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

[thetazlord]

How do you know that she is NOT a spiritual sister or even a god sister or adopted sister? It is a possibility? What information do you have to zero in that she is a biological sister?

Like I said in my previous quote: “…there are Hebrew & Greek words for “in-law” USED in both the OT & NT. If the “other” Mary was a sister-in-law, John would have used it.” Also, Israelites didn’t have “god-sisters” in the way modern Catholicism defines the term. No offense, but you are arguing from silence for the “possibility” that she was a spiritual “sister.” I would also encourage you to read post #1005 where I go into more detail.

 

[thetazlord]

1. Since you have identified James/Joses/Simon/Jude to be the children of Joseph and Mary, that will make these foursome maternal half brothers of Jesus.
2. (a) There is a Greek word for that.
   (b) Since the gospel writers didn’t use that word, therefore
   (c) these foursome can not be the maternal half brothers of Jesus.

This is arguing from silence. I don’t think you find this acceptable. Hence, your approach for cousin belongs to the same category. In fact you can substitute any word there and have the same result.

1. (a) Adelphos is used to describe the paternal half brothers Philip/Herod.
   (b) Therefore these foursome could be/are Jesus paternal half brothers.
2. These foursome are adopted. Adelphos is equally appropriate to describe them. You may claim the Bible didn’t say that. And my response is the same as yours, the Bible didn’t say Joseph fathered these kids with Mary either.

I am not claiming that you are wrong in your allegations, I am claiming that you can’t prove Mary non EV from scriptures. Catholics still have a valid claim from Traditions. You don’t. You are stuck with the Bible-only criteria.

Many Catholic and Protestant experts have gone through these a million times and they are gracious enough to admit that scriptural evidence is inconclusive at best. One can go either way. Humility may be exercised prudently here.

But it is your call. I am happy to go along and see this to an inconclusive end.

No offense, but these are not the arguments I’m making. You are “partially” corrrect in “Part 1” but it goes further than this. Refer to #1005 of this thread below.

 

[thetazlord]

Yes. Egg-actly! Just like you, St. Jerome was examining the scriptures. Fifty-five times he refers to it, so he is responding to your comment here:

Keep in mind at the time he is writing, there was no bible, no affirmed universal canon of Scripture to be used at Mass. He would help with this a few years later by 400 ad.

He’s showing you Thetazelord 1,500 years ago the answer to your question, as many have on this post.

All he’s doing is showing his “opinion” which is that there were THREE women at the cross, instead of the FOUR supported by Scripture. Refer to post #1005 for more detail.

 

[thetazlord]

Looks like this is getting to the end, for this thread at least, I am sure this is not the first of it’s kind and sadly it will not be the last.

Hats off to all that has taken the time to exhaustively explain the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mother. All of you provided voluminous details from the ECFs and Sacred Scripture that refuted the many attacks and falsehoods perpetrated against the Blessed Mother. Sadly it fell on deaf ears for some. Lets pray that a seed was planted to the obstinate and that the Holy Spirit will soften his heart towards Christ Blessed Mother. I also pray that of the many who were just observing that a seed of understanding and enlightenment was planted and that they will come to know and appreciate the Blessed Mother as the Catholic Church does.

Thank You :clapping::clapping::clapping:

Before this thread does get closed, refer to my post #1005 for more detail.

 

[thetazlord]

And where were all these younger children when Jesus was twelve?

Among the other unnamed members of Jesus’ family who were in the caravan. When Joseph & Mary went looking for them, they would have simply left all these half-siblings with the rest of their relatives. That would not be unusual in ancient Jewish families in the first century. So, it’s not an issue “why” they aren’t mentioned specifically, anymore than Jesus’ cousins, like James & John the sons of Zebedee & Salome aren’t mentioned either. Let alone Jesus’ mother’s sister (Salome) isn’t mentioned either. Refer to post #1005 for more detail.

 

[Cathoholic]

Reverse Historical Timeline on the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary (Continued)

PRE 379 A.D.

(St. Basil died in 379 A.D.)

ST. BASIL THE GREAT How shall this be, said the holy Virgin, seeing I know not a man? And the archangel Gabriel answered her: The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, . . . .
— An Exact Exposition of Orthodox Faith St. Basil Book IV CHAPTER XIII.

ST. BASIL THE GREAT Who did not bring down His body from Heaven, nor simply passed through the Virgin as channel, but received from her flesh of like essence to our own and subsisting in Himself (7). For if the body had come down from heaven and had not partaken of our nature, what would have been the use of His becoming man? For the purpose of God the Word becoming man (8) was that the very same nature, which had sinned and fallen and become corrupted, should triumph over the deceiving tyrant and so be freed from corruption, just as the divine apostle puts it, For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead (9). If the first is true the second must also be true.
— An Exact Exposition of Orthodox Faith St. Basil Book III CHAPTER XII.

Objection: Here St. Basil merely refers to Mary as “the Virgin”, or “the Holy Virgin” earlier. But St. Basil does NOT refer to Mary here as EVER Virgin!

Answer: That’s partially right! But recall what I said about the term “the Virgin” just being matter of factly the way the Ancient Church Fathers asserted and referred to Mary’s Perpetual Virginity?

Objection: Yes? But how can I know that is true?

