Skip to comments.Is the Perpetual Virginity of Mary a Biblical View?
Posted on 05/31/2011 11:34:50 AM PDT by sigzero
Mary was a virgin who was to conceive by being overshadowed by the Holy Spirit and give birth to the Son of God. Few in Christian realms would deny Mary was a virgin and remained a virgin through pregnancy and the birth of Christ. This was the ultimate fulfillment of a prophecy from Isaiah:
Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel. (Isaiah 7:14, emphasis added)
However, Marys virginity after the birth of Christ can become a heated debate in some circles. Though some may think this is a Roman Catholic versus Protestant view, it is not. Many Protestants, including people like Martin Luther and John Calvin, have held to Mary remaining a virgin for the duration of her life. Lets look at the issues in a little more detail.
(Excerpt) Read more at answersingenesis.org ...
Bow-dee sez.............it aint in da Bible!
This is one of the most frustrating discussions I have with my Christian brothers in the Catholic church. It is absurdly easy to demonstrate, strictly from scripture, that this is ridiculous. I remember asking my wife, who was catholic most of her adult life, if this was true and she had to repeat one of her old catholic chants until she got to the words “ever virgin” and said, “gee, I guess it was in there”. She had never really thought about what was actually meant by that statment in the minds of those who created the chant.
She never believed it, but did not know that the church actually taught it. Maybe that is one of the reasons she is no longer Catholic. She tended to defer to what the bible says rather than extra-biblical church fathers, who are imperfect men.
A very excellent article. But don’t expect it to change any minds.
Excellent article. For we know that “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17). The Bible is all we need!
>>Is it stated in the Bible either way? Not really. Jesus’s brothers and sisters could have come from Joesph’s prior marriage. <<
You should actually read the article.
I avoid that one like the plague.
BTW, in ancient times to ascertain and prove the legitimacy of the heir to the throne it was COMMON for palace officers and servants to OBSERVE and record acts of sexual congress among the royals and their consorts.
No privacy there.
We have an attestation in the Bible regarding this matter. The writers were inspired to include that attestation to satisfy the need for an observation ~ like this was about THE KING OF THE UNIVERSE ~
An earlier messianic figure, Moses, ended up in the care of the King's daughter ~ we all recall that ~ much like Sargon who was also found in the reeds. Let's say those stories are independent of each other, we have a VIRGIN and CHILD in the person of Moses and his adoptive mother, plus a mechanism that ties him to the Hebrews.
Again, this is an attestation to the royal status of Moses within both the Hebrew traditions and the Egyptian traditions, and you can't hardly beat that no matter who you are.
The Egyptians were also big time into the Mother and Child motif.
Since we are modern people with science to guide us we would do DNA tests in case of doubt.
If Mary remained a virgin all of her life then Joseph was a pretty pathetic husband.
I did. The article makes some good points, but if you are interested the other side has some good points also.
Like I said, it doesn’t matter much one way or another.
I don’t think there are any Catlic churches named, “Our Lady Of Perpetual Virginity” or are there?
Gee, you and your bride must be humdingers at dinner parties.
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.
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).
Mary is Ever-virgin
And indeed it was a virgin, about to marry once for all after her delivery, who gave birth to Christ, in order that each title of sanctity might be fulfilled in Christ’s parentage, by means of a mother who was both virgin, and wife of one husband. Again, when He is presented as an infant in the temple, who is it who receives Him into his hands? Who is the first to recognize Him in spirit? A man just and circumspect,’ and of course no digamist, (which is plain) even (from this consideration), lest (otherwise) Christ should presently be more worthily preached by a woman, an aged widow, and the wife of one man;’ who, living devoted to the temple, was (already) giving in her own person a sufficient token what sort of persons ought to be the adherents to the spiritual temple,—that is, the Church. Such eye-witnesses the Lord in infancy found; no different ones had He in adult age.” Tertullian, On Monogamy, 8 (A.D. 213).
