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

[thetazlord]

If God asked you and your spouse to refrain from ‘marital’ relations, regardless of what society expected, would you do it?

First, I’d have to question if this was God, since He’s never given a COMMAND to any married couple in Scripture to “refrain” from marital relations - PERMANENTLY. Plus, that “command” would contradict what God says through His Word to be “fruitful & multiply” (Genesis Ch.1 & 2). So, your question doesn’t take into account God’s commands to married couples in Scripture, nor that God NEVER “commanded” Mary & Joseph to “refrain” from sexual activity AFTER the birth of Jesus.

You are suggesting that married people are unable to live a life of celibacy. There are many reasons why married people may decide to not have sex. Some may do it for religious reasons, some for financial reasons, some for health reasons. Have you not heard the phrase ‘marriage of convience’?

And that violates Scripture which states “do not deprive your spouse.” A marriage “of convenience” contradicts Scripture. And I’m not “suggesting” that married couples are “unable” to live a life of celibacy. I’m saying there is no SCRIPTURAL reason to believe that Mary & Joseph didn’t have sex AFTER the birth of Jesus, since there was no COMMAND from God to do otherwise. As obedient Jews, they would not have violated God’s command in the OT for married couples to be “fruitful & multiply.”

Historically, not all marriages were for the production of children. People might get married without ever meeting their spouse. This was often done to insure property transfers or for political reasons. It was often true for second marriages, when the purpose of the marriage might be to provide a ‘mother’ for the widower’s children or as a way to support a widow and her children.

Actually, Scriptures gives clear examples that when second marriages occurred in Israel where a husband died childless, the purpose of the second marriage was to HAVE children, so the dead husband lineage would not be blotted out from history. You are confusing what secular society “practices” & “believes” with what God’s Word COMMANDS, which it does not command that Mary & Joseph were to remain celibate AFTER the birth of Jesus.

 

[SteveVH]

No, because it’s not “my position,” because I’m not “adding” my opinion into the text. That’s the point. I’m going strictly by God-breathed Scripture. Those who don’t are the ones doing claiming their “position” is “infallible.”

But even if we agree that Scripture is God-breathed (which we do), it still must be interpreted, correct? How can you believe that your interpretation is without error if you cannot claim infallibility? Why is your interpretation better than the Church’s interpretation? On what authority is this presumption based?

This is akin to one standing in their front yard claiming that their interpretation of the U.S. Constitution is the correct one because they went right to the document itself. Without an authoritative interpreter (Supreme Court) we have anarchy.

Peace.

Steve

 

[perpetual200]

Strictly going by Scripture? How often we hear this! Are you really? TO go strictly by Scripture, you would have to admit that there is nothing in Scripture that says that Mary had any other children than Jesus or that anyone had Mary as a mother other than Jesus. Which alone does not prove anything one way or another about the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. True, a case can be made, but it is at best an inference based on highly restrictive readings of the relevant passages. Against this interpretation there are many weighty arguments, BASED on Scripture, that also have a certain probability. This is not a case where we should feel comfortable standing against tradition, councils, saints and doctors, (including Protestant ones, to anticipate an objection). It is NOT a case of the “clear teaching of Scripture” but of one of competing interpretations, precisely where humility is most needed.

 

[clem456]

I don’t know where you got the idea of the “majority of protestant scholars didn’t believe it,” but it’s irrelevant because their “beliefs” aren’t God-breathed - **ONLY Scripture is described as God-breathed **(2 Timothy 3:16).

That would be true only if you believe the one doing the breathing is a book not a person, and not a person who lived among human beings (what we call “community”, “ecclesia”, “Church”).
Your statement is incompatible with Christian teaching on the Incarnation of Christ, God made flesh.

The very book that you rightly value as God breathed speaks of a person (Christ) breathing on other human beings (the apostles).

The disciples then rejoiced when they saw the Lord. 21So Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” 22And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.

This community is God-breathed. Scripture is God-breathed because God breathed on those who passed it on. Without this God-breathed community and the Tradition established by Christ himself, you have no Scripture. The two cannot be separated.

 

[thetazlord]

Really? Mary didn’t conceive a child?

You are just playing antics with semantics.

The Bible is quite clear that Mary conceived a child. And that’s just how we talk. “I have conceived 5 children”. I suppose we (if we’re a woman, of course) could say, “Gracie was conceived in my womb” but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s also true that “I conceived a child”.

And just be thorough, look at what the Bible says:

biblehub.com/luke/1-31.htm

Notice that all of the translations indicate MARY conceiving. Not Jesus being conceived.

