Was Mary really a virgin?

[deondre]

is not the city of Jerusalem a new place in heaven? not an individual?

 

[Limoncello4021]

Deondre, the Catholic Church relies on two powerful forces to determine its doctrine: the Word of God in the Bible, and the Teaching Authority of the Church. As others have so well pointed out, numerous Old and New Testament passages point to Mary as Virgin. The Teaching Authority of the Church, 2000 years old and counting, has always proclaimed Mary ever-virgin. As others have also pointed out (and frankly, I never understand why this issue keeps coming up among some Protestants when the historical evidence is clear), “brother” when referring to the “brothers” of Jesus is a word in the original language that can mean extended family, like cousins.
The fact that Mary was always a virgin is a doctrine of the Church.

 

[JonNC]

On the contrary, Scripture is clear that the brothers and sisters of Jesus are actually His cousins. One of the problems with Sola Scriptura is that everyone interprets the Scriptures according to their own ability. Therefore, Sola Scripturists never consider cultural and historical circumstances in regards to translations. For a Sola Scripturist, a “brother” is always a “brother of the womb”. Never mind that they, themselves, call each other “brothers in Christ” all the time. And they speak of “Brother Joe” and “Sister Jane” all the time.

Umm, no. Your caricature of sola scriptura and your broad brush statement undermine the position that the Blessed Virgin Mary was indeed ever Virgin.

Now the question may occupy us how Christ could have brothers, since He was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him. Some say that Joseph had been married before his marriage to Mary, and that the children of this first wife were later called Christ’s brothers. Others say that Joseph had another wife simultaneously with Mary, for it was permissible for the Jews to have two wives. In the Book of Ruth we hear that a poor daughter was often left on the shelf (Ruth 3:10 ff.). This displeased God; therefore He commanded that such daughters be provided for. Thus it became incumbent upon the nearest relative or friend to marry such a poor orphan girl. Mary, too, was a poor little orphan, whom Joseph was obligated to marry. She was so poor that no one else wanted her. Any children born to Joseph by other wives would have been half brothers of Christ. This is the explanation offered by some. But I am inclined to agree with those who declare that “brothers” really means “cousins” here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers. Be that as it may, it matters little. It neither adds to nor detracts from faith. It is immaterial whether these men were Christ’s cousins or His brothers begotten by Joseph. In any event, they moved to Capernaum with Christ, where they took charge of the parish. (“Sermons on the Gospel of St. John,” Luther’s Works, Vol. 22, pp. 214-15)

The fact is that scripture never states that Mary had other children.

 

[Cathoholic]

Deondre:

. . . baptist, im sure many other protestants are raised hearing the same thing . . .

.

Although I never left the Catholic Church, I too had much in the way of Baptist influence growing up, going to Baptist services, Baptist Sunday School, and a Bible camp that was non-denom (but was essentially Baptist).

.
You said . . .

I was taught in my church growing up that James was the brother of Jesus

You were taught correctly then. (At least partially correctly)

Catholics affirm Jesus had “brothers” because after all, the Bible says Jesus had “brothers”.

So now the real question is, what can “BROTHERS” mean in a Hebrew sense? (And what does and doesn’t “brothers” mean in relation to Jesus).

That’s the issue we are going to look at here.

The “brothers” objection is used by (some) Bible ONLY Christians to attack the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

It doesn’t work.

I’ll come back and go into greater detail later.

For now realize the Hebrew word “ach” (Aramaic = “Ah”) the word for word “brother” has a variety of meanings. And as the discussion morphs into “the Greek” that isn’t going to change this outlook either.

ach = uterine brothers
ach = cousins
ach = second cousins
ach = third cousins
ach = distant relatives
ach = fellow tribesmen

.

But wait! There’s more!

.

Ten Biblical Meanings of Brother (in addition to “Brother” in the sense of from the same womb in a Hebrew outlook)

• Half-brother
• Relative
• First cousin
• Second cousin
• Third cousin
• Companions
• Fellow Tribesmen
• Fellow Countrymen
• Nephew/Uncle
• Of the same religious affiliation

.

Is this making sense to you so far?

God bless.

Cathoholic

 

[De_Maria]

The fact is that scripture never states that Mary had other children.

I’m glad we agree.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

The fact is that scripture never states that Mary had other children.

I’m glad we agree.

Me too. Please don’t close the door to others believing it by making a blanket statement that “sola scripturists believe this or have to believe that.”

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

JonNC:

The fact is that scripture never states that Mary had other children.

I’m glad we agree.

Me too. Please don’t close the door to others believing it by making a blanket statement that “sola scripturists believe this or have to believe that.”

Don’t blame me. Sola Scripturists are the ones doing that. I don’t see you jumping up and down to defend the Doctrine of Mary ever virgin. Why?

 

[JonNC]

Don’t blame me. Sola Scripturists are the ones doing that. I don’t see you jumping up and down to defend the Doctrine of Mary ever virgin. Why?

Which one of them forced you to write a blanket statement?
You have no idea what I will jump up and down to defend.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Mary is ever-virgin.

 

[JonNC]

Mary is ever-virgin.

Amen. …

 

[De_Maria]

Which one of them forced you to write a blanket statement?

