Mary’s Perpetual Virginity

NathanH83

Well-known member
Joined
May 9, 2019
Messages
2,278
Age
40
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Justin Martyr and Irenaeus used the analogy of Mary being the "Eve" figure in the redemption story. They were battling several different "traditions" that had sprouted up in the late 1st and 2nd Century. Gnosticism being the biggest error they were trying to correct. Mary being a virgin and Christ having been born of "the virgin" were key arguments that Christ was a human with flesh and bone and blood. That is pretty much the only thing the early fathers had to say about Mary.

In the late 2nd Century a writing was produced called the Protoevanglium of James(POJ), which is the source for most the "Tradition" about that is not found in the New Testament. The irony for Catholics is that this book was listed as a book to be avoided by Catholics in the Gelasian Decree in the 5th Century and much earlier Origen called it a "late heretical work".

If the 3rd and 4th Centuries asceticm became popular and many of the leading theologians were also monks. They had a very dim view of married sexuality and projected their beliefs onto Mary. Because they were the most influential people in the church the Marian Dogmas of ever virgin, and immaculate conception began to become the norm.

This put 6th Century Catholics in a bind because they believed in perpetual virginity and immaculate conception but couldn't use the POJ (due to the Gelasian decree). Today the Catholic church ignores the Gelasian decree. If you look at a Catholic apologetics site they are more than happen to reference the POJ as a reliable source for the Tradition of the Marian Dogmas.

I've read the POJ and think it is a work of 2nd century fan fiction where someone made up a backstory for Mary. Whether it was a work inspired by Satan to take the emphasis off Christ or just fluke of history I'll not speculate on.

I was also thinking that it originated from the false “gospel of James”

The question is, what motivated someone to make up this fiction about Mary?

I wonder if it had anything to do with Diana or Artemis.

I believe Diana (or Artemis) was supposedly a perpetual virgin (according to myth). They burned incense to her and called her the queen of heaven. The Catholic Church burns incense to Mary sand calls her the queen of heaven.

I wonder if it all boils down to idolatry. Maybe they wanted to continue in their idol worship, but because of laws making Christianity the only religion, maybe they had to “Christianize” their idolatry. You know, keep the Diana statue, but slap the name “Mary” on there.

Just speculation on my part. But worth looking into.
 

Lanman87

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 30, 2020
Messages
732
Age
55
Location
Bible Belt
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Non-Denominational
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I was also thinking that it originated from the false “gospel of James”

The question is, what motivated someone to make up this fiction about Mary?

I wonder if it had anything to do with Diana or Artemis.

I believe Diana (or Artemis) was supposedly a perpetual virgin (according to myth). They burned incense to her and called her the queen of heaven. The Catholic Church burns incense to Mary sand calls her the queen of heaven.

I wonder if it all boils down to idolatry. Maybe they wanted to continue in their idol worship, but because of laws making Christianity the only religion, maybe they had to “Christianize” their idolatry. You know, keep the Diana statue, but slap the name “Mary” on there.

Just speculation on my part. But worth looking into.
Yes, there is a lot of speculation. We don't know if the person who penned the POJ made it all up themselves or if they were just writing down legends that had come about in the 2nd century.
 

Faithhopeandcharity

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 2, 2021
Messages
590
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Virtue of virginity

In order to be a virtue it must be
Offered to God in sacrifice!

And it must be Perpetual!

As Mary practiced all the virtues in the highest degree!

being conceived without sin and immaculate always even from her mothers womb had the use of reason and beheld the beatific vision of God in heaven, and there loved Him to perfection, only sought to please Him and offer herself completely, totally and permanently to God!

Lk 1:46 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,

matt 5:8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
 

Faithhopeandcharity

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 2, 2021
Messages
590
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
MARK -


Consider the following...



1. Your claim has been that Scripture clearly states that Mary was a PERPETUAL virgin. But you have taken it upon yourself to PROVE that's false, your claim is wrong, Scripture states no such thing. Shooting yourself in the foot, proving yourself wrong, undermining your own credibility (and perhaps honesty). The TRUTH is (as you've proven), Scripture is silent on this issue; it's clear that She was a virgin at the birth of Jesus but says NOTHING about after that. Sorry, it's just the truth - as you yourself have proven. Mark, you do this not only with the Marian teachings of your church but all of its teachings and claims.


