Why would Mary remain a virgin...after marriage?

[Porknpie]

Even though there is ZERO Scriptural support for it,

Well that’s not true is it. What you have to show is that the teaching of the Church CONFLICTS with scripture for Tradition in this area is clear. Scripture quotes below are supportive of Mary not having children after Jesus.

Luke 2:41-51 - when searching for Jesus and finding Him in the temple, there is no mention of his other siblings.

John 19:26-27 - in giving Mary to John on the cross, Jesus would have committed an unthinkable act and would have been a horrible Jew for giving Mary to John and not his brothers.

Tradition is so strong in this area - and clearly does not conflict with scripture -, that the major reformers strongly attested to her virginity. Examples below.

Luther
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)

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)

Zwingli
**I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonourable, impious, unworthy or evil **. . . I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity.G. R. Potter, Zwingli, London: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1976, pp.88-9,395 / The Perpetual Virginity of Mary . . ., Sep. 17, 1522.

Calvin
Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s ‘brothers’ are sometimes mentioned. Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), vol. 2 / From Calvin’s Commentaries, tr. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55

He is called ‘first-born’; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation. (same source as above)

 

[Porknpie]

Who wrote Hebrews?

And what prophecy does 3 John fulfill?

And what do you mean by “inerrancy”? Doesn’t that mean you already have to know the Truth, the gospel, to know whether the text is correct or inerrant?

And weren’t the Epistles of Clement written by a contemporary?

Have you read all of the other over 400 early Christian manuscripts to determine whether they have any of the (rather arbitrary) criteria you have set up for discerning whether they are theopneustos? No? You haven’t? Well, then, that means you accept the authority of the CC which declared for you and me that they are not canonical.

Not to put words in his mouth, but he appears to be deferring to the authority of Athanasius, a Catholic Bishop of Alexandria, who is has been both declared a Saint and Doctor of the Church. While he was the first to list the NT canon as we have it today, all 27 books, there was yet no bible, no affirmed canon of both the NT and OT used by the Church. Then there is the WHOLE issue of the OT canon. The same Church that affirmed 27 books of the NT, at the same time, or nearly, affirmed 46 books of the OT.

Interesting that this Church, Catholic of One Faith, used these readings at Mass - with the universal belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The latter was consistently believed, through out the world, hundreds of years before the canon of scripture was affirmed. Consistent with John 6, we can read the words of St. Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of St. John.

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).

So one can believe and trust The Church was led infallibly on the canon of scripture (as Christ promises to guide his Church to all truth), but not trust the same Church & the same promise of Christ, on the perpetual virginity of Mary.

I do wonder if he regards and honors Mary as “blessed” as scripture says all generations will do. If so, how?

 

[Randy_Carson]

No I accept Peter’s affirmation that all of Paul’s epistles are Inspired Scripture. Remember, I’m Protestant, not Catholic. So, I don’t recognize Peter as the first pope, otherwise I’d be Catholic. I respect that you do as a Catholic, but since I don’t, please don’t say “you accept the Pope’s declaration” when I don’t recognize Peter that way. Fair enough?

What these other epistles & other Gospels have in common with the epistles of Peter, the Gospel of Luke & Acts that make them God-breathed Scripture as well, is that like them, they “also” have the attributes of God (inerrancy, lack of contradictions, fulfilled prophecies, written by a recognized disciple of Christ - or contemporary - like Mark’s Gospel → the words of Peter). You don’t find this in any other writing.

They were Inspired the moment they were written - not simply because their Inspiration was “recognized” centuries later in a committee. BTW, Revelation is self-authoritative, since it’s a revelation from Jesus Christ Himself.

The Protestant recognizes the Biblical canon as the Inspired Word of God, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, because he recognizes these godly attributes when he reads Scripture, which he doesn’t see in other literature or “religious” writing.

But it’s all a moot point, since we both recognize the NT as Inspired Scripture, which supports that Mary didn’t “remain” a virgin, since not only is there Scriptural evidence for that, but Scripture actually supports the opposite.

