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

[thetazlord]

I just have a question here, which church ?

God Bless

The individual body of believers that make up Christ’s church. This isn’t necessarily isolated to a particular “denomination,” but all those believers who have genuinely repented & believed in Christ as both their Savior AND Lord, trusting solely on His shed blood on the cross for the remission of their sins.

Although this question is a Red Herring to the OP, I wanted to answer it. Now, can we return to the OP?

 

[thetazlord]

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

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

What I mean is that I acknowledge that “adelphos” has numerous meanings in the Greek, so I’m not isolating & limiting “brother” to one particular meaning. Rather, after examining ALL of the verses that discuss Jesus’ family, not just cherry-picking a few to support a preconceived personal belief, Scripture explicitly supports that Mary had other children, just as Scripture supports that they weren’t Jesus FULL-brothers, because Scripture doesn’t support that, just as it doesn’t support that Mary “remained” a virgin after the birth of Jesus.

 

[thetazlord]

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

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

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

Thanks.

Steve

It’s not in a vacuum. It’s acknowledging that since God-breathed Scripture can’t be wrong, & human opinion can, that any human opinion must be compared to Scripture. And the opinion of Mary’s perpetual virginity isn’t supported by Scripture, while Mary having other children does.

 

[thetazlord]

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

You asked me why I disagree with the magisterium. I say I "respect’ them because I don’t have an issue with them personally. Plus, to question the authority of the magisterium would be to violate forum rules, which I want to respect & obey. So, I don’t like to be bated with a question like that. So, let’s stick to the OP.

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

Yes, and the “lens” is Scripture which are a recording of what the apostles believed & taught, rather than the “opinions” of men which are not.

 

[wmscott]

You really have to ask me this??? Have you ever READ the New Testament? Although the word “Trinity” doesn’t appear in Scripture, the concept of the Trinity is explicitly described in Scripture - especially based on the original Greek (Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14; etc). But that in no way violates sola scriptura, which we’re not even discussing.

Now, can we get off the Red Herrings, & discuss the OP? I find myself attempting to redirect people to the OP more than actually discussing it!

No, I have never READ the New Testament, really, what a silly question! But I am obviously not as educated as you are regarding the Christian faith. I asked the questions that I did to illustrate that YOU can accept that an explicit WORD is not stated in the Bible, yet because it fits your theology you accept it. Yet when the Catholic Church, guided by the Holy Spirit in all truth, using Sacred Scripture, authoritatively teaches that the Blessed Mother remained a virgin after the birth of Christ, you refuse to understand the teachings and turn a blind eye. You are so stuck on a falsehood perpetuated by anti-Catholic sentiment. Sounds like you want to be able to espouse your theology using your set of rules but when the same rules are used to counter your misconceptions you call foul. I am no theologian by any means so I will defer to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church for the correct interpretations and teachings on the Christian faith. Since it is obvious that your vast wisdom and knowledge surpasses even the Church fathers, the Catholic Church and 2000 years discerning the truth, I ask what theological degrees you hold to personally interpret Sacred Scripture to authoritatively pronounce that the Blessed Mother did not remain a virgin after Christ’s birth.

 

[thetazlord]

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

but the Church cannot do this to you?

No, because it’s not “MY” interpretation of Scripture. In order for it to be “MY” interpretation, I would have to ADD something into Scripture that’s not there. That’s why you’re confused. Simply going strictly by Scripture - which is what I’m doing - avoids that. However, Christians who don’t believe in sola scriptura are the ones who actually “add” these man-made traditions into Scripture that’s not there. For example, since Scripture never states that Mary “remained” a virgin, the “interpretation” of Scripture that she did is tradition that is “added” into Scripture. That’s what Jesus & the writers of the Bible were against. Remember, accurate Biblical hermeneutics is based on a proper TRANSLATION of Scripture. In fact, the Greek word for “hermeneutics” specifically means “translation,” which is USED in the NT. When you “add” anything from a literal translation of the text, you are adding “YOUR” interpretation to Scripture. By me not doing that, I’m not adding “MY” interpretation to Scripture, since I’m not “adding” anything to it.

 

[thetazlord]

No, I have never READ the New Testament, really, what a silly question! But I am obviously not as educated as you are regarding the Christian faith. I asked the questions that I did to illustrate that YOU can accept that an explicit WORD is not stated in the Bible, yet because it fits your theology you accept it.

