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

[magnet]

If God placed a fully fertilized egg into Mary’s womb, she could not have been his biological mother. Therefore she was a surrogate mother.

On the other hand if God contributed half the genes and Mary contributed the other half, then Jesus would be the biological son of God and Mary.

What is the difference between incarnation and creation?

Can we assume then that God was male and that he fertilized her egg without the need for sexual intercourse? If this is the case, assuming that Mary was of the House of David, then indeed Jesus was of the House of David and therefore needed to be born in Bethlehem.

 

[thetazlord]

So Ezekiel’s prophecy in chapter 44 is wrong?

The Ezekiel 44 prophecy has nothing to do with Mary. It has to do with a future “prince” that is not Jesus Christ, since this “prince” cannot perform priestly duties (Ezekiel 45:19), fathers sons (Ezekiel 46:16-18), & he has sins for which he offers sacrifice (Ezekiel 45:22). So, the Ezekiel prophecy has nothing to do with Mary being a perpetual virgin, & therefore this actual prophecy not “wrong.”

 

[thetazlord]

Well, why do you think Simon (or Symeon) succeeded James as the Bishop of Jerusalem? (Hint: because Simon and James were brothers).

And if you read Matt 10:3, you’ll find that James is the son of Alphaeus (the Hebrew form of Alphaeus is Clopas, or Cleopas).

One could argue that James the son of Alphaeus was brothers with Symeon the son of Clopas/Alphaeus, according to Eusebius, & therefore also Judas. However, the “James” that is the son of Clopas/Alphaeus is not the same “James” that is one of the “brothers” of Jesus in Mark 6:3, along with Jesus’ other “brothers” - Joseph, Simon, & Judas. Even “if” Symeon is a brother of James the son of Alphaeus & Judas, there is no mention by Eusebius that Joseph is also their brother, nor does an earlier ECF or historian mention him, nor does Scripture. James the Just who is mentioned by Eusebius is not the same as James the son of Alphaeus. He makes this quite clear in his writings & research.

 

[magnet]

I think because we claim to have the fullness of the truth, and when we make that claim we are challenged to prove it. And I understand this.

Although we only can give the answers the Holy Spirit provides the Church, it is or duty as true believers of the RCC to do our best with the grace given to us by God to do so.

But remember it is in these challenges, and truth provided by these challenges that opens some people up to the truth of the One True Church.

Unfortunately it makes others hate us more.

That’s why there are many who oppose organized religion. If each organization refuses to acknowledge others beliefs, this sets up conflict and leads to the horrible religious wars that have occurred since the establishment of Roman Catholicism as the state religion. When Emperor Constantine turned to Roman Catholicism as a way to unite people in his empire, anybody not participating automatically became a persona non grata.

It is notable that exclusivity of religion is not a feature among East Asians. My friend, who was born in Japan and has relatives there has told me that one can pick and choose those practices and beliefs that appeal to her. One can practice Taoism, Confucianism, Shintoism, Buddhistm to her heart’s content and nobody cares.

 

[clem456]

That’s why there are many who oppose organized religion. If each organization refuses to acknowledge others beliefs, this sets up conflict and leads to the horrible religious wars that have occurred since the establishment of Roman Catholicism as the state religion. When Emperor Constantine turned to Roman Catholicism as a way to unite people in his empire, anybody not participating automatically became a persona non grata.

It is notable that exclusivity of religion is not a feature among East Asians. My friend, who was born in Japan and has relatives there has told me that one can pick and choose those practices and beliefs that appeal to her. One can practice Taoism, Confucianism, Shintoism, Buddhistm to her heart’s content and nobody cares.

A rather broad brush in all respects.

The dangerous thing is not organized religion, it is cruelty and hatred united to idolatry of self.
Hitler, who believed who knows what…, Stalin who believed strongly (what’s wrong with this picture?) that believers should die, Hirohito (yes an East Asian with exclusive religious beliefs)

 

[thetazlord]

First, if Joseph had died (likely since he was much older than she was), then who would take care of Mary in her old age? It was the responsibility of the oldest son

.

