Why Believe in Perpetual Virginity?

[brightlights]

If you read Paul in context (Gal 1) he is talking about going up to Jerusalem to be with Peter, in which context he speaks of the other Apostles, the twelve.

James, the Lord's brother, was the bishop in Jerusalem. Makes total sense that he would be there with the twelve.

Why would Matthew refer to Mary as the mother of James and Joseph rather than as the mother of Jesus, if in fact it were Jesus' mother? Especially at Jesus' death?

I'm not sure. But it appears that he may have done this very thing.

 

[zippy2006]

James, the Lord's brother, was the bishop in Jerusalem. Makes total sense that he would be there with the twelve.

But now you're begging the question, for James the apostle may well have been a relation of Jesus, a "brother." (link)

I'm not sure. But it appears that he may have done this very thing.

Eisegesis. A strange reading to help support a theory which is in need of support.

 

[brightlights]

But now you're begging the question, for James the apostle may well have been a relation of Jesus, a "brother." (link)

Possibly. Or perhaps you're begging the question by ruling this option out, assuming that Mary was a perpetual virgin.

Eisegesis. A strange reading to help support a theory which is in need of support.

Possibly. Or maybe interpreting the phrase "brother of the Lord" to mean something other than "brother of the Lord" is the true Eisegetical error here.

 

[zippy2006]

Possibly. Or perhaps you're begging the question by ruling this option out, assuming that Mary was a perpetual virgin.



Possibly. But so is interpreting the phrase "brother of the Lord" to mean something other than "brother of the Lord".

It is demonstrable beyond doubt that "brother" in the Middle East is not limited to direct siblings. It is true to this day.

To further dissuade your strange reading of Mt 27:56, see Mark 15:40-41, which proves beyond all doubt that it is a different Mary and that Mt 13:55 is not referring to siblings of Jesus. The "other" Mary is commonly thought to be Mary's sister, and her children would be Jesus' cousins.

This is another good source.

 

[brightlights]

It is demonstrable beyond doubt that "brother" in the Middle East is not limited to direct siblings. It is true to this day.

Ok. But "brother" also most usually means "brother". So while it may be possible for this word to refer to someone other than a brother, the best explanation is that it refers to a brother. Unless, of course, one assumes perpetual virginity. But, again, this would be begging the question.

To further dissuade your strange reading of Mt 27:56, see Mark 15:40-41, which proves beyond all doubt that it is a different Mary and that Mt 13:55 is not referring to siblings of Jesus. The "other" Mary is commonly thought to be Mary's sister, and her children would be Jesus' cousins.

I don't see how this rules Mary the mother of Jesus out.

 

[Alithis]

Roman Christians believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. This is the doctrine that not only was Mary a virgin at the time she conceived Jesus, but that she remained a virgin throughout her life.

Why believe this?

I understand that the Roman Church teaches this doctrine, and that this reason alone is enough for assenting Catholics to accept it. But there doesn't seem to be any basis for this belief in insanlyScripture and I don't understand what is gained by believing it.

To me it seems rooted in a medieval error that virginity or even celibacy is somehow holier than sex and marriage.

they teach that load of rubbish to shore up their even worse false teachings of the blasphemy of worshiping her as the abomination call the queen of heaven . they defend it showing their devotion to this despicable idolatry and thus display their disdain for the only begotten son of god casting him off as unimportant by elevating another to the office of mediator .but there is but one " the MAN" Christ Jesus .thus scripture displays that a woman can NEVER hold such an office in ANY form .

 

[zippy2006]

Ok. But "brother" also most usually means "brother". So while it may be possible for this word to refer to someone other than a brother, the best explanation is that it refers to a brother. Unless, of course, one assumes perpetual virginity. But, again, this would be begging the question.

There is lots of evidence so long as one admits that when Mary the mother of Jesus appears in the Gospels she is not identified as "Mary, the mother of James and Joseph," (Matthew 27:56) or as "Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salo′me, who, when he was in Galilee, followed him, and ministered to him" (Mark 15:40-41). There could hardly be any stranger way to refer to the protagonist's own mother.

 

[RC1970]

Also, James and Joseph the "brothers of Jesus" (Matthew 13:55) are explicitly accounted for as being the sons of another Mary in Matthew 27:56

Why would Matthew refer to his father (the carpenter) and his mother (Mary) and then refer to someone else's children? The plain meaning here is that Matthew is referring to his immediate family members. Anything else is special pleading.

 

[zippy2006]

Why would Matthew refer to his father (the carpenter) and his mother (Mary) and then refer to someone else's children? The plain meaning here is that Matthew is referring to his immediate family members. Anything else is special pleading.

If Matthew 27:56 and Mark 15:40-41 did not exist then I think your argument could hold up. But even then, the context is simply locating Jesus as a local, known person. Whether the "brethren" refers to direct family members or not does not change the thrust of the passage. Even if they were more distant relations the purpose of the charge would still be accomplished.

