Mary's Perpetual Virginity

[HailMary]

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.

You have adopted a very late ~18th(?) century tradition if you think the Blessed Virgin and the just St. Joseph had children in the flesh.

see Mark 7:8-9 for more details.

as our Mickey said,

I pray that those who have been led astray may open their minds and their hearts to the true Apostolic teaching.

Thankfully, every Divine Liturgy you are included and remembered so the doors of grace are always open, just ask Jesus to lead you in.

 

[Good_Fella]

.
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.

Think of it this way: something was to happen and did happen: A virgin conceived and bore a child after the betrothal and marriage of Mary and Joseph. Matthew is concerned with the time before the virgin birth. He is stressing that Joseph is not the biological father of Jesus. His birth is the fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14. Joseph never knew his wife before the birth of Jesus. If he had known his wife before she conceived the child, then Jesus would not have been the Messiah as foretold by the prophet Isaiah. Take away the virgin birth, take away Jesus, the Son of God.

That’s not what happened!

Nice try with your sophistry.

In them (the scriptures) there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own distruction. :yup:
{ 2 Peter 3:16}

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Mannyfit75]

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].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.

Really. Mary does have a sister.

Of the four “brethren” who are named in the Gospels, consider, for the sake of argument, only James. Similar reasoning can be used for the other three. We know that James’ mother was named Mary. Look at the descriptions of the women standing beneath the Cross:

“Among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the MOTHER OF JAMES AND JOSEPH, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee” (Mt 27:56);

“Among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the MOTHER OF JAMES THE LESS AND OF JOSEPH, and Salome” (Mk 15:40).

 

[Mannyfit75]

Then look at what John says:

“Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother’s SISTER, MARY THE WIFE OF CLOPAS, and Mary Magdalene” (Jn 19:25 [whether there are actually 3 or 4 women distinguished here is a matter of debate]).

If we compare these parallel accounts of the scene of the Crucifixion, we see that the mother of James and Joseph must be the wife of Cleophas [Clopas in Greek]. So far so good.

An argument against this, though, is that James is elsewhere (Mt 10:3) described as the son of Alphaeus, which would mean this Mary, whoever she was, was the wife of both Cleophas and Alphaeus. One solution is that she was widowed once, then remarried. More probably Alphaeus and Cleophas (Clopas in Greek) are the SAME person, since the Aramaic name for Alphaeus could be rendered in Greek in different ways, either as Alphaeus or Clopas. Another possibility is that Alphaeus took a Greek name similar to his Jewish name, the way that Saul took the name Paul.

So it is probable, anyway, that James is the SON of this OTHER MARY and Cleophas. If the testimony of Hegesippus, a second-century historian, is believed, Cleophas was the BROTHER of Joseph, the foster father of Jesus. James would thus be Joseph’s NEPHEW and a COUSIN of Jesus, who was Joseph’s putative son.

This identification of the “brethren of the Lord” as Jesus’ cousins is open to legitimate question – they might even be relatives more distantly removed – and our inability to know certainly their status says nothing about the main point, which is that the Bible demonstrates that they were not, anyway, the Virgin Mary’s children.

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.

I also like to add that in Luke’s Gospel when Jesus was at the Temple, he was with his mother, and father. There are no mention of any other sibling. If Mary and Joseph did had sexual relations and had other children, they would clearly be mentioned. Jesus at the temple was 12 yrs old. I think Mary and Joseph would neglect their parental duties of leaving behind any younger son or daughters.

Karl Keating made an argument similar to my own. He wrote:

In the story of his being found in the Temple, Jesus, at age twelve, is mentioned as evidently the only Son of Mary (Lk 2:41-51); there is no hint of other children in the family. The people of Nazareth, where he grew up, refer to him as “THE son of Mary” (Mk 6:3), not as “A son of Mary”. The Greek expression implies he is her ONLY son. In fact, others in the Gospels are never referred to as Mary’s SONS, not even when they are called Jesus’ “brethren”. If they were in fact her sons, this would be strange usage.

There is also no word for cousins in Aramaic or Hebrew. So the Gospel writters wrote brother or sister in its stead.