That’s because you really don’t understand what sola scriptura means. A particular “word” that describes a Biblical truth doesn’t have to literally be in the Bible for the concept of it to be true, nor does the absence of this word violate sola scriptura.

Yet when the Catholic Church, guided by the Holy Spirit in all truth, using Sacred Scripture, authoritatively teaches that the Blessed Mother remained a virgin after the birth of Christ, you refuse to understand the teachings and turn a blind eye.

And that’s because Scripture doesn’t support that. If so, show me in Sacred Scripture that it states that Mary REMAINED a virgin after the birth of Jesus - not just that she was a virgin DURING her pregnancy & AT Jesus’ birth.

You are so stuck on a falsehood perpetuated by anti-Catholic sentiment.

Please, I’m not “anti-catholic” anymore than you are “anti-protestant.” In order for me to be anti-catholic, I’ve have to be anti-everything the Catholic church teaches, which I’m not. Only those things that conflict with Scripture. So, enough with the infantile name-calling, & get back to the OP!

Sounds like you want to be able to espouse your theology using your set of rules but when the same rules are used to counter your misconceptions you call foul. I am no theologian by any means so I will defer to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church for the correct interpretations and teachings on the Christian faith. Since it is obvious that your vast wisdom and knowledge surpasses even the Church fathers, the Catholic Church and 2000 years discerning the truth, I ask what theological degrees you hold to personally interpret Sacred Scripture to authoritatively pronounce that the Blessed Mother did not remain a virgin after Christ’s birth.

The only “rules” I espouse to are those taught by Jesus & His apostles spelled out in Scripture. If Mary’s virginity were to be perpetual, God would have stated so in His Word, just as He did with Mary being a virgin DURING her pregnancy & AT the birth of Jesus. The fact there is ZERO evidence from Scripture that she “remained” a virgin, then that man-made “tradition” are the “precepts the doctrines of men” (Matthew 15:9). So, you can “defer” to the magisterium, but I’m going to “defer” to God’s Word, like the first century Christian Church did.

 

[SteveVH]

It’s not in a vacuum. It’s acknowledging that since God-breathed Scripture can’t be wrong, & human opinion can, that any human opinion must be compared to Scripture. And the opinion of Mary’s perpetual virginity isn’t supported by Scripture, while Mary having other children does.

You have still reached a conclusion based upon your fallible opinion. Again, the Scriptures may be inerrant but your personal interpretation of them, as well as mine, is not.

In any case, as Randy Carson has “proven” from Scripture, those mentioned as brothers of Jesus have been shown not to be children of Mary. Did you miss this:

Have you ever noticed that they are always mentioned as Brothers and sisters of Jesus but NEVER as children of Mary? Why not?

Brothers of Jesus, Not Sons of Mary

Many non-Catholics deny the Perpetual Virginity of Mary by referring to passages of scripture that mention the “brothers” of Jesus. A rigorous analysis of scripture, however, proves their position is false. Consider the following:

1. Jesus had a “brother” named James.

"Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?” (Matthew 13:55)

1. James, the Lord’s “brother”, is an apostle.

“Then, after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. (Galatians 1:18-19)

1. There are two apostles named James.

“When morning came, he called his disciples to him and chose twelve of them, whom he also designated apostles: Simon (whom he named Peter), his brother Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Simon who was called the Zealot, Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.” (Luke 6:13-16)

1. One James (the brother of John) is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his father is Zebedee.

“James son of Zebedee and his brother John (to them he gave the name Boanerges, which means Sons of Thunder)” (Mark 3:17)

1. The other apostle named James is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his father is Alpheus.

“And when it was day, he called his disciples, and chose from them twelve, whom he called apostles: Simon, whom he named Peter and Andrew his brother, and James and John and Philip and Bartholomew, and Matthew and James the son of Alpheus, and Simon who was called the Zealot, and Judas the son of James and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.” (Luke 6:13-16)

1. Therefore, neither apostle named James was a uterine brother of Jesus.
2. The man named Joseph (or Joses) is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his mother is Mary and his brother is James. Therefore, this Mary is the wife of Alphaeus.

