Understanding Mary - Ever Virgin

[Mungo]

Understanding Mary - Ever Virgin

Although the Perpetual Virginity of Mary has never been formally proclaimed as a Marian Dogma of the Catholic Church, because of its universal acceptance and continued reference to it in Papal documents throughout the history of the Catholic Church (and at the 5th Ecumenical council), it has come to be accepted as a Marian Dogma. Consequently, it can be said that the perpetual virginity of Mary is a Catholic Dogma by virtue of the ordinary and universal Magisterium.

It was also accepted by the Orthodox and by the early "reformers".

Martin Luther:
"It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin....Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact." (Weimer, The Works of Luther, English Transl. by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v.11,pp. 319-320; v. 6 p. 510.)

"Christ...was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him..."brothers" really means "cousins" here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers. (Sermons on John, chapters 1-4, 1537-39.)

"He, Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb...This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that." (Ibid.)

John Calvin:
"There have been certain folk who have wished to suggest that from this passage (Matt 1:25) that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph's obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company....And besides this Our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or not there was any question of the second." (Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25, published 1562.)

Ulrich Zwingli:
"I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary....Christ...was born of a most undefiled Virgin." (Stakemeier, E. in De Mariologia et Oecumenismo, Balic, K., ed., Rome, 1962, p. 456.)

"I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin." (Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, in Evang. Luc., v. 1, p. 424.)

The next post will start the arguments for Mary's perpetual virginity. There are 6 of them.

 

[Mungo]

1. A vow of Virginity

The Annunciation
In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a town of Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin’s name was Mary. And coming to her, he said, “Hail, favoured one! The Lord is with you.” But she was greatly troubled at what was said and pondered what sort of greeting this might be. Then the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favour with God. Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus. He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father, and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.” But Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?” And the angel said to her in reply, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God. And behold, Elizabeth, your relative, has also conceived a son in her old age, and this is the sixth month for her who was called barren; for nothing will be impossible for God.” Mary said, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word.” Then the angel departed from her. (Lk 1:26-38)

Let’s look at this carefully, especially the phrases I have emboldened.

1. Mary is married to Joseph. The translation of “betrothed” is poor. Jewish marriage of the time was in two stages. After the first stage they are married, but later (usually a year) the second stage occurred; the bride entered the bridegroom’s house and the marriage was consummated.

In a normal marriage, during the first stage, the bride was not just hoping or expecting the second stage but was committed to it. She was committed to sexual intercourse and would have the expectation (or at least hope) that it would be followed by a child.

2. The angel tells her she will conceive - some unspecified time in the future He does not say you have conceived but will conceive. He is pointing to the future but gives no timescale. This would normally be good news, especially a son, but would be assumed to follow on from the second stage of marriage.

3. But Mary asks a strange question. “How can this be since I have no relations with a man?” In normal circumstances this would a silly question, so this indicates that this is not a normal marriage; that she has no expectation of sexual relations with Joseph. Note that at this stage the angel has not told Mary she will conceive by the Holy Spirit not Joseph.

Her question therefore only makes sense if she intended not to consummate the marriage; if she had committed her life to the Lord as a virgin.

An analogy is with someone who does not smoke. If someone prophesied they would die of lung cancer they might say “How can this be since I do not smoke?” The implication is clearly that this condition of not smoking (and in Mary’s case her virginity) is expected to remain unchanged.

Note Mary says I have no relations with a man (present tense). But I contend she is referring to the future as well. The angel has focussed on the future and so Mary’s reply must address the future as well.

Take the example above: someone says you will die of lung cancer. You reply “How can this be since I do not smoke.” Obviously if I expect to start smoking I can expect the possibility of contracting lung cancer at some time in the future. My question of “How can this be since I do not smoke.” Only makes sense if I do not expect to start smoking in the future. The “I do not smoke” is therefore not only something for the present but looks to the future as well; it implies something about the continuance of my not smoking. So too with Mary. Her reply only makes sense if it implies she intends to continue not to have a sexual relationship.

This use of the present tense implying the future is used in other places in the New Testament.
Mt 26:18 I shall celebrate the Passover with my disciples. The verb is actually in the present tense, literally “I am holding the Passover with the disciples of me.”

