Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Understanding Mary - Ever Virgin

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mungo

Member
Understanding Mary - Ever Virgin

Although the Perpetual Virginity of Mary has never been formally proclaimed as a Marian Dogma of the Catholic Church, because of its universal acceptance and continued reference to it in Papal documents throughout the history of the Catholic Church (and at the 5th Ecumenical council), it has come to be accepted as a Marian Dogma. Consequently, it can be said that the perpetual virginity of Mary is a Catholic Dogma by virtue of the ordinary and universal Magisterium.

It was also accepted by the Orthodox and by the early "reformers".

Martin Luther:
"It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin....Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact." (Weimer, The Works of Luther, English Transl. by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v.11,pp. 319-320; v. 6 p. 510.)

"Christ...was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him..."brothers" really means "cousins" here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers. (Sermons on John, chapters 1-4, 1537-39.)

"He, Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb...This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that." (Ibid.)


John Calvin:
"There have been certain folk who have wished to suggest that from this passage (Matt 1:25) that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph's obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company....And besides this Our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or not there was any question of the second." (Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25, published 1562.)

Ulrich Zwingli:
"I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary....Christ...was born of a most undefiled Virgin." (Stakemeier, E. in De Mariologia et Oecumenismo, Balic, K., ed., Rome, 1962, p. 456.)

"I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin." (Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, in Evang. Luc., v. 1, p. 424.)


The next post will start the arguments for Mary's perpetual virginity. There are 6 of them.
 
Joseph took Mary as his wife as the angel said and he did know know her and have relations with her until she gave birth to Jesus. They got married when she was said to be pregnant.

That can only mean one thing.

And they did not get married after Jesus was born. He was going to put her away until the angel said take her as your wife, so he quickly took her as his wife, so she was not put to disgrace in anyway or seen as a unmarried pregnant woman who had a baby and publicly disgraced.
 
Last edited:
It is based on scripture. Read post #2.



All covered in the posts I listed.

Try engaging in what I have written in them.
They are foolish double talk designed to avoid the scriptures speaking of the fact that Joseph KNEW Mary.
What did it mean in the Genesis passages? I am certain you cannot answer which shows why people flee that false system all the time.
 
"When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. "

So the virgin is pregnant and they get married.

"And he knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus"

What does it mean he knew her not until she gave birth?. Of course he knew who she was, they were together and married at Jesus birth and he took her home as his wife.

He didn't know her until after Jesus was born?, what he waited for Jesus to be born and then just asked his own wife her name and some questions?. Lol.
 
Last edited:
"And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord."

Maybe Joseph knew Mary his wife, and she conceived, and bare James, and said, I have gotten another man from the Lord.

It was like 30 years of nothing known from Jesus birth till he started his mission, who said Mary and Joseph didnt pop a few out of there own. It's not a sin or unlawful or unclean or God gave a commandment she must remain virgin.
 
Last edited:
Mary can still have relations with her own husband and be clean and lawful and righteous. Some people just don't want to believe it because she was a virgin who gave birth to the Christ, and for some unknown reason with no scripture backup she had to stay a virgin and not share a bed with her own husband she is married to.

And of course when they got married while she was pregnant with Jesus before he was born they were not going to" know each other".
 
Last edited:
I don't like these shotgun posts, but I will try to address all the things you threw against the wall...
This is very misleading and the Bible Mary is not the Mary of the Bible. First, look at "Mother of the Church"--that is not a biblical reference. Secondly, "You will know her by her fruit" and referencing Matt 7:15--"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves"--makes her out to be a false prophet and a wolf in sheep's clothing. Regardless, Matt 7:16 applies to everyone, not just Mary, so the reference is pointless.
Mary is Mother of the Church by virtue of the fact that she…
- Is the Mother of Christ, who is the head of the Church
- Suffered with Christ, in her heart, up to Calvary
- Was appointed OUR mother by Christ on Calvary
- Received the Holy Spirit with the Apostles on Pentecost
- Mothered the young Apostolic Church

No one has more "fruit" than her.

Thirdly, there is no reference in the Bible that anyone deceased believer prays for anyone. Regardless, Heb 12:1 and James 5:16 applies to every believer, so again, the reference is pointless. Fourthly, to say that "At the moment of conception preserved free from all stain of original sin," is not only not biblical, it is borderline (at best) idolatrous. And, once again, there is a non-biblical reference.
Scripture records David invoking those in heaven...

