Why Believe in Perpetual Virginity?

[truefiction1]

What I see here is a misuse of Scripture and a claim that I've never been part of the church.

But I've been part of the church for a long time - just not the Roman or the Greek church. Maybe this doesn't count for you.

And the verse you've quoted, those it uses words similar to words you're using, does not mean what you're wanting it to mean.

It may be so that you have been part of the Church for a long time. But it's obvious that you are physically separated from the Church of antiquity, remaining outside of Her Holy Tradition, wherein Jesus continues to do His greatest works and to reveal the fullness of Truth.

 

[truefiction1]

truefiction1,

re: "James is a stepbrother of the Lord, not a blood relative."

How do you know that? What scripture says that he was a stepbrother?

It is something that was known within the Church from the time of the Apostles and orally handed down for the last 2000+ years.

 

[truefiction1]

Where does it say he is a "stepbrother"? If you mean because Jesus was impregnated by the Holy Spirit then I will agree with that. But there is no mention of Joeseph having children prior to Jesus so it is obviously the product of Joeseph and Mary, after the birth of Jesus.

Joseph is not the biological father of Jesus, God is, by the Power of the Holy Spirit. Joseph was a widower, and Jesus' brothers were born of Joseph's deceased wife.

 

[marineimaging]

I dont believe by not Celebrating Mary we (Protestants) do not appreciate the amazing circumstances in how God the Father brought about Jesus. We fully realize the implications of Mary being a Virgin for Jesus. We fully realize hiw important it was for Jesus to be unblemished and without Sin. What we can not recognize is that anyone other than God can be perfect. Mary was not God in Flesh. Mary was a faithful servant who was chosen as the vessel to bring forth the Savior.

We know through scripture and Church history that Jesus had brothers. James the brother of Jesus is widely recognized as writing the book of James. This clearly implies that Mary had children after Jesus. And going back to 1st Corinthians 7 there is nothing wrong with that because Mary and Joseph were married and if Mary were to with hold herself from Joseph (her husband) that would be a sin according to Paul.

Now I have reread this before I posted and want to apologize if this comes off as an attack on the Catholic church. That is not my intention. I am just stating why Protestants do not see eye to eye on the doctrine of celebrating Mary. Because since reformers like Luther, Calvin and Zwingley we want to make sure we are putting the focus on God, because All Glory Belongs to Him!

1 Corinthians 10:31

So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.

Could not have said it better myself.

 

[FireDragon76]

1. Doesn't this de-emphasize God's sovereign grace in working through sinful people to bring about his purpose

Mary's perpetual virginity is unrelated to whether or not she was immaculate, and indeed some Christians in history have affirmed one without the other. Her perpetual virginity has more to do with her chosen-ness. It isn't even a direct comment on sex being "dirty", per se.

But it does say alot about how contemporary evangelical culture has been influenced by the sexual revolution. Previous generations didn't put sex on a pedestal. The meaning of sex was determined by revelation, revelation was not determined by sex. In many ways, evangelicals are close to the liberal culture on this point.

Or Noah whose heart was full of sin and became the first drunkard after the flood.

What I see here is the particular evangelical focus on portraying everybody in the Bible (except Jesus) as deeply flawed human beings, in order to glorify God. It's like in order to make God look better, we have to make even the best of us look worse. It's this manipulative side of evangelicalism that I don't care for, because it warps our sense of reality in the name of selling religion. We have to invent this pretentiously pious attitude towards life and feel despairing of our miserable sinfulness in order to get closer to God. I just find that very inauthentic, even theologically problematic in its own right. The big message of the Incarnation is that God has come near to us, not that we must come near to God. Even drawing near to God through our pious affectations, attitudes, and theologizing misses the mark (in short, we don't need to glorify God, we need to stop and let God save us).

Being a Christian should mean we are transformed into being more Christ-like because we are set free from the dirty stuff of religion, not people with a strange, odd, religion-colored lenses through which we see reality. And seeing Noah's drunkenness as an example of a "heart full of sin" is rather strange and odd, and harsh.

