Mary's Perpetual Virginity

[Spirithound]

If something so important as your belief in the perpetual virginity was taught to the Apostles the Holy Spirit would have guided those Apostles to include it in the Scriptures.

You also are assuming the answer to an empirical question. Because you cannot envision a marriage that does not include sexual relations, you declare that no marriage can exist that does not include sexual relations. Other posters have given examples of the use of “until” which is consistent with the way the Catholic Church interprets that word in this passage. Grammatically speaking, the Church’s interpretation is at least possible, and you must admit that.
I admit that it is highly irregular for a marriage to exist that does not include sexual relations, so much so that your interpretation of Matthew’s verse (at least in English) would appear to be correct. Luckily, we have centuries of Tradition and the Magesterium to give the correct definition and advise us otherwise.

 

[apophasis]

LilyM:

Nice try.

It is NOT so taught by Matthew, any more than it is taught in the OT that Michal, David’s first wife, had children AFTER her death, or that God will remove Christ from His position at the Father’s right hand AFTER Christ’s enemies have been made his foot stool.

And no more than Matthew himself teaches us that Christ will no longer be with us after the ‘consummation of the world’ (the Last Judgement).

Really didn’t have to “try” at all, Lily. All one needs to do is read the passage and the text and context speak for themselves. It’s you who must appeal to other unrelated passages to try to justify your strained interpretation.

 

[apophasis]

Mannyfit75:

According to the Jewish Law a child was designated as “first-born” irrespective of whether there were yet, or ever to be, subsequent children born to the same mother. This is gathered from Exodus 13, 2, which required that “every first-born that openeth the womb among the children of Israel” be consecrated to God forty days after their birth.

Thank you. You actually supported my argument. The first-born (prototokos) here is in reference to chronology, not a title. The first (male) to come out of the womb was to be sanctified to the Lord:Ex 13:1-2 "Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, “Sanctify to Me every firstborn, the first offspring of every womb among the sons of Israel, both of man and beast; it belongs to Me.”

Luke 2:22-23 "And when the days for their purification according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought Him up to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “EVERY {firstborn} MALE THAT OPENS THE WOMB SHALL BE CALLED HOLY TO THE LORD”),This is an obvious reference to chronology. Jesus was the first-born male that came out of her womb, and for this reason they went up to Jerusalem to offer the proper sacrifice.

Now it is true there is a non-literal Title of “first-born” given to Christ which has nothing to do with chronology but status, privilege and authority (see Rom. 8:29; Col. 1:15, 18). But one can plainly see that this is not the context of Matt. 1:25 or in Lk. 2:21-24. “First-born” in these passages is in reference to chronological order and required the proper sacrifice according to the Mosaic Law.

And yes, it doesn’t matter if there were no more males that would come out of the womb, nevertheless, that first and only one was to be sanctified to the Lord.

But we know from Matthew’s account that after Jesus was born Joseph and Mary consummated the marriage and together had children: James, Joseph, Simon & Judas - the names of His sisters are not given (Matt. 13:56; Mk. 6:3].

Who, then, exactly were the brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ?

It is best to start by looking at St. John 19, 25. There it is evident that the Virgin Mary had an older sister whose name was also Mary: “Meanwhile, standing near the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.”

Manny, that text does not at all say that Mary had an older sister by the same name as her’s. Read it carefully! The text states that Jesus’ mother was standing near the cross, AND his mother’s sister. The second Mary mentioned is not Mary’s sister but “the wife of Clopas.” John does not give us the name of Mary’s sister.

However, in Mark’s account (15:40) he mentions the same women as John but also adds “Salome.” So it is most probable that Salome is the name of Mary’s sister who was beside her at the cross.

If you do a study in Matthew, Mark and John we see the women mentioned at the cross were: (1) Mary, Jesus’ mother, (2) Mary’s sister (Salome), (3) Mary Magdalene, (4) Mary the mother of James and Joseph, 5) the mother of the sons of Zebedee.

 

[apophasis]

maurin:

You have offered no proof for your interpretation.

My proof is in the simple, normal reading of the text.

Your dilemma is clear. The Greek compoind word used in Matthew 1:25 is heos-hou, and it does not imply a change or revbersal of starus that is spoken about in the clause that precedes it. Heos-hou is an abbreviation of the longer Greek phrase “heos hou chronou en hoi,” which means “until the time when.” The shorter version, which you referenced above is just ‘heos.’ In Greek, ‘heos’ does not imply that a condition changes in the clause following it.

Rationalize as you might, maurin, the Greek word heos simply means “until,” “unto,” “up to,” “till.” There is no hidden Greek nuance attached to it and the context will define its meaning.

What Matthew communicated is so extremely simple and clear a child could easily understand it. And of course in 15:6 Matthew even names the males born to them and mentions there were “sisters” as well.

