Need help with perpetual Virgin?

[Randy_Carson]

Works great if you don’t bother with context. Did the angel tell Joseph to keep her a virgin? Was Joseph instructed not to engage in normal, marital relations for as long as she lived? No! However, once Joseph woke up, he took Mary as his wife, and Luke let’s us know that Joseph kept her a virgin until the birth of Jesus. There is nothing in Scripture to indicate that Joseph and Mary did not engage in normal marital relations after the birth of Jesus.

There is nothing in scripture to suggest that they DID engage in normal marital relations, either. The “brothers” and “sisters” mentioned in the NT can be explained more than adequately.

However, since the Catholic Church (and the Protestant Reformers themselves) have held the belief that Mary remained ever-virgin, the burden of proof is upon those who deny this doctrine. That’s you.

So, do you want to present your case or simply make assertions?

I, for one, am eager to hear what you’ve got to say - provided that there is some substance to it, of course.

 

[MariaG]

Interesting to note. Not one response to Randy’s post of biblical responses about the “brothers” of Jesus. Not to mine when I reposted Randy’s and not to Randy when he found the thread.

Talk about the elephant in the room

I guess that truly shows you that we can do nothing and it is all up to the conviction of the Holy Spirit. And apparently, it is too hard to admit that they may have been wrong, and so they won’t even talk about it.

 

[RedBert]

Interesting to note. Not one response to Randy’s post of biblical responses about the “brothers” of Jesus. Not to mine when I reposted Randy’s and not to Randy when he found the thread.

Talk about the elephant in the room

.

I have a life : will reply later
-blessings

 

[MariaG]

…will reply later
-blessings

Great! Looking forward to it

 

[RedBert]

Looking at all of the verses as a whole:
Ok there are others named James
And yes, the word for brother can mean cousin.
But just because a word can mean doesn’t mean it does.
The meaning of the word is determined by context.

biblelexicon.org/john/1-41.htm
And of course in other places as well .

biblelexicon.org/mark/6-3.htm

so even though the Bible uses the same word “adelphon” in both places; it would mean cousin sometimes and brother in other places.

Ok so let’s look at the context.

Matthew 13:
55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude:
56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence therefore hath he all these things?

Mark 6:
3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joseph, and Jude, and Simon? are not also his sisters here with us?

In the context , would you agree the carpenter is Joesph ( from their perspective) the father of Jesus?
In context I think we would agree obviously yes

Following that and keeping the context:
Is “his mother called Mary” and “Mary” referring to the wife of Joesph. The mother of Jesus?

In context I think we would agree obviously yes.

So following the context did it go from father the carpenter, to Mary the mother, to brothers and sisters
Or
Did it go from father the carpenter ,to Mary the mother, to cousins from “the other Mary”?

Catechism
scborromeo.org/ccc/p122a3p2.htm#II

500 Against this doctrine the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus.157 The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, “brothers of Jesus”, are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls “the other Mary”.158 They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression.159

As I said before , I really don’t care, I has no effect on my salvation , or my relationship with Christ.
I see this at about the same level as the Shroud of Turin: if its’ true, well that’s great; if not, my Faith remains.

-blessings

 

[Jim_Baur]

It seems to me that scholarship is unable to discern the true meaning.

In my opinion, and that is all it is, both sides are accepting their opinion on faith.

This is true of the list of the books of the Bible, too.

I believe in the Catholic interpretation.

My brother believes in the Protestant or Reformers’ interpretation.

Thanks!

 

[inkaneer]

It seems to me that scholarship is unable to discern the true meaning.

In my opinion, and that is all it is, both sides are accepting their opinion on faith.
This is true of the list of the books of the Bible, too.
I believe in the Catholic interpretation.
My brother believes in the Protestant or Reformers’ interpretation.

Thanks!

I disagree. Whilke you are entitled to your opinion neither the protestant nor the Catholic position is based in faith. The protestant position is based on anti Catholicism and bad exegesis. How else can one account for the change in the protestant position from the so called “reformers” [Calvin, Luther and Zwinglii] to their alleged followers today? The Catholic position is based on the Oral Tradition spoken of by Paul in 2 Thess 2:15. This Oral Tradition is the Teaching of the early church which comes down from the Apostles. It, for instance, is the same Oral Tradition [teaching] that says we worship God on the first day of the week [Sunday] rather than the Sabbath [Saturday].

