Did the Virgin Mary remain a virgin?

[Nikti]

Its kinda strange that people 2000 years removed think they understand the scripture and the details of Mary's life more than the first century christians, church fathers, etc who actual understood the language that the NT was written in, and spent copious amounts of time doing commentary and exegesis of every verse over thousands of years, and who all maintain that Blessed Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Christ...

I can't totally be surprised since I was once in that position, but it seems odd now being on the other side of the issue.

 

[Rick Otto]

Its kinda strange that people 2000 years removed think they understand the scripture and the details of Mary's life more than the first century christians, church fathers, etc who actual understood the language that the NT was written in, and spent copious amounts of time doing commentary and exegesis of every verse over thousands of years, and who all maintain that Blessed Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Christ...

I can't totally be surprised since I was once in that position, but it seems odd now being on the other side of the issue.

It seems kind of strange that Galileo would think he knew more about creation than the people who were born closer to its having just happened, right?
Some myths die harder than others.
It can sometimes help to understand the psychological motives behind the beliefs in some of these persistent myths.
You are mistaken to think this belief was held by all.

Interestingly, the source gospel (of James) is excluded from the canon of its believers.

 

[Rick Otto]

It's bad if Mary didn't remain a virgin, since both she and the Holy Spirit would have been adulterers. The moral implications in light of Mosaic law which was instituted by God Himself in His absolute righteousness mustn't be overlooked. Christians who reject this dogma really don't know God.

PAX

Christians who accept this dogma not only really don't know God, they confidently and with great pride, embrace a host of other self contradictions in their doctrines as well. The Church that instituted this dogma rejected from its canon, the gospel that presents it.

 

[justinangel]

Well... We know she was a virgin at Christs birth. The scripture said Jesus had brothers...

Matthew 13:55
Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

So it would be an incredible thing to say that she remained a virgin.

Three of these four "brothers" were apostles of Jesus.

The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zeb′edee, and John his brother; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus (Judas/Jude); Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.
Matthew 10, 2-4

James the son of Zeb'edee and John were uterine brothers, and so they are ranked side by side from elder to younger in the list of the apostles. Likewise, James the son of Alphaeus (Clopas), Judas/Thaddaeus, and Simon are ranked alongside in the list from eldest to youngest brother. James, Judas, and Simon were uterine brothers and cousins of Jesus. Thus Jesus is Joseph the carpenter's son, while James, Joses, Judas, and Simon were sons of Clopas.

According to Deuteronomy 21:15–17, a father was obliged to acknowledge his firstborn son (bekhor) as his principal heir, and to grant him a double portion of his estate as inheritance. Joseph wouldn't have been able to do this if he had a genuine firstborn son of his own after Jesus was born. What a mess God might have created! We know who Jesus' actual brethren are in Romans 8:29: 'For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren.' Sorry, but Jesus did not open Mary's womb. It would take Joseph's seed to do that, since the two were legally married.

PAX

 

[justinangel]

Christians who accept this dogma not only really don't know God, they confidently and with great pride, embrace a host of other self contradictions in their doctrines as well. The Church that instituted this dogma rejected from its canon, the gospel that presents it.

We know that Jesus came to fulfil the law - not abolish it. No contradiction! The Apostolic Tradition of the Catholic Church is Judeo-Christian. The false belief you adhere to is a modern western phenomenon alienated from historical Christianity outside the Church which has given us the Bible. It's your pride which blinds you to the theological and historical truth. Call it a state of denial.

Here are some real contradictions.

"To be deep in history, is to cease being a Protestant."
Cardinal John Henry Newman

PAX

 

[Standing Up]

Three of these four "brothers" were apostles of Jesus.

The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zeb′edee, and John his brother; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus (Judas/Jude); Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.
Matthew 10, 2-4

James the son of Zeb'edee and John were uterine brothers, and so they are ranked side by side from elder to younger in the list of the apostles. Likewise, James the son of Alphaeus (Clopas), Judas/Thaddaeus, and Simon are ranked alongside in the list from eldest to youngest brother. James, Judas, and Simon were uterine brothers and cousins of Jesus. Thus Jesus is Joseph the carpenter's son, while James, Joses, Judas, and Simon were sons of Clopas.