You’re reading the words well enough, but clearly, you don’t really understand what the author was saying. Not a single verse of scripture says that beyond all doubt, Mary had other children. If you disagree, by all means, post the ONE verse that you think most clearly proves beyond all doubt that Mary was not ever-virgin. We’ll discuss it, and then move to your second favorite and so forth. Fair enough?

In the meantime, I note that you skipped my post #240, so I’ll repost a key part of it again:

Exactly how did the Early Church recognize the inspired books versus the “uninspired” books that were in circulation at the time? Paul warns:

2 Thessalonians 2:1-3
2 Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers and sisters, 2 not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter—asserting that the day of the Lord has already come.

What is Paul saying?

1. We see that false letters were circulating.
2. The Thessalonians were upset by them.
3. It was important to be on guard against the false teaching they contained.

But hold on, Theta…if the early Church ALREADY recognized true scripture “long before the councils in the fourth century”, why would there have been any confusion or alarm at all?

If the Councils of the Catholic Church were completely unnecessary, wouldn’t the early believers been able to discern for themselves which books were not theopneustos?

I mean, you can do this for yourself, right? You don’t need anyone to tell you what the canon is…do you?



Just so we all understand, exactly how did you personally determine that the 27 books that Zondervan Publishers put together in your NIV are actually inspired? Why not more books? Or less? is there something special about 3 John that caught your eye so that you knew beyond all doubt that it is unquestionably inspired by the Holy Spirit whereas Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians is not? 3 John never even mentions the name of Jesus, so you did well to recognize that one!

And if the Early Church could do this as well as you, why were the Thessalonians upset at all by letters which EVERYONE would clearly know were not genuine?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Most Catholics throughout church history, including Augustine, believe that the “brothers” of Jesus were older step-brothers from an alleged first marriage of Joseph. If this is true, then “how” could Joseph “live as a consecrated virgin” with Mary “if” he had sons from a previous marriage? If they were simply cousins (like Jerome disagreed with Augustine), then does mean that the majority of Catholics throughout church history, including Augustine & several popes, were wrong?

Possibly.

And this must drive you absolutely bonkers, but the fact is that the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is an infallibly defined dogma of the Church which faithful Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and many Protestants (including all the early Reformers themselves) accepted as fact.

Since Mary had two children, there are two theories as to why some people in scripture are called “brothers of the Lord”:

1. They were distant relatives referred to as “brothers” due to a limitation of the Aramaic language that molded the way that the authors of the NT thought, spoke and wrote even when they wrote in Greek.
2. They were children from Joseph’s first marriage.

So, you see, Theta, until very late in Church history (like only the past couple of hundred years of so) no one disputed Mary’s perpetual virginity; the only discussion has been about how and why she remained ever-virgin.

 

[boomerang]

So, you see, Theta, until very late in Church history (like only the past couple of hundred years of so) no one disputed Mary’s perpetual virginity; the only discussion has been about how and why she remained ever-virgin.

Randy, can you tell us, if you know, the timeline of the idea that Mary and Joseph had children together? I mean, who originated this notion and where? This obviously wasn’t part of the church’s history for at least 1600 years. Who came up with this? Thanks for all your informative posts. I learn a lot from them.

 

[cena]

.

Again, Scripture states that Jesus’ UNBELIEVING brothers were mocking Jesus (John 7:3-5). So, since they were UNbelieving, they wouldn’t be Jesus “believing” brothers, nor disciples. They wouldn’t be simply relatives, otherwise, John would have used the Greek word for “relative” (syggenes), like he did in John 18:26:

“One of the slaves of the high priest, being a relative (syggenes) of the one whose ear Peter cut off, said, ‘Did I not see you in the garden with Him?’”

They also wouldn’t be cousins, since both Luke & Paul uses different Greek words for “cousin” in their NT texts, which John could have also used:

“And behold, even your relative (cousin)(syggenis) Elizabeth has also conceived a son in her old age; and she who was called barren is now in her sixth month” (Luke 1:36)

“…Barnabas’s cousin (anepsios) Mark…” (Colossians 4:10)

Note: the Greek word John uses for “relative” (syggenes) has two “e’s” which is different than the Greek word Luke uses for “relative/cousin” (syggenis) which has an “i” which is why even Pope Francis refers on Vatican.va to Elizabeth more specifically as Mary’s “cousin” than merely just a “relative”:

w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/cotidie/2014/documents/papa-francesco-cotidie_20140916_when-god-visits.html

So, if these “brothers” were actually relatives or cousins, John would have used these available Greek words that he himself used elsewhere in his Gospel to describe “relatives,” as well as Luke & Paul who used these same Greek words for “cousins” or “relatives.”