By the way here is what Calvin, Luther and Zwinglii had to say on the subject:

Luther:

“It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a Virgin.” Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther’s Works, English translation edited by J. Pelikan [Concordia: St. Louis], volume 24, 107.

Calvin:

“Helvidius has shown himself too ignorant, in saying that Mary had several sons, because mention is made in some passages of the brothers of Christ.” [Bernard Leeming, “Protestants and Our Lady”, Marian Library Studies, January 1967, p.9.]

Zwinglii:

“I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.” [Ulrich Zwingli, Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Volume 1, 424.]

John Wesley:

“The Blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as when she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.” [Letter to a Roman Catholic]

Does that resemble anything protestants say today? Of course not because it is too Catholic. If you don’t believe me then consider this:

"The title ‘Ever Virgin’ (aeiparthenos, semper virgo) arose early in Christianity . . . It was a stock phrase in the Middle Ages and continued to be used in Protestant confessional writings (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Andrewes; Book of Concord [1580], Schmalkaldic Articles [1537]). [Raymond E. Brown et al, ed., Mary in the New Testament, Phil.: Fortress Press / NY: Paulist Press, 1978, p.65 (a joint Catholic-Protestant effort) ]

"Mary was formally separated from Protestant worship and prayer in the 16th century; in the 20th century the divorce is complete. Even the singing of the ‘Magnificat’ caused the Puritans to have scruples, and if they gave up the Apostles’ Creed, it was not only because of the offensive adjective ‘Catholic’, but also because of the mention of the Virgin . . .

[But] Calvin, like Luther and Zwingli, taught the perpetual virginity of Mary. The early Reformers even applied, though with some reticence, the title Theotokos to Mary . . . Calvin called on his followers to venerate and praise her as the teacher who instructs them in her Son’s commands." [J.A. Ross MacKenzie (Protestant), in Stacpoole, Alberic, ed., Mary’s Place in Christian Dialogue, Wilton, Conn.: Morehouse-Barlow, 1982, pp.35-6]

 

[Jim_Baur]

inkaneer

I want to thank you for your reply.

That the Virgin Mary is a perpetual virgin is an article of faith for us Catholics. Luther pointed that out and others that you mentioned.

For the post reformers and post protestants it is a belief. In our faithful judgment, a false belief. I really believe Mary is a perpetual virgin.

I do agree that many of them, my brothers included, it is more hate for us Catholics.

I was speaking carefully but loosely, if that is possible.

My brothers are churches of one, no other person of the six billion on earth has it right. As you can tell, they disagree with each other except on one point–to hate Catholics.

Now speaking really carefully, it is a matter of faith, not scholarship. The scholars then defend the faith. The scholars are consulted in advance of establishing doctrine, but it is still faith. Faith is revealed, scholarship studies and explains.

Again, and I really mean this, I could easily be wrong. I do not stop and research these ideas or opinions. They are based on recall. Therefore I could easily be wrong.

Also, I really mean thank you for your reply.

God Bless,

Jim Baur

 

[MariaG]

Looking at all of the verses as a whole:
Ok there are others named James
And yes, the word for brother can mean cousin.
But just because a word can mean doesn’t mean it does.
The meaning of the word is determined by context.

biblelexicon.org/john/1-41.htm
And of course in other places as well .

biblelexicon.org/mark/6-3.htm

so even though the Bible uses the same word “adelphon” in both places; it would mean cousin sometimes and brother in other places.

Ok so let’s look at the context.

Matthew 13:
55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude:
56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence therefore hath he all these things?

Mark 6:
3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joseph, and Jude, and Simon? are not also his sisters here with us?

In the context , would you agree the carpenter is Joesph ( from their perspective) the father of Jesus?
In context I think we would agree obviously yes

Yes.

Following that and keeping the context:
Is “his mother called Mary” and “Mary” referring to the wife of Joesph. The mother of Jesus?

In context I think we would agree obviously yes.

