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

[Randy_Carson]

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

It’s “Anti-Catholicism 101”.

The basics of the course include an overview of the obvious passages like “brothers of Jesus”, Jesus’ condemnation of “tradition”, call no man “Father”, etc.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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

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

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

I think there might be a chicken and egg thing going on.

One scenario is that by intentionally lowering Mary, they unintentionally lower Jesus, also. They would deny this, of course.

The other scenario is that they never really had Jesus elevated high enough to begin with because, if they did, the idea that Mary would have other kids would be unthinkable.

Here’s a simple analogy:

I don’t play hockey. Never have. Couldn’t care less about it. But if the Stanley Cup were on display at a shopping mall, I wouldn’t mind raising it over my head while my wife took a photo. No biggie, right?

Except that hockey players revere the cup, and if you haven’t won it, you may not touch it. That’s an unspoken rule within the sport.

So, is it possible that Protestants don’t revere the womb of Mary (and it is amazing to even have to put it so bluntly) because they are a bit too familiar with Jesus, too?

 

[joe371]

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

I often wonder what they would teach/believe if the Catholic Church, for the last 2000 years, taught/believed that Mary was not a perpetual virgin?

 

[Porknpie]

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

Interesting also Clem is this statement (paraphrased) : scripture is clear that Jesus is God, although there is no statement in scripture, word for word, that it is so.

…Contrasted with Catholics (& Orthodox & Lutherans) saying: scripture is explicitly clear in the teaching of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist; that the bread and wine become the actual body and blood of our Lord.

That some can believe the first while disbelieving the second is pretty disjointed to the Gospel preached by the apostles, affirmed and taught by the Church for 2,000 years.

 

[Darryl_B]

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

So is it something to do with devaluing the value of someone held in high veneration (and that for honorable reasons) as a means of devaluing those (collectively) who hold that said person in high veneration?

 

[joe371]

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

Putting aside all of the theological/spiritual reasons/implications: perhaps Joseph, who was considered much older, passed away and Mary never married again.

 

[Randy_Carson]

So is it something to do with devaluing the value of someone held in high veneration (and that for honorable reasons) as a means of devaluing those (collectively) who hold that said person in high veneration?

In the case of an individual who is a former Catholic, I think it is as simple as repeating certain things over and over as a means of maintaining confidence that the decision to leave was a good one. Like this:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[joe371]

In the case of an individual who is a former Catholic, I think it is as simple as repeating certain things over and over as a means of maintaining confidence that the decision to leave was a good one. Like this:

http://www.engineeringwellness.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/dutch-boy.png

In most cases it seems that it rarely has anything to do with the teachings of the CC but rather an unpleasant personal experience that they could not shake. I have met a few and they always seem so hostile toward the CC…I suppose there are those cases where Catholic doctrine no longer lines up with what the person truly believes, necessitating a search for a church that is more in line with the person’s beliefs.

 

[Mystophilus]

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

It’s not an Aramaic influence: in Greek, the term αδελφος naturally referred to anyone considered to be as close as a blood sibling, even if the people were not actually members of the same family, and even if the referents were not humans: Plato uses it to talk about two laws being “related to one another” (Laws, 3.683).

 

[tweedlealice]

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.

Hi Brother in Christ,
Peter means “rock” Jesus said,“You are now Peter and upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”=POPE simple to me–simple minded.
Bible wasn’t getting together till 50 years after Christ’s death. Not completed till Constantine circa around 400AD. Word of mouth=not too bad. St. Joseph was older. Heck Mohammed married a 9yo and he was 50yo and I want to vomit. Mary was 14yo. I think I still want to vomit. Joseph was married and was a widower. He had previous children. So the kids were half brothers. Remember they didn’t believe Jesus was the Messiah till the end. James became a leader in the church. I think Joseph had ERD. God could strike me down w that humor. Forgive me God and St. Joseph. All the religious paintings of Joseph paint him as older. (word of mouth) There are men in this present day, who do not have sex w their pregnant wives so they won’t hurt their babies. They feel their wives are holy. Even after delivery, they consider their wives as holy and never have sex again. They divorce. Sad. They are Holy Vessels. Ya figure??? It is very possible that Joseph was older. It was the sign of the times(yulk) He had children already. They were probably better looking and closer in age than Joseph. Sorry God again. They didn’t have sex because of a 40 year old age difference. So, there. Thank you St. Joseph for
raising Jesus as your son and trusting God that Mary was still a virgin while pregnant w Emmanuel.
The first Popes were very Holy. The medievil Popes leave me speechless especially Borges.But in my lifetime, we have been blessed. But when the Popes where bad, the Saints rose up in the church.
All that matters is that Jesus died for us and we accept that and receive all the love and mercy He has for us. That we ask for forgiveness often and ask Him to lead the paths tour lives. We can argue apologetics and fine details but we love each other and never hate or keep anger in our heart or pride.
In Christs’ love,
Alice

 

[joe371]

thetazlord;12621212]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?

