Proof of Perpetual Virginity

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kamalayka
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

Kamalayka

Guest
Back in Jesus’ day, when parents got old, the children would take care of them.

One would assume then, that if Jesus had siblings, they would take care of Mary.

Well, if you read the Gospel of John, when Christ is on the Cross, He tells John to take care of His Mother:

Chapter 19:
25Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Dear woman, here is your son,” 27and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.
 
Kamalayka,
Unfortunately, those verses only prove Jesus was probably, at the time of his crucifixion, Mary’s only child. I say probably because one could speculate - rather wildly - that Jesus’ younger siblings just were not at the crucifixion for the obvious humiliating reasons. But overall, the verses do help refute the idea of Mary and Joseph having children after the birth of Jesus.

That verse, however, does not do much to support the doctrine of our Blessed Mother’s perpetual virginity which maintains that she remained a virgin - physically - even after the birth of our Lord. Her physical virginity remained intact, unviolated, before, during and after the birth of our Lord. The cited scripture - or any scripture - does not speak to the miraculous nature of her perpetual virginity. That doctrine is arrived at through reason and does not contradict scripture. This is why the sola scriptura folks have strong misgivings with this Marian doctrine.

The Isaiah text claiming a virgin will conceive and the references to our Blessed Mother’s virginity in the infancy narratives only attest that she was a virgin before the birth of Jesus. They say nothing about her ‘perpetual’ virginity.

I am not ashamed to write that I believe Mary is ‘ever virgin’. And it does not bother me in the least that I cannot explain how this is so outside of the favored grace of God.

I hope this helped.

Peter K
 
Trust that the scriptures mean what they say and say what they mean.
God is not the author of confusion it is not unholy to have sex, mate, procrate or however you would like to call it aslong however it is under Gods structure Gods plan on how to do it after all God created Sex it is satan who has distorted it and made it into something unholy outside the marriage bed, no the Word says anything is permissible in the marriage bed as God meant it and Mary married Joseph therefore husband and wife after Jesus was born it wouldn’t make her less holy to enter into relations with her husband it is only natural. Mat 1:24-25 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife And knew her not** till **she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS 🙂
 
Then he brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary, which faces east; and it was shut. 2 And he * said to me, "This gate shall remain shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it; for the LORD, the God of Israel, has entered by it; therefore it shall remain shut.
Ezechiel 44:4

Mary is the gate by which the Lord entered the world as man.
 
Joe Kelley:
Ezechiel 44:4

Mary is the gate by which the Lord entered the world as man.
Is this “official” Church teaching? When was it “infallibly” defined? And what of the East Gate in Jerusalem that was sealed centuries ago because of this prophecy?
 
Is this “official” Church teaching? When was it “infallibly” defined? And what of the East Gate in Jerusalem that was sealed centuries ago because of this prophecy?

The Church Fathers refer to the Blessed Virgin as the Gate, I dont believe there is any “offical” teaching on this, its just an ancient interpretation of Ezekiel 44:2.

And what of the East Gate in Jerusalem that was sealed centuries ago because of this prophecy? <—there was no actually sealing of that gate that I know, except in the 12th century by Saladin did so apparent in order that Jesus would not return from what I read, but that is hardly a fulfillment, Ezekiel 44 says the Lord is supposed to be the last to pass thru the Gate, I doubt no one between AD 33 and c1135 walked thru the east gate in Jerusalem
 
Matthew 1:25
He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus.

Wouldn’t until imply that she lost her virginity?
 
The Church fathers had more than the scriptures when they developed the teaching of the Church; they had the apostles and very authors of scripture to consult. In fact, the apostles appointed people who were teaching these things to leadership positions.
Catholic Answers:
Backing up the testimony of Scripture regarding Mary’s perpetual virginity is the testimony of the early Christian Church. Consider the controversy between Jerome and Helvidius, writing around 380. Helvidius first brought up the notion that the “brothers of the Lord” were children born to Mary and Joseph after Jesus’ birth. The great Scripture scholar Jerome at first declined to comment on Helvidius’ remarks because they were a “novel, wicked, and a daring affront to the faith of the whole world.” At length, though, Jerome’s friends convinced him to write a reply, which turned out to be his treatise called On the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mary. He used not only the scriptural arguments given above, but cited earlier Christian writers, such as Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Justin Martyr. Helvidius was unable to come up with a reply, and his theory remained in disrepute and was unheard of until more recent times.
Also, on strictly Biblical grounds, Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli believed Mary, as the ark of the new covenant, was preserved in her perpetual virginity for the glory of God.

