Why does the Catholic church say the Mary was always a virgin, in Luke 2, it talks about Mary's "Firstborn Son".
4So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David.
5He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child.
6While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born,
7and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

In Mathew 13 it names Jesus brothers and "All his sisters" meaning at least three.

53When Jesus had finished these parables, he moved on from there.
54Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. "Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?" they asked.
55"Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?
56Aren't all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?"
57And they took offense at him.
But Jesus said to them, "Only in his hometown and in his own house is a prophet without honor."
58And he did not do many miracles there because of their lack of faith.

No doubt, they have an explanation to gloss over the truth again, like, "they were cousins and they used to call their cousins brothers and sisters in those days."

I'm sure it has something to do with the bible saying that the holy spirit is what caused a virgin to get pregnant. If one can accept jesus' miracles, and the power from which they came (god's power), then god causing a virgin to get pregnant is on equal par with the other miracles. Either way, it shows god has control over atoms, and can construct or destruct them at will. I don't know why the focus is on mary, when it should be on god.

Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born, but she was not always a virgin. She had other children including James who is believed to be the James that wrote the book of James in the Bible. Jesus was a virgin birth, but her other children were not.

The Christian Tradition that nearly all Christians believed until the Reformation is that Mary remained a virgin her entire life.

So she was married and never had sex?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cogs

so she was married and never had sex?

---

Yes.

Well the truth is never glossing over anything, except to those who close their eyes to the truth.

But was he not the first born, I am a only child and I am the first born, that is an important position esp in their society,

And of course yes, cousins were considered "brothern" and that was actually yes a very common term to people during that time.
Also it is a fairly common belief that Joseph was much older and could have had other children which also wouild have been brothers and sisters.

This is part of too many people that they merely accept words as they are used today and it is not always the same.

But yes, it was till the Reformation and is though traditions and customs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Wilson

Why does the Catholic church say the Mary was always a virgin, in Luke 2, it talks about Mary's "Firstborn Son".

---

Just FYI:

Mary is Ever Virgin
Exodus 13:2,12 - Jesus is sometimes referred to as the "first-born" son of Mary. But "first-born" is a common Jewish expression meaning the first child to open the womb. It has nothing to do the mother having future children.

Exodus 34:20 - under the Mosaic law, the "first-born" son had to be sanctified. "First-born" status does not require a "second" born.

Ezek. 44:2 - Ezekiel prophesies that no man shall pass through the gate by which the Lord entered the world. This is a prophecy of Mary's perpetual virginity. Mary remained a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus.

Mark 6:3 - Jesus was always referred to as "the" son of Mary, not "a" son of Mary. Also "brothers" could have theoretically been Joseph's children from a former marriage that was dissolved by death. However, it is most likely, perhaps most certainly, that Joseph was a virgin, just as were Jesus and Mary. As such, they embodied the true Holy Family, fully consecrated to God.

Luke 1:31,34 - the angel tells Mary that you "will" conceive (using the future tense). Mary responds by saying, "How shall this be?" Mary's response demonstrates that she had taken a vow of lifelong virginity by having no intention to have relations with a man. If Mary did not take such a vow of lifelong virginity, her question would make no sense at all (for we can assume she knew how a child is conceived). She was a consecrated Temple virgin as was an acceptable custom of the times.

Luke 2:41-51 - in searching for Jesus and finding Him in the temple, there is never any mention of other siblings.

John 7:3-4; Mark 3:21 - we see that younger "brothers" were advising Jesus. But this would have been extremely disrespectful for devout Jews if these were Jesus' biological brothers.

John 19:26-27 - it would have been unthinkable for Jesus to commit the care of his mother to a friend if he had brothers.

John 19:25 - the following verses prove that James and Joseph are Jesus' cousins and not his brothers: Mary the wife of Clopas is the sister of the Virgin Mary.

Matt. 27:61, 28:1 - Matthew even refers to Mary the wife of Clopas as "the other Mary."

Matt. 27:56; Mark 15:47 - Mary the wife of Clopas is the mother of James and Joseph.

