• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Mary's Perpetual Virginity

phattonez

phattonez

Catholic
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
30,870
Reaction score
4,246
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Well now, this should be interesting. Let me start it off:

Luke 1:30-34: "And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God.Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus.He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever.And of his kingdom there shall be no end.And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?"

Follow the logic here. If Mary had simply not had sex YET, then this should be no problem. Obviously she would be impregnated by having sex. However, she sees a problem with this; why? Because she knows that she has not had sex nor will she have sex. If she planned on having sex in the future, then what's the problem? It would be easy for her to conceive.

Now, about Jesus' brothers:

Catholic Answers said:
First, we must understand that the term brother has a wide semantic range in Scripture. It can mean a uterine brother, an extended relative, or even a spiritual brother. In Genesis 13:8 and 14:12, we read of one example of brother being used to describe an extended relationship: Abraham and Lot. Though they were actually uncle and nephew, they called one another "brother." Moreover, in the New Testament, Jesus told us to call one another "brothers" in Matthew 23:8. The passage obviously does not mean to suggest that all Christians have the same physical mother.

...

Second, if we examine more closely the example of James, one of these four "brothers of the Lord" mentioned in Matthew 13:55, we discover him to be a cousin or some other relative of Jesus rather than a uterine brother.
Click to expand...
Catechism of the Catholic Church said:
The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, "brothers of Jesus," are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls "the other Mary." They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression. (CCC 500)
Click to expand...


Now about firstborn sons:
Catholic Answers said:
But what about Matthew 1:24-25, and the claim Jesus was Mary’s "firstborn son" and that Joseph "knew her not until" Christ was born? Does Matthew here teach that Mary had other children?
Click to expand...
Catholic Answers said:
Exodus 13:1-2 reveals something very important about the firstborn in Israel: "The Lord said to Moses, ‘Consecrate to me all the firstborn; whatever is the first to open the womb among the people of Israel, both of man and beast, is mine.’"
The "firstborn" were not given the title because there was a "second-born." They were called "firstborn" at birth. Jesus being "firstborn" does not require that more siblings be born after him.

...


Scripture’s statement that Joseph "knew [Mary] not until she brought forth her firstborn" would not necessarily mean they did "know" each other after she brought forth Jesus. Until is often used in Scripture as part of an idiomatic expression similar to our own usage in English. I may say to you, "Until we meet again, God bless you." Does that necessarily mean after we meet again, God curse you? By no means. A phrase like this is used to emphasize what is being described before theuntil is fulfilled. It is not intended to say anything about the future beyond that point. Here are some biblical examples:

  • 2 Samuel 6:23: And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to (until) the day of her death. (Does this mean she had children after she died?)
  • 1 Timothy 4:13: Until I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching. (Does this mean Timothy should stop teaching after Paul comes?)
  • 1 Corinthians 15:25: For he (Christ) must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. (Does this mean Christ’s reign will end? By no means! Luke 1:33 says, "he will reign over the house of Jacob forever and of his kingdom there shall be no end.")
In recent years, some have argued that because Matthew 1:25 uses the Greek words heos hou for "until" whereas the texts I mentioned above from the New Testament use heos alone, there is a difference in meaning. The argument goes that Heos hou indicates the action of the first clause does not continue. Thus, Mary and Joseph "not having come together" would have ended after Jesus was born.
The problems with this theory begin with the fact that no available scholarship concurs with it. In fact, the evidence proves the contrary.Heos hou and heos are used interchangeably and have the same meaning. Acts 25:21 should suffice to clear up the matter: "But when Paul had appealed to be kept in custody for the decision of the emperor, I commanded him to be held until (Gk. heos hou) I could send him to Caesar."
Click to expand...


Furthermore, we have the scene at the cross where Jesus gives Mary to the care of John. This would have been a huge slap in the face to any siblings of Jesus. This is another sign that Jesus had no siblings, as by right Mary would have gone into their home.