:yup:

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.

Of course the table of contents of the New Testament was put there by who and when?

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.

Agreed. However, there were Christians, within the Roman Empire, who were embracing books as inspirationally canonical that are not found in the bible today, as well folks who were discarding books that are now considered canonical today - agreed?

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,

You cannot prove that definitively so you should not state it in such a definitive way. God is not infallibly guiding you or me, so you and I cannot know with certainty, one way or the other - right?

 

[thetazlord]

Who wrote Hebrews?

Although many Christians throughout history believe that it was the apostle Paul, despite the fact him not mentioning himself in the salutation of his epistles, it’s obvious that it was a believing Jew. However authorship isn’t important, because as I previously mentioned, some of the attributes of God-breathed Scripture are inerrancy, lack of contradictions, & full-filled prophecy - all of which Hebrews fulfills. Lack of authorship doesn’t “disqualify” it as being inerrant.

And what prophecy does 3 John fulfill?

Again, like the rest of Scripture, 3 John is inerrant, lacks contradiction, & its author is the apostle John - the same author as 1,2 John, Revelation, & the Gospel that bears his name. In this case, lack of fulfillment of specific prophecy doesn’t “disqualify” a work of writing from being Inspired Scripture. Don’t think of it as an “all of the above,” but rather “most, if not all” of these godly attributes that make it God-breathed Scripture.

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?

Inerrant = without error. It must not contradict previous or later Scripture. Plus, it must not contradict what we know about reality (history, etc). Obviously, miracles aren’t dependent on science. However, any scientific claims Scripture makes doesn’t contradict what we know about the real world.

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

1 Clement was written by Clement of Rome in the late 1st Century (around 96 A.D. - around the time John wrote Revelation), & “possibly” by the “Clement” mentioned by Paul in the NT. However, in 1 Clement, Clement appears to believe the Phoenix is a real animal, which is not true. This, as well as possibly other reasons, is why it’s not God-breathed, & not in the NT.

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.

Most of the “over 400 early Christian manuscripts” were written long AFTER John penned Revelation & declared the canon of Scripture closed (Revelation Ch.22). I’ve read more of these “Christian manuscripts” than you probably think, & ALL of them make at least claims that contradict previous Scripture. Again, if even ONE claim contradicts previous Scripture, then it’s not Inspired. So, with all due respect to you & the CC, the Holy Spirit is able to help me discern what is, and what isn’t, Scripture just as He did the early Christian Church. And Scripture makes it clear that Mary did not “remain” a virgin after the birth of Jesus, just as many ECF’s & theologians believed, including Eusebius, who referenced earlier ECF’s, which proves that the Catholic church wasn’t “universal” (or, “catholic”) in their belief that Mary remained a perpetual virgin, because they realized that that’s supported by Scripture. The “universality” of that belief occurred much later.

 

[PRmerger]

Although many Christians throughout history believe that it was the apostle Paul, despite the fact him not mentioning himself in the salutation of his epistles, it’s obvious that it was a believing Jew. However authorship isn’t important, because as I previously mentioned, some of the attributes of God-breathed Scripture are inerrancy, lack of contradictions, & full-filled prophecy - all of which Hebrews fulfills. Lack of authorship doesn’t “disqualify” it as being inerrant.

Really. It doesn’t matter who wrote it. It doesn’t even have to be someone who witnessed the ministry of Christ or the Resurrection.

What a strange group of criteria you’ve established to determine whether something is theopneustos!

BTW: you should note that this arbitrary list of criteria is something NOT FOUND in a SINGLE PAGE of the Bible.

As such, I hope it gives you pause each and every time you argue with a Catholic about a particular belief that’s putatively not found in the Bible. You can’t reserve for yourself the right to do this, while objecting to someone else doing it.

