perpetual virginity of Mary..T or F?

[PRmerger]

Yes, all the scriptural evidence used by St Basil and others to define it, defend it,scripture written by apostles or their immediate co-worker.

That is as much “direct evidence” as there is for the Assumption of Mary, Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception…

and yet…

you have a peculiarly different criterion for what constitutes “direct evidence” for those teachings.

If “direct evidence” for the Trinity means: it doesn’t have to be explicitly mentioned in the Bible, but only some Scriptures can be used to support it…

then…

there is clearly “direct evidence” for the Assumption, Purgatory and the IC.

 

[stewstew03]

Yes, all the scriptural evidence used by St Basil and others to define it, defend it,scripture written by apostles or their immediate co-worker.

Ummm… “co-worker”?

 

[Andy3]

I am a new member and apologize if this has already been posted somewhere in the past 26 pages but it is pretty clear to me that Jesus was an only child because while on the cross he gave John to Mary and Mary to John. Also if you want to get a better understanding of Mary then you must read through The Mystical City of God written by Venerable Mary of Agreda.

 

[pocohombre]

Ummm… “co-worker”?

Mark and Luke were not apostles,but companions of Paul. Irregardless, authors of holy writ.

 

[drblank1]

If “sola scriptura” were so important the apostles would have discussed it at length in the scriptures…

If doctrines like the “trinity” or “hypostasis” were so important the apostles would have mentioned them explicitly in the scriptures…

(We could go on and on).

**Sorry my friend, but the apostles did mention these concepts.

For Sola Scriptura: **

2 Timothy 3:16-17 - All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

**As mentioned here by Paul, scripture makes us whole. Scripture equips us for EVERY good work. Not just for some good works.

For support of the Trinity, the Bible firmly supports this belief:**

Matthew 28:19 - Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

1 Corinthians 8:6 - But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.

John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:14 - And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

1 John 5:7-8 - For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

I could go on…

And for hypostasis:

Hebrews 1:3, “And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact
representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power.
When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the
Majesty on high.”
Here, the noun "Nature” is hypostasis.

And more verses:
John 1:14, “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw
His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and
truth.”

Romans 1:1-4, “Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle,
set apart for the gospel of God, which He promised beforehand through His
prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning His Son, who was born of a
descendant of David according to the flesh who was declared the Son of God
with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of
holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord.”

Romans 8:3, “For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the
flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an
offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh.”

**Since there are scriptures supporting the concepts you listed, they ARE important to the core Christian foundation of faith.

My point is this. The belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity is neither supported in the scriptures nor has any bearing on salvation. I think this is a bigger issue made by some than it should be (Catholic and Protestant).**

 

[pocohombre]

I am a new member and apologize if this has already been posted somewhere in the past 26 pages but it is pretty clear to me that Jesus was an only child because while on the cross he gave John to Mary and Mary to John. Also if you want to get a better understanding of Mary then you must read through The Mystical City of God written by Venerable Mary of Agreda.

Welcome Andy.Yes it has been discussed and you your point is a good one. .here is my response from previous post…"I understand your point that.Jesus, being all knowing, could have foreseen James wonderful conversion, and said to Mary, “Mary, go live with James, though he can not console you know for his unbelief, he will eventually convert and be a solace to you”. Not too catchy or consoling to me. .Blood is not thicker than spirit . If I had young children and were going to die I would give them to a good friend who was a christian brother/sister more than to a blood brother who was not only not christian, but quite “anti-christian”. Faith demands this for Jesus said whoever does God’s will is my brother /mother etc. I am sorry, but Mary being given unto John and not faithless siblings is perfect, for the two hearts loved Jesus more than any two human beings on earth and were "kindred spirit’ about the mission ahead, beyond Calvary. Furthermore, we are all aware of sin and it’s consequences.Though you may be forgiven, sometimes the consequence may hurt (think David and Bathsheba forgiveness yet with consequence of his children would rail against him for years)… You are correct that Mary, by tradition, should have been given to siblings.That it was not was a wake up call to their unbelief. I believe James may have been miffed at the beginning, but when he got saved he was quite humbled and understood it perfectly, and “being passed up’ made the siblings stronger. A bit like Peter’s denial yet his gracious triumphant “rebound”. He would never forget his depravity when in the flesh ,and how gracious it is to be in the spirit, to be set right, to be forgiven. No wonder James rebounded as much as Peter, for we believe he eventually became bishop in Jerusalem and even wrote scripture. Can you imagine being Jesus’s brother and not just totally missing “it”, but being against it. So close to the creator of the universe yet so lost…Quite a story …may it grip you to the heart as it does me.”