According to Deuteronomy 21:15–17, a father was obliged to acknowledge his firstborn son (bekhor) as his principal heir, and to grant him a double portion of his estate as inheritance. Joseph wouldn't have been able to do this if he had a genuine firstborn son of his own after Jesus was born. What a mess God might have created! We know who Jesus' actual brethren are in Romans 8:29: 'For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren.' Sorry, but Jesus did not open Mary's womb. It would take Joseph's seed to do that, since the two were legally married.

PAX

Wrong. In the list from Mt. 10:2-4, Peter's and John's brothers are identified as brothers. So if your theory were true, the brothers of James son of Alphaus would be indentified as such. They're not. So, the point stands that the 4 brothers of Christ were sons of Joseph/Mary.

 

[Standing Up]

Semantically, the one who opens the womb is the firstborn offspring, albeit the normal birth process. So the point remains that Luke is not literally saying that Jesus physically opened his mother's womb.

"The virgin shall conceive and bear a son."
Isaiah 7, 14


PAX

Conceive and carry to term a son is the definition. The early church knew this.
Luke is saying Christ opened the womb per scripture. Only RC dogma contradicts scripture.

 

[patricius79]

Well... We know she was a virgin at Christs birth. The scripture said Jesus had brothers...

Matthew 13:55
Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

So it would be an incredible thing to say that she remained a virgin.

According to Scripture, James and Joses are sons of the "other Mary", the wife of Clopas. In Jewish culture "brother" and "sister" refers to near relations, such as cousins. Abraham and Lot are called brothers, but Lot was his nephew.

Even John Calvin says that arguments against Mary's Perpetual Virginity are un-Biblical.

Peace of Christ!

 

[concretecamper]

Maybe the reason people argue so fiercely against the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity is not so much her perpetual virginity but the fact that it naturally would lead one to the Immaculate Conception and that would really drive some people nuts. Innovation is certainly needed to provide a biblical case against either the IC or PV

 

[rockytopva]

I would imagine that Joseph had passed away leaving Mary and Christ's brothers to tend to the farm. I would also imagine that they had questions to ask Jesus about these situations...

46 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.
47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother. - Matthew 12

 

[concretecamper]

I would imagine that Joseph had passed away leaving Mary and Christ's brothers to tend to the farm.

Christ was a farmer? More extra biblical stuff?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Maybe the reason people argue so fiercely against the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity is not so much her perpetual virginity but the fact that it naturally would lead one to the Immaculate Conception and that would really drive some people nuts. Innovation is certainly needed to provide a biblical case against either the IC or PV

Yeah and it would also lead them to the bizarre sideral theory of the incaranation of Jesus Christ.

 

[justinangel]

Wrong. In the list from Mt. 10:2-4, Peter's and John's brothers are identified as brothers. So if your theory were true, the brothers of James son of Alphaeus would be indentified as such. They're not. So, the point stands that the 4 brothers of Christ were sons of Joseph/Mary.

One of those days Jesus went out to a mountainside to pray, and spent the night praying to God. When morning came, he called his disciples to him and chose twelve of them, whom he also designated apostles: Simon (whom he named Peter), his brother Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Simon who was called the Zealot, Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.
Luke 6, 12-16

John isn't identified as James the Elder's brother in Luke's Gospel, but the two are nonetheless placed side by side according to age. Mark doesn't identify Andrew as Peter's brother in his list and even separates Andrew from Peter, placing him right after James the Elder and his younger brother John, perhaps because Jesus favoured these three more. It was Peter, James, and John who were granted the special privilege of witnessing the Transfiguration. In any event, Andrew precedes the rest to be in closer proximity with his brother. Peter always comes first, even though his brother Andrew was chosen before he was, because he apparently held a place of primacy within the inner circle.

"Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?”
Mark 6, 3

And he went up into the hills, and called to him those whom he desired; and they came to him. And he appointed twelve,be with him, and to be sent out to preach 15 and have authority to cast out demons: 16 Simon whom he surnamed Peter; James the son of Zeb′edee and John the brother of James, whom he surnamed Bo-aner′ges, that is, sons of thunder; Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.
Mark 3, 13-19

It would be a remarkable coincidence if Jesus had younger brothers who not only had the same names of three of the apostles, but also ranked from eldest to youngest in the same order. The odds against this must be astronomical. I'm afraid that your Helvidian "theory" doesn't hold much water.

