Why do Catholics believe Mary is a "virgin"?

[lil_flower_luv]

Here’s a good explanation of why all this is a big deal.

Thank you! I also invite others to watch this video on Mary being the Ark of the New Covenant. Believe me, it’s one of the best on the topic. For anyone looking for scripture by scripture comparisons, this is a must see!

 

[GaryTaylor]

You know what, its really not a big deal, but what it is…is a Mountain of Evidence compiled by the greatest Theology minds alive. 2000 years worth of Scholars and Saints dating right back to Luke sitting at the kitchen table with Mary and John who were also at the Cross shrug:

Just look at Pope Benedict XVI education in Theology, that alone is impressive.

And wheres the education and evidence that disputes the reality of the The Blessed Virgin Mary? That amounts to “individuals” who drop by here applying Sola Scriptura, and we all should immediatly accept and understand their interpretation of scripture? And exactly why would that be?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Actually it is a big deal to us because of the implications it has to our faith and beliefs. The real question is why most Protestants who doesn’t believe that Mary has any important role in the faith aside from birthing Jesus are so caught up in this argument. Does it change their faith one way or another if Mary was an eternal Virgin? The only implication I see this that will affect their beliefs is that it will validate the Catholic belief, thus proving that they are wrong.

 

[Rascalking]

Actually it is a big deal to us because of the implications it has to our faith and beliefs. The real question is why most Protestants who doesn’t believe that Mary has any important role in the faith aside from birthing Jesus are so caught up in this argument. Does it change their faith one way or another if Mary was an eternal Virgin? The only implication I see this that will affect their beliefs is that it will validate the Catholic belief, thus proving that they are wrong.

In fairness to our Protestant brothers and sisters, (and they are that! Never forget it! ) I don’t think alot, at least not alot that I know-are “hung up” on the Virginity of Mary. I’m talking about the average, everyday Protestants. Of course there are fundamentalists who are hung up this or that thing.

 

[nordskoven]

God shoved a miracle down King Hezekiah’s throat: one God asked Hezekiah to chose but he refused; so one God chose Himself–the “virgin” or alma. And believe me, in Judaism, you were an eligible young bachelorette and virginal “alma” lass or you were stoned as in to death. But moreover, when God decrees it, it means absolutely. That’s the biggest miracle ever per God, the perpetually virginal mom.

Then, unless the ever-virgin, Mary, was incredibly sheltered, why would she have asked where babies came from–in other words, how she was to conceive–unless she was an AVOWED virgin, one who could not break her vow and “know” a man.

And the words of the Archangel Gabriel are a succinct version of the Ancient Sacred Wedding Rite, marriage being the first sacrament and the final sacrament when Christ will return for His Bride, the Church, to unite in matrimonial unity with divinity now shared by the Virgin Mary and the Holy Spirit, Who can tolerate no sin. That’s the Immaculate Conception, Immaculate Heart, and Perpetual Virgin Mary. And my Mom as in John’s Apocalypse 12, defining her persecuted “other children” and brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ. Honor your mother.

 

[WhoDatChristian]

I like you Nevermore. I disagree with ya, but I like ya! See you in heaven baby!

In Christ

WhoDatChristian, welcome to the forms! I hope you will have a good and profitable time here!

Mary is a virgin, and it is scriptural, as others have pointed out. No, it will not change. Catholics cannot, and will not change their minds on Truth.

In fact, the idea that Mary was NOT a virgin did not develop until the late 300 A.D. The Early Church Fathers (those men who were taught by the apostles, the first few generations of Christians), believed in Mary being Ever-Virgin. So even early on, this belief was present. This isn’t something that Catholics/Orthodox just pulled out of their head. It has a long standing, and accepted view.

I am not a Biblical scholar, nor do I know Greek/Hebrew. But if we think logically, the Bible was translated from different languages that did not have words for brother/sister/ kin etc that we do today. Like the Greek “Adelphos” - it means breathren. That could mean anyone In Jesus’ close family (and families back then were pretty close!). We cannot, in modern day times, look at the Bible through our lens.

While that may be true, Catholics do not see it that way. We see the Bible and Tradition on equal terms for our faith. Tradition teaches us that Mary was Ever-Virgin. The Bible does NOT contradict this. So it is true.

Yes, there are a lot of false teachers out there. Many of them teach Mary had children after Christ!

I too would like everyone to have a great understanding of the Bible (myself being first in line), but you may be surprised on how many Catholics know their Bible!

In Christ,
Nevermore

 

[WhoDatChristian]

Sailor, that is some very thawed theology. The Torah was translated into Greek 3 centuries before Christ. The New Testament was written within a generation after Christ. The Bible wasn’t put together until much later than Christ’s ministry.

Do your homework before criticizing what really happened.

And again, I’m Southern Baptist, but I took take great issue with one thing they try to represent as Biblical. However my teachings come not from Baptists, but from non-denominationalists where they can preach the Bible not based on anything taught by the flawed denominations.

Good luck in your studies.

Scripture does not pre-date the church. Holy Mother Church began on the first Pentecost following Christ’s death and resurrection—with the descent of the Holy Spirit.

