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

[stewstew03]

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.”

“It is written (Ezekiel 44, 2): ‘This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it. Because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it…’ What means this closed gate in the house of the Lord, except that Mary is to be ever inviolate? What does it mean that ‘no man shall pass through it,’ save that Joseph shall not know her? And what is this – ‘The Lord alone enters in and goeth out by it,’ except that the Holy Ghost shall impregnate her, and that the Lord of Angels shall be born of her? And what means this – ‘It shall be shut for evermore,’ but that Mary is a Virgin before His birth, a Virgin in His birth, and a Virgin after His birth.”

– Saint Augustine (ca AD 430)

 

[Randy_Carson]

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).

Ah…it’s all clearer now. You are a former Catholic.

So, the Catholic Church did not write or recognize the books of the New Testament.

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?

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

Well, we know that’s flat wrong because we don’t even have all of Paul’s letters. Or are you unaware of the fact that there were other letters written to the Corinthians to which the extant letters refer? and if those letters were lost, then not ALL of Paul’s letters were scripture. Or else we lost some really important documents.

However, I do agree that, duh, all scripture is inspired.

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

Not true. If you are polite, you can post material that supports your position.

I didn’t say the (Catholic) church “determined” Scripture.

Correct. We don’t either. Being God-breathed is what determines whether something is scripture. The Catholic Church recognized, infallibly, which books were and were not inspired, and that is the only reason you have the NT today in the form it is in.

I was referring to the early Christian writers who were Jewish, who wrote most of the NT (the exception being Luke).

The Early Christian writers were Jewish (except Luke as noted) but they were also members of the Body of Christ, the Church. And that body of believers began referring to itself as the “Catholic Church” before the end of the first century according to Ignatius of Antioch. That’s within the lifetime of John the Apostle who may have actually thought of himself as a member of the Catholic Church!

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.

Nor does the Bible affirm that Mary ever had another child or that she and Joseph ever had sex. It just ain’t there, and you know this.

So, you have your opinion, and I have the constant teaching of an infallible Church founded by Jesus Christ upon Peter the rock which says that Mary remained ever-virgin. You believe what you want based upon your fallible interpretations. I’ll believe what that Church teaches.

 

[Porknpie]

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).

I need to correct myself. Athanasius did have the 27 books of the NT listed in around 367 ad. He also had 46 books of the Old Testament. The Council of Rome approved this list in 382. The Catholic Voyager has a good blog on this subject here.

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:

Agree I made this point due to many protestants coming to CAF believing St. Paul was speaking of the NT. He was only speaking of the OT at that time. Sounds like you understand this.

“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

There was no agreement on the NT canon until the late 4th century. The reference here illustrates my point. You only know that the bible is inspired and inerrant because the Catholic Church has said so. Specifically, the “authority” of Catholic Bishops in the late 4th century.

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

Frankly, I’ve never heard of anyone receiving a infraction for documenting a source.

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).

Thetazlord, the early Christian writers were all Catholic and were of One Faith and belief.

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),

I just want to acknowledge that we share the same belief on this point… :bounce:

then the question is,

I would suggest that the next question is more along the line, where does the bible itself promote the idea of the “bible alone”? What makes you think that the compendium of the Christian faith is contained in the bible alone? There was no bible approved for reading in the Churches until 393 ad.

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.

There is nothing in the bible that contradicts any of the above.

The Christian faith has ALWAY been based on the deposit of apostolic faith, both what has been handed down orally from the apostles AND what has been written.

As Catholics, we adhere to what St. Paul says in 2 THES 2:15:

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

Curious I am… why did you leave the Catholic Church? Did you leave as an adult??

PnP

 

[Porknpie]

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.”

From the Haydock Commentary below.

Ver. 2-3. Opened. No man perfectly understands the Scriptures but the Son of God, Matthew xi. 27. (St. Jerome) — This also insinuates, that Mary ever remained a pure virgin. (St. Augustine, &c.) (Worthington) — Shut, even for the prince. Some (Haydock) kings of Juda claimed the privilege of entering by it at any time, and passed through a part of the court assigned to the priests, 2 Paralipomenon vi. 12., and 4 Kings xvi. 18. This shall be no longer tolerated. The gate might be opened in the week days if the prince wished to offer sacrifice, but not else, except on the sabbaths, chap. xlvi. 1, 12. — Lord, in peace offerings and religious feasts. — Porch. Each had two doors, chap. xlvi. 2. (Calmet)

Further commentary on this verse on** Called to Communion**.