 

[PRmerger]

**Sorry my friend, but the apostles did mention these concepts.

For Sola Scriptura: **

2 Timothy 3:16-17 - All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

**As mentioned here by Paul, scripture makes us whole. Scripture equips us for EVERY good work. Not just for some good works.

For support of the Trinity, the Bible firmly supports this belief:**

Matthew 28:19 - Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

1 Corinthians 8:6 - But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.

John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:14 - And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

1 John 5:7-8 - For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

I could go on…

And for hypostasis:

Hebrews 1:3, “And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact
representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power.
When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the
Majesty on high.”
Here, the noun "Nature” is hypostasis.

And more verses:
John 1:14, “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw
His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and
truth.”

Romans 1:1-4, “Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle,
set apart for the gospel of God, which He promised beforehand through His
prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning His Son, who was born of a
descendant of David according to the flesh who was declared the Son of God
with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of
holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord.”

Romans 8:3, “For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the
flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an
offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh.”

Since there are scriptures supporting the concepts you listed, they ARE important to the core Christian foundation of faith.

They are alluded to. Not explicitly mentioned.

Just like the Assumption, IC and Purgatory are alluded to, but not explicitly mentioned.

Thus, you cannot declare, “The hypostatic union is found in Scripture!” without also saying, “The Assumption of Mary is found in Scripture!”

 

[PRmerger]

Mark and Luke were not apostles,but companions of Paul. Irregardless, authors of holy writ.

Do you know why the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch, who was a companion of St,John are not part of the canon of the NT, poco?

 

[pocohombre]

That is as much “direct evidence” as there is for the Assumption of Mary, Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception…

and yet…

you have a peculiarly different criterion for what constitutes “direct evidence” for those teachings.

If “direct evidence” for the Trinity means: it doesn’t have to be explicitly mentioned in the Bible, but only some Scriptures can be used to support it…

then…

there is clearly “direct evidence” for the Assumption, Purgatory and the IC.

See, you are thinking like a SS and the CC .Good . All these points are defended using scripture,or claim to have a scriptural basis. That is not to say you do not also use tradition. That being said, there is no comparison between scriptural evidences of trinity to that of Assumption or Purgatory or IC or PV, the latter having weaker biblical connections hence the necessity of more reliance on Tradition.

 

[pocohombre]

Do you know why the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch, who was a companion of St,John are not part of the canon of the NT, poco?

Pleeeease, we stray form thread (means i got to get going and fix my car before that artic air blasts us again).

 

[PRmerger]

See, you are thinking like a SS and the CC .Good . All these points are defended using scripture,or claim to have a scriptural basis. That is not to say you do not also use tradition. That being said, there is no comparison between scriptural evidences of trinity to that of Assumption or Purgatory or IC or PV, the latter having weaker biblical connections hence the necessity of more reliance on Tradition.

Weaker? They are no stronger or weaker than what you have used to defend the Trinity using Scripture alone.

I find it a peculiar argument indeed that a very, very subjective term such as “weaker” is used to object to a teaching.

Do you not think that the apostles would have stated how much Scripture is needed in order to declare a doctrine supported by the Bible? That is: is 1 verse too weak and 5 verses a strong support?

How do we know what’s a “weaker biblical connection”?

 

[stewstew03]

**Sorry my friend, but the apostles did mention these concepts.

For Sola Scriptura: **

2 Timothy 3:16-17 - All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

**As mentioned here by Paul, scripture makes us whole. Scripture equips us for EVERY good work. Not just for some good works.

**

Paul is referring to the OT scriptures. Also, you are prooftexting, which I don’t think the apostle Paul would appreciate… :tsktsk:

 

[drblank1]

They are alluded to. Not explicitly mentioned.