We read in the NT that only Jesus is "the son of the carpenter"/"son of Mary" . Nor do we read that James, Judas, and Simon are "sons" of Joseph and Mary. The word "brother" that you refer to in Matthew 13:55 is a Hebrew colloquial term. For example:

For Herod himself had given orders to have John arrested, and he had him bound and put in prison. He did this because of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife, whom he had married. 18 For John had been saying to Herod, “It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife.”
Mark 6, 17-18

Herod Antipas was the son of Mariamne (1) the Hasonean, Herod the Great's second wife. Philip the Tetrarch (Herod Philip 1) was the son of Cleopatra of Jerusalem, Herod's fifth wife. Thus the two men are half-brothers, having the same father but different mothers. Mark employs the Semitic idiomatic term (ach)because there is no single word for half-brother or step-brother in Hebrew and Aramaic. Likewise, in Chapter 3, Mark refers to the apostles James, Judas, and Simon as "brothers" (Adelphi) of Jesus because there is no single word for 'cousin' in Hebrew and Aramaic either. He doesn't use the Greek word for cousin (anepsios) because apparently he wishes to retain the Semitic colloquialism which would have been used by the native speakers, including John the Baptist, in his narratives. This is a literary device known as diction. Hence, it's rather reckless of someone to claim that Mary had other children besides Jesus by merely assuming the definition of a word in the Scriptures. This is bad hermeneutics. At least we Catholics can provide theologically sound reasons for believing in the PVM, albeit what has been handed down to us from the Apostles by way of Tradition and affirmed by the Church Fathers.

PAX

 

[justinangel]

It seems kind of strange that Galileo would think he knew more about creation than the people who were born closer to its having just happened, right?
Some myths die harder than others.
It can sometimes help to understand the psychological motives behind the beliefs in some of these persistent myths.
You are mistaken to think this belief was held by all.

Galileo didn't witness the creation of the world. Nor did our primeval parents. That Mary remained a virgin after Jesus was born was actually witnessed by the apostles and the first Christian community in Jerusalem at Pentecost. What they witnessed has been traditionally handed down to us under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. All the 180 Church Fathers, except Tertullian, asserted that Mary remained a virgin. They spoke for the universal Church. Ecumenical councils have also affirmed this. Mary being ever-virgin isn't as complicated for the mind as is the creation of the world and humankind. But it can become a complicated issue for Christians who ignore the Judaic roots of their faith and are influenced by the values of their own particular culture.

Interestingly, the source gospel (of James) is excluded from the canon of its believers.

That's only because the apostle James the Lesser isn't the actual author. But the text (c.A.D. 145) is believed to be based on what James actually preached about Mary and what the nascent Church in Palestine believed about her by the time it was written. Anyway, Christians universally believed in the PVM long before the canon of Scripture was finally established in the late 4th century. The Bible as we have it didn't drop from the heavens onto our laps. Jesus established his Church to be the rule of faith - not the Bible which has proceeded from Tradition.

PAX

 

[prodromos]

Maybe the reason people argue so fiercely against the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity is not so much her perpetual virginity but the fact that it naturally would lead one to the Immaculate Conception and that would really drive some people nuts.

It hasn't lead the Orthodox Church to the 'Immaculate conception', naturally or otherwise.

 

[justinangel]

Conceive and carry to term a son is the definition. The early church knew this.
Luke is saying Christ opened the womb per scripture. Only RC dogma contradicts scripture.

Here are some Protestant Bible versions of Isaiah 7,14:

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.
[NIV]

Therefore, the Lord Himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive, have a son, and name him Immanuel.
[HCSB]

Therefore the LORD himself will give you a sign. Watch! The virgin is conceiving a child, and will give birth to a son, and his name will be called Immanuel.
[ISV]

For this reason the sovereign master himself will give you a confirming sign. Look, this young woman is about to conceive and will give birth to a son. You, young woman, will name him Immanuel.
[NET Bible]

Therefore will the Lord himself give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and shall bring forth a son, and call his name Immanuel.
[DBT]

Therefore the Lord Himself giveth to you a sign, Lo, the Virgin is conceiving, And is bringing forth a son, And hath called his name Immanuel.
[YLT]

The original Hebrew for the infinitive "to bear" in this context is yalad, meaning to bring forth or beget.