Blass and Debrunner in A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature say 'in confident assertions regarding the future a vivid realistic present may be used for the future’ (Blass & A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, translated and revised by R. W. Funk, Chicago and Longon, 1961, p. 168, & 323)

John McHugh in 'The Mother of Jesus in the New Testament' says I would suggest that in Lk 1:34 the present tense is employed with the force of a future……. Thus the most accurate translation of Lk 1:34 would be 'How shall this be since I am not to know a man?'

Greek expert J.Gresham Machen (Protestant) wrote "This solution [of a vow of virginity] certainly removes in the fullest possible way the difficulty…. No objection to it can be raised from a linguistic point of view; there seems to be no reason why the present indicative, "I know" , could not be taken as designating a fixed principle of Mary's life that would apply to the future as well as the present.

The Protoevangelium of James (not scriptural) tells how Mary was dedicated to God at an early age. This fits with Mary’s intention to remain a virgin.

 

[Mungo]

2. Mary as Tabernacle & Ark
The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. (Lk 1:35)

The Greek word for overshadow (the power of the Most High will overshadow you) is episkiazein, which is the same word used in ancient Greek translations of the OT to describe the cloud of God overshadowing the tabernacle at Mount Sinai (e.g. Ex 40:35). So Gabriel is indicating that Mary will be a new tabernacle, a new vessel of God’s holy presence

Her womb is made a sacred vessel, a new Ark of the (new) Covenant.

The Shenikah cloud only rested above the Ark. How much more holy was the womb of Mary where God himself was present for nine months.

Her being ever-virgin speaks about the uniqueness of Christ.

The original Ark was made of wood plated with pure gold, representing the holiness of God. It was kept in the Holy of Holies. The high priest could only enter the Holy of Holies once a year.

Sacred vessels are not to be profaned (put to ordinary use). Daniel 5 describes what happens to those who profane sacred vessels – the king, Belshazzar, was slain that very night and his kingdom overthrown by the Medes and Persians.

When Uzzah touched the Ark he was struck dead (1Sam 6:6)

Denying the ever-virginity of Mary subtly denies the divinity of Christ in the womb.

It would not be fitting that the womb that was made so holy by the actual presence of God could be used to bring sinners into the world as other children would have been. What has been consecrated to God should not be profaned. The old Ark of the Covenant was sacred and could not be used for anything else. So too Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant would have been defiled by bearing another child in her womb.

Of course, if Jesus was not actually God, or not God until he was born, or his divinity not hypostatically united to his human nature……(all various heresies), then we are denying the divinity of Jesus who was true man and true God from his very conception.

 

[Mungo]

3. Mary as Temple
In a typological sense Mary is also a Temple of God since she bore Christ who is the sacrifice.

Then he brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary, which faces east; and it was shut. The LORD 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; (Ez 44:1,2).

Whilst Ezekial’s vision was for him a vision of the restoration of the Temple in Jerusalem, it was also a prophecy applicable here. Mary’s womb is the gate by which God incarnate entered into our world and the entrance to her womb (the gate) must remain shut for the Lord, the God of Israel, had entered by it.

The early Fathers made these connections as they pondered on scripture and the revelation that had been passed on to them.

Who is this gate (Ezekiel 44:1-4), if not Mary? Is it not closed because she is a virgin? Mary is the gate through which Christ entered this world, when He was brought forth in the virginal birth and the manner of His birth did not break the seals of virginity."
(St. Ambrose of Milan, The Consecration of a Virgin and the Perpetual Virginity of Mary 391 AD)

Jesus, as God does not break the virginal seals: in such wise he exits the womb as He entered through the ear; thus He was born, as He was conceived: without passion He entered, without corruption He exited, according to the prophet Ezekiel who says: ’This gate will remain closed.’
(St. Proclus, Homily 1 on the Mother of God, 431 AD)

"It is written (Ezekiel 44, 2): ‘This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it. Because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it...’ What means this closed gate in the house of the Lord, except that Mary is to be ever inviolate? What does it mean that ‘no man shall pass through it,’ save that Joseph shall not know her? And what is this - ‘The Lord alone enters in and goeth out by it,’ except that the Holy Ghost shall impregnate her, and that the Lord of Angels shall be born of her? And what means this - ‘It shall be shut for evermore,’ but that Mary is a Virgin before His birth, a Virgin in His birth, and a Virgin after His birth."
(St. Augustine of Hippo, De Annunt. Dom. Iii circa 430 AD)

“One calls her the closed Gate set at the East, that lets in the King with the doors shut tight at the East because the true light that enlightens every man coming into the world, went forth from the womb, as from a royal bride-chamber.”
(Hesychius, Sermon 5, 5th century)

I'll post the remaining 3 later.

