The Ever-Virginity of the Theotokos is Heretical

  • Thread starter Thread starter MatthaiosX
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MatthaiosX

Guest
I need help understanding how anybody could make this claim.

I am Orthodox, so you know where I stand on the ever-virginity of the Most Blessed Mother of God.

However, I have encountered some modern-day Protestants who claim that the ever-virginity notion is heretical because it is not biblical. Despite the plethora of reasons I gave as to why IT IS biblical and much more, there was no budging. For some modern Protestants, she HAS to ultimately be a non-virgin. Why that is…I’ll never know.

I mentioned that even Martin Luther, John Wesley and Zwingli held to the ever-virginity of Mary. This doesn’t matter for a sola scriptura mind. Can someone help me please understand why someone would even want to assert that she did not remain a perpetual virgin? This goes against everything that is sacred in my mind, I’m baffled.
 
It is a misinterpretation of one word in the gospels “until” (joseph knew her not until) I think in luke (not sure). Also when it mentions brothers and sisters. Prot private interpretation does away with a lot of the deeper mysteries of the gospels and one of those is perpetual virginity of mary.

Anyway hth. My English has been kinda bad lately cause I don’t write much so let me know if I need to further clarify.
 
Last edited:
Protestants often dislike the Mother of God title, and the proper honor due her.

Some people are stubborn as heck on things they are wrong about. It’s an oddity.
 
Last edited:
They think Mary’s ever-virginity is “pagan”- which sounds odd to me. I honestly don’t know much about pagans, but it seems more likely to me that the mother of a pagan god would have more, probably non-divine, children- rather than remain a virgin.
 
How far they have gone astrayed. Even their forefathers (of Protestantism) held unto the belief of Mary’s perpetual virginity.

I suppose the real reason why they do not believe is because it’s a Catholic thing, which they want to disassociate with.

You can try to ask them framkly what’s their real reason for their belief?

What’s wrong if Mary is a perpetual virgin? She is not any woman. She is the mother of Jesus.

God bless.
 
Also there is pretty common heresy that Constantine was instrumental in foundation of Catholicism according to many protestants hyped on fear. There is also no appreciation for any of the good things that came out of the gentiles traditions. They are all iconoclastic and everyone is afraid of Mark of the beast type end time speculation and they blame the Roman Church. It simply isn’t historical. And everyone on their side hates the crusades.
 
Last edited:
Isaiah 7:14 “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel.”

Matthew 1:23 “Behold a virgin shall be with child, and bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.”
 
johnjacob2004 said:
Isaiah 7:14 “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel.”

Matthew 1:23 “Behold a virgin shall be with child, and bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.”
Click to expand...
the OT quote says ‘young woman’. Matthew mirrors this. It is of no help in the argument for Mary’s virginity.
 
The reason why some protestants (not all) may actively affirm the NON-perpetual virginity is because a lot of their theology is reactionary to Catholic beliefs (and to Orthodoxy they usually don’t know of). It really is interesting though since a lot of the reformers did not have an issue with the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos. If one realizes the context of Protestantism’s existence for some denominations (particularly baptist), some of the beliefs they strongly affirm are those particularly in conflict with catholic beliefs.
 
I think you all are bringing up a great point here: that it is basically a knee-jerk reaction to Catholicism. And of course since Orthodoxy & Catholicism mesh on this point, then it’s no wonder that they reject this. That’s sad.

Do they not really believe that Jesus is God? For anywhere that God entered became sacred, the Burning Bush, the Holy of Holies, the Ark of the Covenant, etc. And if anyone was to enter or touch such a place in an unworthy manner, then they would be struck dead. So how could one believe that righteous Joseph would enter into the womb of the Theotokos in a sexual manner… knowing that God dwelt there? That would be suicide!
 
Last edited:
MatthaiosX said:
I mentioned that even Martin Luther, John Wesley and Zwingli held to the ever-virginity of Mary. This doesn’t matter for a sola scriptura mind. Can someone help me please understand why someone would even want to assert that she did not remain a perpetual virgin? This goes against everything that is sacred in my mind, I’m baffled.
Click to expand...
There’s a lot of people out there who were raised pretty stringently to believe in the Bible as-is for the most part.

