Did the Virgin Mary remain a virgin?

Did the Virgin Mary remain a virgin?

  • Yes

  • No


Results are only viewable after voting.

Panevino

Newbie
Sep 25, 2011
480
114
✟41,561.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Whose son's would the brother's of Jesus be, if not Joseph.

Are you saying Mary was remarried after Joseph?
no I'm saying joseph is not the biological father of Jesus, but using your rules of interpretation (i.e. Look at individual Verse only) there is no wiggle room in Matt 13:55 to deny it.

[/QUOTE]
 
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
21,424
11,978
58
Sydney, Straya
✟1,167,262.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Yes I am a former Messianic, and no I don't just make stuff up, so characterizing me as a liar is out of bounds.

Dietary and liturgical differences do not define what is "Protestant" and what isn't. Messianic Judaism – as a movement – was birthed within Protestantism (and its theological frameworks, structures, etc.) in the 1960s. It did not start within Judaism. This isn't controversial or disputed.

However, as I said earlier: This is probably best discussed in another thread. (But I have a feeling that we're not done yet.)
There are Baptists who believe their Church traces its lineage back to John the Baptist. Amazing how much influence a name can have.
 
Upvote 0

BukiRob

Newbie
Dec 14, 2012
2,766
991
Columbus, Ohio
✟50,619.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Yes I am a former Messianic, and no I don't just make stuff up, so characterizing me as a liar is out of bounds.

Dietary and liturgical differences do not define what is "Protestant" and what isn't. Messianic Judaism – as a movement – was birthed within Protestantism (and its theological frameworks, structures, etc.) in the 1960s. It did not start within Judaism. This isn't controversial or disputed.

However, as I said earlier: This is probably best discussed in another thread. (But I have a feeling that we're not done yet.)

And As I said, it is NOT Protestant. It is NOT a movement it is a sect of Judaism. Its theological framework is DECIDEDLY Jewish founded on the Torah and Tanakh. It sees Yeshua as the fulfillment of the promise YVHV gave Abraham. Messianic Judaism is based on the ACTS model of the body where Jews and Gentiles come together and Gentiles are GRAFTED IN.

There is almost NOTHING Protestant about Messianic Judaism for it LONG predates Catholicism and the Protestant movement because Messianic Judaism is what you saw illustrated in scripture in Acts and the other epistles.

Messianic Judaism has been practiced since BEFORE the destruction of the Temple in 70AD
 
Upvote 0

BukiRob

Newbie
Dec 14, 2012
2,766
991
Columbus, Ohio
✟50,619.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
These “brothers” are never once called the children of Mary, although Jesus himself is (John 2:1; Acts 1:14).
Acts 15:
13 After they finished speaking, James replied, “Brothers, listen to me.

According to your ABUSE of the term "brother", James is talking to his siblings.
Acts 12:
16 But Peter continued knocking, and when they opened, they saw him and were amazed. 17 But motioning to them with his hand to be silent, he described to them how the Lord had brought him out of the prison. And he said, “Tell these things to James and to the brothers.” Then he departed and went to another place.

According to your ABUSE of the term "brother", Peter is saying “Tell these things to James and to the siblings.”
Acts 21:
17 When we had come to Jerusalem, the brothers received us gladly. 18 On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present.

It does not mean, "the siblings of Jesus."
1 Cor. 15:6, do you mean from this verse that Mary gave birth to more than 500 children???
Acts 1:15 At a time when about 120 disciples had gathered together, Peter got up and spoke to them.
He said, 16 “Brothers, what the Holy Spirit predicted through David in Scripture about Judas had to come true. Judas led the men to arrest Jesus.

Mary would have to be pregnant for 90 years to produce that many "brothers".

The term brother (Gk. adelphos) obviously has a broader meaning than uterine brothers. It can mean a biological brother, but it can also mean an extended relative, or even a spiritual brother. This is a scriptural reality that is denied by the liberal heretics that invented this nonsense after the 19th century.

Take Genesis 13:8 for example. Here the word brother is being used to describe the relationship between Abraham and Lot, who were not biological brothers but uncle and nephew:

“So Abram said to Lot, “Let’s not have any quarreling between you and me, or between your herdsmen and mine, for we are brothers (Gen 13:8, NIV; see also 14:12).
This is a scriptural reality that you must deny.
1 Corinthians 9:4-5
“Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the apostles, AND THE BROTHERS OF THE LORD, and Kephas (i.e., Peter)?”