Yes, I am still with you

So following the context did it go from father the carpenter, to Mary the mother, to brothers and sisters
Or
Did it go from father the carpenter ,to Mary the mother, to cousins from “the other Mary”?
Catechism
scborromeo.org/ccc/p122a3p2.htm#II

500 Against this doctrine the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus.157 The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, “brothers of Jesus”, are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls “the other Mary”.158 They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression.159

Well you know I am going to say it went to the cousins from another Mary.

And if you read those bible verses provided previously, scripture clearly that James, was in fact the son of the other Mary.

As I said before , I really don’t care, I has no effect on my salvation , or my relationship with Christ.
I see this at about the same level as the Shroud of Turin: if its’ true, well that’s great; if not, my Faith remains.

-blessings

Great. But I pray that now you will at least stop trying to prove Mary had children based on those scripture verses since with careful examination of all scripture on it, it is clear James is the son of a different Mary.

I am somewhat of an oddball Catholic because I am still comfortable saying that I believe things based on scripture because for me, that is the way it happened.

God grabbed ahold of my heart in a Nazarene Church, led me to a couple other ones and then through literally, scripture alone, to the Catholic Church. (Well I did have a catechism, but that was only to look up what the Catholic Church taught and then look up the scripture quoted for that belief.)

I have said in the past, and continue to say, if there ever is any scripture that contradicts the dogma of the Catholic Church, I will leave it. Of course, a person would have to convince me that their interpretation is more valid than the interpretation of the Catholic Church. I think the biggest thing most non-Catholic and many Catholics fail to realize is how “biblical” the Catholic Church really is.

BTW, that sermon in the Nazarene Church? You need to accept the bible cover to cover including the cover or we have nothing else to talk about. I did. I do and confidently walk in His grace.

God bless,
Maria

 

[Randy_Carson]

As I said before , I really don’t care, I has no effect on my salvation , or my relationship with Christ. I see this at about the same level as the Shroud of Turin: if its’ true, well that’s great; if not, my Faith remains.

I suppose.

The issue for Catholics, of course, is that non-Catholics constantly, and I mean INCESSANTLY point to the ABSOLUTE BIBLICAL FACT that Mary had other children as PROOF that the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is false and that the Catholic Church has ADDED falso “traditions of men” to the gospel.

So, we have to painstakingly disprove this nonsense in order to defend the veracity of Catholicism.

But here’s the thing…once we’re done disproving all the false accusations, you are left with one stark fact: the Catholic Church IS the one true Church built by Jesus Christ upon Peter the Rock and YOU are separated from that Church (through no fault of your own).

This change in your theology will require a corresponding change in your ecclesiology.

 

[1beleevr]

Maria G: I’m still trying to figure that one out; Mary and the new Ark

 

[1beleevr]

I suppose.

The issue for Catholics, of course, is that non-Catholics constantly, and I mean INCESSANTLY point to the ABSOLUTE BIBLICAL FACT that Mary had other children as PROOF that the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is false and that the Catholic Church has ADDED falso “traditions of men” to the gospel.

So, we have to painstakingly disprove this nonsense in order to defend the veracity of Catholicism.

But here’s the thing…once we’re done disproving all the false accusations, you are left with one stark fact: the Catholic Church IS the one true Church built by Jesus Christ upon Peter the Rock and YOU are separated from that Church (through no fault of your own).

This change in your theology will require a corresponding change in your ecclesiology.

Her perpetual virginity is fine, as long as you do not try to tell us we must believe in it to be saved!

 

[CWBetts]

Her perpetual virginity is fine, as long as you do not try to tell us we must believe in it to be saved!

Why not? Non-denominationals try to tell us all the time!