2. What everyone here already knew (long before you came into our community) is that your church, The Catholic Church, teaches this. The FEW times you stated this obvious fact (Duh), no one disputed it. You are being honest. And truthful. Of course, as I'm sure you agree, just because a church teaches something doesn't make it true, so that's not a defense, it's not apologetics, it has nothing whatever to do with showing it to be true - just something now taught by The Catholic Church.


3 Many of us here are former Catholics (including me), others have Catholic spouses. We get it. Honestly, we do. We know all about CCC 85 and 87, etc., etc,, etc. Catholics are told by The Catholic Church to swallow whatever it itself now teaches "with docility" - because it itself is teaching it. This is an epistemology MANY reject (as I'm sure you do, too - you just make a single but radical exception for The Catholic Church). Okay. You believe it BECAUSE your church teaches it and tells you to accept whatever it does teach. WE GET IT. Lots of us have "been there, done that." And IF you stated that.... "I believe Mary was a perpetual virgin because my church says so and it says I am to docilicly accept what it teaches" we'll all say "okay - understood." But it would get you no further than a Mormon doing the exact, identical, same thing. AND (more importantly) it has nothing to do with showing something to be TRUE. For that, we'd need some COMMON norm (such as the words of Scripture) and we don't: your norm is whatever The Catholic Church says (obviously, you don't care much what Scripture says - only what The Catholic Church tells you it MEANS, how it itself spins it). And we don't think The Catholic Church is the inerrant, authoritative Voice of God.


4. Honesty matters. Frankly, even as a past Catholic, I've been surprised at how you often misrepresent Catholicism and the TERRIBLE apologetics you offer (where are you getting this stuff ???!!! A lot of "Evangelicals" repudiate Catholicism BECAUSE they hold that some of what it claims for itself and itself teaches is not found in Scripture - and you seem DETERMINED to prove they are right. Why in the world would you do that? You quote Mary but CHANGE her words - profoundly disrespecting her and showing "Evangelicals" how little Catholics respect her (they won't even respect her words!). You're not doing yourself good.... nor your church.


5. I suggest that you be honest.... tell the truth (rather than errors you yourself prove to be wrong)... be respectful to your fellow Christians (and they'll be far more likely to respect you back). Share your faith... explain with honesty and respect. You'll be appreciated. And you can teach our community more about your church. And that would be good. You MIGHT even begin to win back the members here who have put you on their ignore list. I'm now Lutheran. I post as such. I doubt I'm CONVERTING anyone, nor is that my intent. I'm sharing my perspective - honestly, truthfully - in hopes of advancing mutual understanding and in hopes that they'll do the same for me. Catholics have MUCH to share.... MUCH that is good.... MUCH that (IMO) Protestantism can learn from. And vise-versa.


Consider it. Perhaps.



A blessed Advent to you and yours...


- Josiah





.
I don’t agree! What have light to do with darkness, truth with error etc. !
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
faithhopeandcharity said:
Virtue of virginity


There is no such virtue in marriage.


Lk 1:46 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,

matt 5:8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.


Thank you for again proving that Scripture does not say what you do about this. Nope. You've proved that endlessly.

Nowhere does Scripture state that Mary remained a virgin, nothing that says she was a PERPETUAL virgin. You've proved it.




.
 

Faithhopeandcharity

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 2, 2021
Messages
590
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
There is no such virtue in marriage.





Thank you for again proving that Scripture does not say what you do about this. Nope. You've proved that endlessly.

Nowhere does Scripture state that Mary remained a virgin, nothing that says she was a PERPETUAL virgin. You've proved it.




.
Virginity is not a Christian virtue?
I did not say in marriage, marriage requires the Christian virtue of chastity

you always say that, but I’ve never proved any such thing.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Virginity is not a Christian virtue?

... not in marriage (as I noted).

1 Corinthians 7:4-5, "The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does." Nothing there about,"it is a virgue of the wife remains a virgin forever."







 
Last edited:

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
... not in marriage (as I noted).
Who are you referring to as married


The Catholic Church teaches that Mary and Joseph were married. In any case, consent to engagement is consent to marriage.

1 Corinthians 7:4-5, "The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does." Nothing there about,"it is a virgue of the wife remains a virgin forever."