Mark 6:3 - James and Joseph are called the "brothers" of Jesus. So James and Joseph are Jesus' cousins.

Matt. 10:3 - James is also called the son of "Alpheus." This does not disprove that James is the son of Clopas. The name Alpheus may be Aramaic for Clopas, or James took a Greek name like Saul (Paul), or Mary remarried a man named Alpheus.

Mary is Ever-virgin“And indeed it was a virgin, about to marry once for all after her delivery, who gave birth to Christ, in order that each title of sanctity might be fulfilled in Christ's parentage, by means of a mother who was both virgin, and wife of one husband. Again, when He is presented as an infant in the temple, who is it who receives Him into his hands? Who is the first to recognize Him in spirit? A man just and circumspect,' and of course no digamist, (which is plain) even (from this consideration), lest (otherwise) Christ should presently be more worthily preached by a woman, an aged widow, and the wife of one man;' who, living devoted to the temple, was (already) giving in her own person a sufficient token what sort of persons ought to be the adherents to the spiritual temple,--that is, the Church. Such eye-witnesses the Lord in infancy found; no different ones had He in adult age." Tertullian, On Monogamy, 8 (A.D. 213).

"For if Mary, as those declare who with sound mind extol her, had no other son but Jesus, and yet Jesus says to His mother, Woman, behold thy son,' and not Behold you have this son also,' then He virtually said to her, Lo, this is Jesus, whom thou didst bear.' Is it not the case that every one who is perfect lives himself no longer, but Christ lives in him; and if Christ lives in him, then it is said of him to Mary, Behold thy son Christ.' What a mind, then, must we have to enable us to interpret in a worthy manner this work, though it be committed to the earthly treasure-house of common speech, of writing which any passer-by can read, and which can be heard when read aloud by any one who lends to it his bodily ears?" Origen, Commentary on John, I:6 (A.D. 232).

"Therefore let those who deny that the Son is from the Father by nature and proper to His Essence, deny also that He took true human flesh of Mary Ever-Virgin; for in neither case had it been of profit to us men, whether the Word were not true and naturally Son of God, or the flesh not true which He assumed." Athanasius, Orations against the Arians, II:70 (A.D. 362).

"And when he had taken her, he knew her not, till she had brought forth her first-born Son.' He hath here used the word till,' not that thou shouldest suspect that afterwards he did know her, but to inform thee that before the birth the Virgin was wholly untouched by man. But why then, it may be said, hath he used the word, till'? Because it is usual in Scripture often to do this, and to use this expression without reference to limited times. For so with respect to the ark likewise, it is said, The raven returned not till the earth was dried up.' And yet it did not return even after that time. And when discoursing also of God, the Scripture saith, From age until age Thou art,' not as fixing limits in this case. And again when it is preaching the Gospel beforehand, and saying, In his days shall righteousness flourish, and abundance of peace, till the moon be taken away,' it doth not set a limit to this fair part of creation. So then here likewise, it uses the word "till," to make certain what was before the birth, but as to what follows, it leaves thee to make the inference.” John Chrysostom, Gospel of Matthew, V:5 (A.D. 370).

“Thus, what it was necessary for thee to learn of Him, this He Himself hath said; that the Virgin was untouched by man until the birth; but that which both was seen to be a consequence of the former statement, and was acknowledged, this in its turn he leaves for thee to perceive; namely, that not even after this, she having so become a mother, and having been counted worthy of a new sort of travail, and a child-bearing so strange, could that righteous man ever have endured to know her. For if he had known her, and had kept her in the place of a wife, how is it that our Lord commits her, as unprotected, and having no one, to His disciple, and commands him to take her to his own home? How then, one may say, are James and the others called His brethren? In the same kind of way as Joseph himself was supposed to be husband of Mary. For many were the veils provided, that the birth, being such as it was, might be for a time screened. Wherefore even John so called them, saying, For neither did His brethren believe in Him.' John Chrysostom, Gospel of Matthew, V:5 (A.D. 370).