 

[rstrats]

truefiction1,

re: " Joseph was a widower, and Jesus' brothers were born of Joseph's deceased wife."


How do you know that? What scripture says that Joseph was a widower?

 

[2Timothy2:15]

Joseph is not the biological father of Jesus, God is, by the Power of the Holy Spirit. Joseph was a widower, and Jesus' brothers were born of Joseph's deceased wife.

I said that Jesus was born of the Holy Spirit. But where in scripture does it say Joseph was a widower? I am not familiar with that passage.

 

[truefiction1]

I said that Jesus was born of the Holy Spirit. But where in scripture does it say Joseph was a widower? I am not familiar with that passage.

The Church of antiquity has knowledge of things that are passed down throughout the age of the Church, from the times of the Apostles, who knew the details of the Lord's family life. That is why you have never heard that Joseph is a widower: you are physically separated from the Church of antiquity by the circumstances of your own birth and life experiences.

 

[sturgeonslawyer]

It's real simple. Mary herself says it in Luke's Gospel: "I know not a man." Not "I have not known," past tense, but the continuous present tense. (This is clearer in the Greek; the words are andra ou ginosko, "man not I-am-knowing.") That is, she not only knows-not-a-man but (despite being betrothed) does not expect to know-a-man.

To put it in more simply logical terms, Gabriel tells her she *will* conceive and bear a child; but she finds this difficult to believe. If a betrothed woman, expecting to have normal relations with her husband, was told by an angel that she would bear a child, she would not respond with surprise.

 

[FireDragon76]

I think this is one of the things I'm fishing for. Where in the heck did you get this idea? Jesus was a celibate man, yes. And he says that some are gifted with celibacy. But nowhere does he, nor Paul, nor anyone else in Scripture, ever claim that celibacy makes for greater holiness or is in any way a superior state.

Look at Matthew 19:10, and Jesus response. I agree that he doesn't require celibacy of his followers, but it does seem that he implies at least that the celibate person is making a sacrifice for the Kingdom. That doesn't denigrate marriage, since a person can only sacrifice something that is good.

If you say that Mary was celibate, it potentially denigrates married sex. If you say Mary was not celibate, you potentially denigrate those that are unmarried or aren't heterosexual (and there are alot of those folks in the world). Frankly, the issue is our tendency to deal in abstractions and idealism. And this is a problem for both Catholics and Protestants. And this is what I think is different about my own personal Lutheranism, the important thing is... who is God for me and for you? Those are not the same questions as "who is God?" or "what is ideal?" in an abstract sense.

 

[miamited]

It's real simple. Mary herself says it in Luke's Gospel: "I know not a man." Not "I have not known," past tense, but the continuous present tense. (This is clearer in the Greek; the words are andra ou ginosko, "man not I-am-knowing.") That is, she not only knows-not-a-man but (despite being betrothed) does not expect to know-a-man.

To put it in more simply logical terms, Gabriel tells her she *will* conceive and bear a child; but she finds this difficult to believe. If a betrothed woman, expecting to have normal relations with her husband, was told by an angel that she would bear a child, she would not respond with surprise.

Hi SS,

You're absolutely right! However, Mary would have to have been able to know the future to have been able to make that statement and intending it to explain her condition forever in the future. As far as we know, Mary was never considered to be any kind of prophet.

Now, perhaps the angel who visited her made some comment, but we have no record of that in the testimony. Therefore, any assumption of such would be merely that - an assumption of such. The angel who visited Joseph also made no mention or gave any instruction to him that in taking Mary as his wife, he was going to have to treat her any differently than any other Jewish man taking a wife. All he seems to have done was give Joseph comfort and confirmation to ally his suspicions and actions towards Mary about her being pregnant by someone other than himself.

You guys have to believe as your heart leads you. In this, and regarding the subject of transubstantiation, paying of alms, and confession of sin to a priest, annulment of marriage and the many other practices and traditions that you seem to hold to that aren't particularly clear instructions found in the Scriptures. Don't forget, you can't eat meat on Friday.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[Sammy-San]

Not sure what you are calling truth and calling lies?

