Did the Virgin Mary remain a virgin?

Wug · Mar 22, 2015

Albion said:
Excuse me, but you seem to have tar on your heel.

Yes, and I am darn proud of that Tar.

I just think the topic question is rather obvious since she did have other children and they were not of God. So yes she did have sex and that means she did not remain a virgin. It certainly doesn't take away for the honor of her being the one the God chose to carry Jesus in her womb.

barryatlake · Mar 22, 2015

Wug, looks as if you attended the very same catholic church as Albion.

Albion · Mar 22, 2015

Wug said:
I just think the topic question is rather obvious since she did have other children and they were not of God. So yes she did have sex and that means she did not remain a virgin. It certainly doesn't take away for the honor of her being the one the God chose to carry Jesus in her womb.

That's the way most of us feel about it. However, there are those who insist that if you do not ascribe to her the most fabulous powers and honors...and also address her with a string of adoring adjectives, then you have shown yourself to be a person who "hates" the Virgin Mary. :sorry:

Wug · Mar 22, 2015

barryatlake said:
Wug, looks as if you attended the very same catholic church as Albion.

Hmmm, instead of insults how about explaining to me then how she had other children NOT FROM GOD without losing her virginity?

barryatlake · Mar 22, 2015

Simple, Mary didn't. Those ''other children" were from Joseph's previous marriage or back then in the language of Jesus there was n't a word for cousins, siblings, the word they used was brethren.

Wug · Mar 22, 2015

barryatlake said:
Simple, Mary didn't. Those ''other children" were from Joseph's previous marriage or back then in the language of Jesus there was n't a word for cousins, siblings, the word they used was brethren.

So Joseph never had sexual intercourse with his wife?

Albion · Mar 22, 2015

Wug said:
Hmmm, instead of insults how about explaining to me then how she had other children NOT FROM GOD without losing her virginity?

When one has no answers to contribute, insults substitute.

By the way, few Roman Catholic theologians believe that "cousins" theory, either. But it's the best that the church could come up with at a certain point in history.

Wug · Mar 22, 2015

Albion said:
When one has no answers to contribute, insults substitute.

By the way, few Roman Catholic theologians believe that "cousins" theory, either. But it's the best that the church could come up with at a certain point in history.

I am sorry, but I thought for sure that Mary had one child with Joseph. I may be mistaken and they may be from other women Joseph was with, but to say she never had sex with her husband is completely stupid.

Albion · Mar 22, 2015

Wug said:
I am sorry, but I thought for sure that Mary had one child with Joseph. I may be mistaken and they may be from other women Joseph was with, but to say she never had sex with her husband is completely stupid.

I see your point. Even if Jesus did not have a flock of brothers and sisters, as the Bible says he did, it doesn't prove that Mary remained a virgin all her life. And you're correct about that.

But in addition, be aware of the whole of the theory of ever-virginity. It doesn't just say that Mary did not have relations with Joseph (or anyone else) after Christ's birth. It holds that she remained a virgin, physiologically speaking, even though she gave birth. And this is how one absurdity is trumped by the previous one, each attempting to give more glory by the greater impossibility of the next claim.

It's instructive to note that this is exactly how the great political figures of the time were honored--with impossible exaggerations and fabrications. The Caesars all became gods, as we know. Alexander the Great was believed by later generations to have traveled to the moon, and to the bottom of the sea, to have discovered a race of men without heads, and so on. When it came to lionizing the Virgin, of course, the tales were similar or even "better."

Tigger45 · Mar 22, 2015

Wug said:
I am sorry, but I thought for sure that Mary had one child with Joseph. I may be mistaken and they may be from other women Joseph was with, but to say she never had sex with her husband is completely stupid.

You are displaying a CF Roman Catholic faith icon but you not only appear unaware of RC teachings but post diametrically in opposition to them.

Wug · Mar 22, 2015

Tigger45 said:
You are displaying a CF Roman Catholic faith icon but you not only appear unaware of RC teachings but post diametrically in opposition to them.

