Mary’s perpetual virginity shortly after the start of the 2nd century.

Question: From where do you get your authority to interpret Scripture that you yourself admit isn’t perfectly clear on the topic of Mary’s perpetual virginity?

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[maurin]

You don’t ask someone to try to prove a negative.

But the verse you’re looking for is Matt. 1:25. Obviously no vow of celibacy indicated there since Joseph kept from “knowing his wife” only until after the birth of Messiah. And based on the names of Jesus’ brothers and undisclosed number of sisters, obviously Joseph and Mary had a wonderful sex life in their marriage.

There’s your proof-text. :tiphat:

Give it a rest, apo. We’ve already covered Mt. 1:25 and the use of ‘until.’

And I’m sure that you didn’t mean to do dishonesty to the text of the Word of God when you paraphrased above.

The simple fact of the matter is that neither of our beliefs on Mary’s Perpetual Virginity is explicit in the Bible. For those Christians who believe Christ, we find it explicit only in the lived history of the Church. For those who follow the Luther and the Deformers (althought the first generation deformers did believe in Mary’s Perpetual Virginity) and their traditions of men and deify the Writings, it is not found explicit.

 

[Good_Fella]

Admittedly I’m not a Greek expert, but my understanding is that present tense verbs do not inherently imply future tense. See, if Mary actually said “I am (present tense) not having sex with any man” in English, the present tense of “am” that was used speaks only of the current time. How do you stretch this to say that Mary also meant this for the future?

And you get all this from what scripture? Or, from what early church father can you support this (something before the fifth century would be great)?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but if Mary had been married to, say, Bob, wouldn’t it have been wrong for Mary to take Joseph as a husband, whether or not she had sex with either? Since it was not wrong for her to take Joseph as her husband, we must assume that God did not consider the impregnation from the holy spirit to be a marriage.

Scriptures also do not tell us that the fullness of God’s revelation will ever be presented infallibly to any one person or any group of people – be it the church or anyone else.

Admittedly, you’re not even an expert in English grammar. If you offer me a cigarette and I say “No thanks, I don’t smoke”, it means I never smoke and don’t plan to in the future. If I say “No thanks, I don’t smoke anymore” then it would mean I used to smoke and don’t plan to ever again. If I say “No thanks, I am not smoking now”, then it means I plan to resume smoking in the future. Are you suggesting that Mary and Joseph resumed sexual relations after the birth of Jesus? That’s what happens when you confuse the Simple Present tense with the Present Continuous tense. When the angel Gabriel offered Mary a cigarette, she said, “I don’t smoke.” And she did not qualify her statement by adding , “But I might start smoking some time in the future.” We must keep in mind Mary was confused by the announcement that she would conceive and bear a child. If she had planned to have sexual relations with Joseph, she would not have asked the angel Gabriel ,“How can this be?” She was aware of her vow of chastity: “I have no relations with a man.” And we all know she had no relations with Joseph before the Annunciation. Luke 1:34 clearly teaches us that Mary was ever-virgin. :yup:

The source is the ‘Protoevangelium of James’ : The Birth of Mary, the Holy Mother of God, and Very Glorious Mother of Jesus Christ. This “Gospel before the Gospels” was written around the year 120 A.D. This text is quite early, and its provenance is the area of Jerusalem. So it would have been within the living memory of people who may have known about Mary or even knew her as a much older person. However, the Church does not take this apocryphal work as a divinely inspired Gospel because of all the embellishments contained therein. But neither is its historical value ignored. Indeed, many fanciful descriptions surround the main events in Mary’s birth and childhood. But the main events themselves are probably true. The Protoevangelium is quoted by the apostolic Fathers and was read in the earliest days of the Church. Yet the text never aspired to the status of canon, because of its lack of narrative simplicity. What was recorded in the Protogospel wasn’t exactly how something actually happened. Still, this gospel reveals the very early veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the church in Jerusalem. Christians from the end of the first century and early second century believed in the miraculous nature of Mary’s conception and birth. They believed in her perpetual virginity, her highly favoured place as Mother of God, and her prominent position as Mother of the Church. The Church’s Marian dogmas find their roots in the earliest times. Today the Feast of the Presentation of Mary in the Temple falls on November 21. This event in Mary’s life remains a part of Sacred Tradition without the frills found in the Protogospel of James. And according to Tradition, the high priest of the Temple arranged a virginal marriage between the young maiden Mary and a much older, chaste man named Joseph.

