Mary's Perpetual Virginity

[apophasis]

Randy Carson:

As you know, there is no verse in the Bible which says, “Mary remained a virgin all the days of her life.” So, if this is what you need to see in order to be satisfied, then I’m afraid you will be disappointed.

I’m already “satisfied” with accepting the fact of that fact that the dogma is not Biblically supported. I’m not asking for a Biblical quote. The point I was making is that no post-Apostolic writer on the extra-biblical Marian doctrines ever quotes an Apostle, thereby indicating that the teachings are, in fact, Apostolic. Your church simply asserts it and claims “oral” tradition as the source.

Once I understand that the Catholic Church has been given real authority by God and that it is protected from teaching error, then I can accept her judgment concerning matters that are not explicitly stated in scripture.

Exactly! Your personal acceptance of the Marian dogmas is based on your first accepting the RC dogma concerning itself. None are taught in Scripture, all are asserted. It’s quite a stretch to interpret “and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it” as meaning the infallibility of Rome’s “magesterium.” Even your acceptance of this interpretation rests on your first accepting Rome’s dogma regarding itself.

I’m sure that you would agree that the New Testament was never intended to be a comprehensive work of systematic theology. Our understanding of theological truths can develop from what we know from both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

No, I don’t agree. Our example is Christ Himself. To verify and validate His Person and work He did not appeal to the “traditions” of the Judaism of His day but to the theopheustos Scriptues (see Lk. 24:25-27; 32, 45).

Tell me, do you find anything in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary to be contrary to the Word of God?

Certainly: Matt. 1:25; 13:55-56 teach to the contrary. Yes, I know all the interpretations and arguments presented by you who first accept the dogma, but a normal reading of those Biblical texts testify to the contrary.

Forgive me if I was unclear here. What I mean is that the teachings of the Apostles were handed down from one generation of believers to the next as demonstrated in the letter to Timothy that I quoted previously. Some of the Apostles teaching was written down and some was handed on orally.

2 Tim. 2:2 does not at all imply that certain teachings by Paul were left to the fate of verbal propagation and preservation. You would have to assign infallibility to every person who heard them and “handed them on” (orally) to others until they were written down centuries later. And then you would have to accept “partial inspiration” of those writings (as guanophore does).

Actually, the challenge here would be for you to prove that Marian doctrines were not part of that deposit of faith.

You cannot ask me to prove a negative. The burden of proof is upon the one who makes the assertion. I’m sure you must understand why.

Just because the first extant writings from the fathers date from later centuries, it does not by any stretch prove your case that the earlier believers did not hold these beliefs.

True Christian doctrine is never based on what men “believed” (even the majority) but what God revealed.

I have asked you to provide examples of complaints from those who objected to the introduction of these heretical novelties, but you have none.

Would a written “complaint” prove to you that they aren’t Apostolic in origin? Of course not. Not any more than a lack of “complaint” proves they are. You yourself, however, testify that the primary basis for your belief in the dogmas is your acceptance of the infallibility of Rome’s magesterium.

The fact is that some ideas that we hold today were not fully formed in the first two or three centuries, but this only means that it took time for them to fully develop them - just as the ideas about Christology or even the canon too time to sort out.

There’s a huge difference between Christological doctrines that are developed in time and based securely on Scriptural revelation, and the introduction of non-scriptural “ideas” about Mary centuries later. From what were the Marian dogmas “developed?” All we see is that centuries later they were simply asserted by men, accepted by church hierarchy, and presented to the people as dogma.

 

[apophasis]

guanophore:

Abraham and Moses were also born under and functioned under previous conditions. I don’t see how that makes the covenants God made with them later not valid.

I don’t understand your point. The Abrahamic covenant is still valid. The “old” covenant (Mosaic Law), made with national Israel, however, began at Mt. Sinai and ended at the cross. It was a temporary covenant (read the Books of Galatians and Hebrews)!

So let’s recap:

(1) The new covenant did not exist at the time Mary carried Jesus in her womb. (2) A covenant is not a person but a promise - a contract between two people or entities. (3) The new covenant was not inaugurated until approx. 33 years AFTER Jesus left Mary’s womb.

Mary cannot be the “ark” of a covenant that did not exist at the time of her pregnancy. Hence, that title given to her by men is a misnomer.