Answer: Fortunately we can find out from St. Basil himself who uses the term “the Virgin” INTERCHANGABLY with Mary “EVER-Virgin”!

Let’s look at more of St. Basil’s quotes from this same document and see how “the Virgin” equates with Mary EVER-Virgin.

ST. BASIL THE GREAT The ever-virgin One thus remains even after the birth still virgin, having never at any time up till death consorted with a man. For although it is written, And knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born Son, yet note that he who is first-begotten is first-born even if he is only-begotten. For the word “first-born” means that he was born first but does not at all suggest the birth of others. And the word “till” signifies the limit of the appointed time but does not exclude the time thereafter.
— An Exact Exposition of Orthodox Faith St. Basil Book IV Chap 14

ST. BASIL THE GREAT For the divine Word was not made one with flesh that had an independent pre-existence, but taking up His abode in the womb of the holy Virgin, He unreservedly in His own subsistence took upon Himself through the pure blood of the eternal Virgin a body of flesh animated with the spirit of reason and thought, thus assuming to Himself the first-fruits of man’s compound nature, Himself, the Word, having become a subsistence in the flesh. . . .
— An Exact Exposition of Orthodox Faith St. Basil Book III Chap 2

Here he uses them both together in the same paragraph interchangeably (“virgin” and “ever-virgin”)!

ST. BASIL THE GREAT For what greater thing is there, than that God should become Man? And the Word became flesh without being changed, of the Holy Spirit, and Mary the holy and ever-virgin one, the mother of God. And He acts as mediator between God and man, He the only lover of man conceived in the Virgin’s chaste womb without will or desire, or any connection with man or pleasurable generation, but through the Holy Spirit and the first offspring of Adam. And He becomes obedient to the Father Who is like unto us, and finds a remedy for our disobedience in what He had assumed from us, and became a pattern of obedience to us without which it is not possible to obtain salvation.
— An Exact Exposition of Orthodox Faith St. Basil Book III Chap 1

So we see St. Basil referring to Mary interchangeably with different monikers. And what were they?

“The Virgin” = “The Holy Virgin” = “Ever Virgin one” = “eternal virgin” = “ever virgin”

Did you get that?

St. Basil uses these terms interchangeably quite naturally without any felt need to start in with definitions (because he knows his readers ALREADY know the definitions).

**“The Virgin” = The Holy Virgin” = “Ever Virgin one” = “eternal virgin” = “ever virgin” **

Objection! St. Basil denied the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary!

Answer: Non-sense. Let’s go on and see what St. Basil had to say that deniers try unsuccessfully to hijack against the Perpetual Virginity doctrine (despite the quotes we’ve already seen from St. Basil the Great).

 

[thetazlord]

Reverse Historical Timeline on the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary (Continued)

PRE 379 A.D.

(St. Basil died in 379 A.D.)

ST. BASIL THE GREAT How shall this be, said the holy Virgin, seeing I know not a man? And the archangel Gabriel answered her: The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, . . . .
— An Exact Exposition of Orthodox Faith St. Basil Book IV CHAPTER XIII.

ST. BASIL THE GREAT Who did not bring down His body from Heaven, nor simply passed through the Virgin as channel, but received from her flesh of like essence to our own and subsisting in Himself (7). For if the body had come down from heaven and had not partaken of our nature, what would have been the use of His becoming man? For the purpose of God the Word becoming man (8) was that the very same nature, which had sinned and fallen and become corrupted, should triumph over the deceiving tyrant and so be freed from corruption, just as the divine apostle puts it, For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead (9). If the first is true the second must also be true.
— An Exact Exposition of Orthodox Faith St. Basil Book III CHAPTER XII.

Objection: Here St. Basil merely refers to Mary as “the Virgin”, or “the Holy Virgin” earlier. But St. Basil does NOT refer to Mary here as EVER Virgin!

Answer: That’s partially right! But recall what I said about the term “the Virgin” just being matter of factly the way the Ancient Church Fathers asserted and referred to Mary’s Perpetual Virginity?

Objection: Yes? But how can I know that is true?

Answer: Fortunately we can find out from St. Basil himself who uses the term “the Virgin” INTERCHANGABLY with Mary “EVER-Virgin”!

Let’s look at more of St. Basil’s quotes from this same document and see how “the Virgin” equates with Mary EVER-Virgin.

ST. BASIL THE GREAT The ever-virgin One thus remains even after the birth still virgin, having never at any time up till death consorted with a man. For although it is written, And knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born Son, yet note that he who is first-begotten is first-born even if he is only-begotten. For the word “first-born” means that he was born first but does not at all suggest the birth of others. And the word “till” signifies the limit of the appointed time but does not exclude the time thereafter.
— An Exact Exposition of Orthodox Faith St. Basil Book IV Chap 14

ST. BASIL THE GREAT For the divine Word was not made one with flesh that had an independent pre-existence, but taking up His abode in the womb of the holy Virgin, He unreservedly in His own subsistence took upon Himself through the pure blood of the eternal Virgin a body of flesh animated with the spirit of reason and thought, thus assuming to Himself the first-fruits of man’s compound nature, Himself, the Word, having become a subsistence in the flesh. . . .
— An Exact Exposition of Orthodox Faith St. Basil Book III Chap 2

Here he uses them both together in the same paragraph interchangeably (“virgin” and “ever-virgin”)!

