Perpetual Virginity

[tmanz12]

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

This verse confirms people in Jesus' home town that watched Jesus grow up from a young man helping His father in his trade as a carpenter, to doing great miracles right before their eyes. They remembered Jesus lived there as well as the fact that He had four brothers. PLUS they still have Jesus' SISTERS living among them. How many sisters did Jesus have? The Bible doesn't say. Why are they still living there? Did they get married and settled down in their home town to raise a family? It makes no difference. The fact is the Bible accurately records that Mary had many children.



"While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his BRETHREN stood without, desiring to speak with him. Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy BRETHREN stand without, desiring to speak with thee. But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my BRETHREN? and he stretched forth his hand TOWARD HIS DISCIPLES, and said behold my mother and my BRETHREN!" Matthew 12:46-49

God says "And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James. These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and WITH HIS BRETHREN." Acts 1:13-14



These verses are now calling the Apostles by name, and then Mary the mother of Jesus with His brethren are now mentioned. Are not all in the upper room Brethren? Yes they are, it's just illustrated here that Jesus' Mother and siblings are in the room as well. What better way to illustrate the fact that Jesus has an earthly family as well as His Church family. Think about it, all the Apostles are mentioned by name, THEN Mary and the BRETHREN of Jesus are mentioned. Is this an attempt to show the two types of brethren? Indeed it is.


Matthew 1.24-25
24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

Consummate means have sex by the way.

No offense but I'll take the word of God over the word of people studying it.

In the great words of Rafiki from the Lion King,"Look harder".



I think you were citing things about Minerva. She was the virgin goddess. Mary was just your average Jewish girl that was blessed with the ability to bring Jesus into the world. After Jesus was born Her and Joseph had children and there is plenty of evidence. If you disagreed at the time you were killed so it's obvious why there would be a lot of people, YEARS AFTER SHE WAS ALREADY DEAD, saying she was a perpetual virgin.

 

[Thekla]

If you check the actual word for "brother/sister" in the Scriptures, and its use in the Scriptures, you will find it does not only mean "brother/sister".

Joseph was not the father of Jesus.

 

[WarriorAngel]

1 John 2
27But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

The Holy Spirit teaches us the things that REALLY matter... love and kindness.

The Holy Spirit brings ppl to God, but being He already established His Church - which is 2000 years old - He isn't going to teach each person something separately. Either we believe in Jesus and therefore the extension of His teachings - the Church - or we do it our way.

I personally feel the Holy Spirit resides in all who call on the Lord, but I do not personally think all are given the fullness of His doctrines outside of HIS Church.

NOTE: Jesus owns His Church.

sure it does. I responded to "It's true until disproven."

It has been proven, now it depends if someone wants to believe in it or not.
No one here can strong arm anyone else into seeing - but we all have eyes.

Ironic that you would use a logical fallacy argument, since, in fact, your initial statement is a logically fallicous argument.

I hate to break it to you but saying "she never had sex" is talking about her sexuality. Mary was hardly androgenous, she bore a child. It was not borne of sexual union, but that would suggest that she had all the same anatomical features of every other woman, wouldn't you say? (or not say, because it's apparently scandalous.)

I hate to break it to you - but the early Church knew she remained a virgin - and when they knew this - they knew she was meant strictly for God and remained faithful to Him in ALL areas of life.
And lack of carnal relations with man means only the Holy Spirit had permission to enjoin Himself to her in a unique way lacking sex.

So it's not sexual at all, it's a mystery that completes in her - her innocence to know man - while maintaining faithfulness to God in her vow to remain chaste.

AND the OT testifies to HOW the LORD comes in - no man shall enter after Him.

I am assuming of course everyone here understands allegory.

pretty much. The truth of Christ doesn't change if I get something right, or if I get something wrong.

So what is truth?
Do you know?

Or do you prefer to remain removed from the early teachings? And why do you? Is there a prejudice to the Church for any reason?

neither. It's not an either or proposition.

something can be stated as truth, and be true, and does not require an infallible statement to make it so.

As much as I - in addition to the early teachers [including the Apostles] wish that were true, it simply isn't.

AS the teacher of humanity in the position laid out by Christ, the Church is accountable for souls - to ensure His ppl get their fill. He did not abandon us - and laid down His precepts. THOSE precepts are for His people.
The Church has the job to keep the teachings from being corrupted.
For if they are corrupted - then Jesus abandoned us.