I don’t see where you get that? It seems to be a judgemental attitude toward the Old Covenant, which is unusual for you, since you are the one championing the fact that God’s promises to the Jew will be fulfilled in due time, and that He is not finished with them yet.

The divine promises yet to be fulfilled for national Israel are not based on the “old” covenant (“which they broke”), but the new (see Jer. 31:31-40; 32:36-44).

Jesus never taught that the New Covenant was “better”. His sacrifice is better, because of the nature of it. The Old covenant had a different function, and purpose.

Jesus never taught on the N.C., period. But yes, the “old” had a temporary function and different purpose altogether from that of the “new”:Gal 3:22-26 “But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.” (Its temporary nature:) “But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed.” Its function:) "Therefore the Law has become our tutor (Its purpose:) “{to lead us} to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.”

Jesus is the Lamb that was slain for our sins. It is his shed blood, as you keep saying, that sanctifies that New Covenant. She carried the Lamb in her womb, and from her body the blood was formed that paid the price for sin on the cross. He is flesh of her flesh.

But Jesus Himself is not the new covenant. She carried in her womb a Child who would eventually become the Mediator of it through HIS own blood (not hers).

I think the inauguration started much sooner. Perhaps it was consummated on the cross, but John preaches that the kingdom had come, and Jesus teaches that The Kingdom was among them already.

Both John and Jesus preached that the kingdom was “at hand” (lit. has come near), not that it “had come” (see Matt. 3:2; 4:17; 10:7). And the kingdom was “among” them because the King Himself was among them. But although the new covenant was inaugurated through His shed blood on the cross, the kingdom itself did not transpire becasue of Israel’s unbelief, but is left to a future generation [Matt. 21:43). You won’t grasp any of this, G., because of your adherence to RC Amillennialism.

What do you think is the source or the reason for such a declaration?You’re asking me to speculate? Why would anyone make a declaration without proof? Why would anyone who calls himself a Christian blindly embrace a declaration which has no positive proof of Apostolic origin? For that matter, why was the idea of an immaculately conceived, perpetual virgin, elevated to the status of “Queen of heaven,” ever introduced into “the faith” by men at all?

Note that Scripture speaks of only one “queen of heaven” and we know that’s not Mary. Unlike the pagan religions of their times, neither Israel’s ancient patriarchs or prophets ever spoke of a heavenly queen in regards to their faith. And based on the divine records no such notion was ever a part of the original gospel preached by the Apostles (see 1 Cor. 2:2; cf. 1:23; Gal. 6:14).

However, the answer to your question might lie in Paul’s spiritual principle stated in Gal. 5:9: “A little leaven leavens the whole lump.” With the introduction of one error it rapidly spreads and you end up with something totally different from that of the original.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’m already “satisfied” with accepting the fact of that fact that the dogma is not Biblically supported. I’m not asking for a Biblical quote. The point I was making is that no post-Apostolic writer on the extra-biblical Marian doctrines ever quotes an Apostle, thereby indicating that the teachings are, in fact, Apostolic. Your church simply asserts it and claims “oral” tradition as the source.Exactly! Your personal acceptance of the Marian dogmas is based on your first accepting the RC dogma concerning itself. None are taught in Scripture, all are asserted. It’s quite a stretch to interpret “and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it” as meaning the infallibility of Rome’s “magesterium.” Even your acceptance of this interpretation rests on your first accepting Rome’s dogma regarding itself.No, I don’t agree. Our example is Christ Himself. To verify and validate His Person and work He did not appeal to the “traditions” of the Judaism of His day but to the theopheustos Scriptues (see Lk. 24:25-27; 32, 45).Certainly: Matt. 1:25; 13:55-56 teach to the contrary. Yes, I know all the interpretations and arguments presented by you who first accept the dogma, but a normal reading of those Biblical texts testify to the contrary.2 Tim. 2:2 does not at all imply that certain teachings by Paul were left to the fate of verbal propagation and preservation. You would have to assign infallibility to every person who heard them and “handed them on” (orally) to others until they were written down centuries later. And then you would have to accept “partial inspiration” of those writings (as guanophore does).You cannot ask me to prove a negative. The burden of proof is upon the one who makes the assertion. I’m sure you must understand why.True Christian doctrine is never based on what men “believed” (even the majority) but what God revealed. Would a written “complaint” prove to you that they aren’t Apostolic in origin? Of course not. Not any more than a lack of “complaint” proves they are. You yourself, however, testify that the primary basis for your belief in the dogmas is your acceptance of the infallibility of Rome’s magesterium.There’s a huge difference between Christological doctrines that are developed in time and based securely on Scriptural revelation, and the introduction of non-scriptural “ideas” about Mary centuries later. From what were the Marian dogmas “developed?” All we see is that centuries later they were simply asserted by men, accepted by church hierarchy, and presented to the people as dogma.

