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.
 
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.
Complete liberal double talk designed to avoid scripture, and then superimpose failed RC teaching from a corrupt church.
Jesus is the unique God /Man, that is not in dispute.
To know has to do with to know sexually as illustrated all through scripture. To deny scripture and drift into liberal apostate thought to elevate Mary into an idol is to be rejected. She rejoiced in God, her saviour. She had to be saved from her sins, she was not sinless, but born dead in Adam as all are, except for Jesus, and hence the virgin birth.
 


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
I don't see how you can maintain that there is absolutely no other way to interpret that than to say that it is referring to all of Mary's lifetime and not simply to the issue of the Messiah's birth.


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.”
I don't see how you can maintain that there is absolutely no other way to interpret Ezekiel 44:2 than to say that it is referring to Mary.



 
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.
I don't engage with you because your belief system makes no sense.
And you should love the Catholic faith...
after all, Augustine - Calvin's hero whom he mentioned at least 4,000 times in his writings, was Catholic.

Funny that you should accept ONE ASPECT of Catholicism....
what suits you.
 
I don't see how you can maintain that there is absolutely no other way to interpret that than to say that it is referring to all of Mary's lifetime and not simply to the issue of the Messiah's birth.



I don't see how you can maintain that there is absolutely no other way to interpret Ezekiel 44:2 than to say that it is referring to Mary.
The explanation would be that once that something in consecrated to God, it can be used for nothing else.
To say nothing of the fact that God had gone through it.

You know how we say that the OT foreshadows Jesus?
This seems like a good example.
 
I don't see how you can maintain that there is absolutely no other way to interpret that than to say that it is referring to all of Mary's lifetime and not simply to the issue of the Messiah's birth.



I don't see how you can maintain that there is absolutely no other way to interpret Ezekiel 44:2 than to say that it is referring to Mary.
Even some Protestant theologians feel like Jesus may have had only relatives and not brothers and sisters, or, at least, not by Mary.

I don't know how this could be debated - it's so many years ago, a different culture.

Could you tell me why you think that Jesus gave Mary to John at the foot of the cross?
It's said that if Jesus had brothers, Mary would have been entrusted to one of them....
What if they were a half-brother?
Any opinion?
 
Even some Protestant theologians feel like Jesus may have had only relatives and not brothers and sisters, or, at least, not by Mary.

I don't know how this could be debated - it's so many years ago, a different culture.

Could you tell me why you think that Jesus gave Mary to John at the foot of the cross?
It's said that if Jesus had brothers, Mary would have been entrusted to one of them....
What if they were a half-brother?
Any opinion?
If only there was some race that speaks that language today and know .
Some language that begins with the letter h
 
Well why?
In Hebrew the word for brothers could have meant other relatives...
is this true?
No.
My dad isn't my brother .

My uncle can't call me his brother .you do know that jewry has abs had before the rcc

The idea of purgatory ,to pray with a candle for one year for those there .that mourners kaddish .

They don't call each other like that in the temple .the tribal relationship is there but they don't say that way.

Of what you said is true why would any Jew say Jesus then why the statement about is this not Jesus of Nazareth and no mention of him as a brother ?

The town said that about him.strange Jews saying that in a way about their own .
 
No.
My dad isn't my brother .

My uncle can't call me his brother .you do know that jewry has abs had before the rcc

The idea of purgatory ,to pray with a candle for one year for those there .that mourners kaddish .

They don't call each other like that in the temple .the tribal relationship is there but they don't say that way.

Of what you said is true why would any Jew say Jesus then why the statement about is this not Jesus of Nazareth and no mention of him as a brother ?

The town said that about him.strange Jews saying that in a way about their own .
I'm a little confused by your reply.
Why do theologians state that BROTHER could have meant COUSIN because there was no such word as COUSIN?
 
I'm a little confused by your reply.
Why do theologians state that BROTHER could have meant COUSIN because there was no such word as COUSIN?
There is a word for history or called out in hebrew either

Synod, synagogue,a meeting place .Greek word borrowed by Jews

Are you Jesus sister or his daughter .
 
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

Yes, but she could not "know him" until they were fully married. They were engaged as you said, the angel said she was going to conceive and she questined how can that be as she has not "known" and man, she was a unmarried virgin.

But she knew her husband after Jesus was born as they got fully married when she was pregnant as Joseph woke up and done what the angel commanded and took her home as his wife.

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

Jesus your mother and brothers are here.

Yet Jesus calls others his Mother and brothers. So, he is making a seperation between his Mother Mary and his half brothers, and other mothers and brothers.

If his mother and brothers were there in another context, why would he make a difference if everyone there were all his family?. Jesus your mother and brothers are here, cool take a seat with all my other mothers and brothers. No need to say anything or try make a point.

Mary and his brothers come along and apparently they not just his mother and brothers, everyone else there is as well. Everyone who follows him are family.
 