The comments that the early church fathers made would be true if applied to fornication. I'm saying there was some truth to what they said.

 

[miamited]

Hi again SS,

You also wrote:

To put it in more simply logical terms, Gabriel tells her she *will* conceive and bear a child; but she finds this difficult to believe. If a betrothed woman, expecting to have normal relations with her husband, was told by an angel that she would bear a child, she would not respond with surprise.

You really must be kidding us. You believe that if a betrothed woman, who hasn't yet had sexual relations with her husband to be, was told that she was going to conceive by the Holy Spirit, that she wouldn't be surprised. And it isn't that he told her that she was going to conceive, but that 'what was conceived in her' was by the Holy Spirit. So, go ahead and pull out all your language tools and parse that statement out. Isn't it said to her as if she was already pregnant? If that's the case, and she hasn't had sexual relations yet, you don't think she'd be pretty darned surprised? Go ahead, walk over to some female in your office who hasn't had sexual relations with a man and tell her she's pregnant. Let me know what the response is. I tell ya! You just can't make this stuff up.

Oh, wait, yea, I guess you can.

Edit: Sorry, the statement and tense that I've posted was made to Joseph However, the claim remains the same. Joseph was considering divorcing his betrothed because she apparently was already pregnant and Joseph knew that it wasn't his child. The angel told Joseph that what was conceived in his wife (already done and over) was of the Holy Spirit.

Now, we know that Mary was chosen as the vessel of the Lord because of her piety and faithfulness to God. That would clearly indicate that she would have only had sexual relations after her marriage consummation. Joseph is right now considering to divorce his wife and the reason is that he knows that the child couldn't be his. Do the math, guys.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[Mountainmike]

James is a stepbrother of the Lord, not a blood relative.

I think you mean not a brother ( as in sibling)
The word translated as brother normally means "Kinsman" which can be and probably is a cousin.

But Cousin is still a blood relative, although more distant than brother.

John 19:25 tells us that Mary had a sister.
And
Luke 24:10 tells us that there was a Mary who was Mother of James.
Is this had been Mary mother of Jesus, the author would have said so.

 

[Mountainmike]

Galatians 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

Oddly enough scripture does indicate that Jesus had a brother born James, obviously after the birth of our Lord.

You dont understand the contemporary meaning of the word brother, seemingly. It meant kinsman..relation. Extended family.

 

[hooverbranch]

The Church of antiquity has knowledge of things that are passed down throughout the age of the Church, from the times of the Apostles, who knew the details of the Lord's family life. That is why you have never heard that Joseph is a widower: you are physically separated from the Church of antiquity by the circumstances of your own birth and life experiences.

I will absolutely admit I am outside of the orthodox church. And that historically speaking the Orthodox Church has been an entity for much longer than the Protestants. However the very word Protestant means to protest the established Church beliefs from the 15th and 16th Century. We came from the orthodox church. We also look at what historical Church leaders say from the beginning of the Church itself. The people we look back to in the early Church are (atleast most of them) considered Catholic Saints. The church has had prominent leaders disagree on Theology since the very beginning. Look at how Paul refers to Peter or Peter to Paul. (2 Peter 3:16, Galatians 2:11-21) Or in the 4th Century with Saint Augustine and Saint Pelagian. So your statements of we can not truly know because we are outside of The Church of Antiquity, is lifting up the church over common reasoning, (which I am not saying you don't have just that our reasonings in this topic would be opposed) Historical evidences, (like church History recognizing James the Leader in Jerusalem and one of the 3 main leaders of the church at that time was a biological brother to Jesus, and scripture. (The explanation of Brothers means cousins is a logical explanation but so is the argument that brother means brother)

Now I am not saying that 100% you can not be right. Because both sides are trying to piece together their belief from History and Scripture. We interpret scripture differently and have different historical sources. So honestly we will not know the true answer until Lord willingly we get to heaven. (If we even still care at that point which I doubt we will)

Now that being said even though I cant say your wrong 100% I do believe you are wrong or else I wouldn't believe what I believe. Meaning that if I didn't believe I was right than I would be questioning my belief, because I am not trying to purposely believe false doctrine. And maybe God will open my eyes one day and show me your stance is right with Biblical truth and Biblical reasoning. But I also pray that if I am right (as I obviously believe) God would open your eyes in the same way.