 

[po18guy]

Maria G: I’m still trying to figure that one out; Mary and the new Ark

Mary IS the new Ark of the New Covenant. She carried God in Christ in her womb. Scriptural parallels between the Ark and Mary are surprising. This has been posted by Randy Carson in post #41:

Mary as the New Ark of the Covenant Proved from Scripture

The ark of the Old Covenant contained the words of God written on Stone. (Deut. 10:5, Hebrews 9:4)
Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, contained the Word of God made flesh. (John 1:1)

The ark of the Old Covenant contained the jar of manna which came down from heaven. Those who ate of this bread still died. (Exodus 16:32, Hebrews 9:4)
Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, contained Jesus, the bread of life which came down from heaven. Those who eat of this bread will live forever. (John 6:31-41)

The ark of the Old Covenant contained the staff of Aaron which had budded as proof as his priesthood. (Number 17:1-9)
Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, contained Jesus, our high priest, Himself. (Hebrews 4:14)

The ark of the Old Covenant was overshadowed by the glory cloud. (Exodus 40:34-35)
Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit. (Luke 1:35)

The ark traveled to the house of Obed-edom in the hill country of Judea. (2 Sam. 6:1–11)
Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, traveled to the house of Elizabeth and Zechariah in the hill country of Judea. (Luke 1:39)

A man touched the ark of the Old Covenant to steady it without God’s permission and was struck dead on the spot. David was filled with awe and said, “Who am I that the Ark of the Lord should come unto me?” (2 Samuel 6:9)
Elizabeth is filled with the Holy Spirit and said, “Who am I that the mother of my Lord should come unto me?” (Luke 1:43)

The ark of the Old Covenant remained in the house of Obed-edom for three months. (2 Sam. 6:11)
Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, remained in the house of Elizabeth for three months (Luke 1:56).

The house of Obed-edom was blessed by the presence of the ark of the Old Covenant. (2 Sam. 6:11)
In the account of Mary’s visit to Elizabeth, the word blessed is used three times; surely Elizabeth’s house was blessed by God. (Luke 1:39–45)

The ark of the Old Covenant returns home and ends up in Jerusalem, God’s presence and glory is revealed in the temple. (2 Sam. 6:12; 1 Kgs. 8:9–11)
Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, returns home and eventually ends up in Jerusalem, where she presents God incarnate in the temple. (Luke 1:56; 2:21–22)

Dressed as a priest, David danced and leapt in front of the ark of the Old Covenant. (2 Sam. 6:14)
John the Baptist—of priestly lineage—leapt in his mother’s womb at the approach of Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant. (Luke 1:41)

David shouts in the presence of the ark of the Old Covenant. (2 Sam. 6:15)
Elizabeth “exclaimed with a loud cry” in the presence of the Mary, the Ark of the Old Covenant. (Luke 1:42)

The ark of the Old Covenant disappeared, and no trace of it can be found anywhere on earth.
Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, was assumed bodily into heaven by God at the end of her earthly life, and no trace of her can be found anywhere on earth.

Not to mention that some who merely looked into the Ark were struck dead by the Lord (1 Samuel 6:19), as well as Uzzah, who reached out to steady the Ark and was struck dead (2 Samuel 6:7, 1 Chronicles 13:10). The Ark contained creations of God, and was evidence of His covenant with man. Mary contained the eternal Word of God, made flesh, in her womb. Would not God protect this flesh, chosen since before time began, even more than He protected the Ark? How could man defile the Ark of the New and Everlasting Covenant with his sinful touch, and escape being struck down?

 

[1beleevr]

Why not? Non-denominationals try to tell us all the time!

What exactly is it that “we” try to tell you? Can you back up the claim of haveng to believe in it to be saved?

 

[CWBetts]

Why not? Non-denominationals try to tell us all the time!

Non denomiantionals are always spouting off their heresies of Faith Alone ans Scripture Alone. To deny the Marian Dogmas is to deny the Kingdom that Jesus set up on earth.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Maria G: I’m still trying to figure that one out; Mary and the new Ark

As posted in post #41 and referenced in post #93:

Mary as the New Ark of the Covenant Proved from Scripture

The ark of the Old Covenant contained the words of God written on Stone. (Deut. 10:5, Hebrews 9:4)
Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, contained the Word of God made flesh. (John 1:1)

The ark of the Old Covenant contained the jar of manna which came down from heaven. Those who ate of this bread still died. (Exodus 16:32, Hebrews 9:4)
Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, contained Jesus, the bread of life which came down from heaven. Those who eat of this bread will live forever. (John 6:31-41)

