Did the Virgin Mary remain a virgin?

[Open Heart]

Papist is slang, Romanist is slang but, 'Roman Catholic',? Never!

If you go to the Vatican Website, it never says Roman Catholic, it simply says Catholic Church. I have no problems with anyone using the slang. We Catholics are among the first to use it. I was simply pointing out that he "corrected" someone for using the proper term.

 

[JLB777]

But it never says that the Blessed Virgin had anymore children but Christ, to assert She did is to make the text say something that is not there. Future your putting modern ideas on ancient text and a culture that was not modern

Do you know what consummate means?

JLB

 

[Open Heart]

Do you know what consummate means?

JLB

There is no reason for you to patronize anyone.

 

[Albion]

If you go to the Vatican Website, it never says Roman Catholic, it simply says Catholic Church. I have no problems with anyone using the slang. We Catholics are among the first to use it. I was simply pointing out that he "corrected" someone for using the proper term.

FWIW,
According to the Roman Catholic Church, the legal name of the church in the USA includes the word "Roman."

.

 

[Open Heart]

FWIW,
According to the Roman Catholic Church, the legal name of the church in the USA includes the word "Roman."

.

Really??!! I would be genuinely curious to see your source. I went to the USCCB site to see what they used, but they primarily used just "Church" except when quoting the catechism. Of course I didn't view every single page.

 

[laternonjuror]

If you go to the Vatican Website, it never says Roman Catholic, it simply says Catholic Church. I have no problems with anyone using the slang. We Catholics are among the first to use it. I was simply pointing out that he "corrected" someone for using the proper term.

I don't use the website mentioned above, the letter I mentioned, or the flyer, I think they call them, certainly uses the term 'Holy Roman Church'.
How-and-ever, In my opinion it is misleading to say the least!

 

[patricius79]

Simple question... Did the Virgin Mary remain a virgin

54 And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works?
55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? - Matthew 13

So I take the story that Mary had the baby Jesus as a virgin. After that God blessed Mary and Joseph with four sons and daughters. It seems that at Christ handed her off to the Apostle John while on the cross. Which makes me wonder why he did not suggest her to go back home as she had four other sons

25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.
26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home. - John 19

So yes... Mary was a virgin at the birth of Jesus. But she had a family after that. I would imagine about seven children. I would suppose Christ Jesus liked it that way as it freed him up for ministry.

"Brother" and "sister" in Jewish culture extended to cousins and other close familial relations. John Calvin testified that the arguments "from Scripture" against Mary's Perpetual Virginity were false

Mary was definitely Ever-Virgin and had committed herself to perpetual virgininity; which is why she--and engaged woman who knew what sex was--asked the angel how it could be that she was going to have a child. So says Augustine.

 

[justinangel]

55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? - Matthew 13

But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. - Galatians 1:19

James, Joses (Joseph), Jude, and Simon (Simeon) were sons of Clopas (Alphaeus) and thus cousins of Jesus. Jude also goes by the names Thaddeus or Judas Thaddeus, and his title "son of James" means his father is that of his elder brother. All three, save Joses, were among the twelve apostles of Jesus. And because Simon was an apostle and the younger brother of James (the Less), he succeeded him as the bishop of Jerusalem.


Observe the list of apostles recorded in the Synoptic Gospels below. Their names are kept together because they are brothers.

Now the names of the apostles are these: The first, Simon, who is called Peter, And Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddeus ; Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot, the one who betrayed him.
Matthew 10, 2-4

And he appointed the twelve: Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter), and James, the son of Zebedee, and John, the brother of James (to them he gave the name Boanerges, which means, "Sons of Thunder"); and Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddeus, and Simon the Zealot; and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.
Mark 3, 16-19

And when day came, he called his disciples to him and chose twelve of them to be his apostles: Simon, whom he also named Peter, and Andrew his brother; and James and John; and Philip and Bartholomew; and Matthew and Thomas; James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon who was called the Zealot; Judas the son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.
Luke 6, 13-16

Now observe the following passage.

