Mary's Perpetual Virginity

[Mickey]

Still, you avoid the point, which is that to establish something as fact, you should have some logic behind it…

I avoid nothing. The Apostolic Church is the logic. Your interpretations have been skewed by revisionists.

It’s just not comfortable for some.

Yes. I imagine it is quite uncomfortable for you to no longer be connected to the Apostolic teaching.

 

[apophasis]

Both you and Apo have taken the verb to signify an instant of time and out of context by implying Mary had never had sex before the Annunciation, she wasn’t having sex at the time of the Annunciation, and she may have had (actually you claim did have) sex after the Annunciation.

Not true. I do not say Lk. 1:34 indicates she had sex after the Annunciation. Only that she, in that verse, is expressing her present state of virginity. "How can this be since (lit.) I know no man." The angel then explains to her that she will conceive in her present state.

It’s in Matt. 1:25 that we read she remained a virgin only until after the birth of her first-born. And in Matt. 13:55 we’re given the reason why.

 

[apophasis]

I avoid nothing. The Apostolic Church is the logic. Your interpretations have been skewed by revisionists.
Yes. I imagine it is quite uncomfortable for you to no longer be connected to the Apostolic teaching.

Of those writings that claim the PVM, can you show me which Apostles they quote?

 

[Mickey]

The Incarnation of God was foretold in the Old Testament. A race was chosen for a specific purpose: to produce a holy humanity from which God could take flesh. Mary is the one who, in the Lord’s words, “heard the word of God and kept it.” (Luke 11:28) She figured greatly in the very prophecies, the most important of which is that of Isaiah: “Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel.” (Isaiah 7:14) The Church has always considered the following as prefigures or symbols of the role of the Theotokos in the Divine plan, and appoints them to be read on the eves of three of the feasts dedicated to her memory. The first is the story of Jacob’s ladder, which refers to her being the means by which God chose to enter into the world physically. “He saw in his sleep a ladder standing upon the earth, and the top thereof touching heaven, the angels also of God ascending and descending by it”. (Genesis 28:12) Then from the Prophecy of Ezekiel are the words concerning her perpetual virginity: “And the Lord said unto me: 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, and it shall be shut.” (Ezekiel 44:2) The same is true of the burning bush seen by Moses: Mary contained in her womb the God-man, Jesus Christ, the God who is a consuming fire, and was not consumed.

 

[GuanYuWarGod]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2786919#post2786919

(off - topic)

As said in above thread (with same name!) can we **sticky a thread **on Mary’s Virginity? These questions are becoming VERY redundant.

 

[apophasis]

The Incarnation of God was foretold in the Old Testament. A race was chosen for a specific purpose: to produce a holy humanity from which God could take flesh. Mary is the one who, in the Lord’s words, “heard the word of God and kept it.” (Luke 11:28) She figured greatly in the very prophecies, the most important of which is that of Isaiah: “Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel.” (Isaiah 7:14) The Church has always considered the following as prefigures or symbols of the role of the Theotokos in the Divine plan, and appoints them to be read on the eves of three of the feasts dedicated to her memory. The first is the story of Jacob’s ladder, which refers to her being the means by which God chose to enter into the world physically. “He saw in his sleep a ladder standing upon the earth, and the top thereof touching heaven, the angels also of God ascending and descending by it”. (Genesis 28:12) Then from the Prophecy of Ezekiel are the words concerning her perpetual virginity: “And the Lord said unto me: 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, and it shall be shut.” (Ezekiel 44:2) The same is true of the burning bush seen by Moses: Mary contained in her womb the God-man, Jesus Christ, the God who is a consuming fire, and was not consumed.

I see no quotes from any of the Apostles. I see an allegorical interpretation of Eze. 44:2, but no Apostle actually teaching that allegory.

I’ve yet to read an Apostle referencing Mary as the burning bush in Exodus. In context it’s far more likely that it’s speaking of the Hebrews who are at that time being persecuted by the Egyptians, but are not consumed, because they’re God’s covenant people through Abraham. It’s in the context of their deliverance.

As for Jacob’s ladder, it’s no doubt Christ since the Apostolic teaching is that there’s one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus (1 Tim. 2:5). I’ve yet to see where any Apostle taught that Mary is Jacob’s ladder.

