Did the Virgin Mary remain a virgin?

Standing Up said:

Hold on, you're supposed to tell us what the oral traditions were in Paul's time. Lord's Day is written.

Click to expand...

No, WHAT DAY OF THE WEEK the Lord's day is is NOT written. You have to go to oral teaching to know that it was Sunday.

Open Heart said:

No, WHAT DAY OF THE WEEK the Lord's day is is NOT written. You have to go to oral teaching to know that it was Sunday.

Click to expand...

It's written, the oral tradition is only needed when you want it to say something else.

Open Heart said:

No, WHAT DAY OF THE WEEK the Lord's day is is NOT written. You have to go to oral teaching to know that it was Sunday.

Click to expand...

What oral teaching can you show from John's time that says it was Sunday? You can't because oral teaching is impossible to show.

Again, while Paul may have said abide the teachings whether written or oral, we have zero idea what those unwritten oral traditions are.

It's like the OP. Did Mary remain a virgin? No says the written record. Yes says the oral record I guess.

mmksparbud said:

It's written, the oral tradition is only needed when you want it to say something else.

Click to expand...

Book chapter and verse

Standing Up said:

What oral teaching can you show from John's time that says it was Sunday? You can't because oral teaching is impossible to show.

Click to expand...

We can piece it together from the writings of the Early Church Fathers. For example, the Didache speaks of meeting on the Lord's Day to break bread, and the Letter to Barnabas says the SAME THING but calling it the Eighth Day. Etc.

Open Heart said:

We can piece it together from the writings of the Early Church Fathers. For example, the Didache speaks of meeting on the Lord's Day to break bread, and the Letter to Barnabas says the SAME THING but calling it the Eighth Day. Etc.

Click to expand...

You've moved the goalposts. No doubt there is subsequent information, but the point is we know this because it is written, not because it might have been some oral teaching extant in Paul's time. We have no idea what those unwritten, oral traditions are.

No one will say, without tongue in cheek, that Peter orally reiterated what Matthew said; that the brothers of Jesus were sons of Joseph/Mary. Yet we have some who take later, unknown pseudograph and make a de fide dogma out of it, but even they won't claim it is a Pauline oral tradition.

So, did Mary remain a virgin upon nativity and thereafter? All the evidence from written scripture and later written tradition say no.

you know, not every time you hear a guy say "what's up my brother?" he is not always talking to someone who is biologically his brother
it could just be a nice friend

first century Palestine did not really have the modern US view of the Nuclear Family
they were the "brethren" of the Lord
His kinsmen
not necessarily His brothers

"not necessarily" His brothers and sisters----means they could be. As such, it is only conjecture and can not be used to insist that they are not.

mmksparbud said:

"not necessarily" His brothers and sisters----means they could be. As such, it is only conjecture and can not be used to insist that they are not.

Click to expand...

And usage of those words, considering their different connotations in ancient times, can't be used to insist that they are. The Early Church certainly thought Our Lady remained a virgin. Where did they get that idea, I wonder?

thecolorsblend said:

And usage of those words, considering their different connotations in ancient times, can't be used to insist that they are. The Early Church certainly thought Our Lady remained a virgin. Where did they get that idea, I wonder?

Click to expand...

But that is exactly what is being done, insisting that it means they are not. Where did they get the idea of ever virgin from??---Because somebody, certainly no contemporary, didn't like the idea of Mary having had sex after the birth of Christ and that is the only way they could even begin to make that even a plausible idea was to dream up this thing about there really were no brothers or sisters. Why the concept is so overwhelming to some is beyond me, for having children is what most women are equipped to do, and dreamed of doing, esp, back then, it was the reason for marriage. It was considered aberrant behavior to not want them, but in which case, they did not marry. The whole idea of getting married in order to remain celibate would have been laughed to scorn!

mmksparbud said:

But that is exactly what is being done, insisting that it means they are not. Where did they get the idea of ever virgin from??---Because somebody, certainly no contemporary, didn't like the idea of Mary having had sex after the birth of Christ and that is the only way they could even begin to make that even a plausible idea was to dream up this thing about there really were no brothers or sisters.

Click to expand...

The Protoevangelium of James written circa 150 AD postulates that Our Lady was a consecrated virgin. Such a person wouldn't be expected to lead a normal married life if you catch my drift. Such a thing was hardly an unusual occurrence.

St. Jerome from the 4th century AD postulated that the "brothers" of Our Lord were, in modern parlance, cousins. This is supported by the idea that Aramaic in that era didn't really have a word for "cousin".

The common denominator here is that Our Lady was thought to remain a virgin her entire life. This has been a matter of some consensus through out the Church's history. Even some Muslims believe this about Our Lady, oddly enough.