I understand your positions, and I suspect that you understand mine. That’s about as close as we will come to settling our differences at the present time.

Best wishes. :tiphat:

 

[ChrisWRIT]

Our example is Christ Himself. To verify and validate His Person and work He did not appeal to the “traditions” of the Judaism of His day but to the theopheustos Scriptues (see Lk. 24:25-27; 32, 45).

Catholics believe every one of those verses too. However, the Scriptures Jesus was explaining discuss OT prophecies concerning Him - One must do some amazing mental gymnastics to claim that they support Sola Scriptura.

Matt. 1:25; 13:55-56 teach to the contrary. Yes, I know all the interpretations and arguments presented by you who first accept the dogma, but a normal reading of those Biblical texts testify to the contrary.

Nowhere does the gospel according to Matthew state that Mary & Joseph had intercourse. That would require a positive statement, but Matt 1:25 offers only a negative statement, saying simply that Joseph did not have intercourse with Mary before she gave birth. It does not state that he did afterwards.

A similar example would be to say that “Joe Bob never took a drink until he died.” Does that somehow imply that Joe Bob took a drink once he was dead? Of course not.

The citation of 13 is interesting, especially since a “normal reading of those Biblical texts” would also indicate that Jesus was the son of Joseph (“the carpenter”), not the son of God (which neither Catholics nor Protestants believe.) Besides, that would contradict 1:25, and therein lies the problem with literalistic & personal interpretations of Scripture as if each verse were hermetically sealed from the rest of the Bible, or of the universe.

2 Tim. 2:2 does not at all imply that certain teachings by Paul were left to the fate of verbal propagation and preservation. You would have to assign infallibility to every person who heard them and “handed them on” (orally) to others until they were written down centuries later.

However, the answer to your question might lie in Paul’s spiritual principle stated in Gal. 5:9: “A little leaven leavens the whole lump.” With the introduction of one error it rapidly spreads and you end up with something totally different from that of the original.

It would seem that your real objection wouldn’t be against Mary’s perpetual virginity, or her Immaculate Conception, (or whatever) but an objection to the gifts of apostolic succession and of infallibility.

Protestants hold only to God’s written word (“Sola Scriptura”, sometimes called “Prima Scriptura”), while Catholics hold to God’s word in both it’s written (Sacred Scripture) and oral (Sacred Tradition) forms. Apostolic succession the method that Jesus instituted to cause the word of God in oral form to be propagated and survive down through the ages.

It seems odd that “Sola Scriptura” adherents claim that God has protected Sacred Scripture from errors introduced by man (in the work of copying and translating the Bible), but turnaround and claim that apparently God couldn’t possibly protect His spoken word (Sacred Tradition) from being corrupted by men.

It’s pretty common for Protestants to claim that Apostolic authority died with the apostles, but personally, I find their reasons for believing this to be weak at best.

Nonetheless, this rejection of apostolic authority and apostolic succession are what Protestants who claim it need to prove. Claiming that since you don’t believe the Church has apostolic authority, then the church has to prove it’s teachings is simply an attempt to shift the burden of proof to avoid being called to defend their argument.

Chris

 

[Good_Fella]

I agree with this! So, we have a couple of qualifications here…

(Of note, one of the qualifications is not that the church be named Catholic, for as I’ve mentioned, there are half a dozen major denominations who use the term.)

1. The faith comes from the beginning.
2. The faith was delivered by Jesus.
3. The faith was preached by the apostles.
4. The faith was preserved (as in, reinforced, not as in taught, for new things can be added as teaching, which are then heretical) by the fathers.