---> "Praise the Lord, all his heavenly hosts, you his servants who do his will." (Psalm 103:21)
---> "Praise the Lord. Praise the Lord from the heavens; praise him in the heights above. Praise him, all his angels; praise him, all his heavenly hosts." (Psalm 148:1-2)

We also have St. John describing those in heaven taking the prayers of the saints to God...

---> "And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints." (Rev. 5:8, KJV)


Mary being free from all stain of original sin is in the Scriptures...

Wisdom 1:4 ---> "For wisdom will not enter into a malicious soul, nor dwell in a body subject to sin."

Who does Scripture call wisdom? (1 Cor 1:24, 30)
In whose body did wisdom dwell? (Luke 1:31)

If Christ is the Wisdom of God and if Mary is the person in whose body He dwelt, then there is the Immaculate Conception.

I wonder if this has anything to do with your progenitors removing this book from the Bible???
Fifthly, to say that she is "In Heaven," goes without saying, since that applies to all deceased believers and, again, is pointless. The unbiblical reference is unnecessary and, by definition, has nothing to do with "Bible Mary." Sixth, the only way to say that she is (unbiblically) "The Mother of the Church," is, again, to provide a non-biblical reference. Seventh, to say that she is a "Perpetual Virgin" is unbiblical as there is no support for this in the Bible. Luke 1:34 states that she "was" a virgin, which no true Christian disagrees with. Luke 2:41-51 has absolutely nothing to do with Mary being a virgin, never mind a perpetual one.
Please provide evidence, per the Scriptures, of all of Mary’s supposed subsequent maternities that apparently is nearly a dogma now in Protestantism.

Mary and Joseph's marriage was the most unique in all of human history. As such, it was ordered toward the heavenly kingdom, as opposed to an earthly and carnal one. If you would like concrete proof from Scripture, we need simply look at St. Luke's annunciation narrative, where Gabriel appears to Mary, who is already betrothed to Joseph. (Luke 1:27) Gabriel tells Mary that she will conceive and bear a son. Mary's question to Gabriel is, "How will this be"? (future tense - Luke 1:34)

Why would Mary ask how will it be that she will become pregnant - in the future - if she is already betrothed to Joseph? If you called your mother to tell her you just got engaged, and your mother said to you in excitement, "Congratulations Free. I am so happy for you and now I will finally be a grandmother!" Would it be logical to reply to her statement with, "How will this be?"

The reason for Mary's puzzlement to Gabriel is because her life was ordered toward something greater. Why did Mary, who was betrothed to Joseph, ask Gabriel how it will be (future tense) that she will have a child? It would be illogical to ask how it is you would have a child in the future if you were already betrothed, unless you were planning to live a conjugal life ordered not toward procreation, but toward heaven. Mary knew her conjugal life was not ordered toward procreation, but rather toward the Kingdom of God. Her marriage to Joseph would be the most unique marriage in the history of the world.


Eighth, Gen 3:15 has absolutely nothing to do with Mary. Ninth, Prov 31:30 has to do with all such women, and, once again, becomes a pointless reference to Mary. John 6:41 and Heb 9:4 have nothing to do with Mary, although the idea of her being the "Ark of the New Covenant" is interesting.
Who exactly do you think the woman is who is referenced in Gen. 3:15?


So many of those Scriptural references are a massive stretch, to say the least. All the above strongly suggests that the "Bible Mary" is based largely on reading into the text extra-biblical ideas about Mary, which is a very, very bad thing to do.
No, the very, very bad thing to do is to start a religion using another religion's Scriptures. The reason a thread like this would even be started is because one lacks the context in which the Scriptures were written: The Tradition of the Church. The Scriptures therefore reflect the living faith of the Church. The practice of the faith from its infancy demonstrates the Protestant attack on Mary is demonstrably fallacious and inevitably leads to Christological and Trinitarian heresies.
 
Can anyone identify any scripture which absolutely cannot be taken any other way than to mean that Mary was always virgin?
Is 7:14 ---> "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel."

The virgin will bear A son, that is singular = one son


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.”

The prophet is given a vision of the holiness of the East gate of the Temple. We know our Blessed Lord said that His body is the true temple. (cf. John 2:19-21) Hence if Christ is the true temple prophesied by Ezekiel, then the gate by which He entered into this temple is Mary. She is the gate through which the God came in the flesh. The prophet says the East gate (quite significant) is shut because the Lord has entered by it. For this reason it shall remain shut.