“For if Mary, as those declare who with sound mind extol her, had no other son but Jesus, and yet Jesus says to His mother, Woman, behold thy son,’ and not Behold you have this son also,’ then He virtually said to her, Lo, this is Jesus, whom thou didst bear.’ Is it not the case that every one who is perfect lives himself no longer, but Christ lives in him; and if Christ lives in him, then it is said of him to Mary, Behold thy son Christ.’ What a mind, then, must we have to enable us to interpret in a worthy manner this work, though it be committed to the earthly treasure-house of common speech, of writing which any passer-by can read, and which can be heard when read aloud by any one who lends to it his bodily ears?” Origen, Commentary on John, I:6 (A.D. 232).
“Therefore let those who deny that the Son is from the Father by nature and proper to His Essence, deny also that He took true human flesh of Mary Ever-Virgin; for in neither case had it been of profit to us men, whether the Word were not true and naturally Son of God, or the flesh not true which He assumed.” Athanasius, Orations against the Arians, II:70 (A.D. 362).
“And when he had taken her, he knew her not, till she had brought forth her first-born Son.’ He hath here used the word till,’ not that thou shouldest suspect that afterwards he did know her, but to inform thee that before the birth the Virgin was wholly untouched by man. But why then, it may be said, hath he used the word, till’? Because it is usual in Scripture often to do this, and to use this expression without reference to limited times. For so with respect to the ark likewise, it is said, The raven returned not till the earth was dried up.’ And yet it did not return even after that time. And when discoursing also of God, the Scripture saith, From age until age Thou art,’ not as fixing limits in this case. And again when it is preaching the Gospel beforehand, and saying, In his days shall righteousness flourish, and abundance of peace, till the moon be taken away,’ it doth not set a limit to this fair part of creation. So then here likewise, it uses the word “till,” to make certain what was before the birth, but as to what follows, it leaves thee to make the inference. John Chrysostom, Gospel of Matthew, V:5 (A.D. 370).
Thus, what it was necessary for thee to learn of Him, this He Himself hath said; that the Virgin was untouched by man until the birth; but that which both was seen to be a consequence of the former statement, and was acknowledged, this in its turn he leaves for thee to perceive; namely, that not even after this, she having so become a mother, and having been counted worthy of a new sort of travail, and a child-bearing so strange, could that righteous man ever have endured to know her. For if he had known her, and had kept her in the place of a wife, how is it that our Lord commits her, as unprotected, and having no one, to His disciple, and commands him to take her to his own home? How then, one may say, are James and the others called His brethren? In the same kind of way as Joseph himself was supposed to be husband of Mary. For many were the veils provided, that the birth, being such as it was, might be for a time screened. Wherefore even John so called them, saying, For neither did His brethren believe in Him.’ John Chrysostom, Gospel of Matthew, V:5 (A.D. 370).
“But those who by virginity have desisted from this process have drawn within themselves the boundary line of death, and by their own deed have checked his advance; they have made themselves, in fact, a frontier between life and death, and a barrier too, which thwarts him. If, then, death cannot pass beyond virginity, but finds his power checked and shattered there, it is demonstrated that virginity is a stronger thing than death; and that body is rightly named undying which does not lend its service to a dying world, nor brook to become the instrument of a succession of dying creatures. In such a body the long unbroken career of decay and death, which has intervened between the first man and the lives of virginity which have been led, is interrupted. It could not be indeed that death should cease working as long as the human race by marriage was working too; he walked the path of life with all preceding generations; he started with every new-born child and accompanied it to the end: but he found in virginity a barrier, to pass which was an impossible feat.” Gregory of Nyssa, On Virginity, 13 (A.D. 371).
“[T]he Son of God...was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit...” Epiphanius, Well Anchored Man, 120 (A.D. 374).
“The friends of Christ do not tolerate hearing that the Mother of God ever ceased to be a virgin” Basil, Homily In Sanctum Christi generationem, 5 (ante A.D. 379).
“But as we do not deny what is written, so we do reject what is not written. We believe that God was born of the Virgin, because we read it. That Mary was married after she brought forth, we do not believe, because we do not read it. Nor do we say this to condemn marriage, for virginity itself is the fruit of marriage; but because when we are dealing with saints we must not judge rashly. If we adopt possibility as the standard of judgment, we might maintain that Joseph had several wives because Abraham had, and so had Jacob, and that the Lord’s brethren were the issue of those wives, an invention which some hold with a rashness which springs from audacity not from piety. You say that Mary did not continue a virgin: I claim still more, that Joseph himself on account of Mary was a virgin, so that from a virgin wedlock a virgin son was born. For if as a holy man he does not come under the imputation of fornication, and it is nowhere written that he had another wife, but was the guardian of Mary whom he was supposed to have to wife rather than her husband, the conclusion is that he who was thought worthy to be called father of the Lord, remained a virgin.” Jerome, The Perpetual Virginity of Mary Against Helvedius, 21 (A.D. 383).
“Imitate her, holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of maternal virtue; for neither have you sweeter children, nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son.” Ambrose, To the Christian at Vercellae, Letter 63:111 (A.D. 396).
“Her virginity also itself was on this account more pleasing and accepted, in that it was not that Christ being conceived in her, rescued it beforehand from a husband who would violate it, Himself to preserve it; but, before He was conceived, chose it, already dedicated to God, as that from which to be born. This is shown by the words which Mary spake in answer to the Angel announcing to her conception; How,’ saith she, shall this be, seeing I know not a man?’ Which assuredly she would not say, unless she had before vowed herself unto God as a virgin. But, because the habits of the Israelites as yet refused this, she was espoused to a just man, who would not take from her by violence, but rather guard against violent persons, what she had already vowed. Although, even if she had said this only, How shall this take place ?’ and had not added, seeing I know not a man,’ certainly she would not have asked, how, being a female, she should give birth to her promised Son, if she had married with purpose of sexual intercourse. She might have been bidden also to continue a virgin, that in her by fitting miracle the Son of God should receive the form of a servant, but, being to be a pattern to holy virgins, lest it should be thought that she alone needed to be a virgin, who had obtained to conceive a child even without sexual intercourse, she dedicated her virginity to God, when as yet she knew not what she should conceive, in order that the imitation of a heavenly life in an earthly and mortal body should take place of vow, not of command; through love of choosing, not through necessity of doing service. Thus Christ by being born of a virgin, who, before she knew Who was to be born of her, had determined to continue a virgin, chose rather to approve, than to command, holy virginity. And thus, even in the female herself, in whom He took the form of a servant, He willed that virginity should be free.” Augustine, Of Holy Virginity, 4 (A.D. 401).
“Where are they who think that the Virgin’s conception and giving birth to her child are to be likened to those of other woman? For, this latter case is one of the earth, and the Virgin’s is one from heaven. The one case is a case of divine power; the other of human weakness. The one case occurs in a body subject to passion; the other in the tranquility of the divine Spirit and peace of the human body. The blood was still, and the flesh astonished; her members were put at rest, and her entire womb was quiescent during the visit of the Holy One, until the Author of flesh could take on His garment of flesh, and until He, who was not merely to restore the earth to man but also to give him heaven, could become a heavenly Man. The virgin conceives, the Virgin brings forth her child, and she remains a virgin.” Peter Chrysoslogus, Sermon 117, (A.D. 432).
“And by a new nativity He was begotten, conceived by a Virgin, born of a Virgin, without paternal desire, without injury to the mother’s chastity: because such a birth as knew no taint of human flesh, became One who was to be the Saviour of men, while it possessed in itself the nature of human substance. For when God was born in the flesh, God Himself was the Father, as the archangel witnessed to the Blessed Virgin Mary: because the Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee: and therefore, that which shall be born of thee shall be called holy, the Son of God.’ The origin is different but the nature like: not by intercourse with man but by the power of God was it brought about: for a Virgin conceived, a Virgin bare, and a Virgin she remained.” Pope Leo the Great (regn. A.D. 440-461), On the Feast of the Nativity, Sermon 22:2 (ante A.D. 461).
“The ever-virgin One thus remains even after the birth still virgin, having never at any time up till death consorted with a man. For although it is written, And knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born Son, yet note that he who is first-begotten is first-born even if he is only-begotten. For the word first-born’ means that he was born first but does not at all suggest the birth of others. And the word till’ signifies the limit of the appointed time but does not exclude the time thereafter. For the Lord says, And lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world, not meaning thereby that He will be separated from us after the completion of the age. The divine apostle, indeed, says, And so shall we ever be with the Lord, meaning after the general resurrection.” John of Damascus, Orthodox Faith, 4:14 (A.D. 743).