Infallible means taught without error and to be believed.
Something the Church itself enjoins to it's people to avoid heresies.

Likewise, someone can claim a statement is infallible, and it turns out to be false.

Truth is not relative. Our understanding of it frequently is.

A Pope does not make things up. Popes are taught the Scriptures - the Tradition - the writings - the ancient practices - the iconic values world wide - and the allegory of the OT - and have practiced knowledge of everything the Church always taught.

For the Pope to make a statement means:
1) A heresy has [either within or outside of the Church] arisen against a doctrine that can be traced through Tradition.
2) That if he does not make a solemn grounded teaching for all to best understand the doctrine, then it could confuse a great many weak of faith.

And rarely does the Pope make an infallible teaching...only if necessary.

If you look at the reasons - you have to see it is the Lord's desire at play. He never wants anyone lost or discouraged. A Pope who does not teach could be negligent of the small, humble, weak and faithful.

And FWIW - it's not about power whatsoever. Its about preserving the sacred teachings for with an understanding that reaches each generation.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

If you check the actual word for "brother/sister" in the Scriptures, and its use in the Scriptures, you will find it does not only mean "brother/sister".

Joseph was not the father of Jesus.

Tis true me thinks

 

[WarriorAngel]

If you check the actual word for "brother/sister" in the Scriptures, and its use in the Scriptures, you will find it does not only mean "brother/sister".

Joseph was not the father of Jesus.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

That still doesn't mean I believe in the PV of Mary

 

[Chris81]

I can't disagree with the OP, John Wesley also taught that Mary remained a virgin her entire life.

"I believe that He was made man, joining the human nature with the divine in one person; being conceived by the singular operation of the Holy Ghost, and born of the blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as before she brought Him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin."

 

[bbbbbbb]

I can't disagree with the OP, John Wesley also taught that Mary remained a virgin her entire life.

"I believe that He was made man, joining the human nature with the divine in one person; being conceived by the singular operation of the Holy Ghost, and born of the blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as before she brought Him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin."

There is an interesting use of the past tense, continued, here in Mr. Wesley's statement. The doctrine of the PV, as I understand it, clearly means that Mary continues (present tense) as a virgin and will do so eternally.

It appears that either Mr. Wesley did not understand the doctrine of the PV or he did not actually believe it, thinking that Mary continued (to a point in time) as a pure and unspotted virgin.

 

[Chris81]

There is an interesting use of the past tense, continued, here in Mr. Wesley's statement. The doctrine of the PV, as I understand it, clearly means that Mary continues (present tense) as a virgin and will do so eternally.

It appears that either Mr. Wesley did not understand the doctrine of the PV or he did not actually believe it, thinking that Mary continued (to a point in time) as a pure and unspotted virgin.

Your adding words to John Wesley's stated beliefs. John Wesley held similar beliefs regarding the virginity of Mary as many of the early reformers mentioned in the OP. It seems odd that all Christians held great reverence for Mary and now there are many who wish to diminish her character and role in the Christian tradition.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Your adding words to John Wesley's stated beliefs. John Wesley held similar beliefs regarding the virginity of Mary as many of the early reformers mentioned in the OP. It seems odd that all Christians held great reverence for Mary and now there are many who wish to diminish her character and role in the Christian tradition.

Amen.

 

[tmanz12]

Mary being a PV is not Biblical and is completely ridiculous.

Matthew 1:18-24
18 This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. 19 Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet he had in mind to divorce her quietly.
20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus,because he will save his people from their sins.”
22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”(which means “God with us”).
24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.


NIV
But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
NLT
But he did not have sexual relations with her until her son was born. And Joseph named him Jesus.
ESV
but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.
NASB
but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.
ISV
He did not have marital relations with her until she had given birth to a son; and he named him Jesus.
GWT
He did not have marital relations with her before she gave birth to a son. Joseph named the child Jesus.
KJV
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
AKJV
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
ASV
and knew her not till she had brought forth a son: and he called his name JESUS.


to know
–verb (used with object) 1. to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty: I know the situation fully.

2. to have established or fixed in the mind or memory: to know a poem by heart; Do you know the way to the park from here?

3. to be cognizant or aware of: I know it.

4. be acquainted with (a thing, place, person, etc.), as by sight, experience, or report: to know the mayor.

5. to understand from experience or attainment (usually fol. by how before an infinitive): to know how to make gingerbread.

6. to be able to distinguish, as one from another: to know right from wrong.