Nothing was WRITTEN until much later.

If it’s not your intention to sound pro-Protestant I can’t imagine what is.

 

[WhoDatChristian]

You are making a conjecture. The Bible doesn’t say anywhere that Joseph had brothers. What was he 14 when him and Mary had Jesus? Highly unlikely, Joseph had children before Mary when he was so young. Out of all the disciples, Jesus was probably closest to John which is why he asked John to behold his mother. He certainly wasn’t going to ask his real brothers which were unbelievers at that point.

Mary was a virgin. Luke 1:27, Luke 1:34 Just because Jesus had brothers doesn’t mean they were by Mary.Joseph could had been married before and had sons.Therefore he’d had stepbrothers.I was always taught he was a widower of 90 years old when he married her with sons and died later.I wasn’t raised Catholic. When Jesus was on the cross and told his disciple to behold His mother why would He do this if He had brothers to care for her.John 19:26-27

 

[vz71]

Jesus was probably closest to John which is why he asked John to behold his mother. He certainly wasn’t going to ask his real brothers which were unbelievers at that point.

Source please.

 

[WhoDatChristian]

Howdy Elvis,

Sure I can name Jesus brothers. Maybe if you read my original post, you would find the brothers named. I did you the courtesy of having them named, and one brother was named twice.

As far as Jesus and John the Baptist being cousins, scripture tells us. It’s not a surprise that you haven’t heard it before. It proves my point.

And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.- Luke 1:36

As far as your last question, the scripture are not about Mary, but about Jesus. From Genesis 1 to Revelation 22, the entire Bible is about Christ, not Mary. Mary isn’t mentioned very often and after the early parts of Acts isn’t mentioned at all. But her sons are named. There is also not one verse that tells us that Mary remained a virgin; the evidence is quite the opposite.

Good luck in your studies.

REALLY? Can you name them?

Where does the Bible tell us that Jesus and John the Baptist were cousins?
MY Bible doesn’t say anything like that.

Okay - I challenge you to show me that she did not remain a virgin - using Scripture.
Not one single Protestant in history has been able to do that.
**And you’re telling us that *you ***can?

 

[WhoDatChristian]

Howdy sir. I already answered this question, but will answer it again for ya

Jesus’ brothers at the time of the cross were not believers. They denied his entire message that he was the son of God. There is no way Jesus would entrust his mother to these guys at this time. Therefore he gave her over to John who Jesus had a special relationship with.

Good luck in your studies sir. I’ll see ya in heaven baby!!

Recall that when Jesus died, he gave Mary over to the care of the Beloved Disciple, the Apostle John. If Mary had had other children, this would not make the least bit of sense–why would Jesus entrust his mother to someone who wasn’t her child?

See here:
catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp

and here:
catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp

-ACEGC

 

[WhoDatChristian]

Good morning Spencer.

I hope you are blessed. I’ll answer your first sentence. When we start getting into observing non-Biblical doctrine as truth, all sorts of dangers come about. First, it gives religions like the Mormons, and possibly other sects credibility. They believe the Bible is true, but they also promote the book of Mormon. No thanks I’ll take my Bible. The Bible is the inherent word of God from the Holy Spirit. It was written prior to or one generation after the life of Christ. I admit, I do not know when this other literature was written, but if the Holy Spirit doesn’t have it’s fingerprint on it like in the Bible, I’m not intersted. Is there any “hidden” truths within these documents like we see in the Bible?

thanks!

Hi, there.

A more important question to ask yourself as we explore your question is, “Where in the Bible does it say that all we need to know about Christianity must come from the Bible?”

I presume you believe in the Trinity. We know this from Scriptural information, but this was a teaching that was defined over time–you will not find the word “Trinity” itself anywhere in any properly-translated Bible (Catholic or non-Catholic).

The nature of the original roots of Christianity–which can be proven historically as originating in what we know as the Catholic Church–shows that the Word of God was taught by oral tradition for nearly 300 years.

Printing presses would not exist until some 1500 years later, and the compiled inspired texts that would form the Bible itself were combined by bishops at several gatherings in the 3rd and 4th centuries. Books were still made by hand, and were very expensive and rare. Even then, Scripture was taught orally until more texts were created and distributed.

Nowhere in the Bible did Christ teach his Apostles to go give away Bibles to others. He asked them to give of themselves, to go to the nations and teach orally. These oral teachings were compiled into what we know as Scripture.

Others have answered your questions about Mary’s virginity. I’ll give you another reason why we believe and hold to the perpetual virginity. If Jesus is representative of the New Covenant between God and man, as the living Word, Christ, states at the Last Supper (Luke 22:19-20), and the tablets of the Ten Commandments were the written word of God, in the Old Testament, what did the two have in common?

A perfect vessel to carry the Covenants in. Mary, a vessel perfected by God, became the Ark of the *New *Covenant to carry our Lord. It would not be suitable for Mary to bear anyone else in her womb anymore than for the Hebrews of the Old Testament to carry food or supplies in the Ark.

Nor does Scripture suggest that Joseph desired this act. Scripture *does *show that Mary chose perpetual virginity even before Gabriel asks her to bear Christ in her, in Luke 1:26-38.