"But those who by virginity have desisted from this process have drawn within themselves the boundary line of death, and by their own deed have checked his advance; they have made themselves, in fact, a frontier between life and death, and a barrier too, which thwarts him. If, then, death cannot pass beyond virginity, but finds his power checked and shattered there, it is demonstrated that virginity is a stronger thing than death; and that body is rightly named undying which does not lend its service to a dying world, nor brook to become the instrument of a succession of dying creatures. In such a body the long unbroken career of decay and death, which has intervened between the first man and the lives of virginity which have been led, is interrupted. It could not be indeed that death should cease working as long as the human race by marriage was working too; he walked the path of life with all preceding generations; he started with every new-born child and accompanied it to the end: but he found in virginity a barrier, to pass which was an impossible feat." Gregory of Nyssa, On Virginity, 13 (A.D. 371).

I sometimes wonder the motive for people asking questions on here. I have never heard of 'ever virgin', but common sense tells me that joseph would have been one unhappy man if his wife never had sex.

Luk 1:34 And Mary said unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
She couldn't have a child, as the angel said she would, because she never had sex. But the angel told her how she could have it. Another thing: wasn't mary engaged? So she wouldn't have been able to have sex before marriage, and I believe this is mary's true intent in asking her question. She knew her marriage would take some time to pass, and the angel said she would conceive, so mary was concerned about the pregnancy. She didn't want to argue, so she finally said:
Luk 1:38 And Mary said, Behold, the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.
virgin or not, it wasn't joseph who conceived jesus, it was the holy spirit. The seed was now in the woman. And spiritually, it can be in us as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

Yes.

---

And she had her other children how?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cogs

virgin or not, it wasn't joseph who conceived jesus, it was the holy spirit. the seed was now in the woman. and spiritually, it can be in us as well.

---

Well, the ante partum virginity you are referring to is evidenced quite clearly in the Bible (Matthew 1:18 Luke 1:26-35)... so I'm not quite sure what you mean.

Discussions of Mary's virginity eventually came to examine Mary's virginity during three periods: ante partum (i.e. before the birth of Christ); in partu (i.e. during the delivery of Christ); and post partum (i.e. after the birth of Christ). Your question involves what came to be called Mary's virginitas post partum.


The best sources of information on Mary's virginity prior to the birth of Jesus are the Infancy narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, usually dated around 80 A.D. There are also several writings before 350 on both Mary's virginitas in partu and on her virginitas post partum which expand on the Biblical reflection about Mary's virginitas ante partum.


The first witnesses are to be found in the Apocrypha from around 150, especially: the Protogospel of James, the Book of Sybils, the Ascent of Isaiah, and the Acts of Peter (see: Corp. Mar. I, 131-158). These apocryphal texts may not be considered sufficient doctrinal justification for Mary's lifelong virginity. However, they point out how widespread the conviction about this point was among early Christians.


There are suggestions that Irenaeus (d. ca 220) and Justin (d. ca 165) may have alluded to Mary's virginitas in partu, but there are no explicit statements by either author. Origen (d. 254) may have been the first to affirm Mary's lifelong virginity (see: PG 14, 320) in commenting on the Protogospel of James (see also Corp. Mar. 265; GCS 38, 42f; PG 13, 1631). Clement of Alexandria (d. ca 215) accepted the Protogospel of James without problem (Strom VII, 16, 93, 7) along with its perspective on Mary as ever-virgin. However, Tertullian (d. ca 200) rejected the apocryphal protogospel and with it Mary's virginitas in partu and her virginitas post partum (see De carne Christi, 23).
-International Marian Research Institute

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

And she had her other children how?

---

She didn't have another child.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

She didn't have another child.

---

Let's turn to what the word of God says:

Matt 12:46-48
46 While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. 47 Then one said to Him, "Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You."
NKJV

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

Let's turn to what the word of God says:

Matt 12:46-48
46 While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. 47 Then one said to Him, "Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You."
NKJV

---

How can you read the Bible while you're standing on it. What a feat of acrobatics!

JoeT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Wilson

she gave birth to her firstborn, a son

---

If that were the only child a woman had, wouldn't it be referred to as an "only child" or "only son"? "Firstborn" implies there were more children born after this one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

How can you read the Bible while you're standing on it. What a feat of acrobatics!

JoeT

---

Hey, at least I am reading it. How about - what is stopping you from reading it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

Hey, at least I am reading it. How about - what is stopping you from reading it?

---

It's my bed time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

It's my bed time.

---

Perhaps it would be good to spend some time in God's word before retiring to bed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

If that were the only child a woman had, wouldn't it be referred to as an "only child" or "only son"? "Firstborn" implies there were more children born after this one.

---

I already covered this in my earlier post:

Exodus 13:2,12 - Jesus is sometimes referred to as the "first-born" son of Mary. But "first-born" is a common Jewish expression meaning the first child to open the womb. It has nothing to do the mother having future children.

"The ever-virgin One thus remains even after the birth still virgin, having never at any time up till death consorted with a man. For although it is written, And knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born Son, yet note that he who is first-begotten is first-born even if he is only-begotten. For the word first-born' means that he was born first but does not at all suggest the birth of others. And the word till' signifies the limit of the appointed time but does not exclude the time thereafter. For the Lord says, And lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world, not meaning thereby that He will be separated from us after the completion of the age. The divine apostle, indeed, says, And so shall we ever be with the Lord, meaning after the general resurrection."
-John of Damascus, Orthodox Faith, 4:14 (A.D. 743).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another common error is believing that scriptural references to the "brothers" of Jesus implies that Mary had other children... but scripture and history show this not to be the case:

Luke 1:36 - Elizabeth is Mary's kinswoman. Some Bibles translate kinswoman as "cousin," but this is an improper translation because in Hebrew and Aramaic, there is no word for "cousin."

Luke 22:32 - Jesus tells Peter to strengthen his "brethren." In this case, we clearly see Jesus using "brethren" to refer to the other apostles, not his biological brothers.

Acts 1:12-15 - the gathering of Jesus' "brothers" amounts to about 120. That is a lot of "brothers." Brother means kinsmen in Hebrew.

Acts 7:26; 11:1; 13:15,38; 15:3,23,32; 28:17,21 - these are some of many other examples where "brethren" does not mean blood relations.

Rom. 9:3 - Paul uses "brethren" and "kinsmen" interchangeably. "Brothers" of Jesus does not prove Mary had other children.

Gen. 11:26-28 - Lot is Abraham's nephew ("anepsios") / Gen. 13:8; 14:14,16 - Lot is still called Abraham's brother (adelphos") . This proves that, although a Greek word for cousin is "anepsios," Scripture also uses "adelphos" to describe a cousin.

Gen. 29:15 - Laban calls Jacob is "brother" even though Jacob is his nephew. Again, this proves that brother means kinsmen or cousin.

Deut. 23:7; 1 Chron. 15:5-18; Jer. 34:9; Neh. 5:7 -"brethren" means kinsmen. Hebrew and Aramaic have no word for "cousin."

2 Sam. 1:26; 1 Kings 9:13, 20:32 - here we see that "brethren" can even be one who is unrelated (no bloodline), such as a friend.

2 Kings 10:13-14 - King Ahaziah's 42 "brethren" were really his kinsmen.

1 Chron. 23:21-22 - Eleazar's daughters married their "brethren" who were really their cousins.

Neh. 4:14; 5:1,5,8,10,14 - these are more examples of "brothers" meaning "cousins" or "kinsmen."

Tobit 5:11 - Tobit asks Azarias to identify himself and his people, but still calls him "brother."

Amos 1: 9 - brotherhood can also mean an ally (where there is no bloodline).