You see my goal is not to disagree with The Catholic Church or Greek Orthodox or anyone in particular for that matter. My goal is to use the Word of God and the history that he gave us to properly interpret that word and become more like Christ. There are areas of my doctrine that are wrong! I don't know what they are, but I will continue to question my beliefs with scripture to try and be the best follower I can.

P.s. I have appreciated this thread because I have read into a lot of the things that both you and MountainMike have posted and I feel not only more educated to your viewpoint but (and I know this is the opposite of your intent) I also feel more firmly grounded in my own viewpoint.

 

[brightlights]

It is in Scripture for sure, as well as something that has been revealed within the Church throughout the age of the Church. In other words, since the time of the Apostles, those through whom God's gifts shine brightest and more abundantly have, overall, been those who chose lives of virginity in order to be more free to serve God. This is what the Apostle Paul is saying here: "It is good for a man not to touch a woman." (1 Corinthians 7:1)

Well Paul is likely quoting the Corinthian position here and then responding to it. But even if he is not, Paul says that "it is good" for a person to be celibate. He does not say "it is superior." Both celibacy and marriage are good. That's the point of 1 Cor 7.

 

[NursingNinja]

It's suggested in Old Testament typology that the Virgin Mary was to remain perpetually a virgin.

"Then he brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary, which faces east; and it was shut. And he said to me, 'This gate shall remain shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it; for the Lord, the God of Israel, has entered by it; therefore it shall remain shut.'" - Ezekiel 44:1-2

Also, see the following:


Source:
Scripture Catholic - THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

Hey I want to thank you for this reply, particularly the typology that your source points out in the old testament and your handling of "up until".

 

[brightlights]

Look at Matthew 19:10, and Jesus response. I agree that he doesn't require celibacy of his followers, but it does seem that he implies at least that the celibate person is making a sacrifice for the Kingdom. That doesn't denigrate marriage, since a person can only sacrifice something that is good.

In that passage the disciples wrongly conclude that if marriage is indissoluble then it is better not to marry. Jesus then responds that the calling of marriage is only given to some, and the calling of singleness is given to others. Both marriage and celibacy are good callings from God. Nowhere does he state or imply that one is better than another.

If you say that Mary was celibate, it potentially denigrates married sex. If you say Mary was not celibate, you potentially denigrate those that are unmarried or aren't heterosexual (and there are alot of those folks in the world). Frankly, the issue is our tendency to deal in abstractions and idealism. And this is a problem for both Catholics and Protestants. And this is what I think is different about my own personal Lutheranism, the important thing is... who is God for me and for you? Those are not the same questions as "who is God?" or "what is ideal?" in an abstract sense.

I don't know what this has to do with anything. I just don't think we have any good reasons to believe that Mary was a perpetual virgin.

 

[brightlights]

What I see here is the particular evangelical focus on portraying everybody in the Bible (except Jesus) as deeply flawed human beings, in order to glorify God.

You mean the biblical focus that all human beings are deeply flawed and therefore God should be glorified alone?

The big message of the Incarnation is that God has come near to us, not that we must come near to God. Even drawing near to God through our pious affectations, attitudes, and theologizing misses the mark (in short, we don't need to glorify God, we need to stop and let God save us).

I agree with the first part but your conclusion seems a non-sequitur. It's precisely because God has drawn near to us and not us to him (via our holiness) that he alone ought to be glorified in our salvation.

Being a Christian should mean we are transformed into being more Christ-like because we are set free from the dirty stuff of religion, not people with a strange, odd, religion-colored lenses through which we see reality. And seeing Noah's drunkenness as an example of a "heart full of sin" is rather strange and odd, and harsh.

How would you interpret Noah's drunkenness? And how would you interpret God's assessment of humanity as they left the ark - namely that the intentions of man's heart is evil from his youth (Genesis 8:21)?