 

[guanophore]

Whether “Mary, wife of Clopas” is Mary of Nazareth’s “sister” or not (what do the ECFs have to say?), someone other than the latter is clearly the mother of James and Joseph/Joses. Matthew mentions “James and Joseph” here and in the list of Jesus’s relatives, while Mark does the same, only rendering the second man Joses. Since that specific name combination occurs in identical contexts in two Gospels, they must be the same individuals. So If James and Joseph aren’t literally siblings, Simon and Judas can’t be either.

Another link: Jesus’ “Brothers” and Mary’s Perpetual Virginity by by Mark J. Bonocore

All in all, it comes down to sola Scriptura or sola verbum Dei (or sola Dei verbum, I’m not exactly a Latin expert)

I have always thought this is a silly postulation. Why would a family give two girls the same name? It does not make any sense to me. It makes more sense that Mary the wife of Cleopas is a sister of Joseph. Or possibly, Alphaeus is a brother of Mary, and the mother of James and Joseph is a sister in law that way.

 

[Mickey]

I see no quotes from any of the Apostles.

Sacred Tradition of the Apostolic Church in conjuntion with Scriptural passages I posted are part of the interpratation of the True Apostolic faith. I do not expect you to accept any of it --you have made that abundantly clear. You have exercised your free will to follow the post reformation revisionist theology. My posts are mainly to support the teaching of the Apostolic Church, not to convince you of anything.

As for Jacob’s ladder, it’s no doubt Christ since the Apostolic teaching is that there’s one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus (1 Tim. 2:5).

Our Lord took his humanity from His mother and was born completely human and completely divine. Heaven came to earth through the womb of the Virgin Mary. Jesus Christ is and always will be the one mediator between God and men.

 

[Good_Fella]

I’d be happy to provide for you sources which say that present tense verbs refer only to the present, and do not necessarily speak of the future.

Very true! Up to, and including this point in time, Mary was in the condition of being a virgin. Hence Luke wrote this down. That it is a condition at the present does not mean that it will continue to be a condition.

Take for instance, these statements, all of which I am quite sure will not be true at some point in the future. All use the simple present tense you have illustrated…

I am a virgin.
I am a college student.
I am alive.

Simple present tense verbs can refer to the future when using them as signifying an instant in time, a state of affairs, or a condition: The exhibition opens next week. We leave tomorrow morning bright and early. We finish our series of lectures at the end of the month. I intend to remain a virgin for the rest of my life. If we are concerned with time, the question is “When?”; if we are concerned with our state of existence, the question is “How?”. When will we leave tomorrow? Bright and early. How will I remain a virgin if I have sexual relations with my future husband? The Holy Spirit will come upon you…

If Mother Theresa had told us “I am a virgin,” then we would have to understand that she intended to remain a virgin all her life. She passed away having preserved her religious vow of chastity. In retrospect her statement had reference to the future. You have provided a faulty generalization. Not all virgins necessarily break their vows of virginity to God. Mary certainly didn’t. She was “full of grace” from the moment of her conception.

There is no reason to assume that a person will physically live for ever or spend his entire life in college. Knowledge and experience dictates otherwise. Your analogies are faulty: Would someone actually ask himself “How shall I remain alive if I die?” or “How shall I remain a college student if I graduate?” Someone could ask: “How shall I remain a virgin if I have sexual relations with my future husband?” We cannot intend to remain alive forever in this world, and we do not intend to spend our entire life in college. But there are people who do intend to remain virgins for their entire life. The Essene community in ancient Israel practiced celibacy. The simple present tense may have a conditional reference to the future. And the use of grammatical exponents in a statement must be taken in context with what the subject means by what she says.

We know Mary had made a private vow of virginity by what she tells the angel Gabriel: “How shall this be, seeing I know not a man.” Again, if Mary had planned to have sexual relations with her husband upon the consummation of their marriage, she would not have asked this question. For obviously she would have known “how” she would conceive a child - by the natural approach. And she wasn’t expecting a Messiah who would be born of ‘maternal’ lineage. If Mary was concerned with the time she would conceive her child during her marriage, she would have simply asked the angel: “When shall this be?” Luke is not concerned with time. He is concerned with Mary’s state of virginity.

You asked for the Greek, so I’d like to draw your attention to the following link. Scroll down to "a word study of Luke 1:34.

catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Homiletic/2002-03/letters.html

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[HailMary]

And the root of my problem is what? That I have the wrong Bible? I can read? I don’t put words into Mary’s mouth? I allow the Scriptures to speak for themselves? What?

Authority and Sola Scriptura are your problems. And while we are on this note, you do have an incomplete bible on top of that.

