Mary’s Perpetual Virginity

[Josiah]

Where Biblically does it say or even suggest Mary remained a virgin all of her life?

As I specifically stated, IT DOES NOT. It also does not that that she did not. It's SILENT on this. Hence, no basis for embracing this as HERESY or as DOGMA.

BUT Lutherans do not dismiss Tradition.... the ancient, ecumenical/catholic BELIEF. Again, there is another option besides HERESY and DOGMA, there is "Pious opinion." A BELIEF that is NEITHER confirmed or rejected in Scripture BUT has ancient and ecumenical embrace. It is in THIS WAY that Luther, the Lutheran Fathers and most Lutheran pastors and teachers embraced this until very recently (the view seems to have fallen out of favor in the past 50 years or so in the LCMS). But again, it was never embraced as dogma in the Lutheran Confessions or in the LCMS.... and it was never condemned in the Lutheran Confessions or in the LCMS. You are WELCOMED to embrace the view.... or not. I gave you my "take."


Blessings


- Josiah



.

 

[Stephen]

Of course I'm interested, or else I wouldn't have replied to your post and others dealing with the same subject.

But "the church says" isn't really much of an answer when it comes to the truth or fiction of Mary being a perpetual virgin. For that matter also, what difference it would make either way!?

The notion that being a virgin at all times makes a woman especially holy isn't something that any of us should be laboring to defend.

No point. You have already decided there is no Scriptural support and I respect your decision.

2. There isn't any Scriptural basis for believing in Mary's perpetual virginity. Therefore, it cannot be a doctrine. Not any more than other so-called "pious opinions" are. Examples would be the tale about animals being present at the birth of Christ and, further, that they spoke in a human language until the shepherds arrived, or that Veronica wiped Jesus' face while he was en route to Calvary and that this left a permanent image of him upon the veil.

Neither of those has Scriptural support but, yes, we know that the Roman Church can make any stray word found in any Bible book serve as a "Eureka" moment for even the most complicated, inconsistent, and new dogmas it chooses to create.

Moreover the consensus here is that it doesn't matter either way.

 

[Albion]

No point. You have already decided there is no Scriptural support and I respect your decision.

But do you respect Scripture itself when it isn't in support of your view, as is the case here?

 

[Josiah]

No point. You have already decided there is no Scriptural support and I respect your decision.

That's fine..... and respected. But do YOU conclude that Scripture DOES state that Mary NEVER had sexual relations? If so, why not share those Scriptures? And if you think what Scripture says (or doesn't say) isn't relevant here, then why not share why you hold to that?

I mean, you certainly CAN just accept what you think is the common view here... and leave the discussion. That's fine and your "right" (and perhaps you think that most wise) BUT you are welcomed to continue the discussion.

Moreover the consensus here is that it doesn't matter either way.

Similarly, you are welcome to share why you think it DOES matter so very much (to the point of dogma). Perhaps you can explain how our salvation would be jeopardized if Mary and Joseph did consummate their marriage after Jesus was born? As a former Catholic, I think I could share some thoughts on that from a Catholic perspective, but that's not my role (nor do I personally accept those apologetics).

I don't know if you are just concluding it best to exit on this point.... or if you feel the martyr.... but we're a friendly and respectful community (for the most part, LOL) and you ARE welcome to share your perspective.




.

 

[Faithhopeandcharity]

But do YOU conclude that Scripture DOES state that Mary NEVER had sexual relations? If so, why not share those Scriptures?
I do!

Isa 7:14 a virgin shall conceive and bear a son (singular) (virgin bear a son, the Virgin birth is as miraculous as the virgin conception by the Holy Spirit)

Matt 1:
21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.

22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
(A son singular)

Lk 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. (One child)

Lk 1:34 I know not a man!

Thanks

 

[Albion]

But do YOU conclude that Scripture DOES state that Mary NEVER had sexual relations? If so, why not share those Scriptures?

because there aren't any.

I do!

Isa 7:14 a virgin shall conceive and bear a son (singular) (virgin bear a son, the Virgin birth is as miraculous as the virgin conception by the Holy Spirit)

The birth of Christ isn't at issue. It's the idea that Mary had no sexual relations for the rest of her life.

Matt 1:
21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Nothing there about "Perpetual Virginity" or "Ever-Virgin."

22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
(A son singular)

Still nothing there.

Lk 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. (One child)

Lk 1:34 I know not a man!

and there is no mention there of Mary being a Perpetual Virgin. either.