7. Archaic . to have sexual intercourse with.

ar·cha·ic
–adjective 1. marked by the characteristics of an earlier period; antiquated: an archaic manner; an archaic notion.

2. (of a linguistic form) commonly used in an earlier time but rare in present-day usage except to suggest the older time, as in religious rituals or historical novels. Examples: thou; wast; methinks; forsooth.

3. forming the earliest stage; prior to full development: the archaic period of psychoanalytic research.

 

[Thekla]

The term translated as "til/until" has a broader use. Further, even in English, the use of the term "until" does not describe/is not referrent to what comes after the time period covered by until.

 

[tmanz12]

Catholics, Orthodox and other proponents of the doctrine dispute that is the case, arguing the word "until" does not mean what the word means. For instance, an Orthodox site points to Acts 8:40, "But Philip was found at Azotus: and passing through he preached in all the cities, till he came to Caesarea" and then says in essence, "Philip did not stop preaching when he came to Caesarea." Of course he didn't, but that's not what the text says Philip stopped doing: Philip stopped preaching IN ALL THE CITIES once he reached Caesarea. Such are the lengths of intellectual dishonesty proponents of this false doctrine must resort to in order to prop up a doctrine with no basis in Scripture.

Mary and Joseph had other children, which is something the Roman Catholic authorities do not accept. Matthew 12:46 reports, "While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him." In fact, they had at least four other boys. Matthew 13:55 reports, "Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?"

The Catholic authorities endeavor to explain this away by saying that these children were Joseph's by a prior marriage. This does not stand up to scrutiny. First, Jesus was over thirty at the time the incident in Matthew 12 took place. Why were men in their thirties and forties still travelling about with their mother?
Perhaps recognizing that their argument is very weak, the Catholic authorities also attempt to explain this away by saying that Jesus' brothers were really His cousins, saying that Aramaic lacked a word for "cousin," while neglecting to explain the New Testament scriptures aren't in Aramaic, but in Greek, which most certainly has a word for cousin.

For the purposes of this article, it suffices to say the Greek word for brother is adelphos which can only mean brother. If you look in either a theological or secular Greek-English dictionary, it is defined only as brother. The word's etymology is a combination of a connective participle and the word "womb," the combination meaning "connected by the womb." God chose Greek for the NT for the very reason that it is precise enough to combat the false doctrines He knew would later arise. Although even in Hebrew, which appears to have lacked a word for cousin, the Bible distinguishes between brothers and other relatives (compare Ezekiel 11:15)

 

[Thekla]

It's not dishonest, its language structure. Christ says, "I will be with you until the end of the world". Then what ?

To use a previous example:
If I say to my children "Behave until I return", do I mean they are to misbehave after I return ?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

It's not dishonest, its language structure. Christ says, "I will be with you until the end of the world". Then what ?

To use a previous example:
If I say to my children "Behave until I return", do I mean they are to misbehave after I return ?

I believe a better rendering of that would be "Age".
I think the Jews are still figuring that one out

Matthew 28:20 Teaching them to be keeping all as much as I command to ye.
And behold! I with ye am all the days till the together-finish/sunteleiaV <4930> of the Age/aiwnoV <165>. Amen
[Matt 24:3]

Matt 24:3 Of-sitting yet of Him upon the Mount of the Olives, toward-came to Him the disciples according part/to-own, speaking, "Be saying to us, when these shall be?
And what/any the sign of the Thy Parousia, and together-finish/sunteleiaV <4930> of the Age?"

 

[tmanz12]

It's not dishonest, its language structure. Christ says, "I will be with you until the end of the world". Then what ?

To use a previous example:
If I say to my children "Behave until I return", do I mean they are to misbehave after I return ?

Oh, okay because it was used like that? I got ya now. So when I say I'm going to not have sex until I'm married. I'm also saying I wont have sex after. Makes total sense. /sarcasm

 

[Thekla]

Catholics, Orthodox and other proponents of the doctrine dispute that is the case, arguing the word "until" does not mean what the word means. For instance, an Orthodox site points to Acts 8:40, "But Philip was found at Azotus: and passing through he preached in all the cities, till he came to Caesarea" and then says in essence, "Philip did not stop preaching when he came to Caesarea." Of course he didn't, but that's not what the text says Philip stopped doing: Philip stopped preaching IN ALL THE CITIES once he reached Caesarea. Such are the lengths of intellectual dishonesty proponents of this false doctrine must resort to in order to prop up a doctrine with no basis in Scripture.