As much as I respect the Catholic part of God’s family, for a number of excellent reasons, their insistence on deifying the human woman Mary continues to be an impassible barrier between me and Rome. Sadly, given our fallen human nature, we often find the deviant parts of our ecclesiastical traditions more interesting, more exciting, than the core elements. A Catholic might go ballistic if you suggest that Mary was a righteous, godly, and fully-functioning wife and mother, rather than some asexual semi-goddess. But a dispensational Protestant regards as unforgivable the assertion that Jesus matters more than a certain middle-eastern socialist political order.
Staunch Catholics would disagree.
I do not agree with what you posted almost 100%.
And on a Religion thread no less! The RM is usually Catholic. Guessing the protestant RM is on duty today.
>>I did. The article makes some good points, but if you are interested the other side has some good points also.<<
No, they don’t. That’s the point here. This is very much like the homosexuals arguing that the bible does not condemn homosexuality. They have “good points”, but they are straw men and red herrings.
Likewise with the ever-virgin crowd. All of their “good points” are extra biblical and the ones from the bible are not “good points”. They are a gross twisting of meaning. The “cousin” thing is but one example.
A resonable person reading the bible for the first time would make the logical assumption that Mary was a virgin up to Jesus birth. Any claims of virginity past that point are not supported in the bible, and there is plenty of clear reference in the bible that she was not ever virgin.
It’s amazing people cling to it so. Seriously.
Actually, there is a far simpler reason why Jesus, in a patriarchal culture, might have been known as "the Son of Mary" by His enemies: believe it or not, people back then could count to nine. Mary took off for Elizabeth's house after the Annunciation, and stayed there three months. Granted, "the first baby can come any time; the rest all take nine months," but when a full-term baby shows up three months early, people notice. To call Jesus "the son of Mary" was a sneering insult, the equivalent of "father unknown."
Married couples who are "fully consecrated to God" normally, routinely, as a rule, by God's command, to honor Him and to bless one another, enjoy active and fruitful marital lives. I fail to see how a sham marriage glorifies the God Who made us sexual beings.
(parenthetically, the term "celibate" refers to the Earth Mother Celebes, whose priests castrated themselves.)
For all those who rely on the Bible as their “sole authority,” realize that you are still relying on the Catholic Church. It was the Catholic Church that definitively resolved which of many spiritual writings in circulation in the early period of Christian history were in fact the Word of God, and therefore belonged in the Bible (New Testament).
Also, you can’t definitively resolve any close interpretive question by reference to an English translation many times removed from the original text. You have to go back to the earliest available version, which in many cases is the Latin Vulgate (again, a Catholic product).
In short, if you can’t rely on the infallibility of the Catholic Magisterium, then you can’t rely on the Bible either.
>>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.<<
It is circumstantial evidence for Him being one of many. Meanwhile it does in no way support the case for Him being her only child.<<
See my comment above.
>>Exodus 34:20 - under the Mosaic law, the first-born son had to be sanctified. First-born status does not require a second born.<<
See my comment above.
>>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 Marys perpetual virginity. Mary remained a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus.<<
Sez who? I would interpret it to mean that no man shall be born of a virgin birth with God as the father.
“In short, if you cant rely on the infallibility of the Catholic Magisterium, then you cant rely on the Bible either.”
A stopped clock is right twice a day. I’m sure even the the Roman Catholic Magisterium managed to get a few things correct over the years
>>Mark 6:3 - Jesus was always referred to as the son of Mary, not a son of Mary. Also brothers could have theoretically been Josephs 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.<<
Oh, for crying out loud. I am referred to as the son of my father, but I also have a brother. It was common to, when talking of someone in that day, when identifying a man, say he was “the son of so and so”. It does in know way imply that “so and so” had only one son. To infer that would be silly.