“Many women were there, watching from a distance. They had followed Jesus from Galilee to care for his needs. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons.” (Matthew 27:55-56)

1. Judas is not a uterine brother of Jesus because he is the son of James.

“When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James.” (Acts 1:13)

1. While Matthew 15:35 declares James, Joseph and Judas to be the “brothers” of Jesus, it has been demonstrated from scripture that they are NOT uterine brothers of the Lord. From this, it is apparent that scripture must be using the term “brothers” to mean relatives other than sons of Mary.

Now, can you please name some of the other brothers or sisters of Jesus whom you believe to be children of Mary, per the Scriptures?

Thanks.

Steve

 

[zz912]

BZZZT!!! Actually, whenever Matthew translates “heos” to “until” in his Gospel, he ALWAYS refers to the activity ceasing in the future once an event ends:

Matthew 2:9,13,15; 5:18,26; 10:11,23; 11:12,13; 12:20; 13:30,33; 16:28; 17:9; 18:30,34; 22:44; 23:39; 24:21,34,39; 26:29; 27:45,64; 28:20 – ‘even’

You sure about that?

5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.

The law will not cease or be abolished at the Second Coming. Sin will still be sinful.

10:23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.

This CLEARLY does not represent a change, as once the Son of Man comes, there will not be more going into towns to preach.

11:12 From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force.

Proven wrong again here Taz. The violence to the kingdom of heaven still continues to this day.

12:20 He will not break a bruised reed
or quench a smoldering wick
until he brings justice to victory.

This also proves you wrong Taz. Jesus didn’t bruise a reed or quench a wick as He went to the Cross. So there was no change when He brought justice to victory.

22:44 ‘The Lord said to my Lord,
“Sit at my right hand,
until I put your enemies under your feet”’?

I’m curious Taz, are you saying that Jesus will no longer sit at the right hand of the Father after the Second Coming???

24:21 For at that time there will be great suffering, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be

This proves you wrong again. Once the suffering happens, will there be a suffering greater? Answer: no. So there is no change. There has never and will never be greater suffering than at the suffering Jesus is describing. That doesn’t change when the suffering arrives.

28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen

Are you saying that Jesus will leave us once the world ends Taz???

Seems you trusted some Protestant source for your “facts” about “until”, and you didn’t actually check them out yourself. You’ve been proven wrong again.

Do you now acknowledge you were wrong about this claim?

 

[sallybutler]

Didn’t Jesus also have a father named Joseph? Since the Bible talks about Joseph as the father of Jesus, often at the same time as it talks of the brothers, does that make Joseph the biological father of Jesus?

 

[wmscott]

That’s because you really don’t understand what sola scriptura means. A particular “word” that describes a Biblical truth doesn’t have to literally be in the Bible for the concept of it to be true, nor does the absence of this word violate sola scriptura.

** If this is so, then why is it so hard for you to accept that the Blessed Mother remained a virgin? And yes I have seen all of the supposed “Evidence” that has been put forth in this discussion. **

And that’s because Scripture doesn’t support that. If so, show me in Sacred Scripture that it states that Mary REMAINED a virgin after the birth of Jesus - not just that she was a virgin DURING her pregnancy & AT Jesus’ birth.

** Show me where it explicitly says She did not. Again yes I have seen all of the supposed “Evidence” that has been put forth in this discussion and I see nowhere where it is proven the She did not, just personal opinions. **

Please, I’m not “anti-catholic” anymore than you are “anti-protestant.” In order for me to be anti-catholic, I’ve have to be anti-everything the Catholic church teaches, which I’m not. Only those things that conflict with Scripture. So, enough with the infantile name-calling, & get back to the OP!

The only “rules” I espouse to are those taught by Jesus & His apostles spelled out in Scripture. If Mary’s virginity were to be perpetual, God would have stated so in His Word, just as He did with Mary being a virgin DURING her pregnancy & AT the birth of Jesus. The fact there is ZERO evidence from Scripture that she “remained” a virgin, then that man-made “tradition” are the “precepts the doctrines of men” (Matthew 15:9). So, you can “defer” to the magisterium, but I’m going to “defer” to God’s Word, like the first century Christian Church did.

 

[SteveVH]

No, because it’s not “MY” interpretation of Scripture. In order for it to be “MY” interpretation, I would have to ADD something into Scripture that’s not there.