Since Paul is writing to Corinthians: citizens of a city in far off Greece, it is obvious that the distinguishing TITLE of “brother” was well known to the universal Church, a Church which also knew very well what the title meant, a title you are abusing.

Your man made assertions have been debunked several times. Jesus Brothers and Mary's Perpetual Virginity You are also in defiance of every early church author who wrote about it.

You are also in defiance of your own reformers.
When Fundamentalists study the writings of the Reformers on Mary, the Mother of Jesus, they will find that the Reformers accepted almost every major Marian doctrine and considered these doctrines to be both scriptural and fundamental to the historic Christian Faith.

Perpetual Virginity: Again throughout his life Luther held that Mary's perpetual virginity was an article of faith for all Christians - and interpreted Galatians 4:4 to mean that Christ was "born of a woman" alone.

"It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a Virgin."
Martin Luther, op. cit., Volume 11, 319-320.

Calvin
"Helvidius has shown himself too ignorant, in saying that Mary had several sons, because mention is made in some passages of the brothers of Christ."
Calvin translated "brothers" in this context to mean cousins or relatives.
Bernard Leeming, "Protestants and Our Lady", Marian Library Studies, January 1967, p.9.

Martin Luther, inventor of sola scriptura, taught the PVM.
I believe in revealed truth as handed down, you believe in whatever you choose.


And this is EXACTLY why using a lexicon and the consensus translation of multiple EXPERTS in Greek is to be preferred over the views of an individual or any church tradition.

adelphos

The word DOES mean familial BROTHER and it ALSO means Brother in the context of a fellow male believer.

So how do we know which is the proper use? Should we rely on Calvin or the Church traditions OR is there a better way to know how the word is being used?

1. a brother (whether born of the same two parents, or only of the same father or the same mother): Matthew 1:2; Matthew 4:18, and often. That 'the brethren of Jesus,' Matthew 12:46, 47 (but WH only in marginal reading); f; Mark 6:3 (in the last two passages also sisters); Luke 8:19; John 2:12; John 7:3; Acts 1:14; Galatians 1:19; 1 Corinthians 9:5, are neither sons of Joseph by a wife married before Mary (which is the account in the Apocryphal Gospels (cf. Thilo, Cod. Apocr. N. T. i. 362f)), nor cousins, the children of Alphaeus or Cleophas (i. e. Clopas) and Mary a sister of the mother of Jesus (the current opinion among the doctors of the church since Jerome and Augustine (cf. Lightfoot's Commentary on Galatians, diss. ii.)), according to that use of language by which ἀδελφός like the Hebrew אָח denotes any blood-relation or kinsman (Genesis 14:16; 1 Samuel 20:29; 2 Kings 10:13; 1 Chronicles 23:2, etc.), but own brothers, born after Jesus, is clear principally from Matthew 1:25 (only in R G); Luke 2:7 — where, had Mary borne no other children after Jesus, instead of υἱόνπρωτότοκον, the expression υἱόν μονογενῆ would have been used, as well as from Acts 1:14, cf. John 7:5, where the Lord's brethren are distinguished from the apostles. See further on this point under Ἰάκωβος, 3. (Cf. B. D. under the word ; Andrews, Life of our Lord, pp. 104-116; Bib. Sacr. for 1864, pp. 855-869; for 1869, pp. 745-758; Laurent, N. T. Studien, pp. 153-193; McClellan, note on Matthew 13:55.)


Clearly, the language usage in the cases above are a FAMILIAL usage of 1. aelphos and NOT as a fellow countryman or fellow believer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JLB777
Upvote 0

SteveCaruso

Translator
May 17, 2010
812
555
✟54,511.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
And As I said, it is NOT Protestant. It is NOT a movement it is a sect of Judaism. Its theological framework is DECIDEDLY Jewish founded on the Torah and Tanakh. It sees Yeshua as the fulfillment of the promise YVHV gave Abraham. Messianic Judaism is based on the ACTS model of the body where Jews and Gentiles come together and Gentiles are GRAFTED IN.

There is almost NOTHING Protestant about Messianic Judaism for it LONG predates Catholicism and the Protestant movement because Messianic Judaism is what you saw illustrated in scripture in Acts and the other epistles.

