What was it historically that set Catholics down the path of believing Mary stayed a virgin her whole life?

[NathanH83]

Most of the Catholics I’ve talked to want to argue the point that Mary remained a virgin her whole life. But the New Testament never specifies this. In fact, it insinuates the opposite.

It says Joseph refrained from sleeping with Mary until after Jesus was born, which makes it sound like he did sleep with her after he was born. Then it says Jesus had brothers and sisters, which causes me to think Joseph and Mary had children together. Even the earliest of church fathers that I know of, like Clement of Rome, who probably knew Peter and Paul personally, never once mentioned anything about Mary being a virgin her whole life.

And yet, the Catholics I’ve talked to constantly want to argue about Mary being a virgin her whole life, as if that’s a main doctrinal point of the gospel, when in reality, it has very little to do with the gospel. Only the fact she was a virgin at the time Jesus was born, that’s the only way in which it pertains to the gospel.

Catholics have their way of explaining that Jesus had brothers by saying the Greek word for brothers “adelphos” could mean cousins. That’s true, but the context doesn’t imply that, nor does any verse specify that. The context implies actual brothers. Some Catholics say that Joseph had sons and daughters from a previous marriage, and that’s how Jesus had brothers. So they can’t even get their story straight.

So what set Catholics down this path to begin with?

 

[Lamb]

Eastern Orthodox also believes Mary was ever virgin.

 

[NathanH83]

On a side note, I find it interesting how the nation’s capitol is right in between Virginia and Maryland. Think about that. Virginia (virgin) and Maryland (Mary).

Just goes to show the influence Catholics still had even after the church of England had broken away from Catholicism.

 

[NathanH83]

Eastern Orthodox also believes Mary was ever virgin.

Yes, I believe because this lie was started very early on, at least as early as the 3rd century, long before the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox had their major split.

 

[Andrew]

On a side note, I find it interesting how the nation’s capitol is right in between Virginia and Maryland. Think about that. Virginia (virgin) and Maryland (Mary).

Just goes to show the influence Catholics still had even after the church of England had broken away from Catholicism.

What it all comes down to in the end is whether or not Mary had other children according to the Bible.. perpetual virginity of priests and of Mary according to the RCC and EOC could have something to do with (I believe the 2nd Chapter) the book of Wisdom.
I highly doubt that however, while Wisdom may foreshadow the virgin Mary being visited by an angel, the belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary would have to be based on evidence according to her account in the New Testament.. where it isn't entirely clear on that matter although (in my opinion) it certainly leans in favor of her having other children after Jesus.
I definitely don't see how her choices after Jesus' birth affects us nor does having other children make her by any means "unclean", especially since she herself called her son "my savior" suggesting that whether she was a perpetual virgin or not, she was not without sin.

 

[NathanH83]

One thing that really stands out to me is the fact that Catholics today refer to Mary as the Queen of Heaven, and they burn incense to her.

Well, in Isaiah, God rebuked the Israelites for worshipping a false godess, who they referred to as the Queen of Heaven. Also in the book of Acts, the pagans worshipped Diana of the Ephesians, who also had the name Queen of Heaven. They were afraid that Paul’s teachings would cause people to stop worshiping her, and thus caused their idol business to lose profits.

I wonder if maybe when Christianity was formally declared to be the official state religion, banning idol worship, then maybe they just kept making and selling the same idols of Diana under the name of “Mary” in order to keep their business.

I’m pretty sure Diana was a perpetual virgin, so maybe they felt like they had to make Mary one too.

 

[pinacled]

What it all comes down to in the end is whether or not Mary had other children according to the Bible.. perpetual virginity of priests and of Mary according to the RCC and EOC could have something to do with (I believe the 2nd Chapter) the book of Wisdom.
I highly doubt that however, while Wisdom may foreshadow the virgin Mary being visited by an angel, the belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary would have to be based on evidence according to her account in the New Testament.. where it isn't entirely clear on that matter although (in my opinion) it certainly leans in favor of her having other children after Jesus.
I definitely don't see how her choices after Jesus' birth affects us nor does having other children make her by any means "unclean", especially since she herself called her son "my savior" suggesting that whether she was a perpetual virgin or not, she was not without sin.

Those are interesting cultural connections that are plausible .

Do you have any direct evidence of teachings from the RCC catechism or ?

Or are you extrapolating with hearsay?

 

[Andrew]

Those are interesting cultural connections that are plausible .

