Mary’s Perpetual Virginity

[Faithhopeandcharity]

So you don't believe that sexual union between a husband and wife is just, fitting, and holy?

I said yes it is and ordained by God

chaste means exclusive one man one woman
Until death do you part

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Nah, Mary only bore Jesus. Those other offspring in that household were Jesus’ step siblings from his step father Joseph.

Oh, you read that book too.

 

[Josiah]

chaste means exclusive one man one woman
Until death do you part

Okay.... then pray tell. how is it as you said that if Joseph and Mary had even once lovingly shared marital intimacies, that would mean Joseph was unjust and Mary desecrated?


Your claim is that Scripture states that Mary remained a virgin forever, a PERPETUAL virgin. But proved that Scripture says no such thing, you claim is wrong, you are false.

Then you claimed that if a couple mutually, lovingly shares martial intimacies, this defiles/desecrates the wife (but not husband) and makes the husband unjust (but not the wife).... you insist this isn't so but you insist that it is.



Mark,


Clearly, you docilicly swallow whole what your church tells you (as it commands you to do) and it tells you Mary was a perpetual virgin. Okay. Your individual church teaches this and you docilicly swallow it. Fine. Your option. Everyone here already knew that your church teaches it. But your attempts to uphold it as true have been laughable - just radical circular reasoning, evasion, and apologetics you yourself have proven to be wrong and at times have yourself disagreed with. You have noted what your individual church now teaches - and contributed nothing since everyone already knew that. And have shown that you have NOTHING to show that it's true, ONLY that your church teaches it. To you, doing what your church tells you to do is all that matters (docilicly swallow whole whatever it itself tells to), not if it's true.

There IS strong and ancient Tradition here (but not complete Tradition)... a point you evade for some odd reason. In the opinion of many, this is a PERMITTED opinion on that basis. But you are WRONG when you insist that Scripture clearly states this and you are both wrong and offensive when you insist that if this couple had engaged in the loving, mutual sharing of marital intimacies, this would defile the wife and make the husband unjust... that's not only unbiblical but offensive (it's not even a Catholic view).


A blessed Advent to you and yours.


- Josiah




.

 

[Tigger]

Oh, you read that book too.

Actually I’ve held and argued both sides of the subject for years. I ultimately think Mary’s perpetual virginity is the most complete position but at the end of the day IMO I consider either to be of pious opinion.

 

[Tigger]

Coincidentally this video choice just popped up on my YouTube feed.

Mary did you know (lyrics reworked)

 

[Faithhopeandcharity]

The supernatural virtue of faith believes all the the son of God revealed, and was taught by holy mother church for our instruction and salvation!

Macy’s 2;42 they kept the doctrine of the apostles

that He took flesh of Mary mother of God ever virgin!

the queen of heaven and earth of all angels and saints!

for it is unlawful to refuse to believe, and unlawful to believe error!

 

[Albion]

Error doesn't become more legitimate by being repeated a number of times.

 

[Faithhopeandcharity]

Mary is depicted as the spouse of the Holy Spirit in Scripture. In Luke 1:34, when Mary asks the angel how she will conceive a child, the angel responds: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.”

This is nuptial language hearkening back to Ruth 3:8, where Ruth said to Boaz “spread your skirt over me” when she revealed to him his duty to marry her according to the law of Deuteronomy 25. When Mary became pregnant, Joseph would have been required to divorce her because she would then belong to another (see Dt 24:1-4; Jer 3:1). But when Joseph found out that “the other” was the Holy Spirit, the idea of his having conjugal relations with Mary was not a consideration.

 

[Josiah]

Mary is depicted as the spouse of the Holy Spirit in Scripture. In Luke 1:34, when Mary asks the angel how she will conceive a child, the angel responds: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.”

Nope.

Mary is depicted as the spouse of JOSEPH. Not once is She said to be married to the Holy Spirit (marriage - according to the Catholic Church is between one man and one woman so marriage with the Holy Spirit isn't even theoretically POSSIBLE). Scripture never indicates that Mary was a polygamist.

