Question on the perpetual virginity of Mary...

[George_Rego]

I recommend you watch this excellent video on this stubject.

youtube.com/watch?v=O9JNO8nB3VY

 

[po18guy]

Would Christ be any less than who he Christians say he is if Mary wasn’t a virgin in perpetuity? Would he be less if he had brothers and sisters? The answer to both questions is “no”. So why the fuss?

I don’t know. Aren’t you the one making the fuss? I must point out that you do not believe as the reformers did. Why not?

What the assignment to Mary of a biological impossibility?

To man and man’s thinking, this is impossible. Aren’t we speaking of the acts of God here? (Matthew 19:26, Mark 10:27, Luke 18:27)

It appears to me this ridiculous position about Mary not having other children and remaining a virgin after birth comes from the early developers of the church not being able to wrap their mind around how a common woman could give birth to a God.

And maybe, just maybe, it comes from revealed truth. Out of fear of God, should you not at least consider the possibility that He revealed this to man?

Only someone special should be able to do to this, hence the myth of the “perpetual virgin” and weak arguments that the brothers and sisters mentioned in the biblical texts were Joseph’s by another, previous wife or Jesus’ cousins. If they were either, the Bible would have said so…

I fear that you do not perceive the shallowness of your response here. It is clear that you are staunchly anti-Catholic. But, applying the words of Gamaliel (Acts 5) to this situation, you are il-advised to oppose the Church without examining why the Church believes this, as you may be opposing God Himself. Have you no fear of God?

Minds far greater than yours or mine have received the Sacred Tradition and studied the Sacred Scriptures far more than you or I ever will. This teaching was not pulled out of thin air, no matter how much you or I may think.

Didn’t Christ say that nothing will be impossible to God? Yes, He did.

Consider these following biblical truths which demonstrate an eternal divine principle:

In Matthew’s Gospel, the angel rolled the stone back and the women saw that the tomb was empty. Jesus, in His risen and glorified physical human Body, had passed through solid stone - yet the stone and the tomb remained undamaged as if nothing had happened. (Matthew 28:1-6)

In the upper room on Easter Sunday, Christ entered through the bolted doors and spoke with the apostles. Yet, the doors were still intact - as if nothing had happened. (Mark 16:14, Luke 24:36-41, John 20:19-23)

How can this be? Simply put, creation yields to Creator in all things, correct?

Likewise with Mary, Creator passed through the birth canal to leave the womb and enter this world. Mary suffered no physical damage or change as, once again, creation (Mary) yielded to her Creator (Jesus Christ).

How many more biblical proofs do you need?

 

[jimmyb1]

I’ve noticed many protestants disagree with the Catholic dogma that Mary, mother of Jesus, was not a perpetual virgin. And I was wondering if there is anything in the scriptures that explicitly precludes the possibility of Mary not bearing other children following the birth of Christ?

Holy mother ever pure The Assumption of Our Lady I believe she was used to give us Christ and was made pure from the beginning to the end and onto eternity just like the covenant was used to give us ten commandments if you believe, no explanation is needed, if you don’t no explanation will be accepted

 

[Walden_Pond]

Mary is the new Ark of the Covenant. Follow along in these readings:

2 Samuel 6:9-11

9 David was afraid of the LORD that day; he said, “How can the ark of the LORD come into my care?” 10 So David was unwilling to take the ark of the LORD into his care in the city of David; instead David took it to the house of Obed-edom the Gittite. 11 The ark of the LORD remained in the house of Obed-edom the Gittite three months; and the LORD blessed Obed-edom and all his household.

Luke 1:39-43, 56

39 In those days Mary set out and went with haste to a Judean town in the hill country, 40 where she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. 41 When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the child leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit 42 and exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. 43 And why has this happened to me, that the mother of my Lord comes to me?
56 And Mary remained with her about*** three months*** and then returned to her home.

2 Samuel 6:6-7

6 When they came to the threshing floor of Nacon, Uzzah reached out his hand to the ark of God and took hold of it, for the oxen shook it. 7 The anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah; and God struck him there because he reached out his hand to the ark;[e] and he died there beside the ark of God.

