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

[Randy_Carson]

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

Why is this a problem?

It’s a case of their interpretation of Scripture and Tradition versus your interpretation of Scripture Alone.

They were defending what they had been taught whereas you are seeking to prove what you want to be true since you are an ex-Catholic determined to justify your decision to leave the Church.

Surely you don’t think you are a better scholar than the ECF’s or that you have less of an axe to grind?

Thanks, but I’ll stick with the conclusion of countless theologians and scholars over one anonymous guy on the Internet.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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?

I have.

I have printed out a hard copy.

I will be going over it with a fine-toothed comb.

This thread will be closed soon, but I suspect we will have an opportunity to discuss this further.

 

[Porknpie]

Surely you don’t think you are a better scholar than the ECF’s

For sure. He believes his interpretation of scripture is above that of the ECF’s, the teaching of the Catholic East, Catholic West, the Orthodox and of all the major reformers.

That’s quite a position to take.

But I give him for being honest about it.

That he perceives himself to be infallible, not so much.

 

[onenow1]

Some common sense before this closes:
FOR ANYONE TO SAY THAT MARY HAD OTHER CHILDREN IS
A DIRECT INSULT TO GOD THE FATHER, WHO SENT HIS ANGEL, GABRIEL, TO PROCLAIM TO HER, AND ONLY TO HER, “HAIL, FULL OF GRACE, THE LORD IS WITH THEE. BLESSED ART THOU AMONG WOMEN”.
FOR ANYONE TO SAY THAT MARY HAD OTHER CHILDREN IS
A DIRECT INSULT TO THE HOLY SPIRIT, WHO SANCTIFIED HER AS HIS SPOUSE, AND TO BE THE VESSEL TO CARRY THE WORD INCARNATE, THE SECOND PERSON OF THE HOLY TRINITY.

FOR ANYONE TO SAY THAT MARY HAD OTHER CHILDREN IS AN INSULT TO JESUS CHRIST, WHO WAS THE ONLY BEGOTTEN OF HIS MOTHER, AS HE HIMSELF WAS THE ONLY BEGOTTEN OF HIS FATHER IN HEAVEN.

FOR ANYONE TO SAY THAT MARY HAD OTHER CHILDREN IS AN INSULT TO THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY, WHO WOULD HAVE TO HAVE CARRIED THE GUILT OF INGRATITUDE TO GOD FOREVER, IF SHE HAD DISCARDED THE PRECIOUS GIFT OF HER VIRGINITY WHICH GOD HAD SO METICULOUSLY PREPARED FOR HER IN THE CONCEPTION OF HIS WORD INCARNATE.

The Protestant Reformer Ulrich Zwingli had this to say:
“It was not enough that the conception of Jesus take place without a male role, for if a woman who had previously known a man had conceived him even through the Holy Spirit, ‘who would ever have believed that the child that was born was of the Holy Spirit? For nature knows no birth that is not besmirched with stain.’ For the same reason she had to be ever a virgin, she who bore the one in whom there could not be even the least suspicion of blemish. For the birth of Jesus to be absolutely pure of every stain, Mary herself had to be free of any pollution of normal child-bearing…” Zwingli

Why do his followers deny his words today?

God Bless

 

[PRmerger]

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

Don’t you see, taz, the irony in your statement here?

How do you know the source is a “false gospel”?

The answer can ONLY be: because you give your submission to the authority of the CC which discerned this for you and me.

So in denying Sacred Tradition you are also appealing to Sacred Tradition.

 

[wmscott]

Some common sense before this closes:
FOR ANYONE TO SAY THAT MARY HAD OTHER CHILDREN IS
A DIRECT INSULT TO GOD THE FATHER, WHO SENT HIS ANGEL, GABRIEL, TO PROCLAIM TO HER, AND ONLY TO HER, “HAIL, FULL OF GRACE, THE LORD IS WITH THEE. BLESSED ART THOU AMONG WOMEN”.
FOR ANYONE TO SAY THAT MARY HAD OTHER CHILDREN IS
A DIRECT INSULT TO THE HOLY SPIRIT, WHO SANCTIFIED HER AS HIS SPOUSE, AND TO BE THE VESSEL TO CARRY THE WORD INCARNATE, THE SECOND PERSON OF THE HOLY TRINITY.