I am NOT saying that this couple DID or DID NOT ever have loving, mutual marital intimacies after Jesus was born ... I'm saying you yourself have PROVEN (undeniably, repeatedly) that Scripture does not say - either way. That you yourself have proven that your claim that "Scripture clearly states Mary was a PERPETUAL virgin" is a clear falsehood, you are clearly wrong. And here specifically I am disagreeing with you that it is biblical virtue for a wife to not give conjugal rights to her husband. No virtue in not doing that, a wife MAY perhaps (if mutually desired and requested) but it's still no virtue, at least as stated in the Bible.



.




.
 
Last edited:

Faithhopeandcharity

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 2, 2021
Messages
590
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
The Catholic Church teaches that Mary and Joseph were married. In any case, consent to engagement is consent to marriage.

1 Corinthians 7:4-5, "The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does." Nothing there about,"it is a virgue of the wife remains a virgin forever."



I am NOT saying that this couple DID or DID NOT ever have loving, mutual marital intimacies after Jesus was born ... I'm saying you yourself have PROVEN (undeniably, repeatedly) that Scripture does not say - either way. That you yourself have proven that your claim that "Scripture clearly states Mary was a PERPETUAL virgin" is a clear falsehood, you are clearly wrong. And here specifically I am disagreeing with you that it is biblical virtue for a wife to not give conjugal rights to her husband. No virtue in not doing that, a wife MAY perhaps (if mutually desired and requested) but it's still no virtue, at least as stated in the Bible.



.




.
But the church does say so and it the teaching of Christ and His church that are the source of truth and rule of faith for all Christians
Christ is the rule of faith or source of truth for Christians!
Jn 14:6 Jesus Christ is the way the truth and the life! The church is an extension of Christ 1 Tim 3:15 the church is the pillar and ground of truth!

Must be taught by Christ! Gal 1:2

What God has revealed by scripture and the church, the teaching authority of the apostles has proposed for our belief!

Christians must be instructed or taught!

A Christian must have humility and obedience of faith to be taught by Christ who is the way, the truth, and the life!
Jn 14:6

Verses of scripture signifying that we must be taught.

Lk 1:4
Matt 18:17
Matt 28:19

Christ and His church are one! Acts 9:4
The church is an exodus christ by which Christ perpetuates his mission, ministry, and teaching with His power and authority through all the world and all ages!

The private interpretation of the “Bible alone” does not and cannot and will not lead to a unity of faith! 2 Pet 1:20
eph 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: Jn 1:16-17 fullness of Christ!


The Bible does not say all truths revealed by God are found in the “Bible alone”! Or that the word of God is limited to the “Bible alone”!

Not the “Bible alone” acts 2:42
Not personal interpretation or experiences. 2 Pet 1:20

The authority of the apostles is required to know what is the scriptures and what is not, the church having wrote the New Testament by the authority of Christ the apostles determined what is scripture and the authentic interpretation there of!

Saint Jerome’s work of collecting the Bible and getting it approved did not happen until in 381 it was approved by the Pope, the valid successor of Peter having jurisdiction authority of the keys of the kingdom of heaven!

How did the church for almost four centuries live without the “Bible alone”?
The teaching authority of the apostles that’s how! The Bible’s is the Bible by the authority of the church, Christ’s authority given to His apostles!

Christ founded the church on Peter and the apostles to defend, to protect, and to teach “thee faith”

A fundamentalist is ruled 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 acts 8:31
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

Not scripture plus private judgement

But guided by the teaching office of Christ and his church!

Without the teaching authority of the apostles you cannot know what is and what is not scripture!

Please explain how the church of Jesus Christ existed before the New Testament, the church taught and believed before the New Testament with the same authority of Christ!

Church of the apostles has the same mission, ministry, power, and authority as Christ! Jn 20:21-23

The church wrote the New Testament, the church gathered the cannon of scripture, the church alone has authority to say what is, and what is not scripture and to give the authoritative interpretation or meaning of scripture!

Not spiritual pride & self-righteous private judgement!

Athanasius Creed!
(From the early church)

Whoever desires to be saved must above all hold to the catholic faith.

Anyone who does not keep it whole and entire will doubtless perish eternally.