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.”

Agreed. So, rather than entrust Mary to His unbelieving half-brothers, He chose to entrust Mary to the Apostle John, who by strange “coincidence” was the only Apostle who was not martyred for his faith. Why do suppose that was? Because God was watching out for Mary.

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.”

All good to here. I’m not a hard-line “older half-brother by previous marriage” guy since the “pure cousin-theory” also works,

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.

but you’re not suggesting that Mary had other children with Joseph, right?

Right?

'Cause there’s not a verse of scripture that proves anything like that… :nope:

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.

 

[thetazlord]

Jesus Christ had Joseph as father according to the flesh, (not by DNA but by ownership) and hence Josephs sons from his previous marriage, who were probably close to the same age as Mary are described as Jesus the Christs half-brothers. After all the next logical choice was the lineage of Josephs brother. Not Mary’s sister. First choice Josephs sons, second choice Josephs nephews.

And outside of the Protoevangelium of James, which is a false pseudoepigraphical “gospel” attributed to James the Just as its author…who was DEAD for 100+ years, what Scriptural or pre-mid-second century extra-scriptural evidence do you have that Joseph was married before Mary, let alone had other children? And even “if” Joseph had older children (which there is ZERO Scriptural, or extra-scriptural evidence for prior to Proto-James), where were “they” when Joseph left for the census to Bethlehem with Mary? Or dedicated the Baby Jesus at the Temple? Or fled to Egypt? Or returned to Nazareth? Where were “they” when Jesus went missing for 3 days in the Temple? In fact, why didn’t one of “them” take in Mary, instead of John? You have many, many more problems with them being older step-brothers - Scripturally, as well as extra-biblically - than you have with them being younger unbelieving half-siblings.

This contradicts your hypothesis, assumptions and “support by Scripture”, it contradicts your appeals to Eusebius and other ECFs who all place relationship according to the flesh as a fraternal ownership, a family.

Not at all, since if you read ALL of Eusebius’ references, he makes it clear that James the Just is not the same as James the son of Alphaeus/Clopas. These are two different “Jameses.” James the Less is James the son of Alphaeus, while James the Just is one of the half-brothers of Jesus. This is what Eusebius concluded, & what Scripture supports.

 

[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.

So then we know Jesus is God because…human beings say it is so?
How is this any different than the perpetual virginity of Mary?

 

[Randy_Carson]

.

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”:

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.”

Because neither Hebrew nor Aramaic (the language spoken by Christ and his disciples) had a special word meaning “cousin,” speakers of those languages could use either the word for “brother” or a circumlocution, such as “the son of my uncle.” But circumlocutions are clumsy, so the Jews often used “brother.”

The writers of the New Testament were brought up using the Aramaic equivalent of “brothers” to mean both cousins and sons of the same father—plus other relatives and even non-relatives. When they wrote in Greek, they did the same thing the translators of the Septuagint did. (The Septuagint was the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible; it was translated by Hellenistic Jews a century or two before Christ’s birth and was the version of the Bible from which most of the Old Testament quotations found in the New Testament are taken.)

In the Septuagint the Hebrew word that includes both brothers and cousins was translated as adelphos, which in Greek usually has the narrow meaning that the English “brother” has. Unlike Hebrew or Aramaic, Greek has a separate word for cousin, anepsios, but the translators of the Septuagint used adelphos, even for true cousins.

You might say they transliterated instead of translated, importing the Jewish idiom into the Greek Bible. They took an exact equivalent of the Hebrew word for “brother” and did not use adelphos in one place (for sons of the same parents), and anepsios in another (for cousins). This same usage was employed by the writers of the New Testament and passed into English translations of the Bible. To determine what “brethren” or “brother” or “sister” means in any one verse, we have to look at the context. When we do that, we see that insuperable problems arise if we assume that Mary had children other than Jesus.