 

[GodsGrace]

3. Mary as Temple
In a typological sense Mary is also a Temple of God since she bore Christ who is the sacrifice.

Then he brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary, which faces east; and it was shut. The LORD 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; (Ez 44:1,2).

Whilst Ezekial’s vision was for him a vision of the restoration of the Temple in Jerusalem, it was also a prophecy applicable here. Mary’s womb is the gate by which God incarnate entered into our world and the entrance to her womb (the gate) must remain shut for the Lord, the God of Israel, had entered by it.

The early Fathers made these connections as they pondered on scripture and the revelation that had been passed on to them.

Who is this gate (Ezekiel 44:1-4), if not Mary? Is it not closed because she is a virgin? Mary is the gate through which Christ entered this world, when He was brought forth in the virginal birth and the manner of His birth did not break the seals of virginity."
(St. Ambrose of Milan, The Consecration of a Virgin and the Perpetual Virginity of Mary 391 AD)

Jesus, as God does not break the virginal seals: in such wise he exits the womb as He entered through the ear; thus He was born, as He was conceived: without passion He entered, without corruption He exited, according to the prophet Ezekiel who says: ’This gate will remain closed.’
(St. Proclus, Homily 1 on the Mother of God, 431 AD)

"It is written (Ezekiel 44, 2): ‘This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it. Because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it...’ What means this closed gate in the house of the Lord, except that Mary is to be ever inviolate? What does it mean that ‘no man shall pass through it,’ save that Joseph shall not know her? And what is this - ‘The Lord alone enters in and goeth out by it,’ except that the Holy Ghost shall impregnate her, and that the Lord of Angels shall be born of her? And what means this - ‘It shall be shut for evermore,’ but that Mary is a Virgin before His birth, a Virgin in His birth, and a Virgin after His birth."
(St. Augustine of Hippo, De Annunt. Dom. Iii circa 430 AD)

“One calls her the closed Gate set at the East, that lets in the King with the doors shut tight at the East because the true light that enlightens every man coming into the world, went forth from the womb, as from a royal bride-chamber.”
(Hesychius, Sermon 5, 5th century)

I'll post the remaining 3 later.

Could you find any ECF that believed in the above?
I can't find one. Seems as though they didn't contemplate this aspect of Mary.
The birth itself is miraculous by Catholic belief and would be rejected by everyone except the most pious.
This idea of being a perpetual virgin, causes many to turn away from believing other doctrine that is indeed biblical.
This saddens me as the Catholic faith is rich in understanding and in explaining the beauty of the Christian faith.
I urge persons to read the first 50 or so paragraphs of the CCC whenever I get a chance. (maybe more, can't check right now).

I think that any doctrine that takes hundreds of years to develop is a bad idea. For whatever reason this was done, it was incorrect to do and we in the CC are paying the price for it now.

Also, one incorrect doctrine leads to another.
The Immaculate Conception necessarily led to the Assumption.

Sorry to be ranting...

 

[Mungo]

Could you find any ECF that believed in the above?
I can't find one. Seems as though they didn't contemplate this aspect of Mary.

I gave you three ECFs in the post.
Were you thinking of another point?

The birth itself is miraculous by Catholic belief and would be rejected by everyone except the most pious.
This idea of being a perpetual virgin, causes many to turn away from believing other doctrine that is indeed biblical.
This saddens me as the Catholic faith is rich in understanding and in explaining the beauty of the Christian faith.
I urge persons to read the first 50 or so paragraphs of the CCC whenever I get a chance. (maybe more, can't check right now).

I think the doctrine of Mary being ever virgin is biblical.
I've given three points so far - with scripture. What is unbiblical about what I posted?

I think that any doctrine that takes hundreds of years to develop is a bad idea. For whatever reason this was done, it was incorrect to do and we in the CC are paying the price for it now.

Also, one incorrect doctrine leads to another.
The Immaculate Conception necessarily led to the Assumption.

Sorry to be ranting...

Some doctrines take time to be understood in depth.
But I think many doctrines, especially in the early days, were not defined dogmatically until a heresy arose. Also in the first few centuries it was difficult for bishops to gather to make formal declarations. But when they did:
The First Ecumenical Council (Nicea, 325)
To this council we owe The Creed (Symbolum) of Nicaea, defining against Arius the true Divinity of the Son of God (homoousios)

The Second Ecumenical Council (Constantinople I, 381)
It was directed against the followers of Macedonius, who impugned the Divinity of the Holy Ghost. To the above-mentioned Nicene Creed it added the clauses referring to the Holy Ghost (qui simul adoratur) and all that follows to the end.

The Third Ecumenical Council (Ephesus 431)
….. defined the true personal unity of Christ, declared Mary the Mother of God (theotokos) against Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople, and renewed the condemnation of Pelagius.

The Fourth Ecumenical Council (Chalcedon (451)
…. defined the two natures (Divine and human) in Christ against Eutyches

The Fifth Ecumenical Council (Constantinople II, 553)
Condemned various writings and … confirmed the first four general councils, especially that of Chalcedon whose authority was contested by some heretics.

The Sixth Ecumenical Council (Constantinople III, 680-681)
It put an end to Monothelitism by defining two wills in Christ, the Divine and the human, as two distinct principles of operation. It anathematized Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, Macarius, and all their followers.
(Quotes from the Catholic Encyclopedia)

So well into the 7th century the Church was still fighting heresy about the nature of God and Christ. It is not surprising therefore that other topics such as original sin and Mary took time to develop in understanding and formal definitions.

 

[Mungo]

To continue:
4. Mary as Bride and Church
When Mary said “yes” to God she entered into full communion with God, body and soul. She becomes “one flesh” with God because she bears God in her womb, just as man and wife become “one flesh”. Therefore to give herself to another would be a form of adultery.

Isaiah prophesied (Is 62:4-5)
No more shall men call you “Forsaken,”
or your land “Desolate,”
But you shall be called “My Delight,”
and your land “Espoused.”
For the Lord delights in you,
and makes your land his spouse.
As a young man marries a virgin,
your Builder shall marry you;
And as a bridegroom rejoices in his bride
so shall your God rejoice in you.

Here we can see references to Mary’s virginal motherhood, her mystical marriage to God who is at the same time her Father, her Son and her Spouse.

5. One Son
An important argument from a theological perspective is that always, when a birth is announced by an angel of a son, it is a matter of an only son.

• Isaac (Gen 18:10)
• Samson (Judges 13:4)
• John the Baptist (Lk 1:13)

If these were figures of the Messiah, it would be illogical that they would be only sons, and the one represented by them were not like them.

6. No Mention of Other Children
Finally when Luke tells us about the family in Nazareth, he only mentions three persons, not more. (Lk 2:41-52) When Jesus was lost in the temple, Joseph and Mary did not return with other sons. If one were lost, surely they would not leave the others (if there were any) at risk of losing them as well.

There is no mention of any other children being born to Mary.

 

[WIP]

If one were lost, surely they would not leave the others (if there were any) at risk of losing them as well.

Not necessarily. They were traveling with a group. "But supposing Him to have been in the company, they went a day’s journey, and sought Him among their relatives and acquaintances. So when they did not find Him, they returned to Jerusalem, seeking Him." (Luke 2:44-45 NKJV)

They didn't grow overly concerned for at least another day and having not found him among their traveling companions (company) they decided to return to look for him in Jerusalem. This does not prove they didn't have other younger children of their own, ergo, Jesus' brothers and sisters by Mary & Joseph.

Jesus also spoke of this. "What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he loses one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness, and go after the one which is lost until he finds it?" Luke 15:4 NKJV

We had a similar discussion Sunday morning after reading about Abraham's test found in Genesis 22. We often draw a parallel between this story of Abraham and Isaac to the story of Jesus.

As we read through the Scriptures, I noticed at least three times Isaac was referred to as Abraham's only son. This is not entirely accurate because we already read in chapter 16 how his wife, Sarai, gave the servant, Haggar, to Abram to which was born Ishmael. Then In chapter 21 we read more about Ishmael as Abraham sent them (Haggar and Ishmael) away because of the conflict that was created.

So I was asking why the Scriptures referred to Isaac as Abraham's only son when clearly he was not. The only logical conclusion is found in chapter 18 where we can read about the son of promise being Isaac. What I concluded is that when Isaac was referred to the only son of Abraham, the text is talking of the only son of promise for Ishmael was not a son of promise but Isaac was a son of promise. Likewise, Jesus is the only son of promise born from Mary but she could easily have had other children by Joseph and they would not be sons and daughters of promise.

 

[Mungo]

Not necessarily. They were traveling with a group. "But supposing Him to have been in the company, they went a day’s journey, and sought Him among their relatives and acquaintances. So when they did not find Him, they returned to Jerusalem, seeking Him." (Luke 2:44-45 NKJV)

They didn't grow overly concerned for at least another day and having not found him among their traveling companions (company) they decided to return to look for him in Jerusalem. This does not prove they didn't have other younger children of their own, ergo, Jesus' brothers and sisters by Mary & Joseph.

Jesus also spoke of this. "What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he loses one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness, and go after the one which is lost until he finds it?" Luke 15:4 NKJV

We had a similar discussion Sunday morning after reading about Abraham's test found in Genesis 22. We often draw a parallel between this story of Abraham and Isaac to the story of Jesus.

As we read through the Scriptures, I noticed at least three times Isaac was referred to as Abraham's only son. This is not entirely accurate because we already read in chapter 16 how his wife, Sarai, gave the servant, Haggar, to Abram to which was born Ishmael. Then In chapter 21 we read more about Ishmael as Abraham sent them (Haggar and Ishmael) away because of the conflict that was created.

So I was asking why the Scriptures referred to Isaac as Abraham's only son when clearly he was not. The only logical conclusion is found in chapter 18 where we can read about the son of promise being Isaac. What I concluded is that when Isaac was referred to the only son of Abraham, the text is talking of the only son of promise for Ishmael was not a son of promise but Isaac was a son of promise. Likewise, Jesus is the only son of promise born from Mary but she could easily have had other children by Joseph and they would not be sons and daughters of promise.

Interesting but Isaac was the only son of Sarai. Surely the parallel would be that Jesus is the only son of Mary.

 

[WIP]

Interesting but Isaac was the only son of Sarai. Surely the parallel would be that Jesus is the only son of Mary.

However, as I read both stories, the son spoken of was the son of his respective father but not referenced as to his respective mother.

In Genesis 22, it refers to Isaac as Abraham's only son (see genesis 22:2, 22:12, 22:16). It never refers to Isaac as Sarah's only son, at least not that I'm aware of.

Likewise, Jesus is God's only begotten son (see John 3:16, 18, 1 John 4:9, Matthew 27:43). He is not referred to as Mary's only begotten son or her only son. He is undoubtedly her first born for sure as she was a virgin at the time as Scripture says so.

 

[Mungo]

However, as I read both stories, the son spoken of was the son of his respective father but not referenced as to his respective mother.

In Genesis 22, it refers to Isaac as Abraham's only son (see genesis 22:2, 22:12, 22:16). It never refers to Isaac as Sarah's only son, at least not that I'm aware of.

Likewise, Jesus is God's only begotten son (see John 3:16, 18, 1 John 4:9, Matthew 27:43). He is not referred to as Mary's only begotten son or her only son. He is undoubtedly her first born for sure as she was a virgin at the time as Scripture says so.

Jesus was God's only Son from the beginning. The significance of the Incarnation is that he took flesh in the womb of the Virgin Mary and became her only son.
But I guess we just have different viewpoints on this.

 

[WIP]

Jesus was God's only Son from the beginning. The significance of the Incarnation is that he took flesh in the womb of the Virgin Mary and became her only son.
But I guess we just have different viewpoints on this.

I don't disagree with this and never said anything different. As John put it in his gospel....

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.

14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
John 1:1-2, 14 NKJV

 

[God Is My Judge]

Understanding Mary - Ever Virgin

Although the Perpetual Virginity of Mary has never been formally proclaimed as a Marian Dogma of the Catholic Church, because of its universal acceptance and continued reference to it in Papal documents throughout the history of the Catholic Church (and at the 5th Ecumenical council), it has come to be accepted as a Marian Dogma. Consequently, it can be said that the perpetual virginity of Mary is a Catholic Dogma by virtue of the ordinary and universal Magisterium.

It was also accepted by the Orthodox and by the early "reformers".

Martin Luther:
"It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin....Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact." (Weimer, The Works of Luther, English Transl. by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v.11,pp. 319-320; v. 6 p. 510.)

"Christ...was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him..."brothers" really means "cousins" here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers. (Sermons on John, chapters 1-4, 1537-39.)