Like a partridge that hatches [yalad] eggs it did not lay are those who gain riches by unjust means. When their lives are half gone, their riches will desert them, and in the end they will prove to be fools.
Jeremiah 17, 11

He said to Me, 'You are My Son, Today I have begotten [yelidtka] you.
Psalm 2, 7

Do not boast about tomorrow, For you do not know what a day may bring forth [yeled].
Proverbs 27, 1


"Listen to Me, O house of Jacob,
And all the remnant of the house of Israel,
Who have been carried out from the womb
And have been carried out from the uterus;
Isaiah 46:3

The above passage is a metaphor depicting YHWH carrying Israel like a baby as she wanders in the wilderness. There are two words for carrying and two words for womb. The first Hebrew word for carrying is amas, which means "to carry a load". The second word for carrying is nasa, meaning to lift up and carry along. The first word for womb is beten, which means belly or womb. The second word for womb is racham, which is the technical word for womb and uterus. If Isaiah meant that the virgin shall conceive and carry a son in her womb, he may have used the verb amas and the nouns beten/racham instead of the lone verb yalad. The truth is he isn't concerned with the term of Mary's pregnancy. In 46:3. both words for womb are preceded by the preposition in Hebrew (min), which means out from: "out from the womb". This phrase recognizes the principle that human soul life is given by the Lord outside the womb. New life was given to the Israelites once they reached the promised land - had been carried out from the womb. The focus is on being regenerated or reborn outside the wilderness of the womb. It is through the birth of Christ that new life is given to us. "The virgin shall conceive and give birth to/ bring forth a son." Through the merits of His Son, God has carried us out from the womb. There may be biological life inside the womb, but not spiritual life. As the Israelites were delivered from slavery in Egypt, so we have been delivered from slavery to sin and Satan's dominion through Christ.

But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.
Galatians 4, 4-5

In biblical terms, childbearing does mean the act of giving birth or becoming a parent. And it may imply assuming maternal duties.

Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing (teknogonia), if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
1 Timothy 2, 15 [KJV]

τεκνογονιας noun - genitive singular feminine
teknogonia tek-nog-on-ee'-ah: childbirth (parentage)

Honestly, you should do your homework before you claim anything.

If it helps your digestion to believe that Jesus was the cause of defiling not only his own mother, but also himself and was therefore subject to the law and in need of being ritually purified together with her in his divine person, fine.

PAX

 

[justinangel]

It hasn't lead the Orthodox Church to the 'Immaculate conception', naturally or otherwise.

Your understanding of original sin slightly differs from ours. That's why.

PAX

 

[Rick Otto]

Galileo didn't witness the creation of the world. Nor did our primeval parents. That Mary remained a virgin after Jesus was born was actually witnessed by the apostles and the first Christian community in Jerusalem at Pentecost. What they witnessed has been traditionally handed down to us under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. All the 180 Church Fathers, except Tertullian, asserted that Mary remained a virgin. They spoke for the universal Church. Ecumenical councils have also affirmed this. Mary being ever-virgin isn't as complicated for the mind as is the creation of the world and humankind. But it can become a complicated issue for Christians who ignore the Judaic roots of their faith and are influenced by the values of their own particular culture.



That's only because the apostle James the Lesser isn't the actual author. But the text (c.A.D. 145) is believed to be based on what James actually preached about Mary and what the nascent Church in Palestine believed about her by the time it was written. Anyway, Christians universally believed in the PVM long before the canon of Scripture was finally established in the late 4th century. The Bible as we have it didn't drop from the heavens onto our laps. Jesus established his Church to be the rule of faith - not the Bible which has proceeded from Tradition.

PAX

No sir, Jesus did no such thing. The Church (not as you define it) is led by the Holy Spirit. Your Church is led by a magesterium that claims to be led. Big difference between RC claims and reality.
The Bible may as well have dropped into our laps, for what part "The Church" played in it. Tradition has traditionally been the culprit in departations from what has been writtien even by God's own finger, in stone.

So you admit James wasn't the author of what is only believed to be what he preached.
Pretty sketchy for dogma. Now I see why all that other eisegesis is necessary.
That Mary's post natal virginity was observed by apostles is a bald faced lie, patently absurd on the very face of it.
Enjoy your confidence in Sola Ecclesia while it lasts.