You’re missing the point of your original argument & question, which was Mary couldn’t have been married to Joseph as her husband, since the Holy Spirit was her “Spouse” since she “conceived” by the Holy Spirit. My point was that if that is true that the Holy Spirit was Mary’s “Spouse” (even though Scripture never states that), then since Scripture also states that Joseph was Mary’s HUSBAND (& therefore Mary’s SPOUSE), then does that mean that Mary had TWO “spouses” - the Holy Spirit AND Joseph? Because then Mary would be committing polygamy. Because if Joseph wasn’t her “actual” husband, he wouldn’t have thought about DIVORCING her. But because he did, is proof that he WAS her husband & therefore Mary’s SPOUSE - not the Holy Spirit. Jesus being conceived by the Holy Spirit in Mary’s womb was to demonstrate that Jesus was the fulfillment of OT prophecy (Isaiah 7:14) & to prove that Jesus’ birth was SUPERnatural, rather than natural, & that He was the Son of God.

 

[thetazlord]

But each of is is permitted to read the Scriptures and come to our own understanding of them, yes?

Not according to Scripture (2 Peter 1:20-21). If you do, then you are “adding” to Scripture. “True” sola scriptura Christians who go strictly by Scripture, & don’t “add” anything to it avoid this. You’re confusing the fact that even many Protestants “add” to Scripture too. But that doesn’t “disprove” sola scriptura is Biblical, but rather that even many Protestants who “claim” to be sola scriptura aren’t actually, so because they “add” their mand-made “traditions” into Scripture too.

 

[thetazlord]

But even if we agree that Scripture is God-breathed (which we do), it still must be interpreted, correct? How can you believe that your interpretation is without error if you cannot claim infallibility? Why is your interpretation better than the Church’s interpretation? On what authority is this presumption based?

This is akin to one standing in their front yard claiming that their interpretation of the U.S. Constitution is the correct one because they went right to the document itself. Without an authoritative interpreter (Supreme Court) we have anarchy.

Peace.

Steve

I am more than open that I can be wrong. That’s different than your example of the person who stands on his front yard who refuses to admit that. However, I also acknowledge that other people & religious views can be wrong too, since they too are not infallible. I would suggest doing the same thing with me that we “should” do for everyone else. If I am wrong, then simply correct me with Scripture. Correcting me with the “beliefs” of other fallible people isn’t “proof” that I am wrong. It only demonstrates that they disagree with me, regardless if they are right or not. This is something that I rarely see here. I post usually “begins” with a particular Scripture, but then when I explain exegetically what it means by bringing up its meaning by quoting the surrounding passages & Scripture’s message as whole, what usually follows are quotes from ECF’s, who are also NOT Inspired, which only demonstrates circular reasoning, not proof one way or another.

 

[PRmerger]

Not according to Scripture (2 Peter 1:20-21).

Then there is a correct way to interpret Scripture?

And one ought not divorce himself from this correct interpretation?

 

[eddie_too]

the magisterium of the RCC are the only people God authorizes to provide the correct interpretations of sacred scripture verses.

that makes it very easy for the rest of us to know what God wants us to know in reading sacred scripture.

the magisterium has told us that Mary is a perpetual virgin and that Jesus was an only child.

as we catholics know, the sacred scriptures alone can not provide their readers with the fullness of the faith Jesus gave us through the apostles and their successors. the fullness of that faith is only available through the magisterium of the RCC.

people who interpret sacred scripture differently from the magisterium of the RCC are providing misinformation to the detriment of the salvation of souls and it would be in every one’s best interest if they refrained from teaching error.

 

[thetazlord]

Strictly going by Scripture? How often we hear this! Are you really? TO go strictly by Scripture, you would have to admit that there is nothing in Scripture that says that Mary had any other children than Jesus or that anyone had Mary as a mother other than Jesus. Which alone does not prove anything one way or another about the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. True, a case can be made, but it is at best an inference based on highly restrictive readings of the relevant passages. Against this interpretation there are many weighty arguments, BASED on Scripture, that also have a certain probability. This is not a case where we should feel comfortable standing against tradition, councils, saints and doctors, (including Protestant ones, to anticipate an objection). It is NOT a case of the “clear teaching of Scripture” but of one of competing interpretations, precisely where humility is most needed.

No, because Scripture is about JESUS, not Mary. And when you approach Scripture that way, you begin to realize that most of the time in Scripture, Jesus’ relationships with others is in relation to HIM, not Mary. And when you examine ALL of the passages referring to Jesus’ immediate & extended family - not just a few - you find out that the “brothers” of Jesus are His half-brothers, because Scripture eliminates the other possibilities.