I’ll cast my vote with St. Augustine writing around the year 400ad +/-.

 

[Porknpie]

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.

Certainly off topic, but are you saying that the ECF’s disagreed on the Eucharist? That the bread and wine turned into the actual body and blood of our Lord?

Wherever the disciples and apostles went to establish Christian communities of faith (the One Faith), they all believed in the Real Presence.

Can you reference a location of Christian faith that held a different belief?

Map provided for reference.

 

[stewstew03]

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).
…

Oops – I quoted Augustine, and then read your comment to Porknpie that said you don’t regard the ECFs as authoritative. So, let’s look at scripture (again).

• Ezekiel prophesies about a Temple; an eternal temple that is the permanent dwelling place of God. A temple where water will flow through and make all things new, and on the banks of the temple river, trees will always bear fruit (see Ezekiel 47). If you’ve read the NT, flowing water and fruit-bearing should sound familiar. But let’s keep going…
  .
• The first temple was destroyed in 587 BC, and the second temple was destroyed in 70 AD. So what and where is this temple about which Ezekiel prophesied? Is it a building yet-to-be-built in Jerusalem? Not likely – particularly since man doesn’t have the capability to erect an eternal, permanent dwelling place suitable for God. So was Ezekiel’s prophecy wrong? Not likely. As usual, Jesus has the answer…
  .

The Jews then said to him, “What sign can you show us to prove your authority?” Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?” But he spoke of the temple of his body. When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this; and they believed the scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken.

.

• So – there you have it. Christ’s Body is the third Temple. This structure has living stones and a holy priesthood (1 Peter 2), and a cornerstone that joins the whole building together to become a holy temple (Ephesians 2). Flowing through this temple is life-giving water like the kind described by Ezekiel (see multiple references throughout the Gospel of John).
  .
• Now that we’ve established that Jesus is the Temple – let’s look back to Ezekiel 44. What is this Temple Gate to which Ezekiel refers, and through which the Messiah will enter Jerusalem? This one’s pretty simple. How does Jesus enter the world? Through Mary. And where does Jesus “tabernacle” (see Jn 1:14) among us? Mary’s womb. And because the Lord, the God of Israel, entered the world through Mary’s womb – that “gate” is to remain shut (see Ezekiel 44:1-2).

.
Hope this helps!

 

[PRmerger]

Rather, it my authority IS Scripture.

Oh! So many thoughts on this!

1. This is an unscriptural claim. No where in the Bible—from Genesis through Revelation–can you find this claim.
2. It is actually a claim which contradicts Scripture. For Scripture professes that the Church is to be our authority. Not Scripture.
3. In stating that Scripture is your authority, what you are actually doing is stating, tacitly, that you give your authority to the Catholic Church.

For it is the CC which discerned for you and me what actually IS Scripture. When you quote from Hebrews, it is ONLY because you say (unconsciously, of course): “Since I cannot know if Hebrews is the Word of God on my own, I submit my obedience to the One Church which declared that Hebrews is theopneustos”.

and finally…

1. It is a man-made tradition you’ve been duped into believing. You believe it because you heard some (fallible) man proclaim that Scripture is his authority…and he heard another (fallible) man proclaim that Scripture is his authority…who heard it from another (fallible) man…but no one ever read that in a single page of the Bible.

As such, it is a man-made tradition.

 

[KathleenGee]

Hi Friend!..PR,

Yes…ongoing problem of not accepting Church tradition and history…how people believed…and we have the ‘sense’ of Scripture that Mary was ever virgin…the ancients held the same position.

I go back to my own position…when we go to heaven…where there is no marriage…we will also have no need…except communion through the Lord with one another…because God Himself will fill all our needs.

Mary had Jesus…Who is God…all her needs to indulge in her flesh, to be separate from Him doesn’t add up when reflecting on how she lived 24/7…her entire being was focused on her Son all the time.

Without the belief in the Eucharist in the Church where we experience His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity…and likewise the sense of sin through examination of conscience…always learning who we are not and who God is, … other Christians cannot grasp Adoration and the sense of sin we have…

Likewise…LOL…Catholic guilt…atleast with us Irish…

God entrusted His only Son to the Virgin Mary…her sole mission in life to help Him fulfill His mission to us.