Messianic Judaism has been practiced since BEFORE the destruction of the Temple in 70AD

I think the fact that this has disquieted you enough to "INTERNET SHOUT" at me while making some fantastical claims about primacy – and bungling the Tetragram in the process – is where I stop responding on this thread.

Open a thread on Controversial Theology and I may continue to contribute there, but not in Mariography & Hagiography.
 
  • Like
Reactions: prodromos
Upvote 0

JLB777

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 18, 2012
5,905
1,258
✟403,811.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
no I'm saying joseph is not the biological father of Jesus, but using your rules of interpretation (i.e. Look at individual Verse only) there is no wiggle room in Matt 13:55 to deny it.
[/QUOTE]

Please quote a scripture and not just a scripture reference, and refer the the actual language in the scripture to make whatever point you are trying to make.
 
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
21,424
11,978
58
Sydney, Straya
✟1,167,262.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I'm having problems figuring out why Mary would even want to stay a virgin while she was married.
I know of a few celibate marriages where husband and wife have devoted themselves to God. Mary and Joseph were raising God as a child. I'm having problems figuring out why Mary and Joseph would even want to have sexual relations under such circumstance.
 
Upvote 0

JLB777

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 18, 2012
5,905
1,258
✟403,811.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I know of a few celibate marriages where husband and wife have devoted themselves to God. Mary and Joseph were raising God as a child. I'm having problems figuring out why Mary and Joseph would even want to have sexual relations under such circumstance.


I know of no couples who are married and have never had sex with one another.


The purpose of marriage is to fulfill the Lord's plan for mankind, which is godly offspring, that will be fruitful and multiply, subdue the earth and have dominion, so that the kingdoms of the is world shall become the kingdoms of our Lord and His Christ, in which the knowledge of the glory of the Lord will cover the earth as the waters cover the sea, and God's will shall be on earth as it is in heaven.


On earth as it is in heaven.


Someone who is raising God in the flesh, would want to have other children to fulfill His will for mankind.



JLB
 
Upvote 0

SeventyOne

Well-Known Member
May 2, 2015
4,675
3,188
✟167,098.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvary Chapel
Marital Status
Married
I know of a few celibate marriages where husband and wife have devoted themselves to God. Mary and Joseph were raising God as a child. I'm having problems figuring out why Mary and Joseph would even want to have sexual relations under such circumstance.

Since sex isn't the same thing as lack of devotion to God, it still makes no sense. Paul tells us the following in 1 Corinthians,

The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

If she didn't have sex with Joseph, then she was probably in sin for denying his authority over her body (as Paul states), as are your celibate marriages you referenced.

But that said, still, why would she even want to do so. It's unnatural. And not only would she not want to, but so would Joseph not want to do so, which is even more unnatural.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JLB777
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

kepha31

Regular Member
Jun 15, 2007
1,819
595
72
✟44,439.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Since sex isn't the same thing as lack of devotion to God, it still makes no sense. Paul tells us the following in 1 Corinthians,

The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

If she didn't have sex with Joseph, then she was probably in sin for denying his authority over her body (as Paul states), as are your celibate marriages you referenced.

But that said, still, why would she even want to do so. It's unnatural. And not only would she not want to, but so would Joseph not want to do so, which is even more unnatural.
In order to have an incarnate God, He has to come about in a way that is not the usual reproductive method.

That entails the virgin birth (“with child by the Holy Spirit” rather than by a man).

Perpetual virginity is an extension of the supernatural nature of the birth. If Mary had had other children, skeptical people like you, who reject the virgin birth as it is, would have more “grounds” to doubt that Jesus’ birth was supernatural and miraculous.

I don’t see how this has anything whatever to do with an “anti-sex” message. Sexuality is only tangentially involved insofar as sex is the way that human beings are normally conceived. Since this is a miraculous conception, sex could not be involved.

Your view is like arguing that a person who wants to get to the top of a hill by a method other than walking is “anti-walking.” Does that make any sense? No . . .

Now, how one gets to the virgin birth / perpetual virginity scenario to an imaginary position that all of this somehow is an “anti-sexual” point of view, perhaps you can explain to me. It’s not actually there. It’s merely projected onto the state of affairs by those who already believe that the Church is “against sex” merely (mostly, it seems to me) because it has sensible rules (another whole discussion).