He said to me: “This gate is to remain closed; it is not to be opened for anyone to enter; since the Lord, the God of Israel has entered by it, it shall remain closed. Only the prince may sit down in it to eat his meal in the presence of the Lord.”
{ Ezekiel 44:2-3; cf. Luke 1:31-35}

“I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” {Matthew 16:19}

“He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you.” {John 16:14}

17th century Protestantism isn’t exactly early, is it?

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Mickey]

Putting aside the New Testament implications themselves, Christians were writing of Mary’s perpetual virginity shortly after the start of the 2nd century.

Question: From where do you get your authority to interpret Scripture that you yourself admit isn’t perfectly clear on the topic of Mary’s perpetual virginity?

– Mark L. Chance.

Good question.

 

[maurin]

Admittedly, you’re not even an expert in English grammar. If you offer me a cigarette and I say “No thanks, I don’t smoke”, it means I never smoke and don’t plan to in the future. If I say “No thanks, I don’t smoke anymore” then it would mean I used to smoke and don’t plan to ever again. If I say “No thanks, I am not smoking now”, then it means I plan to resume smoking in the future. Are you suggesting that Mary and Joseph resumed sexual relations after the birth of Jesus? That’s what happens when you confuse the Simple Present tense with the Present Continuous tense. When the angel Gabriel offered Mary a cigarette, she said, “I don’t smoke.” And she did not qualify her statement by adding , “But I might start smoking some time in the future.” We must keep in mind Mary was confused by the announcement that she would conceive and bear a child. If she had planned to have sexual relations with Joseph, she would not have asked the angel Gabriel ,“How can this be?” She was aware of her vow of chastity: “I have no relations with a man.” And we all know she had no relations with Joseph before the Annunciation. Luke 1:34 clearly teaches us that Mary was ever-virgin. :yup:

The source is the ‘Protoevangelium of James’ : The Birth of Mary, the Holy Mother of God, and Very Glorious Mother of Jesus Christ. This “Gospel before the Gospels” was written around the year 120 A.D. This text is quite early, and its provenance is the area of Jerusalem. So it would have been within the living memory of people who may have known about Mary or even knew her as a much older person. However, the Church does not take this apocryphal work as a divinely inspired Gospel because of all the embellishments contained therein. But neither is its historical value ignored. Indeed, many fanciful descriptions surround the main events in Mary’s birth and childhood. But the main events themselves are probably true. The Protoevangelium is quoted by the apostolic Fathers and was read in the earliest days of the Church. Yet the text never aspired to the status of canon, because of its lack of narrative simplicity. What was recorded in the Protogospel wasn’t exactly how something actually happened. Still, this gospel reveals the very early veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the church in Jerusalem. Christians from the end of the first century and early second century believed in the miraculous nature of Mary’s conception and birth. They believed in her perpetual virginity, her highly favoured place as Mother of God, and her prominent position as Mother of the Church. The Church’s Marian dogmas find their roots in the earliest times. Today the Feast of the Presentation of Mary in the Temple falls on November 21. This event in Mary’s life remains a part of Sacred Tradition without the frills found in the Protogospel of James. And according to Tradition, the high priest of the Temple arranged a virginal marriage between the young maiden Mary and a much older, chaste man named Joseph.

He said to me: “This gate is to remain closed; it is not to be opened for anyone to enter; since the Lord, the God of Israel has entered by it, it shall remain closed. Only the prince may sit down in it to eat his meal in the presence of the Lord.”
{ Ezekiel 44:2-3; cf. Luke 1:31-35}

“I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” {Matthew 16:19}

“He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you.” {John 16:14}

17th century Protestantism isn’t exactly early, is it?

