Is the perpetual virginity of Mary made up?

[MyGivenNameIsKeith]

I have found in research, a religious practice in ancient Rome which was referred to as the Vestals. The Vestal Virgin she was called. The first legendary Vestal being Rhea Silvia, the mythical mother of Remus and Romulus, the founders of Rome.
In ancient Rome, the Vestals or Vestal Virgins (Latin: Vestālēs, singular Vestālis [wɛsˈtaː.lɪs]) were priestesses of Vesta, goddess of the hearth. The College of the Vestals and its well-being were regarded as fundamental to the continuance and security of Rome. They cultivated the sacred fire that was not allowed to go out. The Vestals were freed of the usual social obligations to marry and bear children, and took a vow of chastity in order to devote themselves to the study and correct observance of state rituals that were off-limits to the male colleges of priests.[1]
Did the Vatican take this Roman tradition and combine it with the story of the virgin Mary to corrupt the true gospel, by maintaining that Mary stayed a perpetual virgin, under the guise of the authority of the Church over the Word of God, where scripture clearly refutes her perpetuality?

 

[salt-n-light]

Sounds like it.

 

[prodromos]

I have found in research, a religious practice in ancient Rome which was referred to as the Vestals. The Vestal Virgin she was called. The first legendary Vestal being Rhea Silvia, the mythical mother of Remus and Romulus, the founders of Rome.
In ancient Rome, the Vestals or Vestal Virgins (Latin: Vestālēs, singular Vestālis [wɛsˈtaː.lɪs]) were priestesses of Vesta, goddess of the hearth. The College of the Vestals and its well-being were regarded as fundamental to the continuance and security of Rome. They cultivated the sacred fire that was not allowed to go out. The Vestals were freed of the usual social obligations to marry and bear children, and took a vow of chastity in order to devote themselves to the study and correct observance of state rituals that were off-limits to the male colleges of priests.[1]
Did the Vatican take this Roman tradition and combine it with the story of the virgin Mary to corrupt the true gospel, by maintaining that Mary stayed a perpetual virgin, under the guise of the authority of the Church over the Word of God, where scripture clearly refutes her perpetuality?

This sounds like a regurgitation of Alexander Hislop's rubbish.

The ever virginity of Mary was defended by councils consisting of hundreds of bishops from all over the place. Rome was barely represented at these councils. Church Fathers in the early centuries referred to Mary as the virgin Mary, not in past tense, but in the present tense, meaning she is still virgin.
There is no demonstrable link to the "vestal virgins" of pagan Rome.

 

[amariselle]

What I don't understand is why it would be so terrible if Mary actually did not remain a virgin after Christ's birth. She was a married woman and sex within marriage is not sinful or defiling. In fact, it was God's design and plan for marriage and it honours and glorifies Him when it is shared within the bonds of marriage.

 

[MyGivenNameIsKeith]

This sounds like a regurgitation of Alexander Hislop's rubbish.

The ever virginity of Mary was defended by councils consisting of hundreds of bishops from all over the place. Rome was barely represented at these councils. Church Fathers in the early centuries referred to Mary as the virgin Mary, not in past tense, but in the present tense, meaning she is still virgin.
There is no demonstrable link to the "vestal virgins" of pagan Rome.

It does beg the question, why would Jesus be referred to as her firstborn Matthew 1:25? The word "first" typically implies that there are others. Which scriptures themselves indicate. And while many early church people differed on the idea that she stayed a virgin or didn't she, scriptures would lead one to believe she did not. Mark 6:3 Matthew 13:55 John 7:3 Acts 1:14 1 Corinthians 9:5, even listing some by name, Simon, Jude, Joses (Joseph), and James. Scriptures here are shown to support Joseph and Mary having consummated their marriage after the birth of Jesus. In relation to the Original Post as to WHY it was made up, the correlation between the perpetual virginity/celibacy of a woman in regards to religious worship, is directly correlated with the Roman practice of the time which pertained to the Republic itself, the Vestals, which saw the last of its order in 394 A.D. , nearly 400 years after the birth of Christ. Emperor Nero even had a wife who was of this order. So while Irenaeus, and others may support perpetual virginity, and was attested to explicitly in 649, an 680 at ecumenical councils, the more credible evidence would appear around the biblical times that they lived, not 2-600 years after the fact deduced by years and years of debate. I am not familiar with Hislop's works. Just the bible.

