Mary's Perpetual Virginity

[HailMary]

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?

The Church had to define the Perpetual Virgin of Mary because it was being attacked. To think that she was not a virgin, would be false. And God, working through the Church, does not want the Faithful to believe otherwise because Mary is a special person, namely, the Mother of God. To say she had other children, would violate her Consecration to God, something you would need to accent before accepting this teaching.

 

[PC_Master]

I answer that, as your post suggested, that everything done is done for the greater glory of God.

What exactly do you mean here? What is “for the glory of God”, except “for the worship and honor of God”?

What, about perpetual virginity, is going to make me worship the almighty more than the virgin birth will?

Anyhow, I’m just curious, what your bible say in Luke 1:28?

It says that Mary was blessed (favored by God) above all women. And indeed she was – she was chosen to bear Jesus. Yes, I’d say that’s quite a blessing.

 

[HailMary]

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).

Ok, so lets think about this for a second.

The mere fact that it is recorded in the Holy Bible that Jesus gave us His mother, at the most powerful moment in Jesus’ triumph over the Devil, can only be something perpetual, not just some temporal thing. If it truly was just temporal, why did the Holy Spirit instruct St. John to insert it there? Do you really think that would make sense on God’s part?

Furthermore, the timing of Jesus’ decision to give us His mother is no coincidence; it was only at the utter peak of His Glory during the Passion that He gave us this wonderful gift of His mother.

Jesus was only going to be gone for THREE DAYS! You mean to tell me, that, under the guidance of the HOLY SPIRIT, that this “private” matter of who is going to take care of Mary for a mere THREE DAYS until Christ comes back, MUST have been recorded for all Christians across all ages to read?

I can go on and on, but I ask you to consider these questions I asked.

God Bless

 

[HailMary]

It says that Mary was blessed (favored by God) above all women. And indeed she was – she was chosen to bear Jesus. Yes, I’d say that’s quite a blessing.

So do you retract your statement?

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.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Originally Posted by BanksOfTheTiber forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*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.*

One has to look at the manner of how it was spoken.

Jesus, a man dieing on the cross, bleeding to death, and hardly able to breath, utters: “Women, behold thy son, Behold thy Mother” The literal sense presents problems since John own mother was present at the Cross when this was being said. It would have been an assault and insult to John’s own mother, for Jesus to tell John that his mother is Mary and not the “Mother of Zebedee’s children”

When you think about it, it would have been easier on Jesus for him to look at John and say: “John care for my mother” in his painful and bleeding and agonizing near death state.

Care to hear how an Atheist and Christian debunker would interpret that bit of scripture?

 

[HailMary]

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).

You are right, that is the literal meaning. Christ gave His mother to whom? At this point in the text is never said John, it only said,

the disciple whom He loved

With that in mind, what do you think the Spiritual meaning of this is?

 

[PC_Master]

the Blessed Virgin Mary is always a pointer to God.

I didn’t argue otherwise. I simply am saying that she’d be just as much a pointer to God without the perpetual virginity as with it, because people are going to focus on the Godly miracles, and not on human devotion. God gave us plenty of ways to recognize his greatness, without us adding others – if the miracles of God aren’t enough, your faith in God probably isn’t all that strong.

We do not glorify Mary for her own sake, but rather for her Sons.

Okay, so again, how does remaining celibate do that in a way that the virgin birth could not?

The Church had to define the Perpetual Virgin of Mary because it was being attacked.

The church says it, so you believe it. Got it. Still, that doesn’t answer my question.

To say she had other children, would violate her Consecration to God, something you would need to accent before accepting this teaching.

Which hasn’t been established. Yes, I understand that if she took a vow of chastity, and then broke that vow, it would look very bad. However, I don’t believe she took such a vow, so there would have been nothing at all wrong with her having sex with Joseph.

So do you retract your statement?

