• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

The perpetual virginity of Mary

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
6,664
2,858
45
San jacinto
✟203,697.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What you're saying is a reason why it is controversial.
The controversy seems to be evidence of the ambiguity, rather than a reaction to it.
However, in my view, many people (Catholic or otherwise) who venerate Mary with what I consider false narratives about her being a perpetual virgin, and leading ultimately to calling her "Queen of Heaven", praying to her, etc. is idolatry.
While I agree that some Catholics and others adoration of Mary can verge on worshiping idols, I don't think there's a direct link between the idea of her being ever-virgin and her being treated as if she were a 4th member of the Trinity. Some of what you've said seems to misunderstand the praxis of Catholics, since it's not so much that Catholics view themselves as praying to Mary but asking Mary to pray to God on their behalf in the same way you might ask a pastor or elder to pray on your behalf. And that question is outside of the spectre of Mary's perpetual virginity.
I realize they have their reasons in which they justify it, but IMO it is nevertheless idolatry. I think if Mary had seen what they have done to her image over the last 2000 years, she would roll over in her grave. And such starts with controversies like this. I don't demean her in any way, as she was blessed more than any other woman in the world; but it doesn't justify all the fabrications about her. In my mind, veneration means worship. This is what the Word History and Origins says about it:
A lot of the claims that Catholics and other tradition Christians are practicing idolatry comes from iconoclastic sentiments that deny the reality of the incarnation, which is itself a form of idolatry if we believe that Christ truly was God in the flesh.
No doubt you will call this a mere opinion, but I guess when we get to the judgment seat of Christ, we'll find out the true order of the issue.
No, far more problematic than mere opinion. Iconoclastic denial of the reality of the incarnation of God in history. AKA idolatry.
 
Upvote 0

JSRG

Well-Known Member
Apr 14, 2019
2,260
1,442
Midwest
✟227,958.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
In my mind, veneration means worship. This is what the Word History and Origins says about it:

When you put a quote into your post, it means when replying it's removed--thus when I reply, it's removed from your post. This is obviously good when people are quoting each other, because it prevents posts from having a bunch of nested quotes... but it means when you're quoting from another source (i.e. not another poster) it vanishes out. Is is therefore far preferable to, when quoting another source, put it in italics, quotation marks, or indentations, so it does not disappear.

For the benefit of the reader, what was quoted was:

"Origin of venerate
1615–25; < Latin venerātus, past participle of venerārī to solicit the goodwill of (a god), worship, revere, verbal derivative of vener-, stem of venus, presumably in its original sense “desire”; Venus)"

Anyway, you say "Word History and Origins" but omit to explain what that is; it looks like it's the "Word History and Origin" part of its page on dictionary.com.

The problem is that on that very page, it explicitly tells us the English meaning of the word is "to regard or treat with reverence; revere". No mention of worship there; this only comes up in the Latin original. What matters for the meaning of a word in a language is the meaning of the word in that language, not what its "original" meaning was in an earlier language. For example, modify in English means to change, but the original Latin word (modificare) means to measure off or regulate.

But, let us be fair, veneror/venerari in Latin did have that as one of its meanings. But that was only one of the possible meanings. Here's the definitions offered in "Elementary Lewis" (an abbreviated version of the Lewis & Short Latin dictionary):

"veneror ātus, ārī, dep.

VAN-, to reverence, worship, adore, revere, venerate: deos: simulacrum in precibus: eos in deorum numero: Larem Farre pio, V.To revere, do homage to, reverence, honor: secundum deos nomen Romanum, L.: patris memoriam, Ta.: amicos, O.To ask reverently, beseech, implore, beg, entreat, supplicate: nihil horum, H.: vos precor, veneror . . . uti victoriam prosperetis, etc., L.: Et venerata Ceres ita surgeret, i. e. honored with the prayer that she would spring up, etc., H.: cursūs dabit veneratasecundos, V."

So yes, we can see worship in one definition, but also other more moderate meanings (revere, do homage to, honor, ask reverently, besseech, and so on). The "full" Lewis & Short entry can be found here, which goes into more detail but is also a bit long to quote.

So to claim that venerate means worship based on the source you appealed to, one must ignore the actual English definition of it and go to the definition in another language, then ignore other definitions in that other language.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fervent
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
6,664
2,858
45
San jacinto
✟203,697.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
"it" does not allow anything of the sort. The word of God is not an "it" or a "thing". We need to have respect for God.
The Bible is not God, and to conflate the two is Bibliolatry. Respecting God doesn't involve assigning divine attributes to things which lack them.
 
Upvote 0

Diamond72

Dispensationalist 72
Nov 23, 2022
8,307
1,521
73
Akron
✟57,931.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
The Bible is not God
The Bible is 100% God. He watches over His word to perform what He said He is going to do. The Bible tells us what God is and the Bible also tells us what God is not. Science also and to study God creation helps us to better understand our Creator. The Bible tells us why and science tells us how.
 