"Her virginity also itself was on this account more pleasing and accepted, in that it was not that Christ being conceived in her, rescued it beforehand from a husband who would violate it, Himself to preserve it; but, before He was conceived, chose it, already dedicated to God, as that from which to be born. This is shown by the words which Mary spake in answer to the Angel announcing to her conception; How,' saith she, shall this be, seeing I know not a man?' Which assuredly she would not say, unless she had before vowed herself unto God as a virgin. But, because the habits of the Israelites as yet refused this, she was espoused to a just man, who would not take from her by violence, but rather guard against violent persons, what she had already vowed. Although, even if she had said this only, How shall this take place ?' and had not added, seeing I know not a man,' certainly she would not have asked, how, being a female, she should give birth to her promised Son, if she had married with purpose of sexual intercourse. She might have been bidden also to continue a virgin, that in her by fitting miracle the Son of God should receive the form of a servant, but, being to be a pattern to holy virgins, lest it should be thought that she alone needed to be a virgin, who had obtained to conceive a child even without sexual intercourse, she dedicated her virginity to God, when as yet she knew not what she should conceive, in order that the imitation of a heavenly life in an earthly and mortal body should take place of vow, not of command; through love of choosing, not through necessity of doing service. Thus Christ by being born of a virgin, who, before she knew Who was to be born of her, had determined to continue a virgin, chose rather to approve, than to command, holy virginity. And thus, even in the female herself, in whom He took the form of a servant, He willed that virginity should be free."
-Augustine, Of Holy Virginity, 4 (A.D. 401).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottRC

This is shown by the words which Mary spake in answer to the Angel announcing to her conception; How,' saith she, shall this be, seeing I know not a man?' Which assuredly she would not say, unless she had before vowed herself unto God as a virgin. But, because the habits of the Israelites as yet refused this, she was espoused to a just man, who would not take from her by violence, but rather guard against violent persons, what she had already vowed.

---

I don't know how they came to this conclusion. See my earlier post about her being espoused to joseph, so she was concerned about her upcoming wedding, and pregnancy.
Mat 1:19 And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.
Now why would he try to put her away, if her pregnancy wasn't a concern? Guess joseph decided getting rid of his pregnant wife was better than having a wife. Never mind trying to protect her. If he wanted to do that, at least he could say he was the father. Then the baby wouldn't be looked upon as illegitimate.
Also, anti this, and post this... I just know that she didn't have a man to create a baby with, in jesus. The holy spirit was the seed that began jesus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cogs

I don't know how they came to this conclusion. See my earlier post about her being espoused to joseph,

---

I did read your earlier post... but it didn't make much sense to me then either:

Quote:

---

she couldn't have a child, as the angel said she would, because she never had sex. But the angel told her how she could have it.

---

Gabriel tells Mary, an engaged woman, that she will "conceive in your womb and bear a son" (v31)

Mary asks “How can this be, since I am a virgin?” (v34)

THEN Gabriel informs her how: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you... "(v35)

So this still does not explain how an engaged woman, when told she will conceive a child would ask "How can this be, since I am a virgin?"

Notice... Gabriel tells her that she WILL (future tense) conceive and Mary brings up her virginity... so common sense would tell you that Mary most likely had made a vow of chasitity and had no intention of having sexual relations even AFTER (remember FUTURE tense) she was married.

Quote:

---

another thing: wasn't mary engaged? So she wouldn't have been able to have sex before marriage, and I believe this is mary's true intent in asking her question. She knew her marriage would take some time to pass, and the angel said she would conceive, so mary was concerned about the pregnancy. She didn't want to argue, so she finally said:

---

But this only would make sense if Gabriel told her the time frame of her conception, and he didn't... notice again he used the future tense... it could have meant 10 years from then... and Mary still was confused... so I'm not sure how you came to your assumptions.

Quote:

---

I just know that she didn't have a man to create a baby with, in jesus. The holy spirit was the seed that began jesus.

---

Agreed... but that's not what this thread is about.

ScottRC:"Notice... Gabriel tells her that she WILL (future tense) conceive and Mary brings up her virginity..... so common sense would tell you that Mary most likely had made a vow of chasitity and had no intention of having sexual relations even AFTER (remember FUTURE tense) she was married."

This part of the bible says nothing about mary taking a vow of chastity, and nothing of her virginity after she married.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cogs

this part of the bible says nothing about mary taking a vow of chastity, and nothing of her virginity after she married.

---

That's why it is important to understand a bit about the culture of the period... and I think I provided some evidence as to why this text shows Mary's vow of chastity... as well as showing Scripture and the teachings of the early Church that should make it clear Mary remained a virgin after she married.

An important historical document which supports the teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity is the Protoevangelium of James, which was written probably less than sixty years after the conclusion of Mary’s earthly life (around A.D. 120), when memories of her life were still vivid in the minds of many.

According to the world-renowned patristics scholar, Johannes Quasten: "The principal aim of the whole writing [Protoevangelium of James] is to prove the perpetual and inviolate virginity of Mary before, in, and after the birth of Christ" (Patrology, 1:120–1).

To begin with, the Protoevangelium records that when Mary’s birth was prophesied, her mother, St. Anne, vowed that she would devote the child to the service of the Lord, as Samuel had been by his mother (1 Sam. 1:11). Mary would thus serve the Lord at the Temple, as women had for centuries (1 Sam. 2:22), and as Anna the prophetess did at the time of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:36–37). A life of continual, devoted service to the Lord at the Temple meant that Mary would not be able to live the ordinary life of a child-rearing mother. Rather, she was vowed to a life of perpetual virginity.

However, due to considerations of ceremonial cleanliness, it was eventually necessary for Mary, a consecrated "virgin of the Lord," to have a guardian or protector who would respect her vow of virginity. Thus, according to the Protoevangelium, Joseph, an elderly widower who already had children, was chosen to be her spouse. (This would also explain why Joseph was apparently dead by the time of Jesus’ adult ministry, since he does not appear during it in the gospels, and since Mary is entrusted to John, rather than to her husband Joseph, at the crucifixion).

According to the Protoevangelium, Joseph was required to regard Mary’s vow of virginity with the utmost respect. The gravity of his responsibility as the guardian of a virgin was indicated by the fact that, when she was discovered to be with child, he had to answer to the Temple authorities, who thought him guilty of defiling a virgin of the Lord. Mary was also accused of having forsaken the Lord by breaking her vow. Keeping this in mind, it is an incredible insult to the Blessed Virgin to say that she broke her vow by bearing children other than her Lord and God, who was conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tj3

Some folk go with man's tradition over God's word.

---

Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2) - and he instructs us to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).

Here's a helpful article on Mary, Ever Virgin:
Mary: Ever Virgin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickJ

Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2) - and he instructs us to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).

---

2 Tim 2:2
2 And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.
NKJV

He never says, nor does scripture say, that he is, or that we are to go outside of what scripture says. Indeed scripture says that we are NOT to go beyond what is written.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cogs

ScottRC:"Notice... Gabriel tells her that she WILL (future tense) conceive and Mary brings up her virginity..... so common sense would tell you that Mary most likely had made a vow of chasitity and had no intention of having sexual relations even AFTER (remember FUTURE tense) she was married."

this part of the bible says nothing about mary taking a vow of chastity, and nothing of her virginity after she married.

---

Why is this so hard to believe that Mary didn’t have a physical relationship after the birth of Christ?

My nature is that of a doubting-Thomas (I usually need some credible reason), but I’ve never questioned that Mary was ever virgin. I’ve never been able to put a finger on why my nature is incongruous when it comes to the ever virgin Mary. I can discuss the topic openly (maybe not as well as Scott), but in the end I still can’t visualize Mary any other way except as ever virgin. Go figure!

JoeT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

2 Tim 2:2
2 And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.
NKJV

He never says, nor does scripture say, that he is, or that we are to go outside of what scripture says. Indeed scripture says that we are NOT to go beyond what is written.

---

??
Where does scripture say that scripture is the sole authority? Nowhere. Of course this is a major dividing point (Why, I am not sure since Scripture affirms that it is NOT the sole authority).

There was no New Testament for the first 300 years of Christianity. What did the early Christians rely on?

The Answer: The teaching of the Apostles whom Christ designated as the leaders of His Church.

In order not to wrestle with scripture, let me say that if I tell you something, you can infer whatever you want. Then, if that becomes the standard inference, it's like it becomes set in stone. I think this is what was done with these documents that infer things from the scripture that I would never infer myself.
However, that's not the point. The pharisees had the scriptures, and they did err. It was the scriptures that spoke of jesus. The pharisees thought they could find their salvation in the words, but the means to their salvation was staring them in the face. Words are not living. I'll take the living god, and learn from him. If he happens to let me know what his intention for some scripture means, then at least I'll have the interpretation from the living god, staring me in the face, rather than what someone wrote.

One of the prophecies of the Messiah was that he would be born of a virgin. Christ's virgin birth is part of what made him so special because he did not have an earthly father, because his father was God. If Mary's other children were also virgin births wouldn't that be considering them to be more than just men, but also God in the flesh as Christ was? And in turn wouldn't that be in essence be declaring them almost as deity? Considering the other children of marry to also be virgin births (which would mean their father was God) seems to be stepping outside of the purpose of the virgin birth in the first place. Mary was a wonderful, Godly woman. My favorite woman of the Bible and one of my role models, but I just don't believe she remained a virgin all her life. Does that make her any less of a Godly woman or role model? Absolutely not. For starters, she was married!! She was well within God's "law" to lose her virginity!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cogs

in order not to wrestle with scripture, let me say that if i tell you something, you can infer whatever you want. then, if that becomes the standard inference, it's like it becomes set in stone. i think this is what was done with these documents that infer things from the scripture that i would never infer myself.
however, that's not the point. the pharisees had the scriptures, and they did err. it was the scriptures that spoke of jesus. the pharisees thought they could find their salvation in the words, but the means to their salvation was staring them in the face. words are not living. i'll take the living god, and learn from him. if he happens to let me know what his intention for some scripture means, then at least i'll have the interpretation from the living god, staring me in the face, rather than what someone wrote.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tadita83

One of the prophecies of the Messiah was that he would be born of a virgin. Christ's virgin birth is part of what made him so special because he did not have an earthly father, because his father was God. If Mary's other children were also virgin births wouldn't that be considering them to be more than just men, but also God in the flesh as Christ was? and in turn wouldn't that be in essence be declaring them almost as deity? Considering the other children of marry to also be virgin births (which would mean their father was God) seems to be stepping outside of the purpose of the virgin birth in the first place. Mary was a wonderful, Godly woman. My favorite woman of the Bible and one of my role models, but i just don't believe she remained a virgin all her life. Does that make her any less of a Godly woman or role model? absolutely not. for starters, she was married!!! She was well within God's "law" to lose her virginity!

---

But why not? It’s not out of the question that she couldn’t have retained her virginity. If you’re willing to believe in the seemingly more incredible virgin birth, then why not believe that she remained celibate?

"Quid est enim fides nisi credere quod non vides?" (What is faith but belief without seeing?)

JoeT

I totally agree with you joe that she COULD have retained her virginity, I just don't believe that she did because that would diminish the miraculous birth of Christ. I hope what I'm saying make sense. I believe without a doubt that God can do anything including have a child be born of a virigin because he did once already. I am not one to say that I understand God's plan entirely, but it seems to me that Christ's virgin birth was meant to be a special event unique to the Messiahs birth only. For Mary to have had other children though was a virgin would make the birth of the Messiah not so unique.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

But why not? It's not out of the question that she couldn't have retained her virginity. If you're willing to believe in the seemingly more incredible virgin birth, then why not believe that she remained celibate?

---

Good point Joe... my opinion on this as a convert to the Church relied on this.

I just could not see Joseph putting his selfish desires ahead of the most important "job" any parents in history were given: raising our divine Lord into the man that would save us all from sin.

I know this is not "proof" of anything... but just wanted to share.:D

All with Peter to Jesus through Mary!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tadita83

I am not one to say that i understand God's plan entirely, but it seems to me that Christ's virgin birth was meant to be a special event unique to the Messiahs birth only.