John was the only faithful disciple at the cross. The rest were cowering behind locked doors demonstrating their lack of faith. Plus, John’s mother (Salome) was there, who was also Mary’s sister. Therefore, Mary was John’s aunt, as well as Jesus’ mother. So, again, Jesus didn’t just entrust Mary to His only faithful disciple, but also His cousin, as well spiritual “brother.”

Actually, it doesn’t. See above. Plus, the “cousin theory” was made popular by Jerome, who contradicted other ECF’s & theologians like Augustine who did believe in the “older step-brother” theory, which has absolutely zero Biblical support, which I’m glad you don’t believe in.

There isn’t a specific verse that states word-for-word “Mary had other children with Joseph.” However, when you examine ALL the related NT verses that talk about Jesus’ brothers & other family, Scripture does support that Mary had other children AFTER the birth of Jesus with her husband, Joseph. To do so otherwise, without any direct command from God, or an angel from Heaven, or an OT prophecy that explicitly states that the mother of the Messiah would “remain” a “perpetual” virgin, would be a violation of God’s command to married couples to be “fruitful & multiply” (Genesis 2:28). But, there is none, which is why Eusebius & earlier ECF’s & church historians affirm that Mary had children with her husband Joseph, which is also supported by Scripture.

Keep in mind, Jesus never states word-for-word “I am God.” But we know Jesus is God, because other passages, like John 1:1,14; John 8:58, cf. Exodus 3:14; etc make it clear that Jesus is indeed God, despite no word-for-word passages in Scripture stating that He is.

Jesus literally called himself I AM (YHWH) the Hebrew word for God, if Mary had a normal marriage, and the angel never indicated how soon in the future she would conceive, why would she question how it was going to be done? The angel just said she will conceive, why didn’t Mary think it would be in the distant future when she and Jospeh would consummate the marriage?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy, can you tell us, if you know, the timeline of the idea that Mary and Joseph had children together? I mean, who originated this notion and where? This obviously wasn’t part of the church’s history for at least 1600 years. Who came up with this? Thanks for all your informative posts. I learn a lot from them.

It’s not much, but this is all I have on this history:

Against Helvidius.
newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm

This tract appeared about AD 383. The question which gave occasion to it was whether the Mother of our Lord remained a Virgin after His birth. Helvidius maintained that the mention in the Gospels of the sisters and brethren of our Lord was proof that the Blessed Virgin had subsequent issue, and he supported his opinion by the writings of Tertullian and Victorinus. The outcome of his views was that virginity was ranked below matrimony. Jerome vigorously takes the other side, and tries to prove that the sisters and brethren spoken of, were either children of Joseph by a former marriage, or first cousins, children of the sister of the Virgin. A detailed account of the controversy will be found in Farrar’s Early Days of Christianity, pp. 124 sq. When Jerome wrote this treatise both he and Helvidius were at Rome, and Damasus was Pope. The only contemporary notice preserved of Helvidius is that by Jerome in the following pages.

Jerome maintains against Helvidius three propositions:—

1st. That Joseph was only putatively, not really, the husband of Mary.

2d. That the brethren of the Lord were his cousins, not his own brethren.

3d. That virginity is better than the married state.

1. The first of these occupies ch. 3-8. It turns upon the record in Matt. i. 18-25, and especially on the words, Before they came together (c. 4), knew her not till, etc. (5-8).
2. The second (c. 9-17) turns upon the words first-born son (9, 10), which, Jerome argues, are applicable not only to the eldest of several, but also to an only son: and the mention of brothers and sisters, whom Jerome asserts to have been children of Mary the wife of Cleophas or Clopas (11-16); he appeals to many Church writers in support of this view (17).
3. In support of his preference of virginity to marriage, Jerome argues that not only Mary but Joseph also remained in the virgin state (19); that, though marriage may sometimes be a holy estate, it presents great hindrances to prayer (20), and the teaching of Scripture is that the states of virginity and continency are more accordant with God’s will than that of marriage (21, 22).