This wasn't really called into question until the Protestants had come along. And even then, it wasn't a widespread belief even among Protestants for quite a while. I haven't researched it in a while but from memory I think it took about a century for Protestants to finally deny this historic belief in large numbers.

So I guess what I don't understand is why exactly Protestants doubt this other than it seeming implausible to them.

Mainly because Protestants decided to not go by what someone 100 to several hundred years after Mary said and go by what the bible says.

mmksparbud said:

Mainly because Protestants decided to not go by what someone 100 to several hundred years after Mary said and go by what the bible says.

Click to expand...

What makes you think that book is God's Word?

thecolorsblend said:

What makes you think that book is God's Word?

Click to expand...

Different topic.

Open Heart said:

There were reasons why Jewish men did not marry. For example, if a man were damaged and couldn't bear children. We don't know why Paul was unmarried. We don't even know if he was never married -- he could have been a widower or divorcee. Paul certainly didn't apply Jewish law to Gentiles -- he recommended that believers remain unmarried unless their passions were so strong that they couldn't remain celibate.

Click to expand...

For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers.
Galatians 1, 13–14

This is what we do know of Paul before his conversion. His love for the Torah may have exempted him from getting married as it did for Ben Azzai and probably more like him.

I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they live like me.
1 Corinthians 7, 8

Paul places himself as a model for others who choose to remain unmarried and chaste for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. In order to be a true model for others, that is without any hypocrisy, Paul could only have chosen to remain celibate rather than be forced because of some biological defect.

I never said Paul applied Jewish law on the Gentiles. But I'm sure he understood that he didn't commit a sin by being celibate before and after his conversion on account of his love for the Torah and the divine Word. I believe that it was because of Joseph's exceptional love for the Torah that he was chosen to be the guardian of the divine Word become man.

For the Intercession of Saint Joseph

O Joseph,
virgin-father of Jesus,
most pure Spouse of the Virgin Mary,
pray every day for us to the same Jesus,
the Son of God,
that we,
being defended by the power of His grace
and striving dutifully in life,
may be crowned by Him
at the Hour of death. Amen.

This prayer is from the Catholic Collect for the Feast of St.Joseph. It is one prayer among several others which can be recited by the faithful during Holy Mass in honour of our patron saint. As part of the Sacred Liturgy, the greatest monument of sacred Tradition, Joseph's virginity amounts to being a dogmatic fact, though not a dogma in and of itself. Thus all Catholics are obligated to believe and profess that Joseph was a virgin when he was betrothed to Mary and never had any children with her after Jesus was born. What we find in the PoJ is nothing but hearsay. In this text we have Joseph initially refusing to wed Mary because of his old age and widower status with children and then being accused of impregnating Mary after having secretly married her. The early Eastern tradition is based on a fairy tale. We read in Scripture that Joseph was a righteous man. Never would he have engaged in subterfuge against the temple priests.

PAX

prodromos said:

Meaning the Latin rite Catholic Church teaches that Joseph the Betrothed was a virgin and the Eastern rite Catholic Churches teach that Joseph the Betrothed was an elderly widower with children. Both are enshrined in the hymns for the feast days of St Joseph in their respective rites yet they cannot both be true. Thus the Catholic Church suffers from an aberration not unlike schizophrenia, living two mutually exclusive realities.

Click to expand...

There is no mention of Joseph being a widower with children in the Catholic Collect of prayers for the Feast of St. Joseph. But there are many Catholics of the East and West who are open to this opinion for apologetic reasons. Whatever hymns you are referring to (a dated sample would be nice) may have been written at the time when the Eastern churches had temporarily fallen out of communion with the Roman Holy See. So these supposed hymns may no longer be part of the Eastern Catholic liturgy.

PAX

mmksparbud said:

Different topic.

Click to expand...

But don't you claim that the PVM is unbiblical?

PAX

mmksparbud said:

Different topic.

Click to expand...

Could be but you're the one who brought it up.

So how about it? How do you know that book is inspired by God?

thecolorsblend said:

What makes you think that book is God's Word?

Click to expand...

It was written in the times of apostles, unlike PoJ. Besides as Jerome said, PoJ contradicts scripture. The Gelasian (sic) decree banned the PoJ.

As Athanasius said, NT was handed down as divine, unlike PoJ.

mmksparbud said:

Mainly because Protestants decided to not go by what someone 100 to several hundred years after Mary said and go by what the bible says.

Click to expand...

True enough. We go by the earliest information, which says Mary did not remain a virgin. Then, as might be expected, we find that scripture documentation in tradition via Origen, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Cyril of Jerusalem.