Why do Catholics believe Mary is a "virgin"?

[jmcrae]

You cannot make a general conclusive statement for all early church fathers. The quotes you copied and pasted from this site start somewhere in the 3rd Century. You can say “some” of the 3rd and 4th century ones believed this.

By an interesting coincidence, these are the same Fathers who gave us our New Testament. Clearly, they saw no contradiction between the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, and the writings that they chose to include in the New Testament.

 

[windynight]

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

**Absolutely not! They will not change their belief in this ever.
**

 

[StrawberryJam]

By an interesting coincidence, these are the same Fathers who gave us our New Testament. Clearly, they saw no contradiction between the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, and the writings that they chose to include in the New Testament.

There is nothing I have read that would forbid the idea.
There are many who claim it is wrong to hold this idea.

I have yet to be swayed by any argument to this day that would convince me that I am wrong to think Mary was a Virgin.

I am willing to hear anyone on this, and yet no one can come to the table with anything that can convince.

In either case, it would not be a proof of anything.

This is why I am here investigating Catholic Beliefs. Not beliefs of those who came along after or because of the Reformation (to be specific)

 

[jmcrae]

This is why I am here investigating Catholic Beliefs. Not beliefs of those who came along after or because of the Reformation (to be specific)

Awesome!

 

[rinnie]

I know ultimately when a discussion of a particular topic comes up, you have to back into “I lack authority argument.” Now as I stated earlier, we have no evidence in the first 2 centuries and it is not till the 3rd century. And once the Bible was translated into Latin and not made available to the common man, well most people had to take Rome’s word for it.

This is not an issue with interpretation like prophecy, it is just a common reading. Brother and the context show a pretty straight forward reading. If Rome is authoritative, why don’t they change all catholic Bible translation to relative?

We have no New Testament Manuscript in Aramaic. The New Testament was written in Greek. If some of the original New Testament writings were in Aramaic (although there is no proof) and the teaching of perpetual virginity was so common (why didn’t the Greek translators just translate it corrrectly).

You pretty much summed it up with your first sentence. You have no evidence. We do.

But here is some food for thought. If you accept the bible as the word of God and the absolute truth. There is only ONE sentence in the bible you really need.

And this day is comming very very soon. What did Jesus say to his Apostles before he died. He said I am leaving so that I can send the advocate who will lead you until the end of age.

Now think about that. On the day of Pentecost the Advocate the Holy Spirit that was promised by Christ fell on the CHurch and is leading the Church until the end of age.

Now the Pope is led by the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit PROMISES us that the Pope cannot speak in the voice of Christ and lie. ITs really quite simple. Now also the Bishops with him, but I use the Pope because he is the leader.

Now the Pope has the keys to the Kingdom and is led by God. History will show this. The keys have been passed on to this day. Now the question, and you must ask yourself.

Did Jesus keep his promise and can the church not be led astray. Either Jesus told us the truth or he didn’t. There is no other way to look at it.

 

[rinnie]

There is nothing I have read that would forbid the idea.
There are many who claim it is wrong to hold this idea.

I have yet to be swayed by any argument to this day that would convince me that I am wrong to think Mary was a Virgin.

I am willing to hear anyone on this, and yet no one can come to the table with anything that can convince.

In either case, it would not be a proof of anything.

This is why I am here investigating Catholic Beliefs. Not beliefs of those who came along after or because of the Reformation (to be specific)

Oh Strawberry Jam we may make strawberry wine out of you yet!!

 

[rinnie]

**Absolutely not! They will not change their belief in this ever.
**

Simply because the Church is led by the Holy Spirit and cannot lie when it comes to the word of GOd.

If the Church says it comes from the Holy Spirit and is the truth it is the truth.

Anyone who says that we can be swayed from the truth, like for expample say the Pope can say he is speaking in the voice of Jesus CHrist and lie, then they are putting the Pope’s power above the power of the Holy Spirit. Its that simple.

No one can over power God. The gates of hell will NOT prevail. That is what Jesus said when he handed over the keys to be guarded by the Pope. All power the Pope and Bishops have come from the Holy Spirit. They will tell you without God there is no Church.

 

[SnakeMauler]

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?

Do you seriously contend that over 2,000 years Catholics have “misread” the Bible and only a couple Protestant guys had popped up and figured out otherwise? That’s outrageous.

 

[onenow1]

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

Hi, Who,

Moses face : I was reading Exodus 34:this morning, and reading this thread again it occurred to me that in Verse 29 When Moses came down from Mount Sinai, with the two tables of the testimony, in his hand as he came down from the mountain, Moses did not know that the skin of his face shone because he had been talking with God.

Now do you suppose Mary was not affected in some grand way after all she held God in her womb . I would say even more so then Moses. What say you ? No change Who !

Peace

 

[faithfully]

Ok…

So, IF Mary had other children (which I don’t believe…) Wouldn’t THEY have had some children? Or do you think they’d all be infertile, or did not marry???

Wouldn’t there exist some additional lineage?

Like, Hey, Jesus was my great, great, great, great… Uncle??? And so, I’m sort of holy mearly by my DNA!

