What's the Significance of Mary's Perpetual Virginity

[Muzhik]

Janet, this is very off-topic, but I can’t help but to ask: What is the phonetic pronunciation of the Greek word that you use in your avatar? I fear my Greek is more than a little rusty!

 

[qui_est_ce]

1. He was crowned by Pilate, who ruled in the name of Caeser;
2. He was dressed in royal purple;
3. He was presented to the people (“Behold, your king!”)

In other words, a valid ceremony to crown a king. Before Jesus died, He was crowned as King of Israel, and the sign above His head on the cross said as much.

So the question is: If Jesus had brothers born of Mary by Joseph, which of them became king upon His death?

There are the inheritance laws of the time to be considered. Without going into a lot of detail, upon His death, His brothers would have inherited everything, including the title. However, we know that although both Mary and Joseph were of the line and lineage of David, Joseph came from the line that was cursed when G_D declared that none of that line would ever sit on the throne.

If Mary had no other children while married to Joseph, then according to the inheritance laws of the time, the line died out with Jesus: no others could come after Him to claim the crown.

We also have to consider terms here: Mary is gebirrah, or in English, the Mother of the King. At the time of David, a king could have many wives and concubines. Depending on circumstances, concubines were either royal prostitutes or sex slaves. While wives were to be kept, concubines could be given to others by the king. (We see that in 1 Kings 2:13-25, where Adonijah, the elder brother of Solomon, asks for one of David’s [and now Solomon’s] concubines for a wife.) The king could designate any of his sons, whether by wife or concubine, as his successor.

Whoever is the designated heir, though, his mother is the Queen Mother. You do NOT give away the Queen Mother to someone else as a wife! If G_D, after Mary bore Jesus, the new King, had given Mary to Joseph as a wife, then Mary’s status would have been that of a concubine and not the Mother of the King. Mary was given to Joseph for safekeeping until Jesus was old enough to take care of her.

Muzhik-

Your posts are very interesting. I am currently studying The Great Adventure Series by Jeff Cavins. It’s very interesting how the OT prefigures the NT. A lot of those obscure OT passages make so much more sense in light of the NT. It’s awesome how inspired the OT writers really were. Jeff Cavins breaks down the Old Hebrew terms as they were applied in the times, as opposed to reading them back in time with modern lenses. Scott Hahn is a real master at this as well.

Thanks for sharing.

 

[Janet1983]

Janet, this is very off-topic, but I can’t help but to ask: What is the phonetic pronunciation of the Greek word that you use in your avatar? I fear my Greek is more than a little rusty!

Well as long as your Greek is not as rusty as my Latin you should be ok…

It’s (doo’-los). More information
Words with the same root are very prominent in Scripture, but mostly translated as “servant” or “bond-servant” instead of the more correct “slave”.

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with you.

In Him,
Janet

 

[shawn38]

Shawn38 said: “Everyone! (Luke 1:28) Many people throughout the Bible are blessed including Mary.”

In Luke 1:28, Mary is titled kecharitomene. This word means “full of grace”, yet more than that. The Greek word kecheritomene appears no where else in ancient literature. Although she is definitely blessed, being honored with this title denotes more than that. I think someone mentioned this earlier.

Also, when others are described as full of grace in the bible (St. Stephen in Acts 6:8), the Greek term pleres charito is used. ).

John 1:14 referring to Jesus “plErEs charitos” = Full of Grace"

Act 6:8 referring to Stephan “plErEs pisteOs” = “Full of belief”

Luke 1:28 referring to Mary “kecharitOmenE” = “having been graced”

 

[shawn38]

“There have been certain folk who have wished to suggest from this passage (Matthew 1:25) that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! …He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company . . . And besides this Our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first born. This is not because there was a second or third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or not there was any question of the second.”

Being a physician, Luke could have said she remained a virgin. But he didn’t.

Matt 13:55 “adelphoi” = brothers (various types). Used about 140 times in the NT.
“huios” = “son” used 14 times in the NT . The use of “huios” followed by the proper noun “Joseph,” certainly indicates were talking lineage, .