What did Christ teach the apostles in the 40 days from His resurrection to His ascension?
What did he teach the two disciples on the road to Emmaus?
What was revealed to John the Baptist in Lk 3:2 the word of God came unto John, and did it come by the Bible alone?
Where does Christ command the New Testament to be written? The apostles having the authority of Christ chose to write scripture! Other apostles wrote nothing at all!
How does the eunuch know about baptism? Acts 8

Rule of faith cannot be the “Bible Alone” because we did not have a bible until 381 when the church of the apostles by the authority of Christ determined what was and what was not scripture! You only have a bible cos the church wrote one and cannonized it by the authority of Christ thru his apostles!

Could not read
The Bible itself points to authority granted by Christ
The Bible condemns person interpretation of scripture as opposed to the church of the apostles having the authority of Christ to interpret scripture

so how can the rule of faith be the “Bible alone” when it did not even exist until the church approved it in 381 by the authority of Christ in His apostles, what about the millions who could not read most could not read until the 20th century, and books including Bible were rare and very expensive all written by hand (mostly by monks who sacrificed their whole life to copy a bible) until the printing press, even then they were still expensive
What does a blind person do?

the Holy Spirit is guaranteed to the apostles Jn 16:13 they are to teach the nations Matt 28:19 Lk 1:4 acts 8

in acts 8 did the eunuch know about Christ and baptism from the scripture and the Holy Spirit? No God sent him and apostle


Acts 2:42 the held the doctrine of the apostles
Not the doctrine of the “Bible alone”!

if you believe the doctrine of the “Bible alone”, then there can be no other authority so scratch that verse out of your Bible! And many others that refer to the authority of the apostles!
Btw it’s only by the authority of the apostles that know what is and what is not scripture

Cannot summit to or obey any other authority accept the Bible alone
Even God, or Christ, or His church, or His apostles, or those who He sent and commanded to care for you’re soul!
The Bible is the only authority for a Protestant!

Where does the Bible say the rule of faith is the Bible alone?

the Bible was not assembled and approved until 381 by the apostles btw
Only the apostles said what is and what is not scripture.

What did Christians do in all those years without the “Bible alone”
until the advent of printing bibles were copied by hand and very rare and extremely expensive what did Christians do in those days
Most people were illiterate until the 20th century what did they do?
So you see the “Bible Alone” cannot be the rule of faith for Christians!
Instead we actually believe scripture and submit to and obey the apostles acts 2:42


Must be taught! Must be instructed by Christ!

Bible does not say to read and decide doctrine for you’re self!

Lk 1:1-4
4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

Acts 8 the eunuch had scripture but needed to be instructed by an apostle.

30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?

31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

Taught by Christ thru His apostles!

Eph 4:20 But ye have not so learned Christ;

21 If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus:

Christ taught them and us thru the apostles.

Lk 24:25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:

27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

Not scripture alone, but what the prophets spoke! And Christ explaining the scriptures, and we also are disciples, Christ also opens the scripture to us thru His church by the teaching authority of the apostles!


verses that refer to authority other than the “Bible Alone” our of your Bible!

Isa 22:21-22 Mt 16:18 Mt 28:19 Lk 1:32 Lk 10:16 Jn 8:32 Jn 13:20 Jn 15:5 Jn 16:13 Jn 20:21-22 Jn 21:17 Acts 1:17 acts 1:26 acts 2:42 acts 8:31 & 35 acts 20:28 eph 2:20 and too many more to mention!
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Jn 14:6 Gal 1:2 Jn 14:6 Lk 1:4 Matt 18:17 Matt 28:19 Acts 9:4 2 Pet 1:20 eph 4:13 Jn 1:16-17 acts 2:42. 2 Pet 1:20 rom 16:26 Jn 14:6 Lk 1:4 acts 8:31 Matt 28:1 lk 10:16 Matt 18:17 1 Tim 3:14 Jn 20:21-23 Lk 3:2 Acts 8 Jn 16:13 Matt 28:19 Lk 1:4 acts 8 Acts 2:42 acts 2:42 Lk 1:1-4 Acts 8 Eph 4:20 Lk 24:25 Isa 22:21-22 Mt 16:18 Mt 28:19 Lk 1:32 Lk 10:16 Jn 8:32 Jn 13:20 Jn 15:5 Jn 16:13 Jn 20:21-22 Jn 21:17 Acts 1:17 acts 1:26 acts 2:42 acts 8:31 & 35 acts 20:28 eph 2:20


Correct.

