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

[zz912]

 Bible wasn't getting together till 50 years after Christ's death. Not completed till Constantine circa around 400AD. 
              In Christs' love,
              Alice:)

Most or all of the New Testament books were written before 50 years after Christ’s death.

And Constantine had NOTHING to do with the canon of Scripture. He issued the Edict of Toleration, which made Christianity allowed or legal in the Empire. He also called for the Council of Nicaea to once-and-for-all decide the issue of the Arian heresy. (He actually leaned towards Arius’ view, but accepted the Church’s declaration condemning Arianism.)

He had nothing to do with the books of the Bible.

 

[pablope]

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.

 

[thetazlord]

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.

You kind of answered your own question. Obviously, just because a particular writing, like the Shepherd of Hermas, was read in the early Church that doesn’t “automatically” mean that it’s God-breathed. Does it contain any errors? Do we know for a fact that this “Hermas” was the Hermas of the NT? Even Jimmy Akin simply says “he’s may be mentioned in the NT” - not that he’s definitely the same one. He says the same thing about the “Clement” in the NT being the same Clement of Rome:

youtube.com/watch?v=VATRBBeB184

So, although a canonical book, such as Matthew, was read in the churches, like the Shepherd & 1 Clement, that doesn’t “automatically” make the latter to God-breathed. Again, there are “other” godly attributes that would have to mirror God’s character in order for it to be considered Inspired. Peter recognized these godly attributes in ALL of Paul’s epistles, & Paul recognized them in Luke’s, which are mirrored in the other Gospels. As far as Revelation goes, I think you’re missing the point I’m making about Revelation Ch.22. When John writes this, he understood the canon of Scripture to be “closed” because although that chapter pertains to Revelation, Revelation begins by writing not only about future events (“what will take place after this”)(Rev. 1:19c), but also the things that John “had seen” (v.19a), as well as “the things that are” (v.19b). This Revelation John had “seen” was from Jesus Christ Himself (v.1), & was written after all the other books of the NT, including Jude, who wrote about “the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude v.3). So, when John writes not to “add nor take away” in Rev. Ch.22, he’s referring to not just the book of Revelation itself, but also “what” Revelation is about - which includes the events of what John “had” (past tense) seen, as well as “the things that are” in John’s present, as well as the things that “will be.” John understood by words of our Lord, that the canon was closed.

And Scripture & non-canonical writings about “fanciful” things isn’t what disqualifies a piece of literature from being Inspired. What I said was that it couldn’t contradict previous nor later Inspired Scripture, which must be inerrant, as well as lack contradictions. If it contained contradictions or errors, then it wouldn’t be God-breathed, because that would be like saying God is in error or contradicts Himself which is impossible. And all of these godly attributes are found in the 27 books in the NT.

But this is all really a Red Herring, because since we agree that ALL of the 27 Gospels & epistles of the NT are God-breathed, then what’s contained in those books are God-breathed. So, since they indeed ARE God-breathed, then do these 27 God-breathed Scriptures affirm that Mary remained a virgin after her marriage? Although Scripture states John took Mary into her house after she was pregnant with Jesus & became his wife & kept her a virgin during this time (Matthew 1:24-25) - “where” in the NT, or even in the OT, does it state that Mary REMAINED a virgin after the birth of Jesus? Even the Isaiah 7:14 prophecy doesn’t state she would “remain” a virgin after the “Child’s” birth. It only states that the “virgin” would be one during her pregnancy, & at the birth - not afterwards “too.” If this is not true, then since you are making the assertion that she did, then the burden of proof is on you to prove from Scripture that she “remained” a virgin. I don’t have to prove a negative. So, please show me that Scripture verse(s).

 

[thetazlord]

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.

Actually, by time of Jesus, the Law of Moses was already recognized as Inspired, which was accepted by the Pharisees as well as the Sadducees. In fact, the Law of Moses was recognized as Inspired Scripture by the time of Joshua (Joshua 1:8; 8:34-35; 24:26; etc). In fact, Jimmy Akin even acknowledges that the Pharisees acknowledged the EXACT SAME writings of the OT Scriptures that Protestants recognized in their canon:

youtube.com/watch?v=dF5NYPENhp4

The reason for this (that Mr. Akin doesn’t go into) is because the Pharisees would have been well-aware of what’s commonly known as “The Great Synagogue” led by Ezra around 400-450 B.C. (not be confused with the “alleged” Council of Jamnia of 90 A.D.), who, with others, collected the OT Scriptures - the same found in the Protestant OT canon - & with the guidance of the Holy Spirit recognized the canon & declared their canon closed. What we find in the NEW Testament canon is a fulfillment of that OLD Testament canon in the Person of Jesus Christ. So, there are no contradictory writings, nor errant writings, in the NT that conflict with the Old. So, “where” in the OT canon, or to the NT canon does it state, or support, that Mary “remained” a virgin after the birth of Jesus?