Matt 26:37 Peter and the two sons of Zebedee
Luke 5:10 and so also were James and John, sons of Zebedee,
Luke 15:11 He said, "A certain man had two sons.
Luke 5:34 Sons of the bridegroom
Luke 16:8 Sons of the World
Acts 7:23 Sons of Israel
Acts 7:29 Moses became the father of two sons
2 Cor 3:7 Sons of Israel
2 Cor 3:13 Sons of Israel
2 Cor 6:18 Sons of God
Gal 4:22 Abraham had two sons
Eph 5:6 Sons of disobedience
Col 3:6 Sons of disobedience
Hebrews 2:10 Sons of glory

Father-son and half-brothers could be gramatically correct. (obviously Joseph being the blood father of Jesus’ brothers)
Father-son and step-brothers could be gramatically correct too. This proving Joseph was previously married and widowed as some tradition, no evidence Biblically, teaches.
Father-son and religious brothers could be gramatically correct too. Apples and oranges here.

Matt 1:25 “kai ouk eginOsken autEn heOs hou eteken ton huion autEs ton prOtotokon” = Literall translated “And not knew her till of-which she-brought-forth the Son of-her the before-most-brought-forth”.

The Greek word interpreted “firstborn” is “prOtotokon” which literally means** “BEFORE-most-BROUGHT-FORTH.” **

 

[shawn38]

Let’s start with Dr. Luther.

"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 . . . "

cont.

John 2:1 “mEtEr tou iEsou” = “Mother of-the Jesus”
John 2:3 “mEtEr tou iEsou” = “Mother of-the Jesus”
Acts 1:14 “mEtEr tou iEsou” = “Mother of-the Jesus”

Where is “mEtEr tou theou” which equals “Mother of God” found?

 

[Muzhik]

John 2:1 “mEtEr tou iEsou” = “Mother of-the Jesus”
John 2:3 “mEtEr tou iEsou” = “Mother of-the Jesus”
Acts 1:14 “mEtEr tou iEsou” = “Mother of-the Jesus”

Where is “mEtEr tou theou” which equals “Mother of God” found?

It is a logical extension of the growing understanding of the nature of Jesus, that he is in fact “being in the very nature God” (Philippians 2:5). If He is indeed “of the same essence (homoousios)” as the Father, then He is indeed God. This was debated and settled at the Council of Nicea, where the Nicean Creed was developed as a way of declaring Arianism (which stated that either Jesus was NOT God, or had been created God) to be a heresy.

So if Jesus is both True God and True Man (the hypostatic union) and if Jesus was born of Mary and not called into being, then it stands to reason that Mary is the Mother of G_D.

 

[qui_est_ce]

John 2:1 “mEtEr tou iEsou” = “Mother of-the Jesus”
John 2:3 “mEtEr tou iEsou” = “Mother of-the Jesus”
Acts 1:14 “mEtEr tou iEsou” = “Mother of-the Jesus”

Where is “mEtEr tou theou” which equals “Mother of God” found?

Where is the “Trinity” found?
The Bible doesn’t teach that everything that is true must be found in the Bible.

 

[shawn38]

Where is the “Trinity” found?
The Bible doesn’t teach that everything that is true must be found in the Bible.

It’s not mentioned in the bible, but we do have:

1 John 5:7
hoti treis eisin hoi marturountes en tO ouranO ho patEr ho logos kai to hagion pneuma kai houtoi hoi treis en eisin

that three are the ones-witnessing in the heaven the Father the saying and the Holy spirit and these the three one are

Trinity

1. A group consisting of three closely related members. Also called triunity.
2. Trinity Theology In most Christian faiths, the union of three divine persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in one God. Also called Trine.

I don’t care if the word trinity is used.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I can only speak for myself for what other peoples intention are, I don’t know. I think the interest is to bring Catholics back to a focus on Jesus solely.