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

excellent post, Good Fella. Thanks.

 

[apophasis]

“Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death.” 2 Samuel 6:23

If until is always used in the manner you’re suggesting, then you appear to think that she was able or expected to have children after she died?

You’re trying to argue the absurd. It simply communicates with all clarity that she bore no children all the days she was living.

In the same way the “until” in Matt. 1:25 clearly expresses that Joseph did not “know her” until she gave birth to her first-born son.

There’s nothing complicated about either 2 Sam. 6:23 or Matt. 1:25 unless you’re trying to disprove the obvious.

*“And Michal the daughter of Saul had no children to the day of her death” *expresses the same as Joseph not knowing his wife all the days she was pregnant with her first-born son. The only difference is Michal died having bore no children. Mary, on the other hand, did not die giving birth and subsequently went on to bear several others since Joseph kept from “knowing her” only until up to time she gave birth to her first-born.

Nothing complicated about any of these verses, unless you’re trying to trump Scripture with your tradition. It always becomes complicated when someone tries to disprove the obvious. Lots of rhetoric and sophism.

 

[apophasis]

Admittedly, you’re not even an expert in English grammar. If you offer me a cigarette and I say “No thanks, I don’t smoke”, it means I never smoke and don’t plan to in the future. If I say “No thanks, I don’t smoke anymore” then it would mean I used to smoke and don’t plan to ever again. If I say “No thanks, I am not smoking now”, then it means I plan to resume smoking in the future. Are you suggesting that Mary and Joseph resumed sexual relations after the birth of Jesus?

It’s exactly what Matthew teaches (except for the “resumed” part). Now take your same logic above and apply it to Matt. 1:25. Joseph refrained from having sexual relations with his wife UNTIL she gave birth to her first-born. In other words, “they’re not smoking now” but they plan to in the future. And Matthew later on gives us names produced by that “bad habit.”

 

[Mickey]

Mary, on the other hand, did not die giving birth and subsequently went on to bear several others since Joseph kept from “knowing her” only until up to time she gave birth to her first-born.

Bad theology. Revisionist interpretation.

Nothing complicated about any of these verses, unless you’re trying to trump Scripture with your tradition.

"Never has there been such an age of false teachers as this pitiful 20th century, so rich in material gadgets and so poor in mind and soul. Every conceivable opinion, even the most absurd, even those hitherto rejected by the universal consent of all civilized peoples—now has its platform and its own “teacher.” A few of these teachers come with demonstration or promise of “spiritual power” and false miracles, as do some occultists and “charismatics;” but most of the contemporary teachers offer no more than a weak concoction of undigested ideas which they received “out of the air,” as it were, or from some modern self-appointed “wise man” (or woman) who knows more than all the ancients merely by living in our “enlightened” modern times. As a result, philosophy has a thousand schools, and “Christianity” a thousand sects.
Fr Seraphim Rose

 

[Spirithound]

…and in the case of Mary and Joseph, the best you can get is that the word until simply says nothing about what happened after Jesus’ birth.

And this is where Tradition steps in.

See, it’s the “never intended to either” that gets me. I don’t see where you get this from the text.

The Angel said you Mary “You will conceive a son.” That’s future tense. I don’t think there would have been any indication that the event was going to happen on THAT DAY. So Mary would have known how babies are made, and so if she intended to have sexual relations later, her question “How can this be, since I know not man?”, is a rather stupid one. From that, we infer that she did not intend to have sexual relations.

I have read (i think) in this thread, and heard from a Protestant friend that Mary and Joseph had sexual relations because that was the normal thing to do in a marriage, or they were married, therefore they must have had relations. My question is basically “Who would know?”, meaning, if Mary and Joseph did not have relations, would it really be a scandal to the community? Who among them would know that there were no sexual relations?

 

[HailMary]

1. Burning bush – God was present, and so the location was holy because of his presence. I would assume that this location

Yeah, tell that the hundreds of thousands of Christians (Apostolic/non-Apostolic alike) who do pilgrimages to the Holy Land every year just because Jesus lived there. How much more holy is the womb that Jesus took His delight in!

Mary is the burning bush btw, she contained in her womb, the Divine, but was not divine herself.

 

[Mickey]

Mary is the burning bush btw, she contained in her womb, the Divine, but was not divine herself.

She is also Jacob’s ladder. The link between heaven and earth–divinity and humanity.

 

[maurin]

You’re trying to argue the absurd. It simply communicates with all clarity that she bore no children all the days she was living.

In the same way the “until” in Matt. 1:25 clearly expresses that Joseph did not “know her” until she gave birth to her first-born son.

There’s nothing complicated about either 2 Sam. 6:23 or Matt. 1:25 unless you’re trying to disprove the obvious.

*“And Michal the daughter of Saul had no children to the day of her death” *expresses the same as Joseph not knowing his wife all the days she was pregnant with her first-born son. The only difference is Michal died having bore no children. Mary, on the other hand, did not die giving birth and subsequently went on to bear several others since Joseph kept from “knowing her” only until up to time she gave birth to her first-born.

Nothing complicated about any of these verses, unless you’re trying to trump Scripture with your tradition. It always becomes complicated when someone tries to disprove the obvious. Lots of rhetoric and sophism.

This has been dealt with on pg. 3 of this thread. you are rehashing what has been dealt with.

clearly your arguments are absurd to us, and ours to you.

however, all you have on your side is fallible human tradition that is really less than 500 years old. follow it if you choose.

 

[HailMary]

But the verse you’re looking for is Matt. 1:25. Obviously no vow of celibacy indicated there since Joseph kept from “knowing his wife” only until after the birth of Messiah. And based on the names of Jesus’ brothers and undisclosed number of sisters, obviously Joseph and Mary had a wonderful sex life in their marriage.

I’m sure this was mentioned before in this thread but here it is again:
(from Catholic Encyclopedia)
Till she brought forth her firstborn son… From these words Helvidius and other heretics most impiously inferred that the blessed Virgin Mary had other children besides Christ; but St. Jerome shows, by divers examples, that this expression of the Evangelist was a manner of speaking usual among the Hebrews, to denote by the word until, only what is done, without any regard to the future. Thus it is said, Genesis 8:6 and 8:7, that Noe sent forth a raven, which went forth, and did not return till the waters were dried up on the earth. That is, did not return any more. Also Isaiah 46:4, God says: I am till you grow old. Who dare infer that God should then cease to be: Also in the 1 Maccabees 5:54, And they went up to mount Zion with joy and gladness, and offered holocausts, because not one of them was slain till they had returned in peace. That is, not one was slain before or after they had returned. God saith to his divine Son: Sit on my right hand till I make thy enemies thy footstool. Shall he sit no longer after his enemies are subdued? Yea and for all eternity. St. Jerome also proves by Scripture examples, that an only begotten son, was also called firstborn, or first begotten: because according to the law, the firstborn males were to be consecrated to God; Sanctify unto me, saith the Lord, every firstborn that openeth the womb among the children of Israel, etc. Exodus 13:2.

 

[apophasis]

This has been dealt with on pg. 3 of this thread. you are rehashing what has been dealt with.

clearly your arguments are absurd to us, and ours to you.

however, all you have on your side is fallible human tradition that is really less than 500 years old.

Actually, I have the plain, clear teachings of the Scriptures which go all the way back to the beginning of Apostolic teaching (theopneustos, in fact). And by them I can test any subsequent “tradition” that evolved within the church, past or present.

What you find absurd is not my arguments but the clear, unambiguous teachings of Scripture. And the only reason you find them absurd is because they contradict your tradition. So you jump through hoops to try to make them them conform.

 

[maurin]

Actually, I have the plain, clear teachings of the Scriptures which go all the way back to the beginning of Apostolic teaching (theopneustos, in fact). And by them I can test any subsequent “tradition” that evolved within the church, past or present.

