Perpetual virginity of Mary mother of God!
- Thread starter theefaith
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
- Status
The perpetual virgivity of Mary has been a belief from early times.
All the early Protestant leaders, including Martin Luther, John Calvin and Ulrich Zwingli believed that Mary remained a virgin after giving birth to Jesus:
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.)
So even the Reformers knew and acknowledged that the perpetual virginity of Mary is a truth rooted in both Scripture and Church history.
Eugenio Zolli, the chief Rabbi of Rome during the Shoah who became convinced that Jesus was the true Messiah, was baptised in Rome's Basilica of Mary of the Angels in 1945. Asked why he did not join one of the Protestant denominations, Zolli replied:
Because protesting is not attesting. I do not intend to embarrass anyone by asking: "Why wait 1,500 years to protest?" The Catholic Church was recognised by the whole Christian world as the true church of God for 15 consecutive centuries. No man can halt at the end of those 1,500 years and say that the Catholic Church is not the Church of Christ without embarrassing himself seriously. I can accept only that Church which preached to all creatures by my own forefathers, the Twelve who, like me, issued from the Synagogue.
From Second Exodus by Martin K Barrack p.43
All the early Protestant leaders, including Martin Luther, John Calvin and Ulrich Zwingli believed that Mary remained a virgin after giving birth to Jesus:
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.)
So even the Reformers knew and acknowledged that the perpetual virginity of Mary is a truth rooted in both Scripture and Church history.
Eugenio Zolli, the chief Rabbi of Rome during the Shoah who became convinced that Jesus was the true Messiah, was baptised in Rome's Basilica of Mary of the Angels in 1945. Asked why he did not join one of the Protestant denominations, Zolli replied:
Because protesting is not attesting. I do not intend to embarrass anyone by asking: "Why wait 1,500 years to protest?" The Catholic Church was recognised by the whole Christian world as the true church of God for 15 consecutive centuries. No man can halt at the end of those 1,500 years and say that the Catholic Church is not the Church of Christ without embarrassing himself seriously. I can accept only that Church which preached to all creatures by my own forefathers, the Twelve who, like me, issued from the Synagogue.
From Second Exodus by Martin K Barrack p.43
An Orthodox teaching on the perpetual virginity of Mary
The Ever-Virgin Mother of God
Archpriest George Florovsky
The teaching about Virgin Mary.
The whole dogmatic teaching about our Lady can be condensed into these two names of hers: the Mother of God (Theotokos) and the Ever-Virgin (aiparthenos). Both names have the formal authority of the Church Universal, an ecumenical authority indeed. The Virgin Birth is plainly attested in the New Testament and has been an integral part of the Catholic tradition ever since. "Incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary" (or "Born of the Virgin Mary") is a credal phrase. It is not merely a statement of the historical fact. It is precisely a credal statement, a solemn profession of faith. The term "Ever-Virgin" was formally endorsed by the Fifth Ecumenical Council (553). And Theotokos is more than a name or an honorific title. It is rather a doctrinal definition-in one word. It has been a touchstone of the true faith and a distinctive mark of Orthodoxy even before the Council of Ephesus (432)......
. The title of Ever-Virgin means surely much more than merely a "physiological" statement. It does not refer only to the Virgin Birth. It does not imply only an exclusion of any later marital intercourse (which would be utterly inconceivable if we really believe in the Virgin Birth and in the Divinity of Jesus). It excludes first of all any "erotic" involvement, any sensual and selfish desires or passions, any dissipation of the heart and mind. The bodily integrity or incorruption is but an outward sign of the internal purity. The main point is precisely the purity of the heart, that indispensable condition
The Ever-Virgin Mother of God
Archpriest George Florovsky
The teaching about Virgin Mary.
The whole dogmatic teaching about our Lady can be condensed into these two names of hers: the Mother of God (Theotokos) and the Ever-Virgin (aiparthenos). Both names have the formal authority of the Church Universal, an ecumenical authority indeed. The Virgin Birth is plainly attested in the New Testament and has been an integral part of the Catholic tradition ever since. "Incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary" (or "Born of the Virgin Mary") is a credal phrase. It is not merely a statement of the historical fact. It is precisely a credal statement, a solemn profession of faith. The term "Ever-Virgin" was formally endorsed by the Fifth Ecumenical Council (553). And Theotokos is more than a name or an honorific title. It is rather a doctrinal definition-in one word. It has been a touchstone of the true faith and a distinctive mark of Orthodoxy even before the Council of Ephesus (432)......
