Why do Catholics believe Mary is a "virgin"?

[elvisman]

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.

These “brothers” are actually named in Matthew and Mark’s Gospels:
Matt. 27:56 says, "…among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee".**
Mark 15:40 states, "There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome").
Finally,John 19:25 states, "But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene".

**This “other Mary” was probably Mary’s (Jesus’s Mother) cousin - not sister. the Greek word used here is Adelphe, which means sister, cousin, kinswoman, fellow countrywoman, neighbor, etc. It is highly unlikely that Mary had a uterine sister whose name was also Mary. This goes against Jewish custom. **

Besides, according to John’s Gospel, this other Mary is the wife of Clopas (also called Alphaeus).
This would make the “brethren” of Jesus his cousins** - probably 2nd cousins, actually.**

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

Ummm . . . actually, it doesn’t say that Mary and Elizabeth were cousins. the Greek word used here is Suggenes, which means:

1) of the same kin, akin to, related by blood
2) in a wider sense, of the same nation, a fellow countryman

---

John the Baptist could have been a 2nd uncle or 3rd nephew to to Jesus for all we know.

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.

That is a complete and total cop-out.

You keep stating that the Scriptures can prove Mary didn’t remain a virgin but you cannot prove that she had other children.
The evidence, as I have shown above, actually bolsters the position that she DID remain a virgin - rendering your “proof” null and void.

Nice try.

 

[elvisman]

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.

**This entire Psalm - as many of them do - employs polyvalent symbolism (sorry for the big word). **It simply means that there are multiple symbols for different things. His mother in this passage is talking about Israel - not Mary. A rudimentary look into linguistics and plain logic will tell you this:
**Psalm 69:8
**"I have become a stranger to my brothers, an alien to my mother’s sons."

In the literal sense, his brothers and his mothers sons would be the same group of people. However, this is not the case because it would render this Psalm redundant and silly.

His brothers are his "Ach", which means brother, cousin, kinsman, neighbor, etc. ANY blood relation.
His mother’s sons are the Israelites - the Jews, to whom he is an alien, an outcast.

So much for your Biblical “proof” of Mary’s other children.

 

[elvisman]

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.

See my post #81.

 

[ConstantineTG]

No takers on my offer?

Again, asking those who are adamant on the position that Mary is not an ever-virgin. Why? How does it affect YOUR faith that Mary is an ever-virgin or not?

 

[Alexander_Roman]

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 are a good sport! (I was trying to have some fun with you!)

The Catholic Church teaches no differently than the NT. The Eastern Churches refer to St James as the “Brother of God.”

Scripture does not contradict Catholic/Orthodox/Lutheran/Anglican/early Calvinist teaching on her Ever-Virginity. It is just that the Christian community has always believed it, from the Apostles. Where does it say that Scripture is the ONLY source of facts about the early Church? Where does it say that the Church is not important in the life of the Christian?

Alex

 

[Brendan]

The Bible mentions Jesus has brothers, and mentions them by name.

The word “Brother” in Scripture does not necessarily mean biological brother, but also friends or other close relatives

For example

For example, St. Paul used it in his letter to the Galacians.

Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles, save for James, the Lord’s brother.

Gal 1:18-19

There were only two Apostles named ‘James’; one was the son of Alphaeus, the other was the son of Zebedee.

James, the Son of Zebedee had already sufferd martyrdom.

So that leaves us the James, the son of Alpheus.

Is it your opinion then, that Mary born James via an adulterous relationship??

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Yes, you are more than correct.

But I am taking what our Christian brother here is saying as an indication of too much mainstream cultural background!

What he needs is to be exposed to other cultures and languages! In short, he needs to be taken out for some spicy food!

When he has had a few multicultural “nights out,” then he will be able to see the Bible in its true cultural context.

Otherwise, I’m sorry to say he may be doomed to continue to experience the New Testament as an expression of North American mainstream boredom!!

The same goes for a number of my Evangelical friends.

But you should all remember - there is hope. But the first thing is to take our friend out for Ethiopian or Indian, for starters.

Scriptural study and theology can’t solve everything, you know . . .

Alex

 

[Randb]

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 don’t know anything about this guy named James, except he is referenced as his brother. The evidence is starting to become overwhelming at this point.

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.