Yes, SEXUAL INTERCOURSE can be argued to indicate marriage... marriage is not limited to such (only consummated marriage) but yes intercourse means such. But brother, only the LDS teaches that God had sex with Mary. There was no intercourse in the miraculous conception, my friend.

Friend, sometimes what you post is not only PURE speculation but not even accord with Catholicism, which you profess to embrace. What you have said here aligns with Mormonism but not Catholicism.

When Mary became pregnant, Joseph would have been required to divorce her because she would then belong to another (see Dt 24:1-4; Jer 3:1). But when Joseph found out that “the other” was the Holy Spirit,

Wrong again.

The biblical references are when ADULTERY was involved, when another MAN had INTERCOURSE with the woman. Then fornication and adultery come into play and a divorce is permitted. But again, your very MORMON (and anti-Catholic) view that Mary and the Holy Spirit had sex is not only impossible and unbiblical but frankly, sick. THERE WAS NO OTHER MAN.... which is why there was no adultery and no reason for divorce, as the Angel informs a believing Joseph. He doesn't divorce her because there's no basis for it, there was no other man involved and there was no sex involved and there was no other marriage involved.

the idea of his having conjugal relations with Mary was not a consideration.

Where does the text say that?

Where did the Angel say, "So you are forbidden to take her home as your WIFE.... conjugal relations cannot be considered."




.A blessed Christmas season to you and yours...


- Josiah



.

 

[Faithhopeandcharity]

Nope.

Mary is depicted as the spouse of JOSEPH. Not once is She said to be married to the Holy Spirit (marriage - according to the Catholic Church is between one man and one woman so marriage with the Holy Spirit isn't even theoretically POSSIBLE). Scripture never indicates that Mary was a polygamist.

Yes, SEXUAL INTERCOURSE can be argued to indicate marriage... marriage is not limited to such (only consummated marriage) but yes intercourse means such. But brother, only the LDS teaches that God had sex with Mary. There was no intercourse in the miraculous conception, my friend.

Friend, sometimes what you post is not only PURE speculation but not even accord with Catholicism, which you profess to embrace. What you have said here aligns with Mormonism but not Catholicism.






Wrong again.

The biblical references are when ADULTERY was involved, when another MAN had INTERCOURSE with the woman. Then fornication and adultery come into play and a divorce is permitted. But again, your very MORMON (and anti-Catholic) view that Mary and the Holy Spirit had sex is not only impossible and unbiblical but frankly, sick. THERE WAS NO OTHER MAN.... which is why there was no adultery and no reason for divorce, as the Angel informs a believing Joseph. He doesn't divorce her because there's no basis for it, there was no other man involved and there was no sex involved and there was no other marriage involved.






Where does the text say that?

Where did the Angel say, "So you are forbidden to take her home as your WIFE.... conjugal relations cannot be considered."




.A blessed Christmas season to you and yours...


- Josiah



.

I did not say sex
And it is spiritual marriage not carnal

Mary & Eve!

Eve was of the First creation: carnal
Mary of the New creation: spiritual

Eve the cos of Sin and curse disobeyed God! Gen 3:12
Mary cos of salvation, Lk 1:30 & consented to our salvation Lk 1:38 obeyed God & found our salvation Lk 1:30

Eve mourned:
Mary rejoiced: Lk 1:46

Eve gave birth to the all sinners: mother of all the living. Gen 3:20
Mary to the savior of all men: mother of all living in Christ. Jn 19:26-27 rev 12:17

Mary the mother of God! Lk 1:43

Eve brought punishment: gen 3:16
Mary salvation: Lk 1:30 & 38 Lk 2:30

Eve source of sin: gen 3:16
Mary source of grace: Lk 1:30 & 38

Eve brought death: gen 3:19
Mary life: Jn 1:16-17 & Jn 10:10

Eve only wounds & suffering: gen 3:19
Mary healing:

Eve infidelity: gen 3:6
Mary faithfulness: Lk 1:45

Eve offended the Lord: gen 3:6-7
Mary’s soul (being) doth magnify the Lord: Lk 1:46

Eve cursed: gen 3:17-19
Mary blessed: Lk 1:28

Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee, blessed art thou among women!
Lk 1:28

 

[Faithhopeandcharity]

IV. Mary is Ever Virgin

Exodus 13:2,12 – Jesus is sometimes referred to as the “first-born” son of Mary. But “first-born” is a common Jewish expression meaning the first child to open the womb. It has nothing to do the mother having future children.