It's a legend, not something verified in Scripture. But by offering all these verses and 'talking' as though they are authoritative, you've actually proven that the theory is only folklore, not divine revelation and not true.

 

[Josiah]

But do YOU conclude that Scripture DOES state that Mary NEVER had sexual relations? If so, why not share those Scriptures?
I do!

Isa 7:14 a virgin shall conceive and bear a son (singular) (virgin bear a son, the Virgin birth is as miraculous as the virgin conception by the Holy Spirit)

Matt 1:
21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.

22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
(A son singular)

Lk 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. (One child)

Lk 1:34 I know not a man!

Thanks

Correct. As you prove, there are no Scriptures that state that Mary NEVER had sex or that she EVER did. Scripture indicates She was a virgin AT THE BIRTH OF JESUS (and obviously previously) but is completely silent about after that - either way. Thus, neither "side" has Scripture. Both "sides" are sharing personal opinions where Scripture clearly is silent.

Now, there IS pretty early and wide spread TRADITION on this (and it's that Mary was a perpetual virgin), THAT seems undeniable. But that's not Scripture, that's Tradition.

I personally have no issue with either position, only when it's expressed as dogma and not opinion. But my own position is that it's probably best (and most respectful) to do as Scripture does: Be silent on this. But that's just my pov.

As a Lutheran, well... Lutherans take ancient and ecumenical Tradition quite seriously; they certainly don't dismiss it. And so historically, Lutherans have held to the PVM but not as dogma but as "pious opinion." Luther himself held to this as did virtually all Lutherans until the mid 20th Century when it began to fade from favor; today I sense that most Lutherans take a position much as mine.



Blessings!


Josiah



.

 

[Faithhopeandcharity]

Are you going by spiritual pride, self-righteous private judgement from scripture, or the humility to hear the teaching of Christ through the church of His apostles?
Obedience of faith: rom 16:26
We must be taught by Christ who is the way, the truth, and the life. Jn 14:6
Instructed: Lk 1:4
Teach all nations: Matt 28:19
He who hears you (the apostles) hears me: lk 10:16
Hear the church: Matt 18:17
Church is the pillar and ground of truth: 1 Tim 3:14
Christ and his church are one, the church is an extension of Christ through the whole world and all time: acts 9:4

The church has always taught the perpetual virginity of Mary!


Mary conceived "without any detriment to her virginity, which remained inviolate even after his birth" (apostolic Council of the Lateran, 649) with the jurisdictional authority of Peter and the apostles in holy council! Matt 16:18 18:18 Jn 20:21-23 eph 2:20 bound on earth bound in heaven!

 

[Josiah]

Faithhopeandcharity -

Council of the Lateran, 649

Not one of the Seven Ecumenical Councils and so it won't get you anywhere in an ecumenical discussion.

Now, Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans and many Anglicans will note that this reflects very solid Tradition; it reflects that. But it's not authoritative (at least not outside the western Catholic Church - and probably then, not that). It was not an Ecumenical Council.

Are you going by spiritual pride, self-righteous private judgement from scripture, or the humility to hear the teaching of Christ through the church of His apostles?
Obedience of faith: rom 16:26

Friend,

With all due respect (several of us here at CH are former Catholics... including me)... and VERY much aware of your epistemology here (CCC 87 etc, etc, etc.)... you won't get ANYWHERE with that point. This is not a Catholic website, it's an ecumenical one. Anyone can shout "But my denomination can't be wrong so I don't need no support, I'm exempt from accountability!!" It gets us nowhere. Don't misunderstand me, YOU (as a docilic Catholic) certainly may chose to believe that (no one here will deny that) and you may choose to defend that (frankly, it's been tried endlessly before.... it doesn't work) BUT defending a view with "But the teacher who taught me said he's infallible and whatever he says is to be swallowed whole cuz he said it" will be ignored (at best) and perhaps even repudiated. Again, as a former Catholic apologist myself, I totally "get" it..... I'm just saying, outside the circle of completely docilic Catholics, this is an argument that will get you nowhere (and probably worse).

You may just state your view.... and let it be at that - THAT'S OKAY! But I would invite and strongly encourage you to give an apologetic for such (as Catholic apologists attempt to do) but avoid, "Cuz my single, individual church says so."

We must be taught by Christ who is the way, the truth, and the life. Jn 14:6

No one here would challenge that..... but then you need to quote CHRIST (personally, directlty, verbatim) stating your position. And I'm certain you realize you can't do that.



Blessings, my brother!