FOR ANYONE TO SAY THAT MARY HAD OTHER CHILDREN IS AN INSULT TO JESUS CHRIST, WHO WAS THE ONLY BEGOTTEN OF HIS MOTHER, AS HE HIMSELF WAS THE ONLY BEGOTTEN OF HIS FATHER IN HEAVEN.

FOR ANYONE TO SAY THAT MARY HAD OTHER CHILDREN IS AN INSULT TO THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY, WHO WOULD HAVE TO HAVE CARRIED THE GUILT OF INGRATITUDE TO GOD FOREVER, IF SHE HAD DISCARDED THE PRECIOUS GIFT OF HER VIRGINITY WHICH GOD HAD SO METICULOUSLY PREPARED FOR HER IN THE CONCEPTION OF HIS WORD INCARNATE.

The Protestant Reformer Ulrich Zwingli had this to say:
“It was not enough that the conception of Jesus take place without a male role, for if a woman who had previously known a man had conceived him even through the Holy Spirit, ‘who would ever have believed that the child that was born was of the Holy Spirit? For nature knows no birth that is not besmirched with stain.’ For the same reason she had to be ever a virgin, she who bore the one in whom there could not be even the least suspicion of blemish. For the birth of Jesus to be absolutely pure of every stain, Mary herself had to be free of any pollution of normal child-bearing…” Zwingli

Why do his followers deny his words today?

God Bless

AMEN!!!

There are many things that I have done in my life that I have to stand before Christ in judgement for. Though through ignorance, before I converted to this beautiful Catholic faith, I attacked the Catholic Church by repeating anti-Catholic falsehoods. Praise Jesus Christ for the Sacrament of Confession that I was able to atone for those sins. The last thing I would ever want to have to do is stand before Christ in judgement and have to answer to Him for attacking and denigrating His mother!

 

[Randy_Carson]

Some common sense before this closes:
FOR ANYONE TO SAY THAT MARY HAD OTHER CHILDREN IS
A DIRECT INSULT TO GOD THE FATHER, WHO SENT HIS ANGEL, GABRIEL, TO PROCLAIM TO HER, AND ONLY TO HER, “HAIL, FULL OF GRACE, THE LORD IS WITH THEE. BLESSED ART THOU AMONG WOMEN”.
FOR ANYONE TO SAY THAT MARY HAD OTHER CHILDREN IS
A DIRECT INSULT TO THE HOLY SPIRIT, WHO SANCTIFIED HER AS HIS SPOUSE, AND TO BE THE VESSEL TO CARRY THE WORD INCARNATE, THE SECOND PERSON OF THE HOLY TRINITY.

FOR ANYONE TO SAY THAT MARY HAD OTHER CHILDREN IS AN INSULT TO JESUS CHRIST, WHO WAS THE ONLY BEGOTTEN OF HIS MOTHER, AS HE HIMSELF WAS THE ONLY BEGOTTEN OF HIS FATHER IN HEAVEN.

FOR ANYONE TO SAY THAT MARY HAD OTHER CHILDREN IS AN INSULT TO THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY, WHO WOULD HAVE TO HAVE CARRIED THE GUILT OF INGRATITUDE TO GOD FOREVER, IF SHE HAD DISCARDED THE PRECIOUS GIFT OF HER VIRGINITY WHICH GOD HAD SO METICULOUSLY PREPARED FOR HER IN THE CONCEPTION OF HIS WORD INCARNATE.

The Protestant Reformer Ulrich Zwingli had this to say:
“It was not enough that the conception of Jesus take place without a male role, for if a woman who had previously known a man had conceived him even through the Holy Spirit, ‘who would ever have believed that the child that was born was of the Holy Spirit? For nature knows no birth that is not besmirched with stain.’ For the same reason she had to be ever a virgin, she who bore the one in whom there could not be even the least suspicion of blemish. For the birth of Jesus to be absolutely pure of every stain, Mary herself had to be free of any pollution of normal child-bearing…” Zwingli

Why do his followers deny his words today?

God Bless

Because they only accept:

1. Sola Scriptura
2. Their own absolute right to private judgment.

 

[benhur]

It’s a case of their interpretation of Scripture and Tradition versus your interpretation of Scripture Alone.