"He, Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb...This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that." (Ibid.)

John Calvin:
"There have been certain folk who have wished to suggest that from this passage (Matt 1:25) that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph's obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company....And besides this Our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or not there was any question of the second." (Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25, published 1562.)

Ulrich Zwingli:
"I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary....Christ...was born of a most undefiled Virgin." (Stakemeier, E. in De Mariologia et Oecumenismo, Balic, K., ed., Rome, 1962, p. 456.)

"I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin." (Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, in Evang. Luc., v. 1, p. 424.)

The next post will start the arguments for Mary's perpetual virginity. There are 6 of them.

Doesn't matter how old a lie is, it is still a lie. It is a Catholic fudge. It's funny, there is no confusion about "to know" or "he knew his wife" in the old testament, yet in the new testament SUDDENLY a lack of reading comprehension kicks in.

Words mean what they mean concerning "to know" or "he knew his wife" etc....This Perpetual Virginity Dogma was too, formulated from an Apocrypha book written in the 2nd century. I'm going to post my rebuttals elsewhere. You have shown to not be able to respond in real time and you don't even allow me to give response because it is too hot for you. You tend to cut me off midstream.

The true meaning of Perpetual Virginity is a mystery concerning her Assumption ( oh yes I believe in the Titles just not how they are defined). I will show how she is the symbol of the Church and what that means for the End Times. Her Assumption is a prelude concerning the snatching up at the last trumpet and return of Christ.

1 Corinthians 15:51-52 English Standard Version (ESV) 51 Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet.

I don't take vacations, I'm on duty 24/7, I am to act and speak according to God's time . But I will not post what I know in here. Like the true meaning of "Immaculate Conception", you will not prove the true meaning of "Perpetual Virginity" wrong either. However, I will prove the Catholic definition of "Perpetual Virginity" wrong and show what the correct understanding of it, is.

I will talk to Stovebolts who has appointed you as "overseer" of the Catholic forum. I hope he will not show bias, because he is more friendly with you.

“My brothers, show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory. For if a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in, and if you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, ‘You sit here in a good place, while you say to the poor man, ‘You stand over there,’ or ‘Sit down at my feet,’ have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?” - James 2:1-4

I have little strength and power concerning position compared to the Catholic Church and its many fine rings. At present I am a widow, I have no husband amongst it. Nor do I have a husband amongst the other acceptable denominations because of the new song I have been given. That is provable with scripture alone guided by the Holy Spirit. There is prophecy concerning my stance. I will speak a truth that will not be proven as otherwise. For Truth is truth.

 

[Mungo]

Doesn't matter how old a lie is, it is still a lie. It is a Catholic fudge. It's funny, there is no confusion about "to know" or "he knew his wife" in the old testament, yet in the new testament SUDDENLY a lack of reading comprehension kicks in.

Words mean what they mean concerning "to know" or "he knew his wife" etc....This Perpetual Virginity Dogma was too, formulated from an Apocrypha book written in the 2nd century. I'm going to post my rebuttals elsewhere. You have shown to not be able to respond in real time and you don't even allow me to give response because it is too hot for you. You tend to cut me off midstream.

The true meaning of Perpetual Virginity is a mystery concerning her Assumption ( oh yes I believe in the Titles just not how they are defined). I will show how she is the symbol of the Church and what that means for the End Times. Her Assumption is a prelude concerning the snatching up at the last trumpet and return of Christ.

1 Corinthians 15:51-52 English Standard Version (ESV) 51 Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet.

I don't take vacations, I'm on duty 24/7, I am to act and speak according to God's time . But I will not post what I know in here. Like the true meaning of "Immaculate Conception", you will not prove the true meaning of "Perpetual Virginity" wrong either. However, I will prove the Catholic definition of "Perpetual Virginity" wrong and show what the correct understanding of it, is.

I will talk to Stovebolts who has appointed you as "overseer" of the Catholic forum. I hope he will not show bias, because he is more friendly with you.

“My brothers, show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory. For if a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in, and if you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, ‘You sit here in a good place, while you say to the poor man, ‘You stand over there,’ or ‘Sit down at my feet,’ have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?” - James 2:1-4

I have little strength and power concerning position compared to the Catholic Church and its many fine rings. At present I am a widow, I have no husband amongst it. Nor do I have a husband amongst the other acceptable denominations because of the new song I have been given. That is provable with scripture alone guided by the Holy Spirit. There is prophecy concerning my stance. I will speak a truth that will not be proven as otherwise. For Truth is truth.