None. It’s easier to generalize. And it’s pretty accurate, also. Most sola Scripturists deny the ever Virgin Mary.

You have no idea what I will jump up and down to defend.

You seem very keen on defending sola Scriptura. Sola Fide. Luther’s good name. I think I’ve got an idea.

Are you just as keen on defending Mary’s perpetual virginity? If you are, I’m sure you can produce some threads on this very forum, where you’ve done so. I can sure produce threads where you’ve defended those other doctrines.

 

[JonNC]

None. It’s easier to generalize. And it’s pretty accurate, also. Most sola Scripturists deny the ever Virgin Mary.

Generalizing about Protestants generally leads to false statements, generally speaking

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

None. It’s easier to generalize. And it’s pretty accurate, also. Most sola Scripturists deny the ever Virgin Mary.

Generalizing about Protestants generally leads to false statements, generally speaking

Mostly correct, though.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

De_Maria:

None. It’s easier to generalize. And it’s pretty accurate, also. Most sola Scripturists deny the ever Virgin Mary.

Generalizing about Protestants generally leads to false statements, generally speaking

Mostly correct, though.

Mostly not, depending on the topic. The sad thing is I think you’re aware of it. Being "mostly correct " means wrong about some.

 

[De_Maria]

Mostly not, depending on the topic. The sad thing is I think you’re aware of it. Being "mostly correct " means wrong about some.

Jon, I get the picture. You don’t like my apologetics. Can we get back on topic, now?

Do you have anything to prove that Sola Scripturists embrace the virginity of Mary? Do you have anything to prove that Sola Scripturists deny that Mary had other children, brothers to Christ?

If you do, provide the evidence.

 

[thistle]

It always amazes me when Protestants question the perpetual virginity of Mary because the Founding Fathers of Protestantism (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli) not only believed in her perpetual virginity but documented it and publicly declared it. Later John Wesley (founder of the Methodism) also documented and publicly declared the perpetual virginity of Mary.
I assume those who question it must be some weird cults.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Mostly not, depending on the topic. The sad thing is I think you’re aware of it. Being "mostly correct " means wrong about some.

Jon, I get the picture. You don’t like my apologetics. Can we get back on topic, now?

Do you have anything to prove that Sola Scripturists embrace the virginity of Mary? Do you have anything to prove that Sola Scripturists deny that Mary had other children, brothers to Christ?

If you do, provide the evidence.

Which sola scripturists. Part of the fallacy is the grouping of communions together in a sophomoric way.
Anglicans have a very strong Mariology. The BoC mentions her semper virgo status. It comes down to not making generalities where none should be made.

 

[Francis]

The continuation, that is to say, the transition to eternity, must be understood as an eternal peace phase similar to the one that normally inaugurates a new cycle. By the descent of the luminous and brilliant New Jerusalem designated as the Bride of God (Rev 21:2; 21:9-27). During the next phase, God the Spouse comes to settle in the New Jerusalem (Rev 21:3), which corresponds to the phase of arrival – not only of the Spirit but of all Trinitarian Persons. This is why there is no longer a temple, as in ancient Jerusalem, for “its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb” (Rev 21:22), who will reside in the new heavenly Jerusalem in Mother Mary forever (Rev 22:3-5).

Mother Mary is also referred as Daughter of Zion
The arrival of God is accompanied by Zion’s shouts of joy about this visit, as for example: “Shout, and sing for joy, O inhabitant of Zion, for great in your midst is the Holy One of Israel” (Isa 12:6; 30:19; 35:2; 44:23; 48:20; 49:13; 52:5-9; 54:1). For evident reasons, the most manifest realization of this shout of joy was the Magnificat, which Mary voiced at the moment of the arrival of the Holy Spirit causing Jesus’ conception, as seen in The Annunciation and the virginal conception.

Another shout of joy was expressed when Jesus entered the city of Jerusalem on a young donkey (Lk 19:28-40), which is announced by Zechariah 9:9: “Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout aloud, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your king comes to you. Triumphant and victorious is he, humble and riding on a donkey.” This time, Zion is identified to “the multitude of the disciples” whose shout of joy was: “Blessed is the King who comes in the name of the Lord! Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!” (Lk 19:37-38). There were some Pharisees in the crowd who did not approve and wanted to hush the disciples. Yet Jesus answered them: “I tell you, if these are silent, the very stones will cry out” (Lk 19:39-40), which shows that prophecies do not exist in order to be prevented but to be realized.[78]
These two elements of Zion’s glory and joy about God’s residence in her cross more or less all prophecies, but especially those of Isaiah. Although they are not always closely linked together, it is nevertheless necessary to consider them in a coherent and inseparable manner. They are like two keys that must be put together in the lock to open the understanding. In addition, they are multi-significant, so they do not only refer to a single period of salvation history, but to several times and cycles. Hence, the passages describing Zion’s glory also refer to St. Mary

 

[De_Maria]

Part of the fallacy is the grouping of communions together in a sophomoric way.

[/quote]

Now you’re just insulting me. Is that charitable?

Anglicans have a very strong Mariology.

Hm? Are you admitting that Anglicans uphold Sola Scriptura? Do you also lump Anglicans with the Protestants?

I personally wouldn’t generalize that far. But I don’t want to tell you what to believe.

 

[adamhovey1988]

To answer the question, still is.