“The Catholic position” does not hold that when the Bible refers to the brethren of Christ that they are his cousins. The Church holds only that Mary did not have any other children besides Christ. Who the brethren were is debatable–they might have been cousins (this is the most common view today), they might have been stepbrothers via Joseph (this was the common view before St. Jerome), or they might have been adoptive children.

The premise of the argument–that the New Testament says Elizabeth is Mary’s cousin–is wrong. The translation being quoted does not accurately reflect the Greek.

The New Testament does not say that Elizabeth is Mary’s cousin, the Greek word for which is anepsios. The word used in Luke 1:36 to describe Elizabeth is suggenes (pronounced su-gen-ace), which simply means kinswoman or relative. It tells us nothing about her exact relation within the extended family. All we can tell from the word suggenes is that Elizabeth was some kind of female relative of Mary’s. But whether she was an aunt, a cousin, or a more distant relation cannot be determined from the word.

In a few places the New Testament does use anepsios, but this does little to argue that the brethren of the Lord were sons of Mary. Arguments from word choice (i.e., “Why this word instead of this other word?”) are rarely decisive. New Testament word choice is especially difficult to build arguments from since it involves a mixture of Jewish and non-Jewish word preferences. The brethren of the Lord may have been brethren of a different kind (e.g., adoptive brothers or stepbrothers) without being half-brothers through Mary.

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.”

Maybe John, being the youngest, was simply the most reckless. Youth can be like that. But okay, I have no problem with what you wrote. I agreed with you previously, also. Why repeat?

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

Oh. So, given the extensive family connections which you have been carefully laying out, it is not possible that Jesus had actual cousins? You’ve just proven that John WAS a cousin. And btw, the older, half-brother theory is my preferred understanding; I’m just not dogmatic about it. Regardless of which is true, Mary never had any other children.

There isn’t a specific verse that states word-for-word “Mary had other children with Joseph.”

Yes. Thank you.

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 the contrary, on the basis of scripture alone, we will fight to a draw AT BEST from your perspective. On my side of the ledger, there are simply too many holes that YOU must explain. I don’t believe you can do so adequately.

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.

This doesn’t fly. You are making the positive claim that Mary had other children. But you admit you have no biblical evidence to prove your claim. Then you seek to enlist Catholic Fathers of the Church in support of a non-Catholic idea? Nope. Helvidius was the first known example of someone even questioning the PPV of Mary, and Jerome shot him down pronto.

If Mary had other kids, where was the outcry when someone proposed that she remained ever-virgin for the very first time? You have nothing to answer. The Fathers were obsessive about passing on the faith they had received from the apostles accurately. When someone diverged on a known point of fact (like Helvidius), the Church was quick to address the heresy. So, where is the treatise against the PPV and which Father authored it?

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.

Sure. I know this well having just been down that thread with a bunch of Baha’i.

So, my question is this: Where are the verses that indicate that other kids were ever born to Mary?

Did they go to Egypt with the Holy Family? Did any newborn return with them? No?
Did any other kids appear in the story of Jesus’ teaching in the Temple? No?
How about any clear references to “sons of Mary” - not brothers of Jesus, mind you. No?
His cousins John and John believed…did any of Jesus’ uterine brothers believe in Him? No?
How does that happen after all that Mary and Joseph would have taught them?

We’ve already agreed that you have nothing like this. Odd, isn’t it? Why the silence?

(cont.)

 

[zz912]

When Emperor Constantine turned to Roman Catholicism as a way to unite people in his empire, anybody not participating automatically became a persona non grata.

That’s not what happened. Constantine didn’t make Catholicism the state religion. He issued an Edict of Toleration, which meant that Christianity was tolerated.