You offer your own interpretation of Mt 1:25. Sorry, stop-it-man, but your interpretation is not that of the Apostles and the Early Church Fathers.

It may not be what Matthew “interpreted” (the Apostles didn’t write commentaries on N.T. Scripture), but it is what he WROTE. As for the ECFs? Well, they all had their personal beliefs about Mary. But the basis of true Christian doctrine is not the personal beliefs of men but Divine revelation. And according to Divine revelation, after the birth of Messiah Joseph and Mary were allowed to have a typical marriage, blessed with the joy of a fairly large family.

Some on this thread seem to have the idea that having sex is inherently “dirty.” Sex, in its proper context, is according to God’s design. It’s a part of His creation.

 

[apophasis]

You also are assuming the answer to an empirical question. Because you cannot envision a marriage that does not include sexual relations, you declare that no marriage can exist that does not include sexual relations.

I declared no such thing! I do, however, declare that, based on what Matthew reveals in his account, no such marriage existed between Joseph and Mary.

Other posters have given examples of the use of “until” which is consistent with the way the Catholic Church interprets that word in this passage. Grammatically speaking, the Church’s interpretation is at least possible, and you must admit that.

Sorry I can not. They jump over to other passages within a completely different context to try and justify their interpretation. Can’t buy it, my friend. Context always determines the meaning of a word.

I admit that it is highly irregular for a marriage to exist that does not include sexual relations, so much so that your interpretation of Matthew’s verse (at least in English) would appear to be correct. Luckily, we have centuries of Tradition and the Magesterium to give the correct definition and advise us otherwise.

Well, bottom line, even centuries of tradition and your Magesterium must still contend with what Matthew clearly communicates to us in his theopneustos account. And it’s not by luck that it was preserved for us to this day, and that we may, by it, test all things.

We are to make an exegetical study the Scriptures. We don’t first “envision” something and then interpret. We interpret based on what the text itself communicates.

 

[fellowChristian]

Then what do you make of II Corinthians 5:21 For He made Him
Who knew no sin to be sin for us?

Well are you asking me for my opinion? Because that is really all I can offer you. Jesus who knew no sin died for our sins. He was our Lamb lead to slaughter in place of our sins like in Leviticus 4.Instead of us dying for our sins Jesus took our place.

These verses I believe go with the verse you gave me. I hope this has been of some help. If not I am sorry. May the Lord be with you.

Romans 3:25

25whom God displayed publicly as a propitiationin His blood through faith This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed;

Romans 4:25

25He who was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification.

Romans 8:3

3For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,

Galatians 3:13

13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us–for it is written, “CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE”–

 

[PC_Master]

Furthermore, even in today’s usage, “until” has the same meaning (contrary to what PC Master or apophasis contend).

If I’m watching my children and have to leave the room and say “I want you to behave until I get back”, that certainly does not imply that I want them to start misbehaving once I return.

If you’d read what I’ve written, you’d see that your statement even fits into my previous point – a “X until Y” is a statement designed to correct an assumption that is false. For example, the common thought of kids is that when the parents aren’t around they can get away with misbehaving which they ordinarily wouldn’t be able to do. The parent says “behave until I get back”, it corrects this improper assumption.

Likewise, the holy spirit is sent, and thus it can be said that “God will be with us until we get to heaven”. No, that’s not saying that God won’t be with us when we actually get to heaven, but it does correct an invalid assumption.

Think of it this way – if something is never to happen, there’s no reason to say until. Why not simply say “Joseph never knew his wife”? Because that’s not what happened.

Another couple of points…

1. Can someone provide sources for the claim that Jewish couples would have regularly had sexual relations before marriage? And even if this is proven, what’s to say that Mary and Joseph were not just doing their best to follow God’s laws, thus maintaining virginity until after they were actually married?
2. What disadvantage would having sex actually cause to Mary, as a mother or as a godly woman?

 

[maurin]

My proof is in the simple, normal reading of the text.Rationalize as you might, maurin, the Greek word heos simply means “until,” “unto,” “up to,” “till.” There is no hidden Greek nuance attached to it and the context will define its meaning.

What Matthew communicated is so extremely simple and clear a child could easily understand it. And of course in 15:6 Matthew even names the males born to them and mentions there were “sisters” as well.It may not be what Matthew “interpreted” (the Apostles didn’t write commentaries on N.T. Scripture), but it is what he WROTE. As for the ECFs? Well, they all had their personal beliefs about Mary. But the basis of true Christian doctrine is not the personal beliefs of men but Divine revelation. And according to Divine revelation, after the birth of Messiah Joseph and Mary were allowed to have a typical marriage, blessed with the joy of a fairly large family.

Some on this thread seem to have the idea that having sex is inherently “dirty.” Sex, in its proper context, is according to God’s design. It’s a part of His creation.

you have offered nothing substantive but your own opinion: not the Greek use of the word, the Scriptural use of it. Just your opinion.