I don’t think there’s usually ill-intent, it’s just a basic misunderstanding.
 
MatthaiosX said:
I need help understanding how anybody could make this claim.
Click to expand...
I guess it is because they read in Holy Scripture about the brothers of Jesus, i.e., James, Joses or Joseph, Simon and Jude (Matt 13:55; Mark 6:3).
 
Last edited:
Many protestants see Mary as the “mother of Jesus” meaning the more human Jesus. Catholics and Orthodox see Mary as the “Mother of God” emphasising the divinity of Jesus. That means that Mary is “just a woman” to them and this collides with the tradition of how the Church has seen Mary and the relationship with her and the second person in the Godhead. Councils and church fathers are not important but what is written in Scripture. So if it says in Scripture that Jesus has brothers then he has brothers even though there wasn’t a word for cousins and uncles in the ancient Arameic and Hebrew languages. They have a problem when other verses then point out that the “sons of Mary” are “sons of Mary, Cleopas wife”. Some get agitated while others just shrug their shoulders and switch the subject quickly to something else.

Some protestants say that when a woman gives birth to a child then she no longer is a virgin. (It just doesn’t matter how the child got there in the first place.)

In the story of Mary and Joseph bringing the child Jesus to the temple on day 40, it mentions that Jesus was Mary´s firstborn son. That tells them that Mary had more sons even though the text just mentions that Jesus was the first born son of Mary which meant in Jewish laws that there were traditions to follow regarding the first born son which weren’t for any other sons if there were more sons born of the woman.

Protestants are not likely to have sung the Akathisthymn either. That helped me to understand why Catholics and Ortodox emphasise the virgin Mary, Mother of God’s important role in how God saves His people.
 
PaladinSword said:
It is a misinterpretation of one word in the gospels “until” (joseph knew her not until) I think in luke (not sure). Also when it mentions brothers and sisters. Prot private interpretation does away with a lot of the deeper mysteries of the gospels and one of those is perpetual virginity of mary.

Anyway hth. My English has been kinda bad lately cause I don’t write much so let me know if I need to further clarify.
Click to expand...
Even the word until does not mean there will be an action following it.
If I say I will not smoke until I die it does not mean I will then smoke after I die.
 
I don’t know. But I sometimes struggle to understand why is was essential that Our Lady remain a Virgin.
I accept that it’s Church teaching, but I don’t know why it’s particularly important.
 
That doesn’t really help me understand it better. I just don’t see how the fact that she never had sex with Joseph is important or has any bearing on the fact that she said yes to God.

I mean, it’s obviously not that important to my everyday living of the faith, and I accept it as the position of the Church…I just don’t see why.
 
Last edited:
Many of the “Bible-only” Christians take a literal reading and interpretation of Scripture. So, when Genesis says Creation took 7 days, they believe it (actually, they use a line from the Psalms that says one day is as a thousand years for God- that’s how you get the Young Earth crowd). When we see reference to the “brothers and sisters” of Jesus, they read this literally, even though careful reading of the texts show at least some of the people in question have to be his cousins because they’re clearly not from the same woman. Its that literal interpretation of Scripture combined with deep-seated anti-Catholicism that’s caused these misunderstandings, as well as a general disregard for the history of Christianity (who needs history when its “me n Jesus”?)
 
Think, … Jesus was formed into what he is at his birth for nine months in Mary’s womb.

Jesus is God. If only we can imagine that God is being formed, dwelt, in a womb, and how holy that womb (person) must be. The perpetual virginity is not just about Mary but also about the person of Jesus himself.

In ancient days, the tablets were kept in the ark (of Covenant). It was regarded as so holy, that anyone who touched it would just drop dead.

It’s a matter of who God is. Would Mary be just a vessel, like what non-Catholics think she is, or is she a mother of God in the actual sense of the word? And is not God holy and everything and everywhere He dwells in?
 
Last edited:
Also, as a married man, I can tell you that if my wife gave birth to the Son of God, I think I’d leave off the marital relations. We know St. Joseph was an honorable man and pious Jew- are we really expected to believe he would have conjugal relations with the woman chosen by the Lord to bear His only son? Again your example of the ark- what happened to the guys who touched the ark?

Just doesn’t sit well with me…
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top