I find this rather funny. You have listed several things under your username meaning that you have several responsibilities here other than a regular member I guess. It seems that you rather focus on my short comings of understanding the Roman Catholic Faith, which I never said I have perfected my knowledge of at all and overlooked the insult in the early post. Oh well, I have now seen this forum is not for me and it is time to move on.

barryatlake · Mar 22, 2015

Wug, I am always amazed when Protestants question the perpetual viginity of Mary especially when all the founding fathers of Protestantism believed in it. Even John Wesley who founded Methodism believed in Mary's perpetual virginity.

Tigger45 · Mar 22, 2015

Wug said:
I find this rather funny. You have listed several things under your username meaning that you have several responsibilities here other than a regular member I guess. It seems that you rather focus on my short comings of understanding the Roman Catholic Faith, which I never said I have perfected my knowledge of at all and overlooked the insult in the early post. Oh well, I have now seen this forum is not for me and it is time to move on.

Why choose to take offense instead of learning about the official teachings of you own church? Plus there are over a billion Romans Catholics who do not enjoy seeing their churches view of the Blessed Virgin Mary being misrepresented by someone who is identifying themselves as a member of the Roman Catholic Church. Here is their official statement as written in the Catechism of the Catholic church (second edition) paragraphs 499-507

Mary's virginity
496 From the first formulations of her faith, the Church has confessed that Jesus was conceived solely by the power of the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary, affirming also the corporeal aspect of this event: Jesus was conceived "by the Holy Spirit without human seed".146 The Fathers see in the virginal conception the sign that it truly was the Son of God who came in a humanity like our own. Thus St. Ignatius of Antioch at the beginning of the second century says:

You are firmly convinced about our Lord, who is truly of the race of David according to the flesh, Son of God according to the will and power of God, truly born of a virgin,. . . he was truly nailed to a tree for us in his flesh under Pontius Pilate. . . he truly suffered, as he is also truly risen.147
497 The Gospel accounts understand the virginal conception of Jesus as a divine work that surpasses all human understanding and possibility:148 "That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit", said the angel to Joseph about Mary his fiancee.149 The Church sees here the fulfillment of the divine promise given through the prophet Isaiah: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son."150
498 People are sometimes troubled by the silence of St. Mark's Gospel and the New Testament Epistles about Jesus' virginal conception. Some might wonder if we were merely dealing with legends or theological constructs not claiming to be history. To this we must respond: Faith in the virginal conception of Jesus met with the lively opposition, mockery or incomprehension of non-believers, Jews and pagans alike;151 so it could hardly have been motivated by pagan mythology or by some adaptation to the ideas of the age. The meaning of this event is accessible only to faith, which understands in it the "connection of these mysteries with one another"152 in the totality of Christ's mysteries, from his Incarnation to his Passover. St. Ignatius of Antioch already bears witness to this connection: "Mary's virginity and giving birth, and even the Lord's death escaped the notice of the prince of this world: these three mysteries worthy of proclamation were accomplished in God's silence."153
Mary - "ever-virgin"
499 The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary's real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man.154 In fact, Christ's birth "did not diminish his mother's virginal integrity but sanctified it."155 And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the "Ever-virgin".156
500 Against this doctrine the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus.157 The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, "brothers of Jesus", are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls "the other Mary".158 They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression.159
501 Jesus is Mary's only son, but her spiritual motherhood extends to all men whom indeed he came to save: "The Son whom she brought forth is he whom God placed as the first-born among many brethren, that is, the faithful in whose generation and formation she co-operates with a mother's love."160
Mary's virginal motherhood in God's plan
502 The eyes of faith can discover in the context of the whole of Revelation the mysterious reasons why God in his saving plan wanted his Son to be born of a virgin. These reasons touch both on the person of Christ and his redemptive mission, and on the welcome Mary gave that mission on behalf of all men.
503 Mary's virginity manifests God's absolute initiative in the Incarnation. Jesus has only God as Father. "He was never estranged from the Father because of the human nature which he assumed. . . He is naturally Son of the Father as to his divinity and naturally son of his mother as to his humanity, but properly Son of the Father in both natures."161
504 Jesus is conceived by the Holy Spirit in the Virgin Mary's womb because he is the New Adam, who inaugurates the new creation: "The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven."162 From his conception, Christ's humanity is filled with the Holy Spirit, for God "gives him the Spirit without measure."163 From "his fullness" as the head of redeemed humanity "we have all received, grace upon grace."164
505 By his virginal conception, Jesus, the New Adam, ushers in the new birth of children adopted in the Holy Spirit through faith. "How can this be?"165 Participation in the divine life arises "not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God".166 The acceptance of this life is virginal because it is entirely the Spirit's gift to man. The spousal character of the human vocation in relation to God167 is fulfilled perfectly in Mary's virginal motherhood.