"Is this not the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not his sisters here with us? And they took offense at him.
Mark 6, 3

Coincidence? I don't think so. Someone might argue that the names James, Judas, and Simon were common, but it would be extraordinary if Jesus had brothers who not only had the same names of three of the apostles, but also had ranked similarly by age from eldest to youngest (See Mt. and Mk.).

From New Advent: St. James the Less

'James is without doubt the Bishop of Jerusalem (Acts 12:17, 15:13, 21:18; Galatians 1:19; 2:9-12) and the author of the first Catholic Epistle. His identity with James the Less (Mark 15:40) and the Apostle James, the son of Alpheus (Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18), although contested by many Protestant critics, may also be considered as certain. There is no reasonable doubt that in Galatians 1:19: "But other of the apostles [besides Cephas] I saw none, saving James the brother of the Lord", St. Paul represents James as a member of the Apostolic college. The purpose for which the statement is made, makes it clear that the "apostles" is to be taken strictly to designate the Twelve, and its truthfulness demands that the clause "saving James" be understood to mean, that in addition to Cephas, St. Paul saw another Apostle, "James the brother of the Lord" (cf. Acts 9:27). Besides, the prominence and authority of James among the Apostles (Acts 15:13; Galatians 2:9; in the latter text he is even named before Cephas) could have belonged only to one of their number.'

Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days. But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord's brother.
Galatians 1, 18-19

PAX

 

[laternonjuror]

If you go to the Vatican Website, it never says Roman Catholic, it simply says Catholic Church. I have no problems with anyone using the slang. We Catholics are among the first to use it. I was simply pointing out that he "corrected" someone for using the proper term.

I've just passed along a country road where four out of five Roman Churches title themselves ,'Roman.'
The Church in England was Catholic from ancient times and certainly here in the UK, the term for the popes new followers came with the introduction of ,'Romanism,' in this country after Trent, 1564.
The Church in England was the ancient church and retained the old names of course, so when the pope called his followers out of the traditional church, they were given the title Roman as they followed the Bishop of Rome.

 

[Open Heart]

I've just passed along a country road where four out of five Roman Churches title themselves ,'Roman.'
The Church in England was Catholic from ancient times and certainly here in the UK, the term for the popes new followers came with the introduction of ,'Romanism,' in this country after Trent, 1564.

Like I said, we Catholics are among the first to use the slang "Roman Catholic." However, he "corrected" the use of the correct term "Catholic." That could not go without a reply.

The Church in England was the ancient church and retained the old names of course, so when the pope called his followers out of the traditional church, they were given the title Roman as they followed the Bishop of Rome.

Anglicans traditionally used this derisively. Many still do.

 

[Albion]

Anglicans traditionally used this derisively. Many still do.

It pleases you to imagine that's so, doesn't it?

 

[Open Heart]

It pleases you to imagine that's so, doesn't it?

I've had experiences with Anglicans who use it derisively so puhleeze.

 

[Albion]

I've had experiences with Anglicans who use it derisively so puhleeze.

It's good that you reworded your accusation in order to make it somewhat more believable. In case you've forgotten, it was that "Anglicans traditionally used it derisively." Now that's morphed into you know some individuals who have--or at least you say that you do. That proves almost nothing.

 

[Open Heart]

"Anglicans traditionally used it derisively."

Meaning that back in time, when the phrase first originated, Anglicans in general used it derisively.

Today on the other hand they don't, except for a few, some of whom I have encountered.

 

[Albion]

Meaning that back in time, when the phrase first originated, Anglicans in general used it derisively.

Ah, so now it's become "Anglicans USED TO use it derisively."

Today on the other hand they don't, except for a few, some of whom I have encountered.

That's better, although you've already maintained that to use it at all is to use it pejoratively, and that's not true, either.

 

[Open Heart]

Ah, so now it's become "Anglicans USED TO use it derisively."

