The Virgin Mary was she always so?

[Tom]

Through all my research I have found no proof of Mary’s supposed perpetual virginity forwarded by the RCC. No proof can truly be forwarded because this is another “developed” doctrine.

Scripture teaches the fact that she was always a virgin.
This has been discussed many times, see these threads:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=11145
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=133673
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=133075
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=127138
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1795749
Her perpetual virginity is indeed Scriptural when you read Luke 1 in its’ proper context. I pray the Holy Spirit guides you to understanding.
In Luke 1:28-33 the angel tells Mary eight things which shall in the future occur, six of the eight are truly remarkable, one is very noteworthy and one should be absolutely unremarkable since you’re planning to have sex after marriage. Gabriel tells Mary everything a woman who intended to have sexual relations would need to know.
www.drbo.org:

Lk1:26 And in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, called Nazareth, 27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. 28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 29 Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be. 30 And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God. 31 Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever. 33 And of his kingdom there shall be no end.

Here are the eight, you decide which should have been assumed, which would be noteworthy, and which are truly remarkable.

1. You will conceive in your womb a child.
2. The child shall be a boy
3. You shall call Him “Jesus” (means “God with us)
4. He shall be great
5. He shall be called the “Son of the most high”. (A term used only for a great King.)
6. The Lord shall give Him the throne of David, His father.
7. He shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever.
8. His kingdom shall have no end.
   So, you’re Mary, have any questions? Which of the eight items above would a woman who is soon to be married and planning on having sex with her husband ask? Which items, if any could be assumed? Which would be news but not earth shattering? And which blow your mind? Which ones would YOU ask about?
   The only question a woman who was planning to have a normal sexual marriage would NOT ask is how she shall become pregnant. That’s the one question she does ask!
   Notice in Luke 1:28-33 Gabriel stops short of telling Mary that Joseph would not be the biological father, why did Gabriel not continue?
   Had the angel continued on, and explained the true Father, there would have been no reason for her question in verse 34.
   Forcing her to ask “how” can only make any sense if Scripture wants you to know she was indeed planning on remaining a virgin.
   Gabriel continues verse 35, after Mary has proclaimed her perpetual virginity to tell her “how” this shall be.
   Now read Luke chapter 1 with the knowledge that you will remain a virgin your entire life. Your question of “how shall this be” makes perfect sense in this context doesn’t it?
   It ONLY makes sense in this context.
   As for why she remained a virgin after His birth, the answer is in Matthew chapter 1 and Numbers chapter 30. Joseph took Mary into his house while she was under a vow of virginity. He knew about this vow and allowed it. He may not later change his mind about her vow, it is forever.
   How does all your research understand Luke chapter 1?

 

[Mannyfit75]

I want to know what Christian denominations teach that a believing son can and should drive his mother out of the homes of her unbelieving children because of their unbelief, and force her to live with an unrelated man. Show me that teaching in Christian history.

All I know is this teaching.

“Honor your mother and father.”

Anything that does not honor does not give honor to both parents would be sinful.

Jesus never break a commandment by abandoning his mother. She remain faithful to her son even onto the death of her son.

 

[Tom]

Another Question for everyone. if the wages of sin is death and Mary never committed a sin then wouldn’t she live forever? Also when in Luke 18:18,19 it says "And a ruler asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 19And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.” if Mary was perfect and without sin wouldn’t she also be considered good? so then is Jesus equilating Mary with God or saying that Mary was not good, perfect, sinless.

A little off topic but, sinless is not the same as perfect. Keep in mind Adam and Eve were created sinless but not perfect. Sinlessness is the intended state of humanity. If, for example, you make a good confession and receive the Holy Eucharist at that moment you are sinless, but still not perfect. Mary is indeed still alive, in heaven with her Son. She is much more alive than you and I.

 

[Tom]

It does…and it was used where needed.
It is the crux because the Scriptures in question were written in Greek.
Saying there is no word for “cousin” in Hebrew when the very text of the gospel accounts we are reviewing are in Greek, is a distraction, IMV.
The Apostles spoke Greek. They wrote in Greek.
They surely know what words to use…as does the Holy Spirit.
He knew what He was writing.
If He wanted to say “cousin,” He could have easily done so as He did before.
But He specifically did not.

Interesting however unbiblical. The word used in Hebrew and Aramaic are translated as “kinsmen”. They don’t mean brother as you and I think of, sharing the same womb of a common mother or the seed of a common father. All are brothers. A specific example is in Genesis, in Genesis 14, 12 we’re told Lot is the son of Abrams brother, making Lot the nephew and Abram the uncle. Then in Genesis 14, 14 it uses “brother” to describe the relationship. Obviously not brothers of the same womb, but referred to as brothers.
www.drbo.org:

Genesis 14
12 And Lot also, the son of Abram’s brother, who dwelt in Sodom, and his substance.

www.drbo.org:

Genesis 14
14 Which when Abram had heard, to wit, that his brother Lot was taken, he numbered of the servants born in his house, three hundred and eighteen well appointed: and pursued them to Dan.