Just as the Ark of the Covenant contained the word of God (the Tablets of Stone on which the Ten Commandments were inscribed), Mary is the new Ark of the Covenant contained the Word of God (Jesus; John 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.) No one can touch the Ark of God and defile it. Therefore, Mary remained a Virgin.

Also, Mary was consecrated as a Temple Virgin from her immaculate conception. (Protoevangelium of James 4 - St Anna exclaims: “As the Lord my God liveth, if I beget either male or female, I will bring it as a gift to the Lord my God; and it shall minister to Him in holy things all the days of its life.”) You may want to read The Protoevangelium of James (earlychristianwritings.com/infancyjames.html). It is an apocryphal Gospel (considered by the church as useful, but not divinely inspired.), but gives an excellent account of Mary and her life.

I hope this information is a good first step.

 

[gatomas]

Why is there a discussion on this subject? Put any devout Jew in her shoes, a miracle happened and she acknowledges it, guidance is received and they acknowledge it by fleeing to Egypt and other things, after all these divine interceptions wouldn’t any one who has enough brains to perceive the works of the almighty dedicate his or her entire life to be of service and dedication exclusively to the Lord?
Many things that happened at that time were not transcribed in to what we know now as the New Testament but as Mary was a source of respect and inspiration then, even for Jesus as the first miracle that was done with her intersection to the darkest time of no one to follow after Jesus crucifixion, for the demoralized leading strong followers (including Peter who was the closest and afterwards denied Jesus) she was there as a source of strength and inspiration as she is today as a source of inspiration and intersection in our darkest moments, she very well knew her role and commitment since the Annunciation, so although it is a dogma on either way this reasoning supports her dedication only to the works of God.

 

[po18guy]

Why is there a discussion on this subject?

Frankly, the evil one hates Mary, but greatly fears to attack her, since her seed crushes his head. Demons, during exorcisms, never insult the Blessed Virgin. Yet, they hate all that is good and holy. What’s a frustrated demon to do?

Dupe well-meaning non-Catholics into doing their work for them. Make her a sinner. Make her common. Make her just a womb. Make her disposable. All of this in lock-step with the evil one’s desires.

 

[Dorothy]

Why is there a discussion on this subject? Put any devout Jew in her shoes, a miracle happened and she acknowledges it, guidance is received and they acknowledge it by fleeing to Egypt and other things, after all these divine interceptions wouldn’t any one who has enough brains to perceive the works of the almighty dedicate his or her entire life to be of service and dedication exclusively to the Lord?
Many things that happened at that time were not transcribed in to what we know now as the New Testament but as Mary was a source of respect and inspiration then, even for Jesus as the first miracle that was done with her intersection to the darkest time of no one to follow after Jesus crucifixion, for the demoralized leading strong followers (including Peter who was the closest and afterwards denied Jesus) she was there as a source of strength and inspiration as she is today as a source of inspiration and intersection in our darkest moments, she very well knew her role and commitment since the Annunciation, so although it is a dogma on either way this reasoning supports her dedication only to the works of God.

Amen. Thank you!

 

[ezeekl]

You are partly correct. There is absolutely no proof that Mary was a perpetual virgin. However, to say Jesus had brothers, yet calling them cousins is a stretch. In sacred scripture the word “brother” is the word adelphos, which has been a loosely used term but has never been used to mean cousin in the New Testament. The word “” is used for that relationship - Col 4:10. Furthermore, why would you assume “brothers” or "sisters"is figurative yet Mary as “mother” is literal in Matthew 13:56. Why would the term “sister” in Acts 23:16 be literal yet Mat 13:56 not.

The Greek word adelphos is used in the NT to mean more than just a strict sibling relationship. Jesus calls the apostles Peter’s brothers. Jesus also calls the apostles His own brothers. Both times the word adelphos is used. As for cousin the word anepsioi is Greek so too is the word adelphos. The differences between these words as used in Luke, Acts and Matthew is simple. Matthew’s gospel was not written in Greek as were Acts and the gospel of Luke. Matthew wrote his gospel to the Jews in their own language. It was later translated into Greek. But in Hebrew as well as Aramaic there is no word for cousin. Neither is there a word for aunt, uncle, niece, nephew grandfather, etc. Brother, sister, mother, father is the extent of family relationships so in Matthew Jesus calls the apostles His brothers and he also cals the apostles Peter’s brothers even though only Andrew was Peter’s sibling brother. So too Paul calls James, who he says was an apostle, the brother *adelphos]*of the Lord. Only two apostles were named James. One was the brother of John and they were sons of Zebedee. The other was the son of Alpheus. Neither was described as a son of Joseph. So Paul too does not use the word adelphos to mean a strict sibling relationship.

