Why do Catholics believe Mary is a "virgin"?

[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

I don’t understand how anyone can read Mary’s response of {HOW CAN THIS BE}, and claim, she was not vowed as a virgin for life. Luke 1: 36.

Birds and Bees come to mind.

God Bless

 

[rbarcia]

‘Other’? Are you now saying ‘brothers’ was disciples?

Look, if there had been brothers, the responsibility of caring for the mother would have fell on them, under the law of Moses.

No, not saying the apostles were brothers. I think you know what I am implying. So what that his brothers were not there, neither were 10 of the disciples. And in John 7 we see that they did not believe in Him. The fact of using Jewish law does not help because even if they were “cousins” or “Step-brothers” from Joseph’s previous they would still be bound to care for Mary in the absence of her not having anymore children. And those “brothers” even if they were cousins would still have a Jewish obligation to care for Mary. And since those brothers that Catholics say were cousins were with Mary on many occasions, then we could expect that.

Can you point me to the old testament Jewish law that required this by the way?

It was as simple as this.
Jesus seeing Mary (whose soul is being pierced at the sight of her son dying) and John at the cross, was being a loving Son entrusting His mother to the disciple whom Jesus loved. His brothers were unbelievers at the time. Later in Acts, we learn that they came to Christ.

There is no mystical assigning of Mary to all believers, nor does this prove that Jesus did not have brothers.

 

[rbarcia]

I realize that however, the responsibility would have still fallen to the ‘brothers’ in the eyes of the Jews. The Apostles eventually came out of ‘hiding’, as it were. And it appears the Protestants want to use scriptures as if His ‘brothers’ denied Him.

Those that persecuted Christ and handed Him over to be crucified were Jews and they went by the law of Moses.

The brothers did not believe in Him in the book of John, that much is clear.

John 7:5 For even His brothers did not believe in Him.

But they believed in Him after. So they came around as well.

Acts 1
13 And when they had entered, they went up into the upper room where they were staying: Peter, James, John, and Andrew; Philip and Thomas; Bartholomew and Matthew; James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot; and Judas the son of James. 14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.

So Mary lived with John, maybe the brothers were too young as Mary seemed to still be with them.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

No, not saying the apostles were brothers. I think you know what I am implying. So what that his brothers were not there, neither were 10 of the disciples. And in John 7 we see that they did not believe in Him. The fact of using Jewish law does not help because even if they were “cousins” or “Step-brothers” from Joseph’s previous they would still be bound to care for Mary in the absence of her not having anymore children. And those “brothers” even if they were cousins would still have a Jewish obligation to care for Mary. And since those brothers that Catholics say were cousins were with Mary on many occasions, then we could expect that.

Can you point me to the old testament Jewish law that required this by the way?

It was as simple as this.
Jesus seeing Mary (whose soul is being pierced at the sight of her son dying) and John at the cross, was being a loving Son entrusting His mother to the disciple whom Jesus loved. His brothers were unbelievers at the time. Later in Acts, we learn that they came to Christ.

There is no mystical assigning of Mary to all believers, nor does this prove that Jesus did not have brothers.

Would it have been honoring thy mother to not care for her?

If, as you say, they were non-believers, there would have been nothing to fear at His crucifixion. Which also brings to mind, Mary, His mother was there. Why would any other family members have left her alone at that time? Again, would that have been ‘honoring thy mother’?

 

[GaryTaylor]

The place assigned by God to the Blessed Mother has bought millions of followers to Christ.

Regardless how one might feel there interpretaion of scripture may be correct, The simple facts cannot be denied.

Anything contrary to this in this deperate period does not help serve the greater good. It has a negative effect on the followers of Christianty.

What areas in Christianity are thriving? How is it happening? Its does little to deny Truth when the mountain of evidence is staring us in the face.

I’m tired and will have to get back to you on scripture verse and the reality of the Blessed Mother through the centuries. I shall get back to you tommorrow.

God Bless, Gary

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The brothers did not believe in Him in the book of John, that much is clear.

John 7:5 For even His brothers did not believe in Him.

But they believed in Him after. So they came around as well.

Acts 1
13 And when they had entered, they went up into the upper room where they were staying: Peter, James, John, and Andrew; Philip and Thomas; Bartholomew and Matthew; James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot; and Judas the son of James. 14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.

So Mary lived with John, maybe the brothers were too young as Mary seemed to still be with them.

Maybe? Why is acceptable to ‘speculate’ that?

