Mary's Perpetual Virginity

  • Thread starter Thread starter irish1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Quote:
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
hmmmmmm

heōs
*
Of uncertain affinity; a conjugation, preposition and adverb of continuance, until (of time and place): - even (until, unto), (as) far (as), how long, (un-) til (-l), (hither-, un-, up) to, while (-s).
*
as compared to these other Greek words that are used to render the same “Until”

mechris which utilized in Matthew 13:30
as far as, that is, up to a certain point (as preposition of extent [denoting the *terminus]

achris which is utilized in Luke 1:20
through the idea of a terminus); (of time) until or (of place) up to: - as far as, for, in

and this lone usage by Paul in Eph 1:14 eis
A primary preposition; to or into (indicating the point reached or entered), of place, time, or (figuratively) purpose (result, etc.); also in adverbial phrases.: - [abundant-] ly, against, among, as, at,
 
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.
Amen! Amen! Amen!
 
That the hermautics for both passages are equivilant.
I agree, but the underlying principle is the same. We believe the “Not Knowing” extends into the duration of ones life and the forgiving of sins extends into duration of ones life.
 
The Burden of Proof
By Jimmy Akin
catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0310bt.asp

…Sola scriptura is not the only issue on which Protestant apologists will attempt to place the burden of proof on Catholics. It is a general rule that, whenever an apologetics discussion begins, both sides will try to place the burden of proof on each other. That’s where the confusion and the time wasted begin.

But, as I indicated, there is a simple rule to tell which side has the burden of proof.

I recently pointed out this rule in an e-mail discussion I was having with a Protestant seminary professor regarding the much-discussed ossuary of James and what implications it may or may not have for our knowledge of the Holy Family. During the course of the exchange, the professor asserted to me that I would have to shoulder the burden of proof if I wanted to maintain that Mary was a perpetual virgin.

My response was simple: Yes, I would . . . if I were trying to convince you of that point. Whenever two people disagree and one wants the other to change his view, then the person advocating the change *always *has to shoulder the burden of proof."

Apophasis and PC Master,

The Catholic Church (along with the Orthodox and many Protestant denominations, etc.) has long taught the ancient doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, and we as Catholics believe that support for this doctrine exists within both Scripture and Tradition.

You disagree and accept the more recent idea that Mary did not remain a virgin all of her life. Therefore, if you wish to convince us that we are in error, the burden of proof is upon you to prove it.

Before you claim that you “can’t prove a universal negative” etc., I would suggest that you simply need to provide some verses of scripture which are unambiguous concerning other uterine children of Mary or some Early Church Fathers (besides Tertullian) speaking along the lines you want us to go.

If that is more than you want to tackle, no problem. We’re good either way.
 
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?No it wouldn’t.
Matthew 1:25 states that Joseph had no relations with Mary until she bore a son. Wouldn’t that imply that he knew her afterward?

Before you move on to this objection, notice that the verse in question has changed. You have presented scriptural and historical evidence to support the Church’s interpretation. If the person that you are speaking with leaves Matthew 13:55 to rest, it may be a sign that he sees the incompleteness of the “brethren of the Lord” argument. This is a good sign, so follow his lead—so long as the conversation stays on topic. Zealous Protestants will have any number of objections to the faith, and, if you hope to make any progress, take only one topic at a time.

Now, does Matthew’s use of “until” mean what your friend says it does? Not necessarily. The Greek word for “until” (heos) does not imply that Mary had marital relations after the birth of Christ. In 2 Samuel 6:23, we read that Michal, the daughter of Saul, had no child “until” the day of her death. (Rest assured that she didn’t have any children after that day, either.) Hebrews 1:13 and 1 Timothy 4:13 are similar examples.

When we interpret any passage, we must consider what the author was trying to say. Matthew’s intent here is not to explain what happened after the birth of Christ. He is only concerned with the fact that Joseph and Mary had no relations before then. It is the virgin birth, not later siblings, that Matthew is concerned with.

catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0007sbs.asp
 
NUMBERS Chapter 30
"This is what the LORD has commanded:
When a man makes a vow to the LORD or binds himself under oath to a pledge of abstinence, he shall not violate his word, but must fulfill exactly the promise he has uttered. "When a woman**, while still a maiden in her father’s house, makes a vow to the LORD, or binds herself to a pledge, if her father learns of her vow or the pledge to which she bound herself and says nothing to her about it, then any vow or any pledge she has made remains valid. … "If she marries while under a vow or under a rash pledge to which she bound herself, and her husband learns of it, yet says nothing to her that day about it, then the vow or pledge she had made remains valid. … The vow of a widow or of a divorced woman, or any pledge to which such a woman binds herself, is valid. "If it is in her husband’s house that she makes a vow or binds herself under oath to a pledge, and her husband learns of it yet says nothing to express to her his disapproval, then any vow or any pledge she has made remains valid. … "Any vow or any pledge that she makes under oath to mortify herself*, her husband can either allow to remain valid or render null and void.*** But if her husband, day after day, says nothing at all to her about them, he thereby allows as valid any vow or any pledge she has made; he has allowed them to remain valid, because on the day he learned of them he said nothing to her about them. If, however, he countermands them some time after he first learned of them, he is responsible for her guilt." These are the statutes which the LORD prescribed through Moses **concerning the relationship between a husband and his wife, as well as between a father and his daughter while she is still a maiden in her father’s house. **

In the book Reading the Old Testament by Lawrence Boadt on page 190 Identifies Numbers Chapter 30 to be about vows and Chapter 30 identifies the vows to be a pledge of ABSTINENCE….no other ‘vow’ is specifically identified in the Chapter……and the Chapter specifically discusses the “vow” in the context of single persons and married persons………

In the book The complete Dead Sea Scrolls In English by Geza Vermes celibacy practiced by the Essenes is discussed on pages 14, 33, 44, 48, and 83. Vermes credits the symbolic approach of the sect to sacrificial worship accounting for the celibacy in the Essene community where it was practiced.
“Sexual abstinence was imposed on those participating in the Temple services, both priests and lay-men; no person who had sexual intercourse [or an involuntary emission], or even physical contact with a menstruating woman] could lawfully take part.”
Vermes discusses and dismisses writings of Philo and Josephus who attribute the sects celibacy to misogyny. Studying the Community Rules and the archeological record, Vermes states that
‘a more reasonable explanation would be that it was thought that lives intended to be wholly consecrated to worship and wholly preoccupied with meditation on prophecy should be kept wholly, and not just intermittently, pure


This should dispell any arguement that Celibacy was not practiced in the Jewish community…
 
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.
That’s failure on 3 counts, or even 4 depending on where you draw the line for the fathers.
A friend responded to me as follows concerning your four points above:
The Perpetual Virginity of Mary…
  1. Is referenced in the connection between Luke’s Gospel and the second book of Samuel in the part about the Ark and the killing of Uzzah by God Himself for daring to touch the Ark. That which is made for God’s purpose at His direction is not made to be touched by man.
  2. Actually, whatever merits Mary had (Immaculate Conception, Mother of God, Perpetual Virginity, Sinlessness, Assumption) were given to her by the merits of Christ’s sacrifice and death on the cross, which is the only way anyone on earth gets any merits. So, He in a sense did give them to her. You need to read Blessed John Duns Scotus on that.
  3. The Apostles’ preaching was not confined to Scripture. John and Paul both explicitly say so in Scripture.
  4. Then the Holy Trinity is suspect also, since that was not clearly defined until the fourth century. That term isn’t found in the ECF or Scripture before Nicea. Weak logic.
Hope this helps. :tiphat:
 
I agree, but the underlying principle is the same. We believe the “Not Knowing” extends into the duration of ones life and the forgiving of sins extends into duration of ones life.
YAY 👍

But my point was, and is, that Matt 1:25 isn’t very good proof for Mary’s perpetual virginity. The passage alone is authoritative up to Christ’s birth. What occured afterwards is not specified, and the absence of a negative, does not imply a positive.

And while esoteric, keep this in mind: Matthew was a publican, I believe. A tax collector. He obviously knew Greek, but I doubt he had the command of it, as someone like Paul.

I am not a Catholic (yet). But I do believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity (even though I think too much fuss gets made over it).

One of my favorite defenses for this belief/dogma is Christ’s words from the cross to John: “Behold thy mother”. *
But taken in the context of the society of the day, those words have a profound meaning. If Christ had brothers or sisters by Mary, his entrusting his mother to John would have been unthinkable! A slap in the face, even.*
 
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.
I’m just curious. Why can’t you? I mean, if you’re going to make this rather odd claim, I suggest you support it. It’s like saying you cannot separate Moses from the Old Covenant, and that Moses is the Old Covenant. I really don’t see how either instance makes sense.