Allow me to clarify my meaning – by “see”, I mean “focus on”. Yes, I know Mary was favored by God, but when I think of Mary, my thoughts are immediately reflected back to God’s awesome power and what he did through her. Thus, any praising of Mary (as you say), would be useless. My praises are not “Oh Mary, favored art thou among women!” Instead it’s, “Oh God, you’re so awesome for what you did through Mary!”

Perpetual virginity is not something that would immediately reflect my devotion to God. It leaves room for me to think “wow, Mary was so devoted – how did she do that?”, whereas the virgin birth doesn’t leave room for that. I don’t at all think “wow, Mary managed to conceive without sex” – rather, I immediately think “wow, God performed a miracle – God is so awesome”.

So, true or false, the perpetual virginity of Mary doesn’t affect my faith. There will be no “singing the praises of Mary” (those aren’t my words) in heaven, for that would take away from God’s own glory. Instead, Mary will be right there with us, praising God (along with the apostles and the rest of the true God-followers throughout history).

The entire goal should be to worship and praise God, and Mary helps this because of God’s acts through her, nor because of any vow of celibacy – thus, whether she maintained such a vow doesn’t matter.

 

[YADA]

I meant to address this as well…

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.

From the NAB on the USCCB web site

1"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."

and the foot note on the passage reads "
1 [3] A vow . . . a pledge: here the former signifies the doing of some positive good deed, in particular the offering of some sacrifice; the latter signifies the abstaining from some otherwise elicit action or pleasure; cf Numbers 30:14."

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.

Who should I believe you or Geza Vermes, a renouned Dead Sea Scholar who earned his Doctorate with a dissertation on the historical frame work of the Dead Sea Scrolls and who has been the director of the forum for Qumran research at the Oxford Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies since 1991?

I side with Geza Vermes…some lay persons at Qumran practiced celibacy [and not just the intermittantly - as he noted].

You don’t want to acknowledge it because the Dead Sea Scrolls are from a time frame you set and illustrate a practice you fail to recognize existed…

 

[JoeyWarren]

The Zebedee question?

Well their are only 11 verses that contain that name. There is no reason to believe they are not the same:

Mat 4:21 And going on from thence, he saw other two brethren, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in a ship with Zebedee their father, mending their nets; and he called them.

Mat 10:2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;

Mat 20:20 Then came to him the mother of Zebedees children with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him.

Mat 26:37 And he took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be sorrowful and very heavy.

Mat 27:56 Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedees children.

Mar 1:19 And when he had gone a little farther thence, he saw James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, who also were in the ship mending their nets.

Mar 1:20 And straightway he called them: and they left their father Zebedee in the ship with the hired servants, and went after him.

Mar 3:17 And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder:

Mar 10:35 And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, come unto him, saying, Master, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall desire.

Luk 5:10 And so was also James, and John, the sons of Zebedee, which were partners with Simon. And Jesus said unto Simon, Fear not; from henceforth thou shalt catch men.

Joh 21:2 There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two other of his disciples.

 

[Mommyof02green]

I posted this question already, but I feel that it may have got lost in the mix.

Do you believe that we are brother and sister through Christ?

If you answered “yes” then continue to read the post.

Mary is my Mother and is your Mother through Christ!

What makes someone brother and sister? They have the same parents!
Who is Christ’s Dad? God the Father
Who is our Dad? God the Father

Who is Christ’s Mom? The Virgin Mary
Who is our Mom? The Virgin Mary

Her relationship to Christ is that she is His mother. We are brother and sisters of Christ, so that means we have the same mother. Mary is our Mother, through Christ.

Now, going back to the passage do you believe that the beloved disciple was a “brother” of Christ? Not a literal brother, but a brother in the sense that we apply it to us? (See first question “Do you believe we are brother and sister, through Christ?”)

If you answer yes to the question above, then my next question to you is when did the beloved disciple stop being a brother through Christ?

If your answer is something along the lines as “He never stopped being a brother through Christ” or “He was always a brother through Christ” then I urge you to read on.

Seeing he never stopped being a brother through Christ, doesn’t that mean he is our brother today through Christ? And if he is our brother today through Christ, doesn’t that mean that Mary is our Mother today through Christ?