The Perpetual Virginity of Mary…

1. Has no direct proof that it actually happened to begin with.
2. Was not delivered by Jesus.
3. Was not preached by the apostles.
4. Was not preserved by the fathers, because none of them make the claim for centuries after Christ that the apostles believed it.

1. That faith comes from the beginning: The 16th century isn’t even close to the beginning of the historic Christian faith. The 19th and 20th centuries are even farther removed from Apostolic times with the emergence of gnostic Evangelicalism. Please, give us a break!
2. That the Faith was delivered by Jesus: “I have yet many things to say to you; but you cannot bear them now. But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak. And the things that are to come, he shall show you.”
   (John 16:12-13). The faith is not delivered by Jesus alone (‘sola Christu’).
3. That the Perpetual Virginity of Mary was not preached by the apostles: This claim of yours is baseless to begin with, for you cannot show that everything the apostles preached was committed to writing. Paul never wrote about the Virgin Birth of Jesus, but I’m sure he preached it. Given the thematic structures and objectives of their epistles, there was no reason for the apostles to write about Mary’s Perpetual Virginity, the Holy Trinity, or the Hypostatic Union, etc. The apostles wrote their epistles to address particular issues among particular churches or dioceses. The PV of Mary was not an issue to be addressed. The Word of God is what we have “heard” (not read), and not everything that was preached was written down (1Thess 2:13; 3:10; 2 Thess 2:15). The spoken Word of God lasts forever, and this Word is preserved in the One Holy Apostolic Catholic Church by the Holy Spirit. You are in no postion to tell the Church what the NT apostles actually preached by word of mouth. :nope: The early Church Fathers were in a better position to know what their predecessors spoke about Mary than were the progeny of Voltaire in the 19th and 20th centuries. Several early Church Fathers taught Mary was Ever-Virgin before the canon of Scripture in the late fourth century. Most important, Luke himself wrote what the newborn Church had already believed for about thirty years: “How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?” (Lk 1:34) “Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus (for one person), so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught (already)” (Lk 1:1-4). Of course, you fail to see the confirmation of Christian belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary in verse 34, although it’s as clear as a sunny day. You’re in a state of denial, because Mary’s vow of chastity offends you for some reason.
4. That the faith was preserved by the early Church Fathers: The ECFs never taught ‘Sola Scriptura’, ‘Sola Fide’, ‘Sola Gratia’, ‘Sola Christu’, Predestination, Dispensationalism, Consubstantiation, etc.; but they did teach Mary was Ever-Virgin, etc.

“If I do not find it in the ancient Scriptures (OT), I will not believe the Gospel; on my saying to them, It is written, they answered me, That remains to be proved.” St.Ignatius of Antioch (A.D.110)

Protestants who reject and oppose the Church’s Marian doctrines argue along the same lines as the ancient Jews and pagans did in their opposition to the Christological doctrines of the Church. The Catholic Church has had to contend with heretics since the beginning. :juggle:

“To be deep in history is to cease being Protestant.”
Cardinal John H Newman

---

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[PC_Master]

You make some excellent points. I have tried repeatedly to get into the details about the support for many catholic doctrines and evenually from many it gets to the mocking stage real quick.

I know, but the question is – why are you here? For me, it’s about deepening my spiritual understanding of things, and so even in spite of the mocking and such, it’s worth while.

Admittedly, the whole approach of “I’m not going to answer your questions – instead I’m going to attack sola scriptura and the Reformation because I’m sure you love those things, even though you’ve stated a dozen times that you don’t,” gets a bit old, but for now, I’m still here.

In any case, the summary thus far seems to be…

Scripture neither confirms nor denies the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. Despite GoodFella’s claims, the words used, both in English and in Greek can (and should) be understood to refer to a then-current virginal state, without reference to future sexual activity. While one may imply due to certain phrases (“before X happened”, “X didn’t happen until after Y”) that after Jesus’ birth Mary and Joseph enjoyed a normal relationship as husband and wife, this is not all that much more certain than the claims that Mary was a temple virgin. Following the birth of Christ, the gospels cease to make any mention of the virginity of Mary (one way or the other).