I hope we are helping. It’s important to combine your fondness for Sacred Scripture with the living teachings given to man from God–teachings that the Catholic Church has passed down from millennia. No other Christian faith can make this claim using valid history or science. For it is also said in Scripture that Christ did and say much more than what was contained in Scripture (John 20:30-31). We would do well to note that the Bible, while an essential part of Christian teaching, was never intended as a complete guide to our Christian faith.

God bless.

 

[WhoDatChristian]

That makes no sense. I provided numerous scriptures that to a layman would demonstrate Jesus had real-life brothers, and you have problem with that?

Good luck.

**You took the words *right ***out of my mouth . . .

 

[WhoDatChristian]

All great questions sir!

1. NO! That’s the beauty of it. It doesn’t matter. The only way we are saved is if we believe the gospel. The gospel is defined in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4. We are all going to have differences in one thing or another. And I agree that we cannot force ourselves to nitpick over minor things like this. But I do want all of us to turn to the scriptures daily or every other day and not trust teachers, because many are throwing out nonsense and it’s our job to do our own study and study God’s word.

Thanks men!

You say that as though you are immune. Let me ask the following of you. I challenge you to respond to all parts even though some are mutually exclusive:

1. Does it make any difference at all in Christ’s redemptive work whether Mary remained ever-virgin or bore other children?
   1-a) If so, would the impact be positive or negative for her to have borne other children.
   1-a-i) How would Mary bearing other children have added to Christ’s work?
   1-a-ii) How would her bearing other children have detracted from Christ’s work?
   1-b) If not, why do you even concern yourself over a teaching other Christians hold that helps them contemplate the Gospel of Jesus Christ more deeply?
   1-b-i) How does engaging in debate over what you regard as trivial further the Gospel?

 

[WhoDatChristian]

I’m going to leave you boys with this. It’s a prophecy from Psalms talking about our Lord Jesus Christ and the relationship he had with his brothers.

I have become a stranger to my brothers, an alien to my mother’s sons. – Psalm 69:8

This is all the proof you need on top of every other scripture I provided. Have a great day men of God.

 

[st_lucy]

WhoDatChristian,

You sound rather smug in your last post. You think you can come here and straigten us lost Catholics? You want us to believe your tail about Jesus “nonbelieving” siblings with out giving us any biblical references. But you refuse to believe that the mother of Jesus could possible remain a virgin, even when you are given biblical references to the fact that Christ had no brothers.

If you really want me to take you seriously please, please pleaaaseee show me where I can read about these brothers of Christ and how you have come to the conlusion that they were no long believers.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

I’m going to leave you boys with this. It’s a prophecy from Psalms talking about our Lord Jesus Christ and the relationship he had with his brothers.

I have become a stranger to my brothers, an alien to my mother’s sons. – Psalm 69:8

This is all the proof you need on top of every other scripture I provided. Have a great day men of God.

The Bible doesn’t mean what YOU want it to mean.

Which version are you even quoting?

You came with a pre-conceived and heretical notion and you will leave the same way. More than enough ‘evidence’ has been presented, but you turn your back.

In the words of Archbishop Timothy Dolan: “Do not blind yourself to the Jesus who stands next to you on your own road to Emmaus.”

 

[vz71]

Out of all the disciples, Jesus was probably closest to John which is why he asked John to behold his mother. He certainly wasn’t going to ask his real brothers which were unbelievers at that point.

I’m starting to feel left out.

Answers were thrown at everyone except me…

Please provide the source for the notion that these brothers were unbelievers.
Or for that matter, what is the source that they existed at all?

 

[ZDHayden]

I would like to speak, please, in regard to the following comment:

When we start getting into observing non-Biblical doctrine as truth, all sorts of dangers come about. First, it gives religions like the Mormons, and possibly other sects credibility.

I would like to say that, yes, it does give religions like Mormonism and other such faiths credibility if and only if you deny history. Bring in history, and these groups are no more credible than the secular humanists.
Also, remember that Christianity is a Judaic religion. The Jews believed and believe quite a bit outside the literal text of the Old Testament, some of which beliefs we have inherited. Why would Fulfilled Judaism, i.e, Christianity, be any different? Such breaks from the Judaic roots. Catholicism has continued in the ancient Jewish practice of Scriptural Interpretation. Also, evidence has been presented to show that the belief that Mary remained a virgin has always been believed. There must have been some time in which such was not the belief originally for there to be a “start” in the belief.

 

[vz71]

I would like to speak, please, in regard to the following comment:

I would like to say that, yes, it does give religions like Mormonism and other such faiths credibility if and only if you deny history. Bring in history, and these groups are no more credible than the secular humanists.

What is wrong with giving credit where it is due?

In my view, they got it right that the bible is not the end all authority.
Many of our ptotestant friends fail at this.

Of course, they have it wrong in so many other areas, but with respect to the view that the bible is not the final word, they are correct.

But let’s place that in context…
Luther had a few things right as well.
In the end, getting a few things right does not mean much when compared to the church that has all things (Matters of faith and morals) right.