I mean we open with a list of about what 15 or so generations that show Joseph’s Lineage… in line with King David, WHY ON EARTH would there not be BETTER documentation showing other children. We KNOW what happened to all the apostles afterward…We can trace every single pope from Peter.Why no documentation of these brothers and sisters that would in fact KNOW they were a brother or sister? Why no stories handed down? Do we REALLY think that all the nieces and nephews would keep quiet?

Common sense doesn’t even get us there.

And I’d still like to know WHAT MAN thinks he should have sex with Mary the mother of God? If he believes it… doesn’t he think she’s off limits? Who else would then have had sex with her? What man TODAY would be so bold???

 

[bo_leggs]

“And once the Bible was translated into Latin and not made available to the common man, well most people had to take Rome’s word for it.”

This just shows the lack of knowledge you have about the Church and the Bible. The reason the Church translated the Bible into Latin was because those that were literate could read and write Latin. Greek had been the common language of the literate, but it was replaced by the Latin. Also, the Church usually also had copies of the Bible available in the vernacular when there were sufficient numbers of people in each country who were again literate in the language of the country. However, since a Bible cost around 10,000 dollars at that time, not many people could afford them.

If you are going to spout off on here, at least know what you are talking about. Additionally, the writings of the early Church Fathers also confirm the teachings of the Church.

 

[bo_leggs]

"We have no New Testament Manuscript in Aramaic. The New Testament was written in Greek. If some of the original New Testament writings were in Aramaic (although there is no proof) "

We do have proof of Matthew being written in Aramaic. Not the original texts, however several of the early Church Fathers wrote of Matthew being written in Aramaic.

“Matthew compiled the sayings [of the Lord] in the Aramaic language, and everyone translated them as well as he could” Papias, bishop of Hieropolis c. 130 A.D. (Explanation of the Sayings of the Lord [cited by Eusebius in History of the Church 3:39]).

“Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon his breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia” - Irenaeus of Lyons (Against Heresies 3:1:1).

“Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism and published in the Hebrew language” Origen c. 244 A.D. (Commentaries on Matthew [cited by Eusebius in History of the Church 6:25]).

“Matthew had begun by preaching to the Hebrews, and when he made up his mind to go to others too, he committed his own Gospel to writing in his native tongue [Aramaic], so that for those with whom he was no longer present the gap left by his departure was filled by what he wrote” – Eusebius (History of the Church 3:24 [inter 300-325]).

 

[bo_leggs]

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

We have Sacred Tradition that points to Mary’s perpetual virginity, but more than than, we have her words in Luke 1:34, when after the Archangel Gabriel told her that she had been chosen to bear God’s son, she said, “How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?” Mary was a consecrated virgin, and this is why she made the statement “I have no relations with a man.” Had she not been a virgin, she would not have been perplexed by Gabriel’s statement, but since she was a consecrated virgin, she did not know how she could maintain her virginity and yet bare a son, the Son of God.

 

[brumano]

.

QUOTE]In John, we read: What Jesus did here in Cana of Galilee was the first of the signs through which he revealed his glory; and his disciples believed in him. After this he went down to Capernaum with his mother and brothers and his disciples. There they stayed for a few days. – John 2:11:12. Here the Holy Spirit distinguishes Jesus’ brothers and his disciples. They cannot be one in the same because he says “his brothers AND his disciples”. They are not mutually exclusive. That’s like saying that the NFL suspended Terrell Owens and Ocho Cincho. They are two separate individuals. In John, the disciples which are thousands are not brothers according to what the sentence says. Looking at the evidence, there really isn’t an argument for Jesus not having literal brothers

].

Before Jn.ch2 11 and 12 we must read Jn.2 1and 2. this is the wedding feast of Cana that you skipped over and it is not a parable of any kind it is a real event that actually happened. Read v 1and 2 again, now read v 12 again and keep reading them again as many times as you need to before you can notice that the brothers were not invited to the wedding; read the two sets of verses side by side again, the disciples were present at the wedding, the brothers were not, and neither are any of the flesh and blood sisters that everyone keeps forgetting Jesus is supposed to have as it seems they are’nt even vaguely mentioned even in passing… the sisters are’nt going to the wedding!? Mary is present Jesus and his disciples are present. also keep reading this and the other references that you sited in your op as many times as you need to until you have to admit that there is never any direct scriptural attachment established between Mary and the so called brothers as a Mother to her sons, or as sons to their Mother. In the verses from Jn.ch 2 you’ll notice that this is pointedly avoided.
I have never heard of a wedding where the friends or friend brothers as you might call the disciples of the son of one of the guests are invited but the real flesh and blood sons and brothers are not, but this is what we would be presented with in Jnch 2 1through 11 under your theory (and that’s all it is, is a theory) that Mary gave birth to more children; physically, than Jesus. It can’t be just a casual ommission on the part of the narrator, for the same reason that it is not just a casual omission on the part of the narrator, St. John that the brothers are not present throughout Jn.ch.18, and 19 especially in 19 vs25, 26, and 27. If the flesh and blood brothers were there, the Saint would have to mention them, and he does not.
Again, no direct scriptural proof that the brothers are sons of Mary and Joseph.
You might want to start reading the Gospels using Catholic Doctrines as your theories, try Jn. ch 2 again, it might work out for you this time.