It’s like saying that one is “against beer drinking” because one believes that it is sensible to not drink five bottles of beer and then drive a car. Is that against beer itself or is it for a sensible use of a substance that alters cognitive abilities?

Now, going beyond Mary and the birth of Jesus, the biblical, Christian view of virginity is that it’s a great state if one is called to it. Paul teaches (1 Corinthians 7) that all should follow the calling that God gave them. If they are called to be single (which in biblical morality, means celibate), this is good, because (as he says) the single person can give undistracted attention to the Lord, whereas the married person is naturally concerned about wife or husband, too.

Both states are, therefore, exalted. The consecrated virgin is considered to be “married to the Lord”. Marriage is a sacrament. It gives grace to those who are married.

I have found that it’s only in the Catholic Church that a single, celibate person is considered valuable, and not defined merely by the lack of a mate. Every other institution and our society (generally speaking) tend to look down upon single people as freaks, weirdos, oddballs, misfits, incomplete, inadequate, people that don’t fit in.

Protestants and Orthodox insist upon married clergy. Our view (Roman Rite / Western / Latin Catholicism) is that we prefer priests to be among the category of people who have totally devoted themselves to God, as consecrated virgins: a heroic sacrifice made for the sake of God. But Eastern Catholics allow and encourage married priests. This is a matter of discipline, and not dogma (thus, it could change).

Again, that hasn’t the slightest to do with some supposed antipathy to sex. If you want that, you have to go to ancient Gnostic views or Puritanism or Victorianism: that sort of thing.

There is not a single passage in the Bible that states that “marital sex is evil / wicked / bad.” If you’re so sure that Catholicism is “anti-sex” then surely you could produce one or more such passages. But it can’t be done because they don’t exist. And you ought to know that already, since you say you’ve studied the Bible a lot.

Catholic Virginity: Is it Merely an "Anti-Sex" Viewpoint?


fbe79833cd65c02864c3700a0ea34343.jpg
 
Upvote 0

JLB777

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 18, 2012
5,905
1,258
✟403,811.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
In order to have an incarnate God, He has to come about in a way that is not the usual reproductive method.

That entails the virgin birth (“with child by the Holy Spirit” rather than by a man).

Perpetual virginity is an extension of the supernatural nature of the birth. If Mary had had other children, skeptical people like you, who reject the virgin birth as it is, would have more “grounds” to doubt that Jesus’ birth was supernatural and miraculous.

I don’t see how this has anything whatever to do with an “anti-sex” message. Sexuality is only tangentially involved insofar as sex is the way that human beings are normally conceived. Since this is a miraculous conception, sex could not be involved.

Your view is like arguing that a person who wants to get to the top of a hill by a method other than walking is “anti-walking.” Does that make any sense? No . . .

Now, how one gets to the virgin birth / perpetual virginity scenario to an imaginary position that all of this somehow is an “anti-sexual” point of view, perhaps you can explain to me. It’s not actually there. It’s merely projected onto the state of affairs by those who already believe that the Church is “against sex” merely (mostly, it seems to me) because it has sensible rules (another whole discussion).

It’s like saying that one is “against beer drinking” because one believes that it is sensible to not drink five bottles of beer and then drive a car. Is that against beer itself or is it for a sensible use of a substance that alters cognitive abilities?

Now, going beyond Mary and the birth of Jesus, the biblical, Christian view of virginity is that it’s a great state if one is called to it. Paul teaches (1 Corinthians 7) that all should follow the calling that God gave them. If they are called to be single (which in biblical morality, means celibate), this is good, because (as he says) the single person can give undistracted attention to the Lord, whereas the married person is naturally concerned about wife or husband, too.

Both states are, therefore, exalted. The consecrated virgin is considered to be “married to the Lord”. Marriage is a sacrament. It gives grace to those who are married.

I have found that it’s only in the Catholic Church that a single, celibate person is considered valuable, and not defined merely by the lack of a mate. Every other institution and our society (generally speaking) tend to look down upon single people as freaks, weirdos, oddballs, misfits, incomplete, inadequate, people that don’t fit in.

Protestants and Orthodox insist upon married clergy. Our view (Roman Rite / Western / Latin Catholicism) is that we prefer priests to be among the category of people who have totally devoted themselves to God, as consecrated virgins: a heroic sacrifice made for the sake of God. But Eastern Catholics allow and encourage married priests. This is a matter of discipline, and not dogma (thus, it could change).