And who on this thread thinks sex is dirty? It seems you have never really sat down and meditated on Jesus’ teaching that some make themselves Eunuchs–for the sake of the kingdom.

denigrate what you don’t understand, if you must. But you’ve foolen noone with your strawman.

 

[VociMike]

If something so important as your belief in the perpetual virginity was taught to the Apostles the Holy Spirit would have guided those Apostles to include it in the Scriptures.

This is nothing more than an assertion based upon the false theory of sola Scriptura, and a false understanding of the Church and the place of Scripture in the Church.

To the Jews Jesus the man died, so they wouldn’t think that Mary was bearing children from two living men.

This sounds like you’re saying that Mary had children by Jesus! I know you don’t believe that, so I can’t make out what you’re trying to say here.

 

[apophasis]

you have offered nothing substantive but your own opinion: not the Greek use of the word, the Scriptural use of it. Just your opinion.

And who on this thread thinks sex is dirty? It seems you have never really sat down and meditated on Jesus’ teaching that some make themselves Eunuchs–for the sake of the kingdom.

denigrate what you don’t understand, if you must. But you’ve foolen noone with your strawman.

Maurin, all of your efforts so far have been to try to disprove that which is clearly obvious.

Why would meditating on eunuchs change the simplicity of Matthew’s testimony? Matthew’s not talking about eunuchs in that passage. Neither your tradition nor my meditating can change what has been written.

I’m not the one expressing my opinion here.

 

[maurin]

STRAWMAN!

so we’ve gone from discussing the usage of heos-hou in the Scripture to pc’s denigration of celibacy.



neither you nor pc have offered anything of substance to back up your assertions that Mary had other children, except your opinions.

Once again, your opinions are valid, you are free to reject our presentations of the Truth; which of course include the Traditions of the Apostles: Scripture and Tradition.

If the meaning of the Scriptures were “plain” why are there protestant ecclesial bodies which disagree with yours, and uphold Mary’s Perpetual Virginity?

 

[apophasis]

And who on this thread thinks sex is dirty?

From post # 19:

Do you really believe that God would place someone pure and sinless (Jesus) in someone who was dirty and sinful?

Isn’t that like pouring water in a dirty glass?

Besides to be “full of grace” means to have no sin. Doesn’t it?

If you have a glass (Mary) and you say she is “full of grace” (full of clean water) there is no room in the glass for dirty water (sin)

I can only assume that this person meant that if Mary would have had sexual relations with Joseph she would have experienced sin. If he didn’t mean that, then his statement is not compatible with the thread.

 

[maurin]

From post # 19:I can only assume that this person meant that if Mary would have had sexual relations with Joseph she would have experienced sin. If he didn’t mean that, then his statement is not compatible with the thread.

Is the modus operandi of anti-Catholics to include assumptions in order to set up yet another strawman? Where does this poster say “sex is dirty?”

If you believe the poster’s statement is not compatible with the thread, that is between you and that poster–maybe rather than assuming you should ask what the poster meant.

Provide something–anything!–of substance to support your claims, or admit that you are presenting only your opinion on the subject, and that you reject the Church’s teaching based on your own opinion.

At least, apo, we provide you with the Traditions of the Apostles in Scripture and Tradition. We offer substantive reasons for our beliefs, rather than giving mere opinions.

Might you?

 

[apophasis]

STRAWMAN!

so we’ve gone from discussing the usage of heos-hou in the Scripture to pc’s denigration of celibacy.



neither you nor pc have offered anything of substance to back up your assertions that Mary had other children, except your opinions.

Once again, your opinions are valid, you are free to reject our presentations of the Truth; which of course include the Traditions of the Apostles: Scripture and Tradition.

If the meaning of the Scriptures were “plain” why are there protestant ecclesial bodies which disagree with yours, and uphold Mary’s Perpetual Virginity?

Because it’s what they want to believe rather than accept what is written. The beauty and power of the Scriptures is that you can’t change them. You can try to force an erroneous interpretation out of them (but that becomes very obvious), or you can impose on them your preconceived notions, but that still won’t change what was already written.

It matters not what men have believed (even for centuries) when what they’ve believed is contrary to what has been written, and what has been written is theopneustos (God-breathed).

 

[maurin]

Because it’s what they want to believe rather than accept what is written. The beauty and power of the Scriptures is that you can’t change them. You can try to force an erroneous interpretation out of them (but that becomes very obvious), or you can impose on them your preconceived notions, but that still won’t change what was already written.

It matters not what men have believed (even for centuries) when what they’ve believed is contrary to what has been written, and what has been written is theopneustos (God-breathed).

when you can provide Scriptural exegsis, and/or the Early Church Fathers to support your claims , rather than your own eisogesis as proof, please contact me.