I know I’m a little snarky on that, but I also mean it seriously. After all, if Mary remained celibate all the rest of her life and she had that intention from the start of her marriage to Joseph then did she lie when she made her vows? Of course not. I can only logically conclude that after Jesus was born she was a good wife to Joseph just as he’d been a good husband to her. To do otherwise would make a mockery of her vow to be his wife...a vow she made to God.
>>Luke 2:41-51 - in searching for Jesus and finding Him in the temple, there is never any mention of other siblings.<<
I think he was the only one they were looking for. When one of our daughters didn’t come out of the grocery store with the rest of the family, we went back to find her. When we did, we said we found her and nobody else. The story was not about the other kids.
And Joseph knew her not TILL she brought forth a son. He knew her ever since.
Lets put that verse in context. Look at the prior two verses:
"But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus." 16 2 Tim 3:14-15
Now lets look at context and reality:
1. This was written to Timothy
2. Timothy was born around 17 AD
Therefore, the Scripture Paul is referring to the Scripture Timothy studied from infancy - is the Old Testament. The New Testament was not yet written.
The apostles never assumed that the one Church established by Christ would later be replaced by a book.
The Bible is all we need!
Please show me where in Scripture where you found that verse!
The tradition that Mary did not have any more kids starts very early. So early, that you don’t really see any mention of James being the full blooded brother of Jesus.
Again, I will not get to bent out of shape about it. Luther and Calvin both believed Mary remained a virgin till her death. Both were quite clear about it.
>>Luke 1:31,34 - the angel tells Mary that you will conceive (using the future tense). Mary responds by saying, How shall this be? Marys response demonstrates that she had taken a vow of lifelong virginity by having no intention to have relations with a man.<<
Are you serious? You quote only half of verse 34 to make your point? This is very disingenuous since you fill in your own reason even though the other half of the verse clarifies the question thus:
Verse 34: How will this be, Mary asked the angel, since I am a virgin?
Your question is answered right there. And please note the word “am”, not “will always be”. And your omission of this information causes me to question your sincerity in getting to the honest truth here.
The chief objection against the Catholic position is taken from Matt 1:25: “He [Joseph] knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son”; and from Luke 2:7: “And she brought forth her firstborn son”. Hence, it is argued, Mary must have born other children. “Firstborn” (prototokos), however, does not necessarily connote that other children were born afterwards. This is evident from Luke 2:23, and Ex 13:2-12 (cf. Greek text) to which Luke refers. “Opening the womb” is there given as the equivalent of “firstborn” (prototokos). An only child was thus no less “firstborn” than the first of many. Neither do the words “he knew her not till she brought forth” imply, as St. Jerome proves conclusively against Helvidius from parallel examples, that he knew her afterwards. The meaning of both expressions becomes clear, if they are considered in connexion with the virginal birth related by the two Evangelists.
1. The conjunction “until” in Scriptural usage expresses what has occurred up to a certain point, and leaves the future aside. Thus God says in the book of Isaias: “I am till you grow old” (Isaias 46:4). Are we to infer that God would then cease to be? Again, God says to His Divine Son: “Sit Thou on My right hand until I make Thy enemies Thy foot-stool” (Psalm 109:1). Will the Messias, once His enemies are subdued, relinquish His place of honor? St. Matthew’s principal aim was to tell his readers that Christ’s birth was miraculous and that Joseph had no part in the conception of Mary’s child. His statement is confined to this point.
In itself the statement, “He knew her not till she brought forth her first-born Son,” neither proves Mary’s subsequent virginity nor contains an argument against it. Speaking as he does, the Evangelist in no wise affirms that the abstention mentioned by him ceased after the expiration of the time indicated.
To say that the exclusion of an event up to a certain point implies that it occurred afterward, is pure cavil. In fact, one would find it difficult to believe that the sacred writer, after insisting so strongly on Mary’s anterior virginity in the opening verses of the chapter, could suddenly imply that it ceased later on. If Joseph abstained from the use of the union preceding the angel’s message, who could think that after Mary had brought forth the Son of God, he should feel less reverence for the temple of the Trinity?
The original tongues include FIRST OF ALL Hebrew, then Aramaic, then Greek. Latin is a latecomer ~ same as English.