Do you have any direct evidence of teachings from the RCC catechism or ?

Or are you extrapolating with hearsay?

I own the Catholic Catechism, many Catholic Bibles and some Catholic prayers books, also a few concerning Catholic end time prophecies of saints and books about Hell and Purgatory.. Inherited from my late grandparents, who were strict Catholics

 

[pinacled]

I own the Catholic Catechism, many Catholic Bibles and some Catholic prayers books, also a few concerning Catholic end time prophecies of saints and books about Hell and Purgatory.. Inherited from my late grandparents, who were strict Catholics

Grandparents?

Do you have Evidence in chatachesism ?

I've read oral Torah and roman law.

 

[Josiah]

Most of the Catholics I’ve talked to want to argue the point that Mary remained a virgin her whole life.

Brother,


MY experience is that probably 90% of threads about this topic are started by American/Canadian "Evangelicals". Not Catholics or Orthodox.


... and a lot of modern American/Canadian "Evangelcals" seem OBSESSED with insisting that Mary had lotsa of sex (and therefore, lotsa kids). Why are these "Evangelicals" SO interested in this topic? Why are they SO interested in making Mary sexually active?

But the New Testament never specifies this.

Brother, that's correct.

The Bible says NOTHING about Mary's sex life after Jesus was born... she was a virgin to that point but the Bible says NOTHING about after that. It is silent on that. So, why are so many modern American and Canadian "Evangelicals" SOOOO obsessed about her sex life? SOOOOO insistant that Mary had lotsa sex and lotsa kids? Why do they care SOOO much about this issue? Why is her sex life such an point of enormous fascination to them? Why it is THEY who keep bringing this up, why are nearly all threads on this are started by modern Evangelical type Protestants? What's behind this great fasination?

In fact, it insinuates the opposite.

"Insinuates?" Is that your way of noting the Bible does NOT say what these modern "Evangelicals" insist? Your way of noting the Bible NEVER says, "Mary had lotsa sex and kids?"

It says Joseph refrained from sleeping with Mary until after Jesus was born, which makes it sound like he did sleep with her after he was born.

"Sound like" = doesn't say it.

But your problem is that you are INFERRING a POSSIBLE meaning from a modern ENGLISH word. The word "until" never appears in the Bible for one very, very simple reason: English words didn't exist when the Bible was written, English didn't come about for many centuries AFTER that. The word in the verse you have in mind is in koine Greek, not modern English. And that Greek word does NOT mean or imply or suggest or "sound like" anything changed. The word ONLY looks backward, it says nothing about what comes AFTER that. I agree, the modern English word CAN imply that... you just seem unaware that the Bible was not written in modern English. And of course, "IMPLY" equals "does NOT say."

Then it says Jesus had brothers and sisters

Brother, it does NOT say these are biological children of Mary. The verse ONLY says that JESUS is the son of Mary, it does NOT say these others are children of Mary.

Brother, the words "brother" and "sister" in koine Greek do NOT mean "share the same biological mother." While the words MAY mean that, they USUALLY do not. Brother, the words can EQUALLY refer to step-siblings, half-siblings, cousins, persons of the same generation who live in the same home.... even soldiers and fellow villagers referred to each other as "brothers." In the Bible, it USUALLY does not mean share ANY parent (other than God the Father).

So what set Catholics down this path to begin with?

Brother, the belief that Mary had no sex or other children is ancient and universal. So, what happened 200 years ago or so that caused SO many American Evangelicals (Canadian and Australian Evangelicals, too) to get SO fasinated in this topic and to INSIST, with great passion, that Mary MUST have had just a whole lot of great sex and a bunch of other kids.... she just GOTTA. They SO much want her to be sexy, to have lots of sex (and kids), they are the ones who start threads on this. Why? What happened 200 years ago or so that caused them to reject the ancient belief.... held also by Luther and Calvin and Wesley and pretty much all Protestants (still so in Europe... this Protestant obsession with Mary having sex is pretty much an American thing?



Brother, as you note, the BIBLE is silent on this issue. So why aren't you?

Brother, you seem to think Catholics should stick exclusively to what the Bible STATES. So why don't you?






.

 

[hedrick]

To my knowledge, it's late 2nd Cent. Wikipedia, and other things I've seen in the past, says the first written source is the Protoevangelium of James, though of course it was likely present in oral tradition before that. It's always seemed to be part of the general tendency of early Christianity to see sex as impure. Not wrong, exactly, but virginity as a higher thing. The Virgin Birth was surely understood as implying that, although the original meaning was probably more to emphasize that Jesus' birth was entirely God's responsibility. Paul also implied that celibacy was a higher calling.

 

[Josiah]

To my knowledge, it's late 2nd Cent. Wikipedia, and other things I've seen in the past, says the first written source is the Protoevangelium of James, though of course it was likely present in oral tradition before that.

Yes. The belief is very, very ancient..... And was universal until the modern American view came some 200 years ago.

It's always seemed to be part of the general tendency of early Christianity to see sex as impure.

Some modern Americans hold to this theory.... perhaps because of their GREAT interest in seeing people as sexual. But while anyone can theorize about anything, we simple do not know the origin of this ancient, universal belief. WE DON"T KNOW. And the reason for that is understandable: no one debated it, no one rejected it, there was no counterpoint and thus no need for apologetics. The reason COULD have been because the Apostles knew this and passed it on (even though it never got into any book we today accept as canonical Scripture). But we don't know that, either. We don't know the ORIGIN of most of what we believe (other than our FAITH that it comes from the Holy Spirit).





.






.

 

[Andrew]

Grandparents?

Do you have Evidence in chatachesism ?

I've read oral Torah and roman law.

It's been sitting on the shelf collecting dust lol I have one of those big priest Bibles too, my great uncle was a priest.. anyway when I look it up i'll let you know

 

[hedrick]

There was at least a bit of debate. Here is Jerome's response to Helvidius' claim that marriage and virginity are equal, and that Mary and Joseph had a normal marriage:

CHURCH FATHERS: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary (Jerome)

Featuring the Church Fathers, Catholic Encyclopedia, Summa Theologica and more.

www.newadvent.org

At least by that point in time the issue does actually seem to be the claimed superiority of virginity. Both Helvidius in attacking it and Jerome in defending it saw the issues as linked.

Nor does it take much reading in writers such as Augustine to show that there were widespread beliefs that sex was impure. And of course people are sexual. See Genesis 1 and 2. That doesn't mean that everyone has to be married, but it's certainly a basic part of our nature.

 

[NathanH83]

Brother,


MY experience is that probably 90% of threads about this topic are started by American/Canadian "Evangelicals". Not Catholics or Orthodox.


... and a lot of modern American/Canadian "Evangelcals" seem OBSESSED with insisting that Mary had lotsa of sex (and therefore, lotsa kids). Why are these "Evangelicals" SO interested in this topic? Why are they SO interested in making Mary sexually active?






Brother, that's correct.

The Bible says NOTHING about Mary's sex life after Jesus was born... she was a virgin to that point but the Bible says NOTHING about after that. It is silent on that. So, why are so many modern American and Canadian "Evangelicals" SOOOO obsessed about her sex life? SOOOOO insistant that Mary had lotsa sex and lotsa kids? Why do they care SOOO much about this issue? Why is her sex life such an point of enormous fascination to them? Why it is THEY who keep bringing this up, why are nearly all threads on this are started by modern Evangelical type Protestants? What's behind this great fasination?






"Insinuates?" Is that your way of noting the Bible does NOT say what these modern "Evangelicals" insist? Your way of noting the Bible NEVER says, "Mary had lotsa sex and kids?"






"Sound like" = doesn't say it.

But your problem is that you are INFERRING a POSSIBLE meaning from a modern ENGLISH word. The word "until" never appears in the Bible for one very, very simple reason: English words didn't exist when the Bible was written, English didn't come about for many centuries AFTER that. The word in the verse you have in mind is in koine Greek, not modern English. And that Greek word does NOT mean or imply or suggest or "sound like" anything changed. The word ONLY looks backward, it says nothing about what comes AFTER that. I agree, the modern English word CAN imply that... you just seem unaware that the Bible was not written in modern English. And of course, "IMPLY" equals "does NOT say."






Brother, it does NOT say these are biological children of Mary. The verse ONLY says that JESUS is the son of Mary, it does NOT say these others are children of Mary.

Brother, the words "brother" and "sister" in koine Greek do NOT mean "share the same biological mother." While the words MAY mean that, they USUALLY do not. Brother, the words can EQUALLY refer to step-siblings, half-siblings, cousins, persons of the same generation who live in the same home.... even soldiers and fellow villagers referred to each other as "brothers." In the Bible, it USUALLY does not mean share ANY parent (other than God the Father).