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
6,664
2,858
45
San jacinto
✟203,697.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The Bible is 100% God. He watches over His word to perform what He said He is going to do. The Bible tells us what God is and the Bible also tells us what God is not. Science also and to study God creation helps us to better understand our Creator. The Bible tells us why and science tells us how.
The Bible is an image of God, but it is not a part of the Trinity. God is as distinct from the Bible as He is from creation itself. Calling the Bible God is a form of idolatry. I somewhat agree with your last sentence, but not exactly. But it is because the Bible is the self-disclosure of God, not that it is God itself that I would say that. But like any image of God besides Jesus, it is an imperfect object. Infallible should we accurately understand it, but not immaculate.
 
Upvote 0

Diamond72

Dispensationalist 72
Nov 23, 2022
8,307
1,521
73
Akron
✟57,931.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Calling the Bible God is a form of idolatry.
What are you talking about? The Bible is the living word of the living God. Perhaps you should study Hebrew so you can be more informed as to what the Bible really is. Does this verse ring a bell for you? "In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God." I quote you the Bible almost word for word and you accuse me of "idolatry". Whatever that is perhaps YOU are guilty of, not me. People are always guilty of what they accuse others of.

John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. 3Through Him all things were made, and without Him nothing was made that has been made. 4In Him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

They accused Jesus for this also. Even though He did not consider this "something to be grasped". Philippians 2:6

John 10:33
"We are not stoning You for any good work," said the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because You, who are a man, declare Yourself to be God."
 
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
6,664
2,858
45
San jacinto
✟203,697.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What are you talking about? The Bible is the living word of the living God. Perhaps you should study Hebrew so you can be more informed as to what the Bible really is. Does this verse ring a bell for you? "In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God." I quote you the Bible almost word for word and you accuse me of "idolatry". Whatever that is perhaps YOU are guilty of, not me.
Before accusing someone of needing to study a language, perhaps you should learn what language the verse you're referring to was originally in. Because John's original language is Greek, and it doesn't support your claim because the English word "word" is logos the Greek, whereas the Greek word that would translate to the English word "word" for the Scriptures is graphe. And if you read on in the gospel of John, it says the word was made flesh...because the word in John 1:1 is Jesus, the divine logos, not the pages of Scripture.
 
Upvote 0

Diamond72

Dispensationalist 72
Nov 23, 2022
8,307
1,521
73
Akron
✟57,931.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
the English word "word" is logos
When Jesus is referred to as “the Word” in the Bible, it carries profound theological significance. Let’s explore this concept:

  1. John 1:1–5:
    • In the Gospel of John, the opening verses declare: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
    • John links this statement to the creation account in Genesis 1, emphasizing that the Word (Jesus) existed from the very beginning.
    • The Word is both distinct from God (being “with” God) and fully God (“the Word was God”).
    • Through the Word, all things were made, and life and light came into the world.
  2. The Trinity:
    • John’s proclamation reveals the mystery of the Trinity: one God in three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).
    • The Word (Jesus) is the communication of the Father, the rational force of divine goodness.
    • Jesus is the physical manifestation of God the Father, just as spoken words manifest our inner thoughts.
  3. Jesus as the Word:
    • Jesus embodies God’s revelation to humanity. In the Old Testament, God revealed His word through prophets; in the New Testament, the Word of God was revealed in a Person—Jesus.
    • Jesus is the living Word, the embodiment of God’s truth, grace, and salvation.
In summary, when Jesus is called “the Word,” it signifies His divine nature, creative power, and role as God’s revelation to humanity. https://www.crossway.org/articles/what-did-john-mean-when-he-called-jesus-the-word-john-1/1234
 
Upvote 0

Diamond72

Dispensationalist 72
Nov 23, 2022
8,307
1,521
73
Akron
✟57,931.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
You’ve raised an interesting point about the original Greek text in the Gospel of John. Indeed, the term “logos” (λόγος) carries rich meaning beyond a mere written or spoken word. In the context of John 1:1, it refers to the divine Word or Reason, which is associated with Jesus Christ. The passage emphasizes that Jesus, as the Word, was both preexistent and instrumental in creation.

The opening verse of John reads:

In the beginning was the Word (logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

This profound statement highlights the eternal nature of the Word and its connection to God. The subsequent verses go on to describe how this Word became flesh in the person of Jesus Christ.

The interplay between language, theology, and philosophy is fascinating, isn’t it?
 