Josiah




.

 

[Faithhopeandcharity]

Scripture is clear but spiritual pride blinds you to the truth!

 

[tango]

Scripture is clear but spiritual pride blinds you to the truth!

I thought we'd already established that Scripture isn't clear at all on the topic.

Nobody here is disputing that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born. The fact Mary was a virgin at the time Jesus was born doesn't mean she remained a virgin for the rest of her life. You're extrapolating something that doesn't lend itself to extrapolation and then muddying the waters with random verses about pride and teaching, that are irrelevant to the topic at hand and could just as equally be used to support an opposing position to yours.

 

[Albion]

Mary conceived "without any detriment to her virginity, which remained inviolate even after his birth" (apostolic Council of the Lateran, 649) with the jurisdictional authority of Peter and the apostles in holy council! Matt 16:18 18:18 Jn 20:21-23 eph 2:20 bound on earth bound in heaven!

First, the Lateran Council of AD 649 is not Scripture. You claimed that Scripture verified the idea of Mary's Perpetual Virginity.

Second, AD 649 is not "always taught," yet that is what you claimed. It's well into the Middle Ages.

The church has always taught the perpetual virginity of Mary!

 

[Faithhopeandcharity]

I thought we'd already established that Scripture isn't clear at all on the topic.

Nobody here is disputing that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born. The fact Mary was a virgin at the time Jesus was born doesn't mean she remained a virgin for the rest of her life. You're extrapolating something that doesn't lend itself to extrapolation and then muddying the waters with random verses about pride and teaching, that are irrelevant to the topic at hand and could just as equally be used to support an opposing position to yours.

Lk 1:34
And it does mean that
God was born of her and
Ark of the new covenant!
The dwelling place of God!
God dwelt in Mary’s womb for 9 months, remember the ark was incorruptible wood covered with pure gold signifying Mary’s immaculate purity!
read exodus or any place in the Old Testament where something came into contact with God or was consecrated to the service of God it had to be pure and Holy!
In the ark was the word of God!
In Mary the new ark is the living Word!
In the ark was the mana!
In Mary was the bread come down from heaven! Jn 6
Bethlehem means house to of bread!

Lk 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Matt 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, (Isa 7:14) and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Jn 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Holy mother of God!

Lk 1:28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, Mary full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.



Biblical principle:
Anything Consecrated to God must be pure and used only for the purpose of serving God!

See exodus: the ark of the covenant, everything used in the temple etc.

Ezekiel 44:2 “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.”

Isa 66:9 Shall I bring to the birth, and not cause to bring forth? saith the Lord: shall I cause to bring forth, and shut the womb? saith thy God.

Mary and her virginity are Consecrated to God in immaculate purity, the pure gold of divine love!

Mary was the dwelling place of the Almighty, like the Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament. Mary was a vessel consecrated to God alone!


Can a man use the ark of the covenant for a common dinner table?

Then Joseph can in no any way use Mary for a common wife!

No mere man may enter where God conceived! Ez 44:2

Mary would not consent to God’s will and to receive the exalted dignity of the mother of God if it means violating her vow of perpetual virginity then why simply consent relations with Joseph!

That’s impossible!

Lk 1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

(This verse imply’s that Mary is consecrated to God alone! and has taken a vow of perpetual virginity! She was s willing to refuse even the exalted dignity of mother of God, the mother of our savior, and mother of all Christians if it means violating Her vow of perpetual virginity)

Lk 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.

38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

She consented to our salvation when she realized it would not violate her vow of perpetual virginity!

 

[Faithhopeandcharity]

First, the Lateran Council of AD 649 is not Scripture. You claimed that Scripture verified the idea of Mary's Perpetual Virginity.

Second, AD 649 is not "always taught," yet that is what you claimed. It's well into the Middle Ages.

Always
I gave scripture
Isa 7:14 one child
Matt 1:21-23 one child
Lk 1:34 no sex
Lk 1:35 her son is God

thr “Bible alone” is a condemned heresy not the rule of faith for a Christian

the rule of faith or source of truth for Christians is Christ and His church
We believe what Christ revealed eph 4:5 Jude 1:3 and what his church teaches or proposes for our belief Lk 1:4 matt 28:19 acts 8:31 the teaching authority of the apostles acts 2:42 having the SAME mission ministry power and authority as Christ Jn 20:21 Lk 10:16
Thanks

 

[tango]

I think you're stretching pretty wildly there. Nobody is disputing Mary was a virgin at the point Jesus was born but you're pulling bits and pieces from here and there to try and make a point that just doesn't seem to be there. Your Scriptures point to a virgin birth and are silent on the topic of whether the person remained a virgin after the birth took place. What you've got here is confusing silence with active statement - Scripture doesn't explicitly state that Jesus performed cartwheels during his life but that doesn't mean he didn't, merely that we don't know whether or not he did. Scripture doesn't explicitly describe Jesus going to the bathroom but since we know he was a man we can reasonably assume he did even if we would prefer not to think about that.