 

[CuriousInIL]

I would commit the care of my mother to a strong brother in the faith as opposed to merely a brother in the flesh any and every day of the week.

That this simple idea evades understanding for so many boggles my mind really.

Would you really commit the care of your mother to a blood brother who rejects your faith or to a willing and strong brother in the Catholic faith?

Faithful Catholics would do for their own mothers what they would deny for our Lord.

That is concerning to me.

…

And where is the teaching that these blood brothers that you assume existed rejected the faith?

 

[Atemi]

WHOA!!! Back the truck up! Mary wasn’t the biological daughter of Christ, nor was she marrying John.

That was not the point.

You seem to understand either very poorly or not at all the societal expectations of woman that existed until just this past century. In the time of Christ, women were not the independent career-oriented feminist many are today. To leave a woman alone as a widow was to condemn her to a very hard life, if not death. Also in 1st century Judaism, the family was one of the most important things there were. You did not go against the family.

I don’t think you understand Christ’s definition of who is in His family.

Mar 3:35 “For whoever does the will of God is My brother and My sister and mother”

Christ was never preoccupied with carnal relationships.

And Christ, as a perfect man, would not:

1. break the commandments to honor your father and mother, by leaving His mother a widow and alone.

That’s why He put her into John’s care.

1. cause undue turmoil and grief by breaking up His family (if you are correct in your assumptions that he had biological brothers and sisters).

Wrong.

Again, you misdefine Christ’s true family.

Christ was clear what faith in Him is to do to carnal families:

Mat 10:34 “Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to ‘set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law’; and 'a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.’”

This is a Person that has no problem “breaking up” carnal families where the Faith is concerned.

1. cause a rift among the Apostles between those who would want Mary to do as Christ said, and those who would want Mary to be with her other children as was custom in Judaism in those days.

Christ does not bow to customs of men. Christ came to bring a sword.

1. give Mary to another non-family Apostle, when other Apostles who had the faith (a key component according to you) and were according to you the real brothers of Christ.

None of Christ’s brothers believed in Him. They thought He was nuts.

I would not entrust my faithful mother to such people.

…

 

[Atemi]

I want to know what Christian denominations teach that a believing son can and should drive his mother out of the homes of her unbelieving children because of their unbelief, and force her to live with an unrelated man. Show me that teaching in Christian history.

I didn’t gather from the text that Christ “drove” or “forced” Mary to do anything.

Is that what you gather from the Scriptures?

Can you show me that teaching in the Catechism or any official RC source?

That would be interesting to see. I never heard that one before.

…

 

[Atemi]

And where is the teaching that these blood brothers that you assume existed rejected the faith?

In the gospel accounts.

Jhn 7:5 “For even His brothers did not believe in Him.”

There are more Scriptural witnesses as well.

…

 

[VociMike]

I didn’t gather from the text that Christ “drove” or “forced” Mary to do anything.

Is that what you gather from the Scriptures?

Can you show me that teaching in the Catechism or any official RC source?

That would be interesting to see. I never heard that one before.

…

So you’re suggesting that Mary went on her own to stay with John, leaving her other children, and not at Christ’s behest? Get over the words and deal with the reality. Knowing that she was perfectly obedient (but then, Protesants don’t believe that), Christ’s will was a command. If she had other children (she didn’t but if she did) then it would have been a command to leave those children in a time of great sorrow and need. But believing Christ capable of such cruelty and dishonor is a price that some are willing to pay to maintain their insistence that Mary had other children.

 

[VociMike]

In the gospel accounts.

Jhn 7:5 “For even His brothers did not believe in Him.”
…

Which says absolutely nothing about their state of belief at the time of the crucifixion. To maintain that they did not believe at that point is entirely unbiblical. It is a convenient invention.

 

[Atemi]

So you’re suggesting that Mary went on her own to stay with John, leaving her other children, and not at Christ’s behest?

No.

You said she was “driven” and “forced.”

I don’t view our Lord’s will that way. I am sorry.

Get over the words and deal with the reality. Knowing that she was perfectly obedient (but then, Protesants don’t believe that), Christ’s will was a command. If she had other children (she didn’t but if she did) then it would have been a command to leave those children in a time of great sorrow and need. But believing Christ capable of such cruelty and dishonor is a price that some are willing to pay to maintain their insistence that Mary had other children.

It is “cruelty” and “dishonor” to place your mother in the best care that she can receive?

LOL. I don’t think so, Mike.

It is the assumption here that the best care is found in carnal familial relationships that is the problem.

If life itself is any experience at all, then we all know that is patently false.