The Case for Mary

Perpetual virginity is not something made up. It is entirely Biblical. ;)
 
I thought the whole issue was that Mary happened to be unmarried and thus was required to be a virgin, which obviously caused a problem after God knocked her up. She then had to flee with Joseph because the locals were going to stone her for being a ho-bag. I believe Joe was in on the stoning idea until an angel sold him on the idea that it was God who raped Mary, which apparently made everything A-OK and everyone lived happily ever after...well, for 30 to 35 years at least, until Good Friday AD 30-plus rolled around.
 
calamity said:
I thought the whole issue was that Mary happened to be unmarried and thus was required to be a virgin, which obviously caused a problem after God knocked her up. She then had to flee with Joseph because the locals were going to stone her for being a ho-bag. I believe Joe was in on the stoning idea until an angel sold him on the idea that it was God who raped Mary.
Click to expand...

Being betrothed is basically the same thing as being married, the only difference being that they do not yet live together.

And no, even before the angel visited Joseph he had decided to divorce her quietly so that she would not be stoned.
 
phattonez said:
Being betrothed is basically the same thing as being married, the only difference being that they do not yet live together.
Click to expand...

...nor have sex.
 
calamity said:
...nor have sex.
Click to expand...

From what I can find, having sex while being betrothed is not a big deal. It is customary for consummation to happen once they start living together, but apparently not required.
 
phattonez said:
From what I can find, having sex while being betrothed is not a big deal. It is customary for consummation to happen once they start living together, but apparently not required.
Click to expand...

I thought they need first the formal blessing from the church. But, I am no expert on ancient Jewish customs. I do recall reading somewhere that Mary was running for her life due to the threat of stoning.
 
calamity said:
I thought they need first the formal blessing from the church. But, I am no expert on ancient Jewish customs. I do recall reading somewhere that Mary was running for her life due to the threat of stoning.
Click to expand...

They fled to Egypt to avoid Herod killing all of the infant boys. Maybe you're thinking of that?
 
Next you'll be arguing Mary was sinless. Nope!

Mary required salvation. She calls God her Savior (Luke 1:47). Now why would a sinless woman need a Savior?
 
Logicman said:
Next you'll be arguing Mary was sinless. Nope!

Mary required salvation. She calls God her Savior (Luke 1:47). Now why would a sinless woman need a Savior?
Click to expand...

One debate at a time Logicman. Let's keep this thread limited to Mary's Perpetual Virginity.
 
perpetual Virginity is not only biblical it also has its part in with Greek then later with Roman myths . Aphrodite/Venus could renew her virginity in some stories with her girdle or by bathing in the sea by the graces on Cyprus . ( sources include reading any book on Greek and Roman Mythology ) Its not a new concept for that time .
 
Moderator's Warning:
Sigh. Religion forum: civility. Respect for others' deeply held beliefs. Avoid needlessly inflammatory verbage. Right? Right.
 
1. While there is nothing wrong per se with believing that Mary remained a virgin, there is no scriptural reason to do so.

2. However, it does play a role in the Veneration of Mary that rose above the levels acceptable for Christian worship, imho. Mary is not born sinless, she was not a Second Eve as Jesus was Second Adam, she was a girl who was deeply obedient to God. Historically, Catholics seem to have adopted Mary to take over the role played by Goddesses in other cultures which they converted. I can understand why they did that (the important thing is Jesus), but I see no reason to continue to defend that position now.

3. However, it would not change the Story or Salvation of Christ in any way if Jesus' brothers were indeed His brothers or if for some reason Luke (who appears to have captured Mary's account, and whom we would therefore assume was probably the most credible resource on the matter) got it wrong and they were not. If Catholics want to believe that :shrug: they are free to, along with Indulgences, Purgatory, Transubstantiation, and everything else I disagree with; it's a part of their faith. My point is only that I do no see any requirement for it, nor any Scriptural support.
 
Logicman said:
Well, I'm not buying her perpetual virginity. You can if you want, though.
Click to expand...

And you have given no reason why you think that, given the evidence, you should find otherwise. I've provided plenty of Sciptural evidence. Think about it.
 
cpwill said:
1. While there is nothing wrong per se with believing that Mary remained a virgin, there is no scriptural reason to do so.
Click to expand...

Sure, except for everything that I posted in the OP. But sure, let's pretend that doesn't exist.