Joseph and Mary's marriage was not ordinary. The teleological end of their marriage was not procreation, but rather to point to the Kingdom of God. Since they were in the presence of the Most High as the parents of the Incarnate Son of God, their life of continence, like that of their Son's, points to the heavenly Kingdom, as opposed to an earthly and carnal one.

Mary's perpetual virginity speaks to Christ's divinity. As a reminder, there is no Scripture supporting the idea that Mary had subsequent maternities giving Jesus uterine siblings. None. Scripture calls Jesus "THE" son of Mary, not "A" son of Mary.
 
I don't like these shotgun posts, but I will try to address all the things you threw against the wall...

Mary is Mother of the Church by virtue of the fact that she…
- Is the Mother of Christ, who is the head of the Church
- Suffered with Christ, in her heart, up to Calvary
- Was appointed OUR mother by Christ on Calvary
- Received the Holy Spirit with the Apostles on Pentecost
- Mothered the young Apostolic Church

No one has more "fruit" than her.


Scripture records David invoking those in heaven...

---> "Praise the Lord, all his heavenly hosts, you his servants who do his will." (Psalm 103:21)
---> "Praise the Lord. Praise the Lord from the heavens; praise him in the heights above. Praise him, all his angels; praise him, all his heavenly hosts." (Psalm 148:1-2)

We also have St. John describing those in heaven taking the prayers of the saints to God...

---> "And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints." (Rev. 5:8, KJV)


Mary being free from all stain of original sin is in the Scriptures...

Wisdom 1:4 ---> "For wisdom will not enter into a malicious soul, nor dwell in a body subject to sin."

Who does Scripture call wisdom? (1 Cor 1:24, 30)
In whose body did wisdom dwell? (Luke 1:31)

If Christ is the Wisdom of God and if Mary is the person in whose body He dwelt, then there is the Immaculate Conception.

I wonder if this has anything to do with your progenitors removing this book from the Bible???

Please provide evidence, per the Scriptures, of all of Mary’s supposed subsequent maternities that apparently is nearly a dogma now in Protestantism.

Mary and Joseph's marriage was the most unique in all of human history. As such, it was ordered toward the heavenly kingdom, as opposed to an earthly and carnal one. If you would like concrete proof from Scripture, we need simply look at St. Luke's annunciation narrative, where Gabriel appears to Mary, who is already betrothed to Joseph. (Luke 1:27) Gabriel tells Mary that she will conceive and bear a son. Mary's question to Gabriel is, "How will this be"? (future tense - Luke 1:34)

Why would Mary ask how will it be that she will become pregnant - in the future - if she is already betrothed to Joseph? If you called your mother to tell her you just got engaged, and your mother said to you in excitement, "Congratulations Free. I am so happy for you and now I will finally be a grandmother!" Would it be logical to reply to her statement with, "How will this be?"

The reason for Mary's puzzlement to Gabriel is because her life was ordered toward something greater. Why did Mary, who was betrothed to Joseph, ask Gabriel how it will be (future tense) that she will have a child? It would be illogical to ask how it is you would have a child in the future if you were already betrothed, unless you were planning to live a conjugal life ordered not toward procreation, but toward heaven. Mary knew her conjugal life was not ordered toward procreation, but rather toward the Kingdom of God. Her marriage to Joseph would be the most unique marriage in the history of the world.



Who exactly do you think the woman is who is referenced in Gen. 3:15?



No, the very, very bad thing to do is to start a religion using another religion's Scriptures. The reason a thread like this would even be started is because one lacks the context in which the Scriptures were written: The Tradition of the Church. The Scriptures therefore reflect the living faith of the Church. The practice of the faith from its infancy demonstrates the Protestant attack on Mary is demonstrably fallacious and inevitably leads to Christological and Trinitarian heresies.
Nonsense, unscriptural allegorizing.
 
Is 7:14 ---> "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel."

The virgin will bear A son, that is singular = one son


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.”

The prophet is given a vision of the holiness of the East gate of the Temple. We know our Blessed Lord said that His body is the true temple. (cf. John 2:19-21) Hence if Christ is the true temple prophesied by Ezekiel, then the gate by which He entered into this temple is Mary. She is the gate through which the God came in the flesh. The prophet says the East gate (quite significant) is shut because the Lord has entered by it. For this reason it shall remain shut.