 

[rbarcia]

Would it have been honoring thy mother to not care for her?

If, as you say, they were non-believers, there would have been nothing to fear at His crucifixion. Which also brings to mind, Mary, His mother was there. Why would any other family members have left her alone at that time? Again, would that have been ‘honoring thy mother’?

Are you saying every Jew kept the law? So Jesus’s brothers, who did not believe in Him the same book of John could not have possibly skipped out because they were Jewish

We know they were unbelievers, so I can already gather something about their character.
**John 7:5 For even His brothers did not believe in Him.
**

I think there were Jews of that day did not honor their parents. Even the Pharisees dishonored their parents.

Matthew 15

3 He answered and said to them, “Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? 4 For God commanded, saying, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’ 5 But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to God”— 6 then he need not honor his father or mother.’ Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition. 7 Hypocrites!

I think the fact that they were not there, did not believe in Jesus, etc… shows why Jesus entrusted Mary to John. (Or John took her into his home after Jesus said there is your mother).

We also know they later believed after the Resurrection. Perhaps John, one of the apostles who spoke so much about love in his Epistles cared for Mary and her children who were younger.

Acts 1

13 And when they had entered, they went up into the upper room where they were staying: Peter, James, John, and Andrew; Philip and Thomas; Bartholomew and Matthew; James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot; and Judas the son of James. 14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Are you saying every Jew kept the law? So Jesus’s brothers, who did not believe in Him the same book of John could not have possibly skipped out because they were Jewish

We know they were unbelievers, so I can already gather something about their character.
**John 7:5 For even His brothers did not believe in Him.
**

I think there were Jews of that day did not honor their parents. Even the Pharisees dishonored their parents.

Matthew 15

3 He answered and said to them, “Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? 4 For God commanded, saying, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’ 5 But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to God”— 6 then he need not honor his father or mother.’ Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition. 7 Hypocrites!

I think the fact that they were not there, did not believe in Jesus, etc… shows why Jesus entrusted Mary to John. (Or John took her into his home after Jesus said there is your mother).

We also know they later believed after the Resurrection. Perhaps John, one of the apostles who spoke so much about love in his Epistles cared for Mary and her children who were younger.

Acts 1

13 And when they had entered, they went up into the upper room where they were staying: Peter, James, John, and Andrew; Philip and Thomas; Bartholomew and Matthew; James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot; and Judas the son of James. 14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.

The early Church fathers, and even the original reformers, believed in the perpetual virginity. You’ve seen all the argument, repeatedly here, yet you keep beating the drum. Why?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Sigh. Rbarcia, you keep on bolding ‘brothers’ as though that magically assures us that they WERE ‘brothers’. . .and not just that, ‘uterine’ brothers, meaning that they were children of Mary and Joseph. . .when you have absolutely no proof whatsoever from Scripture or from any contemporary oral tradition, no teaching from any Christian theologian that Jesus had uterine brothers (in fact, a lot of teaching otherwise). . .

Even the very first protestant leaders like Luther and Calvin believed that Mary was a PERPETUAL VIRGIN. As such, these VERY FIRST PROTESTANT LEADERS did not believe that ‘brothers of Jesus’ were 'children of Mary and Joseph.'

**What makes you feel you know a ‘different truth’ than the first protestant leaders and all Christians from AD 33 to AD1600 plus knew?. . .a different truth than all the Catholics and the Orthodox from AD 1600 to today? **

**Where did you get that truth since it wasn’t a truth found in Scripture or in Christian teaching? **

 

[rbarcia]

John quotes Psalm 69 in Reference to Jesus, 2 other times.

John 2:17
His disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal for your house will consume me.”

John 15:25
25But the word that is written in their Law must be fulfilled: ‘They hated me without a cause.’

It is clear then that Psalm 69 is a prophecy about Jesus. I color match those prophecy. The scripture in between states my mother’s son

4 More in number than the hairs of my head
are those who hate me without cause;
mighty are those who would destroy me,
those who attack me with lies.
What I did not steal
must I now restore?
5O God, you know my folly;
the wrongs I have done are not hidden from you.

6Let not those who hope in you be put to shame through me,
O Lord GOD of hosts;
let not those who seek you be brought to dishonor through me,
O God of Israel.
7For it is for your sake that I have borne reproach,
that dishonor has covered my face.
8I have become a stranger to my brothers,
an alien to my mother’s sons.
9For zeal for your house has consumed me,
and the reproaches of those who reproach you have fallen on me.