You say: "This Perpetual Virginity Dogma was too, formulated from an Apocrypha book written in the 2nd century."
That is untrue, but then you provide no evidence for that claim.

I gave six points from scripture (see posts #2, #3, #4, #7) quoting or referencing 9 scriptures, including a detailed analysis of Lk 1:26-38.
You have addressed none of them.

 

[God Is My Judge]

You say: "This Perpetual Virginity Dogma was too, formulated from an Apocrypha book written in the 2nd century."
That is untrue, but then you provide no evidence for that claim.

I gave six points from scripture (see posts #2, #3, #4, #7) quoting or referencing 9 scriptures, including a detailed analysis of Lk 1:26-38.
You have addressed none of them.

Oh yes it is true! And welcome back . You referenced what you wanted to and still yet, that was in pretext. I did not put my proof because I wanted to wait for your full attention.

 

[Mungo]

Oh yes it is true! And welcome back . You referenced what you wanted to and still yet, that was in pretext. I did not put my proof because I wanted to wait for your full attention.

Where is your evidence?

 

[God Is My Judge]

Ok, let me first start by saying, I respect what the Catholic Church has preserved. If not for it, this present-day discussion could not be had. I agree with all titles attributed to Mother Mary except for one and that is Co-Redemptrix (for another discussion). Staying on topic, I believe in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary just differently. I will prove my stance.


Page 1.

You said:
"You say: "This Perpetual Virginity Dogma was too, formulated from an Apocrypha book written in the 2nd century."
That is untrue, but then you provide no evidence for that claim."

What is true is, there is no scriptural proof provided by the Catholic Church to uphold the Title. As it stands, they only provide pretext scripture snippets as "proof" of their claim. When in reality they ignore key words and phrases that are easily understood by any seasoned student of scripture. The meaning of words does not suddenly change in the NT concerning - " to know his wife", " did not know his wife UNTILL or TIL", till still means what it means and what it meant in the OT as does "to know".

Now, unless you haven't been Catholic long or you simply are playing coy, you know what I mean by a book from the 2nd Century was used. The Gospel of James (or the Protoevangelium of James) is a 2nd-century infancy gospel telling of the miraculous conception of the Virgin Mary, her upbringing and marriage to Joseph, the journey of the couple to Bethlehem, the birth of Jesus, and events immediately following. It is the earliest surviving assertion of the perpetual virginity of Mary, meaning her virginity not just prior to the birth of Jesus, but during and afterwards, and despite being condemned by Pope Innocent I in 405 and rejected by the Gelasian Decree around 500, became a widely influential source for Mariology.

I stand by this Pope in his rejecting of this book. However, moving forward that book was used by another Pope to uphold his claims made Dogmas. There has always been a duality in the Catholic Church with its stances from Popes. I will now PROVE my stance with the CORRECT application of scripture. No bias and switcharoo concerning the PROPER meaning of words.

 

[God Is My Judge]

Page 2.
Matthew 1: ESV (I use many versions even the Septuagint, Aramaic and Ethiopian bible. This is clear and comparable to RSV).


The Birth of Jesus Christ

18Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. 19And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. 20But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” 22All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:


23“Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son,
and they shall call his name Immanuel”
(which means, God with us). 24When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, 25but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.

This is not complicated. To "know", throughout the OT has been clearly understood by religious men for centuries even thousands of yrs. To now suddenly (since the Dogma was formed) abandon the meaning is simply absurd. Anyone with any commonsense knows that.
Until or Til-
up to (the point in time or the event mentioned):
Biblical meaning of "Knew his wife" Genesis 4: Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, “I have gotten a man with the help of the LORD.”
Genesis 4:25 And Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore a son, and called his name Seth, saying, For God has raised up to me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.
Even Mother Mary knows the meaning of (to know) concerning marriage- Luke 1:34 And Mary said to the angel, "How will this be, since I do not know a man?"
Maryam said to the Angel, “How will this be, for no man has known me?”
34“ How can this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”

It is clear, until/til would mean, after that point when she gave birth ( and of course the proper holding off period for cleanliness taught in the OT) he knew his wife. With that said what EXACTLY does 'Perpetual Virginity' mean ?