Exodus 34:20 – under the Mosaic law, the “first-born” son had to be sanctified. “First-born” status does not require a “second” born.

Ezek. 44:2 – Ezekiel prophesies that no man shall pass through the gate by which the Lord entered the world. This is a prophecy of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Mary remained a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus.

Mark 6:3 – Jesus was always referred to as “the” son of Mary, not “a” son of Mary. Also “brothers” could have theoretically been Joseph’s children from a former marriage that was dissolved by death. However, it is most likely, perhaps most certainly, that Joseph was a virgin, just as were Jesus and Mary. As such, they embodied the true Holy Family, fully consecrated to God.

Luke 1:31,34 – the angel tells Mary that you “will” conceive (using the future tense). Mary responds by saying, “How shall this be?” Mary’s response demonstrates that she had taken a vow of lifelong virginity by having no intention to have relations with a man. If Mary did not take such a vow of lifelong virginity, her question would make no sense at all (for we can assume she knew how a child is conceived). She was a consecrated Temple virgin as was an acceptable custom of the times.

Luke 2:41-51 – in searching for Jesus and finding Him in the temple, there is never any mention of other siblings.

John 7:3-4; Mark 3:21 – we see that younger “brothers” were advising Jesus. But this would have been extremely disrespectful for devout Jews if these were Jesus’ biological brothers.

John 19:26-27 – it would have been unthinkable for Jesus to commit the care of his mother to a friend if he had brothers.

John 19:25 – the following verses prove that James and Joseph are Jesus’ cousins and not his brothers: Mary the wife of Clopas is the sister of the Virgin Mary.

Matt. 27:61, 28:1 – Matthew even refers to Mary the wife of Clopas as “the other Mary.”

Matt. 27:56; Mark 15:47 – Mary the wife of Clopas is the mother of James and Joseph.

Mark 6:3 – James and Joseph are called the “brothers” of Jesus. So James and Joseph are Jesus’ cousins.

Matt. 10:3 – James is also called the son of “Alpheus.” This does not disprove that James is the son of Clopas. The name Alpheus may be Aramaic for Clopas, or James took a Greek name like Saul (Paul), or Mary remarried a man named Alpheus.

V. Jesus’ “Brothers” (adelphoi)) = Cousins or Kinsmen

Luke 1:36 – Elizabeth is Mary’s kinswoman. Some Bibles translate kinswoman as “cousin,” but this is an improper translation because in Hebrew and Aramaic, there is no word for “cousin.”

Luke 22:32 – Jesus tells Peter to strengthen his “brethren.” In this case, we clearly see Jesus using “brethren” to refer to the other apostles, not his biological brothers.

Acts 1:12-15 – the gathering of Jesus’ “brothers” amounts to about 120. That is a lot of “brothers.” Brother means kinsmen in Hebrew.

Acts 7:26; 11:1; 13:15,38; 15:3,23,32; 28:17,21 – these are some of many other examples where “brethren” does not mean blood relations.

Rom. 9:3 – Paul uses “brethren” and “kinsmen” interchangeably. “Brothers” of Jesus does not prove Mary had other children.

Gen. 11:26-28 – Lot is Abraham’s nephew (“anepsios”) / Gen. 13:8; 14:14,16 – Lot is still called Abraham’s brother (adelphos”) . This proves that, although a Greek word for cousin is “anepsios,” Scripture also uses “adelphos” to describe a cousin.

Gen. 29:15 – Laban calls Jacob is “brother” even though Jacob is his nephew. Again, this proves that brother means kinsmen or cousin.

Deut. 23:7; 1 Chron. 15:5-18; Jer. 34:9; Neh. 5:7 -“brethren” means kinsmen. Hebrew and Aramaic have no word for “cousin.”

2 Sam. 1:26; 1 Kings 9:13, 20:32 – here we see that “brethren” can even be one who is unrelated (no bloodline), such as a friend.