Of course, anyone can take a single verse out of context to convince you of what is not true.
Matthew 1:25
He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus.
This is a perfect example. When we look at he word “until” we must not make assumptions based simply on what we have been taught by others but rather read scripture with new eyes, praying that we be guided by the Holy Spirit, and not by biases and presumptions. Saying God preserved Mary in her virginity up to the point of giving birth to Jesus is not necessarily to say God no longer preserved Mary after she gave birth to Jesus.

Consider the usage of the word “until” in this verse.
Heb 1:12-16 KJV:
12And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.
13But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?
14Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?
Other translations of scripture give a clearer and more modern understanding of the word, though.
NAB:
He had no relations with her at any time before she bore a son
Knox:
He had not known her when she bore a son
That said, the entire Bible testifies to the fact that Mary had no children after Jesus. This is especially amazing if you have a good understanding of typology, as the apostles and Church fathers did. Be sure to read these verses very carefully.
Ezek 44:1-3 KJV:
1 Then He brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary which faces toward the east, but it was shut. 2 And the LORD said to me, “This gate shall be shut; it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter by it, because the LORD God of Israel has entered by it; therefore it shall be shut. 3 As for the prince, because he is the prince, he may sit in it to eat bread before the LORD; he shall enter by way of the vestibule of the gateway, and go out the same way.”
Luke 2:41-51 KJV:
41 His parents went to Jerusalem every year at the Feast of the Passover. 42 And when He was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem according to the custom of the feast. 43 When they had finished the days, as they returned, the Boy Jesus lingered behind in Jerusalem. And Joseph and His mother[a] did not know it; 44 but supposing Him to have been in the company, they went a day’s journey, and sought Him among their relatives and acquaintances. 45 So when they did not find Him, they returned to Jerusalem, seeking Him. 46 Now so it was that after three days they found Him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both listening to them and asking them questions. 47 And all who heard Him were astonished at His understanding and answers. 48 So when they saw Him, they were amazed; and His mother said to Him, “Son, why have You done this to us? Look, Your father and I have sought You anxiously.”
49 And He said to them, “Why did you seek Me? Did you not know that I must be about My Father’s business?” 50 But they did not understand the statement which He spoke to them.
Jesus is about 12 years old and does not have any brothers or sisters mentioned or implied in this story. If he had brothers, they would be younger than him.
John 7:3–4 (KJV):
3His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest.
4For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world.
If Jesus’ brothers are younger, they are extremely disrespectful and unorthodox.
John 19:26-27 (KJV):
26When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
27Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.
If Jesus had biological brothers, it would have been illegal for him to entrust Mary to the care of his disciple. Jewish law stated that the oldest living son would take care of her.
Genesis 14:11-14 (KJV):
11And they took all the goods of Sodom and Gomorrah, and all their victuals, and went their way.
12And they took Lot, Abram’s brother’s son, who dwelt in Sodom, and his goods, and departed.
13And there came one that had escaped, and told Abram the Hebrew; for he dwelt in the plain of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshcol, and brother of Aner: and these were confederate with Abram.
14And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan.
Obviously, Lot was not Abram’s literal brother.
Luke 1:34 (KJV):
34Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
Catholic Answers:
Mary knew how babies are made …]. If she had anticipated having children in the normal way …] she would hardly have to ask “how” she was to have a child, since conceiving a child in the “normal” way would be expected by a newlywed wife.
For 1,600 years Christianity taught Mary remained a virgin. After that, some people said otherwise. The burden of proof is on them. I have seen none that is conclusive.
 
Is this “official” Church teaching? When was it “infallibly” defined? And what of the East Gate in Jerusalem that was sealed centuries ago because of this prophecy?
Cachonga,
Is this “official” Church teaching? Yes. Catechism of the Catholic Church 499 reads:* The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary’s real and Perpetual Virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man. In fact, Christ’s birth “did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it.” And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the “Ever-virgin.” * The quotes within the citation indicate reference to Lumen gentium, a document of the Second Vatican Council.

When was it “infallibly” defined? There is no Church document issued for the sole purpose of defining this doctrine as infallible as there is with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary. This is probably because Mary’s perpetual virginity is an ancient belief with a paper trail reaching back to the early 100s AD as explicitly discussed in the Protoevangelium of James. To be sure this document is not considered infallible, but it does preserve the ‘sense of the faithful’ at that time regarding Mary’s virginal state. Origen, later in the 300s, refers to this document in defense of Mary’s perpetual virginity. The Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church, i.e. Churches with a direct link to the Apostles via succession, have maintained Mary as “ever-virgin” in their liturgies from very early times.