And Scriptures do not “speak” if they did, we would not be having this conversation since we would all, in your ideal world, be “hearing” the same thing and hence have non-contradicting versions of Christianity.

 

[Good_Fella]

Not true. I do not say Lk. 1:34 indicates she had sex after the Annunciation. Only that she, in that verse, is expressing her present state of virginity. "How can this be since (lit.) I know no man." The angel then explains to her that she will conceive in her present state.

It’s in Matt. 1:25 that we read she remained a virgin only until after the birth of her first-born. And in Matt. 13:55 we’re given the reason why.

If you signify the verb “to know” as meaning an instant in time, then you must assume Mary had normal sexual relations after the marriage was consummated. And I doubt Mary was asking the angel Gabriel how she could possibly conceive of a child at the present moment or before her marriage. Luke has already presented her as one “full of grace” so there is no question of Mary having had premarital sex with Joseph. She is not concerned with her state of virginity at the present moment. She is puzzled about the possibilty of losing her virginity in her future marriage, in view of her vow, because she expected a Messiah of paternal lineage. The angel had just told her that she would be the mother of the Messiah before she asked him “How shall this be, seeing I know not a man.” Luke is treating her perpetual state of virginity. What you say makes no sense, and it contradicts Luke’s account of the Annunciation. What you claim is “extra-biblical”. Go back and read my previous posts concerning Luke 1:28. You fail to comprehend what I have written - or you’re in a state of denial, which explains why you’re still whistling dixie. As Shania Twain would say, “I’m outta here!” I’m tired of circular arguments.

Your interpretation of the use of ‘until’ (eos) is erroneous. Luke 1:34 contradicts what you wish to believe.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Axion]

Still no response to this…

The Third Apostle James?

In order to allege that the Apostle James, “brother” of Jesus was a Son of Mary, you have to invent a shadowy third Apostle called James. Is this credible?

James “Brother of Jesus” is referred to as one of the APOSTLES by Paul in Galatians 1.9. Yet we know from Matthew 10:2-4 that neither of the Apostles named James was actually a Son of the Virgin Mary! One of the Apostles James, is however, the Son of ALPHAEUS, who most bible scholars agree is the same person as Clopas - already identified as Father of James and Joseph.

So if James “brother of Jesus” was an Apostle, he cannot have been a son of Mary.

One can argue that a **third **James, supposed blood brother of Jesus, was elevated to the Apostleship at some time after the resurrection. However this presents a number of difficulties.

a) Why is this “third James” **never **mentioned in the gospel accounts?
b) Why would the Apostles take a non-apostle as their leader in Jerusalem?
c) Why is the 3rd James’s elevation to Apostle not mentioned in scripture?
d) Why did Jesus give Mary as Mother to John, if this “third James” existed?
e) What happened to the “second” James, son of Alphaeus after the resurrection? If we imagine a “third James”, then James the Apostle, son of Alphaeus disappears from history mysteriously at exactly the same time the supposed “third James”, just as mysteriously appears.

We are also told that James the Apostle, “brother” of Jesus has a house in jerusalem, where all the disciples met. A big house for the younger son of a poor carpenter from Nazareth?

Is it not obvious that it is James the Apostle, Cousin of Jesus, who is the Apostle and “brother of the Lord” of the early church in Jerusalem?

The “Third James” hypothesis doesn’t hold water.

We are also told that James the Apostle, “brother” of Jesus has a house in jerusalem, where all the disciples met. A big house for the younger son of a poor carpenter from Nazareth

 

[Spirithound]

An unbiased conclusion must be thus – Scripture says nothing about Mary’s future sexual activities – it only speaks of what happened up until Jesus’ birth.

As for the supposed founder of the reformation…

Luther was content to hold the belief based on the fact that scripture simply doesn’t contradict it elsewhere. He likens those who think it a vital matter of faith to hypocrites.

…

Oh, and I’m not saying that the idea is false simply because it’s not in scripture. I’m just saying that it isn’t in scripture, and no one of credibility in early church history taught that it was. It’s really only modern apologists taking this track.

As for why I don’t actually believe the idea – it’s a variation of normality with not a single testimony within centuries of the church’s establishment. Jesus birth was abnormal, and it’s mentioned. His miracles were abnormal, and they’re mentioned. The transfiguration, raising of the dead, ascension into heaven by various other people is mentioned…all specifically because it is out of the ordinary.

Lack of such testimony to Mary’s marriage leads me to believe that it was pretty normal, virgin birth aside.