 

[Rick Otto]

Here are some Protestant Bible versions of Isaiah 7,14:

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.
[NIV]

Therefore, the Lord Himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive, have a son, and name him Immanuel.
[HCSB]

Therefore the LORD himself will give you a sign. Watch! The virgin is conceiving a child, and will give birth to a son, and his name will be called Immanuel.
[ISV]

For this reason the sovereign master himself will give you a confirming sign. Look, this young woman is about to conceive and will give birth to a son. You, young woman, will name him Immanuel.
[NET Bible]

Therefore will the Lord himself give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and shall bring forth a son, and call his name Immanuel.
[DBT]

Therefore the Lord Himself giveth to you a sign, Lo, the Virgin is conceiving, And is bringing forth a son, And hath called his name Immanuel.
[YLT]

The original Hebrew for the infinitive "to bear" in this context is yalad, meaning to bring forth or beget.

Like a partridge that hatches [yalad] eggs it did not lay are those who gain riches by unjust means. When their lives are half gone, their riches will desert them, and in the end they will prove to be fools.
Jeremiah 17, 11

He said to Me, 'You are My Son, Today I have begotten [yelidtka] you.
Psalm 2, 7

Do not boast about tomorrow, For you do not know what a day may bring forth [yeled].
Proverbs 27, 1


"Listen to Me, O house of Jacob,
And all the remnant of the house of Israel,
Who have been carried out from the womb
And have been carried out from the uterus;
Isaiah 46:3

The above passage is a metaphor depicting YHWH carrying Israel like a baby as she wanders in the wilderness. There are two words for carrying and two words for womb. The first Hebrew word for carrying is amas, which means "to carry a load". The second word for carrying is nasa, meaning to lift up and carry along. The first word for womb is beten, which means belly or womb. The second word for womb is racham, which is the technical word for womb and uterus. If Isaiah meant that the virgin shall conceive and carry a son in her womb, he may have used the verb amas and the nouns beten/racham instead of the lone verb yalad. The truth is he isn't concerned with the term of Mary's pregnancy. In 46:3. both words for womb are preceded by the preposition in Hebrew (min), which means out from: "out from the womb". This phrase recognizes the principle that human soul life is given by the Lord outside the womb. New life was given to the Israelites once they reached the promised land - had been carried out from the womb. The focus is on being regenerated or reborn outside the wilderness of the womb. It is through the birth of Christ that new life is given to us. "The virgin shall conceive and give birth to/ bring forth a son." Through the merits of His Son, God has carried us out from the womb. There may be biological life inside the womb, but not spiritual life. As the Israelites were delivered from slavery in Egypt, so we have been delivered from slavery to sin and Satan's dominion through Christ.

But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.
Galatians 4, 4-5

In biblical terms, childbearing does mean the act of giving birth or becoming a parent. And it may imply assuming maternal duties.

Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing (teknogonia), if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
1 Timothy 2, 15 [KJV]

τεκνογονιας noun - genitive singular feminine
teknogonia tek-nog-on-ee'-ah: childbirth (parentage)

Honestly, you should do your homework before you claim anything.

If it helps your digestion to believe that Jesus was the cause of defiling not only his own mother, but also himself and was therefore subject to the law and in need of being ritually purified together with her in his divine person, fine.

PAX

If it pumps up false piety to disparage God sanctified matrimonial sex, fine.
But please stop perpetuating the misguided notion that Jesus was ever in need of ritual cleansing for any reason other than His obedience.
The defiling is in the weak mind of the believer in it.
So is the denial of what "bring forth" and the facts of conception and birth for the sake of a truncated sense of piety.
It is the favorite fuel of sanctimony.

 

[Standing Up]

One of those days Jesus went out to a mountainside to pray, and spent the night praying to God. When morning came, he called his disciples to him and chose twelve of them, whom he also designated apostles: Simon (whom he named Peter), his brother Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Simon who was called the Zealot, Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.
Luke 6, 12-16

John isn't identified as James the Elder's brother in Luke's Gospel,

They were identified as brothers prior at Luke 5:10. Point remains that the gospels identify the brothers. Obviously the three are not brothers, sons of Clopas.

and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.
Mark 3, 13-19

Hello? Simon the Zealot. Read the scripture.