Please do correct your errors, and then maybe re-look at how you view the world since your current views are based on erroneous facts.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You referenced the Fathers. Let’s take a look at what they said;

ON THE PERPETUAL VIRGINITY OF MARY

Protoevangelium of James

“And behold, an angel of the Lord stood by [St. Anne], saying, ‘Anne! Anne! The Lord has heard your prayer, and you shall conceive and shall bring forth, and your seed shall be spoken of in all the world.’ And Anne said, ‘As the Lord my God lives, if I beget either male or female, I will bring it as a gift to the Lord my God, and it shall minister to him in the holy things all the days of its life.’ . . . And [from the time she was three] Mary was in the temple of the Lord as if she were a dove that dwelt there” (Protoevangelium of James 4, 7 [A.D. 120]).

“And when she was twelve years old there was held a council of priests, saying, ‘Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, lest perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord?’ And they said to the high priest, ‘You stand by the altar of the Lord; go in and pray concerning her, and whatever the Lord shall manifest to you, that also will we do.’ . . . [A]nd he prayed concerning her, and behold, an angel of the Lord stood by him saying, ‘Zechariah! Zechariah! Go out and assemble the widowers of the people and let them bring each his rod, and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. . . . And Joseph [was chosen]. . . . And the priest said to Joseph, ‘You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the Virgin of the Lord.’ But Joseph refused, saying, ‘I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl’” (ibid., 8–9).

“And Annas the scribe came to him [Joseph] . . . and saw that Mary was with child. And he ran away to the priest and said to him, ‘Joseph, whom you did vouch for, has committed a grievous crime.’ And the priest said, ‘How so?’ And he said, ‘He has defiled the virgin whom he received out of the temple of the Lord and has married her by stealth’” (ibid., 15).

“And the priest said, ‘Mary, why have you done this? And why have you brought your soul low and forgotten the Lord your God?’ . . . And she wept bitterly saying, ‘As the Lord my God lives, I am pure before him, and know not man’” (ibid.).

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]).

“And to holy Mary, [the title] ‘Virgin’ is invariably added, for that holy woman remains undefiled” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 78:6 [A.D. 375]).

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Jerome

“[Helvidius] produces Tertullian as a witness [to his view] and quotes Victorinus, bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian, I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. 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. [By discussing such things we] are . . . following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against [the heretics] Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man” (Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 19 [A.D. 383]).

“We believe that God was born of a virgin, because we read it. We do not believe that Mary was married after she brought forth her Son, because we do not read it. . . . You [Helvidius] say that Mary did not remain a virgin. As for myself, I claim that Joseph himself was a virgin, through Mary, so that a virgin Son might be born of a virginal wedlock” (ibid., 21).
But as we do not deny what is written, so we do reject what is not written. We believe that God was born of the Virgin, because we read it. That Mary was married after she brought forth, we do not believe, because we do not read it. Nor do we say this to condemn marriage, for virginity itself is the fruit of marriage; but because when we are dealing with saints we must not judge rashly. If we adopt possibility as the standard of judgment, we might maintain that Joseph had several wives because Abraham had, and so had Jacob, and that the Lord’s brethren were the issue of those wives, an invention which some hold with a rashness which springs from audacity not from piety. You say that Mary did not continue a virgin: I claim still more, that Joseph himself on account of Mary was a virgin, so that from a virgin wedlock a virgin son was born. For if as a holy man he does not come under the imputation of fornication, and it is nowhere written that he had another wife, but was the guardian of Mary whom he was supposed to have to wife rather than her husband, the conclusion is that he who was thought worthy to be called father of the Lord, remained a virgin." (The Perpetual Virginity of Mary Against Helvedius,21(A.D. 383),in NPNF2,VI:344
Didymus the Blind

It helps us to understand the terms “firstborn” and “only begotten” when the Evangelist tells that Mary remained a virgin “until she brought forth her firstborn son” [Matt. 1:25]; for neither did Mary, who is to be honored and praised above all others, marry anyone else, nor did she ever become the mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin" (The Trinity 3:4 [A.D. 386]).