 

[thetazlord]

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.

No offense, but you can’t even begin to compare the too. Again, something being “fanciful” doesn’t disqualify something being God-breathed, nor did I allude to that. One of the things that disqualify 1 Clement from being Inspired is that he appears to BELIEVE that the Phoenix is a real animal. And we know that the Phoenix isn’t a real animal. That would be like saying God BELIEVES the Phoenix is a real animal. That’s (one of) the things that disqualify it. But regarding the bronze staff healing in Numbers, no one questions that, because it actually happened, because not only Moses himself was there - but Joshua too attest the validity of that event & the other events of the “book” of the Law (Joshua 1:8; 8:34-35; 24:26). So, sorry, but that’s not a good comparison.

You also mentioned the epistles (plural) of Clement. Well, we know 2 Clement is falsely attributed to Clement, because that “epistle” is dated long after Clement was dead & contains information in it the conflicts with Scripture. At best, it’s pseudoepigraphical, like the Protoevangelium of James (whose “alleged” author, James the Just had been dead for around 100-150 years) who writes about a different “Mary” & “Joseph” than the ones in the NT, which is the “actual” earliest “source” for the “brothers” of Jesus being Joseph’s older sons from an “alleged” previous marriage, even though there is ZERO evidence from Scripture that Joseph was ever married. So, I find it odd that you reject the pseudoepigraphical accounts of 2 Clement that aren’t supported by recognized Inspired Scripture, yet embrace another pseudoepigraphical account of Mary & Joseph (the Protoevangelium) that is also not supported in recognized God-breathed Scripture. Are “some” of the events similar to the Gospel accounts. Sure, but so is Clement, but for some of the same reasons, we shouldn’t “assume” that the events in them are true, just because they “match” with our preconceived religious views. We need to be more noble-minded like the Bereans & compare what’s being taught - including in pseudoepigraphical writings - TO Scripture (Acts 17:10-11).

 

[thetazlord]

PRmerger:
BTW, this is all “why” Jesus refers to the OT canon not just as “The Law (of Moses) & the Prophets” (which He refers to throughout the Gospels), but actually more specifically in the Gospel of Luke, Ch.24 as “the Law, the Prophets, AND the Psalms.” By specifically mentioning the Psalms separately, Jesus is acknowledging that it’s a separate “section” from the Prophets, that later Jews & Protestants would recognize as the THREE-FOLD DIVISION TaNaKh, which also has separate “sections,” different from the traditional Catholic canon that contains FOUR “sections” expanded from the Law & the Prophets:

Torah: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy;
Historical books: Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees;
Sapiential (Wisdom) books: Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Wisdom, Sirach;
Prophetic books: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Baruch, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi

But, again, all this is a Red Herring. Since we BOTH agree that ALL of the 27 writings of the NT “are” indeed God-breathed, can we “try” to stay on subject & focus on the OP???

 

[joe371]

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

Perhaps so our blessed mother Mary could, in an undivided manner, devote all of her attention to worshipping her Son and spreading the good news (i.e. evangelizing 24/7 in an attempt to share with everyone the beautiful mysteries of our Savior) - knowing full well that it was infinitely more important to ensure that everyone she met was endowed with the knowledge of the will of Jesus’ Father in heaven, versus having more children. After all Jesus did agree with the idea of focusing on teaching everyone about the ecclesial/spiritual family:

He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

 

[Randy_Carson]

Clement’s epistle was considered Scripture by Corinthians, and was read in their Divine Liturgy…and was considered canonical for several decades. One of the criterias for being in the final canon was that of being read in the Churches…so if Clement 1 was read in the Churches…why was it not put in the final canon of the NT?

Can you come up with a plausible explanation based on facts…not conjecture?

:nope:

Following your logic…the Gospel of John was written after Revelation…so why is the Gospel of John in the final NT canon?

http://www.pakkotoisto.com/attachme...eenissa-kyykkya-maastavetoa-ei-ole-booyah.jpg

And where does Rev 22 say or enumerate what the final canon is?

uch:

So much for THAT theory.

 

[stewstew03]

…“where” in the NT, or even in the OT, does it state that Mary REMAINED a virgin after the birth of Jesus?
…

I already explained this to you here, but perhaps you didn’t see it…? Anyway, read what God says in Ezekiel (specifically chapter 44).

 

[joe371]

:nope:

http://www.pakkotoisto.com/attachme...eenissa-kyykkya-maastavetoa-ei-ole-booyah.jpg

uch:

So much for THAT theory.

LOL…

 

[thetazlord]

I already explained this to you here, but perhaps you didn’t see it…? Anyway, read what God says in Ezekiel (specifically chapter 44).