 

[thetazlord]

That would be true only if you believe the one doing the breathing is a book not a person, and not a person who lived among human beings (what we call “community”, “ecclesia”, “Church”).
Your statement is incompatible with Christian teaching on the Incarnation of Christ, God made flesh.

The very book that you rightly value as God breathed speaks of a person (Christ) breathing on other human beings (the apostles).
This community is God-breathed. Scripture is God-breathed because God breathed on those who passed it on. Without this God-breathed community and the Tradition established by Christ himself, you have no Scripture. The two cannot be separated.

I understand what you “believe” but we’re discussing if whether Scripture supports that Mary had other children, which it does. So, since Scripture is God-breathed, & God cannot be wrong, then neither can His Word. Therefore, any “belief,” even if it comes from the Church, that contradicts what God-breathed Scripture supports can’t be right. Even Paul warned about the possibility of people teaching false “gospels” - even among THEMSELVES (Galatians 1:6-9), which is why we MUST compare even the Church’s “beliefs” TO Scripture, which is why GOD gave us His Word. Otherwise, it’s like saying God is wrong & the Church is right. Are you taking that that position?

 

[thetazlord]

Then there is a correct way to interpret Scripture?

And one ought not divorce himself from this correct interpretation?

That’s the point. I’m not. That’s why I don’t “impute” anything that can’t be backed up by Scripture. That latter is called “the precepts the doctrines of men” (Matthew 15:9).

 

[thetazlord]

the magisterium of the RCC are the only people God authorizes to provide the correct interpretations of sacred scripture verses.

that makes it very easy for the rest of us to know what God wants us to know in reading sacred scripture.

the magisterium has told us that Mary is a perpetual virgin and that Jesus was an only child.

as we catholics know, the sacred scriptures alone can not provide their readers with the fullness of the faith Jesus gave us through the apostles and their successors. the fullness of that faith is only available through the magisterium of the RCC.

people who interpret sacred scripture differently from the magisterium of the RCC are providing misinformation to the detriment of the salvation of souls and it would be in every one’s best interest if they refrained from teaching error.

As a former Catholic, I respect the Catholic church & I respect the magisterium. So, I don’t have any issue with them, nor what they teach. My issue is not with them, whom I respect. However, we also have to heed to Paul’s warning that even false teachings can come within Christ’s Church - even among the apostles THEMSELVES (Galatians 1:6-9). So, Christ never intended for us to just “assume” that the “traditions” of the elders were “automatically” correct, but to compare them TO Scripture (Acts 17:11), which for Christians include the NEW Testament Scriptures as well. And the NT Scriptures support that Mary & Joseph had children together after the birth of Jesus.

 

[clem456]

I understand what you “believe” but we’re discussing if whether Scripture supports that Mary had other children, which it does. So, since Scripture is God-breathed, & God cannot be wrong, then neither can His Word. Therefore, any “belief,” even if it comes from the Church, that contradicts what God-breathed Scripture supports can’t be right. Otherwise, it’s like saying God is wrong & the Church is right. Are you taking that that position?

How can there be a productive discussion if you believe “only Scripture is God breathed” (your words)?
My position is that Scripture and Tradition are inseparable.
My position is that this thread is full of knowledgeable posters who have translated the words with amazing depth, in the context of the original languages, and you are just throwing assertions around, because you believe “only scripture is God-breathed”, and as long as you can hang your hat on some verses, there is no authority above you.

 

[onenow1]

I understand what you “believe” but we’re discussing if whether Scripture supports that Mary had other children, which it does. So, since Scripture is God-breathed, & God cannot be wrong, then neither can His Word. Therefore, any “belief,” even if it comes from the Church, that contradicts what God-breathed Scripture supports can’t be right. Even Paul warned about the possibility of people teaching false “gospels” - even among THEMSELVES (Galatians 1:6-9), which is why we MUST compare even the Church’s “beliefs” TO Scripture, which is why GOD gave us His Word. Otherwise, it’s like saying God is wrong & the Church is right. Are you taking that that position?

I just have a question here, which church ?

God Bless

 

[perpetual200]

"No, because Scripture is about JESUS, not Mary. And when you approach Scripture that way, you begin to realize that most of the time in Scripture, Jesus’ relationships with others is in relation to HIM, not Mary. And when you examine ALL of the passages referring to Jesus’ immediate & extended family - not just a few - you find out that the “brothers” of Jesus are His half-brothers, because Scripture eliminates the other possibilities. "

Scripture is about Jesus. That is profound. DOes this mean that what it says about other people is somehow irrelevant? Then you say :most of the time". What does this mean? What about the rest of the times? Do you really think you are the first person in 2000 years to examine ALL the Scriptures on this or any other topic? Is your mind already made up? At least you acknowledge that Jesus’ “brothers” can be no more than his half-brothers. THus you admit the term is not limited to “full-blood brother”. (Note the 12 sons of Jacob, always called “brethren”, although having 4 different mothers). SO , my original point remains. Lacking any clear statement of Scripture, your ASSUMPTION, and that is all that it is, that Jesus brothers are children of Mary is just that, an assumption. Yet, you stand on an assumption. FOr which, see the rest of my original response.

 

[SteveVH]

I am more than open that I can be wrong. That’s different than your example of the person who stands on his front yard who refuses to admit that. However, I also acknowledge that other people & religious views can be wrong too, since they too are not infallible. I would suggest doing the same thing with me that we “should” do for everyone else. If I am wrong, then simply correct me with Scripture. Correcting me with the “beliefs” of other fallible people isn’t “proof” that I am wrong. It only demonstrates that they disagree with me, regardless if they are right or not. This is something that I rarely see here. I post usually “begins” with a particular Scripture, but then when I explain exegetically what it means by bringing up its meaning by quoting the surrounding passages & Scripture’s message as whole, what usually follows are quotes from ECF’s, who are also NOT Inspired, which only demonstrates circular reasoning, not proof one way or another.

Well, the ECF’s only produce evidence of the understanding and belief of the early Church, some of whom still had the voices of the Apostles ringing in their ears. So if we are debating the true understanding of some facet of Christian belief they are a great source. They spoke the same language, lived in the same culture and heard the apostolic teaching (kerygma) while not being influenced by modern notions and a 2000 year time span. It would seem that any Christian would be interested in what the first Christians believed rather than simply dismissing them as “fallible”.

And as far as the interpretation of what we have been given as “Scripture”, it is beyond me how anyone thinks they can do this in a vacuum, in the absence of the understanding of the Church who canonized the sacred texts for the very reason that they do support the truth and understanding held by the Church since the beginning.

Admittedly, I have not read through each and every post on this thread, so if the question has already been asked, forgive me. If Mary did have other children then why did the crucified Jesus entrust the care of his mother to John rather than one of Mary’s “real children”? In the Jewish culture at that time, and even now, this would have been unheard of if Mary did, indeed, have other children. They would have been morally and culturally responsible for caring for their own mother.

Thanks.

Steve

 

[clem456]

As a former Catholic, I respect the Catholic church & I respect the magisterium. So, I don’t have any issue with them, nor what they teach. My issue is not with them, whom I respect. However, we also have to heed to Paul’s warning that even false teachings can come within Christ’s Church - even among the apostles THEMSELVES (Galatians 1:6-9).
…

If you don’t understand the relationship between Scripture and Tradition, how can you respect the Magisterium? Or the Church?
I really don’t know why you want to go round with Catholics when you don’t understand what we believe. What’s the point?

You are reading Scripture through a whole different set of glasses than the people you are debating.

 

[thetazlord]

How can there be a productive discussion if you believe “only Scripture is God breathed” (your words)?
My position is that Scripture and Tradition are inseparable.
My position is that this thread is full of knowledgeable posters who have translated the words with amazing depth, in the context of the original languages, and you are just throwing assertions around, because you believe “only scripture is God-breathed”, and as long as you can hang your hat on some verses, there is no authority above you.

But did you ever wonder “when” this “tradition” started, & by whom? Tradition always begins by somebody. And unless you can “prove” that tradition “originated” with the apostles, then that “tradition” is merely the “belief” or “opinion” of that particular person. And even that person “claiming” that it came from the apostle, unless that person can quote that apostle, then it’s merely conjecture. If something as significant as the PVM to be true, then God would have surely supported that in His Word, just as He did with explicitly stated that Mary was a virgin DURING her pregnancy, as well as AT the birth of Jesus (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1; Luke 1; etc). The “tradition” that she “remained” a virgin is NOT supported by the writings of the apostles, such as Matthew, John, Peter, Paul, etc.

Also, what if “tradition” contradicts Scripture, such as the case of Mary having other children, which is supported by Scripture? How can “tradition” & “Scripture” be “inseparable” if they contradict each other? ONLY “tradition” that neither contradicts, not adds to nor takes away from Scripture is “inseparable” from Scripture. But the “tradition” that Mary REMAINED a virgin doesn’t, because Scripture supports otherwise.

 

[PRmerger]

That’s the point. I’m not. That’s why I don’t “impute” anything that can’t be backed up by Scripture. That latter is called “the precepts the doctrines of men” (Matthew 15:9).

So you reserve for yourself the right to tell someone: you are wrong about your interpretation of Scripture

but the Church cannot do this to you?