Here’s a tract from St. Jerome
newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm

And St. Augustine
newadvent.org/fathers/1310.htm

Both from the 4th century. Granted, about 300 years removed from the time of Christ, but they were answering heretics, and obviously defending long-standing Tradition. (St. Augustine, appropriately enough, makes the argument from Mary’s statement "I know not a man.)

 

[PC_Master]

All right Good Fella. I had actually typed up full responses to all these posts, but it seems to me that the debate with you will not be settled until we cover the fact that present tenses don’t refer to the future without other information given that requires this. So, let’s be simple…

I’d like to introduce you to girl A, and girl B. Both of these girls have said “I am a virgin”. One has vowed herself to perpetual virginity, and the other has plans to marry a husband and have children (through the usual means of doing so). Both are currently virgins. Which one is which? I’m serious – I’d like you to explain how you can tell me which one is which, and how you can know the future intent of someone from the present tense statement.

Once we clear that up, then we can address the rest of the statement by Mary. But it always seems to come back to you inferring that the statement “I know not a man” necessitates vowed virginity.

 

[HailMary]

Once we clear that up, then we can address the rest of the statement by Mary. But it always seems to come back to you inferring that the statement “I know not a man” necessitates vowed virginity.

Yes, because common sense is needed to interpret properly (also, it helps not to be taught wrong things BEFORE you try to make sense of Scripture).

Any normal BETROTHED girl would have assumed the child would be the outcome of normal sexual relations with her husband but I guess you overlook that.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’m curious…was anyone allowed to touch the Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament?

What was the fate of those who did?

Comparison of the NT Ark with the OT Ark

The ark of the Old Covenant contained the words of God written on Stone. (Deut. 10:5, Hebrews 9:4)
The Ark of the New Covenant contained the Word of God made flesh. (John 1:1)

The ark of the Old Covenant contained the jar of manna which came down from heaven. (Exodus 16:32, Hebrews 9:4)
The Ark of the New Covenant contained Jesus, the bread which came down from heaven. (John 6:31-41)

The ark traveled to the house of Obed-edom in the hill country of Judea (2 Sam. 6:1–11).
Mary traveled to the house of Elizabeth and Zechariah in the hill country of Judea (Luke 1:39).

A man touched the Ark to steady it without God’s permission and was struck dead on the spot. David was filled with awe and said, “Who am I that the Ark of the Lord should come unto me?” (2 Samuel 6:9)
Elizabeth is filled with the Holy Spirit and said, “Who am I that the mother of my Lord should come unto me?” (Luke 1:43)

Dressed as a priest, David danced and leapt in front of the ark (2 Sam. 6:14).
John the Baptist—of priestly lineage—leapt in his mother’s womb at the approach of Mary (Luke 1:41).

David shouts in the presence of the ark (2 Sam. 6:15).
Elizabeth “exclaimed with a loud cry” in the presence of the Mary (Luke 1:42).

The ark remained in the house of Obed-edom for three months (2 Sam. 6:11).
Mary remained in the house of Elizabeth for three months (Luke 1:56).

The house of Obed-edom was blessed by the presence of the ark (2 Sam. 6:11).
The word blessed is used three times; surely the house was blessed by God (Luke 1:39–45).

The ark returns home and ends up in Jerusalem, God’s presence and glory is revealed in the temple (2 Sam. 6:12; 1 Kgs. 8:9–11).
Mary returns home and eventually ends up in Jerusalem, where she presents God incarnate in the temple (Luke 1:56; 2:21–22).

Is there any reason to believe that any man would be allowed to “touch” the Ark of the New Covenant who surpassed the glory of the OT Ark since she carried within herself the King of Glory?

 

[mgrfin]

All right Good Fella. I had actually typed up full responses to all these posts, but it seems to me that the debate with you will not be settled until we cover the fact that present tenses don’t refer to the future without other information given that requires this. So, let’s be simple…

I’d like to introduce you to girl A, and girl B. Both of these girls have said “I am a virgin”. One has vowed herself to perpetual virginity, and the other has plans to marry a husband and have children (through the usual means of doing so). Both are currently virgins. Which one is which? I’m serious – I’d like you to explain how you can tell me which one is which, and how you can know the future intent of someone from the present tense statement.

Once we clear that up, then we can address the rest of the statement by Mary. But it always seems to come back to you inferring that the statement “I know not a man” necessitates vowed virginity.