 

[prodromos]

It does beg the question, why would Jesus be referred to as her firstborn Matthew 1:25? The word "first" typically implies that there are others. Which scriptures themselves indicate.

"First born" is a reference to inheritance. Every only child is also a "first born" child.

And while many early church people differed on the idea that she stayed a virgin or didn't she, scriptures would lead one to believe she did not. Mark 6:3 Matthew 13:55 John 7:3 Acts 1:14 1 Corinthians 9:5, even listing some by name, Simon, Jude, Joses (Joseph), and James. Scriptures here are shown to support Joseph and Mary having consummated their marriage after the birth of Jesus.

Scripture is entirely consistent with Joseph being an older widower with children of his own. Jesus brethren did not initially believe in Him which would be remarkable if they were indeed younger siblings who had grown up in his shadow but not at all surprising if they were already young adults when Jesus was born. The way they treat Him is consistent with older siblings with a young celebrity brother. Mary's response to being told by the archangel Gabriel that she would conceive is entirely consistent with a woman who had taken a vow in accordance with Numbers 30, and is not the response of a young bride expecting to raise a family with her husband. The understanding of the word "until" in Matthew 1:25 has been done to death on this forum. People either accept it or reject it based on what they already believe. Jesus handing His mother's care over to the Apostle John is also consistent with Jesus being her only child. In short, arguments can be made both ways. Scripture does not clearly argue one way or the other.

In relation to the Original Post as to WHY it was made up, the correlation between the perpetual virginity/celibacy of a woman in regards to religious worship, is directly correlated with the Roman practice of the time which pertained to the Republic itself, the Vestals, which saw the last of its order in 394 A.D. , nearly 400 years after the birth of Christ. Emperor Nero even had a wife who was of this order. So while Irenaeus, and others may support perpetual virginity, and was attested to explicitly in 649, an 680 at ecumenical councils, the more credible evidence would appear around the biblical times that they lived, not 2-600 years after the fact deduced by years and years of debate. I am not familiar with Hislop's works. Just the bible.

Since no one ever venerated the vestal virgins, it does not follow that there is a correlation between the two.

 

[MyGivenNameIsKeith]

"First born" is a reference to inheritance. Every only child is also a "first born" child.

Scripture is entirely consistent with Joseph being an older widower with children of his own. Jesus brethren did not initially believe in Him which would be remarkable if they were indeed younger siblings who had grown up in his shadow but not at all surprising if they were already young adults when Jesus was born. The way they treat Him is consistent with older siblings with a young celebrity brother. Mary's response to being told by the archangel Gabriel that she would conceive is entirely consistent with a woman who had taken a vow in accordance with Numbers 30, and is not the response of a young bride expecting to raise a family with her husband. The understanding of the word "until" in Matthew 1:25 has been done to death on this forum. People either accept it or reject it based on what they already believe. Jesus handing His mother's care over to the Apostle John is also consistent with Jesus being her only child. In short, arguments can be made both ways. Scripture does not clearly argue one way or the other.

Since no one ever venerated the vestal virgins, it does not follow that there is a correlation between the two.

I am an only child of my mother and father. First born would imply that there is a second. You can't win first place in a race when no one else races, there would be no second place. Numbers 30 in no way reflects what you are attempting to justify here. As it assumes that a vow shall stand, which is all good. She stayed a virgin until Jesus was born. No problem. But the wording here really, really implies that something afterwards did kind of take place.
Matthew 1:18
Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise:
When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph,
before they came together,
She was found with child of the Holy Ghost
Leads me to believe they would come together as "before" something , usually implies the "something".
Matthew 1:25 "..knew her not till.." until something implies that something would happen to mark the end of the time period, hence "until", then afterwards.
Matthew 2:14 When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt.
Here we see there are only three of them. No other kids. Some would call that bad parenting to leave kids behind.
John 2:12 shows he has brethren, which are distinct from his disciples.
or Matthew 13:55-56
And in Matthew 2:22 we see her completing her purification according to the law of Moses. So if she had a "vow" as you had said in Numbers 30, it's completed here.
My question here still remains valid and sharpened, as there is no scriptural evidence for her remaining a virgin and more scriptures suggest she had not remained so after the birth of Christ, and thus consummated her marriage and had other children. adelphio in Greek being "of the same womb" when it refers to brethren. People typically don't get married and not do the deed. I propose that it is indeed a Roman tradition that "creeped in unawares", if I may paraphrase Jude here. This being the Vestal Virgin tradition. A Roman tradition that existed for a thousand years. Given the intertwining of the Roman Empire and Christianity explained in the concept of Christianization. Since the Vestal Virgin concept existed prior to Christ, when Christianized, it could make Mary a perpetual virgin as this was seen as an acceptable belief merging the two in a Roman and Christian manner. Of course not withstanding, easy to se how this was an ideal that led ultimately to the adopting of Christianity as the formal religion of the Roman empire by Constantine in approximately 325. As he being a pagan emperor turned Christian, incorporating tradition to better control the masses would be a wise tactic.