And regarding this arbitrary, not-found-in-Scripture, criteria–it sounds to me like an ancient manuscript has to have* a few *of these criteria, but not all? For example, 3 John doesn’t have to have a prophecy, because it was written by an apostle. Hebrews doesn’t have to be written by an apostle, but it “lacks contradictions”, so that’s ok.

What’s the minimum number of criteria a manuscript has to have for it to be considered theopneustos? And where do you find this directive? It’s certainly not in the Bible!

And have you gone through all of the other over 400 ancient Christian manuscripts to determine how you exclude them from the inspired Word of God?

No?

Well, then, you’re simply deferring to the authority of the Catholic Church which discerned for you and me that they are NOT the inspired Word of God.

Incidentally, if you can have some of the arbitrary criteria you’ve listed, but not all, that would make the Didache and Shepherd of Hermas part of the canon. For they fit some of the criteria, but not all of the criteria…just like each of the 27 books of the NT do.

So what is it again that makes you know that the Shepherd of Hermas is not inspired?

Answer: you defer to the authority of the CC.

 

[PRmerger]

Inerrant = without error. It must not contradict previous or later Scripture.

Surely you see the cognitive dissonance this statement offers to us as Catholics.

You can’t use Scripture to determine what is Scripture–that would mean you’d already have the list of what’s theopneustos to begin with.

What you are actually professing is that there was the KERYGMA, which was professed and proclaimed ORALLY before a single word of the NT was put to writ.

That, my friend, is what the Catholic Church calls SACRED TRADITION.

What you are really saying is that the early Church presbyters heard the Word of God proclaimed ORALLY–it was received from the Apostles, to their successors, to their successors.

And then when these elders encountered a manuscript, they determined whether it contradicted SACRED TRADITION. If it was INERRANT, and didn’t contradict the KERYGMA, (again, received ORALLY), then they determined: this is theopneustos.

 

[PRmerger]

1 Clement was written by Clement of Rome in the late 1st Century (around 96 A.D. - around the time John wrote Revelation), & “possibly” by the “Clement” mentioned by Paul in the NT. However, in 1 Clement, Clement appears to believe the Phoenix is a real animal, which is not true. This, as well as possibly other reasons, is why it’s not God-breathed, & not in the NT.

Firstly, if it* is* Scripture, and contains fanciful things, you’d have to believe it, right?

So you can’t say “There’s a story in this book that’s not true, therefore it’s not Scripture”.

That would mean that you could dismiss the Gospel of Matthew because it contains a fanciful story of a human person walking on water. Rather, it’s in the Gospel, therefore we believe it.

Similarly, IF 1 Clement were theopneustos, we couldn’t dismiss the fanciful tale of a phoenix. It’s part of the Word of God, therefore we accept it.

So you can’t dismiss 1 Clement as being not inspired because it talks about a phoenix.

Any more than you can dismiss Numbers because it talks about Moses’ bronze staff healing those bitten by a venomous snake.

 

[PRmerger]

Most of the “over 400 early Christian manuscripts” were written long AFTER John penned Revelation & declared the canon of Scripture closed (Revelation Ch.22).

The canon of Scripture was not closed by John, taz. That’s ridiculous since the canon of Scripture* didn’t even exist at the time.* That would come 300 years later.

What he said was no one could add to “this book”–meaning, Revelation. Remember, there was no Bible when he wrote.

Incidentally, are you saying that another thing to add to your arbitrary list of criteria in determining whether something is inspired is that it had to be written before John putatively wrote Revelation?

If so, where is this written in the Bible?

I’ve read more of these “Christian manuscripts” than you probably think, & ALL of them make at least claims that contradict previous Scripture.

Again, this is nonsensical. That means you* already received *the canon and are comparing things to this canon.

We are asking how you know what belongs in the canon in the first place.

 

[ready]

If a person does not believe that Mary remained ever a virgin during and after Christ’s birth, then they have rejected Catholic teaching and aren’t even Catholic, even if they call themselves Catholic. A Catholic holds and believes ALL the truths of the Faith that are handed down universally by the Church. If a person dishonors Mary and repeatedly does so, this is a sign of reprobation. God bless you.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Most of the “over 400 early Christian manuscripts” were written long AFTER John penned Revelation & declared the canon of Scripture closed (Revelation Ch.22).