Until then, your conversation is fruitless. It is as the blind leading the blind into the pit.

 

[apophasis]

Think of it this way – if something is never to happen, there’s no reason to say until. Why not simply say “Joseph never knew his wife”? Because that’s not what happened.

Your logic is impeccable.Matt 1:24-25 "And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took {Mary} as his wife, but was not knowing her UNTIL she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus."According to Matthew Mary’s perpetual virginity is not what happened. They went on to enjoy a typical marriage with several children between them. Matthew even gives us the names of the boys and mentions there were girls too.

 

[maurin]

Apo,

congratulations! something of substance! let’s look at it:

Mt 13:55-56. If you are correct in your interpretation of this verse, then you have proven that the Scriptures are contradictory, because in MT 27:56 and John 19:25, it is stated by the God-Breathed writings that two of the men that are mentioned in Mt 13:55-56 are the sons of Mary, the wife of Cleophas.

So either Scripture is wrong, or you are reading Scripture wrong.

 

[Good_Fella]

I also must refute the point made in a link above that Mary would have taken a lifelong vow of celibacy. Such a vow typically required refraining from marriage. As Mary was espoused to Joseph (Luke 1:27), this would be unthinkable – married couples should, do, and did have sex.

In the Gospel of Luke, Mary is shown as having already made up her mind to forego the sexual privileges of a wife by the time the angel Gabriel appeared to her with the news (Lk1:34). Conscious of her vow to the Lord, she was far from indifferent to the honour. Her eventual acceptance of God’s will proves she was not, once the angel Gabriel had solved her difficulty. It is reasonable to conclude that at their betrothal, the first stage of marriage at the time, Joseph agreed to Mary’s condition and was himself in favour of a virginal marriage. It explains his acute anguish when he discovered that his betrothed was with child. He must have wondered how a young maiden and virgin could be in such a state. His confusion would be arrested and his anxiety allayed by the voice of Gabriel in a dream he had had one night: “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary your wife into your home. For it is through the Holy Spirit that this child has been conceived in her. She will bear a son and you are to name him Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.”…When Joseph awoke, he did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took his wife into his home (Mt 1:20-24).

Devout Jewish women did not customarily take on a vow of virginity. The temple virgins were dismissed from the temple when they were ready to marry in their early teens. But there were exceptions to the norm. Judith, a prototype of Mary, made a private vow of virginity to God after her first marriage ended and remained single. Similarily, but before her marriage and at a younger age, Mary had privately vowed her virginity to God. The Protoevangelium of James (of great historical value) states that Mary’s parents, Joachim and Anna, presented the child Mary in the temple when she was three years old. She made her vow at some point during her stay in the temple until she was about fourteen. It was not the custom among the temple virgins, but Mary was so “full of grace” she could meet God’s will even when this would be contrary to Jewish custom and the expectations of Jewish men. This is why she was perplexed by the announcement of the angel Gabriel that she would conceive a child and asked how it could be possible since she knows not man. In spite of Mary’s vow of virginity, in the spirit of Judith, Joseph was betrothed to Mary by the arrangements of his parents, as was the Jewish custom. Perhaps Joseph’s parents were unaware of Mary’s private vow, as Joseph may have been at the time of the signing of the contract. But, in any case, he was commanded by the Lord in his dream to fulfill the marriage, since Mary had conceived the Son of the Most High, Jesus. Virginal marriages were not the norm, but they did occasionally occur. The Jewish catacombs in Rome identify many married couples who contracted a celibate marriage.

This gate shall be shut; it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it. Because the Lord God of Israel hath entered in by it. {Ezekiel 44:2}

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[mikeledes]

Because it’s what they want to believe rather than accept what is written. The beauty and power of the Scriptures is that you can’t change them. You can try to force an erroneous interpretation out of them (but that becomes very obvious), or you can impose on them your preconceived notions, but that still won’t change what was already written.

It matters not what men have believed (even for centuries) when what they’ve believed is contrary to what has been written, and what has been written is theopneustos (God-breathed).

It doesn’t matter what other men have believed for centuries, but it certainly matters that you have accepted the Canon of Scripture these men discerned were God-breathed.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Mickey]

Sadly, protestanism has drifted further and further away from the Apostolic teaching. They began to ignore the Scriptural interpretations of the Church Fathers and even their own founding fathers (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli). Now, some groups believe they alone (or their pastors) have the correct interpretations–an interpretation that was never taught. They say that it is clear and evident from reading the Scripture passage. If the perpetual virginity of Our Lady is not the truth, then why did the earliest Christians not understand this? Why did the early Church teach otherwise?

The deepest wells have the clearest water.

I pray that those who have been led astray may open their minds and their hearts to the true Apostolic teaching.
smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/17/17_1_29.gif