Whenever you read “ever virgin” as an adjective regarding Mary in documents of the Catholic Church it is referring to her perpetual virginity.

It’s interesting to note Martin Luther regarded Mary as ever virgin; Christ our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that. - Sermons on John, chptrs 1-4.

Christ… was the only son of Mary, and the Virgin mary bore no children besides him… - Sermons on John, chptrs 1-4.

*A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ… *- That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew

FYI, I gleaned the lion’s share of the above info from Mark Shea’s Mary, Mother of the Son trilogy. This is an excellent series covering all things Marian. It’s concise and clear, related in the first person narrative framework of his own person journey from Evangelical Protestantism into the Catholic Faith. However, it’s not a pushy read. Mr. Shea just wants to present a reasonable account for the Catholic Churches various Marian beliefs.

I think someone else covered your Eastern Gate question above.

I hope this helped.

Peter K
 
The Church fathers had more than the scriptures when they developed the teaching of the Church; they had the apostles and very authors of scripture to consult. …
Scardinoz,
This opening line is a bit misleading. To be clear, of the Church Fathers, the Apostolic Fathers in particular, Polycarp and Ignatius are said to have known St. John. One can speculate that Clement of Rome, because he is in Rome perhaps knew or heard Peter and/or Paul. But that’s it. All the other Fathers emerge significantly later making it impossible for them to consult the apostles or Gospel writers directly. I know you are referring to Tradition but others on the forum won’t see that.

pacem

Peter K
 
Matthew 1:25
He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus.

Wouldn’t until imply that she lost her virginity?
No, and here’s why:

Matthew 1:24-25: Until she brought forth a son

Matthew 1:24-25
24When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son.

The word *until *here just says what happened up to the time of Christ’s birth. It doesn’t imply anything about what happened after that, although our modern use of the word until seems to imply that. For an example of this, look at 2 Samuel 6:23, which says, “Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death.” We’re obviously not supposed to assume that she had children after she died.

Other Examples of “Until” That Do Not Require Cessation of Action

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.

For serious treatment of “until” [Gr. *heos hou], check this out:

Heos Hou and the Protestant Polemic
By John Pacheco
catholic-legate.com/articles/heoshou.html

An exhaustive explanation of the Greek phrase heos hou [until] found in Matthew 1:24-25.
 
Scardinoz,
This opening line is a bit misleading. To be clear, of the Church Fathers, the Apostolic Fathers in particular, Polycarp and Ignatius are said to have known St. John. One can speculate that Clement of Rome, because he is in Rome perhaps knew or heard Peter and/or Paul. But that’s it. All the other Fathers emerge significantly later making it impossible for them to consult the apostles or Gospel writers directly. I know you are referring to Tradition but others on the forum won’t see that.

pacem

Peter K
The Apostolic Fathers

Polycarp was a disciple of John.
Ignatius was a disciple of Peter.
Clement probably knew both Peter and Paul.
Irenaeus was the disciple of Polycarp.

Also, Justin Martyr lived so close in time to the Apostles that he is considered an Apostolic Father even though we have no record of his connection with them or with their direct disciples.
 
Mary wasn’t a perpetual virgin. (Edited) …God invented Sex. He feels it is Holy. That means it’s Holy. Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born, and that is what was important. If she hadn’t consummated her marriage with Joseph afterward, it wouldn’t have been a true marriage.
 
Mary wasn’t a perpetual virgin. (Edited) …God invented Sex. He feels it is Holy. That means it’s Holy. Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born, and that is what was important. If she hadn’t consummated her marriage with Joseph afterward, it wouldn’t have been a true marriage.
Your latter statement is false. Marriage is valid at the time the vows are pronounced.

As for the part about sex, the Church understands that sex was created by God and that all He created is good, but in case you missed it, both Jesus and Paul extolled the virtues of the unmarried state.

Matthew 19:11-12
11Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

Jesus offers the celibate life as a gift and tells us that “The one who can accept this should accept it.”

1 Corinthians 7:1
1Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.

1 Corinthians 7:7
7I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

Paul reveals his own celibacy and offers an earnest wish that more people would follow his example.

1 Corinthians 7:8-9
8Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Paul concedes that getting married is better than struggling with sexual temptation; for those that “cannot control themselves, they should marry.”

Is Paul completely opposed to marriage? Not at all. The book of Hebrews states:

Hebrews 13:4
Marriage
should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.

Finally, regarding your opening statement, perhaps you’d like to present some evidence to support your assertion?
 
Mary wasn’t a perpetual virgin. … It’s BS.
Drigandi,
In the welcoming message to this forum it states, “Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.”
As your quote above displays, you are sadly lacking in charity department.