We are still here so…

It is not scripture alone for “others”…

Your Tradition has quotes from saints of past, and excludes any that differ (on this issue)

“Other” Tradition looks at yours AND includes the others you exclude…

Scripture AND Tradition we also have.

WE differ on Scripture AND we differ on Tradition.

They were defending what they had been taught

Yes taught by some, and not at all from the beginning . Yes the teaching evolved even to the point of “status quo” .

It was not taught by all.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The prominent Protestant Commentary on the Whole Bible comments on Matthew 13:55:

An exceedingly difficult question here arises: What were these “brethren” and “sisters” to Jesus? Were they, first, His full brothers and sisters? Or, secondly, Were they His step-brothers and step-sisters, children of Joseph by a former marriage? Or, thirdly, were they His cousins, according to a common way of speaking among the Jews respecting persons of collateral descent? On this subject an immense deal has been written, nor are opinions yet by any means agreed . . . In addition to other objections, many of the best interpreters, . . . prefer the third opinion . . . Thus dubiously we prefer to leave this vexed question, encompassed as it is with difficulties. 203

[203 **Commentary on the Whole Bible, Robert Jamieson, Andrew R. Fausset, & David Brown, editors, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1961 (originally 1864), 928; emphasis added.]

 

[benhur]

You are incorrect. In the eyes of the Jews of the first century…she and Joseph were married. That is why Joseph thought he would divorce her. The couple would “marry” and then the groom would go off to build a home from his bride and then he would come to get her and they would consummate the marriage. There is no timing question from the angel to Mary. He addresses her with a title “full of grace” and she is greatly troubled at what sort of greeting this might be. His announcement that “she will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus.” gives NO indication that it is immediate. For Mary, if she had planned to have relations with her husband, she would not have asked “How CAN this be since I have no husband?” She would have known the story of Sarah from scripture…and would have assumed that it would happen like all other babies are conceived in God’s time. It only makes sense if she had taken a vow of virginity to God. Unlike Zechariah, she doesn’t doubt God but wants to know how this will occur…if she had vowed herself already to God.

Disagree. I do have understanding of the Hebrew idea of "betrothed". **Mary and Joseph not married **, else why did the angel say to take her for your wife , to which Joseph complied ???

The divorce back then was not because they were married but "betrothed’ as in engaged as in a “contract” that could only be broken by “divorce” .They were not married . nor had he consummated the “contract”. The contract is written with no specific date of "enforcement’ as we know of.Could it have been a month , a year ? We are not told but can only infer per Jewish custom.**

WE are told the angel said to in effect “complete the contract”**-take her physically( though in this case not intimately-it was two fold compliance for a virgin had to give birth) "

Pretty sad when we can’t even understand the Tradition from which we sprang (Jewish) from. much less understand any new ones built upon them.

 

[PRmerger]

Disagree. I do have understanding of the Hebrew idea of "betrothed". **Mary and Joseph not married **, else why did the angel say to take her for your wife , to which Joseph complied ???

The divorce back then was not because they were married but "betrothed’ as in engaged as in a “contract” that could only be broken by “divorce” .They were not married . nor had he consummated the “contract”. The contract is written with no specific date of "enforcement’ as we know of.Could it have been a month , a year ? We are not told but can only infer per Jewish custom.**

WE are told the angel said to in effect “complete the contract”**-take her physically( though in this case not intimately-it was two fold compliance for a virgin had to give birth) "

So it is your understanding that “betrothed” means a contract was established which could not be removed except by divorce?

And how is that different from “married”?

 

[benhur]

So it is your understanding that “betrothed” means a contract was established which could not be removed except by divorce?

And how is that different from “married”?

In terms off divorce, none .That is, divorce ends both a “marriage” and “betrothal”.

Mary and Joseph were not “wed” yet, only betrothed .

Our cultural term “engagement” is not contractual but anticipatory of eventual signing of one on “wedding day”.

Betrothal in Jewish custom, to my limited understanding, is a contract, with any monetary exchanges, in anticipation of an eventual “wedding” /consummation.

Me thinks

 

[PRmerger]

In terms off divorce, none .That is, divorce ends both a “marriage” and “betrothal”.

So what is the difference between a marriage and a betrothal, in Mary’s time?