 

[PC_Master]

STRAWMAN!

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

I don’t denigrate celibacy. I denigrate the denigration of sex. God designed sex, and no one in their right mind should even think of stating that sex between husband and wife, a crucial part of God’s design of humanity, can be somehow unholy.

So, assuming that to be true, Mary could still have been sinless (all other factors being based on the Roman Catholic assumption which I do not agree with) while having had sex with Joseph. To say that her purity hinges on her perpetual virginity is to say that a married couple having sex is against God in some fashion.

It really is that simple.

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

I wasn’t trying to. All I was saying is that there’s nothing in scripture which at all supports the view that Mary remained a virgin. Neither is there anything in the earliest of the church fathers. It’s yet one more view that, like the papacy and other things the RCC holds to be true, cannot be found in early Christianity.

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.

Woah – hang on there. First off, Protestants obviously don’t hold to the authority of Roman Catholic traditions, even if we do hold to Biblical tradition. Second, as I’ve already shown, there’s simply not one word in scripture which says anything about Mary’s sexual status after Jesus’ birth. Assuming that she remained a virgin seems ridiculous, unless you incorporate the Roman Catholic view of celibacy being more holy than sex, a view which also is not found in the early church, save Paul’s statements that it’s easier to be devoted to ministry without a spouse, a statement which says nothing about holiness.

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

Protestants who uphold this? I’m sure there are some. That doesn’t mean scripture actually says anything about it. Seriously, just show me the verse that says that Mary took a vow of celibacy, or that she remained celibate after Jesus’ birth.

 

[maurin]

I don’t denigrate celibacy. I denigrate the denigration of sex. God designed sex, and no one in their right mind should even think of stating that sex between husband and wife, a crucial part of God’s design of humanity, can be somehow unholy.

this is solid Catholic teaching.

So, assuming that to be true, Mary could still have been sinless (all other factors being based on the Roman Catholic assumption which I do not agree with) while having had sex with Joseph. To say that her purity hinges on her perpetual virginity is to say that a married couple having sex is against God in some fashion.

It really is that simple.

I wasn’t trying to. All I was saying is that there’s nothing in scripture which at all supports the view that Mary remained a virgin. Neither is there anything in the earliest of the church fathers. It’s yet one more view that, like the papacy and other things the RCC holds to be true, cannot be found in early Christianity.

Woah – hang on there. First off, Protestants obviously don’t hold to the authority of Roman Catholic traditions, even if we do hold to Biblical tradition. Second, as I’ve already shown, there’s simply not one word in scripture which says anything about Mary’s sexual status after Jesus’ birth. Assuming that she remained a virgin seems ridiculous, unless you incorporate the Roman Catholic view of celibacy being more holy than sex, a view which also is not found in the early church, save Paul’s statements that it’s easier to be devoted to ministry without a spouse, a statement which says nothing about holiness.

Protestants who uphold this? I’m sure there are some. That doesn’t mean scripture actually says anything about it. Seriously, just show me the verse that says that Mary took a vow of celibacy, or that she remained celibate after Jesus’ birth.

First: prove that in the earliest Church the papacy did not exist. There is plenty of evidence in the ECF to prove that it did.

Second: just show me the verse that says Mary did not take a vow of celibacy, or that she did not remain celibate after Jesus’ birth.

Third: please show us from the Catechism or some other Catholic source where the Church teaches that celibacy is holier than the Sacrament of Marriage.

 

[PC_Master]

First: prove that in the earliest Church the papacy did not exist. There is plenty of evidence in the ECF to prove that it did.

There are other threads for that. Feel free to check them out. I’d love to have someone there who actually will reply to the points I make, instead of ignoring them.

Second: just show me the verse that says Mary did not take a vow of celibacy, or that she did not remain celibate after Jesus’ birth.

It doesn’t, directly. I’m not saying that it’s impossible for Mary to have remained celibate. I’m only saying that this would be very odd for a married couple, and there’s nothing in scripture that actually says she took such a vow. If we’re to assume that Mary took such a vow just because there’s nothing to directly and explicitly contradict it in scripture (or even tradition), then we introduce the possibility of a whole world full of false assumptions, made valid strictly from a lack of direct contradiction.