Joseph and Mary's marriage was not ordinary. The teleological end of their marriage was not procreation, but rather to point to the Kingdom of God. Since they were in the presence of the Most High as the parents of the Incarnate Son of God, their life of continence, like that of their Son's, points to the heavenly Kingdom, as opposed to an earthly and carnal one.

Mary's perpetual virginity speaks to Christ's divinity. As a reminder, there is no Scripture supporting the idea that Mary had subsequent maternities giving Jesus uterine siblings. None. Scripture calls Jesus "THE" son of Mary, not "A" son of Mary.
Mk.6:3
 
Matthew 1:25 "And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn Son: and he called His name JESUS."
The KJV translates Strong's G1097 in the following manner: know (196x), perceive (9x), understand (8x), miscellaneous (10x).
Outline of Biblical Usage [?]
  1. to learn to know, come to know, get a knowledge of perceive, feel
    1. to become known
  2. to know, understand, perceive, have knowledge of
    1. to understand
    2. to know
  3. sexual intercourse between a man and a woman
  4. to become acquainted with, to know
 
Matthew 1:25 "And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn Son: and he called His name JESUS."
The KJV translates Strong's G1097 in the following manner: know (196x), perceive (9x), understand (8x), miscellaneous (10x).
Outline of Biblical Usage [?]
  1. to learn to know, come to know, get a knowledge of perceive, feel
    1. to become known
  2. to know, understand, perceive, have knowledge of
    1. to understand
    2. to know
  3. sexual intercourse between a man and a woman
  4. to become acquainted with, to know
Already addressed in post #29
 
The Angel said to Mary she would conceive and get pregnant.

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

She was wondering how she can get pregnant when she is a unmarried virgin. Obvious.

Angel tells Joseph to marry her and Jospeh wakes up and they get married, so now she pregnant with Jesus and they married.


"And he knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus"


And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain
 
Last edited:
The Angel said to Mary she would conceive and get pregnant.

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

She was wondering how she can get pregnant when she is a unmarried virgin. Obvious.

Angel tells Joseph to marry her and Jospeh wakes up and they get married, so now she pregnant with Jesus and they married.


"And he knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus"


And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain

She was already married to Joseph when the angel arrived - but only the first stage of marriage. In Judaism marriage took place in two stages but after the first state they were legally married. That is why Joseph contemplated divorcing her. You can't divorce someone you are not married to.

For the until bit see post #29
 
Exactly!

Mark 6:3 ---> "Is this not the carpenter, THE Son of Mary, and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us?” So they were offended at Him."

Scripture calls Jesus "THE" son of Mary, not "A" son of Mary. These "brothers" are never called the children of Mary, only Jesus himself is (Jn 2:1; 19:25; Acts 1:14). Furthermore, we know James and Joses (named as "brothers") are actually sons of a different Mary per Mt 27:56 (Mk 15:40).

Scripture does say Jesus had brothers (and sisters). However, as has been posted in this thread, Scripture shows they were not uterine brothers. The term "brother" in Jewish antiquity had a much broader meaning than a uterine or agnate sibling. There is NO scripture which identifies another as a son (or daughter) of Mary. Thus, any claim that Jesus had uterine siblings is one completely foreign to both Scripture and the regula fidei of Christianity.
 
Exactly!

Mark 6:3 ---> "Is this not the carpenter, THE Son of Mary, and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us?” So they were offended at Him."

Scripture calls Jesus "THE" son of Mary, not "A" son of Mary. These "brothers" are never called the children of Mary, only Jesus himself is (Jn 2:1; 19:25; Acts 1:14). Furthermore, we know James and Joses (named as "brothers") are actually sons of a different Mary per Mt 27:56 (Mk 15:40).

Scripture does say Jesus had brothers (and sisters). However, as has been posted in this thread, Scripture shows they were not uterine brothers. The term "brother" in Jewish antiquity had a much broader meaning than a uterine or agnate sibling. There is NO scripture which identifies another as a son (or daughter) of Mary. Thus, any claim that Jesus had uterine siblings is one completely foreign to both Scripture and the regula fidei of Christianity.
:rofl2:hysterical:rofl2Scripture does not mean what it says! If we are all"brothers" and sisters" why single these out by name?
It says is not this THE carpenter? does that mean there were no other ones?

Mk6:4
4 But Jesus, said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.