Back to John, we read: Jesus’ brothers said to him, “Leave Galilee and go to Judea, so that your disciples there may see the works you do. No one who wants to become a public figure acts in secret. Since you are doing these things, show yourself to the world.” For even his own brothers did not believe in him. – John 7:6-9 We again see the disciples distinct from the brothers. The disciples are for Jesus, and the brothers at this point in his life are mocking him. Jesus’ brothers were not believers at this point in their lives and are basically telling him to put your money where your mouth is. the point you made earlier is that brothers are within the body of believers and I said I had no problem with that. Here Jesus’ real brothers are not only not believers, but they are mocking him and basically telling him to go down to Judea since he says he is the son of Man. Only later on did his brothers believe, and two of them wrote epistles in the New Testament.

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!

So if you are saying the Bible should be taken literally what about when Jesus said ‘This is My Body , This is My Blood’?? Why is this only a symbol???

 

[SonCatcher]

All great questions sir!

Then how about you provide answers for the rest of them? Even the ones based on premises you don’t agree with. It is an exercise in critical thinking (pretend I’m your prof in college or something, okay)

If you will not answer all of them, at least answer the last.

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.

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?

BTW - we are not saved by “believing” but by the Cross of Christ. That is not a “minor” thing. All our belief, like any other work, comes from the grace God gives through Christ’s redemptive work.

 

[elvisman]

No takers on my offer?

Again, asking those who are adamant on the position that Mary is not an ever-virgin. Why? How does it affect YOUR faith that Mary is an ever-virgin or not?

One BIG reason that it is so important that Mary remain undefiled is because she is the fulfillment of the OT Ark of the Covenant. The OT Ark carried symbols of God – Mary carried the REAL thing.

---

She is the Ark of the New Covenant. That is simply a fact that cannot be refuted because Jesus IS the New Covenant and she was the vessel that carried him. Just as the OT Ark was to be undefiled by human hands under penalty of death (as in the case of Uzzah - 2 Sam. 6:7) – so Mary was to remain untouched by man.

---

Another reason is the prophecy of her in Ezek. 44:2 -
He said to me: This gate is to remain closed; it is not to be opened for anyone to enter by it; since the LORD, the God of Israel, has entered by it, it shall remain closed.

---

NT fulfillments are always more glorious and perfect than their OT types. This is always the case – without fail:
Adam** & Jesus
Eve & Mary
Moses & Jesus
Manna & Jesus (the Bread of Life)**
Joseph & Jesus
Jonah & Jesus
The Paschal Lamb and Jesus
David & Jesus
Ark of the Covenant & Mary**

---

Non-Catholics are fond of saying that it doesn’t matter if Jesus had uterine siblings. They say that Jesus could have been born from anybody and still been the Messiah - he could have even been born of a harlot.

---

Yes, Jesus could have had uterine siblings. He could have been born of a harlot. BUT in order to fulfill all righteousness, his coming had to be more glorious than the Old Testament type. He chose Mary out of ALL of the women in history to be his mother.

 

[JackVk]

Mary is the New Ark of the New Covenant. Remember the first Ark of the Covenant? If any random schmo touched it, he would die. In the same way, Mary had to have been a virgin, or else there would be no reason to honor her.

 

[Erich]

The Bible mentions only four brothers of Jesus… and not a single one of them is a son of Mary (much less a son of Mary and Joseph).

Guess you didn’t follow/read the link in my earlier post. Scripture shows that James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude are not, to use your term, “true brothers” of Jesus.

Actually – as you’ll see when you follow/read the link in my earlier post – looking at the evidence, there really isn’t an argument for Jesus having literal brothers.

Do your homework before criticizing what really happened. … Good luck in your studies.

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.

Talk about leading a horse to water! Looks like I need to do your homework for you. From the referenced link:

There are only four brethren of Jesus named in the Gospels:

**Matthew 13:55 ** “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?”

**Mark 6:2-3 ** - “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?”

Let’s begin with James. There are two men named James among the disciples. One, of course, is the brother of John and the son of Zebedee. This cannot be him then. So, this is the other James, called in Scripture James the less: Mark 15:40: “There were also women looking on afar off: among whom were Mary Magdalene, and ** Mary the mother of James the less, and of Joseph,** and Salome.” (emphasis added)
So James is indeed the son of a woman named Mary. Not only that, but Joseph is his brother. That’s two of the four, right? Then, in Matthew, reciting the names of the twelve: Matt 10:3: “…'James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddeus.” (emphasis added)
This too is talking of James the less, as the other James, son of Zebedee, is spoken of in the previous verse. It is NOT a trick or really that hard! * Alphaeus* is this James’ father, not Joseph, the husband of Mary, mother of the Lord.