Just like the Assumption, IC and Purgatory are alluded to, but not explicitly mentioned.

Thus, you cannot declare, “The hypostatic union is found in Scripture!” without also saying, “The Assumption of Mary is found in Scripture!”

Oh my dear friend!!!



But back on subject, I think this is made a bigger conflict in theology than it needs to be.

 

[PRmerger]

Oh my dear friend!!!



But back on subject, I think this is made a bigger conflict in theology than it needs to be.

Can you address the point that one cannot say, “The hypostatic union is found in the Bible” without also saying, “Purgatory is found in the Bible!”

They are both either implicitly found, or not referred to at all.

Which is your paradigm?

 

[Andy3]

Thanks Poccho. That is an interesting observation. Question though. Why is it that Protestants so quickly dismiss the beliefs of the founders of the early Protestant church fathers like Luther and Calvin when it comes to perpetual virginity? Is it so hard to accept that Mary could be like this? It is very easy for me. She housed God in her womb. It does not get more pure than this. Is it because we are concerned that Joseph never slept with his wife. He got to raise God. I can easily come to grips with the fact that this would be such a high honor. Why is it that sex has to come into this one of a kind relationship. There has never been a family like theirs in all of history so why does this family have to be like every other family that has ever been. Mary and Joseph were touched by and in the presence of God. I can’t even imagine what that was like day in and day out. They were spoken to by angels and lived with The Lord. There are 2 maybe 3 places places in the bible that list brother and it has been well documented the use of the word in translation. I am no expert on theology but I don’t have a problem at all in understanding that this most Holy family was unlike any other.

 

[stewstew03]

**For support of the Trinity, the Bible firmly supports this belief:

Matthew 28:19 - Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

1 Corinthians 8:6 - But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him.

John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:14 - And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

1 John 5:7-8 - For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
**

That’s not what JWs say. They say that the Trinity was invented at the Council of Nicea in the 4th century. And they cite scripture to PROVE there is no trinity:

“But Stephen, being full of the Holy Ghost, looking up steadfastly to heaven, saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God. And he said: Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.”

This would have been the perfect opportunity for the author of the book (nowhere asserted in the text) to explain that Jesus IS God. The Holy Ghost IS God. They are three beings in one!

But, don’t lose hope drblank1 – and don’t become a JW just yet – we are left with the Church (pillar and bulwark of Truth, as Paul explains to Timothy) to assist in this matter…

 

[stewstew03]

Oh my dear friend!!!



But back on subject, I think this is made a bigger conflict in theology than it needs to be.

It is relevant to the discussion.

 

[eddie_too]

the perpetual virginity of mary is not even an issue for the first 1,600 years after Jesus’ Ascension.

how that fact of no contention for 1,600 years is addressed by christians’ who believe that mary had other children in addition to Jesus has not been adequately addressed by those rejecting mary’s perpetual virginity.

since the doctrine of perpetual virginity precedes the establishment of the canon of sacred scripture, it would be very strange that the canon contains evidence that mary had children besides jesus.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

**Sorry my friend, but the apostles did mention these concepts.

For Sola Scriptura: **

2 Timothy 3:16-17 - All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

This does not teach “Bible Alone,” but simply describes the virtues of Holy Scripture, and, as mentioned, this only refers to the OT.

As mentioned here by Paul, scripture makes us whole. Scripture equips us for EVERY good work. Not just for some good works.

Quoting from Not by Scripture Alone:

Evangelicals typically
will say something like, "While 2 Tim 3:16-17 does not use
the word ‘sufficient’ it does use the equivalent in the phrase 'competent,
equipped for every good work."28 But this merely begs the
question, for the terms of the comparison are not clearly equivalent.
One could arguably say that all of Billy Graham’s books “are profitable
for teaching, reproof, correction, and for training in righteousness,
that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every
good work”; but this would hardly warrant the claim that his books
alone are a sufficient authority for the ongoing life and instruction
of the Church. What the Bible says is that Scripture is inspired by
God, infallible, useful for instruction, and shouldn’t be tampered
with. It does not say that it is the only standard by which God intends
to administer the ongoing life of His Church.