Brother, the belief that Mary had no sex or other children is ancient and universal. So, what happened 200 years ago or so that caused SO many American Evangelicals (Canadian and Australian Evangelicals, too) to get SO fasinated in this topic and to INSIST, with great passion, that Mary MUST have had just a whole lot of great sex and a bunch of other kids.... she just GOTTA. They SO much want her to be sexy, to have lots of sex (and kids), they are the ones who start threads on this. Why? What happened 200 years ago or so that caused them to reject the ancient belief.... held also by Luther and Calvin and Wesley and pretty much all Protestants (still so in Europe... this Protestant obsession with Mary having sex is pretty much an American thing?



Brother, as you note, the BIBLE is silent on this issue. So why aren't you?

Brother, you seem to think Catholics should stick exclusively to what the Bible STATES. So why don't you?






.

Are you Catholic? You sound like it.

The Protestants I know are not obsessed with Mary. But Catholics are the ones who make statues to her, pray to her, and make up supposedly true stories of people in modern times being visited by her. I remember Steven Colbert talking with a fellow Catholic actress he was interviewing, and they were talking about the supposed 9 times Mary has visited people.

I literally saw video footage of the pope burning incense to a statue of Mary with baby Jesus on her lap, and call her the Queen of Heaven. But Protestant pastors rarely mention her.

Why is it that every time I ask a question, all you have to do is turn it into an argument, and constantly insult me? It’s really offensive. It was just a question, but you have to turn it into a fight, and fill it with your accusations and hateful insults? Can you please stop?

I mean, you’re accusing Protestants of trying to make Mary sexy? Really? That’s such a ridiculous accusation to make of Protestants. It’s just rude, accusatory, and mean. I just don’t understand why you’re so cold-hearted and filled with false accusations that don’t even make sense.

 

[hedrick]

Note what Jerome doesn't say. He doesn't say that he has a tradition passed on from the Apostles. He says Joseph can't have had sex because it would have defiled Mary, the temple of God:

"Helvidius, I say, would have us believe that Joseph, though well acquainted with such surprising wonders, dared to touch the temple of God, the abode of the Holy Ghost, the mother of his Lord?" [op cit]

I think this is at the root a denial of the Incarnation. Jerome's whole argument talks about the messiness of sex and birth. But the whole point of the Incarnation is that Jesus entered fully into human messiness.

 

[pinacled]

Note what Jerome doesn't say. He doesn't say that he has a tradition passed on from the Apostles. He says Joseph can't have had sex because it would have defiled Mary, the temple of God:

"Helvidius, I say, would have us believe that Joseph, though well acquainted with such surprising wonders, dared to touch the temple of God, the abode of the Holy Ghost, the mother of his Lord?" [op cit]

I think this is at the root a denial of the Incarnation. Jerome's whole argument talks about the messiness of sex and birth. But the whole point of the Incarnation is that Jesus entered fully into human messiness.

That is luciferian teaching that mary is the holy temple.

 

[pinacled]

Most of the Catholics I’ve talked to want to argue the point that Mary remained a virgin her whole life. But the New Testament never specifies this. In fact, it insinuates the opposite.

It says Joseph refrained from sleeping with Mary until after Jesus was born, which makes it sound like he did sleep with her after he was born. Then it says Jesus had brothers and sisters, which causes me to think Joseph and Mary had children together. Even the earliest of church fathers that I know of, like Clement of Rome, who probably knew Peter and Paul personally, never once mentioned anything about Mary being a virgin her whole life.

And yet, the Catholics I’ve talked to constantly want to argue about Mary being a virgin her whole life, as if that’s a main doctrinal point of the gospel, when in reality, it has very little to do with the gospel. Only the fact she was a virgin at the time Jesus was born, that’s the only way in which it pertains to the gospel.

Catholics have their way of explaining that Jesus had brothers by saying the Greek word for brothers “adelphos” could mean cousins. That’s true, but the context doesn’t imply that, nor does any verse specify that. The context implies actual brothers. Some Catholics say that Joseph had sons and daughters from a previous marriage, and that’s how Jesus had brothers. So they can’t even get their story straight.

So what set Catholics down this path to begin with?

I wonder if the perpetual virginity is a roman paganism

 

[Andrew]

I wonder if the perpetual virginity is a roman paganism

far from it

 

[pinacled]

far from it

Neo Roman paganism?