The ark of the Old Covenant contained the staff of Aaron which had budded as proof as his priesthood. (Number 17:1-9)
Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, contained Jesus, our high priest, Himself. (Hebrews 4:14)

The ark of the Old Covenant was overshadowed by the glory cloud. (Exodus 40:34-35)
Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit. (Luke 1:35)

The ark traveled to the house of Obed-edom in the hill country of Judea. (2 Sam. 6:1–11)
Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, traveled to the house of Elizabeth and Zechariah in the hill country of Judea. (Luke 1:39)

A man touched the ark of the Old Covenant to steady it without God’s permission and was struck dead on the spot. David was filled with awe and said, “Who am I that the Ark of the Lord should come unto me?” (2 Samuel 6:9)
Elizabeth is filled with the Holy Spirit and said, “Who am I that the mother of my Lord should come unto me?” (Luke 1:43)

The ark of the Old Covenant remained in the house of Obed-edom for three months. (2 Sam. 6:11)
Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, remained in the house of Elizabeth for three months (Luke 1:56).

The house of Obed-edom was blessed by the presence of the ark of the Old Covenant. (2 Sam. 6:11)
In the account of Mary’s visit to Elizabeth, the word blessed is used three times; surely Elizabeth’s house was blessed by God. (Luke 1:39–45)

The ark of the Old Covenant returns home and ends up in Jerusalem, God’s presence and glory is revealed in the temple. (2 Sam. 6:12; 1 Kgs. 8:9–11)
Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, returns home and eventually ends up in Jerusalem, where she presents God incarnate in the temple. (Luke 1:56; 2:21–22)

Dressed as a priest, David danced and leapt in front of the ark of the Old Covenant. (2 Sam. 6:14)
John the Baptist—of priestly lineage—leapt in his mother’s womb at the approach of Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant. (Luke 1:41)

David shouts in the presence of the ark of the Old Covenant. (2 Sam. 6:15)
Elizabeth “exclaimed with a loud cry” in the presence of the Mary, the Ark of the Old Covenant. (Luke 1:42)

The ark of the Old Covenant disappeared, and no trace of it can be found anywhere on earth.
Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, was assumed bodily into heaven by God at the end of her earthly life, and no trace of her can be found anywhere on earth.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Her perpetual virginity is fine, as long as you do not try to tell us we must believe in it to be saved!

The Perpetual Virginity of Mary is one of the Four Marian Dogmas:

The Perpetual Virginity (AD 553)

The dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary defines that Mary was always a virgin, even after giving birth to Christ-in fact, Christ’s birth sanctified his mother’s virginity.

The Second Council of Constantinople stated in the Fourteen Anathemas:
2. If anyone will not confess that the Word of God has two nativities, that which is before all ages from the Father, outside time and without a body, and secondly that nativity of these latter days when the Word of God came down from the heavens and was made flesh of holy and glorious Mary, mother of God and ever-virgin, and was born from her: let him be anathema.

 

[1beleevr]

What exactly is it that “we” try to tell you? Can you back up the claim of haveng to believe in it to be saved?

[Non denomiantionals are always spouting off their heresies of Faith Alone ans Scripture Alone. To deny the Marian Dogmas is to deny the Kingdom that Jesus set up on earth.]

Speaking of spouting off, got a belly full of admonishment, when I said I didn’t believe that Jesus told US that belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity was required for eternal life!

 

[1beleevr]

The Perpetual Virginity of Mary is one of the Four Marian Dogmas:

[The Perpetual Virginity (AD 553)[/COLOR]

The dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary defines that Mary was always a virgin, even after giving birth to Christ-in fact, Christ’s birth sanctified his mother’s virginity.

The Second Council of Constantinople stated in the Fourteen Anathemas:
2. If anyone will not confess that the Word of God has two nativities, that which is before all ages from the Father, outside time and without a body, and secondly that nativity of these latter days when the Word of God came down from the heavens and was made flesh of holy and glorious Mary, mother of God and ever-virgin, and was born from her: let him be anathema.]

So, if you are catholic, you must believe that Mary’s perpetual virginity is necessary for complete salvation, right? If we, as noncatholics, say for instance that we believe that she was a perpetual virgin, but do not believe it is mandatory for salvation, we’re okay, right?