You can't reinvent the meaning of words for personal gain out of pride. Words mean what they mean. The word "knew" doesn't even mean- " I knew you knew that", (I wish I could say that of you Mungo) concerning the use in the passages shared. Out of denominational pride and saving face, Catholics will try to convince rational, sound people that biblical reference to (sex) suddenly changes in the NT. They have no problem when (knew or to know ) is used in the OT. I assure you, we can be confident that the meaning in both old and new testaments is the same. Men's agendas however, have changed.

 

[Mungo]

Ok, let me first start by saying, I respect what the Catholic Church has preserved. If not for it, this present-day discussion could not be had. I agree with all titles attributed to Mother Mary except for one and that is Co-Redemptrix (for another discussion). Staying on topic, I believe in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary just differently. I will prove my stance.


Page 1.

You said:
"You say: "This Perpetual Virginity Dogma was too, formulated from an Apocrypha book written in the 2nd century."
That is untrue, but then you provide no evidence for that claim."

What is true is, there is no scriptural proof provided by the Catholic Church to uphold the Title. As it stands, they only provide pretext scripture snippets as "proof" of their claim. When in reality they ignore key words and phrases that are easily understood by any seasoned student of scripture. The meaning of words does not suddenly change in the NT concerning - " to know his wife", " did not know his wife UNTILL or TIL", till still means what it means and what it meant in the OT as does "to know".

Now, unless you haven't been Catholic long or you simply are playing coy, you know what I mean by a book from the 2nd Century was used. The Gospel of James (or the Protoevangelium of James) is a 2nd-century infancy gospel telling of the miraculous conception of the Virgin Mary, her upbringing and marriage to Joseph, the journey of the couple to Bethlehem, the birth of Jesus, and events immediately following. It is the earliest surviving assertion of the perpetual virginity of Mary, meaning her virginity not just prior to the birth of Jesus, but during and afterwards, and despite being condemned by Pope Innocent I in 405 and rejected by the Gelasian Decree around 500, became a widely influential source for Mariology.

I stand by this Pope in his rejecting of this book. However, moving forward that book was used by another Pope to uphold his claims made Dogmas. There has always been a duality in the Catholic Church with its stances from Popes. I will now PROVE my stance with the CORRECT application of scripture. No bias and switcharoo concerning the PROPER meaning of words.

Well, so far it's just your opinions. No proof of anything.

 

[Mungo]

Page 2.
Matthew 1: ESV (I use many versions even the Septuagint, Aramaic and Ethiopian bible. This is clear and comparable to RSV).


The Birth of Jesus Christ

18Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. 19And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. 20But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” 22All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:


23“Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son,
and they shall call his name Immanuel”
(which means, God with us). 24When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, 25but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.

This is not complicated. To "know", throughout the OT has been clearly understood by religious men for centuries even thousands of yrs. To now suddenly (since the Dogma was formed) abandon the meaning is simply absurd. Anyone with any commonsense knows that.
Until or Til-
up to (the point in time or the event mentioned):
Biblical meaning of "Knew his wife" Genesis 4: Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, “I have gotten a man with the help of the LORD.”
Genesis 4:25 And Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore a son, and called his name Seth, saying, For God has raised up to me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.
Even Mother Mary knows the meaning of (to know) concerning marriage- Luke 1:34 And Mary said to the angel, "How will this be, since I do not know a man?"
Maryam said to the Angel, “How will this be, for no man has known me?”
34“ How can this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”

It is clear, until/til would mean, after that point when she gave birth ( and of course the proper holding off period for cleanliness taught in the OT) he knew his wife. With that said what EXACTLY does 'Perpetual Virginity' mean ?

You can't reinvent the meaning of words for personal gain out of pride. Words mean what they mean. The word "knew" doesn't even mean- " I knew you knew that", (I wish I could say that of you Mungo) concerning the use in the passages shared. Out of denominational pride and saving face, Catholics will try to convince rational, sound people that biblical reference to (sex) suddenly changes in the NT. They have no problem when (knew or to know ) is used in the OT. I assure you, we can be confident that the meaning in both old and new testaments is the same. Men's agendas however, have changed.

Most of this is a straw man argument.
I don't know any Catholic apologist who claims that "know" in this context doesn't mean sexual intercourse.
But again you provide no evidence for that claim.

I'll come back to the "until" shortly but you say "It is clear, until/til would mean, after that point when she gave birth".
Again that is just your opinion.