To clarify, a covenant is a contract; an agreement between persons. In this case, it’s an agreement between God and his people (those who choose to be a part of that contract). A rather brief summary of the New Contract (not person) is found in Jeremiah…

Jeremiah 31:31-33 Amplified
31 Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,(E)
32 Not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was their Husband, says the Lord.
33 But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel: After those days, says the Lord, I will put My law within them, and on their hearts will I write it; and I will be their God, and they will be My people.

Jesus’ blood is the means by which this covenant is sealed, but he is not the covenant himself. Jesus said the new covenant is “in [his] blood”, not that the new covenant was his blood (or himself). A person, an action that person performs, and what the action is performed in relation to are not all the same thing, any more than the first Passover meal was actually the Old Covenant.

I wasn’t trying to get back into discussion of whether or not Mary remained a virgin or not, but it seemed odd to me that you guys had such a poor understanding of what “covenant” means.
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!
I didn’t say you worship the virgin. I responded to the comment of “singing the praises” of Mary, as given by another poster. To sing praises of something is a form of worship. Check out the definitions of the words in a dictionary if you doubt me.

And if not for worship, what’s the purpose of singing the praises of Mary? Why not look at Mary, think God is awesome because of the miracle he performed through her, and then worship God all the more?
If I say you worship a book, I would have to substantiate that with some primary source that suggests this.
Right, but I don’t claim to “sing the praises” of the Bible, but rather to sing the praises of none other than God himself.
A covenant, in the basic sense, can be looked at as…an exchange of peoples between God and Man.
What? Where do you get this? What dictionary/lexicon are you using to get this?
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.
Yes, absolutely. However, that would seem to be best left for another thread. The only relevance it has here is to explain your belief – you believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary because the church says it’s true, correct?

Continued…
 
“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
Rather, it looks something like this. When I consider God, the things that exemplify his awesomeness are those outside the ordinary. I look at the world, and I don’t think about the world – instead I see the awesome creator of the intricate detail I see.

I look at Noah, and instead of seeing a man who built a massive boat and escaped a flood, I see that God flooded the whole world to punish the unrighteous, and yet gave one righteous man knowledge in how to save himself from that fate.

I look at Moses, and I don’t see the fallen man who doubted God, who broke the stone tablets, who stuttered – I see the God of Israel, who parted the sea, who caused water to come forth from a rock, who caused manna and quail to come forth from the air.

I look at Joshua, and I don’t see a great military commander, or a fallen man who had sins in his life. I see an awesome God who demonstrated his power by taking down the very walls of Jericho without the Israelites attacking.

I look at Mary, and I don’t see a favored woman. Instead, I see that God used her to perform a miracle, allowing her to conceive and give birth while a virgin.

I look at Peter, and I don’t see the doubter who began to sink as he walked on the water. Instead, I see Christ, who was truly supporting them both.

I look at the blind man, and I don’t see a blind man. I see a savior who healed that blindness.

I look at Lazarus, and I don’t see a man who died. I see a savior who evidenced himself by raising the man back to life.

I look at Pentecost, and I don’t see many apostles who were God’s chosen messengers. I see God, breaking down walls to ensure his message would reach the nations.

In every case, there are people used by God, but it’s not the people we should focus on. It’s the miracle, and how it displays God’s awesome power and love for humanity. God shines through, in spite of human imperfections, and we should allow him to be seen in each of us as well. When the rest of the world looks at me, I want them to see Jesus, not me.

So tell me, what difference does perpetual virginity, something which isn’t a miracle, make when one can simply focus on the direct works of God himself (virgin birth)? What is more God-honoring than to look at any of the various “tools” used by the creator of the universe, and immediately think of the creator because of what the creator did with each of them? What benefit does manly devotion serve in comparison to that?

After all, pagan priestesses took vows of celibacy for their deities, and yet we don’t see that and think “oh, let’s worship goddess Vesta!” Instead, we think “what wasted devotion”. Now, is is the celibacy, which has been done in honor of many deities, or is it the miraculous actions of the one, true deity, that we should see?

Randy Carson> I suspect your friend did not understand the context of the original quote from which I pulled those criteria, or the fact that it was a Roman Catholic poster (I believe) who posted the quote.
 