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
6,664
2,858
45
San jacinto
✟203,697.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
When Jesus is referred to as “the Word” in the Bible, it carries profound theological significance. Let’s explore this concept:

  1. John 1:1–5:
    • In the Gospel of John, the opening verses declare: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
    • John links this statement to the creation account in Genesis 1, emphasizing that the Word (Jesus) existed from the very beginning.
    • The Word is both distinct from God (being “with” God) and fully God (“the Word was God”).
    • Through the Word, all things were made, and life and light came into the world.
  2. The Trinity:
    • John’s proclamation reveals the mystery of the Trinity: one God in three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).
    • The Word (Jesus) is the communication of the Father, the rational force of divine goodness.
    • Jesus is the physical manifestation of God the Father, just as spoken words manifest our inner thoughts.
  3. Jesus as the Word:
    • Jesus embodies God’s revelation to humanity. In the Old Testament, God revealed His word through prophets; in the New Testament, the Word of God was revealed in a Person—Jesus.
    • Jesus is the living Word, the embodiment of God’s truth, grace, and salvation.
In summary, when Jesus is called “the Word,” it signifies His divine nature, creative power, and role as God’s revelation to humanity. What Did John Mean When He Called Jesus the “Word”? (John 1)1234
...I'm not sure what your point in going over this is here. Because earlier you seemed to claim that "the word" in John 1:1 was the Bible itself, and here you correctly identify it as a Trinitarian statement not including the Bible.

...unless you think Jesus/The Son is the Bible?
 
Upvote 0

tdidymas

Newbie
Aug 28, 2014
2,770
1,120
Houston, TX
✟207,744.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
When you put a quote into your post, it means when replying it's removed--thus when I reply, it's removed from your post. This is obviously good when people are quoting each other, because it prevents posts from having a bunch of nested quotes... but it means when you're quoting from another source (i.e. not another poster) it vanishes out. Is is therefore far preferable to, when quoting another source, put it in italics, quotation marks, or indentations, so it does not disappear.

For the benefit of the reader, what was quoted was:

"Origin of venerate
1615–25; < Latin venerātus, past participle of venerārī to solicit the goodwill of (a god), worship, revere, verbal derivative of vener-, stem of venus, presumably in its original sense “desire”; Venus)"

Anyway, you say "Word History and Origins" but omit to explain what that is; it looks like it's the "Word History and Origin" part of its page on dictionary.com.

The problem is that on that very page, it explicitly tells us the English meaning of the word is "to regard or treat with reverence; revere". No mention of worship there; this only comes up in the Latin original. What matters for the meaning of a word in a language is the meaning of the word in that language, not what its "original" meaning was in an earlier language. For example, modify in English means to change, but the original Latin word (modificare) means to measure off or regulate.

But, let us be fair, veneror/venerari in Latin did have that as one of its meanings. But that was only one of the possible meanings. Here's the definitions offered in "Elementary Lewis" (an abbreviated version of the Lewis & Short Latin dictionary):

"veneror ātus, ārī, dep.

VAN-, to reverence, worship, adore, revere, venerate: deos: simulacrum in precibus: eos in deorum numero: Larem Farre pio, V.To revere, do homage to, reverence, honor: secundum deos nomen Romanum, L.: patris memoriam, Ta.: amicos, O.To ask reverently, beseech, implore, beg, entreat, supplicate: nihil horum, H.: vos precor, veneror . . . uti victoriam prosperetis, etc., L.: Et venerata Ceres ita surgeret, i. e. honored with the prayer that she would spring up, etc., H.: cursūs dabit veneratasecundos, V."

So yes, we can see worship in one definition, but also other more moderate meanings (revere, do homage to, honor, ask reverently, besseech, and so on). The "full" Lewis & Short entry can be found here, which goes into more detail but is also a bit long to quote.

So to claim that venerate means worship based on the source you appealed to, one must ignore the actual English definition of it and go to the definition in another language, then ignore other definitions in that other language.
If you focus on the word only and leave out all the context around it, then you can make it mean any of the stated definitions. But what I am saying is in the context of all the fabricated exaltations of Mary, which I consider idolatry, especially in light of the worshipful things that people do to her images. Even if you claim it's a minority of people doing those things, I don't see leaders of the RCC or Orth. condemning those actions or rebuking people who do them. However, I admit I'm not all-knowing on the subject. I'm going by what I see and hear.
 
Upvote 0

Valletta

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2020
12,137
5,757
Minnesota
✟324,753.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
You likely know this already, but the "Gospel of James" dated 2-3rd C. looks to me like a fictional account of Mary that was mixed in with other Greek and Coptic apocryphal manuscripts. IMO the Coptics are borderline cultic, since they (maybe not all) accept fictional literature like The Book of Enoch into their canon. This "Gospel of James" teaches the perpetual virginity of Mary in its narrative. It is possible IMO that this and/or other invented stories about Mary were simply believed by the ECFs, in spite of the fact that the NT implies a different narrative.
The perpetual virginity of Mary has been handed down within the Church. As to the Bible, God said Mary was a virgin and it seems from her response to the Angel Gabriel that she expected to be a virgin for life. Your idea that Mary was not a perpetual virgin is not supported by the Bible. I do know that Helvidius, around 380 A.D., proposed in writing that Jesus had brothers, and Jerome wrote that it was a wicked affront to the faith. Eventually Jerome wrote a treatise on the subject, using evidence from the Bible as well as earlier writings from Polycarp and Ignatius and others.
 