Actually, I did see it. And I have addressed it, either with you or another poster. First, that specific Ezekiel prophecy has nothing to do with Mary. In fact, it has nothing really to do with Jesus either. If you keep reading, it talks about a future “prince,” but if you continue reading, it can’t be referring to Jesus, because this “prince” has to make sacrifices for his sins, which couldn’t be Jesus, since He’s sinless (2 Corinth 5:21), as well as other things written about this “prince” that can’t be Jesus. Also, this is an example of reading too deep into a text a preconceived religious belief. So, even “if” this “prince” was Jesus (which it’s not), all it states is Him entering into Jerusalem through a gate. And based on the eschatology, there will be a third Temple built in the end times that the “man of lawlessness” will enter & desecrate this Temple.

That being said, this Ezekiel text in no way proves, Scripturally, that Mary was a perpetual virgin. Try again.

 

[thetazlord]

Perhaps so our blessed mother Mary could, in an undivided manner, devote all of her attention to worshipping her Son and spreading the good news (i.e. evangelizing 24/7 in an attempt to share with everyone the beautiful mysteries of our Savior) - knowing full well that it was infinitely more important to ensure that everyone she met was endowed with the knowledge of the will of Jesus’ Father in heaven, versus having more children. After all Jesus did agree with the idea of focusing on teaching everyone about the ecclesial/spiritual family:

He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

These verses in Matthew Ch.12 actually support that Jesus had uterine brothers, because if you go back a few verses, Jesus actually contrasts his unbelieving brothers OUTSIDE, with His believing “brothers” INSIDE. So, since there’s no such thing as an “unbelieving believer,” these unbelieving brothers are brothers who are related to Jesus by blood - ie: Jesus’ younger half-brothers.

 

[joe371]

These verses in Matthew Ch.12 actually support that Jesus had uterine brothers, because if you go back a few verses, Jesus actually contrasts his unbelieving brothers OUTSIDE, with His believing “brothers” INSIDE. So, since there’s no such thing as an “unbelieving believer,” these unbelieving brothers are brothers who are related to Jesus by blood - ie: Jesus’ younger half-brothers.

It is impossible to determine one way or the other…But I respect your right to disagree…I could give my take on it to prove you wrong, but it would simply be my opinion versus yours, resulting in an impasse. Scripture cannot resolve the issue for us.

 

[joe371]

That being said, this Ezekiel text in no way proves, Scripturally, that Mary was a perpetual virgin. Try again.

In John 19:26, Jesus, from the cross, gave his Mother to the care of John even though by law the next eldest sibling would have the responsibility to care for her. It is unthinkable that Jesus would take his Mother away from his family in disobedience to the law.

 

[thetazlord]

Better check your fact again…Thetazlord…Clement’s epistle was considered Scripture by Corinthians, and was read in their Divine Liturgy…and was consedered canonical for several decades. One of the criterias for being in the final canon was that of being read in the Churches…so if Clement 1 was read in the Churches…why was it not put in the final canon of the NT?

 

[thetazlord]

It is impossible to determine one way or the other…But I respect your right to disagree…I could give my take on it to prove you wrong, but it would simply be my opinion versus yours, resulting in an impasse. Scripture cannot resolve the issue for us.

So, since it’s impossible to have an “unbelieving believer,” then - Scripturally - who are these “brothers” in Matthew Ch.12 on the OUTSIDE that differ from Jesus’ believing “brothers” on the INSIDE? Keep in mind, that these unbelieving “brothers” who are related to Jesus are mentioned in the same sentence as Jesus’ biological mother. So, without a preconceived religious view, then “who” does it make the most sense are these “brothers” of Jesus with His biological mother?

 

[thetazlord]

In John 19:26, Jesus, from the cross, gave his Mother to the care of John even though by law the next eldest sibling would have the responsibility to care for her. It is unthinkable that Jesus would take his Mother away from his family in disobedience to the law.

Actually, there is no OT Law commanding the “next eldest sibling” to care for the mother if both the husband & oldest son are both dead. Therefore, Jesus would not be bound by this man-made Law (see Matthew Ch.15). Jesus could therefore entrust His earthly mother to His “spiritual brother” John. That’s actually what Jesus is trying to get across in Matthew Ch.12 when He contrasts His biological family (mother & brothers) with His “spiritual” family (believers), since His biological brothers didn’t believe in Him & were mocking Him during His ministry (John 7:3-5). This explains “why” they weren’t at the cross, & why Jesus had the freedom to assign care to His mother to His spiritual “brother” - as well as Jesus’ cousin - the apostle John.

So, Jesus didn’t “take His mother away from his family in disobedience to the law,” since: a) there was no Law in the OT commanding this; b) Jesus entrusted her to a close & faithful family member, His cousin John; & 3) in addition to being closely blood-related family, John was also Jesus’ “spiritual” family, which is more important.