 

[prodromos]

My apologies, but I'm only going to respond to parts of your post as I have time, as I don't have much free time at present.

I am an only child of my mother and father. First born would imply that there is a second.

Exodus 12:29-30
Every household was hit regardless of whether they had 1 child or more, or are you claiming that the angel also passed over households with only one child.
Exodus 4:22
If Israel is God's firstborn son, who is the second?
Again, "firstborn" is a reference to inheritance rights. It does not require that subsequent children be born. You have not addressed this.

You can't win first place in a race when no one else races, there would be no second place.

If you can demonstrate that ova race each other down the fallopian tubes you might have a basis for such a silly analogy.

 

[MyGivenNameIsKeith]

My apologies, but I'm only going to respond to parts of your post as I have time, as I don't have much free time at present.

Exodus 12:29-30
Every household was hit regardless of whether they had 1 child or more, or are you claiming that the angel also passed over households with only one child.
Exodus 4:22
If Israel is God's firstborn son, who is the second?
Again, "firstborn" is a reference to inheritance rights. It does not require that subsequent children be born. You have not addressed this.

If you can demonstrate that ova race each other down the fallopian tubes you might have a basis for such a silly analogy.

While it could be argued here, the validity of the first born etc., we do not know enough of the Egyptians themselves to ascertain whether there were households with an "only child". We only know that no household had been spared. Assuming this did happen, as we do by faith, if one were in fact to lose an only child, one would tend to get busy having another child to replace him, thereby, the first born would still have had a sibling, albeit, after his/her own death. Thus more than one. An only child does in fact receive the first-born blessing of course, that goes without saying, but nowhere is Jesus referred to as an only child, except by God, the Father, as his only begotten. This is referring to Jesus as being that true vine through which all believers come.
Now, Considering the inheritance that we receive as Christians through Christ through Israel as the firstborn, receiving the proper first-born inheritance as shown in Scriptures between Jacob and Esau, seeing as Jacob (Israel) usurped the "first-born" blessing, one could assume Esau as the "second", those being the children of Edom.
If God had intended only to have one, he would say things like only or one, which he does. I don't presume to take a position to win arguments for my own benefit and from my own understanding and attack people. I presume to try to win souls for Christ, as I see over 1.5 billion people believe in this fashion which saddens me. And while I am not perfect by any stretch, I do attempt to take up my cross every day and follow Christ and him only. I am open to scriptures and study them daily and do my best to not harden my heart.

 

[prodromos]

While it could be argued here, the validity of the first born etc., we do not know enough of the Egyptians themselves to ascertain whether there were households with an "only child".

That is utter nonsense. The only way there could not have been households with an only child is if Egyptians always gave birth to twins in their first pregnancy. Take a snapshot of any nation at any time in history and you will find households with no children, one child, two children, etc.

Assuming this did happen, as we do by faith, if one were in fact to lose an only child, one would tend to get busy having another child to replace him, thereby, the first born would still have had a sibling, albeit, after his/her own death. Thus more than one.

You do understand that you are engaging in circular reasoning, which is a logical fallacy.

An only child does in fact receive the first-born blessing of course, that goes without saying, but nowhere is Jesus referred to as an only child, except by God, the Father, as his only begotten.

Only Jesus is referred to as son of Mary. None of His brothers or sisters are referred to as children of Mary, which is consistent with them being older children of Joseph.