 

[mskejj]

Disagree. I do have understanding of the Hebrew idea of "betrothed". **Mary and Joseph not married **, else why did the angel say to take her for your wife , to which Joseph complied ???

The divorce back then was not because they were married but "betrothed’ as in engaged as in a “contract” that could only be broken by “divorce” .They were not married . nor had he consummated the “contract”. The contract is written with no specific date of "enforcement’ as we know of.Could it have been a month , a year ? We are not told but can only infer per Jewish custom.**

WE are told the angel said to in effect “complete the contract”**-take her physically( though in this case not intimately-it was two fold compliance for a virgin had to give birth) "

Pretty sad when we can’t even understand the Tradition from which we sprang (Jewish) from. much less understand any new ones built upon them.

Divorce at the time of Christ was a problem in Jewish society. There were two schools of thought on what allowed divorce. One of the views is that a man could divorce a woman for things as simple as she didn’t cook his dinner right. A woman found in an adulterous situation was stoned. Therefore if Joseph told people that the child was not his…Mary could be stoned. If he accepted the child as his…they were seen as just consummating the marriage early than usual…which is exactly what happened in the case of Mary and Joseph. But if Joseph quietly asked for divorce and did not accuse Mary of becoming pregnant by someone else that she would not be stoned. He could use any reason for the divorce. The angel is telling Joseph not to be afraid and do not divorce her…that is what the language do not be afraid to take her for your wife means. For she was already technically his wife, but he was going to let her go and divorce her. But once again, there is no time element given by the angel to when Mary would conceive…and so there is no reason to think that it would not be after she and Joseph consummated their marriage…which raises a problem if she had consecrated herself to God already. Hence the reason for Mary’s question to the angel “how will this be since I have no husband.”

 

[Cathoholic]

Benhur. You said in post 1044:

Mary and Joseph not married , else why did the angel say to take her for your wife

Mary and Joseph WERE MARRIED.

The angel doesn’t say “to take Mary for his wife”.

The angel said to take Mary, your wife . . . meaning taking Mary your wife into your home.

The Marriage was two-stage but the actual marriage was the first stage.

That is called “betrothal” or “kiddushin”.

**

• Old Covenant kiddushin = betrothal = Married (and to break this would require a “divorce”)

**

After Kiddushin

After kiddushin occurs, then the bride goes and “prepares a place for you”, I mean “His wife”.

**

• Kiddushin (Betrothal) = The Marriage Liturgy
• Nisuin = The Ceremony of the Groom Taking His Bride Into His Home

**

Then the groom comes back after He prepares a place for His bride and brings His BRIDE (notice she is His “bride”) into His home.

Jesus (the Bridegroom) uses this SAME nuptial language with His Bride (the Church) too.

JOHN 14:1-3 1 "Let not your hearts be troubled; believe in God, believe also in me. 2 In my Father’s house are many rooms; if it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? 3 And when I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also.

See Ephesians 5 to see how St. Paul just matter of factly inter-mixes the two marriage paradigms (a man and wife and Jesus and the Church—His bridegroom).

Jesus (the Bridegroom) uses this nuptial language with His Bride (the Church).

Then after preparing a place for his bride, Jesus, I mean, “the groom” comes back and fetches his bride and takes her to His home (this is accompanied by a liturgy too and is called “nisuin”).

Yes this “completes” the marriage, but the marriage is still fully a “marriage” even after kiddushin or “betrothal”.

For you and I, when we are married, we are . . . well . . . “married.” But then when we take our bride into our home and consummate the marriage, this “completes” the marriage for us in a sense too.

But we are really married to our wives (or husbands as the case may be) right after (during) the wedding ceremony. Even before the bride is “taken into the home”.

Jews still do it this way today too, but kiddushin and nisuin are on the same day now as in our age the husbands usually have a place prepared for their brides. In days past, nisuin may have been soon, or it may have been several months.

St. Joseph and the Blessed Virgin Mary had completed kiddushin.

**
St. Joseph and the Blessed Virgin Mary were already “married”. **

St. Joseph and the Blessed Virgin Mary were “betrothed”. This IS being married. The initial stage but “married” never the less.

Let’s go to the Jewish website, Judaism 101 and “Frequently Asked Questions” (here) for more details.