You can argue any of this with anyone who is not a Catholic, and not come out of it satisfying anyone.

Protestants accept Mary was a virgin, but after that, they won’t give in, cause the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is so Catholic a doctrine.

Scripture is just part of Tradition. They are not separate. For a Catholic we go to our Scripture and Tradition and put both of them together: Mary was a Virgin, before, during and after the Birth of Jesus. She is ever a Virgin. It is part of our Faith. It is part of our doctrinal teaching. it is a defined doctrine of the faith.

That’s it!

We care not what Protestants have to say on this matter, just as we don’t care what they have to say about the Mass, the Eucharist, the Priesthood, the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Resurrection, the Papacy, and the Infallibility of the Holy Father, etc.

They get farther and farther away from defined Christianity, but they are united only in denying what we teach on this and so many other doctrines of the faith. We should not care, for most are not open to the foundations of our faith. They believe OSAS, they believe in salvation without cooperation in God’s gift of faith. If they cling to what Luther said, Christians can’t, don’t have to do anything. Man to them is sinful, and will always be so, even with the Ablution of Jesus’ blood, washing our sins, not just covering them over. Man is predestined (they say), at least some of them, to be saved. Some are predestined to hell.

We should state our doctrine and pray that men of good will will receive the gift of faith to believe it.

peace.

 

[pneuma07]

Let us suppose that Mary had planned a normal marital sexual life ( hopefully blessed by children).

When the angel told her: “You will conceive”, she could understand that this would happen either immediately, or after marriage.

In the first case, the likely reaction could have been " How…, since I am not married, yet ?" (or, “… since I don’t know man, at the moment ?”). Or simply, with beautiful naturalness: "But I am not married yet ! "
In the second case her actual response does not make sense at all.

Independently from what written above I’d like to propose a little poll:

• Who would have “normal” marital sex with the Mother of the Son of God ?

 

[apophasis]

Let us suppose that Mary had planned a normal marital sexual life ( hopefully blessed by children).

When the angel told her: “You will conceive”, she could understand that this would happen either immediately, or after marriage.

In the first case, the likely reaction could have been " How…, since I am not married, yet ?" (or, “… since I don’t know man, at the moment ?”). Or simply, with beautiful naturalness: "But I am not married yet ! "
In the second case her actual response does not make sense at all.

Independently from what written above I’d like to propose a little poll:

• Who would have “normal” marital sex with the Mother of the Son of God ?

A true poll would have to be taken back in time. Who knew at the time of His birth that He was God incarnate? Certainly neither Mary nor Joseph. Nor His half brothers and sisters. Nor did anyone in His hometown or all of Judea or Galilee. Pilate didn’t. Which Pharisee or Sadducee understood His divinity? If they would have understood it they would not have crucified Him. "Father forgive them for they know not what they do."

Your question has no substance and implies many false notions. And typically Catholic, it elevates Mary, not Christ.

The previous post stated it well. Catholics believe all things about Mary because they’re told to by Rome. It’s what makes them “Catholic.” Reality or proof has nothing to do with it, or ever will.

Like Muslims believe all the things they do about Muhammad because it’s what makes them “Muslim.” No proof is ever required.

But true Christianity is rooted in Divine revelation, not men’s speculation or imagination. It glorifies Christ, not men.

 

[Axion]

A true poll would have to be taken back in time. Who knew at the time of His birth that He was God incarnate? Certainly neither Mary nor Joseph. Nor His half brothers and sisters. Nor did anyone in His hometown or all of Judea or Galilee. Pilate didn’t. Which Pharisee or Sadducee understood His divinity? If they would have understood it they would not have crucified Him. "Father forgive them for they know not what they do."

So you’re saying Mary didn’t believe Gabriel?

Your question has no substance and implies many false notions. And typically Catholic, it elevates Mary, not Christ.

This is just an insult based on an arrogasnt assumption of what others believe and your own self-righteousness

The previous post stated it well. Catholics believe all things about Mary because they’re told to by Rome. It’s what makes them “Catholic.” Reality or proof has nothing to do with it, or ever will.

Like Muslims believe all the things they do about Muhammad because it’s what makes them “Muslim.” No proof is ever required.

This is more prejudiced spleen.

And you believe everything you’re told that isn’t clearly set out in the bible because your Pastor says so.

"Faith Alone, Sinners Prayer, substitutiary atonement, falsehoods about catholics…etc

But true Christianity is rooted in Divine revelation, not men’s speculation or imagination. It glorifies Christ, not men.