506 Mary is a virgin because her virginity is the sign of her faith "unadulterated by any doubt", and of her undivided gift of herself to God's will.168 It is her faith that enables her to become the mother of the Savior: "Mary is more blessed because she embraces faith in Christ than because she conceives the flesh of Christ."169
507 At once virgin and mother, Mary is the symbol and the most perfect realization of the Church: "the Church indeed. . . by receiving the word of God in faith becomes herself a mother. By preaching and Baptism she brings forth sons, who are conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of God, to a new and immortal life. She herself is a virgin, who keeps in its entirety and purity the faith she pledged to her spouse."170
IN BRIEF
508 From among the descendants of Eve, God chose the Virgin Mary to be the mother of his Son. "Full of grace", Mary is "the most excellent fruit of redemption" (SC 103): from the first instant of her conception, she was totally preserved from the stain of original sin and she remained pure from all personal sin throughout her life.
509 Mary is truly "Mother of God" since she is the mother of the eternal Son of God made man, who is God himself.
510 Mary "remained a virgin in conceiving her Son, a virgin in giving birth to him, a virgin in carrying him, a virgin in nursing him at her breast, always a virgin" (St. Augustine, Serm. 186, 1: PL 38, 999): with her whole being she is "the handmaid of the Lord" (Lk 1:38).
511 The Virgin Mary "cooperated through free faith and obedience in human salvation" (LG 56). She uttered her yes "in the name of all human nature" (St. Thomas Aquinas, STh III, 30, 1). By her obedience she became the new Eve, mother of the living.

mmksparbud · Mar 22, 2015

(Eze 44:2) Then said the LORD unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut.

(Eze 44:3) It is for the prince; the prince, he shall sit in it to eat bread before the LORD; he shall enter by the way of the porch of that gate, and shall go out by the way of the same.

how in the world does this have anything to do with the perpetual virginity of Mary???
Is Christ still in there eating bread????!!!! He is going in and out and eating bread---this makes no sense whatsoever--explanation please!!

stevenfrancis · Mar 23, 2015

CaliforniaJosiah said:
Nothing from Scripture.
Nothing from Mary or Joseph (the only ones who would know!)
Nothing from anyone who even could have met Mary or Joseph.
Nothing from any Apostle

All late... Surprisingly late....

Amazingly weak....

.

I have come to understand that you are not a Catholic Christian, and that myself, BarrytheLake, and a couple others on this thread are not of a Protestant denomination. Regarding not this thread alone, but a great number of threads there doesn't seem to be much possibility, if any, of a change in position for anyone involved in these presentations of position. As for myself, I am wondering if the Holy Spirit is always driving my responses in these threads. Most likely, not. After all, at the end of the day, (speaking for myself anyway), I am obedient to what I believe to be the one, holy, catholic (universal), visible Church established upon St. Simon (renamed Petros/Cephas), and the Apostles by our blessed Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I further believe this Church to be guided and protected by the Holy Spirit of God when she speaks to the world on matters of faith and morals, and when she interprets scripture in order to settle personal interpretation disputes among the follower of Christ. She is the trusted keeper of the full deposit of the Christian faith from the prophecy of the old testament to today, including the inspired written scriptures, the testimonies of the Apostles, and the generations of their successors. That they have maintained the tradition of Holy Orders, and a valid Priesthood, for the administration of Christ's sacraments, and since the Apostles have the gift from our Lord of binding and loosing, have inherent teaching authority, as well. I believe that Christ instituted sacraments for continued bestowal of sacramental grace until the Christ returns again to judge the living and the dead and bring the new Heaven and new Earth. All of this is by grace, and is a direct gift to man by God. A protestant doesn't believe at least one of these major things, and is hence "in protest" of them. Is a Protest-ant.