Again, that hasn’t the slightest to do with some supposed antipathy to sex. If you want that, you have to go to ancient Gnostic views or Puritanism or Victorianism: that sort of thing.

There is not a single passage in the Bible that states that “marital sex is evil / wicked / bad.” If you’re so sure that Catholicism is “anti-sex” then surely you could produce one or more such passages. But it can’t be done because they don’t exist. And you ought to know that already, since you say you’ve studied the Bible a lot.

Catholic Virginity: Is it Merely an "Anti-Sex" Viewpoint?


fbe79833cd65c02864c3700a0ea34343.jpg




Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, 1 Timothy 4:1-3
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Phil 1:21
Upvote 0

SeventyOne

Well-Known Member
May 2, 2015
4,675
3,188
✟167,098.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvary Chapel
Marital Status
Married
In order to have an incarnate God, He has to come about in a way that is not the usual reproductive method.

That entails the virgin birth (“with child by the Holy Spirit” rather than by a man).

Perpetual virginity is an extension of the supernatural nature of the birth. If Mary had had other children, skeptical people like you, who reject the virgin birth as it is, would have more “grounds” to doubt that Jesus’ birth was supernatural and miraculous.

I don’t see how this has anything whatever to do with an “anti-sex” message. Sexuality is only tangentially involved insofar as sex is the way that human beings are normally conceived. Since this is a miraculous conception, sex could not be involved.

Your view is like arguing that a person who wants to get to the top of a hill by a method other than walking is “anti-walking.” Does that make any sense? No . . .

Now, how one gets to the virgin birth / perpetual virginity scenario to an imaginary position that all of this somehow is an “anti-sexual” point of view, perhaps you can explain to me. It’s not actually there. It’s merely projected onto the state of affairs by those who already believe that the Church is “against sex” merely (mostly, it seems to me) because it has sensible rules (another whole discussion).

It’s like saying that one is “against beer drinking” because one believes that it is sensible to not drink five bottles of beer and then drive a car. Is that against beer itself or is it for a sensible use of a substance that alters cognitive abilities?

Now, going beyond Mary and the birth of Jesus, the biblical, Christian view of virginity is that it’s a great state if one is called to it. Paul teaches (1 Corinthians 7) that all should follow the calling that God gave them. If they are called to be single (which in biblical morality, means celibate), this is good, because (as he says) the single person can give undistracted attention to the Lord, whereas the married person is naturally concerned about wife or husband, too.

Both states are, therefore, exalted. The consecrated virgin is considered to be “married to the Lord”. Marriage is a sacrament. It gives grace to those who are married.

I have found that it’s only in the Catholic Church that a single, celibate person is considered valuable, and not defined merely by the lack of a mate. Every other institution and our society (generally speaking) tend to look down upon single people as freaks, weirdos, oddballs, misfits, incomplete, inadequate, people that don’t fit in.

Protestants and Orthodox insist upon married clergy. Our view (Roman Rite / Western / Latin Catholicism) is that we prefer priests to be among the category of people who have totally devoted themselves to God, as consecrated virgins: a heroic sacrifice made for the sake of God. But Eastern Catholics allow and encourage married priests. This is a matter of discipline, and not dogma (thus, it could change).

Again, that hasn’t the slightest to do with some supposed antipathy to sex. If you want that, you have to go to ancient Gnostic views or Puritanism or Victorianism: that sort of thing.

There is not a single passage in the Bible that states that “marital sex is evil / wicked / bad.” If you’re so sure that Catholicism is “anti-sex” then surely you could produce one or more such passages. But it can’t be done because they don’t exist. And you ought to know that already, since you say you’ve studied the Bible a lot.

Catholic Virginity: Is it Merely an "Anti-Sex" Viewpoint?


What are you even talking about? Who denied the virgin birth? I sure didn't.

There is no supernatural requirement that she remained a virgin her whole life. That's just made up stuff to justify a position.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Phil 1:21
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Panevino

Newbie
Sep 25, 2011
480
114
✟41,561.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
For the birth of Jesus, yes. I'm talking about after that.
Her relationship and circumstances of being the mother of God incarnate is unique and this context needs to be considered.

The overshadowing of by the Holy Spirit is a mystery and has nuptial connotations.

