Did the Virgin Mary remain a virgin?

[Panevino]

Y

Thank you for answering my question. This "vocation" is never mentioned in scripture. Have you ever wondered why that is, if, in fact, it is so utterly crucial?

Vocation refers to a calling.
It certainly is included in scripture in many places.
Mary and Joseph were called for the Son of God the Father.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Dispensationalists, and otherwise independent churches.

They're likely the reason Lutherans started talking to the RCC.

But Calvinism is literally like a gem brother- it remains as it originally was regardless of anything

Do you actually believe that the United Presbyterian Church in North America remains as it originally was regardless of anything?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Is that why we use the title "Holy Family" to describe Jesus, Mary and Joseph? Your main problem is you have lost all sense of the sacred, and falsely equate the sacred with antipathy to sex. It's a non sequitur found in most of Protestantism.
The sacred 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 Protestant Puritanism or Victorianism.

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.

Devout Catholics Have Better Sex, Says US News and World Report

I find your reply to be quite curious. Your appeal to the Bible falls quite flat, coming from a man whose Church has added a great deal of Tradition to the Bible, much of which, as with the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is entirely absent from the Bible.

The Catholic Church has taken prudery to an extreme level so that those individuals who are celibate are regarded as considerably more spiritual simply because of the fact that they are celibate.

Can you honestly tell me that you do not consider the priests, monks, and nuns of your Church to be devout? If, indeed, they are devout do they have "better sex" as your link clearly implies? The entire article depends on a fuzzy definition of what "devout" actually means.

 

[kepha31]

I find your reply to be quite curious. Your appeal to the Bible falls quite flat, coming from a man whose Church has added a great deal of Tradition to the Bible, much of which, as with the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is entirely absent from the Bible.

Adding Tradition to the Bible is like adding a wing to a bird after it's been ripped off. You can't add Tradition to the Bible because they are both inter-related. I put the proper definition of Tradition in my signature because it is constantly misunderstood. But you insist on re-defining it to make it fit your preconceptions.

You refuse to admit you are following a man made tradition of denying the PVM that started some 150 years ago.

I have defended the Perpetual Virginity of Mary about 20 times using Scripture alone. here it is again: Jesus Brothers and Mary's Perpetual Virginity -- Catholic Apologetics, Philosophy, Spirituality
The phrase "Perpetual Virginity of Mary" is entirely absent from the Bible. So is the word "vocation" so you seem to have issues with explicit texts and jump to the ridiculous conclusion that not explicit means non-existent. The PVM is also implied in the OT in many places, but you dare not accept any of that because it upholds the idea of sacredness which you have no sense of. But you hold fast to a non-existent principle that is not even inferred anywhere in the Bible: sola scriptura. Talk about double standards.

The Catholic Church has taken prudery to an extreme level so that those individuals who are celibate are regarded as considerably more spiritual simply because of the fact that they are celibate.

Nonsense. Marriage according to celibates is a higher calling because it is harder.

Can you honestly tell me that you do not consider the priests, monks, and nuns of your Church to be devout? If, indeed, they are devout do they have "better sex" as your link clearly implies? The entire article depends on a fuzzy definition of what "devout" actually means.

This proves you can't read. The entire article is about devout married couples, it makes no mention of devout priests, monks, and nuns. I don't have a fuzzy definition of "devout" but it seems you do.

 

[Phil 1:21]

I find your reply to be quite curious. Your appeal to the Bible falls quite flat, coming from a man whose Church has added a great deal of Tradition to the Bible, much of which, as with the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is entirely absent from the Bible.

Having been raised in the RCC, I don't think they add tradition to the Bible so much as set the Bible aside when it contradicts their tradition.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Adding Tradition to the Bible is like adding a wing to a bird after it's been ripped off. You can't add Tradition to the Bible because they are both inter-related. I put the proper definition of Tradition in my signature because it is constantly misunderstood. But you insist on re-defining it to make it fit your preconceptions.

You refuse to admit you are following a man made tradition of denying the PVM that started some 150 years ago.

I have defended the Perpetual Virginity of Mary about 20 times using Scripture alone. here it is again: Jesus Brothers and Mary's Perpetual Virginity -- Catholic Apologetics, Philosophy, Spirituality
The phrase "Perpetual Virginity of Mary" is entirely absent from the Bible. So is the word "vocation" so you seem to have issues with explicit texts and jump to the ridiculous conclusion that not explicit means non-existent. The PVM is also implied in the OT in many places, but you dare not accept any of that because it upholds the idea of sacredness which you have no sense of. But you hold fast to a non-existent principle that is not even inferred anywhere in the Bible: sola scriptura. Talk about double standards.
Nonsense. Marriage according to celibates is a higher calling because it is harder.

This proves you can't read. The entire article is about devout married couples, it makes no mention of devout priests, monks, and nuns. I don't have a fuzzy definition of "devout" but it seems you do.

Like this?

 

[kepha31]

Like this? View attachment 203613

No. Wings of a bird is a metaphor. You re being childish. Without Tradition, there would be no Bible. That's one reason why sola scriptura is so illogical and contradictory.

In addition to the red font in my signature that is invisible to you, one might also loosely define tradition as the authoritative and authentic Christian history of theological doctrines and devotional practices.
"Tradition" Isn't a Dirty Word
You reject authoritative and authentic Christian history by reduction-ism and then accuse us of "adding tradition to the Bible".

 

[Faith Alone 1 Cor 15:1-4]

No Mary did not remain virgin , she had at least 7 children ( Jesus + 4 Brothers +at least two sister because it's sisters - plural )

Scriptures :
Matthew 13:55-57
Matthew 12:46
Luke 8:19
Mark 3:31

 

[Phil 1:21]

Like this? View attachment 203613

'Murica!