Last edited:
Complete liberal double talk designed to avoid scripture, and then superimpose failed RC teaching from a corrupt church.
Jesus is the unique God /Man, that is not in dispute.
To know has to do with to know sexually as illustrated all through scripture. To deny scripture and drift into liberal apostate thought to elevate Mary into an idol is to be rejected. She rejoiced in God, her saviour. She had to be saved from her sins, she was not sinless, but born dead in Adam as all are, except for Jesus, and hence the virgin birth.
Liberal? This is quite humorous given it was the Protestant progenitors who were considered the progressives of their time. Oh, and THEY BELIEVED IN THE PERPETUAL VIRGINITY OF MARY.

The belief that Mary had multiple subsequent maternities is a novel Protestant idea.
 
Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brothers, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?


Must be the same Mary at the cross. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and Mary the mother of Zebedee's sons.
 
Last edited:
I don't see how you can maintain that there is absolutely no other way to interpret that than to say that it is referring to all of Mary's lifetime and not simply to the issue of the Messiah's birth.
There is nothing to interpret since the Scripture is explicit: "a son"

It does not say: "...the virgin shall conceive and bear sons, and one shall be named Immanuel."
I don't see how you can maintain that there is absolutely no other way to interpret Ezekiel 44:2 than to say that it is referring to Mary.
In Ezekiel 44:1-2, the prophet was given a vision of the holiness of “the gate” of the temple, which is fulfilled in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Jesus is revealed to be the fulfillment of the temple. In John 2:19, when Jesus said, “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up,” the Jews thought he was speaking of the enormous stone edifice that stood in Jerusalem. However, St. John tells us two verses later our Blessed Lord was speaking of his own body. Hence, if Christ is the prophetic temple of Ezekiel 44 into which God himself has entered for our salvation, who or what is this prophetic gate that is the conduit for God to enter into his temple? Mary is the natural fulfillment. She is the gate through which not just a spiritual presence of God has passed, but God in the flesh.

Thus, the only reason for the gate to be shut is because the Lord has entered by it; and because of this reason It shall remain shut, just as the prophesy states.

Here are some early Christian commentaries on this passage...


"Some quite emphatically understand this closed gate through which only the Lord God of Israel passes … as the Virgin Mary, who remains a Virgin before and after childbirth. In fact, she remains always a Virgin, in the moment in which the Angel speaks with her and when the Son of God is born." - St. Jerome (Commentarium in Evangelium Lucae, PL 25, 430.)

"Only Christ opened the closed doors of the virginal womb, which continued to remain closed, however. This is the closed eastern gate, through which only the high priest may enter and exit and which nevertheless is always closed." -St. Jerome (Dialogus contra Pelagianos 2, 4)

“Who is this gate (Ezekiel 44:1-4), if not Mary? Is it not closed because she is a virgin? Mary is the gate through which Christ entered this world, when He was brought forth in the virginal birth and the manner of His birth did not break the seals of virginity.” - St. Ambrose (The Consecration of a Virgin and the Perpetual Virginity of Mary , 8:52)

"She is closed because she is a virgin; she is a gate, because Christ has entered through her......This gate faces east, because she has given birth to him who rises, the sun of justice.....Mary is the good gate that was closed and was not opened. Christ passed through it, but did not open it." -St. Ambrose (De Institutione Virginis, 8, 57. PL 16, 334)
 
Yes, but she could not "know him" until they were fully married. They were engaged as you said, the angel said she was going to conceive and she questined how can that be as she has not "known" and man, she was a unmarried virgin.

But she knew her husband after Jesus was born as they got fully married when she was pregnant as Joseph woke up and done what the angel commanded and took her home as his wife.

And he knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus"
St. Matthew's nativity account is only concerned with the events up until the nativity. His narrative is not focused on Joseph or Mary's conjugal life after the nativity. If he was, he would have written "until after" if he wanted to avoid any ambiguity. St. Matthew's nativity narrative is about identifying the Messiah, not about Joseph's sex life.
 
St. Matthew's nativity account is only concerned with the events up until the nativity. His narrative is not focused on Joseph or Mary's conjugal life after the nativity. If he was, he would have written "until after" if he wanted to avoid any ambiguity. St. Matthew's nativity narrative is about identifying the Messiah, not about Joseph's sex life.

Of course nothing is focused on anyone's sex life, but it's just an account from a situation and how the story ends.

Why was that verse even added that he did not know his wife until she gave birth to end the story?.. Who cares its irrelevant then if people dont care. But it's obviously in scripture so I'm going to believe what the scriptures say.

And other scriptures put together can see Mary had other sons and Jesus had brothers but it's not focused on them because it's not about them.

At the cross the account says it was Mary the mother of James and Joses, it don't say Mary the mother of Jesus because Jesus was already there on the cross so they don't need mention him as her other Son, because everything is focused on him.
 
Last edited:
Yet someone else might give another account.

Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.


Another account.

Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons.
 
Last edited:
Well why?
In Hebrew the word for brothers could have meant other relatives...
is this true?

No, not true.


Where does it mention John the Baptist as Jesus’s brother?


Elizabeth the relative of Mary, would make Jesus and John the Baptist cousins.




JLB
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top