Iâm sure that there will be some non-Catholics that will disagree with this, however, their writings prove otherwise. So, if the Catholic church and even those three Reformers always taught Maryâs perpetual virginity, who then started the teaching that Mary was not always a virgin and when?
Actually, you can use Matthew 1:25 by itself, as Iâve mentioned previously, Matthew uses âheosâ for âuntilâ two dozen times in his Gospel, & he never uses it to mean once an event ends, so does the activity, even in Matthew 28:20 (see below). Plus, since God, nor an angel from Heaven, ever commanded Mary nor Joseph for Mary to âremainâ a virgin & refrain from sexual relations from her legally married husband (which is what Scripture calls Joseph in his relationship to his wife, Mary), there is no Scriptural reason to believe Mary had âplannedâ to remain a virgin her whole life. So, itâs really an argument from silence, as well as an argument of exception.
Oh, I completely agree with you. And when you examine those other verses, not only do those other verses support that Mary had sexual relations with her husband Joseph, they also make it quite clear they had children too after the birth of Jesus. If you have children, you canât be a virgin anymore.
All âcatholicâ means is âuniversal.â Thatâs all. Technically, ALL Christians are âcatholic,â so it doesnât really matter âwhenâ it was first used, based on the meaning of the word. Actually, when you read many early church fathers & other early Catholics like Julius Africanus, Eusebius who quotes other early Christians, etc you find that not only do they believe Mary had children with her husband Joseph after the birth of Jesus, but they also list their children as James, Joses, Simon, & Judas and at least 2 unnamed sisters of Jesus in Mark 6:3. So, although you can find ECFâs who believed Mary was a perpetual virgin, the âuniversalâ (âcatholicâ) belief in Maryâs perpetual virginity wasnât âuniversalâ until centuries after the actual event.
I agree with you that it goes back to authority. And since we agree that the Bible is the Inspired Word of God, which canât be wrong, nor conflicts with itself, and since ECFâs & other early Christians didnât all âuniversallyâ agree with each other on this (as well as other theological & doctrinal issues), my âAuthorityâ is a source that canât conflict with itself - the Inspired written Word of God.
Actually, John Calvin didnât take a definitive position on Maryâs perpetual virginity. But even if he did, a Protestantâs source of Inspirational Truth arenât human beings, but the Word of God. And Matthew 1:25 in the Word of God - as well as other passages in the Inspired NT - doesnât support that Mary âremainedâ a virgin her whole life.
Even several protestants have agreed that Christ could only have done this, without violating the Law, only if Mary had no other children.
I also like pointing out that arguing against the perpetual virginity of Mary one argues against the âbig 3â âReformersâ too: Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli and John Calvin all believed and taught Maryâs Pertetual Virginity.
Jesus wasnât bound to âJewish customs,â only His OT Scriptures. In fact, Jesus rebuked âJewish customsâ that werenât supported by the OT Scriptures (Matthew 15:1-9). And nothing in the OT Scriptures command the oldest Jewish son who is dying, & their father (or step-father) who is dead, to place the care of his mother to the next oldest son. Plus, you have the problem that âifâ these âbrothersâ of Jesus being His older step-brothers from an âallegedâ previous marriage of Joseph (Proto-James) then since they would have been Maryâs step-sons, then âwhyâ didnât Jesus entrust His mother to one of them? Refer back to Matthew 12 when Jesus makes the distinction between Jesusâ earthly âmother & brothersâ vs. His spiritual âmother & brothersâ who are part of Jesusâ REAL family. This is why Jesus entrusted Mary to His spiritual âbrotherâ - His disciple AND cousin, John. John was more of a âbrotherâ to Jesus than His own biological brothers were, which backed up what He said earlier in Matthew Ch.12 about âtrueâ family. Once Jesusâ âactualâ brothers came to faith after His resurrection, they wouldnât have gone against their Saviorâs command. That would have been sinful on their part. Nor would Jesus have changed His mind, & taken Mary out of Johnâs home & placed her in theirs, since Jesus is God & God cannot change.
Actually, your authority is your personal interpretation of the inspired written Word of God.