 

[po18guy]

You are partly correct. There is absolutely no proof that Mary was a perpetual virgin. However, to say Jesus had brothers, yet calling them cousins is a stretch. In sacred scripture the word “brother” is the word adelphos, which has been a loosely used term but has never been used to mean cousin in the New Testament. The word “anepsioi” is used for that relationship - Col 4:10. Furthermore, why would you assume “brothers” or "sisters"is figurative yet Mary as “mother” is literal in Matthew 13:56. Why would the term “sister” in Acts 23:16 be literal yet Mat 13:56 not.

Please explain how Abram called Lot his “brother”, yet was actually his uncle.

Genesis 11:27
Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
27 Now these are the generations of Terah: Terah begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran begat Lot.

Genesis 13:8
Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
8 And Abram said unto Lot, Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between me and thee, and between my herdmen and thy herdmen; for we be brethren.

By your standard, the above also '“proves” that Abram worshipped Lot, as he prayed to him. It is written and cannot be proven wrong.

Or, could it just be that a superficial reading of the scriptures - lacking historical and cultural context - can lead one astray? There is much more to understanding God’s word than reading what you want into it in order to get what you want out of it.

 

[Walden_Pond]

Would Christ be any less than who he Christians say he is if Mary wasn’t a virgin in perpetuity? Would he be less if he had brothers and sisters? The answer to both questions is “no”. So why the fuss? What the assignment to Mary of a biological impossibility?

The universal (Catholic) Church teaches four truths (dogmas) about Mary: 1) She is the mother of God 2) She was Immaculately Conceived 3) She was a perpetual virgin 4) Her body was assumed into Heaven. Information on these can be found in other forum threads.

So your question " Would Christ be any less than who [we] Christians say he is if Mary wasn’t a virgin in perpetuity?", I would answer Yes. She is the new Ark of the Covenant. The Jews understood the absolute holiness of the Ark containing the stone tablets. Did they keep other, non-holy items in the Ark? Why not store items from the Temple in it? Protect importnat document. Do priests store their lunch in the tabernacle? If they did, would it make the consecrated host anything less?

So, I would answer your questions ‘Yes’, if Mary was not forever a virgin and had other children, it would diminish who Jesus is.

 

[Walden_Pond]

I think most people approaching the topic for the first time would assume that following childbirth, Mary would no longer have an intact hymen. Yet IIRC this is part of papal teaching on her perpetual virginity, which few Protestants would accept.

Virginity is defined as having had sexual relations. From an etymological and medical perspective, it has nothing to do with an intact hymen (a very common misconception). It is easy to understand that Mary never had sexual relations and therefore is a perpetual virgin.

 

[nmgauss]

Or, could it just be that a superficial reading of the scriptures - lacking historical and cultural context - can lead one astray? There is much more to understanding God’s word than reading what you want into it in order to get what you want out of it.

Since the Book of Isaiah was available to Jesus, IMHO, his statements as written in the Gospels were likely highly influenced by what he read. Thus, if there was a story of a virgin birth in Isaiah, claiming that for himself would be a great way to lend credibility to his messages. If he could also lay claim to Immanu-el and the Messiah as prophesied in the OT, that also would increase his influence.

Jesus was very intelligent and a remarkable teacher, and boosting his believability by claiming that he has fulfilled prophesy was an excellent strategy. Also, his political foresight in forming a group of disciples ensured that his teachings would continue to influence people even after his crucifixion.

 

[po18guy]

Since the Book of Isaiah was available to Jesus, IMHO, his statements as written in the Gospels were likely highly influenced by what he read. Thus, if there was a story of a virgin birth in Isaiah, claiming that for himself would be a great way to lend credibility to his messages. If he could also lay claim to Immanu-el and the Messiah as prophesied in the OT, that also would increase his influence.