It always was. I simply was not clear about it, using the word traditionally.

 

[justinangel]

So yes... Mary was a virgin at the birth of Jesus. But she had a family after that.

Do you honestly think that Mary and Joseph would have felt comfortable intimately consummating their marriage with God being physically present in the same room with them at the time of our Lord's early childhood years or under the same roof during later years? Keep in mind that they were religiously devout Jews - not modern day Protestants from the West. When it was time for the High Priest to enter the Holy of Holies to offer the sacrifice in God's manifested Shekinah presence on the Day of Atonement, he had to separate himself from his wife and family for seven days throughout the festival, because of the impurities associated with physical intimacy. God commanded Moses to remove the sandals from his feet before he should approach Him, for the ground on which he stood was made holy by God's manifested presence. The soil on the soles of his sandals would have defiled the ground upon which God appeared, although matter isn't evil. It is no coincidence that God chose a young virgin to be the mother of His Son.

I would imagine about seven children.

What we imagine isn't synonymous with certainty. I can imagine Mary and Joseph sitting at the kitchen table with those seven kids and Mary saying to them: "Children, there is something that your father and I would like to tell you. It's about your elder brother Jesus."

I would suppose Christ Jesus liked it that way as it freed him up for ministry.

Pure supposition. If Jesus had thought that having a mother could pose an impediment, he wouldn't have chosen to be born of a woman. He could have been formed from dust like Adam and then suddenly appear in Jerusalem from the desert at the age of 33, if his personal mission was only what mattered in the economy of salvation.

PAX

 

[mmksparbud]

rockytopva said: ↑
So yes... Mary was a virgin at the birth of Jesus. But she had a family after that.
Click to expand...
Do you honestly think that Mary and Joseph would have felt comfortable intimately consummating their marriage with God being physically present in the same room with them at the time of our Lord's early childhood years or under the same roof during later years? Keep in mind that they were religiously devout Jews - not modern day Protestants from the West. When it was time for the High Priest to enter the Holy of Holies to offer the sacrifice in God's manifested Shekinah presence on the Day of Atonement, he had to separate himself from his wife and family for seven days throughout the festival, because of the impurities associated with physical intimacy. God commanded Moses to remove the sandals from his feet before he should approach Him, for the ground on which he stood was made holy by God's manifested presence. The soil on the soles of his sandals would have defiled the ground upon which God appeared, although matter isn't evil. It is no coincidence that God chose a young virgin to be the mother of His Son.



Jesus, though fully divine, was fully human. Mary and Joseph knew that this was the Messiah, but what makes you think they fully understood that He was the Son of God? They were raising a very special baby to manhood. Jesus was a real live baby, fully human, not as yet able to understand His own divinity and use it.
(Luk 2:40) And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.

Nothing states at what point He realized He was the Son of God, divine, not just human.

The priests were dealing with the fully, DIVINE ONLY, God.--No humanity in Him, they had to be protected from that. With Jesus He was fully human--born of a woman. No one had to be pure to touch Him or be around Him, including the demon possessed and prostitutes. His humanity shielded His divinity--otherwise nobody would have been able to stand anywhere near Him.

 

[Albion]

What we imagine isn't synonymous with certainty. I can imagine Mary and Joseph sitting at the kitchen table with those seven kids and Mary saying to them: "Children, there is something that your father and I would like to tell you. It's about your elder brother Jesus."

I agree with the idea that what we imagine isn't synonymous with certainty--which is why I have to reject the better part of your answer here. It's mainly your imagination at work. In fact, there is NOTHING unlikely about Mary sitting at the table with a number of her children and talking about Jesus. One of the most fundamental things we have to know of Jesus is that he was completely human, grew up like a normal boy, ate and drank and worried in the usual way etc. Having siblings would be no more surprising than any of that, but it would indeed be out of the usual if he had none. And there would be no reason for it, either.

 

[Albion]

duplicate