And I think I was the one who asked the question first – how do you know that Mary took a vow of celibacy? Why should we assume she did, other than for the purpose of finding some way to support the Roman Catholic belief?

More importantly, if the fact actually were (just assume for a moment here) that Mary and Joseph had sexual intercourse following Jesus’ birth, and perhaps that Mary had other children because of this, what is wrong with this? How does this contradict anything in scripture? Or, for that matter, where is there anything in early tradition which this contradicts?

Third: please show us from the Catechism or some other Catholic source where the Church teaches that celibacy is holier than the Sacrament of Marriage.

The logic used by another poster is that God would not place Jesus, the savior of the world, into a sinful woman to have been born. This statement was made in a thread about the perpetual virginity of Mary, and so I assume the point is that Mary losing her virginity is somehow sinful.

If celibacy is not holier than marriage, as you seem to state, then on what grounds do you know that Mary remained a virgin?

 

[maurin]

There are other threads for that. Feel free to check them out.

Then why did you bring them up here?

 

[maurin]

It doesn’t, directly. I’m not saying that it’s impossible for Mary to have remained celibate. I’m only saying that this would be very odd for a married couple, and there’s nothing in scripture that actually says she took such a vow.

and we have ample proof that the Virgin Birth also seemed very odd to Mary’s contemporaries, down through history, and in this very day.

But I’m glad that you have admitted that Scripture does not explicitly state your position.

Scripture does not explicitly state everything, as you know: The Trinity, Sunday Worship, the two Natures of Christ, that the Holy Spirit is God, etc.

If celibacy is not holier than marriage, as you seem to state, then on what grounds do you know that Mary remained a virgin?

Faith. And this particular area of faith is attested to thoughout the early Church.

One only need read the Father’s.

 

[PC_Master]

Then why did you bring them up here?

A bit of a rhetorical comparison, really. However, that’s not to say it’s inaccurate. The early church simply doesn’t show any indication of the perpetual virginity of Mary.

and we have ample proof that the Virgin Birth also seemed very odd to Mary’s contemporaries, down through history, and in this very day.

Sure, and this oddity was therefore explained explicitly in the gospels.

But I’m glad that you have admitted that Scripture does not explicitly state your position.

And neither does it yours. The difference is that I assume things happened in a fairly-culturally-normal fashion, whereas you assume that they must not have happened in such a way, with no other reason for this than faith that the RCC must be right.

Scripture does not explicitly state everything, as you know: The Trinity, Sunday Worship, the two Natures of Christ, that the Holy Spirit is God, etc.

Scripture does state that Jesus was God in the flesh. Scripture does state that the Holy Spirit is God.
Sunday worship isn’t vital to Christianity.
I’m not sure exactly what you’re getting at with Christ’s two natures.

Faith. And this particular area of faith is attested to thoughout the early Church.

Quotes, please?

Still, this seems to be the same story as the papacy and other things – you believe it based on faith, not evidence.

 

[maurin]

A bit of a rhetorical comparison, really. However, that’s not to say it’s inaccurate. The early church simply doesn’t show any indication of the perpetual virginity of Mary.

Sure, and this oddity was therefore explained explicitly in the gospels.

And neither does it yours. The difference is that I assume things happened in a fairly-culturally-normal fashion, whereas you assume that they must not have happened in such a way, with no other reason for this than faith that the RCC must be right.

Scripture does state that Jesus was God in the flesh. Scripture does state that the Holy Spirit is God.
Sunday worship isn’t vital to Christianity.
I’m not sure exactly what you’re getting at with Christ’s two natures.

Quotes, please?

Still, this seems to be the same story as the papacy and other things – you believe it based on faith, not evidence.

The evidence has been given countless times in the short amount of time that I’ve been a member on CAF. It is continually rejected. So please don’t say that we don’t base our beliefs on evidence, the Traditions of the Apostles, which includes Scripture.