Here you have made a common mistake. Revelation 22 did not close the canon of scripture, and why that is the case is important.

Revelation 22:18-19 – Adding to the Word of God
catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9211qq.asp

Q: Revelation 22:18-19 says, “I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book; if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city described in this book.” Doesn’t this verse render the Catholic doctrine of sacred Tradition scripturally unviable since your Tradition is added to the Bible?

A: That conclusion might be possible if John’s phrase “this book” meant “the Bible,” but it doesn’t. It’s a common mistake of Evangelicals and Fundamentalists to assume that John was speaking here of the Bible as we know it - all 73 books (seven less in Protestant versions), from Genesis to Revelation, bound between two covers.

John wrote Revelation before the year 100, so he could not have had the Bible in mind when he penned this warning, because the Bible as we know it (and as many Protestants think he meant it) would not exist in its present form for three centuries.

The Catholic Church defined the canons of the Old and New Testaments at the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397). Before that time Christians weren’t certain exactly which books belonged in the canon because the Church hadn’t yet made a definitive decision on the issue.

Besides, oral Tradition isn’t something added to the Bible. Paul tells us in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 that Tradition comes to us in two forms, written and oral. He exhorts us to “stand firm and hold fast” to both the oral form and the written form of Tradition. In other words, the Lord gave the Church the Bible and oral Tradition as the two ways of preserving and handing on a single thing, the revealed Word of God.

There’s another reason Revelation 22:18-19 doesn’t disprove the Catholic doctrine of Tradition. **Virtually the same warning is given in Deuteronomy 4:2. **If we apply there the same principle that you want to apply in Revelation 22, we have a dilemma, because God would have prohibited the adding of anything to his statutes and decrees as found up to and including the book of Deuteronomy. If that were the case, all subsequent books of the Bible, including the book of Revelation itself, would be proscribed because they were added to the Pentateuch. That means Jeremiah and Ezekiel and Paul and John and all the writers of later books would have the aforementioned dreaded plagues “added unto them” because they added to what was already there.

So what was John really warning us about in Revelation 22? Simple. He had written the book of Revelation as a prophetic document for the edification and guidance of the Church, and he didn’t want it tampered with - nothing added, nothing subtracted. He knew that some knucklehead in a later generation might decide he could improve on the message, or, like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, twist it to better suit his personal theology. Revelation 22:1819 is essentially a first-century copyright, designed to discourage people from altering the work.

Unfortunately, the anonymous “emendation” of texts was rife in the early centuries of the Church, and bishops had to exercise extreme caution in verifying the authorship of the many “holy books” that were in circulation.

Even in Paul’s day there were con artists trying to pass off bogus “scripture” to unsuspecting Christians (many of whom only too readily took the bait): “We ask you, brothers. . . not to be shaken out of your minds suddenly or to be alarmed either by a ‘spirit’ or by an oral statement or by a letter allegedly from us to the effect that the Day of the Lord is already at hand. Let no one deceive you in any way” (2 Thess. 1:1-3).

 

[Randy_Carson]

And regarding this arbitrary, not-found-in-Scripture, criteria–it sounds to me like an ancient manuscript has to have* a few *of these criteria, but not all? For example, 3 John doesn’t have to have a prophecy, because it was written by an apostle. Hebrews doesn’t have to be written by an apostle, but it “lacks contradictions”, so that’s ok.

What’s the minimum number of criteria a manuscript has to have for it to be considered theopneustos? And where do you find this directive? It’s certainly not in the Bible!

Brilliant and devastating to Thetaz argument.

Catholics 1-0.

 

[clem456]

Scripture contradicts itself all over the place.
There are divergent accounts of basic items of the faith.

Insisting on Scripture as the sole and final word on all things simply denies the Incarnation of Christ.
It is also a self contradictory position, as Scripture itself details a community of believers acting as a Church, before the NT existed. :whacky:

Some inconvenient questions:

Why didn’t God just send a book out of the sky?
Why did Christ even bother to associate with other persons, and why would he give a mission to others if the written word is the sole authority? Couldn’t they just read the book (which didn’t exist yet)?
Why would God allow decades of time to pass without recording Scripture? Isn’t it all a human invention?
Why would God allow original writings to be lost forever?

Why would he allow the horrifying morass of human interactions that has given us the bible?