Now go to John also speaking of those witnessing the Crucifixion: John 19:25: “Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother (Mary) and His mothers sister, *** Mary the wife of Cleophas***, and * Mary Magdalene*.” (emphasis added)
Look up John 19:25 at blueletterbible.org/ and click the ‘C’ icon (for the Strong’s Concordance), then click the Strong’s number for the name Cleophas. It comes up “father of James the less, the husband of Mary the sister of the mother of Jesus.”

Did you get that? That Mary, who was the mother of James the less, and of Joseph, from Mark 15:40, is the wife of Cleophas, the father of James the less, and she is called the ‘sister’ of Our Lord’s mother - Mary!

So, two of the four ‘brothers’ have been identified as the children of parents other than Joseph and the Virgin Mary. Of the brothers named, that still leaves Jude and Simon. Next, Jude: Acts 1:13 ** "…James, the son of Alphaeus , and Simon Zelo’tes, and ** Jude the brother of James…" (emphasis added)
There goes Jude out of the mix! *** Matter of fact, Jude says the same in his own epistle: Jude 1:1 "Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ *** and brother of James…" (emphasis added)
Lastly, Simon. Simon, called the Zealot, is identified as coming from Cana, not Nazareth as were Joseph, Mary and the Christ! Luke 6:15 "and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and ** Simon who was called the Zealot," (emphasis added)

Mark 3:18 “Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and ** Simon the Cananaean**…” (emphasis added)

Matt 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene. (emphasis added)
Simon is a Cananean, while Jesus is a Nazarene!

We see that Simon the Zealot being from Cana, and a ‘brethren’ or ‘brother’ of the Christ. Let’s go to John’s Gospel, chapter 2. Mary and Our Lord are invited to a wedding there. So, close business associates, maybe, of Joseph from the carpentry trade, or more likely - family, or brethren, relatives, are having this wedding. Like, maybe the Holy Family had actual kinfolk in Cana, be they cousins, in-laws, nephews, aunts, uncles, all of which are routinely called ‘brethren’.

Remember what Mary said to the servants? She told them to ‘Do as He says.’

Think about that a second? What would give this humble woman from Nazareth any position to so speak to the servants of someone else in an entirely different town, at their wedding? The simplest and most easily understood answer would be – she is a family relation to those giving the wedding feast…

So Simon is from Cana, and a ‘brother’ of the Lord! He’s not a sibling though, but very likely related. And James, Joseph and Jude all have the same father and mother, and it is not Joseph and the Virgin Mary, but their mother is named Mary and called the sister of Jesus’ mother Mary. Even here ‘sister’ may not mean blood sibling, or we have two sisters with the same name in the same family.​

 

[Erich]

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.

My previous post was “based on the exegetical principle that any interpretation of Scripture must be done in harmony with all the other Scripture that speaks to that subject. In others words, it is ALL true. We have four Gospels, and one of the manifest blessings of that is that we can compare them, as small things in one or two can and do clarify for us what is in another. That is, of times, called Scripture interpreting Scripture” (as you would have seen had you followed the link I provided in post #12 on this thread).

 

[ConstantineTG]

One BIG reason that it is so important that Mary remain undefiled is because she is the fulfillment of the OT Ark of the Covenant. The OT Ark carried symbols of God – Mary carried the REAL thing.

---

She is the Ark of the New Covenant. That is simply a fact that cannot be refuted because Jesus IS the New Covenant and she was the vessel that carried him. Just as the OT Ark was to be undefiled by human hands under penalty of death (as in the case of Uzzah - 2 Sam. 6:7) – so Mary was to remain untouched by man.

---

Another reason is the prophecy of her in Ezek. 44:2 -
He said to me: This gate is to remain closed; it is not to be opened for anyone to enter by it; since the LORD, the God of Israel, has entered by it, it shall remain closed.