 

[kepha31]

The practice of most Protestants today of denying the perpetual virginity of Mary is a fairly recent innovation – a peculiar historical aberration, particularly since certain Protestants, such as evangelicals, would consider themselves to be conservative Christians – that can't even find historical precedent among the primary magisterial Reformers; for that, one can only look to a hand-full of 4th century teachers who were otherwise universally rejected as heretics.
A Protestant Defense of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity

 

[bbbbbbb]

No. Wings of a bird is a metaphor. You re being childish. Without Tradition, there would be no Bible. That's one reason why sola scriptura is so illogical and contradictory.

In addition to the red font in my signature that is invisible to you, one might also loosely define tradition as the authoritative and authentic Christian history of theological doctrines and devotional practices.
"Tradition" Isn't a Dirty Word
You reject authoritative and authentic Christian history by reduction-ism and then accuse us of "adding tradition to the Bible".

That would be all well and sensible if the Traditional Churches could agree on Tradition. As it is, there is no agreement concerning its content, leaving folks like me scratching my head.

 

[kepha31]

No Mary did not remain virgin , she had at least 7 children ( Jesus + 4 Brothers +at least two sister because it's sisters - plural )

Scriptures :
Matthew 13:55-57
Matthew 12:46
Luke 8:19
Mark 3:31

Your bible twisting has been repeatedly exposed and refuted.
Jesus Brothers and Mary's Perpetual Virginity

see also A Protestant Defense of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity

You don't realize that you are following a man made tradition from the 19th century.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Having been raised in the RCC, I don't think they add tradition to the Bible so much as set the Bible aside when it contradicts their tradition.

That has been my observation, as well. Thank you.

 

[Panevino]

No Mary did not remain virgin , she had at least 7 children ( Jesus + 4 Brothers +at least two sister because it's sisters - plural )

Scriptures :
Matthew 13:55-57
Matthew 12:46
Luke 8:19
Mark 3:31

Assumption, that they are children of Mary. The accusations are from people who also assume things incorrectly, "Is he not the carpenters son..." no he is his step son. Based on historic Christianity they assume other things incorrectly

 

[Phil 1:21]

That has been my observation, as well. Thank you.

The above post is a perfect example.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Assumption, that they are children of Mary. The accusations are from people who also assume things incorrectly, "Is he not the carpenters son..." no he is his step son. Based on historic Christianity they assume other things incorrectly

Yes, that is a great pity. Even more so is the fact that all of the translators of the various Catholic Bibles in English appear to have fallen into the same trap. Very strangely, the writers of the Greek New Testament who had the use of words such as step-brother, cousin, or relative, used brothers (adelphi) and sisters (adelphia) to describe these individuals. Moreover, the aforementioned translators chose to translate these words as "brothers" and "sisters". Not only that, but their work received the imprimatur of the Catholic church. Is that not the strangest thing you can imagine?

 

[kepha31]

Yes, that is a great pity. Even more so is the fact that all of the translators of the various Catholic Bibles in English appear to have fallen into the same trap. Very strangely, the writers of the Greek New Testament who had the use of words such as step-brother, cousin, or relative, used brothers (adelphi) and sisters (adelphia) to describe these individuals. Moreover, the aforementioned translators chose to translate these words as "brothers" and "sisters". Not only that, but their work received the imprimatur of the Catholic church. Is that not the strangest thing you can imagine?

Because the Catholic Church understands the context of the word "brothers" and "sisters" and has never taught Jesus had siblings. Many Protestants have been duped by 19th century heretics, which is when all this nonsense started. It's a false man made tradition.

I argue that the term “brother” is used in the Gospels because these particular men were known BY THIS TITLE in the early Church. I give you: 1 Corinthians 9:4-5, in which Paul is defending his right to be called an apostle:

“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 lost by adherents of fad theology

A Protestant Defense of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity

 

[bbbbbbb]

Because the Catholic Church understands the context of the word "brothers" and "sisters" and has never taught Jesus had siblings. Many Protestants have been duped by 19th century heretics, which is when all this nonsense started. It's a false man made tradition.

I argue that the term “brother” is used in the Gospels because these particular men were known BY THIS TITLE in the early Church. I give you: 1 Corinthians 9:4-5, in which Paul is defending his right to be called an apostle:

“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 lost by adherents of fad theology

A Protestant Defense of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity

Again, I repeat that it seems to be a great pity that your own Bible translators devised what, to you, seems to be a false, man-made, fad theology. You can thank your Saint Jerome for that. He knew full well what a brother and a sister were and what a step-brother, step-sister, cousin, or other relative was. However, he had the intellectual integrity to translate the gospel passages in question as brothers and sisters, being fully aware that they would be understood as brother and sisters of Jesus Christ and children of Mary. I am quite certain that Jerome never imagined that the brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ did not have the same mother. Was Joseph a philanderer or bigamist? I think not.

 

[Panevino]

Yes, that is a great pity. Even more so is the fact that all of the translators of the various Catholic Bibles in English appear to have fallen into the same trap. Very strangely, the writers of the Greek New Testament who had the use of words such as step-brother, cousin, or relative, used brothers (adelphi) and sisters (adelphia) to describe these individuals. Moreover, the aforementioned translators chose to translate these words as "brothers" and "sisters". Not only that, but their work received the imprimatur of the Catholic church. Is that not the strangest thing you can imagine?

I know it's hard too believe but no it's not strange.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I know it's hard too believe but no it's not strange.

Thank you for agreeing with me.