The idea of a covering /overshadowing and a relation to nuptials is included in deu22:30, 27:20
ezek16:7-8, ruth3:9-10/4:13
 
Upvote 0

Phil 1:21

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2017
5,869
4,399
United States
✟144,842.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What are you even talking about? Who denied the virgin birth? I sure didn't.

There is no supernatural requirement that she remained a virgin her whole life. That's just made up stuff to justify a position.

This is one of those examples of what happens when we confuse the word of man for the word of God. We get made up theologies that are unbiblical but sound good if you're trying to convert pagans who want to worship a goddess.
 
Upvote 0

SeventyOne

Well-Known Member
May 2, 2015
4,675
3,188
✟167,098.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvary Chapel
Marital Status
Married
Her relationship and circumstances of being the mother of God incarnate is unique and this context needs to be considered.

The overshadowing of by the Holy Spirit is a mystery and has nuptial connotations.

The idea of a covering /overshadowing and a relation to nuptials is included in deu22:30, 27:20
ezek16:7-8, ruth3:9-10/4:13

So, your stand is that she was a polygamist?
 
Upvote 0

kepha31

Regular Member
Jun 15, 2007
1,819
595
72
✟44,439.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, 1 Timothy 4:1-3
You guys keep saying the CC didn't exist when Paul wrote to Timothy, now you take cheap shots equating celibacy, which Jesus and Paul advocated, as "forbidding to marry" which has nothing to do with celibacy. Take a brief history lesson. It was the Gnostics Paul was talking about, who forbade marriage because they believed the flesh was evil. The same with false fasting from certain foods. They didn't fast according to the teachings of Jesus, they fasted because they believed the food was evil.

Celibacy is a free choice made by priests in the Latin rite, and marriage is a sacrament in the Catholic Church. The false accusation of "forbidding to marry" is Bible twisting at it's worst.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Panevino
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

kepha31

Regular Member
Jun 15, 2007
1,819
595
72
✟44,439.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
So, your stand is that she was a polygamist?
It's not Pan that says that, it's everyone who has been deceived by 19th century heretics. Before that, every church on the planet taught the PVM.

Joseph might have reasoned: Since Mary was inhabited by the Spirit, and by the Holy One conceived by the Spirit, she was, or at least her womb was, holy space. If she is holy space, he cannot have sex with her, since by the rules of Torah sex defiled both the man and the woman (Leviticus 15:18). Having sex with Mary during her pregnancy would have been like a leper or a menstruant entering the temple of God. It would have been like having sex in the temple court itself.

The idea that Mary loses her acquired temple sanctity once Jesus is delivered is odd, for in Judaism and Christianity holy things do not revert to common use once they’re taken out of sacred service. It may not be strictly necessary that the Virgin Mary remain the Perpetual Virgin Mary, but it is certainly fitting.
St. Matthew’s Gospel teaches that Mary has been a holy vessel. Having had “Emmanuel,” God incarnate, in her womb, could it be returned to common use? Unlikely. If the Ark of the Old Testament were recovered today, would anyone of any piety dare use it (say) as a trunk or footlocker? Neither is it likely that Joseph would have treated the New Ark of the Covenant in a common way. Or ask contemporary Orthodox Jews about the Wailing Wall. Though the Temple in Jerusalem was leveled by the Romans almost two thousand years ago in 70 C.E., Jews still gather there to pray at this one wall remaining; the site retains its sanctity.

In the world of St. Matthew’s Gospel the destruction of the temple is punishment for the murder of God’s Son; Jesus dies, and God flees the Holy of Holies through the rendered temple veil. Thus the Romans advance on Jerusalem a generation later, leveling the city and razing the temple. But Mary has done nothing deserving that sort of abandonment. Even if the Son departs her womb, she’s no “empty shell.”

Like the site of the temple for Jews, Christian vessels retain their sanctity: It simply would not be fitting for Catholics, or Orthodox, or (for that matter) Lutherans who have a high view of Holy Communion to (say) sell a worn-out chalice that has held the Blood of Christ at a parish rummage sale and have someone then use it to sip Cabernet while binge-watching the latest series on Netflix. Even after vessels, vestments, and sacramentals wear out, they retain their sanctity, and so require especial treatment and disposition. Mary’s womb having held God, then, it is simply not fitting that she and Joseph would have copulated in the normal way. Like temples and vessels, she retains her special sanctity.
On the Perpetual Virginity of Mary: A Response to Peter Leithart – Catholic World Report
 
Upvote 0