Roman Catholic support for the doctrine seems to lie in the following points…

1. 
   *]The declaration of this dogma infallibly by the Roman Catholic Church. “The church says it, and I believe the church is right in whatever it teaches, so I believe it.”
   *]Passages in the Protoevangelium of James. This document is generally believed to have been authored some time in the second century, though its veracity is questionable, for the claimed author (James the Just) could not have been the true author.
   *]Based on the above, some insist that Mary was a temple virgin. I am unable to find any reference anywhere that would support this as having been a God-honoring custom in Jewish culture in Mary’s day. The references I can find are pagan in nature, largely connecting with the Vestal Virgins of Rome, priestesses of one of the pagan goddesses. The Essene community is also claimed to have been a group who valued virginity, but seems to have no connection with “temple virgins”.
   *]An Old Testament passage (Ezekiel 44:2), which speaks of a gate that the Messiah shall enter through, which shall then be shut. However, the surrounding verses speak of several gates, and these other gates are certainly not references to Mary (or at least I’ve never heard them claimed to be), but rather seem to be prophetic visions of the city of Jerusalem, which had gates on all sides of the city.
   
   Admittedly, I cannot say that the evidences Protestants raise can conclusively prove that Mary did not remain a virgin. It’s very hard to prove a negative, and in light of the unwillingness of the Roman Catholics here to provide the information specifically requested (still no early quotes showing that the teaching was apostolic, or that it was common in Jewish culture), the question may go unanswered.
   
   However, the more I contemplate the issue, the more I come back to one question –
   
   What difference does it make whether she remained a virgin or not?
   
   If she took such a vow, and kept it, what does it matter? What does it change in our faith? This is the only issue I’m concerned with at present because, thus far, I’ve found no indications that it matters one way or the other, and so determining the truthfulness of it is an academic distinction only.
   
   To me, the miracle of the virgin birth is what makes Mary special. God worked through her to bring about something that isn’t humanly possible. That is certainly worthy of recognition, as a sign of the awesomeness and power of our creator, which should only serve to turn our minds back toward God if we ever should choose to think about it.
   
   What I’m more curious about is the following: Remaining a virgin is something that is very much humanly possible, and has been done by Roman Catholics, pagans, and others, all in honor of their deities or some form of perceived religious purity (note that there is nothing in scripture which states marriage to be anything less than God-honoring – even Paul does not say marriage is worse than celibacy). What is it about this human practice is it that accords Mary more respect/honor/whatever than being the virgin mother of Christ?
   
   Further, if the perpetual virginity is what is truly noteworthy, I’d ask why priests and nuns who remain celibate are not equally recognized?
   
   So, to sum it all up, I’m just not going to debate about the veracity of the belief any more until I’m sure that it actually matters at all, one way or another.

 

[HailMary]

What difference does it make whether she remained a virgin or not?

If she took such a vow, and kept it, what does it matter? What does it change in our faith? This is the only issue I’m concerned with at present because, thus far, I’ve found no indications that it matters one way or the other, and so determining the truthfulness of it is an academic distinction only.

In Heaven there is one Truth. The Church, which is the Bride of Christ, which is also one with Him, has taught this because the Spirit guides us as He (Christ) promised.

This is why it matters, because its God’s will that it be revealed. He loves His Mother more than even She can understand and wants to glorify Her since He mystically owes to Her His humanity.

In short, the difference or whether she remained or not is if you BELIEVED something that was not true, and somehow ended up in Heaven, that would not be heaven for you. For example, if you do not believe that Mary is Queen of Heaven (in fact, lets say you think this is a blasphemy), and you preached that until the day you died, would it be Heaven for you when you see all the angels and saints at her throne singing of her praises?

 

[PC_Master]

This is why it matters, because its God’s will that it be revealed.

To what end?

In short, the difference or whether she remained or not is if you BELIEVED something that was not true, and somehow ended up in Heaven, that would not be heaven for you. For example, if you do not believe that Mary is Queen of Heaven (in fact, lets say you think this is a blasphemy), and you preached that until the day you died, would it be Heaven for you when you see all the angels and saints at her throne singing of her praises?

That sounds like worship to me. It also sounds contrary to scripture which indicates that we’ll be spending our time praising God himself. Why would I praise Mary when I can praise God himself? It makes no sense.