Ah. So you’re not as indifferent as you tried to suggest. I thought not.

Michaelangelo may not be offended, but what does the Bible say:

Matt 18:7 Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! …9And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.

Matt 22:37 Jesus replied: "‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’

Obviously if the beauty of the Sistine Chapel, or other things, detract you from loving the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind, I think God has a problem with it.

If you mind is not on Christ when you should be worshipping the Lord (especially in His house), you’re violating God’s commandment.

When you see a beautiful sunset, is your mind drawn to its creator? Well, rightly understood, our understanding of the saints draws our minds to what God has done for them and will do for us if we earnestly desire it.

Opinion. God loves everyone equally in that He is merciful to all.

Fact. God loves everyone equally, but that does not prevent Him from recognizing that some love Him more than others.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Being a physician, Luke could have said she remained a virgin. But he didn’t.

Matt 13:55 “adelphoi” = brothers (various types). Used about 140 times in the NT.
“huios” = “son” used 14 times in the NT . The use of “huios” followed by the proper noun “Joseph,” certainly indicates were talking lineage, .

Matt 26:37 Peter and the two sons of Zebedee
Luke 5:10 and so also were James and John, sons of Zebedee,
Luke 15:11 He said, "A certain man had two sons.
Luke 5:34 Sons of the bridegroom
Luke 16:8 Sons of the World
Acts 7:23 Sons of Israel
Acts 7:29 Moses became the father of two sons
2 Cor 3:7 Sons of Israel
2 Cor 3:13 Sons of Israel
2 Cor 6:18 Sons of God
Gal 4:22 Abraham had two sons
Eph 5:6 Sons of disobedience
Col 3:6 Sons of disobedience
Hebrews 2:10 Sons of glory

Father-son and half-brothers could be gramatically correct. (obviously Joseph being the blood father of Jesus’ brothers)
Father-son and step-brothers could be gramatically correct too. This proving Joseph was previously married and widowed as some tradition, no evidence Biblically, teaches.
Father-son and religious brothers could be gramatically correct too. Apples and oranges here.

Matt 1:25 “kai ouk eginOsken autEn heOs hou eteken ton huion autEs ton prOtotokon” = Literall translated “And not knew her till of-which she-brought-forth the Son of-her the before-most-brought-forth”.

The Greek word interpreted “firstborn” is “prOtotokon” which literally means** “BEFORE-most-BROUGHT-FORTH.” **

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.

 

[Randy_Carson]

John 2:1 “mEtEr tou iEsou” = “Mother of-the Jesus”
John 2:3 “mEtEr tou iEsou” = “Mother of-the Jesus”
Acts 1:14 “mEtEr tou iEsou” = “Mother of-the Jesus”

Where is “mEtEr tou theou” which equals “Mother of God” found?

Ah…Nestorianism is alive and well among those whose theological understanding dates back no further than a few hundred years.

1. Mary is the Mother of Jesus.
2. Jesus is God.
3. Therefore, Mary is the Mother of God.

Mary did not give birth to a nature; she gave birth to a person. That person is fully God. Therefore, Mary gave birth to or is the Mother of God.

Anything else denies truths of the incarnation.

 

[Randy_Carson]

It’s not mentioned in the bible, but we do have:

1 John 5:7
hoti treis eisin hoi marturountes en tO ouranO ho patEr ho logos kai to hagion pneuma kai houtoi hoi treis en eisin

that three are the ones-witnessing in the heaven the Father the saying and the Holy spirit and these the three one are

Trinity

1. A group consisting of three closely related members. Also called triunity.
2. Trinity Theology In most Christian faiths, the union of three divine persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in one God. Also called Trine.

I don’t care if the word trinity is used.

So, you accept the doctrine of the Trinity which was extrapolated from revealed truth by Catholics in one century, but deny another truth derived by that same Church in another.

Interesting.

 

[shawn38]

Ah. So you’re not as indifferent as you tried to suggest. I thought not.

Not sure what you’re pertaining too. Sorry!