Hard to disagree with any of this. However, I would reverse your assertion: Would it not be true that since Jesus, before His incarnation, created Isaiah, that Isaiah was influenced by Jesus? As to revealing Himself, He constantly told those around Him to not reveal Who He was.

Jesus was very intelligent and a remarkable teacher, and boosting his believability by claiming that he has fulfilled prophesy was an excellent strategy. Also, his political foresight in forming a group of disciples ensured that his teachings would continue to influence people even after his crucifixion.

However, that strategy got Him killed. Yet, what other way was there?

 

[zz912]

Since the Book of Isaiah was available to Jesus, IMHO, his statements as written in the Gospels were likely highly influenced by what he read. Thus, if there was a story of a virgin birth in Isaiah, claiming that for himself would be a great way to lend credibility to his messages. If he could also lay claim to Immanu-el and the Messiah as prophesied in the OT, that also would increase his influence.

Jesus was very intelligent and a remarkable teacher, and boosting his believability by claiming that he has fulfilled prophesy was an excellent strategy. Also, his political foresight in forming a group of disciples ensured that his teachings would continue to influence people even after his crucifixion.

This post comes across as a subtle denial of the divinity of Jesus.

 

[ezeekl]

Since the Book of Isaiah was available to Jesus, IMHO, his statements as written in the Gospels were likely highly influenced by what he read. Thus, if there was a story of a virgin birth in Isaiah, claiming that for himself would be a great way to lend credibility to his messages. If he could also lay claim to Immanu-el and the Messiah as prophesied in the OT, that also would increase his influence.

Jesus was very intelligent and a remarkable teacher, and boosting his believability by claiming that he has fulfilled prophesy was an excellent strategy. Also, his political foresight in forming a group of disciples ensured that his teachings would continue to influence people even after his crucifixion.

I notice that in all you said about Jesus you left out one very important thing. You never said that He was God. You make him out to be an inteligent, manipulative charlatan. So I ask you directly, Is Jesus God Incarnate or not? Refusal to answer this question will be understood by all to be a denial by you of the diety of Jesus Christ.

 

[nmgauss]

Would it not be true that since Jesus, before His incarnation, created Isaiah, that Isaiah was influenced by Jesus? As to revealing Himself, He constantly told those around Him to not reveal Who He was.

Now you are asserting that the words of Isaiah were prompted by Jesus. This is a controversial position.

 

[JamesTheJust]

Now you are asserting that the words of Isaiah were prompted by Jesus. This is a controversial position.

Prophet = messenger of God.

Christ = God.

Therefore, Prophet = messenger of Christ.

 

[nmgauss]

I notice that in all you said about Jesus you left out one very important thing. You never said that He was God. You make him out to be an inteligent, manipulative charlatan. So I ask you directly, Is Jesus God Incarnate or not? Refusal to answer this question will be understood by all to be a denial by you of the diety of Jesus Christ.

Jesus was a very clever politician and teacher. Does that make him out to be a charlatan?
By St. John writing that he was God doesn’t hurt his credibility either. Of course, by the time the Gospel of St. John appeared, the Apostolic Creed was being preached far and wide without any overtone that Jesus was God.

Also, does it make any difference what I believe?

 

[JamesTheJust]

Jesus was a very clever politician and teacher. Does that make him out to be a charlatan?
By St. John writing that he was God doesn’t hurt his credibility either. Of course, by the time the Gospel of St. John appeared, the Apostolic Creed was being preached far and wide without any overtone that Jesus was God.

Also, does it make any difference what I believe?

How do you know that the divinity of Christ wasn’t taught before St John wrote his Gospel?

 

[zz912]

Jesus was a very clever politician and teacher. Does that make him out to be a charlatan?
By St. John writing that he was God doesn’t hurt his credibility either. Of course, by the time the Gospel of St. John appeared, the Apostolic Creed was being preached far and wide without any overtone that Jesus was God.

Also, does it make any difference what I believe?

And all the other NT writings that proclaim His divinity? Or the proclamation of His divinity in the Apostles Creed?

Also, why should we pay attention to a clever politician and teacher? We have plenty of those throughout history and today. And why did the Apostles go willingly to their deaths proclaiming His Resurrection? (something they claimed to personally witness and would no if it was true or not)