ST. BASIL THE GREAT For what greater thing is there, than that God should become Man? And the Word became flesh without being changed, of the Holy Spirit, and Mary the holy and ever-virgin one, the mother of God. And He acts as mediator between God and man, He the only lover of man conceived in the Virgin’s chaste womb without will or desire, or any connection with man or pleasurable generation, but through the Holy Spirit and the first offspring of Adam. And He becomes obedient to the Father Who is like unto us, and finds a remedy for our disobedience in what He had assumed from us, and became a pattern of obedience to us without which it is not possible to obtain salvation.
— An Exact Exposition of Orthodox Faith St. Basil Book III Chap 1

So we see St. Basil referring to Mary interchangeably with different monikers. And what were they?

“The Virgin” = “The Holy Virgin” = “Ever Virgin one” = “eternal virgin” = “ever virgin”

Did you get that?

St. Basil uses these terms interchangeably quite naturally without any felt need to start in with definitions (because he knows his readers ALREADY know the definitions).

**“The Virgin” = The Holy Virgin” = “Ever Virgin one” = “eternal virgin” = “ever virgin” **

Objection! St. Basil denied the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary!

Answer: Non-sense. Let’s go on and see what St. Basil had to say that deniers try unsuccessfully to hijack against the Perpetual Virginity doctrine (despite the quotes we’ve already seen from St. Basil the Great).

Still quoting ECF’s, rather than appealing to Scripture, I see. Refer to post #1005.

 

[Cathoholic]

Reverse Historical Timeline on the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary (Continued)

PRE 379 A.D. (Continued)

Objection: Well, St. Basil specifically says the Perpetual Virginity doctrine is an “optional belief”.

ST. BASIL THE GREAT “[The opinion that Mary bore several children after Christ] . . . . is not against the faith; for virginity was imposed on Mary **as a necessity only up to the time that she served as an instrument for the Incarnation. On the other hand, her subsequent virginity was not essential to the mystery of the Incarnation.” (Homily On the Holy Birth of Christ).

Answer: Please be careful with this quote. Why? Because a lot of context is missing. We see ellipses and parenthetical additions that may or may not be accurate and we see only a brief context here! As far as I can tell the whole document has not been translated into English yet (although as we will see, other parts of the document HAVE been translated and does support Catholic [and Eastern Orthodox] Christian doctrine).

But there is MORE that IS translated on this SAME document that the deniers never quote (as we will see below).

All St. Basil is asserting here above is that

Mary’s subsequent virginity was not essential to the mystery of the Incarnation.

NOT that Mary didn’t maintain that Virginity.

**And NOT that the Church thinks Mary’s Perpetual Virginity is an optional item for belief. **

There are reasons WHY all the ancient Greeks affirmed this doctrine (do you think the ancient Greek Christians might have read St. Basil?).

St. Basil was saying God COULD have done this differently (but later in the same document, St. Basil reminds us this is the way God fore ordained this) and asserting that God COULD have done it differently is in and of itself not against the faith.

But asserting that God DID do it differently IS against the faith (as we will see St. Basil teach in this same document).

St. Basil says (later in this same document) that God did NOT DO it differently. God asserted the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

We will see here, there was no confusion about the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary with St. Basil or any other Father.

Objector: What else did St. Basil have to say in this SAME document concerning this same subject that we deniers don’t ever show you?

Answer: We will look at it right now!

St. Basil in this same document (quote below), excoriates people who deny the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary. And he does this in this exact same document!

Something that the deniers of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary always seem to forget when trying to pretend that St. Basil was prevaricating on the Perpetual Virginity doctrine.

ST. BASIL THE GREAT The friends of Christ do not tolerate hearing that the Mother of God (Θεοτόκος) ever ceased to be a Virgin (παρθένος)."
—Bishop St. Basil the Great of Caesarea (Doctor & Holy Hierarch)
[Homily On the Holy Birth of Christ 5] "

So if St. Basil thinks people who deny Mary’s Perpetual Virginity are NOT friends of Christ what could they possibly be?

“Enemies” of Christ (admittedly they may also be people who are confused about Christ who are merely under catechized too). But they are "NOT friends" of Christ.

Incidentally, these same people who deny Mary as a Perpetual Virgin, frequently deny Mary as “Mother of God” too.

Let’s look at that second part of the St. Basil quote again (yep—the part they never tell you about).

ST. BASIL THE GREAT The friends of Christ do not tolerate hearing that the Mother of God (Θεοτόκος) **ever ceased to be a Virgin **(παρθένος)."
—Bishop St. Basil the Great of Caesarea (Doctor & Holy Hierarch)
[Homily On the Holy Birth of Christ 5] "

St. Basil asserts (you know what I am going to say), Marian doctrines have Christologic implications!

Notice what St. Basil doesn’t say:

NOT ST. BASIL (PHANTOM QUOTE) The friends of Mary do not tolerate hearing that the Mother of God ever ceased to be a Virgin.

Here’s what St. Basil DOES say:

ST. BASIL The friends of Christ do not tolerate hearing that the Mother of God ever ceased to be a Virgin.

Thinking in terms of the Blessed Virgin Mary having a batch of other biologic children detracts from the majesty of Jesus, and has led other people to deny the Divinity of Christ.