As Judasism 101 states:

Kiddushin is far more binding than an engagement as we understand the term in modern English; in fact, Rambam speaks of a period of engagement before the kiddushin. Once kiddushin is complete, the woman is legally the wife of the man. The relationship created by kiddushin can only be dissolved by death or divorce. However, the spouses do not live together at the time of the kiddushin, and the mutual obligations created by the marital relationship do not take effect until the nisuin is complete.

The nisuin (from a word meaning “elevation”) completes the process of marriage. The husband brings the wife into his home and they begin their married life together.

Heaven knew that. That is WHY the Angel refers to Mary as St. Joseph’s “WIFE”.

MATTHEW 1:18-20 18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit; 19 and her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to send her away. 20 But as he considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit;

Mary was never an “unwed mother” (see here by by the late Mary J. Giovanoni for more details on the pernicious poisoning effects of that viewpoint).

The fact that Mary was ALREADY married to St. Joseph when the angel came to Her in Luke 1, makes it even MORE obvious that Mary’s response to the angel can only be that of a Consecrated Virgin (who is married—as Numbers 30 lays out).

 

[YADA]

Benhur. You said in post 1044:

Mary and Joseph WERE MARRIED.

The angel doesn’t say “to take Mary for his wife”.

The angel said to take Mary, your wife . . . meaning taking Mary your wife into your home.

The Marriage was two-stage but the actual marriage was the first stage.

That is called “betrothal” or “kiddushin”.

**

• Old Covenant kiddushin = betrothal = Married (and to break this would require a “divorce”)

**

After Kiddushin

After kiddushin occurs, then the bride goes and “prepares a place for you”, I mean “His wife”.

**

• Kiddushin (Betrothal) = The Marriage Liturgy
• Nisuin = The Ceremony of the Groom Taking His Bride Into His Home

**

Then the groom comes back after He prepares a place for His bride and brings His BRIDE (notice she is His “bride”) into His home.

Jesus (the Bridegroom) uses this SAME nuptial language with His Bride (the Church) too.

JOHN 14:1-3 1 "Let not your hearts be troubled; believe in God, believe also in me. 2 In my Father’s house are many rooms; if it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? 3 And when I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also.

See Ephesians 5 to see how St. Paul just matter of factly inter-mixes the two marriage paradigms (a man and wife and Jesus and the Church—His bridegroom).

Jesus (the Bridegroom) uses this nuptial language with His Bride (the Church).

Then after preparing a place for his bride, Jesus, I mean, “the groom” comes back and fetches his bride and takes her to His home (this is accompanied by a liturgy too and is called “nisuin”).

Yes this “completes” the marriage, but the marriage is still fully a “marriage” even after kiddushin or “betrothal”.

For you and I, when we are married, we are . . . well . . . “married.” But then when we take our bride into our home and consummate the marriage, this “completes” the marriage for us in a sense too.

But we are really married to our wives (or husbands as the case may be) right after (during) the wedding ceremony. Even before the bride is “taken into the home”.

Jews still do it this way today too, but kiddushin and nisuin are on the same day now as in our age the husbands usually have a place prepared for their brides. In days past, nisuin may have been soon, or it may have been several months.

St. Joseph and the Blessed Virgin Mary had completed kiddushin.

**
St. Joseph and the Blessed Virgin Mary were already “married”. **

St. Joseph and the Blessed Virgin Mary were “betrothed”. This IS being married. The initial stage but “married” never the less.

Let’s go to the Jewish website, Judaism 101 and “Frequently Asked Questions” (here) for more details.

As Judasism 101 states:

Heaven knew that. That is WHY the Angel refers to Mary as St. Joseph’s “WIFE”.

MATTHEW 1:18-20 18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit; 19 and her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to send her away. 20 But as he considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit;

Mary was never an “unwed mother” (see here by by the late Mary J. Giovanoni for more details on the pernicious poisoning effects of that viewpoint).

The fact that Mary was ALREADY married to St. Joseph when the angel came to Her in Luke 1, makes it even MORE obvious that Mary’s response to the angel can only be that of a Consecrated Virgin (who is married—as Numbers 30 lays out).

 

[thetazlord]

Why is this a problem?

It’s a case of their interpretation of Scripture and Tradition versus your interpretation of Scripture Alone.