. The title of Ever-Virgin means surely much more than merely a "physiological" statement. It does not refer only to the Virgin Birth. It does not imply only an exclusion of any later marital intercourse (which would be utterly inconceivable if we really believe in the Virgin Birth and in the Divinity of Jesus). It excludes first of all any "erotic" involvement, any sensual and selfish desires or passions, any dissipation of the heart and mind. The bodily integrity or incorruption is but an outward sign of the internal purity. The main point is precisely the purity of the heart, that indispensable condition
A former Catholic lady in my Sunday School class observed that by falsely making virginity the paragon of Christian womanhood, the Catholic Church has done a disfavor to Christian women to whom God has given legitimate sexual desires. (Yes, women have sexual desires, and as a happily married husband, I’m grateful to God they do.).
marrige is holy and even a sacrament
but virginity (sacrifice and offering to God and perpetual) is for those in religious life, and it is a spiritual marriage (and refers to both men and women)
they were not married, not husband and wife only betrothed
Joseph was the guardian of Mary and of Jesus!
Jerome maintains against Helvidius these propositions:—
1st. That Joseph was only putatively, not really, the husband of Mary.
2d. That the brethren of the Lord were his cousins, not his own brethren.
1st. That Joseph was only putatively, not really, the husband of Mary.
2d. That the brethren of the Lord were his cousins, not his own brethren.
Quote: (see link below)
The Catholic Church has two terrible English translations widely used by priests today: "betrothed" translated as "engaged" and "I know not man" translated as "I have no husband."
First, "betrothed" needs to be translated as "married" because Mary and Joseph were married before the Annunciation — when they both had signed the marriage contract at the 1st part of the 2-part Jewish ceremony. For the 1st century Jewish culture, this was the definitive point when the man and woman became husband and wife. It is necessary to remember that Mary and Joseph, as practicing Jews, followed the rules of their society, including the rites of the 2-part marriage ceremony. In any culture a couple is either "married" or "not married." There are no "almost married," "half married" or "considered married." Outsiders — those not of the culture — may choose to consider them not married. However, the outsider's opinion is of no concern to the culture.
The Talmudic website (www.jewfaq.org/marriage.htm) has much information on Jewish marriage customs. Under the section titled, "The Process of Marriage: Kiddushin and Nusuin," the Rabbi explains Mary and Joseph's 2-part Jewish marriage ceremony thus, "The process of marriage occurs in two distinct stages: kiddushin (commonly translated as betrothal) and nusuin. Once kiddushin is complete, the woman is legally the wife of the man. The relationship created by kiddushin can only be dissolved by death or divorce."
Since Mary and Joseph had completed kiddushin, by Jewish law they were married before the Incarnation — truly married as the Rabbi said. Note that the Jewish ceremony does not require that Mary and Joseph live together immediately after they become husband and wife!
Two Terrible Translations
We think of betrothal as the same as engagement. But in Judaism is the first part of marriage. Hence Mt 1:18-19:
When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together [the second part of marriage] she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit; and her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly.
You only divorce someone you are married to.
There is a verse which says that children are an heritage of the Lord.
Ronald Nolette
Well-Known Member
You are so very wrong. they cal themselves brethren in the national sense, but to say that this is what is being said by the Pharisees is insane! there was a large crowd there of fellow Jews, so they would have nbeen moronic to single out Jesus 4 half brothers and at least 2 sisters as fellow Israelis (brethren and sisters).
14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
We all know you hate keeping verses in context!
Matthew 1:
23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.
to be very crude- After the son called Emmanuel- Mary got boinked alot! It si right there in the word to protect believers from that pagan lie! See the passage didn't say that a virgin shall give birth to sons called Immanuel, but just one who would be called that. that verse says nothing more about more or no other children of the nameless virgin we know to be Mary. We find that out in the new testament.
Which is why his half brothers and sisters were born of Mary who was no longer virgin.
YOu just can't beat the simple word of God to refute a lie!
Now prove it! James is a common name.
Now prove these James and Joses are the same James and Joses called brothers of jesus
Mark 6:3
Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.
