Why do Catholics believe Mary is a "virgin"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter WhoDatChristian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Once you open your heart the Truth comes out. You’ll come to realize after you journey for a bit, its the Lord showing you what you need to see.

You know it takes very little time and effort to live in communion with God. And most, because of man’s foolishness will not even afford him that. From that path who knows what will happen, not anything that interests me. Unfortunatly not all make it back to the Lord. The Blessed Mother, Saints and many things which are of Gods world, become a known to you as he wills them to be. The fact that many don’t, won’t or can’t believe is only a truth about the effort they spent in seeking and understanding with a open mind and heart. To truly understand Mary/Saints you must feel what all of them felt, in order to do that, you must walk in there shoes and live there life. Most can’t comprehend because they spent not one iota on earth. The spent 2-years away from home in college, took psychology 101 and physics 101 and now know everything about life. They are either spoiled or poor in either case they can’t truly comprehend the opposite and most definately can’t begin to know God.

Life is the real teacher, and it gives the test first and lesson afterwards. So pay close attention to all the road signs. There’s no check marks only scars. And they don’t go away over time. They become a quiet memorie instead of a screaming insanity. If you can come to terms with yourself through God.

The children play a significant role in our own understanding and maturity. They are what you teach them so the responsibility from the Lord falls directly on you. They become a testament of what you are. Right, wrong or indifferent your Truth will become a known through them.
 
Erich said:
From Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant:

Luke’s Gospel makes a concerted effort to portray Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant. In Luke 1:35, the angel Gabriel tells Mary “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.” Now, the Greek word for “overshadow” is episkiasei, which denotes a bright cloud of glory. It is the same cloud at the transfiguration of Jesus (Matthew 17:5, Mark 9:7. Luke 9:34), and it is known as the Shekinah Glory - the visible Presence of God in the Hebrew Scriptures - which dwelt in the Holy of Holies above the ark of the covenant (Exodus 24:15-16, 40:34-38, 1 Kings 8:10).

In Matthew 1:20, Joseph is told by the angel Gabriel to “not be afraid to take Mary your wife into your home” (paralambano gunaika). This wording is VERY different from what the angel told Mary, i.e., that “the power of the Most High will overshadow you”. Taking a woman into your house is not language that describes marital intercourse, whereas “to overshadow” or “to lay one’s power over” a woman was a euphemism for sexual intercourse, and there is ample Jewish rabbinic literature to support this. Furthermore, the Greek for “overshadow”, episkiasei, is used in Matthew 17:5 to describe what the bright cloud does at the Transfiguration, which is used to indicate God’s Presence like in Exodus 24:15-16; 40:34-8 and 1 Kings 8:4-11. In other words, God’s Presence overshadowed Mary’s womb before Joseph could have marital relations with her. This is why Catholics believe that Mary already belonged to God, not Joseph.

Note the similarities between God’s presence overshadowing the temple (Ex 40:34-35) and God’s presence overshadowing Mary (Lk 1:35). In the Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament used by Jesus and the apostles), episkiasei is used in the Exodus passage, as it is used in Luke 1:35 as well:

Ark of the Covenant
"Then a cloud covered the
tent of the congregation,
and the glory of the Lord
(episkiasei) filled the tabernacle.
(Ex 40:34)
Mary
“The Holy Spirit will come
upon thee, and the power
of the Most High will
overshadow (episkiasei) thee”
(Lk 1:35)
It is clear, then, that the angel Gabriel drew a parallel between God’s presence in the Sanctuary and in Mary.
…
The parallels between Luke’s account of the Visitation between Mary and the Ark of the Old Covenant continue. Once such connection is seen by comparing 2 Samuel 6:15 with Luke 1:44:

“So David and all the house of Israel brought up the ark of the LORD with shouting, and with the sound of the horn.” (2 Sam 6:15)

“For behold, when the voice of your greeting came to my ears, the babe in my womb leaped for joy.” (Luke 1:44)

James Akin has pointed out that the term used here is anephonesen, which means “shouts of joy”. It is not a commonly-used word; in fact, it is only used in the context of a liturgical celebration and even then only when the Ark of the Covenant is present. Literally translated “to cry aloud, to proclaim, or to intone”. Therefore, if this powerful witness is reserved only in the presence of the Ark of the Covenant, and the same word is used regarding Mary, then Mary must be the Ark of the New Covenant.

Ark of the Covenant
1) the Ark is on a journey (2 Sam 6:2)

2) David dances before the ark (2 Sam 6:14)

3) David asks, “How shall the ark of the Lord come to me”? (2 Sam 6:9)

4) The ark stayed in the house of Obededom for three months (2 Sa 6:11)
Mary
1) Mary is on a journey (Lk 1:39)

2) John leaps in the womb of Elizabeth (Lk 1:41)

3) Elizabeth asks, “how is it that the mother of my Lord should
come to me?” (Lk 1:43)

4) Mary stayed for 3 months (Lk 1:56)

With respect to the specific nature of the Old Covenant Ark, the similarities continue. Moses and the Israelites built the Ark of the Covenant to house the tablets of the Decalogue, otherwise known as the 10 Commandments. (Ex. 25:8-16). The Lord instructed His People to also place manna that He had given them in the desert on the Ark (Ex.16:32-35). Centuries later, when King Solomon built the Temple of Jerusalem, the priests brought the Ark of the Covenant to the Temple and placed it inside the Holy of Holies (3 Kgs. 8:3-7) (cf. Heb. 9:1-5).
Code: 
**Ark of the  Covenant** 
		 **1)** carried word of God written on 		 	stone tablets	(Ex 25:8-16)

	 **2)** manna placed in it (Ez 16:32-35)

 **3)** shepherd's staff of Aaron (high priest)

 **4)** contained Aaron's rod	  	 
	  **Mary**
1) carried in her womb the Incarnate Word of God to be written on people’s hearts (Heb 8:10)

2) carried Jesus, the Bread of Life (Jn 6:58)

3) carried Jesus, the eternal High Priest

4) Jesus will “rule the nations with a rod of iron” (Rev 12:5)
(cont’d next post)
Click to expand...
A+ 👍
 
alexander roman said:
why isn’t it scriptural? Where does the bible say that mary bore children other than jesus? Where does it say mary was not a virgin throughout her life.

Unless you can show where the nt says that the “brothers of jesus” are called “children of the virgin mary,” then what you are saying is what is unscriptural.

Modern arguments won’t wash here either. Martin luther and john calvin (i take it they are your friends? 🙂 ) likewise affirmed that the virgin mary was a virgin throughout her life.

Are you saying that the founders of the reformation were unscriptural?

Alex
Click to expand...
hey buddy well if you think that she is not … Then mary and joseph should have presented other siblings of jesus in the temple when jesus was twelve years old
 
Its in scripture, we’ve done dozens of threads of this. Just like the Ark of the Covenant had to Free from sin, pure Gold etc. What makes you think any less of the New Ark which was to bare God also, and was called The Blessed Virgin Mother. The NEW ARK!

Jesus wasn’t born into sin, nor could he been born of sin. Pretty much a no-brainer which coincides with scripture.

The reality of the Blessed Mother born without or stain goes back a back a very loo wau long way in Catholc Teaching

God Bless Gary
 
By the way, what makes all Non Catholics think Mary had sinned? Was born of sin, Or sinned after Christ? Do you have some scripture verse to back the claim?

God Bless.Gary
 
GaryTaylor said:
By the way, what makes all Non Catholics think Mary had sinned? Was born of sin, Or sinned after Christ? Do you have some scripture verse to back the claim?
Click to expand...
Who (Catholic or non-Catholic) has suggested that Mary had sinned?
 
WhoDatChristian said:
Howdy folks. I love y’all, so don’t get offended.

But it is not scriptural to try and sell the idea that Mary is a virgin. Do you think they will change their thoughts on that?

thanks:)
Click to expand...
Oh? Then if she wasn’t a Virgin who do you feel was the Father Of Jesus? And if she did not stay a Virgin are you saying she broke her vow to God? :eek:

And if someone said something that was untrue about your Mother would you get offended?:eek:

Now I have a question for you:D If Mary was not a Virgin, and had other people why did the Apostles teach that she was a Virgin and did not have other Children. Why would the Church teaching’s from the beginning to time teach that she did not.

Next please show me proof in the scripture that Mary had other Children, and was not a Virgin!😃
 
CHRISTSaves said:
actually… This might be a good question?? Because didn’t mary have children with Joseph? I was born and raised catholic. but I never understood why so much emphasis is put on mary being a virgin? Isn’t it Jesus that GOD sent to die for our sins? I don’t know I’m confused by this. I just know I read my bible and believe Jesus Christ died for my sins and when I prayed and prayed to GOD for help to change I turned away from drugs, alcoholism, drug dealing, fornication/adultery… All I know is that I believe in GOD, the Bible, and Jesus and now I don’t even desire what I used to be chained to. I should be dead or in jail right now, but reading the Bible and turning to Jesus saved me… So as a born/raised catholic with a catholic family… I just don’t understand why people talk about mary or the saints anymore?? I don’t know I’m just confused. I know I’m different by it wasn’t mary or the saints or even going to church that saved me… I have been away from church for a long time. But just by reading the Bible, turning to GOD, confessing with an honest heart to GOD that I was lost, then allowing GOD to change me… My life is 180 degrees reversed from where it was a year ago
Click to expand...
Well the reason alot of us talk about Mary and the Saints is they like Christ can understand our suffering.