No, it’s a case of the personal interpretations of fallible individuals vs. what Scripture actually supports. This is what you’re still not getting. Refer to posts #1005-1006

They were defending what they had been taught…

Exactly! And what they had been “taught” wasn’t based on Scripture, which is a record of what we know Jesus, His disciples, & the first century Church actually believed & taught. Everything else is “the doctrines the precepts of men.”

Surely you don’t think you are a better scholar than the ECF’s

I don’t think I am any “better” nor “worse” than the opinions of any “scholar.” The Word of God - on the other hand - is.

Thanks, but I’ll stick with the conclusion of countless theologians and scholars over one anonymous guy on the Internet.

Good for you. I’ll stick with the Word of God over “countless theologians & scholars” who when you examine their beliefs don’t agree with each other over other issues, such as Augustine & Jerome who disagreed over the identity of Jesus’ brothers.

 

[thetazlord]

For sure. He believes his interpretation of scripture is above that of the ECF’s, the teaching of the Catholic East, Catholic West, the Orthodox and of all the major reformers.

After 1037 posts you are still aren’t getting that trusting in what Scripture alone states prevents “MY interpretation” from being imputed into the text. It is only when you ADD to Scripture that you allow “YOUR interpretation” to be imputed into the text. I’m afraid that you are doing what you actually falsely accusing me of doing.

That he perceives himself to be infallible

I’ve NEVER stated that. You are “assuming” that. I perceive the sufficiency of Scripture “alone” to be infallible - not myself.

 

[PRmerger]

Exactly! And what they had been “taught” wasn’t based on Scripture, which is a record of what we know Jesus, His disciples, & the first century Church actually believed & taught. Everything else is “the doctrines the precepts of men.”

Everything else?

What about the table of contents of the NT?

Does that come from the Bible?

Or do you get your belief about what belongs in the NT from some other entity?

 

[thetazlord]

Some common sense before this closes:
FOR ANYONE TO SAY THAT MARY HAD OTHER CHILDREN IS
A DIRECT INSULT TO GOD THE FATHER, WHO SENT HIS ANGEL, GABRIEL, TO PROCLAIM TO HER, AND ONLY TO HER, “HAIL, FULL OF GRACE, THE LORD IS WITH THEE. BLESSED ART THOU AMONG WOMEN”.
FOR ANYONE TO SAY THAT MARY HAD OTHER CHILDREN IS
A DIRECT INSULT TO THE HOLY SPIRIT, WHO SANCTIFIED HER AS HIS SPOUSE, AND TO BE THE VESSEL TO CARRY THE WORD INCARNATE, THE SECOND PERSON OF THE HOLY TRINITY.

FOR ANYONE TO SAY THAT MARY HAD OTHER CHILDREN IS AN INSULT TO JESUS CHRIST, WHO WAS THE ONLY BEGOTTEN OF HIS MOTHER, AS HE HIMSELF WAS THE ONLY BEGOTTEN OF HIS FATHER IN HEAVEN.

FOR ANYONE TO SAY THAT MARY HAD OTHER CHILDREN IS AN INSULT TO THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY, WHO WOULD HAVE TO HAVE CARRIED THE GUILT OF INGRATITUDE TO GOD FOREVER, IF SHE HAD DISCARDED THE PRECIOUS GIFT OF HER VIRGINITY WHICH GOD HAD SO METICULOUSLY PREPARED FOR HER IN THE CONCEPTION OF HIS WORD INCARNATE.

The Protestant Reformer Ulrich Zwingli had this to say:
“It was not enough that the conception of Jesus take place without a male role, for if a woman who had previously known a man had conceived him even through the Holy Spirit, ‘who would ever have believed that the child that was born was of the Holy Spirit? For nature knows no birth that is not besmirched with stain.’ For the same reason she had to be ever a virgin, she who bore the one in whom there could not be even the least suspicion of blemish. For the birth of Jesus to be absolutely pure of every stain, Mary herself had to be free of any pollution of normal child-bearing…” Zwingli

Why do his followers deny his words today?

God Bless

I appreciate your “opinion” & “belief” about what is & what is insulting, which is shared by other non-inspired writers. However, is “insulting God” trusting in the sufficiency of His Word & not adding to, or is NOT trusting in it & ADDING “traditions of men” to it “insulting God”?