Jerome’s actual response Helvidius begins at this point.

 

[Darryl_B]

Even though there is ZERO Scriptural support for it, & the earliest source used to defend it (Proto-James) also says that Mary’s virginity was “tested” by a mid-wife by putting her finger up her “fill in the blank,” which by “proving” her virginity would cause her to no longer be a virgin, because her hymen would have broken. “This” is the earliest source you are banking on to believe in the PVM?

My friend, that is a reflexive attack argument (with information you have only recently acquired) as an evasion an avoidance of what I stated. I am asking you a plain simple question, “why do you so desire Mary to have lost her virginity?” It is important to you that she did, but why? Fill in the blank.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Even though there is ZERO Scriptural support for it, & the earliest source used to defend it (Proto-James) also says that Mary’s virginity was “tested” by a mid-wife by putting her finger up her “fill in the blank,” which by “proving” her virginity would cause her to no longer be a virgin, because her hymen would have broken. “This” is the earliest source you are banking on to believe in the PVM?

A female virgin is a woman or girl who has never had vaginal intercourse, and you’re worried about a “broken” hymen which was NOT caused by the insertion of a penis?

“This” is the argument you are banking on to disprove the PVM?

Truly pathetic.

 

[Randy_Carson]

My friend, that is a reflexive attack argument (with information you have only recently acquired) as an evasion an avoidance of what I stated. I am asking you a plain simple question, “why do you so desire Mary to have lost her virginity?” It is important to you that she did, but why?

Theta is a “former” Catholic. That tells you everything you need to know about his motives. :sad_yes:

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy, can you tell us, if you know, the timeline of the idea that Mary and Joseph had children together? I mean, who originated this notion and where? This obviously wasn’t part of the church’s history for at least 1600 years. Who came up with this? Thanks for all your informative posts. I learn a lot from them.

I guess I could add that even the Protestant Reformers (Luther, Calvin, and later Wesley) all believed that Mary remained ever-virgin. So, the widespread belief that she did not came later and illustrates the problems of sola scriptura and private judgment.

 

[Porknpie]

I guess I could add that even the Protestant Reformers (Luther, Calvin, and later Wesley) all believed that Mary remained ever-virgin. So, the widespread belief that she did not came later and illustrates the problems of sola scriptura and private judgment.

It’s amazing, truly truly truly, that one could hold a theological point of view different than what is held in common by the Catholic’s, Orthodox, plus, Luther, Calvin and Wesley.

As PR calls it, that’s simply getting “duped” into believing a man-made tradition. And one is thus a victim of sola scriptura. In this case, not even truly sola scriptura as Tradition is ignored. So just call is solo scriptura.

A person is solo, on their own to interpret the bible, divorced from the One Faith that produced it.

 

[Randy_Carson]

It’s amazing, truly truly truly, that one could hold a theological point of view different than what is held in common by the Catholic’s, Orthodox, plus, Luther, Calvin and Wesley.

As PR calls it, that’s simply getting “duped” into believing a man-made tradition. And one is thus a victim of sola scriptura. In this case, not even truly sola scriptura as Tradition is ignored. So just call is solo scriptura.

A person is solo, on their own to interpret the bible, divorced from the One Faith that produced it.

In this particular case, leaving and remaining separated from the Catholic Church requires the acceptance of almost anything that appears to justify those actions.

 

[clem456]

.
…
Keep in mind, Jesus never states word-for-word “I am God.” But we know Jesus is God, because other passages, like John 1:1,14; John 8:58, cf. Exodus 3:14; etc make it clear that Jesus is indeed God, despite no word-for-word passages in Scripture stating that He is.

That’s correct (sort of). Jesus does not explicitly say “I am God”, although he says it definitively in other ways.