 

[Darryl_B]

Even Eusebius & earlier ECF’s & historians that he quotes seem to believe that they did.

My friend, this is a dead horse, you keep flogging it, ignoring all correction, ignoring all reproof, and then return to the same argument that you seem to desire so fervently to believe, so fervently need to be true. It is like you need to believe it for your sake not the sake of Truth.

Even when I was a protestant I had no problem with the perpetual virginity of Mary.

I had no problem with Blessed Mary Ever-Virgin.

 

[tweedlealice]

Hi,
I was reviewing this dialogue. I started laughing. I am a cradle catholic. I am not going to shake up minds w what I believe her Holy Spirit conception might be but if a woman delivers a 5 pound baby vaginally, her hymen is not intact. Now, whether, Joseph felt worthy enough to enter this holy vessel, I don’t know. I have known nurse friends of mine (2) whose husbands stopped having sex w them after they bore children because being a mother put them in a holy state and they couldn’t see them as sexual creatures anymore. They weren’t dealing w the Mother of the Messiah. Curious and Curiousor. Another theory is Joseph was older than her, which is quite possible in that area, even today. Mohammed married a 9 yo. YAYA, from Yemen who owns the Sunoco store is about 28 to 30 yo and he has 2 wives and one is 14yo. So, James, the brother of Jesus, could be a half brother.
Just fuel for thought.
HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYBODY.:dancing::harp:
ALICE

 

[ready]

Mary was married to and im guessing lived with her husband.
Why would they NOT engage in reproducing children?

They both had agreed to live as consecrated virgins to God. God bless you.

 

[thetazlord]

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?

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.

 

[thetazlord]

They both had agreed to live as consecrated virgins to God. God bless you.

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?

 

[thetazlord]

if a woman delivers a 5 pound baby vaginally, her hymen is not intact.

Good point! I may use that one. Also, the source for these “brothers” being older step-brothers from an allegedly previous marriage from Joseph (the Protoevangelium of James) states that her virginity was “tested” by a mid-wife putting her finger up her “woo-hoo” which would cause her to break her hymen, which would “prove” Mary was a virgin. But by breaking it, she would no longer be a virgin anymore. Thanks for the food for thought!

 

[thetazlord]

Even when I was a protestant I had no problem with the perpetual virginity of Mary.

I had no problem with Blessed Mary Ever-Virgin.

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?

 

[ready]

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?

I agree with St. Jerome, and not with St. Augustine if St. Augustine truly said that Joseph was married beforehand, based on what I have read about the life story of the Blessed Virgin Mary as told my Ven. Mary of Agreda in her approved visions of her approved 4 volume work The Mystical City of God. Which Popes have said definitively that Joseph had definitely been married before? And where does St. Augustine say definitively that St. Joseph definitely was married before? I think that you are not right in saying what you say about St. Augustine and “several popes.” But show me where they have said anything definitively and definite, and prove me wrong, if I am wrong. God bless you.

 

[PRmerger]

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.

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.

 

[PRmerger]

They were Inspired the moment they were written - not simply because their Inspiration was “recognized” centuries later in a committee.

This is very Catholic of you to say.

BTW, Revelation is self-authoritative, since it’s a revelation from Jesus Christ Himself.

And this is very circular of you to say. “I know something is Scripture because Jesus Christ said it. And I know Jesus Christ said it because it is found in Scripture.” Illogical.

If there’s an ancient manuscript that purports to be the words of Jesus Christ Himself, would that make it “self-authoritative”?

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.

Really? The Protestant can read “My breath is offensive to my wife” and recognize that as “godly”?

 

[PRmerger]

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?

Sure.

Were you under the misapprehension that Augustine, Jerome, and “several popes” *couldn’t *be wrong?

I thought you said you were a former Catholic? Didn’t your catechesis teach you that all people in the Church can be mistaken?

 

[Porknpie]

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?

The early Church tradition (through apocrypha writing) was that Joseph was older and had children from a previous marriage. Jerome held that Joseph was a virgin and Jerome used Christ giving Mary to John on the cross in support of his contention (John was held to be a virgin as well). Tradition, little t, continued with Jerome’s contention through the centuries.

Thus, Catholic’s can believe either. Neither of the above beliefs are part of the Deposit of Faith. Neither are Tradition.