 

[JoeyWarren]

Originally Posted by BanksOfTheTiber forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*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).

Furthermore if Mary had other children with Joseph, then the act of Jesus giving custody of his mother to John would have been an assault and insult to those siblings. He would be denying them the right to honor their mother as per commandment. Knowledge of ancient Judaic culture eliminates the plain literal interpretation from consideration.

Still care to hear how an Athiest would intrepret that passage based on the plain literal sense and the knowledge of ancient judaic culture?

 

[BanksOfTheTiber]

Ok, so lets think about this for a second.

The mere fact that it is recorded in the Holy Bible that Jesus gave us His mother

Now…now…Jesus (and how did that name come about…the closest approximation of Yeshua would be Joshua, not Jesus…anyway) only stated that he was entrusting his earthly mother to St. John. To build the archetype that John represents all believers is a beautiful picture, for sure, but not in context, and not defensible (that I have found).

Jesus was only going to be gone for THREE DAYS! You mean to tell me, that, under the guidance of the HOLY SPIRIT, that this “private” matter of who is going to take care of Mary for a mere THREE DAYS until Christ comes back, MUST have been recorded for all Christians across all ages to read?

Actually…not even three days. In the vernacular of the time, three days included the present day. So Christ was totally accurate (duh!) when he said, "“Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” He died on Friday afternoon (1), remained in that state on the Sabbath (Saturday - 2), and rose again on Sunday (3). But really, that’s a side-venture. You probably already knew that!

But the larger point is this. Our Lord, being God made flesh, knew that after the ressurection, came His Ascension, fourty days later. Fourty days to God is not even the blink of an eye, but to a mortal human, with little ability (within the culture) to fend for herself, that’s a horrible hardship Mary submitted her will to that of Almighty God. And God (Jesus), in His mercy, made sure that Mary was provided for after his (bodily) exit from this world as his final act before his death. Pretty touching, I think.

…and God bless you, as well.

 

[PC_Master]

Just for some clarity here…

You are right, that is the literal meaning. Christ gave His mother to whom? At this point in the text is never said John, it only said,

It is understood as a literary device that “the disciple whom Jesus loved” is the way in which John referred to himself. It could have just as well said John.

From the NAB on the USCCB web site

1"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."

All right. This may sound uncharitable, but this is just poor scholarship. I’ve now checked over a dozen translations, and not one that I’ve looked at says “abstinence” or makes any hint that this is of a particular type of agreement or vow.

Since you’re claiming that your single translation is accurate and so many others apparently are not, please provide the Hebrew original word translated as abstinence. Thanks.

(If you really would like, I’ll post the verse in all of the various translations for your reading.)

I side with Geza Vermes…some lay persons at Qumran practiced celibacy [and not just the intermittantly - as he noted].

Okay, so now show me where the connection is to the temple in Jerusalem (I assume that’s the temple in which Mary supposedly served). Show me any evidence that Mary and Joseph were Essenes. Give me something other than conjecture to put it all together.

BanksOfTheTiber> This article has a pretty good explanation of how the Hebrew name Jesus was called by became Iesous (because of transliteration to Greek), which later became Jesus via transliteration to English.

Also interesting to note is that the title of Christ means “oil” or “oil bearer” or something like that, which is exactly what Messiah means, so even the title has an explanation.

 

[HailMary]

Just for some clarity here…
It is understood as a literary device that “the disciple whom Jesus loved” is the way in which John referred to himself. It could have just as well said John.

But it doesn’t.

The person at the foot of the Cross with Mary, whom we later figure out is John represented all Christians: making the Blessed Virgin Mary the Mother of all of us.

 

[BanksOfTheTiber]

You are right, that is the literal meaning. Christ gave His mother to whom? At this point in the text is never said John, it only said, (sic) “the disciple whom He loved”

As stated in previous postings, this is a literary device, used by the Apostle John. I don’t know of a single Christain who would hear this phrase, and not immediatly identify it with John. (talk about humility! Wow!)