---

NT fulfillments are always more glorious and perfect than their OT types. This is always the case – without fail:
Adam** & Jesus
**Eve & Mary
Moses & Jesus
Manna & Jesus (the Bread of Life)
***Joseph *& Jesus
Jonah & Jesus
The Paschal Lamb and Jesus
David & Jesus
**Ark of the Covenant & Mary

---

Non-Catholics are fond of saying that it doesn’t matter if Jesus had uterine siblings. They say that Jesus could have been born from anybody and still been the Messiah - he could have even been born of a harlot.

---

Yes, Jesus could have had uterine siblings. He could have been born of a harlot. BUT in order to fulfill all righteousness, his coming had to be more glorious than the Old Testament type. He chose Mary out of ALL of the women in history to be his mother.

Thanks for the effort. But I am asking those who keep insisting that Mary is not an ever-Virgin. I want to know why they are so insistant? I have never heard of any Christian denomination have a doctrine or belief revolving around Mary having children after Christ. So I want to know why they need to keep pushing that idea around. My opinion is they just want to try to prove us Catholics wrong for self validation.

 

[Erich]

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?

Source, please. You’re the one making the conjecture.

Joseph is not mentioned as being present at the Wedding at Cana at the beginning of Jesus’ mission, nor at the Passion at the end. If he had been present at the Crucifixion, he would under Jewish custom have been expected to take charge of Jesus’ body, but this role is instead performed by Joseph of Arimathea. Nor would Jesus have entrusted His mother to John’s care had His father been alive (indeed, He would not have been in a position to do so).

 

[Erich]

Acts 1:15 (NASB) – “During those days Peter stood up in the midst of the brothers (there was a group of about one hundred and twenty persons in the one place).”

That would not be Mary Ever-Virgin, that would be Mary Ever-Pregnant.

 

[SonCatcher]

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.

You use “non-denominational” as though the phrase meant “unbiased” or “neutral.”

Actually, most “non-denominationalists” that I have known were so close to Southern Baptist in theology as to be indistinguishable (the rest were either Pentecostal or blended Pentecostal and Southern Baptist teaching). I’m not sure where the reference is now, but Saddleback Church (Rick Warren’s “non-denominational” megachurch in Southern CA) at least at one time explicitly claimed full agreement with Southern Baptist doctrine.

You, therefore, set a dual standard. You interpret scripture under the guidance of “non-denominationalists” and you expect us to interpret scripture without the guidance of the Magesterium.

 

[SonCatcher]

Thanks for the effort. But I am asking those who keep insisting that Mary is not an ever-Virgin. I want to know why they are so insistant? I have never heard of any Christian denomination have a doctrine or belief revolving around Mary having children after Christ. So I want to know why they need to keep pushing that idea around. My opinion is they just want to try to prove us Catholics wrong for self validation.

The only coherent response I have ever been given is concern that Mary may be the object of greater devotion than that which is her due (i.e. latria).

Certainly, we Catholics do not give Mary that worship which is due to God alone.

We honor her in keeping with the scripture
[BIBLEDRB]Romans 13:7[/BIBLEDRB]as Mary herself prophesied[BIBLEDRB]Luke 1:48[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[WhoDatChristian]

Well gentlemen. It seems like many of you are just going to insist that your priests are correct despite what the Bible says. These of course are the same guys who believe they cannot get married, which is also not scriptural. Jesus is the rock, not Peter and Peter had a wife or ex-wife, since he had a mother in law, but I’m only providing what scripture says.

The Bible is very clear but through the scriptures and through prophecy over and over again they he had literal brothers and sisters. If your priests want to try and make the argument that she didn’t then examine the evidence. It says nowhere in scripture she was a virgin, yet scripture says in many spots Jesus had brothers, and NAMED them. It also says Jesus had a relative or cousin by the name of John.

Looking at that with an open mind, and putting the Bible first above anything else, you too if you don’t let your pride get in the way will too make that conclusion. Again, it doesn’t mean you are not saved or going to heaven along with me, but simply says you are being swindled. Instead of being loyal to the works of Catholicism, how about being loyal to the grace of Christanity? And finally, we are saved on grace alone.

I’ll see you boys in heaven!

 

[elvisman]

Acts 1:15 (NASB) – “During those days Peter stood up in the midst of the brothers (there was a group of about one hundred and twenty persons in the one place).”

That would not be Mary Ever-Virgin, that would be Mary Ever-Pregnant.