Peter K
 
Drigandi,
In the welcoming message to this forum it states, “Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.”
As your quote above displays, you are sadly lacking in charity department.

Peter K
You were absolutely right correcting me on my manner of speech. It was foolish and unnecessary. I apologize for calling it “BS”. Please allow to rephrase my statement. I once spent a great number of days speaking with Adonai (Our Father). We spoke about many things in that time, and one of our topics was Mary. I asked Adonai if she had remained a virgin, as it is a controversial topic. He told me that when Mary gave birth to Jesus, she was required to consummate her marriage with Joseph and continue to bear children (to prove that He was not an illegitimate child, which would be assumed if the Jews thought Joseph to be a eunich, which they would think if she only had the one child immediately after their marriage.). It was to keep Mary and Jesus from being stoned to death. We spoke of many other things, and if you wish, you may send me an email at drigandi@gmail.com to ask about anything else. Once again, I apologize. I simply lost my temper. Very sorry.
 
Your latter statement is false. Marriage is valid at the time the vows are pronounced.
Whichever comes first, my friend. Marriage initially did not require vows. It required the man to take the woman away and lay with her after she was given to him by her father. No vows need be said. The wedding, in fact, used to come after the marriage. Betrothal was a late concept, and vows an even later one created by men. However,
“Do not conform, therefore, to the customs of the nations whom I am driving out of your way, because all these things that they have done have filled me with disgust for them.”
The only person whose opinion matters to me, therefore, is God’s.

I will continue to believe that premarital consensual sex does not exist (Just an offshoot, not directly related to the topic). God’s consent is only given when it is a marital act in and of itself. Otherwise, it is adultery and an abomination.

Correct me if I’m wrong. (I forgot to put that on my previous posts. I was a bit steamed. Sorry.)
 
The Church fathers had more than the scriptures when they developed the teaching of the Church; they had the apostles and very authors of scripture to consult. In fact, the apostles appointed people who were teaching these things to leadership positions.

Also, on strictly Biblical grounds, Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli believed Mary, as the ark of the new covenant, was preserved in her perpetual virginity for the glory of God.

Of course, anyone can take a single verse out of context to convince you of what is not true.

This is a perfect example. When we look at he word “until” we must not make assumptions based simply on what we have been taught by others but rather read scripture with new eyes, praying that we be guided by the Holy Spirit, and not by biases and presumptions. Saying God preserved Mary in her virginity up to the point of giving birth to Jesus is not necessarily to say God no longer preserved Mary after she gave birth to Jesus.

Consider the usage of the word “until” in this verse.

Other translations of scripture give a clearer and more modern understanding of the word, though.

That said, the entire Bible testifies to the fact that Mary had no children after Jesus. This is especially amazing if you have a good understanding of typology, as the apostles and Church fathers did. Be sure to read these verses very carefully.

Jesus is about 12 years old and does not have any brothers or sisters mentioned or implied in this story. If he had brothers, they would be younger than him.

If Jesus’ brothers are younger, they are extremely disrespectful and unorthodox.

If Jesus had biological brothers, it would have been illegal for him to entrust Mary to the care of his disciple. Jewish law stated that the oldest living son would take care of her.

Obviously, Lot was not Abram’s literal brother.

For 1,600 years Christianity taught Mary remained a virgin. After that, some people said otherwise. The burden of proof is on them. I have seen none that is conclusive.
Not to rain on your metaphor parade, but you should read the infancy gospel of Thomas. And as for entrusting Mary to the disciple whom he loved, that’s his younger brother, and he’s telling his younger brother to take her into his house because he is now the eldest brother. Sorry for my bluntness.

Correct me if I am wrong (Verse only please.)
 
You were absolutely right correcting me on my manner of speech. It was foolish and unnecessary. I apologize for calling it “BS”. Please allow to rephrase my statement. I once spent a great number of days speaking with Adonai (Our Father). We spoke about many things in that time, and one of our topics was Mary. I asked Adonai if she had remained a virgin, as it is a controversial topic. He told me that when Mary gave birth to Jesus, she was required to consummate her marriage with Joseph and continue to bear children (to prove that He was not an illegitimate child, which would be assumed if the Jews thought Joseph to be a eunich, which they would think if she only had the one child immediately after their marriage.). It was to keep Mary and Jesus from being stoned to death. We spoke of many other things, and if you wish, you may send me an email at drigandi@gmail.com to ask about anything else. Once again, I apologize. I simply lost my temper. Very sorry.
What is a Greater Archangelic Catholic? never heard of this before.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top