Why do Catholics believe Mary is a "virgin"?

[mysta02]

I have to throw in my 2 cents, here:

Whether Mary is a virgin or isn’t a virgin is quite irrelevant. The ONLY thing we know from the Bible is that Mary was a virgin when Jesus as born. The Bible doesn’t says neither that she was or wasn’t a virgin throughout the rest of her life, and to argue one stance or the other is simply a waste of time and energy, and could in fact, be construed as sinful.

To explain:

Debating about actual issues is ok, as we should always search for a better understanding of the Bible, but arguing about irrelevant issues (lifelong virginity of Mary, for example) just makes non-Believers hate us, and if they hate us, they will never be open to a relationship with Christ. Why would they become a Christian if all Christians do is argue?!?

Arguing about an issue like the lifelong virginity of Mary (neither way is stated in the Bible) is as silly as arguing about whether Jesus’ pointer finger or ring finger was longer…

Which finger is longer is completely irrelevant, ridiculous, and not anywhere in the Bible. Why, then, should be argue another point to which the answer will help nobody whatsoever, and which is nowhere in the Bible??

 

[Nicea325]

I have to throw in my 2 cents, here:

Whether Mary is a virgin or isn’t a virgin is quite irrelevant. The ONLY thing we know from the Bible is that Mary was a virgin when Jesus as born. The Bible doesn’t says neither that she was or wasn’t a virgin throughout the rest of her life, and to argue one stance or the other is simply a waste of time and energy, and could in fact, be construed as sinful.

To explain:

Debating about actual issues is ok, as we should always search for a better understanding of the Bible, but arguing about irrelevant issues (lifelong virginity of Mary, for example) just makes non-Believers hate us, and if they hate us, they will never be open to a relationship with Christ. Why would they become a Christian if all Christians do is argue?!?

Arguing about an issue like the lifelong virginity of Mary (neither way is stated in the Bible) is as silly as arguing about whether Jesus’ pointer finger or ring finger was longer…

Which finger is longer is completely irrelevant, ridiculous, and not anywhere in the Bible. Why, then, should be argue another point to which the answer will help nobody whatsoever, and which is nowhere in the Bible??

Tradition…Tradition my friend. Something many Protestants cringe when they hear it. Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture go hand-in-hand. Christianity is not Judaism or Islam were both are religions of the book (Torah/Quran);moreover, Christianity is a religion of the person: Jesus Christ and His Church.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I have to throw in my 2 cents, here:

Whether Mary is a virgin or isn’t a virgin is quite irrelevant. The ONLY thing we know from the Bible is that Mary was a virgin when Jesus as born. The Bible doesn’t says neither that she was or wasn’t a virgin throughout the rest of her life, and to argue one stance or the other is simply a waste of time and energy, and could in fact, be construed as sinful.

To explain:

Debating about actual issues is ok, as we should always search for a better understanding of the Bible, but arguing about irrelevant issues (lifelong virginity of Mary, for example) just makes non-Believers hate us, and if they hate us, they will never be open to a relationship with Christ. Why would they become a Christian if all Christians do is argue?!?

Arguing about an issue like the lifelong virginity of Mary (neither way is stated in the Bible) is as silly as arguing about whether Jesus’ pointer finger or ring finger was longer…

Which finger is longer is completely irrelevant, ridiculous, and not anywhere in the Bible. Why, then, should be argue another point to which the answer will help nobody whatsoever, and which is nowhere in the Bible??

So Catholics should just drop a doctrine, one that the original reformers themselves believed, because we might be ‘hated’?

**
Mat 10:22 And you shall be hated by all men for my name’s sake: but he that shall persevere unto the end, he shall be saved.**

**Rom 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who make dissensions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned and avoid them.

Eph 4:14 That henceforth we be no more children tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness by which they lie in wait to deceive.**

 

[Nicea325]

So Catholics should just drop a doctrine, one that the original reformers themselves believed, because we might be ‘hated’?

It is called relativism…it is more convenient,then accepting Truth.