2. However, it does play a role in the Veneration of Mary that rose above the levels acceptable for Christian worship, imho. Mary is not born sinless, she was not a Second Eve as Jesus was Second Adam, she was a girl who was deeply obedient to God. Historically, Catholics seem to have adopted Mary to take over the role played by Goddesses in other cultures which they converted. I can understand why they did that (the important thing is Jesus), but I see no reason to continue to defend that position now.
Click to expand...

I would like to save the Immaculate Conception for another thread, if that's okay with you.

3. However, it would not change the Story or Salvation of Christ in any way if Jesus' brothers were indeed His brothers or if for some reason Luke (who appears to have captured Mary's account, and whom we would therefore assume was probably the most credible resource on the matter) got it wrong and they were not. If Catholics want to believe that :shrug: they are free to, along with Indulgences, Purgatory, Transubstantiation, and everything else I disagree with; it's a part of their faith. My point is only that I do no see any requirement for it, nor any Scriptural support.
Click to expand...

On the matter of Perpetual Virginity, you may not see any Scriptural support, but it's there, and I laid it out in the OP. You have chosen to ignore it. There are plenty of reasons to believe the other things given even just Scripture, but they're off-topic so I'll leave that alone for now.
 
From Martin Luther himself -
""When Matthew says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom." (That Jesus was Born a Jew)

"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. [...] Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.""
Click to expand...

A Protestant Defense of Mary's Perpetual Virginity - Aleteia
 
I don't think it's anyone's business who Mary did or did not have sex with.

But that's just me.

Merry Christmas everybody!
 
phattonez said:
Sure, except for everything that I posted in the OP. But sure, let's pretend that doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

I read what you posted in the OP. It is an attempt to demonstrate Scriptural Room for a perpetual Virgin in Mary. It does not demonstrate any Scriptural argument in its favor. You posted the argument that the Scriptures do not deny Mary's perpetual virginity - and, it is possible they do not. The "Catholic Answers" portions that you cited do indeed highlight that there is a possibility. I myself find it pretty small, especially given that the most straightforward reading of the texts pretty thoroughly suggests that she didn't, but :shrug: You cannot use Scripture to totally disprove the concept.

I would like to save the Immaculate Conception for another thread, if that's okay with you.
Click to expand...

These things are cojoined. It is like saying that you wish to discuss Jesus' Godhood and the Trinity separately. Mary's nature is a unitary discussion.
 
phattonez said:
Well now, this should be interesting. Let me start it off:

Luke 1:30-34: "And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God.Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus.He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever.And of his kingdom there shall be no end.And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?"

Follow the logic here. If Mary had simply not had sex YET, then this should be no problem. Obviously she would be impregnated by having sex. However, she sees a problem with this; why? Because she knows that she has not had sex nor will she have sex. If she planned on having sex in the future, then what's the problem? It would be easy for her to conceive.

Now, about Jesus' brothers:





Now about firstborn sons:



Furthermore, we have the scene at the cross where Jesus gives Mary to the care of John. This would have been a huge slap in the face to any siblings of Jesus. This is another sign that Jesus had no siblings, as by right Mary would have gone into their home.

The Case for Mary

Perpetual virginity is not something made up. It is entirely Biblical. ;)
Click to expand...

I don't like the idea of the perpetual virginity. To me, it makes her less human, and demeans the sacrifice she made to give birth to Jesus.

It also makes me wonder about St. Joseph....what was up with that?
 
cpwill said:
I read what you posted in the OP. It is an attempt to demonstrate Scriptural Room for a perpetual Virgin in Mary. It does not demonstrate any Scriptural argument in its favor. You posted the argument that the Scriptures do not deny Mary's perpetual virginity - and, it is possible they do not. The "Catholic Answers" portions that you cited do indeed highlight that there is a possibility. I myself find it pretty small, especially given that the most straightforward reading of the texts pretty thoroughly suggests that she didn't, but :shrug: You cannot use Scripture to totally disprove the concept.
Click to expand...

Look at the first verse I quoted. Why would Mary be confused if she was going to have sex later? In only makes sense if she had planned to stay a virgin.

