Why do Catholics believe Mary is a "virgin"?

[guanophore]

As the veneration of Mary increased throughout the centuries, the vehicle of Sacred Tradition became the means of promoting new doctrines not explicitly taught in the Bible.

There are a couple errors in here, rev kev.

Sacred Tradition is not a “vehicle”. It is the Teaching of the Apostles - the Word of God kept alive by the HS in the Church. The only thing that is transported by it is Christ the Lord.

Second, it is not possible for there to be any “new doctrines” The Deposit of Faith was completed, and God’s public revelation of Himself closed at the death of the last Apostle. Nothing can be added, and nothing can be subtracted from the One Faith.

The virginity of Mary is clearly taught in scripture when describing the birth of Jesus. But is the doctrine of her continued virginity supported by the Bible? Did Mary lose her virginity after Jesus was born? Does the Bible reveal that Mary had other children, that Jesus had brothers and sisters?

The purpose of the NT is to reveal Christ to the world, and to record the establishment of the fledgling Church. Don’t you think the Apostles would have known if Mary had other children? Yet they taught that she did not. Most of the NT was written while she was still alive, a widow, in the care of John the Apostle.

The Bible does not come out and declare that Mary remained a virgin and that she had no children. In fact, the Bible seems to state otherwise: (All quotes are from the NASB.)

Yes. There are many things the Bible “seems” to say. That is why it is so important to read it in it’s context, which is the Catholic Church. The NT was produced by, for, and about Catholics. That is why there is nothing in it that contradicts Catholic faith.

Matthew 13:55 - “Is not this the carpenters son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?”

I think, if you are willing to look honestly at the text,it will be clear that all these children are offspring of “the other Mary”, who is called the “sister” of the mother of the Lord. They were near relatives of Christ, but not womb siblings.

An initial reading of these biblical texts seems to clear up the issue: Jesus had brothers and sisters.

I agree. A superficial and uniformed reading of the text could easily be misleading.

This does not seem to be a legitimate assertion. You cannot simply switch contextual meanings in the middle of a sentence unless it is obviously required. The context is clear. This verse is speaking of Joseph, Mary, and Jesus brothers. The whole context is of familial relationship: father, mother, and brothers.

Yes. All that grew up together in close kinship were considered brothers and sisters. They were all too close for marriage. Members of the same clan were considered siblings. That is why they had to marry outside their clan.

an interpretation that is consistent with that tradition must be adopted.

Exactly! The Word of God does not change just because a few hundred years have passed.

The HS does not teach something to the disciples of the Apostles, then the opposite to “bible christians” 2000 years later.

It is sad to see the Roman Catholic church go to such lengths to maintain Mary’s virginity, something that is a violation of biblical law to be married and fill the earth.

I am sure it is. Many are saddened by the Teaching of the Aposltes, as it is too difficult to receive and practice. It is sad that modern “bible christians” reject the One Faith that was handed down to us from the Apostles.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Didn’t you once actually copy and paste something from Satanists as proof to prove Catholics wrong, then a Catholic pointed that out to you?

rev kevin,

Instead of taking this to private messages, just answer the one question above please.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I came on this forum to learn, not to be insulted, and no, your emoticon does not automatically make it better.

No insults or emotion Historic Fact. Do an indepth study of the Path of Catholic/Proestnt just the past century.

Theres a complete lack up upholding generations of doctrine of Truth in the Protestan Church. A couple manged to hold their origiinal beliefs, But a large part is lost or altered.

Now I have a good deal of the Baptist and Lutheran veneration and prayer in hymns since the 1900’s.

To conclude from their other denomination haven’t they also evolved? Thats a give in.
Whats it attibuted to? The moderm world which has bought exactly what? The new understanding of scripture is also inaccurate and lacking in proof.

The idea that satan himself plays a role in all this is to acknowledge his reality and also the two supernatural realms of eternity we are caught between.

This isn’t to say the Catholic Church is immune to this either as we see from the sex scandle.

Our lifestyle in the USA and how we now view Christianity conflicts with the orignal forfathers who settled the USA for example. The Constitution and Declarartion of Independance was signed by 98% Chirstians

Captialism and religion have taken a new path, and the Religion I’m reffering to it Christainty. This is no longer what Demcracy was proposed as from the on-start. 250 years later look at this economic mess. Look at the different paths in Christology.

Some of these ideas the Catholic Church went through in the 60’s and the sevenites. Other are still trying to define, come to terms with or adopt. The CC isn’t free from this. But we have come to some undstandings. Still are.

Nonetheless we have a major problem especially in the West.

The attack on Mary is nothing more than a sytematic assault on Chirtsianity.

My intention isn’t to insult, its to motivate people to look and see whats hapening here. We are on the verge of destruction.

Debates of insigificant issues which can’t be proven by scripture and haved helped Christians for Centurys I see as chaos. For everyone.

Do you really believe “the BVM is no different that any other women” You know any other women was has 2500 biographys written on here. More venerated in Art in the History of the Worldthan any other female. Chosen by God to bear God! No different than any other women?

Come-on now. I find this extremely nieve, and it makes me concerned. Especially in a period when so desperatly need Gods help. What we should futher offend him?

Now I believe you’ve mistaken me for another. I have a deep concern of my children and theirs, than their’s who I’ll never be here to see. I see furture the growing in petty differeces.

To me its whole picture all the time. Do you see a Great ending with this path? What do you see? As more fringe denomination surface daily, theirs more heretical than the last.

Sorry you feeling hurt. But peole arrive here with “Mary is no different that any other women” And in fact over 2000 years with countries like Poland, Fatima or Zetoun, I see a different truth and reality with the BVM.

I believe people are intitled to their opinions. but without sound eveidence thats all they are. I think if that the best one could do I see nosense in tempting God hand. THe its error.

But there I suppose you see Free-Will.

God Bless, Gary

 

[rev_kevin]

rev kevin,

Instead of taking this to private messages, just answer the one question above please.

Yes and I retracted it once I realized what I did or did you forget that. Now you want to air dirty laundry. Can we stick to the thread because this is a violation but unlike you I will not report it.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Yes and I retracted it once I realized what I did or did you forget that. Now you want to air dirty laundry. Can we stick to the thread because this is a violation but unlike you I will not report it.

It only became a part of this thread because of your continued use of copy and pasting, entire articles that are also copyrighted materials.

 

[DElias]

No insults or emotion Historic Fact. Do an indepth study of the Path of Catholic/Proestnt just the past century.

I am not hurt. I have a far thicker skin than that. The point that I am making is that I have engaged in this discussion sporadically and in a civil manner. To charge that my beliefs are corrupted by Satan is quite a statement. Are you seriously prepared to support that, especially against me? I have my doubts.

I am certainly more than capable of studying theology and church history. Gathering viewpoints from this site is part of it. Unfortunately, your hastily-written tirade is of little use to my own enlightenment.

I do thank those, however, who have been kind enough to engage in civil discourse with me. I have never made critical statements on this forum and have no intention of doing so. As I have mentioned prior to this, I am in my own journey of faith, and any insight given to me is sincerely appreciated.

 

[rev_kevin]

As the veneration of Mary increased throughout the centuries, the vehicle of Sacred Tradition became the means of promoting new doctrines not explicitly taught in the Bible. The virginity of Mary is clearly taught in scripture when describing the birth of Jesus. But is the doctrine of her continued virginity supported by the Bible? Did Mary lose her virginity after Jesus was born? Does the Bible reveal that Mary had other children, that Jesus had brothers and sisters?

The Bible does not come out and declare that Mary remained a virgin and that she had no children. In fact, the Bible seems to state otherwise: (All quotes are from the NASB.)

Matthew 1:24-25 - “And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took as his wife, and kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.”
Matthew 12:46-47 - "While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. And someone said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You.”
Matthew 13:55 - “Is not this the carpenters son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?”
Mark 6:2-3 - "And when the Sabbath had come, He began to teach in the synagogue; and the many listeners were astonished, saying, “Where did this man get these things, and what is this wisdom given to Him, and such miracles as these performed by His hands? “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?”
John 2:12 - “After this He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother, and His brothers, and His disciples; and there they stayed a few days.”
Acts 1:14 - “These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.”
1 Cor. 9:4-5 - “Do we not have a right to eat and drink? Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?”
Gal. 1:19 - But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lords brother.”
An initial reading of these biblical texts seems to clear up the issue: Jesus had brothers and sisters. But such obvious scriptures are not without their response from Catholic Theologians. The primary argument against these biblical texts is as follows:

Lets briefly analyze a couple of verses dealing with the brothers of Jesus.

Matthew 12:46-47, "While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. And someone said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You.”
Matthew 13:55 - “Is not this the carpenters son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?”
In both of these verses, if the brothers of Jesus are not brothers, but His cousins, then who is His mother and who is the carpenters father? In other words, mother here refers to Mary. The carpenter in Matt. 13:55, refers to Joseph. These are literal. Yet, the Catholic theologian will then stop there and say, "Though carpenters son refers to Joseph, and mother refers to Mary, brothers does not mean brothers, but “cousins.” This does not seem to be a legitimate assertion. You cannot simply switch contextual meanings in the middle of a sentence unless it is obviously required. The context is clear. This verse is speaking of Joseph, Mary, and Jesus brothers. The whole context is of familial relationship: father, mother, and brothers.

Did Mary have other children? The Bible seems to suggest yes. Catholic Tradition says no. Which will you trust?

Of course, the Catholic will simply state that even this phrase “my mother’s sons” is in reference not to his siblings, but to cousins and other relatives. This is a necessary thing for the Catholic to say, otherwise, the perpetual virginity of Mary is threatened and since that contradicts Roman Catholic tradition, an interpretation that is consistent with that tradition must be adopted.

The question is, “Was Jesus estranged by His brothers?”. Yes, He was. John 7:5 says “For not even His brothers were believing in Him.” Furthermore, Psalm 69:8 says both “my brothers” and “my mother’s sons.” Are these both to be understood as not referring to His siblings? Hardly. The Catholics are fond of saying that “brothers” must mean “cousins.” But, if that is the case, then when we read “an alien to my mother’s sons” we can see that the writer is adding a further distinction and narrowing the scope of meaning. In other words, Jesus was alienated by his siblings, His very half-brothers begotten from Mary.

It is sad to see the Roman Catholic church go to such lengths to maintain Mary’s virginity, something that is a violation of biblical law to be married and fill the earth.
carm.org/did-mary-have-other-children

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

rev_kevin:
Copyrighted and extremely ‘anti-Catholic’. Look at Roman Catholicism under their forums rev. It offers a ‘free for all’ attitude towards Catholics.

 

[Nicea325]

As the veneration of Mary increased throughout the centuries, the vehicle of Sacred Tradition became the means of promoting new doctrines not explicitly taught in the Bible. The virginity of Mary is clearly taught in scripture when describing the birth of Jesus. But is the doctrine of her continued virginity supported by the Bible? Did Mary lose her virginity after Jesus was born? Does the Bible reveal that Mary had other children, that Jesus had brothers and sisters?

The Bible does not come out and declare that Mary remained a virgin and that she had no children. In fact, the Bible seems to state otherwise: (All quotes are from the NASB.)

Matthew 1:24-25 - “And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took as his wife, and kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.”
Matthew 12:46-47 - "While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. And someone said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You.”
Matthew 13:55 - “Is not this the carpenters son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?”
Mark 6:2-3 - "And when the Sabbath had come, He began to teach in the synagogue; and the many listeners were astonished, saying, “Where did this man get these things, and what is this wisdom given to Him, and such miracles as these performed by His hands? “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?”
John 2:12 - “After this He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother, and His brothers, and His disciples; and there they stayed a few days.”
Acts 1:14 - “These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.”
1 Cor. 9:4-5 - “Do we not have a right to eat and drink? Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?”
Gal. 1:19 - But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lords brother.”
An initial reading of these biblical texts seems to clear up the issue: Jesus had brothers and sisters. But such obvious scriptures are not without their response from Catholic Theologians. The primary argument against these biblical texts is as follows:

Lets briefly analyze a couple of verses dealing with the brothers of Jesus.

Matthew 12:46-47, "While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. And someone said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You.”
Matthew 13:55 - “Is not this the carpenters son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?”
In both of these verses, if the brothers of Jesus are not brothers, but His cousins, then who is His mother and who is the carpenters father? In other words, mother here refers to Mary. The carpenter in Matt. 13:55, refers to Joseph. These are literal. Yet, the Catholic theologian will then stop there and say, "Though carpenters son refers to Joseph, and mother refers to Mary, brothers does not mean brothers, but “cousins.” This does not seem to be a legitimate assertion. You cannot simply switch contextual meanings in the middle of a sentence unless it is obviously required. The context is clear. This verse is speaking of Joseph, Mary, and Jesus brothers. The whole context is of familial relationship: father, mother, and brothers.

Did Mary have other children? The Bible seems to suggest yes. Catholic Tradition says no. Which will you trust?

Of course, the Catholic will simply state that even this phrase “my mother’s sons” is in reference not to his siblings, but to cousins and other relatives. This is a necessary thing for the Catholic to say, otherwise, the perpetual virginity of Mary is threatened and since that contradicts Roman Catholic tradition, an interpretation that is consistent with that tradition must be adopted.

The question is, “Was Jesus estranged by His brothers?”. Yes, He was. John 7:5 says “For not even His brothers were believing in Him.” Furthermore, Psalm 69:8 says both “my brothers” and “my mother’s sons.” Are these both to be understood as not referring to His siblings? Hardly. The Catholics are fond of saying that “brothers” must mean “cousins.” But, if that is the case, then when we read “an alien to my mother’s sons” we can see that the writer is adding a further distinction and narrowing the scope of meaning. In other words, Jesus was alienated by his siblings, His very half-brothers begotten from Mary.

It is sad to see the Roman Catholic church go to such lengths to maintain Mary’s virginity, something that is a violation of biblical law to be married and fill the earth.

Did Mary have other children? The Bible seems to suggest yes. Catholic Tradition says no. Which will you trust?

WRONG! I certainly do not trust ANY Baptist tradition,which is a man-made church. The Baptist tradition (novel tradition) assumes she did…the Catholic Tradiition adheres to the ancient Tradition of the church and to Scripture. Rev Kev you have been refuted a thousands over on this issue,but it is your pride that blinds you spiritually. NO WHERE does scripture even state Mary gave birth to other children…NO WHERE! You read the term brother and apply your modern beliefs to it and believe Mary did. You are wrong and every Baptist who follows your suit. You will always be wrong and nothing you say will change an ancient historical fact taught and believed centuries before any “Bible-Only” man-made church popped up.

 

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by rev kevin
As the veneration of Mary increased throughout the centuries, the vehicle of Sacred Tradition became the means of promoting new doctrines not explicitly taught in the Bible.

The above is rather contradictory. Where is private interpretation of scripture taught explicitly Rev Kev? Care to show me where the Bbile EXPLICITLY gave mere men to found their own churches? I am still waiting for that important piece from any Protestant to show me,so I too can start my own church based on my own private interpretations.

 

[MartinCav]

Basically the old Jewish prophecy said that when “the Messiah” comes he will be born of a virgin. So the writers of the gospels chucked that in to the story to make it comply with the prophecy. Also the hebrew word translated to ‘virgin’ also means ‘beautiful woman’.
People go on Oprah to figure out if there girlfriend is cheating on them and we expect to know an accurate sexual history of an uneducated woman living in the desert 2000 years ago at a time when women were married of before puberty and were slaves to their husbands?

 

[jmcrae]

Basically the old Jewish prophecy said that when “the Messiah” comes he will be born of a virgin. So the writers of the gospels chucked that in to the story to make it comply with the prophecy. Also the hebrew word translated to ‘virgin’ also means ‘beautiful woman’.

She was still alive when they were writing it - don’t you think she would have corrected any misinformation they were giving out?

People go on Oprah to figure out if there girlfriend is cheating on them and we expect to know an accurate sexual history of an uneducated woman living in the desert 2000 years ago at a time when women were married of before puberty and were slaves to their husbands?

Not even Oprah is as famous as the Virgin Mary.

 

[DElias]

Here is a question that I should have posted as an earlier follow-up, would anyone be able to direct me to a good book regarding the oral history of the Catholic church? Considering this is the basis for the perpetual virginity of Mary, I am now genuinely curious about how this has been passed through history?

 

[Michael_Francis]

Please get back on topic and stay there and get squared away as to the rules here at CAF, which are linked in my signature. Then post accordingly.
Sincerely,

 

[rev_kevin]

rev kevin ,
Your response doesn’t cut the mustard ! How old are you ? We took the time to respond to you , and all you do is laugh ? Why should we take you seriously ? You didn’t engage me , present an argument , let alone refute me ! You gave 4 Bible references , how many were Catholic Bibles ? If you could have refuted me you would have , but you didn’t so I must assume you can’t !
Apparently you don’t know what you don’t know And You don’t want to know ! Immaturity doesn’t help your cause .
Why are you so averse to the truth, obstinance I assume , or more accurately willful ignorance ? Keep cutting yourself off from all sources of Truth , including your abridged Bible .
You do realize that rotfl does not illuminate , correct ? Or are you laughing at yourself ? That would at least be logical .