Regardless, you’re saying the difference only matters in heaven? Well, as I understand it, heaven is to be a place without tears or sorrows, so it doesn’t seem to me that it would matter. I mean, I’m bound to be wrong in some thing that I believe…as is everyone else. Does that mean we’re all going to spend eternity in heaven as sad people? I’d hope not.

I look forward to other answers to my question, but I’d hope future responses will focus more on current beliefs and earthly life. In other words, how is my worship of God affected by whether or not Mary remained a virgin after Jesus’ birth?

 

[guanophore]

To what end?

“I am praying for them; I am not praying for the world but for those whom thou hast given me, for they are thine; 10 all mine are thine, and thine are mine, and I am glorified in them. 11 And now I am no more in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to thee.” John 17:9-11

To the end that God might be glorified in us!

That sounds like worship to me. It also sounds contrary to scripture which indicates that we’ll be spending our time praising God himself. Why would I praise Mary when I can praise God himself? It makes no sense.

You are making a distinction that does not exist. Mary is the handmaid of the Lord. It is done to her according to His will. Any respect for her is respect for God.

" And so, from the day we heard of it, we have not ceased to pray for you, asking that you may be filled with the knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, 10 to lead a life worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God. 11 May you be strengthened with all power, according to his glorious might, for all endurance and patience with joy, 12 giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified us to share in the inheritance of the saints in light. 13 He has delivered us from the dominion of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins." Col 1:9-14

Those who life a life fully pleasing to God, bearing fruit in every good work, and full of his power and glorious might cause thanksgiving to be given to God, who qualifies us to share in His inheritance.

focus more on current beliefs and earthly life. In other words, how is my worship of God affected by whether or not Mary remained a virgin after Jesus’ birth?

Evidently, it is not.

But, for those that believe in the communion of saints, we realize that we are surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses. One of these is Mary, the very first Christian.

The main way this affects the faithful is the submission to the authority that God ordained. Those that have received the Apostolic Teachings know that Mary is given to us as an example.

" And he went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was obedient to them; and his mother kept all these things in her heart." Luke 2:51

If obedience to Mary is good enough for Jesus, it is good enough for us. See? It all boils down to accepting authority. Jesus chose to accept Mary’s authority over Him. We believe He did this to set an example for us, just like He entered the waters of Baptism, not because He needed them, but so that we would know.

 

[apophasis]

That sounds like worship to me.

Exactly! And that’s your answer as to why the debate of her perpetual virginity has core relevance to what they believe is the Christian faith:“A little leaven leavens the whole lump.” They’re not just arguing for “perpetual virginity,” but the complete exaltation of the Virgin. It’s a packaged deal. “Perpetual virginity” is at the very center of her exaltation.

 

[apophasis]

Nowhere does the gospel according to Matthew state that Mary & Joseph had intercourse. That would require a positive statement, but Matt 1:25 offers only a negative statement, saying simply that Joseph did not have intercourse with Mary before she gave birth. It does not state that he did afterwards.

A similar example would be to say that “Joe Bob never took a drink until he died.” Does that somehow imply that Joe Bob took a drink once he was dead? Of course not.

I’ll be brief because this was all covered before. Your example would be relevant if Matt. 1:25 stated that Joseph kept her a virgin (“did not know her”) until the day she died. But it doesn’t. Nor does the verse imply that Mary died giving child birth.

What would you, the reader, conclude based on these two statements:“He stood under the shelter until the rain stopped.”
"He stood under the shelter until he died."Would you come up with the same conclusion for both?

The citation of 13 is interesting, especially since a “normal reading of those Biblical texts” would also indicate that Jesus was the son of Joseph (“the carpenter”), not the son of God (which neither Catholics nor Protestants believe.)

No it wouldn’t. It simply indicates that the town knew Jesus to be part of the family of Joseph and Mary. And from that familiarity they drew their offense toward Him.

Besides, that would contradict 1:25, and therein lies the problem with literalistic & personal interpretations of Scripture as if each verse were hermetically sealed from the rest of the Bible, or of the universe.

There’s no contradiction at all when both are read in their normal sense. In fact, the one supplements the other.

 

[Mickey]

The new covenant did not exist at the time Mary carried Jesus in her womb. Mary cannot be the “ark” of a covenant that did not exist at the time of her pregnancy.