I bring all this up because it was a 40+ year journey of spiritual struggle which led me to where I am today. Most of the posters here seem equally convicted in the expression of Christ's ministry which they found the same solace in. Jesus wanted us to be one Church. He prayed for this. That we would be one, as He and Father are one. He sent the Holy Spirit to do this very thing at that glorious Pentacost. You see evidence of the Church fighting heresy to keep that oneness for as early as The Acts of the Apostles. The development of dogmas of the Church, and point of the Church councils was a quelling of disputes among the followers of Christ, and individual interpretations of the faith that kept the Church from being one. It was what was at the heart of the badly executed inquisitions. Eventually, there came a time when much of the Eastern Church left in schism and this will certainly one day be mended, and probably sooner rather than later. It's conceivable that I may not even pass from this life before this glorious event, or more likely strung out series of events, occurs. Our Eastern brothers and sisters at all times stayed true to the Apostolic lineage, and have valid Holy Orders. They validly administer Christ's sacraments.

I personally, even see a marked thaw in the largest tear in Church history - the Protestant Reformation which resulted, (not immediately), in the dropping of Christian tradition in many denominations, and most importantly in the curiously dividing notion of "sola scriptura" accompanied by a claim of personal interpretative authority credited to the Holy Spirit, yet no certain agreement among the ever widening circle of biblical interpreters as to a single meaning of scripture, which leaves us with many more than one Protestant denomination. The inter-Protestant divides are often over much more than just the manner of worship (liturgy), but are often over theological foundations.

I have faith that, (not likely in my lifetime), Christ will re-unite His Church to include ALL who call on and follow God, and accept the divinity of Christ, and His role as the Messiah. Until then, our arguments, debates and citations seem ineffective at the lay level, as we can not all agree on the axiomatic material and the authority by which we will settle debate on theological notions. This is coupled with the fact that these conversations on forums are almost always between lay followers of Christ, and not even those that we individually trust as authorities. We all tend to speak with authority ourselves because of either pride, or a sincere belief that the Holy Spirit has granted that we ARE our own authority (with His guidance). So arguments between layity seem rather contentious at times.

Much of this has just occurred to me. Some of it I have realized before, and even posted about a little bit. After reading a few responses to some things I have written on this most recent thread, I have decided what to try and see what it would be like to be reading my own post as a non-Catholic. I DO have some experience with that. (I'm a late life convert). I have come to see that I wouldn't be happy, or satisfied with it, because there is much of it that turns out to be tainted with my personal embellishment and/or personal opinion.

For my part, I am going to try AGAIN very hard to stay away from the argumentative aspects of posting here in the future. I think that ship has sailed, once again on this thread. I will endeavor in the future, to simply state the Church position on a given matter, and give the source, then back away from getting into debate which might end up leading to the sin of pridefulness. Someone else pointed out that we all seem to be talking past each other, and I am starting to see that. It's uncertain what help we may be to each other as Christian brothers and sisters in these matters, but I figure if I confine myself to a presentation of the true Church doctrine, as opposed to some of the opinions and perceptions of Church doctrines that are out there, which I find generally to be, well, usually a little askew from what the Church actually teaches, then I can't really go to wrong. It may still raise hackles, and cause irritation, but it won't result in pointless banter, at least not with me. For those matters, (and there are some, believe it or not), where the Church leaves open many possibilities, there may be some value in calmly and rationally discussing my own personal opinions of things, as on open matters, I can learn something, and perhaps be persuaded. The dogmas concerning the blessed Mother are not good material for me to discuss most likely. I ONLY know, and frankly only CARE to know what the Church teaches on these, as I didn't have an opinion on the Marian matters PRIOR to coming into the Church, and it's somewhat disingenuous for me to do anything others that post actual Church teaching on them now. I have put my faith in the teaching authority of the Church on these Marian mysteries, and will continue to do so, unless and until the magesterium under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, is compelled to pronounce something different. In essence, who am I to say otherwise? I'm in favor of researching support for Church teaching, but detractions from Church teaching by protestant sources, are not really going to be useful for me. I am also aware that there are Church Fathers who are different from each other on some matters. I'm untroubled by this, as it is still the Church herself, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit who provides ALL material for study, and then declares on which is consistent with the scriptures of the NT, and and Christian apostolic tradition.