If you only know how many times I and other non-Catholics have had the same kind of responce from Catholics here. You know the but nothing is said to the Catholics when they do it to me or others. Why should I take them or you seriously? They don’t get asked “how old are you.” NO they are applauded and made out to be some kind of hero or something.
Now to answer your question 1 was a Catholic Bible.
Never assume because it makes a you know what out of u and me.
You call me immatury but you are the one acting in that way by saying its willful ignorance and that I am laughing at myself which would at least be logical. I have not called you a name nor have I said anything against you. But you seem to want to attack me for some reason. Grow up.

Mary was a virgin before and during the birth of Jesus but after that she was not. I don’t understand why it is so hard for Catholics to accept the fact that Mary had sex, which is what God intended for a husband and wife to have and is in no way a sin. There is nothing in the Bible that indicates she did not have other children or that she stayed a virgin all her life. It seems to me that Catholics put Mary equal to Jesus. There were only 3 people who were born or created without sin Adam and Eve, and Jesus. Yes Mary was born like the rest of us with sin.

 

[rev_kevin]

GaryTaylor;7822788The smoke of satan entered the your churchs? Baptist, Lutherans etc.

Maybe your church not mine.

Seems to me if you don’t have a bone of contention your just not happy.

Oh I’m very happy no that I’m no longer Catholic.

 

[adrift]

“Michal the daughter of Saul had no children unto the day of her death.” KJV
“Michal the daughter of Saul had no children to the day of her death.” The complete Bible
“Michal the daughter of Saul had no children to the day of her death.” NIV
“Michal the daughter of Saul remained childless throughout her life.” Life application study Bible New living translation.

Here are the verses from 4 different Bibles all saying she remained childless all her life
not that she had children after she died.

The Greek

2193 heos {heh’-oce} of uncertain affinity;; conj 1) till, until

The until you rightly point out only refers to the period of time up to her death. Just as the until Jesus’ was born only refers to the time up to His birth. All the verse speak to is that Mary was a virgin not that she had relations with Joseph. Be consistent. If you are going to use the until to prove they had relations than you must also say that Michal had children after death.

Now no where does it say that Mary and Joseph didn’t have a normal husband and wife relationship. The problem is that you can’t accept the fact that Mary was a normal woman.
This is a BIG difference from you and me. How could a man touch a woman after she has had God within her body?:nope:

Sure she carried Jesus in her womb and gave birth to him but other than that she was no different than you or me.

You can claim she was born sinnless but scripture contradicts that. It would not be wrong for Mary and Joseph to have had sex and had other children. After all didn’t God intent for a husband and wife to have children, to be fruitful and multiply. She was a virgin when Jesus was concieved and born but after that she and Joseph had marital relations and other children. Period

It doesn’t contradict scripture but your poor understanding of scripture.

 

[RevDrNorth]

Search here (this site) but there are solid biblical reasons. For example, it would have not made sense culturally for Jesus to have given care of Mary to John if he had living brothers. This would have been rather insulting.

 

[rev_kevin]

The until you rightly point out only refers to the period of time up to her death. Just as the until Jesus’ was born only refers to the time up to His birth. All the verse speak to is that Mary was a virgin not that she had relations with Joseph. Be consistent. If you are going to use the until to prove they had relations than you must also say that Michal had children after death.

It doesn’t contradict scripture but your poor understanding of scripture.

Sorry but my understanding is correct you are wrong. Period

 

[ClamDigger]

Mary was a virgin before and during the birth of Jesus but after that she was not. I don’t understand why it is so hard for Catholics to accept the fact that Mary had sex, which is what God intended for a husband and wife to have and is in no way a sin. There is nothing in the Bible that indicates she did not have other children or that she stayed a virgin all her life. It seems to me that Catholics put Mary equal to Jesus. There were only 3 people who were born or created without sin Adam and Eve, and Jesus. Yes Mary was born like the rest of us with sin.

You’ve still yet to prove anything that you’ve said using either Scripture or history.