By the way: please provide the verses which teach that Sunday Worship isn’t vital to Christianity, and that the Holy Spirit is God. I never stated that Scripure does not teach Jesus is not God made flesh. I said Trinity is not explicit. But you hold them all to be true based on the Authority of the Church, as I do.

I also never said that Scriptures explicitly teach Mary’s Perpetual Virginity, although it is there implicitly. Oral Tradition does.

Will you continue to put words in my mouth?

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Ezekiel 44:2 prophesizes the perpetual virginity of Mary.

Mary is the gate and Christ is the only man who can go through that gate.

Cherishers of an always depraved sin infested Mary so Christ can be tarnished thereby in his humanity will never understand the perpetual virginity of Mary.

They worship at the altar of reverence that the Ark of the Covenent which held the tablets of the law and wax poetic about men being stricken dead for even touching it but they could care less

about the Ark of the New Covenant–Mary who carried our Lord.

Do they really love our Lord or do they wish for Him a sin infested original sin depraved Ark?

After Jesus came would they wish ill will of the Ark of the Covenant? Would they want it violated today if it were found? Of course not!

They however have no problem with Mary having sex with Joseph after Jesus comes into the world.

I guess according to them the container of the law of the Old Testament should remain virgin but Mary should not.

Mary having sex with her husband Joseph after Jesus was born is not in and of itself a bad thing.

Choosing to remain a virgin is a better thing just as Jesus choosing to be chaste was a better thing.

But hay–if you’re going to dispute Christ’s Church about everything else they teach why not throw Mary into the mix?

Such blasphemers of Jesus make me sick!

 

[Good_Fella]

And I think I was the one who asked the question first – how do you know that Mary took a vow of celibacy? Why should we assume she did, other than for the purpose of finding some way to support the Roman Catholic belief?

More importantly, if the fact actually were (just assume for a moment here) that Mary and Joseph had sexual intercourse following Jesus’ birth, and perhaps that Mary had other children because of this, what is wrong with this? How does this contradict anything in scripture? Or, for that matter, where is there anything in early tradition which this contradicts?

If celibacy is not holier than marriage, as you seem to state, then on what grounds do you know that Mary remained a virgin?

Please return to my first reply above in which I refer to Luke 1:34. We know Mary took a vow of virginity by what she told the angel Gabriel: “How can this be, since I ‘have’ no relations with a man.” ( “I have nothing to do with men.”) She never had sexual relations with a man, and she never intended to either. The present tense verb makes it clear that she had already made a vow of chastity before the Annunciation. Her state of virginity was perpetual. She must have made her vow privately to God while she was in the temple for eleven years or so. God had made her “full of grace” at the moment of her conception, for she was to conceive and bear his only begotten Son. The Holy Spirit inspired Mary to make this vow during her childhood. Mary mystically became the spouse of the Holy Spirit, and so if she had had sexual relations with Joseph, she would have committed adultery. "He said to me, ‘This gate is to remain closed; it is not to be open for anyone to enter by it; since the Lord, the God of Israel, has entered by it, it shall remain closed’ " (Ez 44:2). The scriptures do not tell us that the fullness of God’s revelation is only explicitly contained in Scripture. Jesus established his One, Apostolic Church for a reason. And he gave his apostles and their ordained successors authority to teach for the same reason. The false principle of ‘sola scriptura’ is one cause of erroneous Protestant beliefs.

I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and petition; and they shall look on him whom they have thrust through, and they shall mourn for him as one mourns for ‘an only son’, and they shall grieve over him as one grieves over a firstborn. {Zechariah 12:10}

Scripture makes it clear that Mary was ever virgin. The Word of God is inerrant, but not the interpretations of men who hold no divinely appointed apostolic authority to interpret the scriptures and formulate “strange doctrines”. Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity. But since the Age of the Enlightenment and the Age of Theory, novel Protestant sects, which have arisen by way of private, fallible interpretations of Scripture, have reacted against the traditional teachings of the early reformers. From the very start, Protestantism has been a pick-and-choose-whatever-one-wants-to-believe-in faith.