James 1:4 says: “And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.”

Hmmm … steadfastness perfects and complets us for EVERYTHING, … right?

The reason Marys PV is an issue is the reason that the inviolability of the Ark of the Covenant is an issue. Not Mary’s holiness, but God’s.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I only skimmed this thread so I apologize if someone has brought this up, but Matthew is clear that Mary did not remain a virgin.

“But he had no union with her as her husband until she had borne her firstborn Son; and he called His name Jesus.” Matthew 1:25

How would Matthew know Mary didn’t remain a virgin? He most likely encountered Jesus’ bothers and sisters that are mentioned in other parts of the Gospels.

I am not Catholic so I don’t understand the importance to the Catholic denomination of Mary’s perpetual virginity, but if it were so important to the Christian religion as a whole, you would think the apostles would have mentioned it in the scriptures.

[SIGN]Major Fail[/SIGN]

Matthew 1:25: Until she brought forth her firstborn son

The Catholic Church teaches that Mary remained a perpetual virgin and that Jesus did not have any brothers and sisters. Many non-Catholics doubt these claims, and they frequently cite Matthew 1:25 in support of their views that Mary and Joseph had normal sexual relations after they were married and that Jesus was only the first of many children that resulted from their union. Let’s examine this important verse more closely using two popular Protestant translations.

24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. (KJV)

24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife.25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus. (NIV)

“Until”

In verse 25, the Greek heôs, “until,” does not necessarily contrast “before” to “after.” It means that up to a certain moment, something happened or not, without considering what happened after that moment. For example, the Greek text of the Septuagint says, in 2 Samuel 6:23, that “Mikal, daughter of Saul, had no children until (heôs) the days of her death.” This obviously does not suggest that she had children after her death. Matthew is interested in underlining that Jesus’ birth and conception were carried out without the intervention of any man.

Remove the word “until” from the verse, and you have the following:

“Joseph had no relations with her…she brought forth her firstborn”

Two simple statements. Protestants really disagree with the first of these two; therefore, the word “until” is the whole argument. Either Joseph held off “until” and then proceeded to have relations (the Protestant position) OR Joseph had no relations with her. Period. (the Catholic position).

Naturally, Protestants argue for a simple reading of the text, but Catholics counter that “until” doesn’t actually imply the cessation of past action (namely, holding off). Although things look intuitively obvious for the Protestant point of view, in actual fact, the Catholic position is not harmed at all by the word “until” because that word implies nothing…and other verses in scripture PROVE that point.

Genesis 8:7
The raven “did not return TILL the waters were dried up…”
Did the raven ever return?

Deuteronomy 34:6 (Knox)
No one knew the location of his grave “until this present day”
But we know that no one has known it since that day either.

Luke 1:80
“And the child grew and became strong in spirit; and he lived in the desert until he appeared publicly to Israel.” The Greek word translated “until” in this passage is heos, the same word used in Matthew 1:25. The child spoken of is John the Baptist who also lived in the desert after he appeared in public (cf. Matt. 3:1, Mark 1:3,4; Luke 3:2).

1 Timothy 6:14
“…that you keep this commandment without spot, blameless UNTIL our Lord Jesus Christ’s appearing…”
May this commandment be disobeyed after Jesus returns?

Because “until” does not require a cessation of activity, Matthew 1:25 cannot be used to disprove the perpetual virginity of Mary.

“Firstborn”

Many non-Catholics assume that Mary had a second child because Jesus is referred to as her “firstborn son”. However, “firstborn” is merely a term applied to the first child that “opened the womb”. The term does not imply a “secondborn”. In ancient times, a woman who only had one child during the course of her lifetime still called that child the “firstborn”. Scripture also supports this understanding:

Numbers 3:40
And the LORD said unto Moses, Number all the firstborn of the males of the children of Israel from a month old and upward, and take the number of their names.

Note here that a child as young as one month old was called the “firstborn”. Given the length of the human gestation period, it is not possible for a month old infant to have a younger sibling. Thus, we see clearly that “firstborn” was a technical term that did not prove that additional children had been born.