You continue to repeat this, and you continue to be wrong. The New covenant existed in and through our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. You cannot separate the promise from the One Who established it. Therefore, the Virgin Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant.

 

[HailMary]

That sounds like worship to me.

Not to the rest of the Apostolic world. And obviously, you are the one that need a course in (logic?) Christianity since nobody has proclaimed this doctrine of worshiping the Virgin but you and those like you! If I say you worship a book, I would have to substantiate that with some primary source that suggests this. Why don’t you abide by some of the common rules of argumentation so you can avoid the Bald Assertion / Unjustified Statement fallacy?

 

[HailMary]

You continue to repeat this, and you continue to be wrong.

Sadly. Its so obvious what St. Luke was trying to do and even more obvious how in Revelation, St. John mentioned the ark and then the woman appeared! But what do we know? We are just a couple of pre-denominational churches that can trace her roots back to the Jesus.
THE VIRGIN MARY AS THE ARK OF THE NEW COVENANT

The New covenant existed in and through our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. You cannot separate the promise from the One Who established it.

A covenant, in the basic sense, can be looked at as a promise, a contract, an exchange of peoples between God and Man. I think we can boldly say that Jesus Christ IS the New Covenant in Himself since He IS the INCARNATION who is both God and Man, perfectly united.

 

[ChrisWRIT]

I’ll be brief because this was all covered before. Your example would be relevant if Matt. 1:25 stated that Joseph kept her a virgin (“did not know her”) until the day she died. But it doesn’t. Nor does the verse imply that Mary died giving child birth.

Perhaps I wasn’t clear. I agree - Matthew 1:25 does not state that Joseph kept Mary a virgin. However, neither does Matthew 1:25 state that Joseph DID have “union with her” at any time.

What would you, the reader, conclude based on these two statements:“He stood under the shelter until the rain stopped.”
“He stood under the shelter until he died.”

Without reading statements that aren’t in the text, I would conclude exactly what they said. Neither states that “he” left the shelter at any time, only that he did stand under the shelter - the same way Matt 1:25 states only that Joseph didn’t have union with Mary during a specific time frame.

However, is the “normal” reading of these to use the filter of “I wouldn’t stay there, so he must not have”? (Good example, by the way! )

No it wouldn’t. It simply indicates that the town knew Jesus to be part of the family of Joseph and Mary. And from that familiarity they drew their offense toward Him.There’s no contradiction at all when both are read in their normal sense. In fact, the one supplements the other.

Yes, the familiarity bred in one’s hometown is what generated their contempt. As Jesus said, “Only in his hometown and in his own house is a prophet without honor.”

We seem to agree that the passage you related (“Isn’t this the carpenter’s son?”) doesn’t mean that Jesus was Joseph’s biological son. However, we apparently disagree that Jesus “brothers and sisters” were Jesus biological “brothers and sisters”.

Just as it doesn’t say that Joseph was Jesus biological father, neither does it say that Jesus “brothers and sisters” were biologically related to Jesus, or that they were Mary’s children, or how old they were in comparison to Jesus - OIder? Younger?

You have to assume what the text doesn’t say to be able to use it to argue that the passage “proves” that Mary did not remain a virgin.

Admittedly, the whole approach of “I’m not going to answer your questions – instead I’m going to attack sola scriptura and the Reformation because I’m sure you love those things, even though you’ve stated a dozen times that you don’t,” gets a bit old, but for now, I’m still here.

The reason people here question sola scriptura is because it is the foundation of nearly EVERY Protestant objection to Catholic teaching. I’m sure that nearly every Catholic here finds that the constant Protestant question of “Where is that in the Bible?” gets old too.

The constant demand for Biblical quotes and/or quotes from the original 12 apostles denies the authority Jesus gave to the Church, and denies the passing on of that authority. Apophasis’ has already said that he knows there is no Biblical support, and to shift the burden of proof, has been indirectly trying to attack the Apostolic authority of the Catholic Church.

Sorry if addressing the root of the objections seems “old”. Many people here DO try to answer the endless question, and usually fail, because ANY answer seems to be “not good enough”. So instead of “wasting time” with the juggling act and doctrinal dance, it makes sense to many Catholics to simply question the faulty premise that underlies the objections.