The valid teaching authority is granted to the apostles and their successors. This teaching authority must be traced to the original apostles, or the authority is not sanctioned by Christ: The apostles and the presbyters met together to see about this matter(Acts 15:6). “Since we have heard that some of our number [who went out] without any mandate from us have upset you with their teachings and have disturbed your peace of mind…” (Acts 15:24) As they travelled from city to city, they handed on to the people for observance the decisions reached by the apostles and presbyters in Jerusalem (Acts 16:4). “For we are not like the many who peddle the word of God; but as out of sincerity, indeed as from God and in the presence of God, we speak in Christ” ( 2 Cor 2:17).“Although you should be teachers by this time, you need to have someone teach you again the basic elements of the utterances of God” (Heb 5:12). The fullness of the Gospel is the Apostolic Tradition, which includes spoken and written teachings. Scripture does not say “letter alone”. The Catholic Church has the fullness of the historic Christian faith through Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, purveyed by the Apostolic teaching authority of the Sacred Magisterium.“Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours” ( 2 Thess 2:15).

“This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one.”

Origen, ‘Homily 1’ (A.D. 244)

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[apophasis]

“Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother’s SISTER, MARY THE WIFE OF CLOPAS, and Mary Magdalene” (Jn 19:25 [whether there are actually 3 or 4 women distinguished here is a matter of debate]).

Literally the verse reads:And stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and the sister of His mother, Mary the (wife) of Clopas and Mary the Magdalene."It gives all indication that the number of the women identified in the verse is four. As I said before, the name of Mary’s sister is not provided by John. I didn’t say Mary had no sister.

An argument against this, though, is that James is elsewhere (Mt 10:3) described as the son of Alphaeus, which would mean this Mary, whoever she was, was the wife of both Cleophas and Alphaeus.

Not necessarily. Can you prove, Scripturally, that James of Alphaeus and James the son of Cleophas are the same person?

This identification of the “brethren of the Lord” as Jesus’ cousins is open to legitimate question – they might even be relatives more distantly removed – and our inability to know certainly their status says nothing about the main point, which is that the Bible demonstrates that they were not, anyway, the Virgin Mary’s children.

The Bible demonstrates nothing of the sort. In fact, you even appealed to a second century personage to try to prove your theory.

It always fascinates to me, however, that Catholics accept the literalness of the Scriptures where it states that Mary, wife of Clopas had two sons by the name of James and Joseph. And you’ll accept, without question, its literalness where it states that Zebedee had two sons by the names of James and John. But when it literally states that Joseph and Mary had four sons after the birth of Jesus, and actually provides us with their names (and an undisclosed number of daughters), you quickly reject its literalness - for the sake of your tradition.

But the theopneustos Scriptures really leave no room for debate. In Matt. 1:25 it clearly states that Joseph refrained from “knowing his wife” until the birth of Messiah. After the Messiah’s birth the marriage was consummated and along came “His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas.” Who knows how many sisters in between (Matt. 13:55-56)? The whole town knew about them and many, obviously, were around at the time of their births. Nazareth was not all that large.

I also like to add that in Luke’s Gospel when Jesus was at the Temple, he was with his mother, and father. There are no mention of any other sibling. If Mary and Joseph did had sexual relations and had other children, they would clearly be mentioned.

No Manny, the gospel account is about Jesus. Not his brothers and sisters. There is no need to assume J & M neglected their parental duties with the others. They’re just not mentioned in the account but no doubt they were in the caravan. The business of taking care of several younger children could be the reason why Jesus was forgotten and left behind.

 

[apophasis]

Second: just show me the verse that says Mary did not take a vow of celibacy, or that she did not remain celibate after Jesus’ birth.

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:

 

[LilyM]

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.

Well there may not be a necessity, but ‘until’ certainly still gets said in such situations regardless.

That’s why parents say ‘behave until I get back’ rather than just ‘behave’. There’s no need there to use the ‘until’, but it certainly gets used.

No need in the OT to say Michal had no children ‘until she died’, could simply have said ‘Michal never had children’.

1. What disadvantage would having sex actually cause to Mary, as a mother or as a godly woman?

Plenty of ‘disadvantage’. Mary’s body, her womb, being His (God’s) temple as it was, the vessel of His holy presence was in and of itself a sacred place. It continued so even after Jesus’ birth just as Bethel where God briefly visited Jacob was also sacred forever after.