 

[Good_Fella]

I have to throw in my 2 cents, here:

Whether Mary is a virgin or isn’t a virgin is quite irrelevant. The ONLY thing we know from the Bible is that Mary was a virgin when Jesus as born. The Bible doesn’t says neither that she was or wasn’t a virgin throughout the rest of her life, and to argue one stance or the other is simply a waste of time and energy, and could in fact, be construed as sinful.

To explain:

Debating about actual issues is ok, as we should always search for a better understanding of the Bible, but arguing about irrelevant issues (lifelong virginity of Mary, for example) just makes non-Believers hate us, and if they hate us, they will never be open to a relationship with Christ. Why would they become a Christian if all Christians do is argue?!?

Arguing about an issue like the lifelong virginity of Mary (neither way is stated in the Bible) is as silly as arguing about whether Jesus’ pointer finger or ring finger was longer…
Which finger is longer is completely irrelevant, ridiculous, and not anywhere in the Bible. Why, then, should be argue another point to which the answer will help nobody whatsoever, and which is nowhere in the Bible??

We Catholics didn’t start this argument with Protestants. Nor did we ask for their opinions.

Mary’s perpetual virginity is implicitly revealed in Scripture.

PAX :heaven:

 

[MartinJordan]

Mary’s perpetual virginity is implicitly revealed in Scripture

That’s right in the sense, if one reads the Bible in context Old and New Testaments consistently and without picking things apart. You can see how God reveals his Covenant. Not to deviate too much but even the Sacrament of Confession can be seen in this light the same way.

MJ

 

[mark_avery]

She always fly`s first class.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

I have to throw in my 2 cents, here:

Whether Mary is a virgin or isn’t a virgin is quite irrelevant. The ONLY thing we know from the Bible is that Mary was a virgin when Jesus as born. The Bible doesn’t says neither that she was or wasn’t a virgin throughout the rest of her life, and to argue one stance or the other is simply a waste of time and energy, and could in fact, be construed as sinful.

To explain:

Debating about actual issues is ok, as we should always search for a better understanding of the Bible, but arguing about irrelevant issues (lifelong virginity of Mary, for example) just makes non-Believers hate us, and if they hate us, they will never be open to a relationship with Christ. Why would they become a Christian if all Christians do is argue?!?

Arguing about an issue like the lifelong virginity of Mary (neither way is stated in the Bible) is as silly as arguing about whether Jesus’ pointer finger or ring finger was longer…

Which finger is longer is completely irrelevant, ridiculous, and not anywhere in the Bible. Why, then, should be argue another point to which the answer will help nobody whatsoever, and which is nowhere in the Bible??

You do realize Christianity pre-dates the Bible.

 

[GTNJNightingale]

UH. because she was! everyone knows the story of the conception and birth of Jesus… Catholics believe she was a virgin because the bible and word by mouth (back in the time of Jesus) and tradition and a million things point to the fact that she was A VIRGIN. plus do you really think that GOD…would be born to someone blemished with sin…(mary was not married to be having sexual intercourse) i don’t …that’s just me. Jesus was not a sinner and was not born with original sin. Jesus came out from Mary. the fact of the matter is that Jesus was not conceived from any one man on the earth but rather the father of us all!!!

 

[brumano]

Again, I don’t want to come on here and cause chaos. I just ask we look at this honestly leaving our pride at the door. Scooby, I agree with you. Brothers and sisters can be used as a general term and I don’t have a problem with that. Is that what the Bible talks about here? The evidence would say no in my opinion. If the Bible just says brothers and sisters as a broad statement, then i might buy the argument that Mary was a virgin. The Bible doesn’t do that however.

In Luke 1, we know that Jesus and John the Baptist are literal cousins. They are relatives. This shows that the term relative, brother can be used as literal, not just talking about a group of believers. The disciples are those “brothers” right?

QUOTE]In Matthew 13, it reads: When Jesus had finished these parables, he moved on from there. Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. “Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?” they asked. “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?”– Matthew 13:53-56. Here the Holy Spirit actually names the brothers, many of whom we have never heard of. If he was talking about the disciples, then why wouldn’t he name one of the twelve? The evidence demonstrates that this is a very specific naming of his literal brothers. Again, the Bible never says Mary was

.

.

