Hi akthomas,
Hello all...I'm not here to bash the Catholics who post on this board. I attend a non-denominational church, but I'm curious as to some of the teachings from the catholic church.
OK
Thanks for asking. I can understand if you do not understand or disagree with what Catholics believe or why. (I used to be the same way
). But I do appreciate that you are willing to at least try to understand our position, even if you end up disagreeing. Too many people don't even do that much.
One that I don't understand is the concept that Mary was a virgin all of her life. I guess the main area of confusion I have would be after the birth of Christ. Could someone
please give me a reference from the Bible that supports that? Thank you!
There is no explicit reference to Mary's perpetually virginity, either for or against it, in Scripture. All we can go by is what Scripture implicitly teaches and what the earliest
Christians believed.
Now, one such verse that many of the early Church fathers believed supported Mary's perpetual virginity implicitly is Luke 1:34, where we read Mary respond to the to angel Gabriel's news that she will conceive by asking this question "How can this be?". She does not understand how she is to have a child. This seems to me to be one of the strongest Scriptural arguments in favor of Mary's perpetual virginity.
For as the Fathers pointed out, this question seems to suggest that Mary had taken a vow of virginity, even after marriage; otherwise, her question really makes no sense. After all, the angel did not say you
have conceived, but rather, you
will conceive. Now, this is a promise that had been made to other women in Jewish history (i.e., Sarah,
Hannah, etc.). So why should such a promise surprise Mary, a young woman who is already planning to marry as it is? She would expect to conceive and bear a son, unless...
she had decided to remain a virgin even after marriage.
(In fact, the
Protoevangelium of James, written around the year 120, within living memory of the Virgin Mary, refers to Mary taking such a vow of perpetual virginity. Though apocryphal, that doesn't necessarily prevent the
Protoevangelium from having historical facts.)
Some other arguments are: First, no one in Scripture is referred to as a "son of Mary" other than Jesus. (One also notices that in the story of Jesus going up to the temple when
he was twelve, there are no other children of Mary and Joseph being mentioned. Not conclusive proof, of course, but something to remember). Also, at the foot of the cross,
Jesus gives his mother over to the care of John, not any of his "brothers".
There also seems to be no verses in Scripture that imply Mary had other children. (as Desmios Tou Christou has pointed out).
The word "brother" in Scripture has a far broader meaning that included any close male relative one wasn't descended from (i.e., Gn 14:14; 29:15; 1 Chron 23:21-22, etc). Plus,
two of Jesus "brothers" in Mt 13:55 are later to be said the sons of a different Mary (Mt 27:56). In Gal 1:19, Paul refers to one of the twelve apostles, James, as being the Lord's
"brother". But which James? There are only two Jameses among the apostles: James the son of Zebedee, and James the son of Alphaeus. No James the son of Joseph.
Nor does Matthew 1:25 imply anything in regards to the use of the word "until". In Scripture, the word "until" or its equivalents only refers to something happening or not
happening up to a certain point, without implying anything afterwards, one way or the other. (see. Gn 8:7; Dt. 1:31; 9:7; 34:5-6; 2 Sm 6:23; Ps 110:1;123:2; Is 46:4; Mt 28:20;
Lk 1:80; Rm 8:22; 1 Co 15:25; Eph 4:13 1 Tm 4:13; 6:14; Rv 2:25, etc.).
And finally, the word "firstborn" is simply a cermenonial which would have been given to an only child just as well. This is because under the Mosaic law, the first male child of a
marriage was to be redeemed (Ex. 34:20). That would apply to an only child as much as one with many brothers, of course. So Jesus, being an only child, would have to redeemed just as other only children, since the "firstborn" had to be redeemed according to the law.
Plus, as I said, the early Christians taught the perpetual virginity of Mary. (see:
www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/virgin.htm ). You may also wish to read the tract
written by St. Jerome on Mary's perpetual virginity:
www.cin.org/users/james/f...lvidiu.htm (though I'll warn you: even though St. Jerome is a saint; he was a lot like me as far as having a bad temper at times
, especially in regards to writing people who should know
better, such as the person he wrote this tract in response to.)
OK. Hope that helps! If you disagree, I understand. Just trying to let you know why us Catholics believe what we do