NOTHING that states that Mary was a PERPETUAL virgin.....

NOTHING that says it is a virtue for a wife to remain a virgin forever. (See 1 Corinthians 4:3-5)


Your claim that Scripture states that Mary remained a virgin perpetually is - as you insist on continuing to prove - false, wrong, a lie.
Your claim that Scripture states it is a "virtue" for a wife to remain a virgin is - as you now insist on proving - is nowhere stated in Scripture (or anywhere in the Catholic Catechism).




.
 

Faithhopeandcharity

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 2, 2021
Messages
590
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Correct.

NOTHING that states that Mary was a PERPETUAL virgin.....

NOTHING that says it is a virtue for a wife to remain a virgin forever. (See 1 Corinthians 4:3-5)


Your claim that Scripture states that Mary remained a virgin perpetually is - as you insist on continuing to prove - false, wrong, a lie.
Your claim that Scripture states it is a "virtue" for a wife to remain a virgin is - as you now insist on proving - is nowhere stated in Scripture (or anywhere in the Catholic Catechism).




.
What catechism?
 
Joined
Nov 26, 2021
Messages
17
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
What catechism?
I am as tired of your endlessly spouting Catholic falsehoods in this forum as I am of you in another forum, aka, Theefaith.

To all the non-Catholics out there, HERE is where the 'perpetual virginity of Mary' nonsense comes from...directly from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

#499 The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary's real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man.154 In fact, Christ's birth "did not diminish his mother's virginal integrity but sanctified it."155 and so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the "Ever- virgin".

As shown above, it is the "Church", ie, the CATHOLIC CHURCH alone that declares Mary's perpetual virginity. Absolutely nowhere in Gods' engrafted Word is such a declaration made.
 

Faithhopeandcharity

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 2, 2021
Messages
590
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Jerome maintains against Helvidius these propositions:—

1st. That Joseph was only putatively, not really, the husband of Mary.

2d. That the brethren of the Lord were his cousins, not his own brethren.


I must call upon the Holy Spirit to express His meaning by my mouth and defend the virginity of the Blessed Mary. I must call upon the Lord Jesus to guard the sacred lodging of the womb in which He abode for ten months from all suspicion of sexual intercourse. And I must also entreat God the Father to show that the mother of His Son, who was a mother before she was a bride, continued a Virgin after her son was born. and to discern the established conclusion of a sound faith.

3. His first statement was: Matthew says, Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privately. But when he thought on these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto you Mary your wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. Notice, he says, that the word used is betrothed, not entrusted as you say, and of course the only reason why she was betrothed was that she might one day be married. And the Evangelist would not have said before they came together if they were not to come together, for no one would use the phrase before he dined of a man who was not going to dine. Then, again, the angel calls her wife and speaks of her as united to Joseph. We are next invited to listen to the declaration of Scripture: Matthew 1:24-25 And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took unto him his wife; and knew her not till she had brought forth her son.

He admits that she was betrothed, and in the next breath will have her to be a man's wife whom he has admitted to be his betrothed.