God bless you one and all.

I apologize if my previous posts in this or any other thread have caused personal offense. If so I take responsibility that it is likely because of my own spin, and not the Church teaching which is of God.

Peace,

Steve

bbbbbbb · Mar 24, 2015

stevenfrancis said:
I have come to understand that you are not a Catholic Christian, and that myself, BarrytheLake, and a couple others on this thread are not of a Protestant denomination. Regarding not this thread alone, but a great number of threads there doesn't seem to be much possibility, if any, of a change in position for anyone involved in these presentations of position. As for myself, I am wondering if the Holy Spirit is always driving my responses in these threads. Most likely, not. After all, at the end of the day, (speaking for myself anyway), I am obedient to what I believe to be the one, holy, catholic (universal), visible Church established upon St. Simon (renamed Petros/Cephas), and the Apostles by our blessed Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I further believe this Church to be guided and protected by the Holy Spirit of God when she speaks to the world on matters of faith and morals, and when she interprets scripture in order to settle personal interpretation disputes among the follower of Christ. She is the trusted keeper of the full deposit of the Christian faith from the prophecy of the old testament to today, including the inspired written scriptures, the testimonies of the Apostles, and the generations of their successors. That they have maintained the tradition of Holy Orders, and a valid Priesthood, for the administration of Christ's sacraments, and since the Apostles have the gift from our Lord of binding and loosing, have inherent teaching authority, as well. I believe that Christ instituted sacraments for continued bestowal of sacramental grace until the Christ returns again to judge the living and the dead and bring the new Heaven and new Earth. All of this is by grace, and is a direct gift to man by God. A protestant doesn't believe at least one of these major things, and is hence "in protest" of them. Is a Protest-ant.

I bring all this up because it was a 40+ year journey of spiritual struggle which led me to where I am today. Most of the posters here seem equally convicted in the expression of Christ's ministry which they found the same solace in. Jesus wanted us to be one Church. He prayed for this. That we would be one, as He and Father are one. He sent the Holy Spirit to do this very thing at that glorious Pentacost. You see evidence of the Church fighting heresy to keep that oneness for as early as The Acts of the Apostles. The development of dogmas of the Church, and point of the Church councils was a quelling of disputes among the followers of Christ, and individual interpretations of the faith that kept the Church from being one. It was what was at the heart of the badly executed inquisitions. Eventually, there came a time when much of the Eastern Church left in schism and this will certainly one day be mended, and probably sooner rather than later. It's conceivable that I may not even pass from this life before this glorious event, or more likely strung out series of events, occurs. Our Eastern brothers and sisters at all times stayed true to the Apostolic lineage, and have valid Holy Orders. They validly administer Christ's sacraments.

I personally, even see a marked thaw in the largest tear in Church history - the Protestant Reformation which resulted, (not immediately), in the dropping of Christian tradition in many denominations, and most importantly in the curiously dividing notion of "sola scriptura" accompanied by a claim of personal interpretative authority credited to the Holy Spirit, yet no certain agreement among the ever widening circle of biblical interpreters as to a single meaning of scripture, which leaves us with many more than one Protestant denomination. The inter-Protestant divides are often over much more than just the manner of worship (liturgy), but are often over theological foundations.