Now, Considering the inheritance that we receive as Christians through Christ through Israel as the firstborn, receiving the proper first-born inheritance as shown in Scriptures between Jacob and Esau, seeing as Jacob (Israel) usurped the "first-born" blessing, one could assume Esau as the "second", those being the children of Edom.

I'll have to think about that. You might be right about this one.

If God had intended only to have one, he would say things like only or one, which he does. I don't presume to take a position to win arguments for my own benefit and from my own understanding and attack people. I presume to try to win souls for Christ, as I see over 1.5 billion people believe in this fashion which saddens me.

It saddens me that you think they do not have Christ

And while I am not perfect by any stretch, I do attempt to take up my cross every day and follow Christ and him only. I am open to scriptures and study them daily and do my best to not harden my heart.

Amen

 

[MyGivenNameIsKeith]

I only stated the beginning concerning the Egyptians to bring up the fact that I can't know for sure one way or the other. So I assumed that there were a few households with an only child in them for sake of the discussion. Not to be nonsensical. Concerning circular logic, that isn't my intent. I really can see how scriptures there show the first born / only child view concerning Egypt in the past, as I do assume that myself when I have read it in the past, but that is due to the fact I do not have anything else to go on when it comes to historical data at the time. The inheritance aspect is shown there to be God's judgment upon Egypt as an all-inclusive statement. I see it as it meant those of single households as well as multiple children houses. I do not gather that from the brethren of Mary. In Mark 6:3 the brethren and sisters may not be referred to as children of Mary directly, but they are not referred to as children of Joseph here either. However they are referred to in same line of speaking showing the family ties. This only showing their relationship to Jesus and recording what the accusers had said. And in Mark 6:4 Jesus even says that they were his kin, in his house. But considering the parentage, it is actually logical to record it this way, as his brothers and sisters would have the same mom, but different dad. So, logically, one would leave Joseph out of the recorded saying, as he would not be relevant to Jesus in the manner they referred to. The accusers knew Joseph wasn't his dad, though they didn't propose to know who his dad was (the Father). But they knew his brothers and sisters were his brothers and sisters. Also good reasoning for why Jesus did not correct them in the statement. Galatians 1:19 has Paul referring to James the apostle as the Lord's brother, while this may or may not be the same as this is confusing when recounting the original 12.. maybe the 70 idk. However, in Luke 2:1 when appearing for the census because he was of the line of David, Joseph appeared with Mary and unborn Jesus. There are no other children of Joseph here as this would be required by the decree. So again, Jesus was the first born of Mary (only), followed by the several brothers and sisters, children of Mary and Joseph, both. It is presumed here that while Jesus was born of a virgin, there is no reasoning why she would stay one after he was born. It isn't sinful to have kids within marriage. Also, 1 Corinthians 7 says a few things concerning celibacy and marriage. I just have a hard time understanding where the idea of her staying a virgin after she had Jesus comes from. Logically, to me, it came from tradition that was not biblical. And since I tend to trust God's word more than anything else, one can easily see my viewpoint(s). To me it's not as obscure as we make it out to be.

While slightly relevant I'll expand on this a bit. If you would like we can continue a discussion on the following in a message or separate thread for sake of maintaining the thread as it is pertains to the one topic.
But briefly first and foremost, Concerning the last part, I don't presume anyone who believes the Christ is Lord above all is not Christian. While slightly offtopic I'll address just for the sake of being complete.
But the topic you had addressed there concerns praying to the dead and is not asking the living to pray for you. the website gotquestions sums it up fairly well actually I will partly quote them here.
["Praying to the dead is strictly forbidden in the Bible. Deuteronomy 18:11 tells us that anyone who “consults with the dead” is “detestable to the Lord.” The story of Saul consulting a medium to bring up the spirit of the dead Samuel resulted in his death “because he was unfaithful to the LORD; he did not keep the word of the LORD and even consulted a medium for guidance” (1 Samuel 28:1-25; 1 Chronicles 10:13-14). Clearly, God has declared that such things are not to be done.]