I guess it does not say among his own kin?? So, we just ignore what it says and explain it away:confused🫢
 
:rofl2:hysterical:rofl2Scripture does not mean what it says! If we are all"brothers" and sisters" why single these out by name?
It says is not this THE carpenter? does that mean there were no other ones?

Mk6:4
4 But Jesus, said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.

I guess it does not say among his own kin?? So, we just ignore what it says and explain it away:confused🫢
Is it impossible for you to have a discussion without belittling the other member?
This is why I ignore you.
 
:rofl2:hysterical:rofl2Scripture does not mean what it says! If we are all"brothers" and sisters" why single these out by name?
It says is not this THE carpenter? does that mean there were no other ones?

Mk6:4
4 But Jesus, said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.

I guess it does not say among his own kin?? So, we just ignore what it says and explain it away:confused🫢

First, Scripture does not state Mary of Nazareth had any children other than Jesus Christ. Again, Christ is referred to as THE son of Mary, not A son of Mary.

When James and Joses are called "brothers" of Jesus, they cannot be uterine brothers because we know from the other Gospels that they are the sons of Mary of Cleophas, not Mary of Nazareth (the Mother of Jesus). St. John tells us that it is Mary of Cleophas at the cross (John 19:25) and St. Matthew tells this Mary of Cleophas is the mother of James and Joses. (Mt. 27:56). Ergo, when Scripture calls some "brothers" or "sisters" of Jesus, they cannot be uterine brothers because Mary of Nazareth is NEVER listed as anyone other than Jesus' mother.


Secondly, the modern Evangelical Protestant error of claiming Mary had subsequent maternities stems from forcing a modern Westernized concept of a family unit (i.e. a nuclear family) onto an ancient Hebrew / Semitic (tribal) culture. The ancient Hebrews did not view family in this manner. Thus to impose and presume a 21st century Western nuclear structure onto Hebrew Semitic / ancient culture is erroneous. Interpreting those passages through the lens of a modern nuclear family like we have is fallacious. The term “brother” in Jewish culture in antiquity had a much broader use in antiquity.

When you see the word "brother" in Scripture, you cannot force a modern Westernized concept of a family unit (i.e. a nuclear family) onto an ancient Hebrew / Semitic (tribal) culture. The ancient Hebrews did not view family in this manner. Thus, you skew the text by applying modern concepts to ancient cultures, thereby incorrectly interpreting those passages by doing so through the lens of a modern nuclear family.

"The units comprising the village mispahah, or kinship group, were the families of early Israel. Because these families were agriculturists, their identity and survival were integrally connected with their material world - more specifically, with their arable land, their implements for working the land and processing its products, and their domiciles - as well as with the human and also animal components of the domestic group. In many ways, the term family household is more useful in dealing with early Israelite families (although that would not be the case for the monarchical period and later, when domestic unites were more varied in their spatial aspects and economic functions). Combining family, with its kingship meanings, and household, a more flexible term including both coresident and economic functions, has descriptive merit. The family household thus included a set of related people as well as residential buildings, outbuildings, tools, equipment, fields, livestock, and orchards; it sometimes also included household members who were not kin, such as "sojourners", war captives and servants." - Families in Ancient Israel: The Family in Early Israel, Carol Meyers, pgs. 13-14

In describing early archaeological excavation of homes in Israel...

"These dwelling clusters constitute evidence for a family unit in early Israel larger than that of the nuclear family (or conjugal couple with unmarried offspring). Each pillared house in a cluster may represent the living space of a nuclear family or parts thereof, but the shared courtyard space and common house walls of the linked buildings indicate a larger family grouping. Early Israelite dwelling unites were thus complex arrangements of several buildings and housed what we might call extended families. Furthermore, thee compound dwelling unites were not isolated buildings within a settlement of single-family homes." - Ibid, pg. 16

"The family was never so 'nuclear' as it is in the modern West." - Families in Ancient Israel: Marriage, Divorce and Family in Second Temple Judaism, John J. Collins, pg. 106

Source


This is what happens when you start a religion using another religion's Scriptures, devoid of their original context, audience, tradition and most importantly, faith.
 
Is it impossible for you to have a discussion without belittling the other member?
This is why I ignore you.
His comment is what was scorned ,for explaining away scripture is reprehensible. That is what catholics do, i used to be one. You ignore me because you do not like my posts containing truth you do not believe, but you cannot answer.
I have a whole group of threads that you cannot really engage with, except to try and dismiss them.
Most on here will not read them because they are more than one or two sentences.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top