So if Jesus doesn’t write this down for us definitively, are you claiming that mere human beings invented a pre-scriptural story? Instead of writing it all down, Jesus would have trusted his followers with “The Word”, and trusted them to get it right? Peter, who denied him? That’s a shocking idea. Jesus could have solved all this by giving us a book before leaving. What’s up with that? Why should I believe any of it? Especially the preposterous story of the Resurrection. It’s defies belief that Christ would allow the eyewitness testimony of women and their resulting “story” to be the basis of Christianity.

How do I know whether any of these stories are accurate, when they weren’t written down for decades, and relied on women as eyewitnesses? Don’t people have faulty memories?

I am still curious how you handle this gap. When Jesus was born, who was God? When he died and rose from the dead, who was God? What about the decades between the death of Christ and the writing of “John”?

Who was God and how did the first Christians know he was God, in the gap?
Where’s the authority, in the gap?

 

[JustaServant]

Why is it so important for fundamentalists that Mary NOT be a virgin?

 

[Porknpie]

That’s correct (sort of). Jesus does not explicitly say “I am God”, although he says it definitively in other ways.

So if Jesus doesn’t write this down for us definitively, are you claiming that mere human beings invented a pre-scriptural story? Instead of writing it all down, Jesus would have trusted his followers with “The Word”, and trusted them to get it right? Peter, who denied him? That’s a shocking idea. Jesus could have solved all this by giving us a book before leaving. What’s up with that? Why should I believe any of it? Especially the preposterous story of the Resurrection. It’s defies belief that Christ would allow the eyewitness testimony of women and their resulting “story” to be the basis of Christianity.

How do I know whether any of these stories are accurate, when they weren’t written down for decades, and relied on women as eyewitnesses? Don’t people have faulty memories?

I am still curious how you handle this gap. When Jesus was born, who was God? When he died and rose from the dead, who was God? What about the decades between the death of Christ and the writing of “John”?

Who was God and how did the first Christians know he was God, in the gap?
Where’s the authority, in the gap?

Many through history read scripture and conclude that Jesus is not God. Thus, scripture is not clear, enough for some, that Jesus is God. This was true for Arianism and is still true today for the Jehovah’s Witness and the LDS.

 

[clem456]

Many through history read scripture and conclude that Jesus is not God. Thus, scripture is not clear, enough for some, that Jesus is God. This was true for Arianism and is still true today for the Jehovah’s Witness and the LDS.

Right.
This is the dead end of sola scriptura. If you cannot trust the community of believers and the authority invested in their persons, (as Christ was a person), you have nothing, not even authoritative scripture. Scripture’s authority comes from the guarantee of the Holy Spirit, given to persons, written in their hearts, not exclusively in the book.
There is no such thing as Christianity without Tradition.
Reflex objection is “but only for those who wrote the Gospels, and now it’s set in stone in the book”.
Really?

 

[wmscott]

Why is it so important for fundamentalists that Mary NOT be a virgin?

My guess would be:

1. It is Catholic teaching
2. It is error in personal interpretation of scriptures and/or scripture alone theology
3. It is the absence of a Magisterium and Authority
4. It is the separation from the Church Christ established
5. It is self-righteousness or self-delusion in knowing Gods mind and or abilities, they set limits or boundaries on God

 

[PRmerger]

My guess would be:

1. It is Catholic teaching
2. It is error in personal interpretation of scriptures and/or scripture alone theology
3. It is the absence of a Magisterium and Authority
4. It is the separation from the Church Christ established
5. It is self-righteousness or self-delusion in knowing Gods mind and or abilities, they set limits or boundaries on God

And I would add one other possibility: they feel it elevates Mary. It would mean that Mary was sooo special that her womb was made for the Incarnate Word and none other.

Ironically, in their demand to demote Mary, what ends up happening is that they demote Christ as well.

For if Mary’s womb was not so holy and sanctified as to be for the God-Man **ALONE, **then that means that He who was contained in her womb must not be that holy either.

 

[wmscott]

And I would add one other possibility: they feel it elevates Mary. It would mean that Mary was sooo special that her womb was made for the Incarnate Word and none other.

Ironically, in their demand to demote Mary, what ends up happening is that they demote Christ as well.

For if Mary’s womb was not so holy and sanctified as to be for the God-Man **ALONE, **then that means that He who was contained in her womb must not be that holy either.

I agree 100%