You speak like Mary was forever banned from seeing her other children or something…

…

 

[Atemi]

nt…

 

[Atemi]

nt…

 

[Atemi]

Which says absolutely nothing about their state of belief at the time of the crucifixion. To maintain that they did not believe at that point is entirely unbiblical. It is a convenient invention.

So we have the multiple witness of the Holy Spirit that His brothers did not believe Him before the crucifixion. They even think He’s nuts.

They are nowhere to be found since.

They are not with their brother at the cross like their mother.

They do not appear again until after Pentecost.

Convenient invention?

I don’t think so.

…

 

[JoeyWarren]

It is the assumption here that the best care is found in carnal familial relationships that is the problem.

It is also the assumption here and there that every occurence of brother/brethren is a carnal familia relationship?

The same Greek word is used for 2 different contexts.

Mat 4:18 And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers.

Mat 4:21 And going on from thence, he saw other two brethren, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in a ship with Zebedee their father, mending their nets; and he called them.

Mat 22:25 Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother:

1Co 16:12 As touching our brother Apollos, I greatly desired him to come unto you with the brethren: but his will was not at all to come at this time; but he will come when he shall have convenient time.

2Th 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

Jam 4:11 Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge.

1Jo 3:14 We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.

Furthermore, the John 7:5 you quoted, uses brethren in the KJV, DR, and YLT.

Strong’s group lists the word as being either literal or figurative.

BUT OF COURSE RANDY CARSON ANSWSERED THE QUESTION TO THE TEE IN POST #3

 

[JoeyWarren]

Originally Posted by Atemi forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
I personally find making dogmas about a woman’s private sex life totally outside of the Apostolic witness…and even a little disturbing

I personally find making alternate dogma’s about a woman’s private sex life(that she did have sex after the birth) totally outside of the Apostolic witness…and even a little disturbing too!

 

[JoeyWarren]

Also if Mary did have other children, then Jesus giving custody over to a non-sibling would have gone against the grain of what was accepted culturally. Also giving custody over to a non-sibling would have been a message to the siblings, “thou are not to honor thy mother”. It just not tenable. Even in the modern Orthodox Judaic culture of Israel, it would be still be unacceptable.

 

[Atemi]

Also if Mary did have other children, then Jesus giving custody over to a non-sibling would have gone against the grain of what was accepted culturally.

If we know anything about Jesus it is that He didn’t give a hoot about what was “accepted culturally.”

That is what got Him crucified.

Also giving custody over to a non-sibling would have been a message to the siblings, “thou are not to honor thy mother”.

Not in the least.

You cannot honor your mother if she is not in your personal care?

No. We already know this from experience today.

It just not tenable. Even in the modern Orthodox Judaic culture of Israel, it would be still be unacceptable.

Jesus made known what He felt about much of “Orthodox” culture and He didn’t seem very impressed to say the least.

Christ was a culture shaker, not a culture conformist.

…

 

[Randy_Carson]

It does…and it was used where needed.

It is the crux because the Scriptures in question were written in Greek.

Saying there is no word for “cousin” in Hebrew when the very text of the gospel accounts we are reviewing are in Greek, is a distraction, IMV.

The Apostles spoke Greek. They wrote in Greek.

They surely know what words to use…as does the Holy Spirit.

He knew what He was writing.

If He wanted to say “cousin,” He could have easily done so as He did before.

But He specifically did not.

…

Then I can only conclude that you have NOT read the article because the issue of Aramaic v. Greek is specifically addressed.

The writers of the New Testament were brought up using the Aramaic equivalent of “brothers” to mean both cousins and sons of the same father—plus other relatives and even non-relatives.

When they wrote in Greek, they did the same thing the translators of the Septuagint did. In the Septuagint, the Hebrew word that includes both brothers and cousins was translated as adelphos, which in Greek usually has the narrow meaning that the English “brother” has. Unlike Hebrew or Aramaic, Greek has a separate word for cousin, anepsios, but the translators of the Septuagint used adelphos, even for true cousins.

You might say they transliterated instead of translated, importing the Jewish idiom into the Greek Bible. They took an exact equivalent of the Hebrew word for “brother” and did not use* adelphos* in one place (for sons of the same parents), and anepsios in another (for cousins).

This same usage was employed by the writers of the New Testament and passed into English translations of the Bible. To determine what “brethren” or “brother” or “sister” means in any one verse, we have to look at the context. When we do that, we see that insuperable problems arise if we assume that Mary had children other than Jesus.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Randy_Carson]

So we have the multiple witness of the Holy Spirit that His brothers did not believe Him before the crucifixion. They even think He’s nuts.

They are nowhere to be found since.

They are not with their brother at the cross like their mother.

They do not appear again until after Pentecost.

Convenient invention?

I don’t think so.

…

True brothers might have stood by him and their Mother…distant cousins…perhaps not.

You’re right these “brothers” are no brothers at all.

Atemi, imagine what might have happened if you had put this much energy into learning your Catholic faith instead of into rejecting it.

Wow.