I personally go to the Blessed Mother often simply because she is also the Mother of us all. Jesus gave her to us at the foot of the cross. She is the perfect Mother of us all, and we love her alot.

She personally has helped me so much in my life with her prayers. I ask her to pray for me often. I ask her to keep my whole family in her heart, especially my kids. I ask her to pray for them alot.

What we love about her is how she was the perfect example of being faithful to God, Could you imagine what she went through, and never questioned God. Or did the famous WHY ME:( like we do.

It was her faith that made her so special! She is a perfect role model for us all. She came here for one reason, and one reason only. To serve God.

Congrats, on your struggle and road back to God. I am sure God is very proud of you and welcomes you back with open arms. Keep reading scripture, keep praying and I will also remember you in my prayers. Maybe throw one my way every now and then.

But maybe someday read up on the Saints and their lives. It may surprise you (it did me) the struggles they overcame in this life also. Some of them were so far away from God at one point in their lives.
 
I think you make some wonderful points here, but I have some thoughts to go along with what you’ve written. These are true life examples.

I was maried had one child, my husband then died, later I got married to another man, who’s wife had died and he had two children. Which means we now have 3 children, who we will raise as “brothers and sisters”. Does the fact that they are not from the same bilogical parents make them any less a family? Wouldn’t they grow up calling each other “brother and sister?”

What about people who adopt many children; (and never have biological children) Are their children not their children? Are these adopted children not brother and sister?

Back in Bibical Days, when a man or woman married if either of them had children from another marriage, those children remained part of the family and they became “One” family.

Todays society has influnced us (in general) to use the “terms” my half brother, half sister, step brother, step sister. I for one do Not belive in the terms “half” or “step”. My question to people who use these terms are this, “Which half is your brother or sister of that person?” And which part of that person is the “Step”.

When we read the Bible, we need to read it for how it was written, we need to remember the “Values and Morals” the writers had. They didn’t see families as Step or Half, nor do the writers mention it that way…they refer to them as Brothers and Sisters.

Now if we do a little “History” with the Bibles help, We go to the Story of when Jesus was born.

As the Story goes Joesph asked for a room at the Inn for him and Mary, he never asked for a “family” size room. When Joesph and Mary made the trip to be counted, where were Jesus Brothers and Sisters then? Remember she rode on the donkey and he walked. Grown up that’s where they were, they were children that Joesph had from another marriage, (and since we know Joesph was a Godly man, it’s safe to assume his former wife had died.) yet they were still his family, which then became Mary and Jesus family. Hence: the brothers and sisters talked about in the Bible verses that you so wisely found.

Now before we go on to say, yep they weren’t there, that’s because Mary had more children after Jesus was born, let’s do some more Bibical “History” homework. Jesus was refered as “the Carpentures Son”. Seems to me it should have said, “One of the Carpentures Sons”. Yet clearly this is not the case. Or it should have read “One of the Carpentures children”. Yet again this is Not the case.

When Jesus was 12 and was found after 3 days. Where does it mention that Mary and Joesph had several “small” children with them looking for Jesus. It doesn’t. If they had more younger children after Jesus, why are they never mentioned?

So if we read the Bible and think about the events and the order in which they happened, it becomes very clear, that the Brothers and Sisters are Older Brother and Sisters from Joesph marriage before Mary. Keep in mind of course that Joesph was an older man, he wasn’t the same age as Mary.

I hope this helps.
 
So glad the question was asked and that so many answered. I have learned much I didn’t know. 👍 to all of you! 🙂 God bless
 
Joseph was never married before Mary. The words ‘brothers and sisters’ are really the words used to describe a cousin.

Someone has been reading too much Ann Rice.
 
See Isaiah- “the virgin will give birth”-
There are no words in Aramaic for Cousin so children of fathers who were relatives were called brothers and sisters.
 