Mary and Joseph had other children, which is something the Roman Catholic authorities do not accept. Matthew 12:46 reports, "While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him." In fact, they had at least four other boys. Matthew 13:55 reports, "Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?"

The Catholic authorities endeavor to explain this away by saying that these children were Joseph's by a prior marriage. This does not stand up to scrutiny. First, Jesus was over thirty at the time the incident in Matthew 12 took place. Why were men in their thirties and forties still travelling about with their mother?
Perhaps recognizing that their argument is very weak, the Catholic authorities also attempt to explain this away by saying that Jesus' brothers were really His cousins, saying that Aramaic lacked a word for "cousin," while neglecting to explain the New Testament scriptures aren't in Aramaic, but in Greek, which most certainly has a word for cousin.

For the purposes of this article, it suffices to say the Greek word for brother is adelphos which can only mean brother. If you look in either a theological or secular Greek-English dictionary, it is defined only as brother. The word's etymology is a combination of a connective participle and the word "womb," the combination meaning "connected by the womb." God chose Greek for the NT for the very reason that it is precise enough to combat the false doctrines He knew would later arise. Although even in Hebrew, which appears to have lacked a word for cousin, the Bible distinguishes between brothers and other relatives (compare Ezekiel 11:15)

As you added to your post after I commented, I will add this comment: the dictionary you cite has a truncated definition. If you survey the uses of adelphos in both the OT (LXX), the NT, and concurrent Hellenistic usage you can easily confirm that the meanings of adelphos extend to aprox. a dozen. For example, Herod and Phillip are called adelphos in the NT, but they had different mothers.

 

[tmanz12]

As you added to your post after I commented, I will add this comment: the dictionary you cite has a truncated definition. If you survey the uses of adelphos in both the OT (LXX), the NT, and concurrent Hellenistic usage you can easily confirm that the meanings of adelphos extend to aprox. a dozen. For example, Herod and Phillip are called adelphos in the NT, but they had different mothers.a

Right but they had the same father, so they were brothers. As Jesus and his brothers had the same mother.

The Greek word for cousin is "anepsios". Which is used in Colossians 4:10 to describe the relationship between Barnabas and Mark. Paul, who wrote Colossians, and evidently knew the word for "cousin", did not apply it to James, the Lord's "brother", in Galatians 1:19. Matthew and Luke also wrote their gospels in Greek, and they certainly had a word for "cousin" at their disposal. They didn't use it because it was inaccurate: these were Jesus' real brothers.

 

[Thekla]

I believe a better rendering of that would be "Age".
I think the Jews are still figuring that one out

Matthew 28:20 Teaching them to be keeping all as much as I command to ye.
And behold! I with ye am all the days till the together-finish/sunteleiaV <4930> of the Age/aiwnoV <165>. Amen
[Matt 24:3]

Matt 24:3 Of-sitting yet of Him upon the Mount of the Olives, toward-came to Him the disciples according part/to-own, speaking, "Be saying to us, when these shall be?
And what/any the sign of the Thy Parousia, and together-finish/sunteleiaV <4930> of the Age?"

Thank-you for the correction

 

[Thekla]

Right but they had the same father, so they were brothers. As Jesus and his brothers had the same mother.

The Greek word for cousin is "anepsios". Which is used in Colossians 4:10 to describe the relationship between Barnabas and Mark. Paul, who wrote Colossians, and evidently knew the word for "cousin", did not apply it to James, the Lord's "brother", in Galatians 1:19. Matthew and Luke also wrote their gospels in Greek, and they certainly had a word for "cousin" at their disposal. They didn't use it because it was inaccurate: these were Jesus' real brothers.

I have said nothing about cousin, but as you brought it up, the meaning of anepsios (which in Greek more accurately means "sister's son") overlaps with the meaning and usage of adelphos.

The LXX OT in written form predates the Masoretic by aprox. 300 years; in the LXX (a template for the correlation of Hebraic and Hellenistic terms) and in Hellenistic usage and meaning in general, the term adelphos is not limited to siblings and half-siblings. In the LXX, for ex., Lot and Abraham are called "adelphos", and the term is also used for cousin. Likewise, in Greek the term is used to refer to (among other meanings) any of several familial relationships - including same household - as well as cousin, wife, same town/city, same people, an ideological affiliation. Plato, when he wants to use the term adelphos precisely, provides an additional clarification (thus which meaning of adelphos is given by further explanation).