As I previously said, if you look at that verse by itself, and do not take into consideration any other scripture, you can interpret âuntilâ either way, and it would not be a misuse of the definition of the word, thatâs just the way it is, why are you fighting against that.** IâM** even admitting it can be used either way. The dictionary even says âup to the point in time or the event mentionedâ. The event being Jesus birth. Looking at the context of Matthew 1:18-25, you can clearly see that his intention is to lay out how Jesus came to be conceived in the Virgin Mary and Josephâs reaction to it. Matthew, in verse 25, **is not **the least concerned with implying Joseph and Mary **had **sexual relations after Jesus birth, but his concern was to convey to the reading audience (believers and non-believers) that Jesus conception and birth was indeed a miraculous occurence, something never before heard of. The point being made was Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus, he was conceived through the Holy Spirit. Reading further meaning into that verse, that Mary and Joseph had sexual relations afterwards, is not what Matthewâs intent was when he wrote verse 25. It is human curiosity and speculation that seeâs more than what is there. We as Catholics do not use this verse as a critical verse to prove Maryâs perpetual virginity, just so you are clear on that. We use the whole of Scripture and Sacred Tradition to come to that conclusion.
âHelvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christâs âbrothersâ are sometimes mentioned. â{Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), vol. 2 / From Calvinâs Commentaries, tr. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55}
Protestants donât believe in evangelism? Thatâs weird.
Well, as Iâve explained to you before taz, my interpretation of Ezekiel supports the perpetual virginity of Mary. Iâm willing to change my mind on PVM if you can demonstrate:
The literal interpretation in your second sentence contradicts the claim in your first that you understand that it is figurative.
No, it isnât: you made the claim that Matthew always uses 'ÎľĎĎ âto mean that once an event ends, so does the activityâ. This peculiar claim, in contradiction to demonstrable usage (cf. Psalm 57:10, 12:8, John 5:17, 1 Cor 1:8, 1 Tim4:13), is what we are discussing.
Far from missing it, I pointed out that your claim is contradicted by Matthewâs usage in Mt 22:44, 26:36, and 27:8. The Son does not cease to be seated at the right hand of the Father once his enemies are placed under his feet, the disciples are not asked to cease to wait once Jesus leaves to pray, and the field is not described as ceasing to hold that name once Matthewâs time of writing arrives. The second and third do cease, but at a later date, not once the described event occurs. Jesus never loses his place of honour, and thus the first never ends. Matthewâs usage is thus coherent with biblical usage generally: it is non-affirmative regarding the state of affairs after its specified time. This is covered in considerable detail by the native-Greek-speaking Christians of the Early Church.
This is the same claim which you used some time ago regarding ιδξΝĎÎżĎ, another case in which you were reading the English into the Greek, and it falls into the same basic linguistic error: Greek is not English.
It is precisely the case here. There is no Scriptural evidence of Maryâs having lost her virginity.
The lady has shown herself quite capable of refuting that calumny.
No: you made the claim, as noted above.
Scripture is non-affirmative in this regard, which makes the question extra-biblical and hence historical, which makes the Protoevangelium significant, as it also makes Eusebius significant.
Ok then show me what scripture says about a widowed mother without a son? Why did Jesus have compassion for the widow in Luke 7? The facts are widows without sons lives were one of poverty. The way they got along was by picking what was left in the fields along with foreigners and fatherless children. Jesus did not leave His mother in such condition. Deuteronomy 24:19-21
I donât personally subscribe to this. I believe however that even if they were stepsons the society they lived in would not require them to care for Mary. The Fact that Jesus didnât give her to a son is evidence of His being an only son. Why He choses John is not stated.
Jesus being God would have known about them coming to faith. Jesus had no biological brothers. You believe Jesus would be unloving by insulting His family? You have a misunderstanding of God cannot change otherwise explain to me Genesis 6:6 Job 3:10
This wasnât just a custom, it was also the Law as i quoted. Not only was it the Law, it was common decency. Not only was it common decency it was a commandment in honoring your Mother and Father.
I am happy to hear that you will concede the debate as Jesus was bound to the OT Scripture below.
The question of the perpetual virginity of Mary has been debated since the early centuries of the church, and its not going to go away. The meaning of virtually every verse of scripture in the Bible has been argued at one time or another since the beginning, so why should we be surprised. The early church fathers disagreed also, but according to my research, the most prominent ones that most people have heard about did believe in Maryâs perpetual virginity. The three major Reformers believed it. If the Bible would have referred to âMaryâs childrenâ in scripture, then this whole thing wouldnât have been an issue, but obviously it doesnât say it that way. There is enough scriptural evidence, depending on what side you are on, to help back up your position on either viewpoint, however, neither side can prove it beyond a doubt using only scripture. I still say, as I said earlier, that the scene at the cross with Mary and John is the strongest support scripturally for Mary not having any other biological children.
What you mean is that the Apostles taught the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, and that we know this through Sacred Tradition.