Ambrose of Milan

Imitate her [Mary], holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of maternal virtue; for neither have you sweeter children [than Jesus], nor did the virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son (Letters 63:111 [A.D. 388])

Pope Siricius I

You had good reason to be horrified at the thought that another birth might issue from the same virginal womb from which Christ was born according to the Flesh. For the Lord Jesus would never have chosen to be born of a virgin if he had ever judged that she would be so incontinent as to contaminate with the seed of human intercourse the birthplace of the Lord’s body, chat court of the eternal King (Letter to Bishop Anysius [A.D. 392]).

Augustine

“In being born of a Virgin who chose to remain a Virgin even before she knew who was to be born of her, Christ wanted to approve virginity rather than to impose it. And he wanted virginity to be of free choice even in that woman in whom he took upon himself the form of a slave” (Holy Virginity 4:4 [A.D. 401]).
Leporius

“We confess, therefore, that our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, born of the Father before the ages, and in times most recent, made man of the Holy Spirit and the ever-virgin Mary” (Document of Amendment 3 [A.D. 426]).
Cyril of Alexandria

“[T]he Word himself, coming into the Blessed Virgin herself, assumed for himself his own temple from the substance of the Virgin and came forth from her a man in all that could be externally discerned, while interiorly he was true God. Therefore he kept his Mother a virgin even after her childbearing” (Against Those Who Do Not Wish to Confess That the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God 4 [A.D. 430]).

 

[Randy_Carson]

Now, let’s take a look at what some famous Protestants have said:

EARLY PROTESTANTS ON THE PERPETUAL VIRGINITY OF MARY

Martin Luther (1483-1546)

“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.”

“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.”

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

“Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity…When Matthew 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.”

John Calvin (1509-1564)

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}

[On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. 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. {Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 107}

Under the word ‘brethren’ the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity.
{Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, (7:3) }

Huldreich Zwingli (1484-1531)

He turns, in September 1522, to a lyrical defense of the perpetual virginity of the mother of Christ . . . To deny that Mary remained ‘inviolata’ before, during and after the birth of her Son, was to doubt the omnipotence of God . . . and it was right and profitable to repeat the angelic greeting - not prayer - ‘Hail Mary’ . . . God esteemed Mary above all creatures, including the saints and angels - it was her purity, innocence and invincible faith that mankind must follow. Prayer, however, must be . . . to God alone . . .
‘Fidei expositio,’ the last pamphlet from his pen . . . There is a special insistence upon the perpetual virginity of Mary.
{G. R. Potter, Zwingli, London: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1976, pp.88-9,395 / The Perpetual Virginity of Mary . . ., Sep. 17, 1522}

Zwingli had printed in 1524 a sermon on ‘Mary, ever virgin, mother of God.’
{Thurian, ibid., p.76}

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. {Thurian, ibid., p.76 / same sermon}

Heinrich Bullinger (1504-1575)

“The Virgin Mary…completely sanctified by the grace and blood of her only Son and abundantly endowed by the gift of the Holy Spirit and preferred to all…now lives happily with Christ in heaven and is called and remains ever-Virgin and Mother of God.”

John Wesley (1703-1791)

“I believe…he [Jesus Christ] was born of the blessed Virgin, who, as well after as she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.”

 

[thetazlord]

So if you trust Cyril got it right on the canon of scripture (or close), then you should trust his Words below on the Eucharist:

No, because I’m no longer Catholic & my authority isn’t the ECF’s, since the ECF’s disagreed about many doctrinal issues…including the canon of Scripture. Rather, it my authority IS Scripture. My point of bringing up earlier ECF’s wasn’t to legitimize “everything” they believed, but to point out that the 27 NT books were recognized as Inspired Scripture long before the Councils in the late 4th Century were convened (see below).

Paul is speaking of the Old Testament in this verse as the proceeding verses he is talking of the scriptures that they have known since childhood.