 

[brightlights]

For the sake of argument let us assume that James the Lord's brother is not Jesus' literal brother. Let's also assume that "[Jesus'] brothers" in John 7:5 are not literal brothers. Let's even assume that Mary, the mother of Jesus, had no other children than Jesus.

This still would not be sufficient grounds to conclude that Mary was a perpetual virgin. So why believe that she was?

 

[zippy2006]

For the sake of argument let us assume that James the Lord's brother is not Jesus' literal brother. Let's also assume that "[Jesus'] brothers" in John 7:5 are not literal brothers. Let's even assume that Mary, the mother of Jesus, had no other children than Jesus.

This still would not be sufficient grounds to conclude that Mary was a perpetual virgin. So why believe that she was?

Why did she have no other children than Jesus? It seems that you have inevitably shifted the burden of proof to yourself, which tends to answer your question.

Here's a question: where did the tradition come from, both in the East and in the West? Why do all the oldest Churches hold to it?

 

[brightlights]

Why did she have no other children than Jesus? It seems that you have inevitably shifted the burden of proof to yourself, which tends to answer your question.

Well, to be clear, I don't believe that she had no other children. But I can think of a few possibilities:

1. Joseph died early on.
2. Mary and Joseph never conceived for some reason - perhaps barrenness. This would make Mary similar to Sarai in that regard.
3. Mary and Joseph had other children that are never mentioned in Scripture.

I just don't see why we need to conclude a strange doctrine like perpetual virginity.

Here's a question: where did the tradition come from, both in the East and in the West? Why do all the oldest Churches hold to it?

I don't know. Why does that matter?

 

[zippy2006]

Well, to be clear, I don't believe that she had no other children. But I can think of a few possibilities:

1. Joseph died early on.
2. Mary and Joseph never conceived for some reason - perhaps barrenness. This would make Mary similar to Sarai in that regard.
3. Mary and Joseph had other children that are never mentioned in Scripture.

I just don't see why we need to conclude a strange doctrine like perpetual virginity.

1 & 2 make more sense than 3, given scripture's mild interest in Jesus' relations.

I don't know. Why does that matter?

Because the traditions closest to the event are unanimous.

From this source:

1. In Luke 1:34, when Mary was told by the angel Gabriel that she was chosen to be the Mother of the Messiah, she asked the question, literally translated from the Greek, "How shall this be since I know not man?" This question makes no sense unless Mary had a vow of virginity.

When we consider that Mary and Joseph were already "espoused," according to verse 27 of this same chapter, we understand Mary and Joseph already have what would be akin to a ratified marriage in the New Covenant. They were married. That would mean Joseph would have had the right to the marriage bed. Normally, after the espousal the husband would go off and prepare a home for his new bride and then come and receive her into his home where the union would be consummated. This is precisely why Joseph intended to "divorce her quietly" (Mt 1:19) when he later discovered she was pregnant.

This background is significant because a newly married woman would not ask the question "How shall this be?" She would know—unless, of course, that woman had taken a vow of virginity. Mary believed the message, but wanted to know how this was going to be accomplished. This indicates she was not planning on the normal course of events for her future with Joseph.

...

3. Mary is depicted as the spouse of the Holy Spirit in Scripture. In Luke 1:34, when Mary asks the angel how she will conceive a child, the angel responds: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God."

This is nuptial language hearkening back to Ruth 3:8, where Ruth said to Boaz "spread your skirt over me" when she revealed to him his duty to marry her according to the law of Deuteronomy 25. When Mary became pregnant, Joseph would have been required to divorce her because she would then belong to another (see Dt 24:1-4; Jer 3:1). But when Joseph found out that "the other" was the Holy Spirit, the idea of his having conjugal relations with Mary was not a consideration.

There is substantial theology behind Mary's perpetual virginity, but the parts that would most interest you are exegetical analyses describing Mary as the new Ark of the Covenant. Without digging up any old notes, some of that can be found here. Here is a short snippet:

• Mary arose and went to the hill country of Judea. I have been to both Ein Kerem (where Elizabeth lived) and Abu Ghosh (where the ark resided), and they are only a short walk apart. Mary and the ark were both on a journey to the same hill country of Judea.
• When David saw the ark he rejoiced and said, "How can the ark of the Lord come to me?" Elizabeth uses almost the same words: "Why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" Luke is telling us something—drawing our minds back to the Old Testament, showing us a parallel.
• When David approached the ark he shouted out and danced and leapt in front of the ark. He was wearing an ephod, the clothing of a priest. When Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, approached Elizabeth, John the Baptist leapt in his mother’s womb—and John was from the priestly line of Aaron. Both leapt and danced in the presence of the ark. The Ark of the Old Covenant remained in the house of Obed-edom for three months, and Mary remained in the house of Elizabeth for three months. The place that housed the ark for three months was blessed, and in the short paragraph in Luke, Elizabeth uses the word blessed three times. Her home was certainly blessed by the presence of the ark and the Lord within.
• When the Old Testament ark arrived—as when Mary arrived—they were both greeted with shouts of joy. The word for the cry of Elizabeth’s greeting is a rare Greek word used in connection with Old Testament liturgical ceremonies that were centered around the ark and worship (cf. Word Biblical Commentary, 67). This word would flip on the light switch for any knowledgeable Jew.
• The ark returns to its home and ends up in Jerusalem, where God’s presence and glory is revealed in the temple (2 Sm 6:12; 1 Kgs 8:9-11). Mary returns home and eventually ends up in Jerusalem, where she presents God incarnate in the temple (Lk 1:56; 2:21-22).

 

[chilehed]

Roman Christians believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary.

As do the Syrian, Alexandrian, Byzantine and Eastern Orthodox Christians. As did Luther, Zwingli, Bullinger, Latimer, Cranmer, and Wesley (among others).

This is the doctrine that not only was Mary a virgin at the time she conceived Jesus, but that she remained a virgin throughout her life.

Why believe this?

Because it's true.

I understand that the Roman Church teaches this doctrine, and that this reason alone is enough for assenting Catholics to accept it.

Indeed.

But there doesn't seem to be any basis for this belief in Scripture...

Not explicitly, but what's there supports the belief.

...and I don't understand what is gained by believing it.

You don't understand what is gained by conforming one's belief to the truth?

To me it seems rooted in a medieval error that virginity or even celibacy is somehow holier than sex and marriage.

Except that the evidence shows that it's was the universal Christian belief from the beginning of Christianity until the Protestant Reformation.

 

[Hank77]

Um, do you know what is being referred to when I and others say "the Incarnation"?

Yike, I didn't mean incarnate at all. What I meant to say was, was she conceived immaculate?

 

[brightlights]

1 & 2 make more sense than 3, given scripture's mild interest in Jesus' relations.

Agreed. I think it would be strange if Mary and Joseph had other children and they are never mentioned in Scripture. However, I also believe that they did and that these children are mentioned in Scripture.

There is substantial theology behind Mary's perpetual virginity, but the parts that would most interest you are exegetical analyses describing Mary as the new Ark of the Covenant. Without digging up any old notes, some of that can be found here. Here is a short snippet:

Well this is really what I'm interested in. What substantial theology hinges on this doctrine?

 

[Norbert L]

Roman Christians believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. This is the doctrine that not only was Mary a virgin at the time she conceived Jesus, but that she remained a virgin throughout her life.

Why believe this?

I understand that the Roman Church teaches this doctrine, and that this reason alone is enough for assenting Catholics to accept it. But there doesn't seem to be any basis for this belief in Scripture and I don't understand what is gained by believing it.

To me it seems rooted in a medieval error that virginity or even celibacy is somehow holier than sex and marriage.

On this subject, it occurs to me and ask this:

If a Catholic doesn't believe in this teaching, are they still considered a full status Catholic?

 

[Kiterius]

Roman Christians believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. This is the doctrine that not only was Mary a virgin at the time she conceived Jesus, but that she remained a virgin throughout her life.

Why believe this?

I understand that the Roman Church teaches this doctrine, and that this reason alone is enough for assenting Catholics to accept it. But there doesn't seem to be any basis for this belief in Scripture and I don't understand what is gained by believing it.

To me it seems rooted in a medieval error that virginity or even celibacy is somehow holier than sex and marriage.

I believe that you're right in thinking it such an error.

Sex can be magnificently holy.

 

[hooverbranch]

[QUOTE="chilehed, post: 70759276, ] Except that the evidence shows that it's was the universal Christian belief from the beginning of Christianity until the Protestant Reformation.[/QUOTE]

What evidence shows from the beginning. The earliest I can find this being mentiined is the 4th century atleast 200+ years after Mary would have been dead. So these theologians would have as much 1st hand knowledge of such a thing as we do today. Through Scripture and Church history.

 

[truefiction1]

Roman Christians believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. This is the doctrine that not only was Mary a virgin at the time she conceived Jesus, but that she remained a virgin throughout her life.

Why believe this?

I understand that the Roman Church teaches this doctrine, and that this reason alone is enough for assenting Catholics to accept it. But there doesn't seem to be any basis for this belief in Scripture and I don't understand what is gained by believing it.

To me it seems rooted in a medieval error that virginity or even celibacy is somehow holier than sex and marriage.

I don't speak for the RCC, but the ever-virginity of the Theotokos was revealed within the Church from the beginning, by the Power of God, and is still being revealed by the Power of God in the Church even as I type this.