These things are cojoined. It is like saying that you wish to discuss Jesus' Godhood and the Trinity separately. Mary's nature is a unitary discussion.
Click to expand...
It's a distraction from the specific topic.
 
rocket88 said:
I don't like the idea of the perpetual virginity. To me, it makes her less human, and demeans the sacrifice she made to give birth to Jesus.

It also makes me wonder about St. Joseph....what was up with that?
Click to expand...

Tradition holds that he was a widower and therefore was the only one who would take Mary as a wife knowing that she would remain a virgin.
 
phattonez said:
And you have given no reason why you think that, given the evidence, you should find otherwise. I've provided plenty of Sciptural evidence. Think about it.
Click to expand...

Here's numerous reasons why I doubt the "perpetual virgin" belief:

Some have suggested these brothers and sisters were cousins or more distant relations. If true, why didn’t the writers use the Greek term for cousins (anepsios)? The Greek word did exist and was used in Scripture (Colossians 4:10). If they were more distant relatives, then why not use a Greek word that meant relatives (suggenes), such as the one describing Mary and Elizabeth’s relational status in Luke 1:36? Why did Matthew and Mark use the words most commonly translated as brothers (adelphos) and sisters (adelphe)? In any other context no one would have questioned this meaning.

A logical point concerning this passage was brought up by expositor Adam Clarke in his commentary:

Why should the children of another family be brought in here to share a reproach which it is evident was designed for Joseph the carpenter, Mary his wife, Jesus their son, and their other children? Prejudice apart, would not any person of plain common sense suppose, from this account, that these were the children of Joseph and Mary, and the brothers and sisters of our Lord, according to the flesh?2

It seems rather obvious that these Gospel accounts refer to Joseph’s and Mary’s children. Why would these people criticize Jesus by mentioning his father (as they presumed) and mother and then seemingly switch to distant relatives?

Is the Perpetual Virginity of Mary a Biblical View? - Answers in Genesis

Also, the command in Genesis is to "be fruitful and multiply." If Mary were an observant Jew she'd no doubt be putting out babies like a maternity ward, instead of just giving birth to one Son (Jesus) who didn't physically multiply.
 
Last edited:
Logicman said:
Here's numerous reasons why I doubt the "perpetual virgin" belief:

Some have suggested these brothers and sisters were cousins or more distant relations. If true, why didn’t the writers use the Greek term for cousins (anepsios)? The Greek word did exist and was used in Scripture (Colossians 4:10). If they were more distant relatives, then why not use a Greek word that meant relatives (suggenes), such as the one describing Mary and Elizabeth’s relational status in Luke 1:36? Why did Matthew and Mark use the words most commonly translated as brothers (adelphos) and sisters (adelphe)? In any other context no one would have questioned this meaning.

A logical point concerning this passage was brought up by expositor Adam Clarke in his commentary:

Why should the children of another family be brought in here to share a reproach which it is evident was designed for Joseph the carpenter, Mary his wife, Jesus their son, and their other children? Prejudice apart, would not any person of plain common sense suppose, from this account, that these were the children of Joseph and Mary, and the brothers and sisters of our Lord, according to the flesh?2

It seems rather obvious that these Gospel accounts refer to Joseph’s and Mary’s children. Why would these people criticize Jesus by mentioning his father (as they presumed) and mother and then seemingly switch to distant relatives?

Is the Perpetual Virginity of Mary a Biblical View? - Answers in Genesis

Also, the command in Genesis is to "be fruitful and multiply." If Mary were an observant Jew she'd no doubt be putting out babies like a maternity ward, instead of just giving birth to one Son (Jesus) who didn't physically multiply.
Click to expand...

You should use quotes for that which you are directly copying.

That said, it is not even clear that these were necessarily the cousins of Jesus. They may have been the step-siblings of Jesus (remember the tradition that Joseph was a widower) or adopted children. What is clear is that the use of the word brothers is not decisive.

Here is a long post on this very issue:

Bad Aramaic Made Easy | Catholic Answers
 
Why is it necessary that Mary's perpetual virginity have scriptural basis? There are many catholic beliefs that don't have scriptural basis. Or is the OP a protestant trying to convince other protestants that it *is* scriptural. Seems to me the only relevance of the thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom