Why Believe in Perpetual Virginity?

[thecolorsblend]

This ambiguity appears to be extremely minor, such that not even one translator of the Bible into English has translated these words as anything other than brothers and sisters

The words literally say "brothers and sisters". So translating them as any other words would be dishonest with the text.

What's at issue is if those words mean "brothers and sisters" in the same way the English speaking world understand them today. And there is reason to believe they don't.

The Protoevangelium of James identifies them as Joseph's offspring from an earlier marriage. That dates from 120 AD. It's a strange doctrine to appear out of nowhere so early in Church history.

 

[bbbbbbb]

The words literally say "brothers and sisters". So translating them as any other words would be dishonest with the text.

What's at issue is if those words mean "brothers and sisters" in the same way the English speaking world understand them today. And there is reason to believe they don't.

The Protoevangelium of James identifies them as Joseph's offspring from an earlier marriage. That dates from 120 AD. It's a strange doctrine to appear out of nowhere so early in Church history.

Do you really want to introduce the Protoevangelium of James into this discussion?

 

[thecolorsblend]

Do you really want to introduce the Protoevangelium of James into this discussion?

No. My doing so in my last post never happened. It was probably a trick of your monitor or your phone or however you view CF. Pay it no mind.

 

[bbbbbbb]

No. My doing so in my last post never happened. It was probably a trick of your monitor or your phone or however you view CF. Pay it no mind.

Whew! I was beginning to wonder. My computer seems to have a perverse mind of its own.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Whew! I was beginning to wonder. My computer seems to have a perverse mind of its own.

Yup. But Origen invoking the Protoevangelium along with Athanasius, Hilary of Poitiers, St. Jerome and others affirming PV are all tougher to dismiss though.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Yup. But Origen invoking the Protoevangelium along with Athanasius, Hilary of Poitiers, St. Jerome and others affirming PV are all tougher to dismiss though.

Well, nobody's perfect, I am told.

 

[kepha31]

In ecumenical discussions, I use the narrowest meaning of the word apostolic to mean the direct teaching of the original apostles chosen by Christ,including Paul. This is the criteria that the early church used to select which books to include in the authoritative compilation of writings of the Bible. Controversial books such as Hebrews and Revelation, for example, were ultimately deemed to be writings of the apostles Paul and John,and were thereby included.

Agreed. Is "direct teachings" limited to what was written?

(It is unlikely that either were). Other writings such as the ProtoEvengelium of James were deemed to be pseudo-epigraphical writings that only pretended to be writings of the apostle James, and were rejected as being authoritative, and quite correctly so.

The ProtoEvangelium of James is not official church teaching, but that does not mean it is worthless. It's still a noteworthy historical document. Protestantism is forced to dispense with history or ignore it all together.

Of course, we can also use apostolic in a sense that anything papal is apostolic, or in the sense that anything of this or that apostolic Pentecostal church is apostolic, and in a denomination-specific forum that is an adequate definition

There is no copy write on the term apostolic, same with the term "catholic".

But this conversation is not being conducted in a denomination specific forum, and therefore the lowest common denominator for all of us in calling ourselves apostolic (as we do per Nicene rule) is an understanding that apostolic refers to things directly taught by the apostles.

True, but limited. Without apostolic succession, you have no way of knowing ALL that Jesus and the Apostles taught orally. It couldn't possibly fit into a book. We believe the Written Word and the Oral Word share the same divine protection from error.

That is the sense that I am using apostolic.
And, since the apostles were all eye witnesses of the ministry of Christ and the resurrection, it is this first hand account that is important to any historical claims.
So, if this is no longer in dispute according to such a definition, shall we move forward?

I agree with "apostolic refers to things directly taught by the apostles", you may not agree that oral teaching is apostolic and has been preserved.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Well, nobody's perfect, I am told.

Quite true. But some are perpetual virgins.

 

[SolomonVII]

Agreed. .....

Okay, so now we are agree that PV is not apostolic in the sense that no authentic writings or testimonies of the teachngs of actual apostles testify to the PV of Mary.
So before we carry on in other things, let's go back to my second contention that the EV is not taught in the Bible. Earlier on, you were quoting Biblical verses that did not really show anything to the contrary of that assertion, but instead were more an assertion that the Bible does not necessarily teach that May was sinless, or that Mary had other children Setting aside for a second whether or not a married woman having sex is tainted with sin on that account, what I note is that none of your verses have any positive assertions of the PV of Mary?
Can you provide any Biblical verses that positively assert as much? Otherwise we will be in agreement on my second point too, that the EV is not a Biblical teaching.

 

[kepha31]

Okay, so now we are agree that PV is not apostolic in the sense that no authentic writings or testimonies of the teachngs of actual apostles testify to the PV of Mary.

The Apostles didn't make it up.

So before we carry on in other things, let's go back to my second contention that the EV is not taught in the Bible.

I don't know what you mean by "EV".

Earlier on, you were quoting Biblical verses that did not really show anything to the contrary of that assertion, but instead were more an assertion that the Bible does not necessarily teach that May was sinless, or that Mary had other children

Mary having other children is a doctrine of demons IMO because that would diminish the uniqueness of the Incarnation, and in the end, feeding doubts as to Christ's divinity, which is exactly what has happened. Her Immaculate Conception hinges on Luke 1:28.

Setting aside for a second whether or not a married woman having sex is tainted with sin on that account, what I note is that none of your verses have any positive assertions of the PV of Mary?

Mary took vows of chastity in accordance with Numbers 30. It wasn't strange or weird in 1st century Jewish culture.

Can you provide any Biblical verses that positively assert as much? Otherwise we will be in agreement on my second point too, that the EV is not a Biblical teaching.

Your abbreviation is puzzling.
IC= Immaculate Conception
PVofMary, or PVM is more clear.
It is not a biblical teaching that all teachings must be explicitly biblical. However, Tradition and Scripture complement each other.
First, I have been providing copious amounts of scripture, which are direct or indirect, explicit and implied, supporting Marian teachings. Repeating them 20 times gets tiresome.
Second, provide a scripture that says all doctrines, beliefs or practices must be explicitly found in Scripture to be trustworthy. You can't. No such verse exists. It is a false man made Protestant tradition because it ignores development, and separates Tradition from Scripture through which the Bible came to us in the first place. Thus, sola scriptura is illogical and self defeating.

The Bible itself took 350 years to develop, so why can't doctrines develop?

The Catholic Church defines doctrinal development as a growth of depth and clarity in the understanding of the truths of divine revelation. It is important to understand that the substantial or essential truths at the core of each doctrine remain unchanged. Only the subjective grasp of men increases. This increase is the result of the prayerful reflection of the Church, theological study and research (often occasioned by heretical challenges), practical experience, and the collective wisdom of the Church’s bishops and popes, especially when joined in Ecumenical Councils.

Like many Christian doctrines, the idea of doctrinal development is based on much implicit or indirect scriptural evidence. The best indications are perhaps Mt. 5:17, 13:31-2, Jn. 14:26, 16:13, 1 Cor. 2:9-16, Gal. 4:4, Eph. 1:10, 4:12-15. Furthermore, doctrine clearly develops within Scripture (“progressive revelation”). Examples: doctrines of the afterlife, the Trinity, the Messiah (eventually revealed as God the Son), the Holy Spirit (Divine Person in the New Testament), the equality of Jews and Gentiles, bodily resurrection, sacrifice of lambs evolving into the sacrifice of Christ, etc. Not a single doctrine emerges in the Bible complete with no further need of development.

Read more at
Development of Doctrine: A Corruption of Biblical Teaching?

In the past few years, I've been amazed by the growing number of Christians who have renounced the traditional belief in Mary's perpetual virginity, citing as reason the 'brothers' and 'sisters' of the Lord referred to in Sacred Scripture.

Now, while many Protestants regard Mary's perpetual virginity as a uniquely 'Catholic belief,' it should be noted that the Protestant reformers Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli ALL professed this belief as well (for documentation, see for example Mary, Mother of All Christians by Max Thurian, written while he was a Calvinist theologian).

So, while I myself am a Catholic, I present this argument ecumenically using Scripture alone, to prove that these 'brothers' and 'sisters' are NOT the children of Joseph and Mary, and that the belief in Mary's perpetual virginity is in no way refuted by the New Testament. So, let us begin in Matthew.
Jesus' "Brothers" and Mary's Perpetual Virginity
a "Bible alone" approach

Luke 1:28 [RSV]: “And he came to her and said, ‘Hail, O favored one, the Lord is with you!'”

[The RSVCE translates kecharitomene (“favored one” above) as “full of grace”]

Catholics believe that this verse is an indication of the sinlessness of Mary – itself the kernel of the more developed doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. But that is not apparent at first glance (especially if the verse is translated “highly favored” – which does not bring to mind sinlessness in present-day language)...

Protestants are hostile to the notions of Mary’s freedom from actual sin and her Immaculate Conception (in which God freed her from original sin from the moment of her conception) because they feel that this makes her a sort of goddess and improperly set apart from the rest of humanity. They do not believe that it was fitting for God to set her apart in such a manner, even for the purpose of being the Mother of Jesus Christ, and don’t see that this is “fitting” or “appropriate” (as Catholics do).

The great Baptist Greek scholar A.T. Robertson exhibits a Protestant perspective, but is objective and fair-minded, in commenting on this verse as follows
Read more at
Luke 1:28 (“Full of Grace”) and the Immaculate Conception

 

[kepha31]

Protestants build their entire rule of faith and theology upon sola Scriptura (the notion that the only infallible authority is Scripture, and in practice, that every doctrine needs explicit biblical proof to be believed at all), yet this idea is never found in Scripture anywhere (it was basically invented by Luther out of thin air, under pressure in a debate).

So why the irrational double standard? You can base that false tradition of men on nothing whatever in Scripture, yet demand all kinds of explicit biblical proofs for every Marian doctrine, as if that is necessary, when there is plenty about Mary in Scripture: just not enough to your arbitrary taste. And what is there many Protestants don't or can''t see, under the principle of "no man is so blind as he who will not see."

Dialogue with Protestants on the Irrational, Unbiblical Demand for Multiple, Explicit Scriptural Prooftexts for Every Doctrine

 

[kepha31]

THIRD TIME:

Then explain to me why Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and Bollinger all taught the PVoM, and every single Protestant church taught it until the 19th century. Then the heresy of modernism started up, and this false man made tradition has gotten worse, especially in the last 50 years. It's fad theology. I anxiously await your explanation.

 

[SolomonVII]

The Apostles didn't make it up

.

You repeat. It is not from the apostles. We agree. My contention on that stands.

I don't know what you mean by "EV". Mary having other children is a doctrine of demons IMO because that would diminish the uniqueness of the Incarnation, and in the end, feeding doubts as to Christ's divinity, which is exactly what has happened.

Ever Virgin, EV , Perpetual Virginity PV.

Her Immaculate Conception hinges on Luke 1:28. Mary took vows of chastity in accordance with Numbers 30. It wasn't strange or weird in 1st century Jewish culture.

Your abbreviation is puzzling.

IC= Immaculate Conception

PVofMary, or PVM is more clear.

IC is not the topic.

It is not a biblical teaching that all teachings must be explicitly biblical. However, Tradition and Scripture complement each other.

But it is a logical premise that all Biblical teaching must be in the Bible.

My specific contention was that EV PV PVM Perpetual Virginty of Mary is not taught in the Bible. You stated that it was, or was somewhat. It is not possible to proof the negative. But it is necessary to demonstrate the positive.

So where are the verses.

First, I have been providing copious amounts of scripture, which are direct or indirect, explicit and implied, supporting Marian teachings. Repeating them 20 times gets tiresome.

No you haven't provided even one Bible verse supporting Perpetual Virginity.

You have provided copious amounts of material, but not even one Bible verse supporting Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

Second, provide a scripture that says all doctrines, beliefs or practices must be explicitly found in Scripture to be trustworthy. You can't. No such verse exists.

Why would I? It has nothing to do with the contentions I have made. I have not been discussing here the basis of doctrines, beliefs or practices. I am discussing here the basis for Perpetual Virginity.

bbbb..s was quite correct in his contention, something to the effect that PVM is not Scriptural. I agree with him, and expanded upon his contention that it a dogma that can neither be established by historical method, or from the words of the (twelve) apostles.

You disagreed.

Now show just one verse to proof your claim that PVM is taught in Scripture.

This is not about IC. This is not about sinlessness of Mary. This is not about whether or not Mary had other kids. This is about PVM. It is not taught in Scripture, not even implicitly, is it?

Just one verse on PVM will prove you right.

It is a false man made Protestant tradition because it ignores development, and separates Tradition from Scripture through which the Bible came to us in the first place. Thus, sola scriptura is illogical and self defeating.

Irrelevant to question at hand.

The Bible itself took 350 years to develop, so why .....

Irrelevant to question at hand.

The Catholic Church defines ...........

Copiously irrelevant to question at hand.

Like many Christian doctrines, the idea of doctrinal development .....

Copiously irrelevant to question at hand.

In the past few years, I've been amazed by the growing number of Christians who have renounced ....


Luke 1:28 [RSV]: “And he came to her and said, ‘Hail, O favored one, the Lord is with you!'”

Irrelevant to the question at hand.

Re verse.

The Lord said the same words to other women in the bible too, who weren't perpetual virgins. This is not a demonstration of a verse that teaches PVM therefore.

[The RSVCE translates kecharitomene (“favored one” above) as “full of grace”


Catholics believe that this verse is an indication of the sinlessness of Mary – itself the kernel of the more developed doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. But that is not apparent at first glance (especially if the verse is translated “highly favored” – which does not bring to mind sinlessness in present-day language”

Perpetual virginity has nothing to do with sinlessness, by the way. Many virgins sin, and it is a little repugnant, to say the least, to consider that any married woman who is not a perpetual virgin is therefore a sinner on that account.

That is an abuse of PVM dogma.

Protestants are hostile to the notions of Mary’s freedom from actual sin and her Immaculate Conception (in which God freed her from original sin from the moment of her conception) because they feel that this makes her a sort of goddess and improperly set apart from the rest of humanity. They do not believe that it was fitting for God to set her apart in such a manner, even for the purpose of being the Mother of Jesus Christ, and don’t see that this is “fitting” or “appropriate” (as Catholics do).

IC ≠ PVM

Sinlessness ≠ IC ≠PVM

The great Baptist Greek scholar A.T. Robertson exhibits a Protestant perspective, but is objective and fair-minded, in commenting on this verse as follows

Read more at

Luke 1:28 (“Full of Grace”) and the Immaculate Conception

IC ≠ PVM


You had one job to do, Kepha.

So far, it is not looking good for you.

One verse in the Bible . That is all that is being requested from you.

One verse that demonstrates the believe in the PVM of Mary, and that is all that it will take to refute the contention that I had made about PVM not being scriptural.


If you cannot produce one verse, shall you concede that it does not exist, and we can move on to my third contention of the historicity of the PVM

 

[kepha31]

.
But it is a logical premise that all Biblical teaching must be in the Bible.

It's not logical because "all teaching must be in the Bible" is not in the Bible. "all Biblical teaching must be in the Bible" is circular reasoning. It's a false man made tradition.

For the FOURTH time:

Then explain to me why Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and Bollinger all taught the PVoM, and every single Protestant church taught it until the 19th century. Then the heresy of modernism started up, and this false man made tradition has gotten worse, especially in the last 50 years. It's fad theology. I anxiously await your explanation.
​

Until you explain why Protestantism has drifted so far from the teachings of its own reformers in the last 150 years, this discussion is over.

 

[kepha31]

JOHN ARMSTRONG ROUNDLY MOCKS A BIBLICAL ARGUMENT FOR MARY'S PERPETUAL VIRGINITY, USED BY AUGUSTINE, AMBROSE, JEROME, AQUINAS, ETC.

This is an example that Reformed Protestant scholar Dr. Armstrong provides in support of his oft-expressed disdain for what he calls "popular apologetics." In an article entitled "Roman Catholic Special Pleading," he stated:

Ezekiel 44:1-2

"To my utter amazement, this text from Ezekiel was used to argue for the perpetual virginity of Mary. . . . No wonder some of my thoughtful Catholic friends cringe when they hear this kind of argument by conservative apologists. . . . What boggles the mind, in this particular instance, is the type of populist argument employed. I am always amazed that arguments like this can be seriously made in such a public forum. "
​

The problem with this wholesale mockery is that this is quite respectable patristic exegesis. Dr. Taylor Marshall has written about this, and noted that Ambrose, Augustine, and "most of the Eastern Fathers" argued in this fashion.

Some quite emphatically understand this closed gate through which only the Lord God of Israel passes … as the Virgin Mary, who remains a Virgin before and after childbirth. In fact, she remains always a Virgin, in the moment in which the Angel speaks with her and when the Son of God is born. (St. Jerome)

St. Thomas Aquinas cites Augustine's argument with approval in his "Summa Theologica." It is included in my recent book, "The Quotable Summa Theologica".

It is written (Ezech. 44:2): "This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it; because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it." Expounding these words, Augustine says in a sermon (De Annunt. Dom. iii): "What means this closed gate in the House of the Lord, except that Mary is to be ever inviolate? What does it mean that 'no man shall pass through it,' save that Joseph shall not know her? And what is this---'The Lord alone enters in and goeth out by it'---except that the Holy Ghost shall impregnate her, and that the Lord of angels shall be born of her? And what means this---'it shall be shut for evermore'---but that Mary is a virgin before His Birth, a virgin in His Birth, and a virgin after His Birth?" (ST 3, q. 28, a. 3, sed contra)

Moreover, folks like Lutheran theologian Johann Gerhard (1582-1637) and Anglican exegete John Mayer (1583-1664) agreed with this interpretation of Ezekiel 44:1-2

I read in more than one place that Martin Luther also interpreted it this way.

Dr. Armstrong -- sadly -- doesn't get this at all (therefore belittles and mocks it in an effort to run down Catholic apologists) because he apparently doesn't understand how patristic exegesis and hermeneutics worked. It was very different from the Protestant historical-grammatical method. Catholic apologist Mark Shea writes about this:

"As an Evangelical, I had long regarded the reading of Ezekiel 44:1-2 to support Mary’s perpetual virginity as mere 'proof-texting.' I thought the Fathers were beginning with this passage and then trying to build a doctrine of perpetual virginity on it. But the more I saw how the early Church (including the New Testament authors)

• linked the tabernacle,
• the temple,
• and the Body of Christ,
• and the roles of Mary,
• the ark,
• and the gate of the temple,

the more I came to realize that the Church’s faith in Mary’s perpetual virginity was not derived from Ezekiel 44:1-2 any more than her faith in the virgin birth was derived from Isaiah 7:14. . . .

"As with the virgin birth, the perpetual virginity of Mary happened, and only afterward did the Church begin to realize that the events of her life, like the events of her Son’s, were strangely – one might even say prophetically – foreshadowed in Ezekiel 44:1-2. There is a real, organic, un-manufactured connection between Mary and something the prophet Ezekiel had been inspired to see."

...So much for Dr. Armstrong's attempt to make this merely silly and insubstantial silly popular apologetics, supposedly "special pleading" and so distant from the scholars and magisterium of the Church . . . apologists and the magisterium are at one in this. It's Dr. Armstrong who looks rather foolish, after THIS display; amazed that this is taken seriously, and allegedly chuckled over by his many "thoughtful Catholic friends" had they heard it.

This is what happens when folks (even scholars and self-described "ecumenists") try to take on things within Catholicism that they either dimly comprehend at best or don't understand at all. I wouldn't recommend it, and never when I am around to find it: all the more so if it is a fallacious, embarrassing attempt to ridicule the group of which I am a part: Catholic apologists.
Dave Armstrong

 

[kepha31]

A Protestant Defense of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity

 

[SolomonVII]

It's not logical .....

Show me the one verse in the Bible that demonstrates PVM and the foundation for my contention that PVM is not Biblical evaporates.
That is all I am contending here, and it is the one issue that you cannot address.
I am not disputing here the right of the Catholic Church, or any Church body to make their own dogma out of anything, even straw if they wish.
What I am disputing is any claim that the Bible demonstrates PVM.
By copiously repeating that Catholic dogma does not need to be based in the Bible, what you are implicitly conceding is that my point that the Bible does not support PVM is essentially the correct one.
And of course it is the correct one.
This not the first time I have wandered into this jungle. Passionate advocates for PVM would have found the verse that demonstrates PVM by now, if it was there.