Remember, according to St. Basil:

“The Virgin” = “The Holy Virgin” = “Ever Virgin one” = “eternal virgin” = “ever virgin”

Let’s move on.**

 

[Cathoholic]

Reverse Historical Timeline on the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary (Continued)

375 A.D.

As we just saw:

“The Virgin” = “The Holy Virgin” = “Ever Virgin one” = “eternal virgin” = “ever virgin”

Now listen to St. Epiphanius almost exactly define this precise formulation!

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

So when we see the phrase the “Virgin Mary” we know the ancient Fathers used the term “Virgin” because Mary REMAINS undefiled. St. Epiphanius explicitly says so!

This was the mind of the Early Church Fathers.

This is what is meant when you hear the term “VIRGIN Mary”, it means EVER Virgin and it wasn’t until heretics tried to deny this, or re-define what virginity was, that the Church was forced to be more explicit using terms such as EVER-Virgin.

The Antidicomarite heretic deniers undoubtedly started out murmuring amongst themselves, and then open heretics like Helvidius eventually came out “broadcasting” these falsehoods among the people.

The deniers helped in confusing the faithful and forced the Church to be more specific using terms like “Ever-Virgin” instead of “virgin”.

The Fathers used many other phrases (i.e. “eternal virgin”)—many of which are quoted right here, and even then, there were parsing’s of the definition of virginity later necessitating anatomic specifics, albeit delicately (as we already saw in 649 A.D.).

375-374 A.D.

Here is St. Epiphanius again.

ST. EPIPHANIUS “We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit”
— St. Epiphanius of Salamis The Man Well-Anchored 120A.D. 374].

St. Epiphanius:

Mary = “Virgin” (in the Context of Mary) = “Ever-Virgin”

**‘Virgin’ = “holy woman remains undefiled” **

362 A.D. (Approx.)

Let’s see how St. Athanasius does the exact same thing as St. Basil. St. Athanasius uses the terms “Mary” as interchangeable with “the virgin” with “ever virgin”.

ST. ATHANASIUS And this was the wonderful thing that He was at once walking as man, and as the Word was quickening all things, and as the Son was dwelling with His Father. So that not even when the Virgin bore Him did He suffer any change, nor by being in the body was His glory] dulled: but, on the contrary, He sanctified the body also. 6. For not even by being in the universe does He share in its nature, but all things, on the contrary, are quickened and sustained by Him.
— St. Athanasius. On The Incarnation Of The Word Of God. Second Book, Section 17

**ST. ATHANASIUS ** 5. But this is not so, far be the thought. For he ‘takes hold of the seed of Abraham(11),’ as the apostle said; whence it behoved Him to be made like His brethren in all things, and to take a Body like us. This is why Mary is truly presupposed, in order that He may take it from her, and offer it for us as His own. And this Isaiah pointed to in his prophecy, in the words: ‘Behold the Virgin (12),’ while Gabriel is sent to her–not simply to a virgin, but 'to a virgin betrothed to a man(13),’ in order that by means of the betrothed man he might shew that Mary was really a human being. And for this reason Scripture also mentions . . . Nature clearly shews that it is impossible for a virgin to produce milk unless she has brought forth, and impossible for a body to be nourished with milk and wrapped in swaddling clothes unless it has previously been naturally brought forth. This is the meaning of His being circumcised on the eighth day: of Symeon taking Him in his arms, of His becoming a young child, and growing when He was twelve years old, and of His coming to His thirtieth year. For it was not, as some suppose, the very Essence of the Word that was changed, and was circumcised, because it is incapable of alteration or change. For the Saviour Himself says, ‘Behold, behold, it is I, and I change not(3),’ while Paul writes: ‘Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, and to-day, and for ever(4).’ But in the Body which was circumcised, and carried, and ate and drank, and was weary, and was nailed on the tree and suffered, there was the impassible and incorporeal Word of God. This Body it was that was laid in a grave, when the Word had left it, yet was not parted from it, to preach, as Peter says, also to the spirits in prison(5).
— St. Athanasius Letter LIX Section 5

ST. ATHANASIUS The union, therefore, was of just such a kind, so that He might unite what is man by nature, to Him who is in the nature of the Godhead, thereby assuring the accomplishment of salvation and His deification. Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to His essence, deny also that He took true human flesh from the Ever-Virgin Mary. In neither case would it have been profitable to us men: if the Word were not by nature true Son of God, or if the flesh which He assumed were not true flesh.
— From St. Athanasius. Discourses Against The Arians (358-362 A.D.)

St. Athanasius:

“Mary” = “the virgin” = “ever virgin”

No felt need to defend it.

 

[Cathoholic]

Reverse Historical Timeline on the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary (Continued)

St. Athanasius (Continued):

“Mary” = “the virgin” = “ever virgin”

No felt need to defend it.

Objection: But WHY in history are men like St. Basil and St. Athanasius using these terms like this interchangeably, but BEFORE in history they do not seem to be using “ever virgin” interchangeably with “the virgin”?

Answer: Probably because the denials of such were just starting to “percolate” and word of such denials I am sure got back to these great men.

So rather then condemn someone publicly for a heresy that is asserted privately (remember it must be private at least as far as the evidence we have as it is NOT public until Helvidius), these men started to use these terms interchangeably to catechize their people.

And notice also what ISN’T happening.

Objector: What’s that?