Not true. If you added something to Scripture they would be your Scriptures, not your interpretation. All human beings must interpret the meaning of words, whether written or spoken. They do not interpret themselves. You must even interpret the words in this post. Therefore, any conclusions you reach are based upon your interpretation. That is why we require an infallible interpreter if we are to be certain of the truth present in an inerrant document.

 

[perpetual200]

“Only Scripture is described as God-breathed” No, Scripture itself declares that holy men of GOd SPAKE as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. Significant portions of Scripture itself were spoken before they were written down, most significantly the words the Lord Himself spoke while on earth. Do you contend that these words only became “God-breathed” after they were written down? Or that the written word contains the only words ever uttered that were “God-breathed”?

 

[SteveVH]

“Only Scripture is described as God-breathed” No, Scripture itself declares that holy men of GOd SPAKE as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. Significant portions of Scripture itself were spoken before they were written down, most significantly the words the Lord Himself spoke while on earth. Do you contend that these words only became “God-breathed” after they were written down? Or that the written word contains the only words ever uttered that were “God-breathed”?

The Catholic Church contends that Sacred Tradition is equally “God-breathed”.

 

[zz912]

So, since Scripture is God-breathed, & God cannot be wrong, then neither can His Word. Therefore, any “belief,” even if it comes from the Church, that contradicts what God-breathed Scripture supports can’t be right.

Scripture says the Church is God-breathed.

So by your standard, the Church cannot be wrong.

 

[eddie_too]

it is an interesting phenomena, the idea of some who post here, that those who read them should attribute more weight to their words than to the words of the successors to the apostles who were appointed by the Holy Spirit to continue the Savior’s work here on earth.

what exactly lies underneath the posts of those who reject the apostles and their successors and tout their own interpretations and beliefs as superior to those provided us by the magisterium of the RCC?

what are they thinking when they tell us to believe them and their interpretations rather than the words and interpretations of the magisterium of the RCC?

hmmmm, believe an anonymous internet commenter or believe the RCC? before answering that, realize that the RCC exists because Jesus created it. Jesus created it when He chose the Twelve, gave primacy to one of the Twelve and on the first Pentecost Sunday sent the Holy Spirit to dwell within It

for me, the choice is obvious. to which should we give the most weight. think of it like a scales with the RCC on one side and the anonymous blogger on the other side.

 

[perpetual200]

The Catholic Church contends that Sacred Tradition is equally “God-breathed”.

Thank you.

 

[SteveVH]

it is an interesting phenomena, the idea of some who post here, that those who read them should attribute more weight to their words than to the words of the successors to the apostles who were appointed by the Holy Spirit to continue the Savior’s work here on earth.

what exactly lies underneath the posts of those who reject the apostles and their successors and tout their own interpretations and beliefs as superior to those provided us by the magisterium of the RCC?

what are they thinking when they tell us to believe them and their interpretations rather than the words and interpretations of the magisterium of the RCC?

hmmmm, believe an anonymous internet commenter or believe the RCC? before answering that, realize that the RCC exists because Jesus created it. Jesus created it when He chose the Twelve, gave primacy to one of the Twelve and on the first Pentecost Sunday sent the Holy Spirit to dwell within It

for me, the choice is obvious. to which should we give the most weight. think of it like a scales with the RCC on one side and the anonymous blogger on the other side.

Indeed.

 

[Samuel1998]

Even when i wasnt catholic i always assumed that she didnt have any other children.jesus is too pure to share a mother with anyone(or thats what i think)

 

[wmscott]

it is an interesting phenomena, the idea of some who post here, that those who read them should attribute more weight to their words than to the words of the successors to the apostles who were appointed by the Holy Spirit to continue the Savior’s work here on earth.

what exactly lies underneath the posts of those who reject the apostles and their successors and tout their own interpretations and beliefs as superior to those provided us by the magisterium of the RCC?

what are they thinking when they tell us to believe them and their interpretations rather than the words and interpretations of the magisterium of the RCC?

hmmmm, believe an anonymous internet commenter or believe the RCC? before answering that, realize that the RCC exists because Jesus created it. Jesus created it when He chose the Twelve, gave primacy to one of the Twelve and on the first Pentecost Sunday sent the Holy Spirit to dwell within It

for me, the choice is obvious. to which should we give the most weight. think of it like a scales with the RCC on one side and the anonymous blogger on the other side.

Ditto