(I am sure though a devote catholic will say I am not authoritative, and verse 8 is not about Jesus, just the ones around it) .

John 7:5
For not even his brothers believed in him.

Can be seen as fulfilling verse 8.

 

[rbarcia]

Sigh. Rbarcia, you keep on bolding ‘brothers’ as though that magically assures us that they WERE ‘brothers’. . .and not just that, ‘uterine’ brothers, meaning that they were children of Mary and Joseph. . .when you have absolutely no proof whatsoever from Scripture or from any contemporary oral tradition, no teaching from any Christian theologian that Jesus had uterine brothers (in fact, a lot of teaching otherwise). . .

Even the very first protestant leaders like Luther and Calvin believed that Mary was a PERPETUAL VIRGIN. As such, these VERY FIRST PROTESTANT LEADERS did not believe that ‘brothers of Jesus’ were ‘children of Mary and Joseph.’

**What makes you feel you know a ‘different truth’ than the first protestant leaders and all Christians from AD 33 to AD1600 plus knew?. . .a different truth than all the Catholics and the Orthodox from AD 1600 to today? **

**Where did you get that truth since it wasn’t a truth found in Scripture or in Christian teaching? **

You cannot say that for the first 1600 years of the church, that this was just an accepted truth. The perpetual virginity, the previous marriage of Joseph or concomitant fables are not even mentioned or hinted by Clemens Romanus, Barnabas, Ignatius, or Polycarp. It is entirely absent in the Shepherd of Hermas where there are placed in the book where it would have helped. In the second century, there is not even a hint of it from Justin Martyr. It is not till the third century till you get this start to leak in.

 

[Nicea325]

You cannot say that for the first 1600 years of the church, that this was just an accepted truth. The perpetual virginity, the previous marriage of Joseph or concomitant fables are not even mentioned or hinted by Clemens Romanus, Barnabas, Ignatius, or Polycarp. It is entirely absent in the Shepherd of Hermas where there are placed in the book where it would have helped. In the second century, there is not even a hint of it from Justin Martyr. It is not till the third century till you get this start to leak in.

No where does Scripture state Mary had other children…NO WHERE! You merely assume she did based on the term brothers? Pure conjecture! This issue has been rebuked a billion times. Show me one writing outside the NT by an early Christian teaching Mary without a doubt had other children?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

G80
ἀδελφός
adelphos
ad-el-fos’
From G1 (as a connective particle) and δελφύς delphus (the womb); a brother (literally or figuratively) near or remote (much like [H1]): - brother.

H1
אב
'âb
awb
A primitive word; father in a literal and immediate, or figurative and remote application: - chief, (fore-) father (-less]), X patrimony, principal. Compare names in “Abi-”

Here are some of the founders of refom commenting on Mary:

Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.

{Luther’s Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.22:23 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }

Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.

{Pelikan, ibid., v.22:214-15 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }

  A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ . . .

{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:199 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }

  Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . .

  When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.

{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:206,212-3 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }

Editor Jaroslav Pelikan (Lutheran) adds:

  Luther . . . does not even consider the possibility that Mary might have had other children than Jesus. This is consistent with his lifelong acceptance of the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary.

{Pelikan, ibid.,v.22:214-5}

". . . she is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin. . . . God's grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. . . . God is with her, meaning that all she did or left undone is divine and the action of God in her. Moreover, God guarded and protected her from all that might be hurtful to her."
Ref: Luther's Works, American edition, vol. 43, p. 40, ed. H. Lehmann, Fortress, 1968

". . . she is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God. . . . it is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God."
Ref: Sermon on John 14. 16: Luther's Works (St. Louis, ed. Jaroslav, Pelican, Concordia. vol. 24. p. 107)

"Christ our Savior was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb. . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that."
(REf: On the Gospel of St. John: Luther's Works, vol. 22. p. 23, ed. Jaroslav Pelican, Concordia, 1957)

"Men have crowded all her glory into a single phrase: The Mother of God. No one can say anything greater of her, though he had as many tongues as there are leaves on the trees." (From the Commentary on the Magnificat.)

Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531), who wrote:

I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin. (Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, v. 1, p. 424.)

1. The Bible frequently speaks of the “brothers” and “sisters” of Jesus.

First it is important to note that the Bible does not say that these “brothers and sisters” of Jesus were children of Mary.