 

[Porknpie]

In fact, Jimmy Akin even acknowledges that the Pharisees acknowledged the EXACT SAME writings of the OT Scriptures that Protestants recognized in their canon:

They did, but not in the time of Jesus. The Pharisees put their canon together only after the Christians professed the Deuterocanonical’s as being scripture. The Greek speeking Jews of the diaspora - and there were more Greek speaking Jews than not - recognized the Deuterocanonical’s as the inspired and inerrant, the written Word of God, conflicting with the Pharisees. But the Jews also, believed in oral Tradition, separate from the written book.

So are you suggesting that Christians defer to the Pharisees to determine what is scripture? And on what basis in scripture do we do so? All Christians for 1,500 years believed in at least 73 books…not 66. Even the Original King James 1611 bible had 73.

What we find in the NEW Testament canon is a fulfillment of that OLD Testament canon in the Person of Jesus Christ.

Yes and this is why Catholics can so clearly see the prefigurement of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist in the Old Testament. We can see the prefigurement in the Last Supper, the Manna and the Showbread.

So, there are no contradictory writings, nor errant writings, in the NT that conflict with the Old.

for one, the Jewish faith would disagree with you. You see the NT through the eyes of faith, but not the full apostolic faith taught by Christ to the apostles and from them to their descendants, and from the descendants to their descendants…and on… Christianity was Catholic and of One faith, all believing in the 7 Sacraments. All of Christianity believed so until the 1,500’s…

 

[clem456]

…
What we find in the NEW Testament canon is a fulfillment of that OLD Testament canon in the Person of Jesus Christ.

Wait a minute… you come close to claiming that Christ is the Word Made Flesh.

Are you sure you want to do that? Are you claiming Christ is an actual person who existed in time and space? Be careful. Before you can say “we find in the New Testament canon”, you must first find the person, Christ. And if you find the person Christ, you must find a community of believers -before the NT is recorded-. Are you sure you mean what you say above?

It seems to me you do not mean what your statement above implies, but rather you are continually making the point that the book fulfills the person. That’s actually what you are claiming throughout your postings here: “the book fulfills the person”. Do you realize, that puts you in absurd opposition to your reliance on Scripture, which claims that Christ the person is the fulfillment of the book. Your position denies the personhood of Christ. Your faith lies in a book, not a real person.

That is problematic, to say the least, in Christianity, the whole point of which is God coming to meet man in the flesh, to save us from “death by book”. The whole of the OT points to a person, not a book.

So, there are no contradictory writings, nor errant writings, in the NT that conflict with the Old. So, “where” in the OT canon, or to the NT canon does it state, or support, that Mary “remained” a virgin after the birth of Jesus?

Scripture contradicts itself so much it’s not even worth debating. You quote a lot of material here. What you should do is go talk to someone who does scripture as a life’s vocation, and talk to them about the myriad family trees of scripture interpretations that have developed over the centuries.
Botched translations, margin notes becoming part of scripture, disputed authorship, authorship by parishes not individuals.
The absence of contradiction and other transmission difficulties does not prove inspiration, any more than that fact that my sister can’t remember my mother’s hair color 30 years ago doesn’t mean we don’t remember the same mother. My sister and I know and remember the same mother despite sometimes wildly diverging accounts of events that couldn’t possibly be wildly diverging or contradictory. Scripture is a messy endeavor undertaken by sinful humans inspired by God, but it’s still inspired.

Those who wrote the Gospel were contradictions themselves. they wanted to be committed followers of the Person, but were awful persons in many ways, some of them unfaithful to the end. Yet Christ not only accepted death in the shadow of their unfaithfulness, he rose and still, gave to these persons his Tradition. He trusted common sinners with the words of eternal life. No tape recorders, no video, no pens and paper at Pentecost. If God wanted the book to be our faith, he sure did his best to fail us.

Not very smart, our God, placing his trust in Peter and company !!!, when he could have just written it all down for us, no contradictions necessary.

Your faith is inverted. Christ should be at the top of the pile. From Christ the person comes the community, a living Tradition, then the book.

You’ll find this unsatisfying, but we believe Mary is Ever-Virgin because the community that Christ breathed on says it is so. That is radically countercultural in our show-me-the-money, hyper-enlightened, individual rights, free thinking culture.

I dunno, I figure if Christ can be obedient to something so stupid and humiliating as crucifixion, I can maybe submit myself to something.

 

[Porknpie]

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.

One could argue that Hebrews has contradictions to the other Pauline texts (which raises whether it is inspired or not).

1. the author never had an encounter with Jesus (2:3)
2. The Greek style and vocabulary is different than the other Pauline epistles
3. Has a theology of salvation by works (Ch 11), not faith
4. Has a letter closing but no letter opening
5. The rhetorical structure is different

PnP