2 Kings 10:13-14 – King Ahaziah’s 42 “brethren” were really his kinsmen.

1 Chron. 23:21-22 – Eleazar’s daughters married their “brethren” who were really their cousins.

Neh. 4:14; 5:1,5,8,10,14 – these are more examples of “brothers” meaning “cousins” or “kinsmen.”

Tobit 5:11 – Tobit asks Azarias to identify himself and his people, but still calls him “brother.”

Amos 1: 9 – brotherhood can also mean an ally (where there is no bloodline).

 

[Josiah]

Mark,

Thanks AGAIN for so powerfully and indisputably proving Scripture does NOT say that Mary remained a virgin (a PERPETUAL virgin). Yup.

But brother, you've already done this. Perpetually. Over and over and over and over again. Seriously, sincerely, you don't need to keep proving this, you've made your point: You are wrong, your claim is false, Scripture does NOT state that Mary remained a virgin. Yup. You know that, we know that, you've proven that SO many times.




.

 

[Awaiting Transport]

After reading through this thread, it's clear that the 'Mary was a perpetual virgin' crowd will unconditionally hold to Catholic fabrications of adding to Gods' Word regarding Mary while concurrently violating Gods' Word by contradicting it in many places, including making images and shrines to Mary and worshiping her; and the vows of chastity of all nuns and church leadership all the way to the pope. Their beliefs are reinforced and endlessly quoted here and elsewhere by St. This or St. That or <whoever>, all of 100% Catholic backgrounds. As I have stated elsewhere, the Catholic Church is very effective at brainwashing and fill their Catechism of the Catholic Church with falsehoods and all 'good Catholics' are instructed to believe it without question... like orders coming down from the general or admiral that must be unconditionally obeyed by all under their command.

So, one has to ask...Who is the 'general' in the Catholic Church? The 'infallible' pope that in recent years has stopped condemning homosexuality, talks of 'mother earth' far more than of God, and seeks to meld the RCC with Muslims and other faiths? Who is his general? In the military (I'm a veteran), the president is the commander in chief whether we liked and/or voted for him or not. As President Truman had a sign on his oval office desk: 'The buck stops here', where does the buck stop in the Catholic Church? The somewhat hidden dissension among cardinals and bishops of the CC indicates a failure of the 'chain of command' from my perspective.

It all comes down to one big question...what do YOU believe? What is the source of your faith? Is it Gods' infallible Word (all of His Word, not just part of it) that was made flesh or is it a collection of documents that may or may not have been written by men directly inspired by God, or, like the authors of the Bible, were inspired by God per Pauls' 2nd letter to Timothy.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (KJV)

As the Catholic Church and its members are wont to do, selectively picking and choosing what parts of Gods' Word to believe, ignore or even contradict, really isn't an option. It's ALL SCRIPTURE, not just some selected parts of it plus this and that.

To paraphrase a portion of Joshua 24:15: But as for me and my house, I will unconditionally believe Gods' Word - ALL of it!

 

[Faithhopeandcharity]

Mark 6:3 – Jesus was always referred to as “the” son of Mary, not “a” son of Mary. Also “brothers” could have theoretically been Joseph’s children from a former marriage that was dissolved by death. However, it is most likely, perhaps most certainly, that Joseph was a virgin, just as were Jesus and Mary. As such, they embodied the true Holy Family, fully consecrated to God.


Virgin most Prudent,
Virgin most Venerable,
Virgin most Renowned,
Lk 1:46:55

Virgin most Powerful,
Lk 1:30

Virgin most Merciful,
Jn 2:1-11 Heb 4:16

Virgin most Faithful,
Lk 1:45

I’m off tomorrow so you will be spared!

 

[Lamb]

After reading through this thread, it's clear that the 'Mary was a perpetual virgin' crowd will unconditionally hold to Catholic fabrications of adding to Gods' Word regarding Mary while concurrently violating Gods' Word by contradicting it in many places, including making images and shrines to Mary and worshiping her; and the vows of chastity of all nuns and church leadership all the way to the pope. Their beliefs are reinforced and endlessly quoted here and elsewhere by St. This or St. That or <whoever>, all of 100% Catholic backgrounds. As I have stated elsewhere, the Catholic Church is very effective at brainwashing and fill their Catechism of the Catholic Church with falsehoods and all 'good Catholics' are instructed to believe it without question... like orders coming down from the general or admiral that must be unconditionally obeyed by all under their command.