I have faith that, (not likely in my lifetime), Christ will re-unite His Church to include ALL who call on and follow God, and accept the divinity of Christ, and His role as the Messiah. Until then, our arguments, debates and citations seem ineffective at the lay level, as we can not all agree on the axiomatic material and the authority by which we will settle debate on theological notions. This is coupled with the fact that these conversations on forums are almost always between lay followers of Christ, and not even those that we individually trust as authorities. We all tend to speak with authority ourselves because of either pride, or a sincere belief that the Holy Spirit has granted that we ARE our own authority (with His guidance). So arguments between layity seem rather contentious at times.

Much of this has just occurred to me. Some of it I have realized before, and even posted about a little bit. After reading a few responses to some things I have written on this most recent thread, I have decided what to try and see what it would be like to be reading my own post as a non-Catholic. I DO have some experience with that. (I'm a late life convert). I have come to see that I wouldn't be happy, or satisfied with it, because there is much of it that turns out to be tainted with my personal embellishment and/or personal opinion.

For my part, I am going to try AGAIN very hard to stay away from the argumentative aspects of posting here in the future. I think that ship has sailed, once again on this thread. I will endeavor in the future, to simply state the Church position on a given matter, and give the source, then back away from getting into debate which might end up leading to the sin of pridefulness. Someone else pointed out that we all seem to be talking past each other, and I am starting to see that. It's uncertain what help we may be to each other as Christian brothers and sisters in these matters, but I figure if I confine myself to a presentation of the true Church doctrine, as opposed to some of the opinions and perceptions of Church doctrines that are out there, which I find generally to be, well, usually a little askew from what the Church actually teaches, then I can't really go to wrong. It may still raise hackles, and cause irritation, but it won't result in pointless banter, at least not with me. For those matters, (and there are some, believe it or not), where the Church leaves open many possibilities, there may be some value in calmly and rationally discussing my own personal opinions of things, as on open matters, I can learn something, and perhaps be persuaded. The dogmas concerning the blessed Mother are not good material for me to discuss most likely. I ONLY know, and frankly only CARE to know what the Church teaches on these, as I didn't have an opinion on the Marian matters PRIOR to coming into the Church, and it's somewhat disingenuous for me to do anything others that post actual Church teaching on them now. I have put my faith in the teaching authority of the Church on these Marian mysteries, and will continue to do so, unless and until the magesterium under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, is compelled to pronounce something different. In essence, who am I to say otherwise? I'm in favor of researching support for Church teaching, but detractions from Church teaching by protestant sources, are not really going to be useful for me. I am also aware that there are Church Fathers who are different from each other on some matters. I'm untroubled by this, as it is still the Church herself, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit who provides ALL material for study, and then declares on which is consistent with the scriptures of the NT, and and Christian apostolic tradition.

God bless you one and all.

I apologize if my previous posts in this or any other thread have caused personal offense. If so I take responsibility that it is likely because of my own spin, and not the Church teaching which is of God.

Peace,

Steve

Thank you, Steve, for your gracious defense of your church and its teachings. However, none of what you posted actually addressed the topic of this thread which is the Catholic dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. To simply state that you believe what your church teaches because your church teaches it is oxymoronic, IMO. I believe what my church teaches not merely because it teaches it but because it conforms to the revelation of God through His Word, the Bible.

In this particular matter the Bible, at best, is utterly silent. Given the fact that your church has elevated this teaching to the level of Dogma, which is the very highest and greatest form of teaching in your church, it is peculiar to me, and many others, that this should be so in light of the fact that God never gave the slightest direct statement pro or con.

Instead, we have some very serious indications that Jesus had brothers and sisters and that not only did they exist, but that they were named in the Gospels. It is no small matter that every single translation of these passages in English describes them as being brothers and sisters and not cousins (there is, of course, a perfectly adequate work in Greek for cousin). Nor is there any indication that Joseph did not know (have sexual relations with) Mary following the birth of Jesus. Nor is there any indication that Joseph was an elderly man who had children from a previous marriage and that Mary, contrary to nature, wanted to marry someone the age of her father.

In addition, there is the bizarre contrivance from Ezekiel in which the birth of Jesus Christ could not have been at all physically natural such that He emerged from the side of Mary.