Answer: When St. Basil and St. Athanasius are using terms like this interchangeably as we have seen, NOBODY is correcting them!

You will see NO LETTER to St. Basil or St. Athanasius admonishing them over this issue.

You will see **NO LETTER from a Bishop or anyone else saying:

“Hey Basil. Why in the world are you referring to Mary one time as “the Virgin” and later as “Ever Virgin”?**

You will see NO LETTER from a Bishop or anyone else saying:

“Pardon me Athanasius. But that “EVER Virgin” item you are referring to Mary got back to me and this is a theological invention of yours. Quit calling Mary EVER Virgin.”

NO! You won’t see any admonitions like this. Why? Because all the Church Fathers were using the term “the virgin” in the same context.

That’s WHY when they refer to Mary later in life long after the birth of Jesus, you will NEVER see them refer once to Mary as “The Ex-Virgin”.

• The Virgin = Ever Virgin
• Mary = the Virgin = Ever Virgin
• The Virgin = The Holy Virgin = Ever Virgin one = Eternal Virgin = Ever Virgin

“The Virgin” = Ever-Virgin in the context of the Blessed Virgin Mary

---

All women have their virginity at SOMETIME in their lives.

But after they have a batch of kids, nobody refers to them as “the virgin”.

But ALL the Fathers refer to the Blessed Virgin as “the virgin”.

Why? Because Mary had no “batch” of kids". Mary maintained Her Virginity.

Think of your neighbor woman who has several kids. If someone referred to her as “the virgin” you wouldn’t know what in the world they are talking about!

It would be non-sense to keep referring to any woman who had several children as “the virgin”.

It would not make sense for the ancient Church to refer to the Blessed Virgin Mary as “the Virgin” unless . . . .

. . . unless it is the exact situation we see here above (meaning “ever-virgin”).

Unless it is matter of factly synonymously used as “ever-virgin” (and it WAS used that way by early Church “heavyweights” after denials started being burped up from the bowels of Hades.

 

[Cathoholic]

Reverse Historical Timeline on the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary (Continued)

About 300 A.D. (Almost certainly before)

Let’s see what St. Theodotus of Ancyra who died back in 303 A.D. had to say.

THEODOTUS OF ANCYRA (The Blessed Virgin Mary is a) virgin innocent, without spot, void of culpability, holy in body and in soul, a lily springing among thorns, untaught the ills of Eve, nor was there any communion in her of light with darkness, and, when not yet born, she was consecrated to God
— St. Theodotus of Ancyra “Orat. in S. Dei Genitr.”

Are we to conclude that St. Theodotus thinks Mary any less than EVER Virgin from this context? No.

Pre-235 A.D.

In this fragment of St Hippolytus of Rome (170 – 235 A.D.), Saint Hippolytus refers to Mary in the context of “the Virgin” and how Jesus was born to “the Virgin”. When we see that constant usage of phrases like “born of the VIRGIN” we know this has been a testimony to the miraculous Birth of Jesus event.

It is in this context, that St. Hippolytus matter of factly refers to Mary as “the Virgin”.

ST. HIPPOLYTUS 1, "Wisdom hath builded her house. "Christ, he means, the wisdom and power of God the Father, hath builded His house, i.e., His nature in the flesh derived from the Virgin, even as he (John) hath said before time, “The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us.”(8) As likewise the wise prophet (9) testifies: Wisdom that was before the world, and is the source of life, the infinite “Wisdom of God, hath builded her house” by a mother who knew no man,–to wit, as He assumed the temple of the body. “And hath raised(10) her seven pillars;” that is, the fragrant grace of the all-holy Spirit, as Isaiah says: “And the seven spirits of God shall rest upon Him,”(11) But others say that the seven pillars are the seven divine orders which sustain the creation by His holy and inspired teaching; to wit, me prophets, the apostles, the martyrs, the hierarchs, the hermits, the saints, and the righteous. And the phrase, “She hath killed her beasts,” denotes the prophets and martyrs who in every city and country are slain like sheep every day by the unbelieving, in behalf of the truth, and cry aloud, “For thy sake we are killed all the day long, we were counted as sheep for the slaughter.”(12) And again, “She hath mingled her wine” in the bowl, by which is meant, that the Saviour, uniting his Godhead, like pure wine, with the flesh in the Virgin, was born of her at once God and man without confusion of the one in the other. “And she hath furnished her table:” . . .
— Hippolytus of Rome. on Prov. ix. Fragment 6.

About 200 A.D.

Origen (184-254 A.D.) just refers to the Blessed Virgin Mary as “Mary” here. But from reading this, do you think Origen believes Mary’s virginity is gone? No! Origen knows Mary remained Ever Virgin, that’s clear from the context.

ORIGEN “There is no child of Mary except Jesus, according to the opinion of those who think correctly about her.”
— Origen. Commentary on the Letter to the Galatians

Mary = “Virgin” = "no child of Mary except Jesus"

180 A.D.

Let’s go to St. Irenaeus writing in about 180 A.D.

ST IRENAEUS Immanuel, born] of the Virgin, exhibited the union of the Word of God with His own workmanship, declaring] that the Word should become flesh, and the Son of God the Son of man (the pure One opening purely that pure womb which regenerates men unto God, and which He Himself made pure); and having become this which we also are, He nevertheless] is the Mighty God, and possesses a generation which cannot be declared.
— St. Irenaeus. Against Heresies Book IV, Chapter 33 (180 A.D.)