**Num 30:3 (30:4) If a woman vow any thing, and bind herself by an oath, being in her father’s house, and but yet a girl in age: if her father knew the vow that she hath promised, and the oath wherewith she hath bound her soul, and held his peace, she shall be bound by the vow:
Num 30:4 (30:5) Whatsoever she promised and swore, she shall fulfil in deed.
Num 30:5 (30:6) But if her father, immediately as soon as he heard it, gainsaid it, both her vows and her oaths shall be void, neither shall she be bound to what she promised, because her father hath gainsaid it.
Num 30:6 (30:7) If she have a husband, and shall vow any thing, and the word once going out of her mouth shall bind her soul by an oath,
Num 30:7 (30:8) The day that her husband shall hear it, and not gainsay it, she shall be bound to the vow, and shall give whatsoever she promised.
Num 30:8 (30:9) But if as soon as he heareth he gainsay it, and make her promises and the words wherewith she had bound her soul of no effect: the Lord will forgive her.
Num 30:9 (30:10) The widow, and she that is divorced, shall fulfil whatsoever they vow.
Num 30:10 (30:11) If the wife in the house of her husband, hath bound herself by vow and by oath,
Num 30:11 (30:12) If her husband hear, and hold his peace, and doth not disallow the promise, she shall accomplish whatsoever she had promised.
Num 30:12 (30:13) But if forthwith he gainsay it, she shall not be bound by the promise: because her husband gainsaid it, and the Lord will be merciful to her.
Num 30:13 (30:14) If she vow and bind herself by oath, to afflict her soul by fasting, or abstinence from other things, it shall depend on the will of her husband, whether she shall do it, or not do it.
Num 30:14 (30:15) But if the husband hearing it hold his peace, and defer the declaring his mind till another day: whatsoever she had vowed and promised, she shall fulfil: because immediately as he heard it, he held his peace.
Num 30:15 (30:16) But if he gainsay it after that he knew it, he shall bear her iniquity.
Num 30:16 (30:17) These are the laws which the Lord appointed to Moses between the husband and the wife, between the father and the daughter that is as yet but a girl in age, or that abideth in her father’s house. **
Click to expand...
 
I’ve replied in defense of Mary on this thread already.
While I think many of the defenses made are sound, I have to ask non catholics with this particular focus of disbelief to answer a few things.

Is belief in Mary being a Virgin any more or less sensible than believing in a literal world wide flood?

Is belief in Mary being a Virgin any more or less sensible than faith itself?

I ask because there is zero evidence of a world wide flood.

Why would a believer single Mary’s Virginity out as being nonsensical?

I have my own speculations about this. And, I have come to the conclusion that the squeakiest wheel whining about Mary seems to be coming from the ones who split away from the “family”. The orphans. All orphans desire a mother. And all orphans resent a mother that they felt “left them” when, in fact they left her.

Divorce is ugly, and the outcomes are that everyone ends up wounded.

Just remember, who was there to see her child on the Cross? Who can imagine the pain she endured? She could have left, she could have.

She did not walk away from it.

This is all about who walks away and how they justify walking away.

Mary did not leave when the water got hot. She never left.

I can see why those who left the Catholic Church hate her.

Because they represent being gutless wonders after she raised the bar.

Schism is not Mary’s style. She stood by even when it was the test no other could imagine.
 
This isn’t a reply to the other posts, but just a question of my own.

Is a Catholic required to believe in the perpetual virginity, or is it a teaching that varies from Catholic to Catholic?
 
I don’t know if someone already posted this answer, so I’m sorry if this is just being repeated. BUT, its too late, I’m too lazy, and I’m too tired to read through 11 pages of posts. So here’s my (name removed by moderator)ut:

I’ve heard that same question regarding Jesus’ brothers and sisters that were named in the gospels (I can’t remember, I think Matthew). A priest said that, back in the day of Jesus’ time, there were no words to described the difference between brother and cousin. So, because they didn’t have a word for cousin, then they often used the word “brother” or “sister”. I haven’t done the research on this yet as I have a LOT of other things to search for, but this is one common argument that I’ve heard from people (a lot on Catholic Answers Live too).
 
FanOfU2 said:
This isn’t a reply to the other posts, but just a question of my own.

Is a Catholic required to believe in the perpetual virginity, or is it a teaching that varies from Catholic to Catholic?
Click to expand...
Firstly it is a doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Also when we pray the Confiteor at the onset of Sunday Mass service, we state that we ask for the prayers from the Ever- Virgin Mary therefore, this is an important and integral part of our Faith.

So yes, it is a requirement and certainly no variation between Catholics.

MJ
 
FanOfU2 said:
This isn’t a reply to the other posts, but just a question of my own.

Is a Catholic required to believe in the perpetual virginity, or is it a teaching that varies from Catholic to Catholic?
Click to expand...
Required.

Don’t see what’s so hard about that.
 
Sailor_Kenshin said:
Joseph was never married before Mary. The words ‘brothers and sisters’ are really the words used to describe a cousin.

Someone has been reading too much Ann Rice.
Click to expand...
Origen

The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first fruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first fruit of virginity (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).

Hilary of Poitiers

If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, “Woman, behold your son,” and to John, “Behold your mother” [John 19:26-27], as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate (Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354]).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top