[Consider the characteristics of God. God is omnipresent—everywhere at once—and is capable of hearing every prayer in the world (Psalm 139:7-12). A human being, on the other hand, does not possess this attribute. Also, God is the only one with the power to answer prayer. In this regard, God is omnipotent—all powerful (Revelation 19:6). Certainly this is an attribute a human being—dead or alive—does not possess. Finally, God is omniscient—He knows everything (Psalm 147:4-5). Even before we pray, God knows our genuine needs and knows them better than we do. Not only does He know our needs, but He answers our prayers according to His perfect will.]

[So, in order for a dead person to receive prayers, the dead individual has to hear the prayer, possess the power to answer it, and know how to answer it in a way that is best for the individual praying. Only God hears and answers prayer because of His perfect essence and because of what some theologians call His “immanence.” Immanence is the quality of God that causes Him to be directly involved with the affairs of mankind (1 Timothy 6:14-15); this includes answering prayer."]

I presume to only pray to the Father via Christ. Nothing else feels right. Nothing else seems to have credibility. But I digress, I was trying to stay on the perpetual virginity topic here.

 

[Phil 1:21]

What I don't understand is why it would be so terrible if Mary actually did not remain a virgin after Christ's birth. She was a married woman and sex within marriage is not sinful or defiling. In fact, it was God's design and plan for marriage and it honours and glorifies Him when it is shared within the bonds of marriage.

I fail to see the problem too. I often wonder whose kingdom is being served by focusing on the creation instead of the Creator.

 

[tz620q]

I fail to see the problem too. I often wonder whose kingdom is being served by focusing on the creation instead of the Creator.

Of course the same could be said of focusing on the splinter in someone else's eye versus the plank in our own. The perpetual virginity of Mary was not based on exalting her; but in viewing her womb as sanctified by God and therefore (like the Ark of the Covenant) dangerous for any man to touch.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Of course the same could be said of focusing on the splinter in someone else's eye versus the plank in our own.

It could...if one were into misapplying scripture.

The perpetual virginity of Mary was not based on exalting her; but in viewing her womb as sanctified by God and therefore (like the Ark of the Covenant) dangerous for any man to touch.

And we can clearly see what happens when perhaps otherwise well meaning people add to scripture. We get beliefs like this.

 

[amariselle]

Of course the same could be said of focusing on the splinter in someone else's eye versus the plank in our own. The perpetual virginity of Mary was not based on exalting her; but in viewing her womb as sanctified by God and therefore (like the Ark of the Covenant) dangerous for any man to touch.

Where in Scripture is Mary (or her womb) referred to in this way?

 

[tz620q]

Where in Scripture is Mary (or her womb) referred to in this way?

If I quote 10 early church fathers, you will restate your opinion and think that trumps all of them. Who would know this better, those who lived in the time of Mary or us, 2000 years after the fact? If I ask you to read the Protoevangelium of James to see a second century document that states this emphatically, you will simply state that you do not accept this as scripture and therefore beneath your study. Even if I point out that it is only the Reformed branch of the Protestant movement that believes this, which is a small minority of all Christians now living, you will state that popularity does not mean truth. The most comfortable position is one within our own opinions, unassailable by all outside influence.

 

[amariselle]

If I quote 10 early church fathers, you will restate your opinion and think that trumps all of them.

My "opinion" doesn't matter, nor is my opinion what I was referring to. I asked for Biblical support for those claims regarding Mary and inspired Scripture is not my "opinion", it is the very word of God.

As such, I make no apology for trusting what the Bible says above and beyond all 10 of the "Early Church Fathers" you are referring to. (Or an other uninspired work).

Who would know this better, those who lived in the time of Mary or us, 2000 years after the fact?

Who would know better than God? I have no doubt His inspired word tells us all we need to know about Mary, and I have no desire to go beyond that. But you can, if you so choose.

If I ask you to read the Protoevangelium of James to see a second century document that states this emphatically, you will simply state that you do not accept this as scripture and therefore beneath your study.

You are correct that I will state that I do not see it as Scripture, because it isn't. As for it being "beneath my study", no, I do not believe that. I know there are many interesting and insightful historical records that can be studied, Josephus' writings are some I would like to read, but, it remains a fact that Scripture has more authority than any uninspired writings of men (or women).

Even if I point out that it is only the Reformed branch of the Protestant movement that believes this, which is a small minority of all Christians now living, you will state that popularity does not mean truth.

I'm so glad you have me all figured out.