I really wonder if the original Apostles even gave much thought to the perpetual virginity of Mary during their time. Not saying that they were necessarily oblivious about it, but there were so many other more important issues at stake when the Church was in its infancy, and the spread of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and administering the Sacraments were of prime importance. The disputes about Maryâs virginity came up in the centuries after the death of the twelve Apostles and living relatives of Jesus, who would have known the facts firsthand. According to everything I have read, the vast majority of the ECFâs taught Maryâs perpetual virginity, they were simply passing on what they had been taught, not inventing any new teaching as some may claim.
Deuteronomy 24:19-21 does not command the eldest son who is dying whose father has died to entrust his mother in the care of his unbelieving younger sons. What I stated was that there was no OT law commanding this. Therefore, Jesus was not bound to an OT law that didnât exist, nor was He bound to extra-scriptural âJewish customsâ that commanded otherwise. Therefore, Jesus was free to entrust His earthly mother to whoever He desire, which in John 19:27 was Jesusâ heavenly âbrotherâ (Matthew 12:48-50), as well as Jesusâ cousin - John the Beloved. By doing this, Jesus did not violate Deuteronomy 24:19-21.
I donât subscribe to this âtheoryâ either, particularly because Proto-James is the earliest âtheoryâ that the âbrothersâ of Jesus were older step-brothers from an âallegedâ previous marriage of Joseph. But even âifâ they were, they would be her step-sons, & âifâ they were, Jesus would have entrusted His mother to one of them, since they would have been His step-brothers, which they would be more closer âfamilyâ than John. But thereâs still a problem, since we agree that these âbrothersâ arenât Jesusâ older step-brothers, then âwhoâ exactly are these âbrothersâ & âsistersâ of Jesus mentioned in Mark 6:3? Since they are mentioned by name (James, Joses, Simon, & Judas, plus at least 2 âsistersâ), it is assumed that the first century reader should know who they are. Plus, even though Jesusâ didnât entrust Mary to them isnât evidence that they werenât younger half-brothers. If anything, Scripturally, it supports that Jesus didnât contradict Himself earlier in stating that His âtrueâ family were His âbrothers & sisters & motherâ who accepted Him as Savior & Lord. John was one of these âbrothers & sisters & mothersâ (ie: heavenly âbrothersâ) who Jesus entrusted His mother to. Both Mary & John were Jesusâ âheavenly familyâ which is why He put both of them together.
Jesus being God also didnât know the day nor hour of His return either (Mark 13:32). Thatâs because Scripture says Jesus âemptied Himselfâ (Philippians 2:7), meaning becoming incarnate (âin the fleshâ), Jesus allowed Himself to have human limitations, while still maintaining being 100% God, as well as 100% Man, which would include not only having the ability to ânot knowingâ His return, as well as ânot knowingâ that His unbelieving half-brothers would eventually come to the faith. But even if Jesus did âknowâ they would, placing Mary in Johnâs custody, instead of His unbelieving half-brothers only reinforces that Jesus held His heavenly âbrothersâ in higher esteem & legitimacy than his earthy âbrothersâ & other family. Again, this is âwhyâ Jesus entrusted Mary to not only His cousin (ie: earthly family), John, but also His heavenly âbrother.â
These verses have nothing to do with this topic. Genesis 6:6 is about Godâs sorrow for the willful sinfulness of mankind that He created. Job 3:10 has do to with Job lamenting that because of the anguish God allowed him to endure, that he felt it would have been better if he had not been born. But neither of these verses have anything to do with whether or not Mary was a perpetual virgin based on Matthew 1:25, nor whether or not Jesus had younger half-siblings or not. So, Iâm not sure why you included these verses.
Not necessarily, since Scripture is about Jesus(John 5:46-47), not Mary. Plus, Jesus refers to Peter as âTHE sonâ of John, yet we know Peter was not an only child. In fact, NewAdvent (a respected Catholic site) states that Andrew was also Johnâs son.
Actually, there is quite a bit of evidence from Scripture alone that Mary had other children after the birth of Jesus. Matthew 1:25 is âpartâ of that evidence, but when putting it together what several other dozens of Scripture verses, it become more clear that the âbrothersâ of Jesus are indeed His younger half-brothers. But that only comes apparent if a person doesnât eliminate the definition of âbrotherâ to mean âuterine-brothers.â
Actually, âbyâ eliminating personal interpretations of Scripture, & going strictly by it, actually leads to the conclusion that these âbrothersâ were indeed Jesusâ younger half-siblings.