14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

No he is referring back to Deuteronomy 25:4. Again, the Old Testament.

1 Timothy 5:18
18 for the scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.”

Deut 25:4
“You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.

Yes, he’s referring to the OT, but the point I was making that you missed was that Paul says that ALL Scripture is Inspired (God-breathed), & that Peter affirmed that ALL of Paul’s epistles were Scripture:

“and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.” (2 Peter 3:15-16)

Peter is affirming that ALL Paul’s epistles are SCRIPTURE. So, they are just as God-breathed as the OT Scriptures. Also, when Paul quotes Luke 10:7, he not only quotes Deuteronomy 25:4, but also Luke 10:7 & calls it Scripture:

“For the Scripture says, 'YOU SHALL NOT MUZZLE THE OX WHILE HE IS THRESHING,” and “The laborer is worthy of his wages.” (1 Timothy 5:18)

“Stay in that house, eating and drinking what they give you; for the laborer is worthy of his wages. Do not keep moving from house to house.” (Luke 10:7)

Notice, Deuteronomy 25:4 does not say “the laborer is worthy of his wages,” but rather Luke 10:7 states that which Paul quotes & also calls Scripture. So, since Paul states that ALL Scripture is Inspired (God-breathed), although he is “initially” referring to the OT Scriptures in 2 Timothy 3:15, “Scripture” refers also to ALL of Paul’s epistles, since Peter calls ALL of Paul’s epistles Scripture, & Paul quotes the Gospel of Luke & calls “it” Scripture too. Luke also penned Acts, which a continuation of Luke, & Luke even admits to getting his information for His “God-breathed Scripture” from eyewitnesses, which would include Matthew & Mark, which is obvious since they contain many of the same events, & were written prior to or contemporary with Luke’s Gospel.

So, like I said before, by mid-FIRST Century, most of the NT canon was recognized by the Christian Church as being just as much of God-breathed Scripture as the OT.

Go back to your sources and provide link that clearly lists a canon of scripture prior to 382 ad that matches what you have today.

Unfortunately, most of them are from Protestant sources. Posting them would violate forum rules & cause me to receive an infraction (convenient)

Interesting though that you keep referring to this Church that determined scripture. We Catholics agree with that part. We can also read - from the same people that wrote, guarded and copied the New Testament scripture, how they referred to this Church. St. Ignatius was an ECF and a disciple of St. John (who himself wrote scripture. )

I didn’t say the (Catholic) church “determined” Scripture. I was referring to the early Christian writers who were Jewish, who wrote most of the NT (the exception being Luke).

It’s very inconsistent to trust this Catholic Church on determining Scripture (inerrant it was in doing so) but reject its teaching on faith and morals.

This is a completely different issue than what we’re talking about, as well as the OP, which is about Mary’s virginal status after the birth of Jesus, which we seem to have deviated from. The point is, since both Catholics & Protestants believe the Bible - OT & NT - is God-breathed (just not for all the same reasons), then the question is, does God-breathed Scripture support Mary’s perpetual virginity? And the answer is “no,” nor does it affirm that Mary & her husband Joseph did not have sexual relations after the birth of Jesus & have children together during their marriage. Even Eusebius & earlier ECF’s & historians that he quotes seem to believe that they did.

 

[zz912]

The Ezekiel 44 prophecy has nothing to do with Mary. It has to do with a future “prince” that is not Jesus Christ, since this “prince” cannot perform priestly duties (Ezekiel 45:19), fathers sons (Ezekiel 46:16-18), & he has sins for which he offers sacrifice (Ezekiel 45:22). So, the Ezekiel prophecy has nothing to do with Mary being a perpetual virgin, & therefore this actual prophecy not “wrong.”

Is it your claim that the prophesies on the OT that foretell of Jesus PERFECTLY lined up with Him?!?!?

You DO know that the prophesies in the OT have a fulfillment at the time of the prophesy, AND a fulfillment by Jesus.