Essentially what you seem to be arguing is that sex is some kind of bad thing and therefore Mary couldn't have had sex. But sex was God's idea in the first place, so if Mary and Joseph did consummate their marriage after Jesus was born it's not as if Mary became defiled, any more than the rest of us become defiled by consummating our own marriages.

ETA: You talk of Mary's vow of perpetual virginity. Do you have a reference for that?

 

[Lanman87]

God dwelt in Mary’s womb for 9 months, remember the ark was incorruptible wood covered with pure gold signifying Mary’s immaculate purity!
read exodus or any place in the Old Testament where something came into contact with God or was consecrated to the service of God it had to be pure and Holy!

And how does Married sexual relations make someone impure? Married sexual relations are Holy and Pure.

 

[Josiah]

Faithandhopeandcharity

I gave scripture
Isa 7:14 one child
Matt 1:21-23 one child
Lk 1:34 no sex
Lk 1:35 her son is God

Yes, you keep proving that Scripture does not teach your opinion. You keep proving it's NOT clear - as you claim.

We believe what Christ revealed eph 4:5 Jude 1:3 and what his church teaches or proposes for our belief Lk 1:4 matt 28:19 acts 8:31 the teaching authority of the apostles acts 2:42 having the SAME mission ministry power and authority as Christ Jn 20:21 Lk 10:16

Correct. Scripture does NOT teach that Mary remained a virgin.... you are clearly wrong that it does. You yourself prove it.

Your denomination teaches this. Lots of denominations teach lots of things. "But my church says.... and it claims it itself alone can't be wrong" is an apologetic that will get you NOWHERE. See post 29





.

 

[Faithhopeandcharity]

And how does Married sexual relations make someone impure? Married sexual relations are Holy and Pure.

I did not say it does

 

[Faithhopeandcharity]

Faithandhopeandcharity




Yes, you keep proving that Scripture does not teach your opinion. You keep proving it's NOT clear - as you claim.






Correct. Scripture does NOT teach that Mary remained a virgin.... you are clearly wrong that it does. You yourself prove it.

Your denomination teaches this. Lots of denominations teach lots of things. "But my church says.... and it claims it itself alone can't be wrong" is an apologetic that will get you NOWHERE. See post 29





.

The Bible admits of no denominations only the one true church founded by Christ on Peter and the apostles Matt 16:18 eph 2:20 Jn 10:16
All others are sects from the tradition of men

 

[Josiah]

The Bible admits of no denominations only the one true church founded by Christ on Peter and the apostles Matt 16:18 eph 2:20 Jn 10:16
All others are sects from the tradition of men

See post 29.

Friend, your point is nothing but evasion and diversion. Anyone can claim "But my church insists it itself can't be wrong so it can't be wrong so there;." It gets us NOWHERE.

You claimed that SCRIPTURE teaches Mary remained a virgin... You claimed this is "clear." Then you yourself PROVED Scripture teaches no such thing and is the antithesis of clear on this. You yourself proved this; you yourself shot yourself in the foot;. And so had to retreat to the claim, "But my church says this and it insists it itself alone can't be wrong so it can't be wrong about uniquely not being wrong so it's not wrong." This not only will get you NOWHERE, it opens you up to rebuke and just derails the discussion (proving you have no "card" to play, you have nothing).

This is not a Catholic discussion forum where all posters are required to docilicly swallow whatever the singular Catholic Church happens to teach - submission being the point. So your "submit!" point is worthless.

MY counsel to you (which you are very free to ignore, LOL): Give the REASONS to support this pov as TRUE.... not just "cuz I swallow whatever my church says cuz it says I must". I actually think the view has merit (and gave my reason earlier in this thread). IMO, the "marital sex is BAD" apologetic was abandoned by Catholic apologists back in the mid 20th Century and it's very odd seeing you resurrect it. Try a valid argument (cuz marital sex does NOT defile, it is NOT sin, it is NOT bad according to today's Catholic Church).


Blessings


Josiah




.