With that in mind, what do you think the Spiritual meaning of this is?

Why cannot Christ’s words stand on their own merits in this case? What persuades you that there is, in fact, a larger meaning? I think I have reasonably explained my side of the discussion (I *refuse *to argue with you…no good comes from it). *Could *there be a greater meaning perhaps…have you evidence of such? Scripture is full of such instances. But what compels you to see it in this instance?

 

[PC_Master]

But it doesn’t.

The person at the foot of the Cross with Mary, whom we later figure out is John represented all Christians: making the Blessed Virgin Mary the Mother of all of us.

John’s gospel is the only one that records the exchange, and John always refers to himself as the disciple Jesus loved. It’s a literary device, nothing more.

Oh, and I still await your explanation of how the abstinence of Mary actually glorifies God more than the virgin birth. Please do quote and reply to my previous posting on that matter. Thanks.

 

[Mommyof02green]

As stated in previous postings, this is a literary device, used by the Apostle John. I don’t know of a single Christain who would hear this phrase, and not immediatly identify it with John. (talk about humility! Wow!)

Why cannot Christ’s words stand on their own merits in this case? What persuades you that there is, in fact, a larger meaning? I think I have reasonably explained my side of the discussion (I *refuse *to argue with you…no good comes from it). *Could *there be a greater meaning perhaps…have you evidence of such? Scripture is full of such instances. But what compels you to see it in this instance?

Are you aware of the Apostles Creed?

There’s a line in it that states “I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints”

I believe in the communion of saints is what compels it.

What is the communion of saints? What does it mean to say I believe in the communion of saints?

 

[HailMary]

As stated in previous postings, this is a literary device, used by the Apostle John. I don’t know of a single Christain who would hear this phrase, and not immediatly identify it with John. (talk about humility! Wow!)

There must be a reson for the literary device, no?

Why cannot Christ’s words stand on their own merits in this case?

Who is suggesting otherwise?

What persuades you that there is, in fact, a larger meaning?

As St. Timothy put it, “All Scripture is God-breathed…”. There is not a “larger meaning”. If you are going to go down this path of questioning, then you won’t get very far with all the miracles and teachings of Jesus. There is a literal meaning, what the author intended, then there are the spiritual senses: the meaning that applies to Christ, the Church, and morally. These are called the Four Senses of Scripture. The serious question that has not been addressed is why would Christ be so, dare I say, almost forgetful, that nobody is going to be with Mary for THREE days while He is dead? And the timing thing has not been addressed either. Why wait till the “last moment”, basically, before He breathes his last? Since we know Christ is not “forgetful” He must have had a real reason why He waited so long to give Mary TO John. Why was the literary device, which I have no objection against, why was that one used? Does this apostle represent all of us? How does this tie into when Jesus said, “if you love me, pick up your cross?” Why would the Holy Spirit and the writers decide to take your attention away from the Cross by dealing with this side matter if it has no lasting effect? What would you have thought if you were one of the followers of Jesus and you witnessed Him say this to Mary and John?

 

[HailMary]

Oh, and I still await your explanation of how the abstinence of Mary actually glorifies God more than the virgin birth. Please do quote and reply to my previous posting on that matter. Thanks.

Sure.

I AM THE WAY, THE TRUTH AND THE LIFE - Jesus

All Truth is from Heaven. By knowing the Truth, we are getting closer to know Jesus since he is the Truth. By believing something that is false, you move away from truth.

do you still have a problem?

 

[BanksOfTheTiber]

Are you aware of the Apostles Creed?

I am, indeed.

There’s a line in it that states “I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints”

I believe in the communion of saints is what compels it.

And I am sorry to admit that I don’t understand the point you are trying to drive through my thick skull.

What is the communion of saints? What does it mean to say I believe in the communion of saints?

Simply that we have voices (intercessors) here on earth as well as in Heaven, to … well … intercede ('cause that’s what intercesors do!) for us and with us, to the Lord, our God.

How does that follow from the previous point?