So, I don’t want to offend anyone, and nobody’s salvation is in danger here. My point is that the Bible needs to be taken literally and by looking at what the Bible says, not what a minister or pastor says is what’s really important. I think we all know there are a lot of false teachers out there. I want everyone to have a great understanding of the Bible and I hope to see all of you great Christian brothers with me in heaven!

Well this is good you’ve got almost all of them in a nice neat order for us to deal with here I wish once and for all, but I’m sure you’ve been over this ground many times and read the Catholic positions before about how we not only think but truly know that Our Blessed Mother Mary is Ever Virgin. Now keep in mind that if Scripture bears this out, you not only have to stop repeating scurrilous lies, but you must fully accept all the Catholic Marian Doctrines, and make a personal devotional apology to Our (yours and ours) Heavenly Mother, agreed? I think we’ll do best to take one item at one time, take the paragraph in qoutes.
In Matthew 13 the Lord came to his hometown and began teaching in the synagogue, and here’s where you make your first mistake; someone we don’t know anything else about asks: Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary? Are’nt his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren’t all his sisters with us? Strange this person couldn’t give any of the sisters names at this time that we’re to believe he was all so familiar with, but at any rate this question was put forth by an unknown, for unknown reasons and with unknown (to us) motivations at heart, it was not put forth by the Holy Spirit as you either purposely or mistakenly assert that it was…St Mathew records in his gospel that these questions were put forth, the Holy Spirit is not speaking in these questions, and St. Matthew is not speaking in these questions, who then is speaking? Well, that could be another thread, but let’s look at the questions posed in contrast to absoloute revealled authentic truth. “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son”? No. St Joseph was His earthly father in all ways except the the flesh, St.Joseph was His one of a kind father, that’s the only way we can briefly describe his fatherhood relation, he was not his material father, God is. Isn’t his Mother’s name Mary? This we know is absoloutely true; it is substantiated from Genesis to the prophets into definition in the gospels, and even in the last book of Scripture in Revellation. The other two questions about brothers and sisters have no merit in this context, they are irrelevant to truth, there is no validity that can be drawn from the accusatory nature of these questions, and no positive conclusions can be made at all because those conclusions could not find substantiation anywhere in the Scriptures as the conclusions drawn from the first questions can. You cannot draw a conclusion from Mt.13 that the Lord had flesh brothers and sisters.

 

[711vic]

It is clearly stated in the gospel account that Mary was a virgin when the angel told here that she had conceived. That is the miracle that Holy Spirit while Mary was a virgin and what is more is she had not had intercourse with a man.

I think where some persons find it difficult to understand is that Mary was ever virgin

 

[rinnie]

We Catholics didn’t start this argument with Protestants. Nor did we ask for their opinions.

Mary’s perpetual virginity is implicitly revealed in Scripture.

PAX :heaven:

One thing that we have to remember also. The teaching of Mary was always believed and taught by the Apostles and the Church. It was a Oral teaching of the Church.

Now scripture tells us to hold to the teachings of the Early Fathers of the Church rather it was revealed in Oral or written scripture.

Now Oral Teachings of the Apostles was believed and taught long before the bible ever came along.’

Now where in the bible does it say to hold fast to only the teachings that are written. IT does not. But as Catholic;s we can show you where ti says to hold to both.’

Now if the bible was written by the Church and the teaching’s of the Church is that Mary was and always stayed a Virgin, how can the Protestant faith decide on what to believe and what not to believe.

If any Protestant wants to win this arguement they will have to show us where the CHURCH ever taught that she was not always a Virgin. They Can’t!!

 

[rinnie]

I may have said thi:shrug: already can’t remember but it is worth repeating.

Mary was given to God in the beginning. She was offered up by her Mother Anna.

Now when the angel came to Mary and said you are to give birth to a Son and name him Jesus. Why did Mary as the Angel how is this so? Unless she never had any intention to ever have a sexual relationship with a Man the way Tradition states.