Second, the word for brother (or sister), adelphos (adelpha) in Greek, denotes a brother or sister, or near kinsman. Aramaic and other semitic languages could not distinguish between a blood brother or sister and a cousin, for example. Hence, John the Baptist, a cousin of Jesus (the son of Elizabeth, cousin of Mary) would be called “a brother (adelphos) of Jesus.” In the plural, the word means a community based on identity of origin or life. Additionally, the word adelphos is used for (1) male children of the same parents (Mt 1:2); (2) male descendants of the same parents (Acts 7:23); (3) male children of the same mother (Gal 1:19); (4) people of the same nationality (Acts 3:17); (5) any man, a neighbor (Lk 10:29); (6) persons united by a common interest (Mt 5:47); (7) persons united by a common calling (Rev 22:9); (8) mankind (Mt 25:40); (9) the disciples (Mt 23:8); and (10) believers (Mt 23:8). (From Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Thomas Nelson, Publisher.)

 

[Nicea325]

Are you saying every Jew kept the law? So Jesus’s brothers, who did not believe in Him the same book of John could not have possibly skipped out because they were Jewish

We know they were unbelievers, so I can already gather something about their character.
John 7:5 For even His brothers did not believe in Him.

And if Jesus had other brothers, I am curious why he does not mention to his mother who would take care of her? Instead he tells John the Apostle? I thought Jesus was an orthodox Jew?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The Early Church Fathers believed that Mary remained a virgin her entire life

Origen

The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first fruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first fruit of virginity (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).

Hilary of Poitiers

If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, “Woman, behold your son,” and to John, “Behold your mother” [John 19:26-27], as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate (Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354]).

Athanasius

Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that He took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary (Discourses against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).

Epiphanius

We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit (The Man Well-Anchored 120 [A.D. 374]).

Jerome

But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proven from the gospel—that he [Victorinus] spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship, not by nature. (Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 19 [A.D. 383]).

 

[rbarcia]

The early Church fathers, and even the original reformers, believed in the perpetual virginity. You’ve seen all the argument, repeatedly here, yet you keep beating the drum. Why?

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.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

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.

If you’re looking for every single successive Church father to specifically mention everything to your satisfaction, then what will you have left to believe in? In the very early Church somethings were ‘taken for granted’, for a lack of better words, that everyone knew and believed. Somethings were entered in officially when beliefs became endangered to error.

Look at the Protestant view of Mary’s perpetual virginity. That has changed dramatically since the 1500s. Why did they have it wrong and it took years later to get it right?

 

[rbarcia]

If you’re looking for every single successive Church father to specifically mention everything to your satisfaction, then what will you have left to believe in? In the very early Church somethings were ‘taken for granted’, for a lack of better words, that everyone knew and believed. Somethings were entered in officially when beliefs became endangered to error.

Look at the Protestant view of Mary’s perpetual virginity. That has changed dramatically since the 1500s. Why did they have it wrong and it took years later to get it right?

You cannot say the teaching of perpetual virginity was taken for granted and everyone in the first 2 centuries believed that.

And I don’t hold Luther to be infallible.

 

[1voice]

If it is banned, then why does a Catholic website have it? Or why would CA cite it.

I realize that the document is being used as a valid source. That does not mean anything. The net is full of stuff that has no validity. If you want to reject the Papal document in favor of the one you agree with … congratulations … You’re a Protestant.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You cannot say the teaching of perpetual virginity was taken for granted and everyone in the first 2 centuries believed that.

And I don’t hold Luther to be infallible.

I didn’t say ‘everyone’ in the first 2 centuries believed that. In fact, that’s one reason it was probably written about later on. We know, even in the Churches in scriptures, many corrections were written to the Churches.

I didn’t say he was infallible, but he was the original reformer who broke away from the Catholic Church. That being said, I understand that ‘Protestants’ continued to splinter in many different directions. Now, through a few hundred years of splintering, we have many Churches who do not agree on doctrines. This means some are not following the correct doctrines.

Paul wrote many letters about dissension, dividers and being of the same mind and judgment. He even wrote about the dangers of ‘many’ doctrines.

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

Now, if the early Church fathers believed, up to and including the early reformers, why did the correct doctrines appear later, leaving generation after generation having followed an incorrect doctrine? Christ said He wouldn’t leave His as orphans, that He would send them the Spirit of Truth, and He would be with us until the consummation of the world. I don’t see any gaps in what He promised.

With the keys to the kingdom of heaven and the power to bind and loose, He gave full authority to His Church. Nowhere does scriptures tell us we were to figure it out for ourselves.