If you wish to believe these things despite clear evidence to the contrary it is of no real concern to me, but it becomes a concern when your church insists that one must believe these things in order to be saved.

Kristos · Mar 24, 2015

bbbbbbb said:
Thank you, Steve, for your gracious defense of your church and its teachings. However, none of what you posted actually addressed the topic of this thread which is the Catholic dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. To simply state that you believe what your church teaches because your church teaches it is oxymoronic, IMO. I believe what my church teaches not merely because it teaches it but because it conforms to the revelation of God through His Word, the Bible.

In this particular matter the Bible, at best, is utterly silent. Given the fact that your church has elevated this teaching to the level of Dogma, which is the very highest and greatest form of teaching in your church, it is peculiar to me, and many others, that this should be so in light of the fact that God never gave the slightest direct statement pro or con.

Instead, we have some very serious indications that Jesus had brothers and sisters and that not only did they exist, but that they were named in the Gospels. It is no small matter that every single translation of these passages in English describes them as being brothers and sisters and not cousins (there is, of course, a perfectly adequate work in Greek for cousin). Nor is there any indication that Joseph did not know (have sexual relations with) Mary following the birth of Jesus. Nor is there any indication that Joseph was an elderly man who had children from a previous marriage and that Mary, contrary to nature, wanted to marry someone the age of her father.

In addition, there is the bizarre contrivance from Ezekiel in which the birth of Jesus Christ could not have been at all physically natural such that He emerged from the side of Mary.

If you wish to believe these things despite clear evidence to the contrary it is of no real concern to me, but it becomes a concern when your church insists that one must believe these things in order to be saved.

Actually - the original topic of this thread was simply - did Mary remain a virgin. The dogma part was inserted later...

CaliforniaJosiah · Mar 24, 2015

Kristos said:
Actually - the original topic of this thread was simply - did Mary remain a virgin. The dogma part was inserted later...

IMO the teaching and its status are two inseparable issues....

In MY personal view, we simply don't know how often Mary and Joseph shared loving, private martial intimacies (IF AT ALL) after Jesus was born and I honestly don't know why it matters - especially as a keenly divisive issue of highest importance possible, of greatest certainty of act possible, impacting the salvation of souls whether we affirm it as such or not.

I don't call it wrong (much less heretical) I just find nothing to confirm it as a matter of highest importance possible, of greatest certainty of fact possible, a divisive "line in the sand" that can determine if on is heaven bound or hell bound. Many of those I hold in great esteem (including my Lutheran pastor) hold to it - and as long as it's as pious opinion, I'm more than okay with that.

Sorry....

Thank you.

- Josiah

bbbbbbb · Mar 25, 2015

CaliforniaJosiah said:
IMO the teaching and its status are two inseparable issues....

In MY personal view, we simply don't know how often Mary and Joseph shared loving, private martial intimacies (IF AT ALL) after Jesus was born and I honestly don't know why it matters - especially as a keenly divisive issue of highest importance possible, of greatest certainty of act possible, impacting the salvation of souls whether we affirm it as such or not.

I don't call it wrong (much less heretical) I just find nothing to confirm it as a matter of highest importance possible, of greatest certainty of fact possible, a divisive "line in the sand" that can determine if on is heaven bound or hell bound. Many of those I hold in great esteem (including my Lutheran pastor) hold to it - and as long as it's as pious opinion, I'm more than okay with that.

Sorry....

Thank you.

- Josiah

Well stated.

ViaCrucis · Mar 25, 2015

Here's my position:

The sex life (or lack thereof) of the mother of God isn't my business.

-CryptoLutheran

Did the Virgin Mary remain a virgin?

Did the Virgin Mary remain a virgin?

Yes

No

Well-Known Member

barryatlake

Guest

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

barryatlake

Guest

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Pray like your life depends on it!

Well-Known Member

barryatlake

Guest

Pray like your life depends on it!

Well-Known Member

Disciple

bbbbbbb

Guest

Servant

Well-Known Member

bbbbbbb

Guest

Confessional Lutheran

Similar threads