Not sure why you posted all that copied and pasted info to me. My response was to the illogical correlation that Brian Kopp used in response upthread. He actually proved the other poster’s point.
Mary was a virgin TILL she had Jesus....
His aunt voted Republican TILL she died...
If the scripture had said Mary was a virgin until she died, he might have a point.
This was your weakest "point", IMO. Luke says nothing of a "vow of perpetual virginity". However, he does quote Mary as saying "How can this be, since I am a virgin?" By leaving out the second part of her question, you were attempting to make her question take on an aspect a life-long vow. It is obvious from her question that she could not imagine conceiving as she was still a virgin at the time she asked the question.
The main problem with this whole thing is it is a bit like a court case. Mary being a married Jewish woman, it is assumed she had sexual relations with her husband unless the body of evidence can convince someone otherwise. The burden of proof is on the “ever virgin” side. If all the evidence presented from both sides were offered in a court of law, this would be decided by a jury in minutes. And the case is simply not made that Mary was, or needed to be ever virgin.
I can understand people believing that if they have not studied the issue, as I was a pre-tribulationist when I would listen to other “experts”, but when I started studying the word I abandoned that belief. I believe many Christians have done the same with this, but many others cling to it for whatever personal reasons they may have.
Completely false etymology.
First, the Celebes are an island chain in Indonesia, wholly unknown to the ancient Romans.
Second, you are probably mistakenly thinking of Cybele - the Phrygian goddess.
(3) The Latin word caelebs, meaning "unmarried" is an old Roman legal term that existed centuries before the foreign cult of Cybele was important to Rome.
(4) The word caelebs and Cybele have no etymological relation to each other - they have radically different pronunciations in Latin: "kye-leps" versus "koo-buh-lay".
(5) It should be obvious, but "not being married" and "being castrated" are two very different things.
(6) Cybele's self-castrating followers were called "Galli" in Latin, which is likely a reference to capons.
After a while, a stubbornly unwilling woman can wear down even the best of us.
I never smoked TILL the day I was married.
That does not mean, imply, or indicate ANYTHING about what has happened since.
By the way, I have not smoked since I was married either.
Those who use the "TILL" proof text prove nothing but their ignorance.
I guarantee you, if I was St. Joesph, I would also have refrained from relations with the Mother of My Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Anyone who argues otherwise cannot comprehend the immensity of the Incarnation and all it entails, or is simply being disingenuous.
If Mary was then ‘stubbornly unwilling’ then, according to the Catholics, Joseph had solid grounds for an annulment which then made Mary a sh*tty wife.
Again, I can only logically conclude that Mary was a good wife and a blessing to her husband after the birth of Jesus.
>>Then why are so many Catholic rituals and traditions unbiblical? Is it because they evolved and developed a life of their own?<<
That is what I think happened. I’ve seen stuff creep into protestant churches as well. Take that powder blue “christan flag” complete with pledge. ;)
I’m sure those that started it meant well, nevertheless...
from your post #19 above:
And Joseph knew her not TILL she brought forth a son. He knew her ever since.
No, that is not stated, nor does it necessarily follow from the text. Again, I will copy and paste the relevant response:
1. The conjunction until in Scriptural usage expresses what has occurred up to a certain point, and leaves the future aside. Thus God says in the book of Isaias: I am till you grow old (Isaias 46:4). Are we to infer that God would then cease to be? Again, God says to His Divine Son: Sit Thou on My right hand until I make Thy enemies Thy foot-stool (Psalm 109:1). Will the Messias, once His enemies are subdued, relinquish His place of honor? St. Matthews principal aim was to tell his readers that Christs birth was miraculous and that Joseph had no part in the conception of Marys child. His statement is confined to this point.
In itself the statement, He knew her not till she brought forth her first-born Son, neither proves Marys subsequent virginity nor contains an argument against it. Speaking as he does, the Evangelist in no wise affirms that the abstention mentioned by him ceased after the expiration of the time indicated.
No Jack Chick links permitted on FR.
>>LOL. Well, have fun going your own way. I guess Scripture and the Church Fathers are wrong on this, and sigzero got it right. <<
Actually, the scripture speaks for itself. The interpretations of it by church “fathers” is what I have a problem with.