We go into more depth on St. Irenaeus’ Mariology in the segment: Objections Against Mary’s Perpetual Virginity Concerning Historical Objections

BEFORE 165 A.D.

We saw this quote from St. Justin the Martyr before. Let’s look at it again this time with different emphasis.

ST. JUSTIN THE MARTYR “We know that He, before all creatures, proceeded from the Father by His power and will . . .
. . . and by means of the Virgin became man, that by what way the disobedience arising from the serpent had its beginning, by that way also it might have an undoing. For Eve, being a virgin and undefiled, conceiving the word that was from the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death; but the Virgin Mary, taking faith and joy, when the Angel told her the good tidings, that the Spirit of the Lord should come upon her and the power of the Highest overshadow her, and therefore the Holy One that was born of her was Son of God, answered, 'Be it to me according to Thy word.”
— St. Justin to Tryph. 100. St. Justin died in 165 A.D.

 

[Cathoholic]

Reverse Historical Timeline on the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary (Continued)

**
Pre 151 A.D.**

St. Polycarp of Smyrna is alluded to by St. Jerome as affirming Mary’s Perpetual Virginity.

**St. Polycarp himself was a disciple of the beloved disciple John! **

**
There are many ancient writings that we no longer have**—many of the writings of early Church Father heroes.

Such is the way of these things with persecution after persecution against the early Christians. Unless archeology can bring them back, these treasures may be lost in this life.

Yet in ancient times these writings were well known. St. Jerome matter of factly appealed to St. Polycarp of Smyrna in his disputation with Helvidius, concerning a defense of the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary and although we cannot quote St. Polycarp here (yet), we can and will quote St. Jerome appealing to St. Polycarp.

When the ancient Church Fathers keep discussing Mary as “the Virgin” this is not a mere remembrance of what once was!

And it is not merely referring to the Virgin Birth!

As Dave Armstrong has said . . . “Think about it. We don’t call women who are married now and sexually active, “virgins” their whole lives and thereafter. That would make no sense, since they ceased being virgins. It is as illogical as calling them “children” when they are adults. They’re not lifetime eunuchs or celibates or virgins. They were simply one thing and then another, by virtue of getting older and passing into the state of marriage.”

But that is not the case with “the Virgin” Mary.

They ALL keep referring to Mary as “the Virgin”. Why?

Because Mary is EVER-Virgin and there was no need to get more specific until people calling themselves “Christians” and had influence in the Christian community (like Helvidius and Bonosus) came along trying to change what people quite naturally implied when referring to Mary as “the Virgin”.

THEN it was needed to get more specific and EXPLICITLY started referring to Mary as EVER-Virgin!

But as we saw, even THAT wasn’t enough, because people started trying to redefine Mary as EVER-Virgin, yet losing the biologic aspect of this in birthing our Lord Jesus so the Church had to get even MORE EXPLICIT!

St. Jerome saw this. St. Jerome knew that “the Virgin” meant Mary EVER-Virgin. That’s Why St. Jerome in his tract opposing Helvidius, he appeals to St. Irenaeus (who refers to Mary as “the Virgin” many many times in his writings) as supporting Mary’s Perpetual Virginity, just as we still mean “the Virgin” as today.

Here is St. Jerome addressing the heretic Helvidius, explaining to him the array of ancient Church Fathers who all supported the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

ST. JEROME . . . .Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenæus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who . . . wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man. But I think it better to reply briefly to each point than to linger any longer and extend my book to an undue length.
— St. Jerome. Against Helvidius. Section 19b

St. Jerome just appealed to St. Ignatius. Let us do the same realizing there may even be other writings of St. Ignatius that are even stronger than this wrting . . .

About 100 A.D.

St. Ignatius of Antioch (35 A.D. or 50 A.D. to 98 A.D. to 117 A.D.), who as we said earlier, was a disciple of the beloved disciple St. John . . .

ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH . . . .the Lord Jesus Christ, fully convinced as touching our Lord that he is truly of the race of David according to the flesh, and Son of God by the Divine will and power, truly born of a virgin, . . . .
— St. Ignatius of Antioch Letter To The Smyrneans

ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH “And from the prince of this world were hidden Mary’s virginity and her child-bearing, in like manner also the death of the Lord.”
— St. Ignatius of Antioch Letter To The Ephesians

Now let’s go to “Apostolic Times” and "Pre-Apostolic Times”. The Bible.

Below is just a sampling of verses. There are many others more mystical than this that the Fathers talked about that will not be understandable to deniers of this doctrine (such as Moses and the burning bush, the “stairway to Heaven”, and others) which we will not address here. If you already affirm the Perpetual Virginity of Mary you can find these meditations on your own and gain a deep understanding of God the Father and God the Holy Spirit, and Jesus (God) and His Church.

You will understand the role Mary the Mother of God has in salvation history. You will better understand your own role in salvation history too. You will have a deeper knowledge of eschatology or “end-times” study as people like to call it.

But most of all, you will have a deeper knowledge of truth—sacred Truth who is Jesus Christ, the Messiah, God come in the flesh.