Actually, I am far more interested in what Scripture teaches. If I want to learn what we can know about Mary, I'll search the Scriptures to see what God Himself has revealed about her. (And I have.)

The most comfortable position is one within our own opinions, unassailable by all outside influence.

Which is why I don't care about my opinion. I asked for Biblical support for those claims about Mary. Your response was to suggest the uninspired writings of the "Early Church Fathers," all the while accusing me of hiding behind my "opinion" in some kind of haughty and prideful fashion. (Your assertion that I would consider it "beneath me" to read particular writings.)

I think the far more honest thing would have been to acknowledge that there is no Biblical support for such claims about Mary. But rather than do so, you chose to turn the focus to my "opinion." (Which you brought up, not me).

The word of God is not my "opinion" by the way, so my asking for Biblical support for particular claims is not me seeking to be "comfortable within my own opinions", and I can assure you that the Bible is very much "unassailable by all outside influence." (Though many do absolutely try to assail it.)

"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." - Hebrews 4:12

 

[prodromos]

Numbers 30 in no way reflects what you are attempting to justify here. As it assumes that a vow shall stand, which is all good. She stayed a virgin until Jesus was born. No problem. But the wording here really, really implies that something afterwards did kind of take place.

Mary's response to Gabriel's announcement that she would conceive is completely at odds with this though. If she ever intended to have children with Joseph then Gabriel's announcement would not have led her to question how, because she would have simply assumed it would happen the usual way with her husband.

Matthew 1:18
Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise:
When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph,
before they came together,
She was found with child of the Holy Ghost
Leads me to believe they would come together as "before" something , usually implies the "something".

Or Matthew is simply making it clear that her pregnancy was NOT the result of them coming together.

Matthew 1:25 "..knew her not till.." until something implies that something would happen to mark the end of the time period, hence "until", then afterwards.

There are many places in Scripture where "until" does not imply a change of condition. The Greek expression "εως ου" doesn't require a change of condition, and the English translation "until" can also be used similarly, but the common English usage unfortunately causes people to read it with the implied change. The Greek of Matthew 1:25 is actually the most concise and economical use of the language to state that Mary did not conceive by Joseph.

Matthew 2:14 When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt.
Here we see there are only three of them. No other kids. Some would call that bad parenting to leave kids behind.

Joseph's children were already grown. Some were married with children of their own.

John 2:12 shows he has brethren, which are distinct from his disciples.
or Matthew 13:55-56

Joseph's sons and daughters are Jesus' brothers and sisters by way of Joseph and Mary's betrothal. There is no Aramaic term for "step brother".

And in Matthew 2:22 we see her completing her purification according to the law of Moses. So if she had a "vow" as you had said in Numbers 30, it's completed here.

That simply does not follow.

My question here still remains valid and sharpened, as there is no scriptural evidence for her remaining a virgin and more scriptures suggest she had not remained so after the birth of Christ, and thus consummated her marriage and had other children.

This is simply your say so based on how you interpret the Scriptures. I find the Scriptures entirely consistent with the Traditional view

adelphio in Greek being "of the same womb" when it refers to brethren.

Jacob's sons were all brothers yet they sprang from 4 different wombs.

People typically don't get married and not do the deed.

People typically don't conceive, birth and raise God the Son. Marys' circumstances were anything but typical.

I propose that it is indeed a Roman tradition that "creeped in unawares", if I may paraphrase Jude here.

Rome was a fraction of the early Church and didn't have the kind of influence you suggest. There were schisms centuries before Rome made their dogmatic pronouncements regarding Mary, yet all those Churches which separated maintain the same belief that Mary remained a virgin.

 

[tz620q]

My "opinion" doesn't matter, nor is my opinion what I was referring to. I asked for Biblical support for those claims regarding Mary and inspired Scripture is not my "opinion", it is the very word of God.

As such, I make no apology for trusting what the Bible says above and beyond all 10 of the "Early Church Fathers" you are referring to. (Or an other uninspired work).



Who would know better than God? I have no doubt His inspired word tells us all we need to know about Mary, and I have no desire to go beyond that. But you can, if you so choose.



You are correct that I will state that I do not see it as Scripture, because it isn't. As for it being "beneath my study", no, I do not believe that. I know there are many interesting and insightful historical records that can be studied, Josephus' writings are some I would like to read, but, it remains a fact that Scripture has more authority than any uninspired writings of men (or women).