Upvote 0

tdidymas

Newbie
Aug 28, 2014
2,770
1,120
Houston, TX
✟207,744.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
The perpetual virginity of Mary has been handed down within the Church. As to the Bible, God said Mary was a virgin and it seems from her response to the Angel Gabriel that she expected to be a virgin for life. Your idea that Mary was not a perpetual virgin is not supported by the Bible. I do know that Helvidius, around 380 A.D., proposed in writing that Jesus had brothers, and Jerome wrote that it was a wicked affront to the faith. Eventually Jerome wrote a treatise on the subject, using evidence from the Bible as well as earlier writings from Polycarp and Ignatius and others.
Can you please give links to those writings you're talking about?
 
Upvote 0

jas3

Well-Known Member
Jan 21, 2023
1,259
900
The South
✟87,071.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You're trying to get me to accept "consensus" which I will never do, because it is contrary to the plain and clear reading of scripture.
I'm trying to get you to consider that native speakers living almost two millennia closer to the original authors than you might have a better idea of the semantic range of words in their own language than you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fervent
Upvote 0

Diamond72

Dispensationalist 72
Nov 23, 2022
8,307
1,521
73
Akron
✟57,931.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Can you please give links to those writings you're talking about?
The reference is to Luke 1:26-38. This link covers everything. Mary's Virginity During Jesus' Birth

The real issue is not if a virgin can give birth because they can. The real issue is how can they still be virgin after giving birth to a child. So this maybe an issue of the immaculate delivery even more than the immaculate conception. If she is still a virgin after giving delivery then it is small in comparison that she could remain a virgin. My wife was a 35 year old virgin when I married her. At least that is her claim. But she said I ruined her. Women can give it away but I am not so sure you can take it away from her.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Valletta

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2020
12,137
5,757
Minnesota
✟324,753.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

tdidymas

Newbie
Aug 28, 2014
2,770
1,120
Houston, TX
✟207,744.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Sorry to be blunt, but what kind of feeble answer is this? All your link has is the Catholic opinion. I asked for links to the writings of the people you mentioned. Allow me to remind you of what you said:
"I do know that Helvidius, around 380 A.D., proposed in writing that Jesus had brothers, and Jerome wrote that it was a wicked affront to the faith. Eventually Jerome wrote a treatise on the subject, using evidence from the Bible as well as earlier writings from Polycarp and Ignatius and others."
So then, can you give me links to the things you asserted, and I expect those writings of Helvidius, Jerome, Polycarp, and Ignatius which you have asserted wrote on the subject.

But to give some benefit of the doubt, the link you gave cites "Farrar's 'Early Days of Christianity', pp. 124 sq." The pages cited give no such "detailed account of the controversy" as claimed. But I read ch. 19 and Farrar thoroughly refutes the idea of perpetual virginity.

It just seems to me that your feeble attempt to defend this dogma is working against you, from where I'm looking.
 
Upvote 0

JSRG

Well-Known Member
Apr 14, 2019
2,260
1,442
Midwest
✟227,958.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Sorry to be blunt, but what kind of feeble answer is this? All your link has is the Catholic opinion. I asked for links to the writings of the people you mentioned. Allow me to remind you of what you said:
"I do know that Helvidius, around 380 A.D., proposed in writing that Jesus had brothers, and Jerome wrote that it was a wicked affront to the faith. Eventually Jerome wrote a treatise on the subject, using evidence from the Bible as well as earlier writings from Polycarp and Ignatius and others."
So then, can you give me links to the things you asserted, and I expect those writings of Helvidius, Jerome, Polycarp, and Ignatius which you have asserted wrote on the subject.

But to give some benefit of the doubt, the link you gave cites "Farrar's 'Early Days of Christianity', pp. 124 sq." The pages cited give no such "detailed account of the controversy" as claimed. But I read ch. 19 and Farrar thoroughly refutes the idea of perpetual virginity.

The link he provided was a link to the writing of Jerome, called "The Perpetual Virginity of Mary." The translation is taken from Volume 6 of "Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series", which was published in the late 19th century.

The opening part of the page, which is what mentions Farrar's Early Days of Christianity, is an introductory note to the work in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (not sure if it was done by the translator or the editor). After the introduction it changes into the document by Jerome itself. Unfortunately, the page doesn't make it clear that it's switching; it would've been better if it had been in a different font color for the introduction, as that site does on some other pages. The original printing makes the distinction far more clear, as it changes from one column to two columns.
 
Upvote 0