It isn't there and to imply that anyone who says as much is an heretic is by now a thoroughly dishonest and ultimately scurrilous charge to repeat.

 

[prodromos]

Show me the one verse in the Bible that demonstrates PVM and the foundation for my contention that PVM is not Biblical evaporates.

Luke 1:34

ειπεν δε μαριαμ προς τον αγγελον πως εσται τουτο επει ανδρα ου γινωσκω.​

Mary's response to the archangel Gabriel telling her she will conceive and bear a son makes no sense if her betrothal to Joseph was intended to include sexual relations. Gabriel gives no time frame to when she will conceive, just that it will happen in the future, so the natural understanding of a betrothed girl being told that she will conceive would be, "Joseph and I are going to have a baby together". Mary however, responds with the question "how can this be, since I am not knowing a man". The grammar indicates that her circumstances are on going and not just at that moment in time, so it excludes an expectation that she and Joseph would be producing children.

 

[Fidelibus]

Show me the one verse in the Bible that demonstrates PVM and the foundation for my contention that PVM is not Biblical evaporates.

This statement tells me you are a Sola Scripturists, correct? If so, I'd like to ask you.......have you ever had an Altar Call and recited the "Sinners Prayer?" If so, could you show the verse/verses that supports it?

 

[kepha31]

Show me the one verse in the Bible that demonstrates PVM and the foundation for my contention that PVM is not Biblical evaporates.

Your premise of "sola scriptura" is not in the Bible. You haven't given one verse that says Mary was not a perpetual virgin. Any proposed verses get flattened rather easily.

That is all I am contending here, and it is the one issue that you cannot address.

I have addressed it several times, you just keep ignoring my posts.

I am not disputing here the right of the Catholic Church, or any Church body to make their own dogma out of anything, even straw if they wish.
What I am disputing is any claim that the Bible demonstrates PVM.

That is not what the Bible is for. Jesus is the focus, not Mary's sex life, or lack thereof. You have not offered any evidence that Mary had other children.

To claim otherwise is Bible twisting and word games. Your argument is as silly as claiming Jesus didn't remain a virgin because there is no proof text.

By copiously repeating that Catholic dogma does not need to be based in the Bible, what you are implicitly conceding is that my point that the Bible does not support PVM is essentially the correct one.

There is no verse that explicitly states "Mary remained a virgin her whole life", but I have given inferences, while your entire premise has none at all.

And of course it is the correct one.
This not the first time I have wandered into this jungle. Passionate advocates for PVM would have found the verse that demonstrates PVM by now, if it was there.

It's there implicitly, you keep ignoring the evidence based on a non-existing premise.

It isn't there and to imply that anyone who says as much is an heretic is by now a thoroughly dishonest and ultimately scurrilous charge to repeat.

Then explain to me why Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and Bollinger all taught the PVoM, and every single Protestant church taught it until a handful of liberal radicals the 19th century came along. That's 5 times I've post this request, and you keep ignoring it, because you refuse to admit you have deviated from 2000 years of Christian thought, Orthodox, Protestant and Catholic. It's not us with the heresy.

Jesus' "Brothers" and Mary's Perpetual Virginity
ignored by SolomonVII

A Biblical Basis For Mary's Perpetual Virginity?
ignored by SolomonVII

A Protestant Defense of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity
ignored by SolomonVII

Ezekiel 44:1-2
ignored by SolomonVII

Luke 1:34 - well explained by prodomos in post #458
ignored by SolomonVII

"As an Evangelical, I had long regarded the reading of Ezekiel 44:1-2 to support Mary’s perpetual virginity as mere 'proof-texting.' I thought the Fathers were beginning with this passage and then trying to build a doctrine of perpetual virginity on it. But the more I saw how the early Church (including the New Testament authors)

• linked the tabernacle,
• the temple,
• and the Body of Christ,
• and the roles of Mary,
• the ark,
• and the gate of the temple,

the more I came to realize that the Church’s faith in Mary’s perpetual virginity was not derived from Ezekiel 44:1-2 any more than her faith in the virgin birth was derived from Isaiah 7:14. . .
ignored by SolomonVII

"There is no verse that explicitly states Mary remained a virgin therefore Mary did not remain a virgin" is a non sequitur fallacy.

Now it's my turn...