 

[Cathoholic]

Reverse Historical Timeline on the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary (Continued)

Apostolic Times

MATTHEW 1:22-23 22 All this took place to fulfil what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: 23 “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel” (which means, God with us).

LUKE 1:26-28, 31 26 In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, 27 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. 28 And he came to her and said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!” . . . . 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus.

GALATIANS 4:4a (DRV) 4 But when the fulness of time was come, God sent his Son, made of a woman, . . . .

Pre-Apostolic Times

ISAIAH 7:14 (DRV) 14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel.

EZEKIEL 44:1-3 1 Then he brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary, which faces east; and it was shut. 2 And he said to me, “This gate shall remain shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it; for the LORD, the God of Israel, has entered by it; therefore it shall remain shut. 3 Only the prince may sit in it to eat bread before the LORD; he shall enter by way of the vestibule of the gate, and shall go out by the same way.”

GENESIS 3:15a 15 I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your seed and her seed;

---

Now you might object at this point and say: “Well there is no verse that explicitly says Mary is still virginal in the Gospels.”

But if there were, the deniers would just object and say the Gospel writer is explicitly telling us this because Mary will lose this Virginity later. After all, WHY announce She is still Virginal if there isn’t going to be a loss of it later?

But they’d be wrong.

You want a verse that says, “Mary was a Virgin here in the Gospels and remained as such the rest of Her life.”

And I am saying God does not give explicit details like that. I’m saying this is a delicate, sacred and holy subject that deserves delicate, sacred, and holy treatment. Just like the Bible did with Jesus’ Virginity.

These verses and the many implicit verses we looked at earlier, is the best you will get.

And the DENIALS of this ever-Virgin concept of Mary raised will always fall short as we have shown in this study!

That’s because this is a DIVINE doctrine. This is APOSTOLIC Tradition. This is from God!

This is not mere customs and disciplines or “traditions of men that nullify God’s word.”

As a matter of fact, the DENIAL of this doctrine is a “tradition of men that nullify God’s word.”

There are NO VERSES that talk about Mary having other biologic children and NO VERSES that talk about children that have Mary as their biologic Mother except for Jesus.

There will never be any “evidence” against this doctrine.

The fact that people spend large sums of money attempting to deny this doctrine (billboards, mailings, etc. as we saw earlier in the study) should be a clue about how important this doctrine is (for both deniers and us who affirm Apostolic Teaching). The stakes are very high.

Deny it at your own spiritual risk, or affirm it at your own blessing.

In Summary Concerning Our Timeline

So in summary we see the ancient Church Fathers keep referring to Mary as “the Virgin”.

When I did computer searches for all of this not just on the web, but with my computer program “The Early Church Fathers” from Harmony Media (no longer available) I got more information using “Virgin” for the search than I did for “Mary”.

There was so much more that I could not put here it was amazing the breadth and depth of Marian doctrine that the ancient Church Fathers wrote on.

It is crystal clear to me that the ancient Church Fathers all knew what has become an adage for this study teaches (as Tim Staples says) . . .

. . . . **“All Marian doctrines have Christologic implications.” **

---

There are more Bible verses too–many more. But the above was an encapsulation of the historical timeline and was not meant to give all the Bible verses (such as the prefigurement of the flame that Moses saw on Mount Sinai.

Hopefully excalibur, now you have a good idea as to WHY the Blessed Virgin Mary would remain a Virgin after marriage (“Why would Mary remain a virgin…after marriage?”).

 

[thetazlord]

Reverse Historical Timeline on the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary (Continued)

**
Pre 151 A.D.**

St. Polycarp of Smyrna is alluded to by St. Jerome as affirming Mary’s Perpetual Virginity.

**St. Polycarp himself was a disciple of the beloved disciple John! **

**
There are many ancient writings that we no longer have**—many of the writings of early Church Father heroes.

Such is the way of these things with persecution after persecution against the early Christians. Unless archeology can bring them back, these treasures may be lost in this life.

Yet in ancient times these writings were well known. St. Jerome matter of factly appealed to St. Polycarp of Smyrna in his disputation with Helvidius, concerning a defense of the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary and although we cannot quote St. Polycarp here (yet), we can and will quote St. Jerome appealing to St. Polycarp.

Jerome “appealing” to Polycarp isn’t the same as quoting him. So, at best, Jerome is surmising what Polycarp actually believed.

When the ancient Church Fathers keep discussing Mary as “the Virgin” this is not a mere remembrance of what once was!

And it is not merely referring to the Virgin Birth!

I’m afraid that that’s all it is, unless you can provide a direct quote from 1st Century ECF’s or an apostle.

They ALL keep referring to Mary as “the Virgin”. Why?

Because Mary is EVER-Virgin

Sorry, you’re speculating now.

ST. JEROME . . . .Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenæus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who . . . wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man. But I think it better to reply briefly to each point than to linger any longer and extend my book to an undue length.
— St. Jerome. Against Helvidius. Section 19b

You are yet to give a direct quote from either Ignatius or Polycarp - only that Jerome “claims” that they believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity.

St. Jerome just appealed to St. Ignatius. Let us do the same realizing **there may even be other writings of St. Ignatius that are even stronger than this wrting **. . .

Why would we need anything “stronger” if the quote isn’t ambiguous?

ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH . . . .the Lord Jesus Christ, fully convinced as touching our Lord that he is truly of the race of David according to the flesh, and Son of God by the Divine will and power, truly born of a virgin, . . . .
— St. Ignatius of Antioch Letter To The Smyrneans

Yes, Jesus was BORN of a virgin. That doesn’t mean she REMAINED a virgin.

ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH “And from the prince of this world were hidden Mary’s virginity and her child-bearing, in like manner also the death of the Lord.”
— St. Ignatius of Antioch Letter To The Ephesians

What does Mary’s virginity & child-bearing being “hidden” from “the prince of this world” have anything to do with Mary “remaining” a virgin? All Ignatius is talking about was that Mary was a virgin AT the birth of Jesus, which is confirmed in Isaiah 7:14 & Matthew 1:25. Ignatius is saying NOTHING about Mary’s virginal status extending beyond Jesus’ birth. If these are the quotes Jerome is referring to by Polycarp & Ignatius, with all respect for Jerome, he’s reading more into their quotes than what’s there…and so are you.
.

 

[Porknpie]

No offense, but your “quote-mining” of Jerome of context doesn’t help, since even CA Jimmy Akin states the “cousin theory” is “speculative” & that Jerome “popularized it,” & that the “EARLIEST documented support” for Mary’s perpetual virginity is from the MID-second century from the Protoevangelium of James

So what’s the EARLIEST document DENYING Mary’s perpetual virginity?

Can you imagine if this was reversed:

St. Jerome referencing all kinds of people in the early Church, apologists included, that DENIED the PVM?

You are saying that you would dismiss St. Jerome’s words because of the date of the earliest preserved document (in an oral culture) or that St. Jerome is simply guessing as to what these people believed?

St. Jerome’s words reflect the living Tradition of the Church. The same Tradition that would bring the Church to know what was scripture, and what was not.

For no one handed down a list of books, written in the middle second century, that said “This is the bible.”

 

[Randy_Carson]

Again, because you are asking for a SINGLE verse that conflicts with the PVM, you aren’t understanding that you have to examine & cross-reference MULTIPLE verses - not just ONE - and in context, in order to realize that all these verses - collectively - do indeed conflict with the PVM. This is what I did in one of my previous posts which took THREE posts. Please go back & reread.

I did read them, and there was nothing there disproving the PPV of Mary.

Have you read my FOUR posts #519-522? You never responded.

 

[Randy_Carson]

1. Since you have identified James/Joses/Simon/Jude to be the children of Joseph and Mary, that will make these foursome maternal half brothers of Jesus.
   (a) There is a Greek word for that.
   (b) Since the gospel writers didn’t use that word, therefore
   (c) these foursome can not be the maternal half brothers of Jesus.

This is arguing from silence. I don’t think you find this acceptable. Hence, your approach for cousin belongs to the same category. In fact you can substitute any word there and have the same result.

1. (a) Adelphos is used to describe the paternal half brothers Philip/Herod.
   (b) Therefore these foursome could be/are Jesus paternal half brothers.
2. These foursome are adopted. Adelphos is equally appropriate to describe them. You may claim the Bible didn’t say that. And my response is the same as yours, the Bible didn’t say Joseph fathered these kids with Mary either.

I am not claiming that you are wrong in your allegations, I am claiming that you can’t prove Mary non EV from scriptures. Catholics still have a valid claim from Traditions. You don’t. You are stuck with the Bible-only criteria.

Many Catholic and Protestant experts have gone through these a million times and they are gracious enough to admit that scriptural evidence is inconclusive at best. One can go either way. Humility may be exercised prudently here.

But it is your call. I am happy to go along and see this to an inconclusive end.

:clapping:

I don’t think many folks who claim Mary was not ever-virgin will get up off the canvas after reading this.

 

[thetazlord]

So what’s the EARLIEST document DENYING Mary’s perpetual virginity?

The New Testament. See my posts #1005-1006

Can you imagine if this was reversed:

St. Jerome referencing all kinds of people in the early Church, apologists included, that DENIED the PVM?

You are saying that you would dismiss St. Jerome’s words because of the date of the earliest preserved document (in an oral culture) or that St. Jerome is simply guessing as to what these people believed?

No, because then Jerome would be SUPPORTING Scripture.

St. Jerome’s words reflect the living Tradition of the Church. The same Tradition that would bring the Church to know what was scripture, and what was not.

“Tradition” based on the EARLIEST source being a false gospel.

For no one handed down a list of books, written in the middle second century, that said “This is the bible.”

Irrelevant to the OP. Since we both believe that the 27 book canon of the NT is Inspired, the question is does this Inspired canon support the PVM. No, it doesn’t. Refer to #1005-1006.

 

[thetazlord]

I did read them, and there was nothing there disproving the PPV of Mary.

Have you read my FOUR posts #519-522? You never responded.

Yes, I did. And they don’t support - Scripturally - that Mary remained a perpetual virgin. Did you read my TWO posts #1005-1006, which is not only completely supported by Scripture, but can’t be refuted by it either?

 

[thetazlord]

:clapping:

I don’t think many folks who claim Mary was not ever-virgin will get up off the canvas after reading this.

The problem is that that breakdown of how he “thinks” Christians who believe that Jesus’ brothers are uterine half-brothers isn’t actually “how” they come to that conclusion, Scripturally. For the most part, that post is strawman. Refer to #1005-1006.