Respectfully,

Chris

 

[HailMary]

“God, I love you, but I could care less about what you have done throughout history because I’d rather praise you, I’m not going to waste time looking in awe to the beauty you have created on earth because I’d rather praise you, I don’t want to know your saints and how they have witnessed to you because I’d rather not waste time and rather praise you, and your mother, oh, she’s just blessed, but aren’t we all”

Would that be your reply, or something similar, when God asks you why you never honored His saints, venerated His Mother, and stood in silence and awe at the beauty of His world because

Why would I praise Mary when I can praise God himself?

 

[JoeyWarren]

I’ll be brief because this was all covered before. Your example would be relevant if Matt. 1:25 stated that Joseph kept her a virgin (“did not know her”) until the day she died. But it doesn’t. Nor does the verse imply that Mary died giving child birth.

We Catholics put Matt 1:25 in the same context that we and you put on Matt 18:21-22

21 Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?
22 Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.

A normal reading as you would put it, would say that after 490 times, we are to stop forgiving.

But nearly everybody would agree that it means, we are to forgive indefinitely.

Yes?

 

[JoeyWarren]

I just love the book of Matthew.

Matthew 24:38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark,

A normal reading of this would give that everybody stopped marrying and giving in marriage. This would not present a problem, but everybody stopped eating and drinking when Noah entered the Ark, this would imply all of Noah’s kin as well stop doing all of these as well.

Now the Protestant bias tends to claim that the reference to eating and drinking and marrying and giving into marriage are indicating sins being committed. But verses 40 and 41 shows the relationship to verse 38

40 Then two shall be in the field: one shall be taken, and one shall be left.
41 Two women shall be grinding at the mill: one shall be taken, and one shall be left.

People were doing normal run of the mill things that are essential to a physical survial. Men working the fields that produce food and women grinding the grains to produce a better form of food.

Now did the eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage stop immediately after Noah entered the Ark?

Or did it actually continue until the threat of death of drowing was evident? Even then after some point after the flood Man continued to eat, drink, and marrying and giving in marriage.

So did people including Noah and his kin stop eating, drinking, marrying, and giving in marriage after Noah entered the ark?

No. But there definitely was a period of inactivity then all activity resumed.

Apply this same principle to Joseph and Mary. Joseph knew her not until she gave birth. Even after the birth he could not know her because of Mary’s uncleaness after birth. Then after the period of uncleanness, the not knowing her continued.

Hope this helps:tiphat:

 

[BanksOfTheTiber]

We Catholics put Matt 1:25 in the same context that we and you put on Matt 18:21-22

You might, but I seriously doubt this is the official position of the Catholic Church.

The Greek conjunction *eos *(till), like the Hebrew ad-ki and the Latin donec, while expressing what has occurred up to a certain period, leaves the future entirely aside

However, here’s the sticking point: Sometimes there are instances where eos means “from some point in the past, up to now, but no further.”, and sometimes there are instances where eos means "from some point in the past, up to now, and continuing into the future, as you’ve cited above.

Matt 1:25 explicitly states that Mary was a virgin at Christ’s conception and birth. I don’t think anyone would argue otherwise.
But I think it foolish to attempt to prove more than that from this verse alone.

 

[JoeyWarren]

You might, but I seriously doubt this is the official position of the Catholic Church.
.

Exactly what is not the official position of th Catholic Chruch?

Mary’s Perpetual Virginity?

or

We are too forgive someone indefinitely?

Here is the footnote on the NAB on Mathew 18:22

18 [21-35] The final section of the discourse deals with the forgiveness that the disciples are to give to their fellow disciples who sin against them. To the question of Peter how often forgiveness is to be granted (Matthew 18:21), Jesus answers that it is to be given without limit (Matthew 18:22) and illustrates this with the parable of the unmerciful servant (Matthew 18:23-34), warning that his heavenly Father will give those who do not forgive the same treatment as that given to the unmerciful servant (Matthew 18:35). Matthew 18:21-22 correspond to Luke 17:4; the parable and the final warning are peculiar to Matthew. That the Parable did not originally belong to this context is suggested by the fact that it really does not deal with repeated forgiveness, which is the point of Peter’s question and Jesus’ reply.