Jesus proclaimed Psalm 22 from the cross, showing that the psalm was being fulfilled then and there, and that He would ultimately be delivered from death. Are you stating that ALL the points of the Psalm 22 apply to Jesus?!?! Was He surrounded by the “strong bulls of Bashan”??

 

[Randy_Carson]

Finally, if you have a quote from Eusebius that proves that Jesus had uterine brothers whose mother was Mary wife of Joseph, let’s see it. With a link to your source, please.

Because every passage I have online says that the were “cousins” or “kin” but not sons of Mary.

Thanks.

 

[rinnie]

That’s why there are many who oppose organized religion. If each organization refuses to acknowledge others beliefs, this sets up conflict and leads to the horrible religious wars that have occurred since the establishment of Roman Catholicism as the state religion. When Emperor Constantine turned to Roman Catholicism as a way to unite people in his empire, anybody not participating automatically became a persona non grata.

It is notable that exclusivity of religion is not a feature among East Asians. My friend, who was born in Japan and has relatives there has told me that one can pick and choose those practices and beliefs that appeal to her. One can practice Taoism, Confucianism, Shintoism, Buddhistm to her heart’s content and nobody cares.

But remember organized religion as we are often called is how Christ created it. It was his call and he made it.

What really makes what happened to Constantine any different then what happened to Christ himself, with the exception as you claim those non participation became non grata, but as in the case of Christ became Crucified, and with those in the Church today and yesterday Crucified.

Although we never have (thank God) been Crucified with Christ in the physical we all in the RCC are crucified with him in the Spiritual sense. As my Mom always said that tongue can be sharper than a razor blade.

And as far as Religion not being a feature among East Asians as it is with Christians, maybe the reason is in the Christian faith Someone does care, Enough to give up his life. Jesus Christ.

 

[rinnie]

That’s why there are many who oppose organized religion. If each organization refuses to acknowledge others beliefs, this sets up conflict and leads to the horrible religious wars that have occurred since the establishment of Roman Catholicism as the state religion. When Emperor Constantine turned to Roman Catholicism as a way to unite people in his empire, anybody not participating automatically became a persona non grata.

It is notable that exclusivity of religion is not a feature among East Asians. My friend, who was born in Japan and has relatives there has told me that one can pick and choose those practices and beliefs that appeal to her. One can practice Taoism, Confucianism, Shintoism, Buddhistm to her heart’s content and nobody cares.

Also everything in human nature must have some type or organization to it, without Organization you can only have chaos.

 

[zz912]

No, because I’m no longer Catholic & my authority isn’t the ECF’s, since the ECF’s disagreed about many doctrinal issues…including the canon of Scripture. Rather, it my authority IS Scripture. My point of bringing up earlier ECF’s wasn’t to legitimize “everything” they believed, but to point out that the 27 NT books were recognized as Inspired Scripture long before the Councils in the late 4th Century were convened (see below).

No, all 27 books were NOT universally recognized, there was a LOT of disagreement about some books that made it into the canon, and some books that did not. That is why the Church had to formally declare which books WERE Scripture (i.e. could be used for readings in the Mass). There was confusion and arguments about what books could be read at Mass.

Yes, he’s referring to the OT, but the point I was making that you missed was that Paul says that ALL Scripture is Inspired (God-breathed), & that Peter affirmed that ALL of Paul’s epistles were Scripture:

Great. You accept the Pope’s declaration that Paul’s letters are Scripture. But this doesn’t cover Peter’s letters, James, John’s letters, Revelation, Jude, or the Gospels. What is you support for declaring these to be Scripture?

So, like I said before, by mid-FIRST Century, most of the NT canon was recognized by the Christian Church as being just as much of God-breathed Scripture as the OT.

Some was, some was not. As noted above. You accept the Catholic Church’s declaration of what IS and IS NOT Scripture, but you just don’t admit it.