Really? What do you make out of those passages then?
In the absence of anything pointing me to a figurative meaning, I have no choice but to accept the litteral.

Jesus said to Mary, “Woman, behold thy son”, and then to the Apostle John “Behold thy Mother.” I see nothing in this passage that infers a greater meaning than stated.

If you have evidence to the contrary, please, offer it up. I am here to learn, and grow, and participate. Another passage of Scripture? An early Church Father? Why do you believe otherwise?

**
 
In the absence of anything pointing me to a figurative meaning, I have no choice but to accept the litteral.

Jesus said to Mary, “Woman, behold thy son”, and then to the Apostle John “Behold thy Mother.” I see nothing in this passage that infers a greater meaning than stated.
What is the meaning of the literal interpretation?
 
I look at Mary, and I don’t see a favored woman. Instead, I see that God used her to perform a miracle, allowing her to conceive and give birth while a virgin.
Before you get ahead of yourself, remember why we are having this discussion, you asked:
What difference does it make whether she remained a virgin or not?
I answer that, as your post suggested, that everything done is done for the greater glory of God.

Anyhow, I’m just curious, what your bible say in Luke 1:28?
 
I meant to address this as well…
In the book Reading the Old Testament by Lawrence Boadt on page 190 Identifies Numbers Chapter 30 to be about vows and Chapter 30 identifies the vows to be a pledge of ABSTINENCE….no other ‘vow’ is specifically identified in the Chapter……and the Chapter specifically discusses the “vow” in the context of single persons and married persons………
Check your Bible, please. No vow is specifically referenced at all, abstinence or otherwise. Anyone who says it does is inserting words into the text. I’ve checked half a dozen translations (KJV, AMP, DRB, ESV, Bishop’s Bible, ASV), and I’ve checked the Hebrew as well (as best as I’m able – I’m not a Hebrew scholar, after all) – any reference to abstinence, “knowing a man”, or celibacy is absent from the passage.

Also, the context of single women living in their father’s house and married women living in their husband’s house can be explained by the fact that in Jewish culture, the male head of the household was responsible for the actions of his family.
In the book The complete Dead Sea Scrolls In English by Geza Vermes celibacy practiced by the Essenes is discussed on pages 14, 33, 44, 48, and 83. Vermes credits the symbolic approach of the sect to sacrificial worship accounting for the celibacy in the Essene community where it was practiced.
Vermes discusses and dismisses writings of Philo and Josephus who attribute the sects celibacy to misogyny. Studying the Community Rules and the archeological record, Vermes states that

This should dispell any arguement that Celibacy was not practiced in the Jewish community…
The claim that priests in the Essene community were celibate may be valid, but there’s no proofs of any kind that it was practiced outside of that, and we know of at least one New Testament priest that certainly wasn’t celibate. Additionally, there’s no real proof that Mary and Joseph were Essenes.

Further, there’s no proof that the Essene practices were God-honoring.
 
In the absence of anything pointing me to a figurative meaning, I have no choice but to accept the litteral.

Jesus said to Mary, “Woman, behold thy son”, and then to the Apostle John “Behold thy Mother.” I see nothing in this passage that infers a greater meaning than stated.

If you have evidence to the contrary, please, offer it up. I am here to learn, and grow, and participate. Another passage of Scripture? An early Church Father? Why do you believe otherwise?

**

Do you believe that we are brother and sister through Christ?
 
In every case, there are people used by God, but it’s not the people we should focus on. It’s the miracle, and how it displays God’s awesome power and love for humanity. God shines through, in spite of human imperfections, and we should allow him to be seen in each of us as well. When the rest of the world looks at me, I want them to see Jesus, not me.
You’re right, and we see in Mary, God, the Holy Spirit, her Spouse, since she co-operated in the divine birth of God, the Son, Jesus Christ.

the Blessed Virgin Mary is always a pointer to God. To think otherwise, simply means YOU don’t understand Catholicism. We do not glorify Mary for her own sake, but rather for her Sons. The same reason the parent does not take pride in his/her own abilities to raise children well, but rather to add to the kingdom of God, a new saint.
 
What is the meaning of the literal interpretation?
That Christ, knowing his death was eminent, entrusted the care and keeping of his mother to John.

It is likely, if not verifiable, that Joseph was already dead. In the culture of that day, a single or widowed woman was reliant on her children for subsistance. As any good (perfect) son would, Christ made sure that Mary was to be looked after (in His absence).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top