What you find absurd is not my arguments but the clear, unambiguous teachings of Scripture. And the only reason you find them absurd is because they contradict your tradition. So you jump through hoops to try to make them them conform.

How do you have the Scriptures? Are you claiming an infallible Bible is sufficient for you?

Either you are infallibly certain that your interpretation of the Bible is correct, or you are not. If you are infallibly certain, then you assert for yourself a personal infallibility which you deny the Pope and the Magisterium, and which we claim only for him.

If you are not infallibly certain that you understand the true meaning of the whole Bible then, I ask, of what use to you is the objective infallibility of the Bible, without an infallible interpreter? (Cardinal Gibbons, “The Faith of our FAthers”, 1917)

Actually, what I find absurd is that you presume to know what you are talking about, in the face of information–which includes exegsis of the verses you have cited-- which is contrary to the position you hold.

But you are welcome to your opinions.

 

[Mickey]

Either you are infallibly certain that your interpretation of the Bible is correct, or you are not.

Indeed.

 

[Good_Fella]

It’s exactly what Matthew teaches (except for the “resumed” part). Now take your same logic above and apply it to Matt. 1:25. Joseph refrained from having sexual relations with his wife UNTIL she gave birth to her first-born. In other words, “they’re not smoking now” but they plan to in the future. And Matthew later on gives us names produced by that “bad habit.”

Except for the resumed part? So what you are saying is that every individual on earth who has refrained from smoking since the day he was born until now plans to start smoking in the future. Why would anyone necessarily plan to start smoking at a given time if he hasn’t smoked until now all his life? It would be more realistic to assume that someone who wasn’t smoking for the time being, but was in the habit of smoking, planned to resume smoking at some point. So you believe that Mary and Joseph resumed having sexual relations after the birth of Christ? Matthew is speaking in the Simple Past tense, not the Past Progressive. He tells us that Joseph and Mary “refrained” from having sexual relations before the child was born. {“He had no relations with her.”} Once the child was born they “continued” to refrain from having sexual relations. He wants to assure us that the birth of Jesus was a virgin birth. He is not concerned with the question of sexual relations in a marriage. Context is the most significant thing to look for in the scriptures where we find a joining of clauses. The context in Matthew deals with a virgin bearing a child. Virginity is his main theme. We must understand that Jesus was not the result of normal sexual relations between a husband and wife.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[LilyM]

Yeah, tell that the hundreds of thousands of Christians (Apostolic/non-Apostolic alike) who do pilgrimages to the Holy Land every year just because Jesus lived there. How much more holy is the womb that Jesus took His delight in!

Mary is the burning bush btw, she contained in her womb, the Divine, but was not divine herself.

the whole land of Israel may have been singled out by God in OT times, but pilgrims DON’T just visit random bits of it.

They visit places Jesus specifically is known to have lived and worked - Bethehem, Nazareth, the Jordan, the sea of Galilee, specific sites in Jerusalem such as the Via Dolorosa, the remains of the Temple, the Mount of Olives, Calvary, Gethsemane, the Upper Room, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

And they have always considered those to be holy sites, hence churches being built over the top of just about every place connected with Him. I’m sure if they could find a way to build on water they’d do so on the sea of Galilee and in the middle of the Jordan itself!

Even today they line up to be baptised in the Jordan as Jesus was.

And you tell me they don’t consider these specific places where Our Lord WAS 2,000 years ago to be especially holy?

 

[apophasis]

Spiritbound:

The Angel said you Mary “You will conceive a son.” That’s future tense. I don’t think there would have been any indication that the event was going to happen on THAT DAY.

Actually he said she would conceive in her womb and then bear a son. By Mary’s response we must conclude that she understood by Gabriel’s words that the conception (not the birth) would be imminent. We know that Mary was betrothed to Joseph, but what we don’t know is when the actual marriage (the second part) was planned to occur. Obviously Mary understood this to be not before she would miraculously conceive in her womb. For this reason she responded with, “How can this be, since I know no man?”