So, one has to ask...Who is the 'general' in the Catholic Church? The 'infallible' pope that in recent years has stopped condemning homosexuality, talks of 'mother earth' far more than of God, and seeks to meld the RCC with Muslims and other faiths? Who is his general? In the military (I'm a veteran), the president is the commander in chief whether we liked and/or voted for him or not. As President Truman had a sign on his oval office desk: 'The buck stops here', where does the buck stop in the Catholic Church? The somewhat hidden dissension among cardinals and bishops of the CC indicates a failure of the 'chain of command' from my perspective.

It all comes down to one big question...what do YOU believe? What is the source of your faith? Is it Gods' infallible Word (all of His Word, not just part of it) that was made flesh or is it a collection of documents that may or may not have been written by men directly inspired by God, or, like the authors of the Bible, were inspired by God per Pauls' 2nd letter to Timothy.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (KJV)

As the Catholic Church and its members are wont to do, selectively picking and choosing what parts of Gods' Word to believe, ignore or even contradict, really isn't an option. It's ALL SCRIPTURE, not just some selected parts of it plus this and that.

To paraphrase a portion of Joshua 24:15: But as for me and my house, I will unconditionally believe Gods' Word - ALL of it!

I'm not Catholic and I mostly lean toward Mary being ever virgin. Scripture does not say one way or the other and it doesn't matter to my faith.

 

[Castle Church]

I'm not Catholic and I mostly lean toward Mary being ever virgin. Scripture does not say one way or the other and it doesn't matter to my faith.

I think this is the most pragmatic approach to the subject.

Scripture does NOT state that Mary remained a virgin or not. It just doesn't say that either way.

There are ways to read it that can support that she did not, and ways to read it to support that she may have. There is a very old tradition that she remained so, but there are supporting reasons to believe she may not. I personally do not believe she did, but I also understand that there are people that believe she did...and that is OK with me. I don't have to prove it either way.

In the end it is just something that is not salvific and does not really matter for our faith of the saving grace of Jesus Christ. If we think that it does, then we have taken it out of the proper context and moved Mary to a position that is not orthodox.

 

[Josiah]

Mark 6:3 – Jesus was always referred to as “the” son of Mary, not “a” son of Mary.

Irrelevant.

The dogma of The Catholic Church that you are parroting is NOT "Mary hath no other children" but rather "Mary hath no sex." Unless you can PROVE that EVERY case of loving, mutual sharing of marital intimacies results in a child specifically mentioned in the Bible, then Mary having no other children specifically mentioned in the Bible is irrelevant to our discussion. TRY, my brother, to stay on topic... your constant side-stepping only shows your empty hand.

Also “brothers” could have theoretically been Joseph’s children from a former marriage that was dissolved by death

True. But totally irrelevant to our subject. Your claim is that Scripture clearly states that Mary was a PERPETUAL virgin, not that it's theoretically possible that Jesus' brothers had blonde hair, blue eyes and size 12 shoes. TRY, my brother, to stay on topic. Your constant side-stepping only reveals your empty hand.

Lk 1:46:55 Lk 1:30 Jn 2:1-11 Heb 4:16 Lk 1:45

Correct.

NOTHING that states that Mary remained a virgin....
NOTHING that states She had no other children...
NOTHING that states Joseph was a perpetual virgin.
Your claim is false, wrong, a lie.
The dogma you are parroting is traditional but not stated in Scripture as you have gone to such great lengths to undeniably prove.




A blessed Christmas to you and yours....


Josiah





.

 

[Faithhopeandcharity]

Perpetual virgin acts 2;42

 

[Lanman87]

Perpetual virgin acts 2;42

Okay, I'll bite. What in the world does Acts 2:42 have to do with Mary being a perpetual virgin.

And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers

 

[Faithhopeandcharity]

Okay, I'll bite. What in the world does Acts 2:42 have to do with Mary being a perpetual virgin.

And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers

The doctrine of the apostles!