If I was told I was to have a Son and name him Jesus I would think Oh! Okay when my husband and I get married and I have a Child I will name him Jesus:shrug:

 

[JoshuaNY]

I dont really have much to add. Just wanted to throw in my quick 2 cents as another non-Catholic. I beleive in the Blessed Mothers perpetual virginity. But even if someone does not its not really a theological issue. Jesus still did His Good Work.

Joshua

 

[jdarc]

Why do Catholics believe Mary is a “virgin”?

Simple -
The blood line of Joseph is cursed - If Mary is not a “virgin” - then Jesus is not “The Christ”

Blood Curse (Jeremiah 22)

 

[brumano]

In Matthew 12, it reads: While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. - Matthew 12:46. Honestly, if someone uses mother and brother in the same sentence, you are thinking a true mother and brother. If they said brothers and sisters, then you might have an argument.

In Luke 1, we know that Jesus and John the Baptist are literal cousins. They are relatives. This shows that the term relative, brother can be used as literal, not just talking about a group of believers. The disciples are those “brothers” right?

The word brother can mean flesh brother when it is indicated in Scripture by supportive context, such as the word cousin is shown to by the context of Luke 1. There is no supportive context to show the “brothers” in Mt12 are flesh brothers of Jesus.
Visualize the scene in Mt.12 The Lord is speaking to a group, then you omit, whether your Bible omits or not that “someone said to him”" your mother and brothers are standing outside wishing to speak to you" someone said this to Him, right? They just didn’t come barging on to the scene demanding to speak to Him did they? So someone said what St.Matthew records that that someone said and it may or may not be so that they were wishing to speak to Him, but we don’t see any evidence that they intended to interrupt Him like this certain someone did, but this certain someone chose to announce that your Mother and brothers are standing outside wishing to speak to you (whoever it was did announce it because St. Matthew records it).
There are so many instances in the Scriptures where non fleshly brothers are called and call each other Brethren that it is totally impossible to eliminate the stronger possibility that this group that someone reffered to as His brothers was not in fact the Apostles, or some of the Apostles who we know by Scripture (if you want the references just let me know) and absoloute fact were truly His bretheren. This possibility cannot be excluded, therefore your conclusion cannot be admitted as absoloute, it’s lacking in substance because it’s based on unsupported information.

 

[MartinJordan]

The only way Jesus could be thought have having really brothers (siblings) is if the person said “and his Mother’s sons”.

MJ

 

[brumano]

The only way Jesus could be thought have having really brothers (siblings) is if the person said “and his Mother’s sons”.

MJ

Right and continuing in Mt.12 we have to listen to what the Lord says to hear truth not just what someone might just say. The Lord answers that someone in vs.s 48-50 as I recall by saying 'who are my brothers and my mother but them that hear the word of God and do it? This clearly means Mary the Mother of God because of all mankind she heard and did perfectly the living word of God, and that women can share in this Motherhood by doing exactly as Mary did we can also start to understand what true brotherhood with the Lord is based on. This is what is important in the last verses of Mt.12, not some pointless puzzle about siblings, that’s designed to distract and detract from the truth.

 

[faithfully]

The Bible mentions Jesus has brothers, and mentions them by name. The Bible also mentions Jesus and John the Baptist were cousins. So my question is why does the Catholic Church teach differently?

For the record, let me clarify. I do believe Mary was a virgin when she bore Jesus. I believe through the backing up of the scripture she was not a virgin afterwards. And Alex, where does the Bible does not say she remained a virgin her whole life?

You will have to offer your backing in quotes please…quotes that make it clear we’re talking 100% brother or sister. Child of Mary, and Child of Joseph… you know the way it’s done in the bible… a long lineage. And to have a cousin, only requires that Mary’s brother or Sister, or Joseph’s brother or sister had a child… Family trees branch for a reason… you can’t get a cousin in one branch… unless you married your own sibling… and I’m pretty sure we can all agree that’s not the case here.

However, please consider for a moment. Suppose you are a Godly man. One that actually believes, because an angel spoke to you that your betrothed is pregnant, the child is not yours, the child is God. You actually believe this.

Does your role as husband change a teeny tiny bit? Protector of this woman and child? To see them through to their destiny as best as you can?