It stretches credulity beyond the braking point to think the pharisees would say- Father, Mother, and then fellow Israelites when there was a crowd of fellow Israelites there. And what about the sisters? Simply fellow Israelites as well?
Pharisees wouldn't say that! and you know it! shame on you.
You just can't prove that. But you are right in one sense. The 12 sons of Jacob had 4 mothers Just like the seven children of Mary had 2 fathers
Just because they are not mentioned you think they don't exist? I can give you several logical reasons from teh Mosaic Law why they were not on this trip, or they could have been on this trip and when Mary and Joseph went back to look for Jesus they were given to relatives if all at least 6 others were even born.
Yes you are. what makes your defenses scary for you is that you don't even know you are retranslating Scripture to promote pagan lies.
I refuted this two threads ago about your non-virgin virgin.
First the OT Greek Septuagintwas written by Hebrew men. They may not have known the word for close relative or the word was not "coined" yet. I do not kow.
Second the first and primary use of adelphos is brothers of the same parent(s).
And yes it refers to a commonality like Israel used teh term for its national ethnic.
Third. There was a crowd around and there is no sound reason why if this was to refer to fellow Israelites they would single out four and at least 2 women in the same thought as Joseph and Mary. that is twisting grammar and logic which you love instead of the word.
Fourth, they were not relatives for by the time of Jesus- there were perfectly fine words to describe cousins, uncles etc.
You can't prove any of your Romanist masters hyypotheses with real facts.
1 Cor 7:3
"Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband." (KJV)
Three questions:
1. What is the "due benevolence" that each is due?
2. Is Paul ruling this in every possible circumstance or is he just making a general observation?
Bear in mind what he says in verse 5 "Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time"
And in verse 6 "But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment."
3. Is Paul addressing Christians only or is he applying this to pagans and Jews as well?
quietthinker
Well-Known Member
The cat's out of the bag Mungo. You had hoped it would be contained.....now you turn on those who bring the darkness to light by misappropriating the clarity.
Bruce Atkinson
Active Member
I had to check the Strongs' Concordance on the use of 'benevolence' in 1 Corinthians 7:3. It shows as being the Greek word: eunoia, which is defined as: "kindness, euphemistically conjugal duty - benevelolence, good will'. It's my opinion that the 'conjugal duty', ie, normal husband & wife activities in the bedroom, is how Paul used the word.
In the first portion of 1 Corinthians chapter 7, Paul is writing about the principles of marriage. Marriage doctrine, if you will. Look at the first 9 verses and decide for yourself:
1 Corinthians 7:1-9 (KJV)
1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.
7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.
8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
As for Pauls' audience, as he wrote in several of his letters, his ministry was to gentiles only, not to the Jews, as the disciples were. Here's a couple samples:
Romans 15:16 That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.
Ephesians 3:1 For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,
And, of course, Pauls' going to the Gentiles and the disciples to the Jews is confirmed at the Jerusalem Conference in Galatians 2: (the uncircumcision refers to Gentiles as they weren't circumcised according to the Mosaic Law whereas all the male Jews were circumcised according to the Law)
Galatians 2:7-9 (KJV)
7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles
9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
Although Paul writes only to the Gentiles (except the book of Hebrews to the unbelieving Jews - he WAS a Jews' Jew, after all), I would think that Pauls' marital 'groundwork' is applicable to Jews and Gentiles alike.
So, getting back to the perpetual virginity topic of this thread, as Paul related above, conjugal activity, ie, sex, is a normal part of all marriages then as now. As all husbands and ex-husbands know, women 'having a headache' 365 times per year is one way to get their wishes, including a divorce. Although Joseph -considered- divorcing Mary, he didn't. Therefore, unless he started using hookers, Joseph and Mary most assuredly had intercourse enough times to produce multiple children.
They did not have a normal marriage
the lower good of sex (holy in itself) is sacrificed for the higher good of mans eternal salvation!
lk 1:34 no sex ever
the lower good of sex (holy in itself) is sacrificed for the higher good of mans eternal salvation!
lk 1:34 no sex ever
Lambano
Well-Known Member
Luke 1:34 is about the virgin birth, which no one is disputing. And human salvation is the result of what Jesus did after He was born. Mary and Joseph forgoing normal marital sex after Jesus was born serves no salvific purpose whatsoever.
@Lambano Well, exactly. The related, unScriptural idea of compulsory celibacy has also produced huge problems.
- Status
Similar threads