As a sacred place, consecrated to God, Mary’s body would have been profaned by being ‘used’, ‘entered’, ‘occupied’, whatever other expression you want to use, by any human - either Joseph or other children.

Exactly like the ground around the burning bush would have been profaned had Moses not taken off his sandals.

It would have been profaned as the Holy of Holies in Jerusalem would have been profaned had people entered it. So they never did - except the High Priest once a year, and that only because God Himself ordered it.

Joseph, being a devout Jew, knew better than to try to use a vessel that had been consecrated to God and Him alone.

 

[PC_Master]

That’s why parents say ‘behave until I get back’ rather than just ‘behave’. There’s no need there to use the ‘until’, but it certainly gets used.

Perhaps not, but in this case, the assumption of the children is that they’ll be able to get away with misbehaving while the disciplinarians are away, and so the parents feel need to explicitly correct this mistaken assumption, and they do so in a concise fashion – not “behave forever”, for this is too much for the child to think of, but “behave until I get back”, which is in their realm of thinking. The child doesn’t think either way about what happens when the parent gets back based on that statement, 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.

No need in the OT to say Michal had no children ‘until she died’, could simply have said ‘Michal never had children’.

Eh, I don’t know to what you are referring. My apologies.

Plenty of ‘disadvantage’. Mary’s body, her womb, being His (God’s) temple as it was, the vessel of His holy presence was in and of itself a sacred place. It continued so even after Jesus’ birth just as Bethel where God briefly visited Jacob was also sacred forever after.

As a sacred place, consecrated to God, Mary’s body would have been profaned by being ‘used’, ‘entered’, ‘occupied’, whatever other expression you want to use, by any human - either Joseph or other children.

Exactly like the ground around the burning bush would have been profaned had Moses not taken off his sandals.

It would have been profaned as the Holy of Holies in Jerusalem would have been profaned had people entered it. So they never did - except the High Priest once a year, and that only because God Himself ordered it.

Hmm, let’s look at your examples…

1. Burning bush – God was present, and so the location was holy because of his presence. I would assume that this location stopped being holy once God’s presence was no longer here.
2. Holy of Holies – God was present, and so the location was holy while he was present. Notice that this does not continue to the current day. God no longer indwells that location, so it is no longer holy.
3. Bethel – Care to substantiate your claim?
4. I’d also add that God indwells the hearts of the true Christian. The new testament repeatedly makes the example that we should not defile ourselves because our bodies now serve as the temple of God, in a spiritual sense.
5. Mary’s womb – I agree with your perspective that her womb could be considered equally holy while Jesus was inside. After all, he was God. However, just as with the burning bush, the holy of holies, etc, once God was no longer there, the location was no longer holy.

Think of it this way: something was to happen and did happen: A virgin conceived and bore a child after the betrothal and marriage of Mary and Joseph. Matthew is concerned with the time before the virgin birth. He is stressing that Joseph is not the biological father of Jesus. His birth is the fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14. Joseph never knew his wife before the birth of Jesus. If he had known his wife before she conceived the child, then Jesus would not have been the Messiah as foretold by the prophet Isaiah. Take away the virgin birth, take away Jesus, the Son of God.

Agreed. This is certainly the focus of the gospels. It’s not directly about Mary and Joseph’s sex-life after Jesus’ birth.

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

Nice try with your sophistry.

I fail to see how there’s any sophistry going on here. Please explain.

In them (the scriptures) there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own distruction. :yup:
{ 2 Peter 3:16}

The question is, how do you determine who the ignorant and unstable are? (This will obviously come back to the authority of the RCC again, so let’s just leave this one be, and simply say that if I’m right, then you’d be the one distorting things, whereas if you’re right, I’d be the one distorting things. That’s kind of the whole point of disagreement.)

The evidence has been given countless times in the short amount of time that I’ve been a member on CAF. It is continually rejected. So please don’t say that we don’t base our beliefs on evidence, the Traditions of the Apostles, which includes Scripture.

It hasn’t been given in this thread, which is what I was asking for.