When, then, the Evangelist says before they came together, he indicates the time immediately preceding marriage, and shows that matters were so far advanced that she who had been betrothed was on the point of becoming a wife. As though he said, before they kissed and embraced, before the consummation of marriage, she was found to be with child. And she was found to be so by none other than Joseph, who watched the swelling womb of his betrothed with the anxious glances, and, at this time, almost the privilege, of a husband. Yet it does not follow, as the previous examples showed, that he had intercourse with Mary after her delivery, when his desires had been quenched by the fact that she had already conceived. And although we find it said to Joseph in a dream, Fear not to take Mary your wife; and again, Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took unto him his wife,no one ought to be disturbed by this, as though, inasmuch as she is called wife, she ceases to be betrothed, for we know it is usual in Scripture to give the title to those who are betrothed. The following evidence from Deuteronomy establishes the point. Deuteronomy 22:24-25 If the man, says the writer, find the damsel that is betrothed in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her, he shall surely die, because he has humbled his neighbour's wife. And in another place, Deuteronomy 22:23-24 If there be a damsel that is a virgin betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; then you shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and you shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he has humbled his neighbour's wife: so you shall put away the evil from the midst of you.Elsewhere also, Deuteronomy 20:7 And what man is there that has betrothed a wife, and has not taken her? Let him go and return unto his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man take her. But if anyone feels a doubt as to why the Virgin conceived after she was betrothed rather than when she had no one betrothed to her, or, to use the Scripturephrase, no husband, let me explain that there were three reasons. First, that by the genealogy of Joseph, whose kinswoman Mary was, Mary's origin might also be shown. Secondly, that she might not in accordance with the law of Mosesbe stoned as an adulteress. Thirdly, that in her flight to Egypt she might have some solace, though it was that of a guardian rather than a husband. For who at that time would have believed the Virgin's word that she had conceived of the Holy Ghost, and that the angelGabriel had come and announced the purpose of God? And would not all have given their opinion against her as an adulteress, like Susanna? For at the present day, now that the whole world has embraced the faith, the Jewsargue that when Isaiah says, Behold, a virginshall conceive and bear a son, the Hebrew word denotes a young woman, not a virgin, that is to say, the word is Almah, not Bethulah, a position which, farther on, we shall dispute more in detail. Lastly, excepting Joseph, and Elizabeth, and Mary herself, and some few others who, we may suppose, heard the truthfrom them, all considered Jesus to be the son of Joseph. And so far was this the case that even the Evangelists, expressing the prevailing opinion, which is the correct rule for a historian, call him the father of the Saviour, as, for instance, Luke 2:27 And he (that is, Simeon) came in the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, that they might do concerning him after the custom of the law; and elsewhere, Luke 2:41 And his parents went every year to Jerusalem at the feast of the passover. And afterwards, And when they had fulfilled the days, as they were returning, the boy Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and his parents knew not of it.Observe also what Mary herself, who had replied to Gabriel with the words, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? says concerning Joseph, Luke 1:34
 

Lanman87

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 30, 2020
Messages
732
Age
55
Location
Bible Belt
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Non-Denominational
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Jerome maintains against Helvidius these propositions:—

1st. That Joseph was only putatively, not really, the husband of Mary.

2d. That the brethren of the Lord were his cousins, not his own brethren.


Other's said that the brethen of the Lord were step-brothers.

Which one is it? Was Jerome wrong or were the others wrong?
 

Faithhopeandcharity

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 2, 2021
Messages
590
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Virgin and mother

Lk 2:7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

A virgin and mother wrapped him in swaddling in clothes and laid Hin in a manger!

A virgin and mother wrapped Him in burial clothes and laid Him in the tomb!

still a mother MUST be a virgin!

Her virginity and motherhood are inseparable!
 

Faithhopeandcharity

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 2, 2021
Messages
590
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Other's said that the brethen of the Lord were step-brothers.

Which one is it? Was Jerome wrong or were the others wrong?
It’s open, you can believe cousins, or children of Joseph by a former marriage but not step brothers being children of Mary and Joseph! No one is or can be a biological child of Mary accept Jesus by the HS!
It is interesting that the twelve sons of Jacob are all brothers, but they have four different mothers!
 

Lanman87

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 30, 2020
Messages
732
Age
55
Location
Bible Belt
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Non-Denominational
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
It’s open, you can believe cousins, or children of Joseph by a former marriage but not step brothers being children of Mary and Joseph! No one is or can be a biological child of Mary accept Jesus by the HS!
It is interesting that the twelve sons of Jacob are all brothers, but they have four different mothers!
So the Catholic church can't be for sure who they are, just who they are not?
 

Faithhopeandcharity

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 2, 2021
Messages
590
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
So the Catholic church can't be for sure who they are, just who they are not?
I’m sure there cousins as the Bible says they are children of Joseph’s brother
But even Abraham and lot (uncle and nephew) are called brothers
 

Faithhopeandcharity

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 2, 2021
Messages
590
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Marital Status
Widow/Widower
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Why did Mary make a vow to God of perpetual virginity? (Lk 1:34 only makes sense in light of a vow) because of her great humility! Lk 1:48

she because of great humility did not deem herself worthy to be the mother of God!

She desired to be the servant of the mother of God!
 
Top Bottom