I'm so glad you have me all figured out.

Actually, I am far more interested in what Scripture teaches. If I want to learn what we can know about Mary, I'll search the Scriptures to see what God Himself has revealed about her. (And I have.)



Which is why I don't care about my opinion. I asked for Biblical support for those claims about Mary. Your response was to suggest the uninspired writings of the "Early Church Fathers," all the while accusing me of hiding behind my "opinion" in some kind of haughty and prideful fashion. (Your assertion that I would consider it "beneath me" to read particular writings.)

I think the far more honest thing would have been to acknowledge that there is no Biblical support for such claims about Mary. But rather than do so, you chose to turn the focus to my "opinion." (Which you brought up, not me).

The word of God is not my "opinion" by the way, so my asking for Biblical support for particular claims is not me seeking to be "comfortable within my own opinions", and I can assure you that the Bible is very much "unassailable by all outside influence." (Though many do absolutely try to assail it.)

"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." - Hebrews 4:12

I was trying to show you that both history and the majority of people today argue against your opinion. You can chose to ignore their testimony; but hiding behind Solo Scriptura ignores the fact that these very people have the same Bible as you do, have read it and studied it and yet hold to the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. So at some point one has to engage with this fact or hide behind one's own infallible interpretation. What I was quoting before about the inviolate womb of Mary was a line of reasoning that this group uses as a logical proof of the concept. Saying it isn't in the Bible proves nothing but your Solo Scriptura position as it cannot be used to disprove the concept either.

 

[MyGivenNameIsKeith]

Mary's response to Gabriel's announcement that she would conceive is completely at odds with this though. If she ever intended to have children with Joseph then Gabriel's announcement would not have led her to question how, because she would have simply assumed it would happen the usual way with her husband.

Or Matthew is simply making it clear that her pregnancy was NOT the result of them coming together.

There are many places in Scripture where "until" does not imply a change of condition. The Greek expression "εως ου" doesn't require a change of condition, and the English translation "until" can also be used similarly, but the common English usage unfortunately causes people to read it with the implied change. The Greek of Matthew 1:25 is actually the most concise and economical use of the language to state that Mary did not conceive by Joseph.

Joseph's children were already grown. Some were married with children of their own.

Joseph's sons and daughters are Jesus' brothers and sisters by way of Joseph and Mary's betrothal. There is no Aramaic term for "step brother".

That simply does not follow.

This is simply your say so based on how you interpret the Scriptures. I find the Scriptures entirely consistent with the Traditional view

Jacob's sons were all brothers yet they sprang from 4 different wombs.

People typically don't conceive, birth and raise God the Son. Marys' circumstances were anything but typical.

Rome was a fraction of the early Church and didn't have the kind of influence you suggest. There were schisms centuries before Rome made their dogmatic pronouncements regarding Mary, yet all those Churches which separated maintain the same belief that Mary remained a virgin.

It is more important to have your views align with Scriptures; than to align scriptures to align with your views. Such is the case here. I have proposed an idea supported by scriptures, because scriptures are where I get the idea from. Nowhere have I seen the perpetual virginity of Mary inside of Scriptures. If you can, I'd still like to see it. Because twisting words to suit a particular point of view is not coherent with biblical teaching. It is only found outside and supported by outside sources. I propose this Roman tradition of perpetual virginity is where it originated from for the purpose of promoting an idea acceptable to the early church to attempt to alleviate persecution. As really no evidence for the perpetual nature is presented.
Due to influence, this was a question (perpetualism) raised later and addressed at the counsels and by decree issued, set in stone what to believe concerning this matter. As per the "church authority" superseding the scriptures, one clearly sees how the truth gets thrown under the bus after an idea such as this is recycled and recycled to the doctrine of today. Whereas scripture clearly refutes the church's infallible nature, as Jesus Christ is the rock. The church is built upon that rock. The church isn't the rock itself. Many times in the O.T. we see Israel adopt traditions of the foreign influence to which they were under. Since all of Judaea was under Rome's influence at the time of Jesus, it is quite possible. And worthy of note, the Temple of Vesta, for which the Vestal Virgins were named, existed until 391, then in that year was it abolished, the practice in 394.