By the way: please provide the verses which teach that Sunday Worship isn’t vital to Christianity…

You want me to affirm a negative? How about you provide me the verses that say Wednesday Worship isn’t vital to Christianity? You do hold that you don’t need to go to church on Wednesday to be a good Catholic, right?

See, that’s the problem with asking for affirmations of negatives.

…and that the Holy Spirit is God.

As the holy (that is, set apart) spirit is often also called the “spirit of God”, it would seem rather obvious that scripture supports this point, but if you really want to drag this out, we can start another thread about it.

I never stated that Scripure does not teach Jesus is not God made flesh. I said Trinity is not explicit. But you hold them all to be true based on the Authority of the Church, as I do.

I do not hold to the notion of trinity necessarily. What I do hold is that Jesus and the father are one, and that the spirit of God (also called the holy, or set apart, spirit) indwells Christians, and that as the spirit of God, it is one with God. This is all strongly supported in scripture. No, it doesn’t say trinity, but the concept of all three entities being one in the same, is explicitly there.

I also never said that Scriptures explicitly teach Mary’s Perpetual Virginity, although it is there implicitly. Oral Tradition does.

Okay, I’m glad we’ve established that scripture does not teach Mary’s perpetual virginity. As for it being there implicitly, it would seem that such is the result of very biased interpretations which really stretch the meanings of words and customs of the time.

Will you continue to put words in my mouth?

I’ve put no words in your mouth. I’ve stated conclusions based on your words.

Ezekiel 44:2 prophesizes the perpetual virginity of Mary.

Mary is the gate and Christ is the only man who can go through that gate.

First, you should read the chapter you’re referencing, because it really doesn’t seem to be speaking of Mary at all. It speaks of multiple gates, which you haven’t at all accounted for in your interpretation.

Second, you’d have to truly establish that Ezekiel 44:2 speaks of Mary, which you have not done. You simply assert that it is so, without any proof to support your claim. Thus, I can, in good character and integrity, dismiss this claim outright.

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

Third, I found the translators’ notes from the Amplified Bible for this passage to be interesting, as they provide a historical example that may well be what this prophesy was referring to…

In Christ’s time the Golden Gate was the principal eastside thoroughfare. Through it the Prince of Peace would naturally make His triumphal entry. But by A.D. 1542-3, when Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent rebuilt the wall of Jerusalem, tradition says that the road which once led to this gate had fallen into disuse, and what is now St. Stephen’s Gate was the accepted entrance. So the Sultan walled up the Golden Gate with its double entrance, and it has remained so ever since.

Also, note that this wall had remained destroyed from the sacking of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

At this point in your post, Jerry, the useful information stops and the rhetoric ensues, so I’ll not respond to that.

Please return to my first reply above in which I refer to Luke 1:34. We know Mary took a vow of virginity by what she told the angel Gabriel: “How can this be, since I ‘have’ no relations with a man.” ( “I have nothing to do with men.”) She never had sexual relations with a man, and she never intended to either.

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

The present tense verb makes it clear that she had already made a vow of chastity before the Annunciation.

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?

She must have made her vow privately to God while she was in the temple for eleven years or so. God had made her “full of grace” at the moment of her conception, for she was to conceive and bear his only begotten Son. The Holy Spirit inspired Mary to make this vow during her childhood.

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)?

…and so if she had had sexual relations with Joseph, she would have committed adultery.

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.

The scriptures do not tell us that the fullness of God’s revelation is only explicitly contained in Scripture. Jesus established his One, Apostolic Church for a reason. And he gave his apostles and their ordained successors authority to teach for the same reason. The false principle of ‘sola scriptura’ is one cause of erroneous Protestant beliefs.

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.

Whee, and more rhetoric ensues in this post as well.

 

[LilyM]

Eh, I don’t know to what you are referring. My apologies.

“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?

1. Bethel – Care to substantiate your claim?

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

1. Mary’s womb – I agree with your perspective that her womb could be considered equally holy while Jesus was inside. After all, he was God. However, just as with the burning bush, the holy of holies, etc, once God was no longer there, the location was no longer holy.

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.