 

[elvisman]

see post 272.

There is no stretching here at all. What teaching have I stretched. Really?

Perpetual virginity was almost completely absent in the first 2 centuries, started to develop in the 3rd, and help by Rome after the Bible was translated in Latin and not made available to the common man. By 600 AD, the Bible has been restricted to only one language: the Latin Vulgate! The Catholic Church of Rome refused to allow the scripture to be available in any language other than Latin. Those in possession of non-Latin scriptures would be executed! This was because mostly the priests were educated to understand Latin. That is an obvious reason why people could not question this teaching since the Bible in any other language would mean execution. These were the dark ages for sure. There were a few places like the Scottish Island of Iona with pockets of Biblical teaching but for the most part, history is history.

Now, you can throw verses about that gates of hell will not prevail, so how could their be a dark age, but ultimately, the Lord and His people still prevail.

**Just because the only writings we have about Mary’s perpetual virginity go back as far as the 2nd century DOESN’T mean it’s not true. First of all - not everything was written down, othrwise there would be a LOT more seculary historical evidence of Christ and his earthly mission.
This is one of the weakest arguments for the debunking of the perpetual virginity I’ve ever heard.

On another thread, I put out a challenge that wass never answered:
Show me ONE place in the Bible OR the Early Church that mentions Mary having any child other than Jesus and I’ll leave the Catholic Church today.

As for your ridiculous argument that Latin was some sort of secret language that was only used by the Church - you have a LOT of homework to do on your history. Latin was the lingua franca of the time - just as Greek was during the first few centuries. People in MOST countries were writing AND speaking it.

 

[Nicea325]

Just because the only writings we have about Mary’s perpetual virginity go back as far as the 2nd century DOESN’T mean it’s not true. First of all - *not *everything was written down, othrwise there would be a LOT more seculary historical evidence of Christ and his earthly mission.
This is one of the weakest arguments for the debunking of the perpetual virginity I’ve ever heard.

On another thread, I put out a challenge that wass never answered:
Show me ONE place in the Bible OR the Early Church that mentions Mary having any child other than Jesus and I’ll leave the Catholic Church today.

As for your ridiculous argument that Latin was some sort of secret language that was only used by the Church - you have a LOT of homework to do on your history. Latin was the lingua franca of the time - just as Greek was during the first few centuries. People in MOST countries were writing AND speaking it.

Exactly elvisman! Likewise, if Mary did have other children,I find it very strange not ONE NT writer remotely mentions them or their involvement or lack of involvement during Jesus earthly ministry?

 

[jmcrae]

Exactly elvisman! Likewise, if Mary did have other children,I find it very strange not ONE NT writer remotely mentions them or their involvement or lack of involvement during Jesus earthly ministry?

And no one is claiming to be the rightful heir to the Papal throne on the basis of being the half-brother or half-sister of Jesus.

 

[elvisman]

Exactly elvisman! Likewise, if Mary did have other children,I find it very strange not ONE NT writer remotely mentions them or their involvement or lack of involvement during Jesus earthly ministry?

**Curious, ain’t it?

 

[bo_leggs]

see post 272.

and help by Rome after the Bible was translated in Latin and not made available to the common man. By 600 AD, the Bible has been restricted to only one language: the Latin Vulgate! The Catholic Church of Rome refused to allow the scripture to be available in any language other than Latin. Those in possession of non-Latin scriptures would be executed! This was because mostly the priests were educated to understand Latin. That is an obvious reason why people could not question this teaching since the Bible in any other language would mean execution. .

My how the Protestant lies keep coming up. The reason the Bible was translated into Latin was because it was the common language of the time. Those who were literate could read and write Latin. Prior to this the common language had been Greek, which is why the Greek Bible existed. The common people did not have Bibles because they cost around 10,000 dollars at that time because they were copied by hand. Even then, it was the practice of the Church to make Bibles available in the language of the country if there were enough people to warrant it. The only time people got in trouble for having a Bible was if they had an unauthorized copy, but that didn’t happen until much later, and even then they weren’t executed, the Bibles were confiscated and burned, and that was at the time of the Protestant Reformation, which was after1517. The Church has always encouraged the faithful to read the Bible, and even chained them to a table in the Church so the faithful, who could not afford one of their own, would have access to one. And since Bibles were around 10,000 dollars, I think you can see why they were chained to the table, but just to make sure you know, they chained them to the tables so they wouldn’t be stolen. People who make the type of claims you have made only show how truly ignorant they are of the truth. Next time, get your facts right before you start spouting off.

 

[bo_leggs]

**Curious, *ain’t ***it?

I think it’s also curious that in the story of Jesus at age 12, when He was left behind in Jerusalem, and Mary and Joseph returned to find Him in the Temple, no brothers or sisters are mentioned at that time either. Will wonders never cease.