Does is REALLY occur to you… I can’t wait to have sex with her. 'Cause it’s my right? REALLY? I’m sorry, but it seems extremely crass to me to even think that Joseph would even ATTEMPT to have sex with the mother of God.

And then, WHO ELSE??? It never would have been acceptable for Mary to have sex with any other man. Surely she would not have committed adultery. Surely in the middle of all the drama that Jesus is enduring, to his end… Who would she have been married off to? There is no mention that Jesus married off his mother. As her only son, he’d be in charge of her care until his end. And then really, do you think getting married is what she’d be after after ALL that she’d been through… do you think it went through her mind. NOW I can finally settle down and have a “normal” life?

Mary was pure from the gate. This was recognized by the Jews. As she was considered clean and pure enough to enter the temples and work on the holy veils.

She was “marriageable”… WHAT do you suppose that mean in the middle east? SINGLE??? or Virginal? Even today a man can kill his daughter if she’s unpure, and renders herself incapable of marriage.

It is known that Joseph was already an established hard working and successful man. He was not just starting out… he had other children by a first wife… and is likely MUCH older than Mary. So? And WHY NOT refer to the other children in his house as his brothers and sisters. They were raised that way. I know plenty of half brothers and sisters, and step brothers and sisters… note the words… brothers and sisters.

It seems reasonable to me that Joseph died of old age, and was dead by the time Christ was crucified. Otherwise, wouldn’t he have been there? Would he have deserted his son? Or a man that he raised and loved as a son. He too was fearful when Jesus could not be found.

Would this OLD man be that sexually needy? I just don’t see it. Not if I consider the realities of a sex drive among old men. Perhaps capable… but…

Remember that Christs turns the care of his mother to an apostle. Why would he do that if he had younger brothers (especially brothers) and sisters to care for her. An actual brother or sister wouldn’t even need to be TOLD to care for their mother. It’s not like you expect that he’s from a family that a sibling would easily shrug off such a responsiblity unless told to… that doesn’t add up either.

I suspect that had Mary been approached to fulfil a wifely duty she might have. I just doubt Joseph considered her to be so common. I imagine he respected her station in life, and hereafter. And that perhaps was mature enough to recognize that you just don’t have sex with the mother of God. SAY THAT OUT LOUD… does it even sound right in todays sex driven world? Nope still sounds pretty crass. And perhaps his age made that even easier not to do. For that matter, I just don’t envision God selecting a husband for Mary that she’d have to fight off… or that was not capable of seeing her for who God selected her to be.

Well, my thought process allows me to consider this a very simple question at hand. Could Mary easily have remained a virgin. ABSOLUTELY… I have no reason to even question it…

 

[brumano]

Again, I don’t want to come on here and cause chaos. I just ask we look at this honestly leaving our pride at the door. Scooby, I agree with you. Brothers and sisters can be used as a general term and I don’t have a problem with that. Is that what the Bible talks about here? The evidence would say no in my opinion. If the Bible just says brothers and sisters as a broad statement, then i might buy the argument that Mary was a virgin. The Bible doesn’t do that however.

In Matthew 12, it reads: While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. - Matthew 12:46. Honestly, if someone uses mother and brother in the same sentence, you are thinking a true mother and brother. If they said brothers and sisters, then you might have an argument.

In Luke 1, we know that Jesus and John the Baptist are literal cousins. They are relatives. This shows that the term relative, brother can be used as literal, not just talking about a group of believers. The disciples are those “brothers” right?

In Matthew 13, it reads: When Jesus had finished these parables, he moved on from there. Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. “Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?” they asked. “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?”– Matthew 13:53-56. Here the Holy Spirit actually names the brothers, many of whom we have never heard of. If he was talking about the disciples, then why wouldn’t he name one of the twelve? The evidence demonstrates that this is a very specific naming of his literal brothers. Again, the Bible never says Mary was a virgin either, so keep that in mind when you look at my argument.

In Galatians, we read: Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. – Galatians 1:18. Now again James is mentioned here as the Lord’s brother. He is not named as a disciple or an apostle, but a “brother”. If this was just a general term for brother, it’s quite an odd coincidence that James is named both in Matthew’s gospel and here in Paul’s letter. We

overwhelming at this point.