Mary's Perpetual Virginity

[YADA]

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.)

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.

I provided the foot note abstinance means to restrain from something…the abstain from eating meat, sweets, going to the movies and sexual relations…however, in the context of a parent or husband having the power to over rule the decision [but only when they first become aware of it and not later] implies that this vow involves chastity and its relationship to the family dynamics…marriages were arranged to bring benefits to families [both bride and groom] a vow of chastity to the Lord was a serious matter…similarly women typically had to live in a household headed by a man…husband typically expect wives to bare offspring…a woman who has taken a vow of chastity, changes the dynamics of the household…that is why the husband similarly could over rule the decision but only when first made aware of the vow…

You can say that this “vow” does not necessarily mean chastity if you want…but most biblical scholars would see it as such…

No one believes that a vow to be a ‘vegetarian’ or some other merely personal choice is the “vow” that was necessary to be covered by the mosaic laws…

There is no direct evidence that John the Baptist was an Essene I said so in my post. Many scholars have proposed that John the Baptist and the disciples may have belonged to the Essenes or a similar sect. Their reasons are many but of course they are not definitive.

From Geza Vermes’ work a listing of the relationship between Quran and the New Testament:

One is the geographic location, historical time - the fact that the Qumran settlement [Essenes Community Rules] and the early Christian Community overlap.

A noted threefold relationship between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament being
1] fundemental similarities …of language where for example both in the Scrolls and the New Testament the faithful are refered to as the “sons of light”; both communities share ideology - they both considered themmselves to be the “True Israel” were governed by twelve leaders and expected the imminent arrival of the Kingdom of God; and their attitudes to the scriptures…they considerd themselves to be the fulfilmment of the Prophets
2] Specific attributes: single leaders, Overseers at Qumran, bishops for christian communities, the practice of religious communism in the strict discipline of the sect and [at least] the early Jerusalem community [minimally according to Vermes] the early ‘young and inexperienced’ christian church modelled itself o the by then well-tried Essene society.
3] the study of the historical Jesus and the eschatological - charismatic aspects of the Scrolls and the parallels between stories such as the healing of the paralytic in Capernuam [NT]and the Prayer of Nabonides [DSC]; the Resurrection fragment [DSC] contains the themes like the liberation of captives, curing the blind, healing the wounded, straightening the bent, proclaiming good news to the poor and raising the dead.
Vermes notes that Community Rule 4:6 lists healing as the chief eschatological reward and paraphrases Genesis regarding the Messiah curing the children of Eve. All of these themes play predominant roles in the [NT] Gospel accounts of the life and ministry of Jesus.

 

[BanksOfTheTiber]

Great. I hope that the paragraphs I quoted from the Catechism provide the explanation from the Church that you indicated you wanted to see.

Although not a Catholic, I too own a copy of the Catechism. A friend of mine decided I needed it as a birthday present (and he’s a Lutheran for Pete’s sake!) So I am at least familiar with what the Catholic Church teaches, and holds true.

And I actually assent to 95% of it, despite my Baptist upbringing.

However, as much it I don’t want to be a wet blanket: Some of the Catholic positions on Mary are a leap of faith. One that I can find little substantiation for. Could they be true? Sure! Are they? I dunno.

Mary, Queen of Heaven? It has a nice ring to it. It has basis in antiquity (the mother of the King was often the Queen…not the wife of the King). Does it hold true for the Kingdom of God?

Again, I dunno.

I’m far from a Sola Scriptura Christian. I was raised that way, but have since learned the error of my ways. That being said, I can sitll find little or no substantive proof that backs up the many and varying titles of Mary by the Church.

 

[Mommyof02green]

Your supposition that Mary is also the mother of all of us, has yet to be proven by your words. There’s NO proof of it in the aforementioned passage of Scripture. None. If there is other Scripture, or it’s contained in the writings of the ECF - my mind remains open.

Among the early writers, Origen is the only one who considers Mary’s motherhood of all the faithful in this connection. According to him, Christ lives in his perfect followers, and as Mary is the Mother of Christ, so she is mother of him in whom Christ lives. Hence, according to Origen, man has an indirect right to claim Mary as his mother, in so far as he identifies himself with Jesus by the life of grace.

Source: newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm
Scroll down to the the sub heading “Mary’s spiritual motherhood”.

 

[BanksOfTheTiber]

Among the early writers, Origen is the only one who considers Mary’s motherhood of all the faithful in this connection

Yup… I checked out the link you provided (thanks) and Googled a bit (Google is my friend!), but the fact remains . . . if the theology of Mary were SO important… if the Blessed Virgin Mary (I have NO issue with any of those titles), who bore the Saviour of the World, were to be esteemed above all mankind, who is to be so revered as to call her the Queen of Heaven, don’t you think it reasonable that someone would have mentioned that? It’s pretty important stuff, if true.

Scripture does not and cannot contain the entire deposit of the faith (our Bibles would be as big as a New York City phone book!). That much I am convinced of. But if Mary were held in such high esteem, someone -(Paul, maybe? He as about as educated as they get Luke? Another who had a love for being precise) - would have at least made mention of such. No?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hot off the presses…I just did some research and put the following together. Thoughts anyone?

Jerome on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

“[Helvidius] produces Tertullian as a witness [to his view] and quotes Victorinus, bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian, I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proven from the gospel—that he [Victorinus] spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship, not by nature. [By discussing such things we] are . . . following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against [the heretics] Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man.”

This quote is taken from chapter 19 of St. Jerome’s work, “Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary—a work written in A.D. 383 in response to the teaching of Helvidius who denied that Mary had remained a virgin throughout her life.

In this passage, Jerome states that Ignatius of Antioch (d. A.D. 107), Polycarp of Smyrna (d. A.D, 155), Justin Martyr (d. A.D. 165) and Irenaeus of Lyons (d. A.D. 202) all held that Mary was ever-virgin. It is especially important to note that both Ignatius and Polycarp were disciples of the Apostles Peter and John—a fact which ties this discussion directly to the original Twelve Apostles of Jesus.

Although the works of these men with which Jerome was evidently familiar do not survive to this day, the fact that Jerome cites them in his refutation of Helvidius provides evidence that belief in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary existed from the earliest days of the Church.

It is interesting to note that Helvidius never responded to Jerome’s refutation.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yup… I checked out the link you provided (thanks) and Googled a bit (Google is my friend!), but the fact remains . . . if the theology of Mary were SO important… if the Blessed Virgin Mary (I have NO issue with any of those titles), who bore the Saviour of the World, were to be esteemed above all mankind, who is to be so revered as to call her the Queen of Heaven, don’t you think it reasonable that someone would have mentioned that? It’s pretty important stuff, if true.

Scripture does not and cannot contain the entire deposit of the faith (our Bibles would be as big as a New York City phone book!). That much I am convinced of. But if Mary were held in such high esteem, someone -(Paul, maybe? He as about as educated as they get Luke? Another who had a love for being precise) - would have at least made mention of such. No?

Why?

James and several of the other apostles had already been martyred. Why would Paul put Mary’s life in danger by speaking of her in letters that were being copied and couriered aroung the Mediterranean?

 

[Mommyof02green]

Yup… I checked out the link you provided (thanks) and Googled a bit (Google is my friend!), but the fact remains . . . if the theology of Mary were SO important… if the Blessed Virgin Mary (I have NO issue with any of those titles), who bore the Saviour of the World, were to be esteemed above all mankind, who is to be so revered as to call her the Queen of Heaven, don’t you think it reasonable that someone would have mentioned that? It’s pretty important stuff, if true.

Scripture does not and cannot contain the entire deposit of the faith (our Bibles would be as big as a New York City phone book!). That much I am convinced of. But if Mary were held in such high esteem, someone -(Paul, maybe? He as about as educated as they get Luke? Another who had a love for being precise) - would have at least made mention of such. No?

The quote I gave you had to do with Mary being our “Spiritual Mother”. Her Queenship of heaven is something totally different.

Origen uses the passage in John to make the clam that Mary is Mother of all who follow Christ.

Mary’s queenship is something totally different. Her queenship is not found in the Gospel of John. It’s found in Revelation Chapter 12.

What is found in the Gospel of John is that she is the Spiritual Mother of all those that follow Christ. That is found in Christ’s passion and that is what the quote I used before was referring too.

 

[guanophore]

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?

"Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, 30 who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands"Mark 10:29-31

Why wouldn’t Jesus start by sharing his own mother with us?

**

I will pray for you and your friend. Sometimes God makes great demands, first for our hearts, and sometimes, our limbs! To those whom much is given, much will be required.

 

[BanksOfTheTiber]

Hot off the presses…I just did some research and put the following together. Thoughts anyone?

Again, my personal belief that Mary remained a virgin has been established, so you are, in effect, preaching to the choir At least as far as I’m concerned.

It is interesting to note that Helvidius never responded to Jerome’s refutation

As is the case at CAF…silence quite often smacks of “I got nuffin!”

 

[apophasis]

ChristWRIT:

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.

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.

For the sake of your Marian dogma you’re denying the difference between connotative and denotative language. In Matt. 1:25 the clear connotation expressed in the text is that Joseph refrained from having sexual relations with his wife until after the birth of Jesus. The connotation expressed in the statement: “He stood under the shelter until the rain stopped” is also quite obvious: When the rain stopped he left the shelter. So, no, Matt. 1:25 does not state “only” that Joseph refrained from having sexual relations with his wife for a specific time frame. It quite clearly states (connotatively) that Joseph refrained from sexual relations with his wife for “only” a specific time frame.

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.

But Chris, my argument stems from what it DOES say. You’re the one basing your argument on what it DOESN’T say.Matt 13:55 “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us?” The whole town knew His immediate family.

 

[apophasis]

JoeyWarren:

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.

You do realize you canceled out your own argument, don’t you? The wooden, literal sense would not be the “normal reading” (interpretation) of that Matt. 18 verse. But just as you say, the connotation there is that of forgiving continuously.

A “normal reading” (interpretation) of Matt. 1:25 would also recognize the expressed connotation that Joseph refrained from sexual relations with his wife only until the birth of her first born.

 

[BanksOfTheTiber]

Why?

James and several of the other apostles had already been martyred. Why would Paul put Mary’s life in danger by speaking of her in letters that were being copied and couriered aroung the Mediterranean?

Because the Apostles, Mary (Theotokos), Mary Magedelen, and others had witnessed the life of Jesus. His pomisies, His death, His empty tomb, His appearance to them after His resurection.

What had they to fear? To be absent from the body was to be united with The Almighty!

 

[BanksOfTheTiber]

The quote I gave you had to do with Mary being our “Spiritual Mother”. Her Queenship of heaven is something totally different.

You are absolutely correct. The titles are not interlinked. My bad, Yet they are **both **taught by the Catholic Church.

Origen uses the passage in John to make the clam that Mary is Mother of all who follow Christ.

Sure…but one witness to the truth isn’t sufficient for proof. Do you have more?

Mary’s queenship is something totally different. Her queenship is not found in the Gospel of John. It’s found in Revelation Chapter 12

What is found in the Gospel of John is that she is the Spiritual Mother of all those that follow Christ.

No. It is not found there. The archetype is positied. The proof has yet to be presented.

 

[PC_Master]

I provided the foot note abstinance means to restrain from something…the abstain from eating meat, sweets, going to the movies and sexual relations…

And as I already demonstrated, there is no indication it was a vow of abstinence, your single translation notwithstanding.

…however, in the context of a parent or husband having the power to over rule the decision [but only when they first become aware of it and not later] implies that this vow involves chastity and its relationship to the family dynamics…

Not really – male heads of the household (which would almost always be the father or the husband of the woman in question) were responsible for the actions of their families, and their authority within the family was often binding, giving them the perogative to void a vow made by these women.

While you provide an interesting explanation, it is mostly speculative, and a far simpler explanation is available.

You can say that this “vow” does not necessarily mean chastity if you want…but most biblical scholars would see it as such…

Okay – prove your case. Preferably with some non-“Roman Catholic determined to prove the perpetual virginity of Mary” quotes in the mix.

There were many Old Testament vows, including the priestly vows (which included abstainance from lots of things – all prohibited foods, being drunk if I recall correctly – but not from sex). Thus “vow” and “vow of celibacy” are not the same.

 

[BanksOfTheTiber]

"Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, 30 who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands"Mark 10:29-31

Why wouldn’t Jesus start by sharing his own mother with us?

“Why wouldn’t he” does not answer the question of why would he! Again, the absence of a negative does not neccesarily imply a positive. I humbly submit to you that my question is no less valid than your own.

If Mary were THAT important. If she were SO worthy of our praise and adoration, don’t you think that God Almighty, in His infinite wisdom, would have made it quite clear to us? Don’t you think that our Lord and Saviour, would have worked in the hearts and minds of the writers of the Gospels, to make this clear to us?

I will pray for you and your friend. Sometimes God makes great demands, first for our hearts, and sometimes, our limbs! To those whom much is given, much will be required.

With tears in my eyes from gratitude, I thank you from the bottom of my heart. Seriously. Thank you for lifting my friend up in prayer in the hour of his need.

 

[YADA]

You do realize you canceled out your own argument, don’t you? The wooden, literal sense would not be the “normal reading” (interpretation) of that Matt. 18 verse. But just as you say, the connotation there is that of forgiving continuously.

A “normal reading” (interpretation) of Matt. 1:25 would also recognize the expressed connotation that Joseph refrained from sexual relations with his wife only until the birth of her first born.

Actually, this is not how one would normally read this passage …

The Gospel writiers were not discussing what occurred after the birth of Jesus…that was not the object of the passage. In fact, to fullfill the prophecy Mary had to be a virgin. While you seem extremely willing to believe that Mary was a virgin when she conceived Jesus [and ergo to believe that the conception was miraculously the result of an over shodowing of the Holy Spirit], the people if the first century knew perfectly well how children came into the world. That there were in apostolic times individuals who were as unconvinced of Mary’s Virgin Birth as there are skeptics here unconvinced of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity is certain.

The NT writers [especially of the Gospels] met this skepticism head on…the only factor they were discussing was the state of Mary at conception…Joseph was not the biological father and no other man was the biological father of Jesus…

and the word until even today, is only restrictive [directly] upon the events leading up to the restrictive word…

“He stood under the shelter until the rain stopped” is also quite obvious: When the rain stopped he left the shelter.

Was the writer’s focus on what occurred after the rain or before in this passage? Do you know? If the context of the passage is the where the man came from after the rain…you may be correct. However, that would have to be apparent in the wrtings that come before or immediately after this sentence. As a stand alone sentence; you may infer but it is not a conclusive surity…

What if the man died before the rain stopped? Did the corpse leave anyway? What if he decided to stay in the shelter until morning because it was dark when the rain stopped? How long did it rain? Did the sun come out and the man remain in the shelter because of the humidity…

Does he leave immediately when the rain stops or is his departure delayed. Does the rain last for a week and he remains there the whole time?

 

[YADA]

I have been thinking about the skeptics and the show me people…

How did the apostles “Prove beyond a shadow of a doubt” that Jesus was born of the “Virgin” Mary?

When they offered the biblical exegesis…did the doubters say “That is not the common literal meaning of the passage!”

When Jesus told the paralytic to “pick up his bed and go, your sins have been forgiven” and the jews were aghast at the prospect of a man forgiving sins…he sked them which was easier to do…forgive sins or heal a paralytic?

So what is easier to believe…
That a virgin concieves a child by an ‘over shadowing’ of the 'Holy Spirit" [whatever that can mean] and has a God-Man child [wholly divine and wholly human]?

Or that two persons could marry and yet remain chaste?

Is it hard to believe that the man who is convinced that Mary conceived a child by the Lord, the Almighty, Yahweh, that Mary was a virgin, that the Child conceived is the Messiah…whom the jews had awaited thhrough ages - prayed for - longed for…the Savior…

That Joseph would be a little in awe, fearful, reserved and less than eager to consumate relations with Mary seems …well natural and highly likely under the circumstances…

 

[Mommyof02green]

You are absolutely correct. The titles are not interlinked. My bad, Yet they are **both **taught by the Catholic Church.

Yep they are not interlinked and they “both” are taught by the Catholic Church.

Sure…but one witness to the truth isn’t sufficient for proof. Do you have more?

Wow one witness to the truth isn’t sufficient for proof! Hmm… that is just unbelievable in so many ways.

That’s all I got at this time. The quote I used said that only Origen uses the Gospel of John to show Mary’s motherhood of all the faithful. I’m sure there are other early fathers that have talked on the subject however at this time I don’t know where to find it.

Earlier you said if there was an early church father that wrote on the subject regarding to the Gospel of John and Mary’s motherhood of all the faithful that you would be open to the idea.

I gave you the Early Church Father that’s the best I can do at this time.

Mary’s queenship is something totally different. Her queenship is not found in the Gospel of John. It’s found in Revelation Chapter 12

Ah yes. Well. The woman, in Revelations 12 might be Mary. It might also be the Church, or Israel, There a lot of interpretations of this passage which make sense. One could make a pretty strong argument for any or all of these.

Honestly I don’t have a problem with any of those interpretations.
“THE WOMAN OF REVELATION 12” (Click here)

I’ve also have heard an audio (click here) that talks about Revelation 12. (you’ll want program 8 the sign of the women)

 

[BanksOfTheTiber]

Wow one witness to the truth isn’t sufficient for proof! Hmm… that is just unbelievable in so many ways.

Would you be happy in a system where one person could accuse you of a heinous crime, and by that single testimony, you were condemned?

The same applies in the opposite. I could claim that I’m 9 feet tall. You have no proof otherwise. Now, if you got one or two of my aquaintences to call me out on this, (the wretched lot) I’d be backed into a corner from which I could not escape. (I’m 5’11)

That’s all I got at this time. The quote I used said that only Origen uses the Gospel of John to show Mary’s motherhood of all the faithful. I’m sure there are other early fathers that have talked on the subject however at this time I don’t know where to find it.

That’s fine. If you find sources which refute me, God willing, I am not going anywhere. Feel free to unleash the hounds.

Earlier you said if there was an early church father that wrote on the subject regarding to the Gospel of John and Mary’s motherhood of all the faithful that you would be open to the idea.

I did indeed. And I stand by that. But you haven’t proven to me at all that John’s Gospel implies such. So I remain unswayed…
Even though claiming John as an ECF is pretty staggering evidence!

Honestly I don’t have a problem with any of those interpretations.

Good! It’s nice to know that we can agree on things!

I’ll check out the links you’ve provided, with my thanks!

 

[ChrisWRIT]

For the sake of your Marian dogma you’re denying the difference between connotative and denotative language.

But Chris, my argument stems from what it DOES say. You’re the one basing your argument on what it DOESN’T say.Matt 13:55 “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us?” The whole town knew His immediate family.

Apparently, I still wasn’t being clear, I am confused somehow, or my eyes aren’t working right.

Assuming that the original language, which didn’t have words for “brother” or “sister”, actually meant “brother” and “sister”, could you point me to the words in that verse that states those brothers and sisters of Jesus were also biological sons and daughters of Mary? I keep looking, but can’t find them.

I understand quite well what connotative and denotative language is. However, the habit of attributing these to various passages of the Bible is why so many “contradictions” appear.

My acceptance of the Marian dogmas is due to the fact that I have no reason to believe that you or any one person has the authority or ability to infallibly interpret all Scripture. The only evidence of anyone having that ability is the bishops of the Catholic Church in concert with the Pope.

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?

Funny how noting the root error is always “best left for another thread” when it is questioned.

Anyway, your question of belief due to the church saying so is partially correct.

The authority and infallibility of the Catholic Church is scripturally supported, while the “personal interpretation” concept is scripturally refuted. Since Bible supports the claim that the Church can infallibly interpret scripture and pass on the word of God, and it does not refute the Marian dogmas, yes, I believe them.

Since no one here can show from scripture that they were personally given the gifts of authority and infallibility, but the Church can, the Church gets the benefit of the doubt over anyone who claims to “know better” just because they say so.

Respectfully, (still)

Chris