When you see a beautiful sunset, is your mind drawn to its creator? Well, rightly understood, our understanding of the saints draws our minds to what God has done for them and will do for us if we earnestly desire it.

I see nothing wrong with acknowledging something when it’s beautiful as long as you’re giving glory where glory is due, with the creator. But once that glory detracts you from acknowledging the creator, there’s a problem.

Fact. God loves everyone equally, but that does not prevent Him from recognizing that some love Him more than others.

I absolutely agree with that. God loves everyone equally. That doesn’t mean we all love Him back equally.

 

[shawn38]

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.

I know there’s many examples of the term and its use as the defense for the Catholic perspective, pulling it from examples out of the OT. It’s yet another example of how the passage can be argued both ways. That’s where you have to put everything into context together.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Nestorianism

Nestorianism is the error that Jesus is two distinct persons. The heresy is named after Nestorius, who was born in Syria and died in 451 AD, who advocated this doctrine. Nestorius was a monk who became the Patriarch of Constantinople and he repudiated the Marian title “Mother of God.” He held that Mary was the mother of Christ only in respect to His humanity. The council of Ephesus was convened in 431 to address the issue and pronounced that Jesus was one person in two distinct and inseparable natures: divine and human.

Nestorius was deposed as Patriarch and sent to Antioch, then Arabia, and then Egypt. Nestorianism survived until around 1300.

The problem with Nestorianism is that it threatens the atonement. If Jesus is two persons, then which one died on the cross? If it was the “human person” then the atonement is not of divine quality and thereby insufficient to cleanse us of our sins.

carm.org/nestorianism

 

[Randy_Carson]

I know there’s many examples of the term and its use as the defense for the Catholic perspective, pulling it from examples out of the OT. It’s yet another example of how the passage can be argued both ways. That’s where you have to put everything into context together.

Um…okay.

Since “until” does not always mean the cessation of past action, it cannot be used as a definitive proof that Joseph ceased from refraining from sex with Mary after the birth of Jesus.

Since the perpetual virginity of Mary is a doctrine of ancient origins (being formally defined no later than the Second Council of Constantinople in AD 553) held even by Protestant Reformers Luther, Zwingli, Calvin and Wesley, I think that the “context” is that the constant teaching of Christians over the past 2,000 years is that Mary was ever-virgin, and attempts to deny this using Matthew 1:25 fall flat.

 

[shawn38]

So, you accept the doctrine of the Trinity which was extrapolated from revealed truth by Catholics in one century, but deny another truth derived by that same Church in another.

Interesting.

No. I have no problems with the term as it merely affixed a word to identify the three being one as mentioned in 1 John 5:7. There’s no mysticism or tradition related to the understanding of the term. Nothing is being added to or taken away from scripture.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

That would be the same Scripture which was assembled and made into canon by the Catholic Church, I take it. . .since the Bible itself does not contain within its books a definitive list of the books which are to be found within the Bible. So you accept the Church’s authority to determine which of the many, many letters and writings of the apostolic era etc. were authentic Scripture, but you don’t accept its authority elsewhere? Why? Where is the Scriptural passage that says,

"and lo I will send the Holy Spirit to guide you to produce the Scriptures which. . .once you’ve gotten around to inventing a printing press so that these Scriptures can be widely available cheaply enough for the average person to buy them, AND gotten the populace to be literate as well. . .you can read even though you’ll all think various passages mean completely different things, and you’ll claim that the “Spirit’ tells you that you’re right and the others are wrong and use the “Spirit” and the Bible itself as an authority, even though I left you a Church as an authority?”

 

[shawn38]

Um…okay.

Since “until” does not always mean the cessation of past action, it cannot be used as a definitive proof that Joseph ceased from refraining from sex with Mary after the birth of Jesus

.

It cannot be proven definitively that Joseph did not cease from having sex with Mary either. Just as the other passages cannot say definitively either way. Therefore do we tag something as “Truth” when it’s surmised and not definitive?