---

Very well stated.. God bless you for this wonderfully Christian attitude... I know I'm guilty at times of forgetting the "mystery" of our faith.

God bless.

Please clarify scott, why are joseph's desires selfish? They were a married couple. What's wrong with them having sex? I just don't understand why it is such taboo to believe that Mary had sex with her husband not in Jesus' case, but in the case of her other children?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tadita83

please clarify scott, why are joseph's desires selfish? they were a married couple. whats wrong with them having sex? i just don't understand why it is such taboo to believe that Mary had sex with her husband not in Jesus' case, but in the case of her other children?

---

Thank you for your question.

And to clarify: my answer is based upon my personal opinion.

I believe that Joseph was a pure and holy man... and I believe sex is intended for the procreation of children... and since (as I mentioned before) I believe Joseph and Mary decided that they would remain pure to focus on their primary task: raising Jesus... having sex "just for fun" and not for procreation would have certainly been simply "selfish".

Just my opinion... thanks for the chat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tadita83

i totally agree with you joe that she COULD have retained her virginity, I just don't believe that she did because that would diminish the miraculous birth of Christ. I hope what i'm saying make sense. I believe without a doubt that God can do anything including have a child be born of a virigin because he did once already. I am not one to say that i understand God's plan entirely, but it seems to me that Christ's virgin birth was meant to be a special event unique to the Messiahs birth only. for Mary to have had other children though was a virgin would make the birth of the Messiah not so unique.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottRC

Good point Joe.... my personal opinion on this as a convert to the Church relied on this.
I just could not see Joseph putting his selfish desires ahead of the most important "job" any parents in history were given: raising our divine Lord into the man that would save us all from sin.

I know this is not "proof" of anything... but just wanted to share.:D

All with Peter to Jesus through Mary!

---

Tadita83, Scott, et al

I don't think that God needed to prove himself, as it were to make the virgin birth even more miraculous. Or, for that matter, whether Joseph (by the way, that's a great name) had “desires.” I think Mary remaining virgin had more to do with the following verse:

Luke 1:45 And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord: be it done to me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

Mary completely subjected herself to the will of God; in effect became the “handmaiden” of God, willingly, knowingly, in spite of her young age. And after this proclamation, her spirit “rejoiced.”

Luke 1:45.. My soul doth magnify the Lord.
47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
48 Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid: for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. Shall call me blessed... These words are a prediction of that honour which the church in all ages should pay to the Blessed Virgin. Let Protestants examine whether they are any way concerned in this prophecy.
49 Because he that is mighty hath done great things to me: and holy is his name.
50 And his mercy is from generation unto generations, to them that fear him.
51 He hath showed might in his arm: he hath scattered the proud in the conceit of their heart.
52 He hath put down the mighty from their seat and hath exalted the humble.
53 He hath filled the hungry with good things: and the rich he hath sent empty away.
54 He hath received Israel his servant, being mindful of his mercy.
55 As he spoke to our fathers: to Abraham and to his seed for ever.

I would say that it was more a spiritual response of subjecting oneself (Mary's self) to God's will. If there is a “proof” I would vote for this one.

JoeT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickJ

??
Where does scripture say that scripture is the sole authority? Nowhere. Of course this is a major dividing point (Why, I am not sure since Scripture affirms that it is NOT the sole authority).

---

We could go into that in detail, but we don't need to. Simply because there are 66 books that we agree are canonical, and scripture commands that we not add to the word of God (Prov 30:5-6 and others). So if you wish to add to those 66 books, show us that validation rthat proves that they are in fact the word of God. The onus is on you to validate any additional claims.

Quote:

---

There was no New Testament for the first 300 years of Christianity. What did the early Christians rely on?

---

Really? Why are parts referred to even in the NT itself as scripture?

Mark 6:2-4 (King James Version)


2And when the sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were astonished, saying, Whence hath this man these things? And what wisdom is this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands?


3Is 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.
4But Jesus, said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.


Galatians 1:18-20



18Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. 19But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.
20Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.

There was no New Testament for the first 300 years of Christianity. What did the early Christians rely on?

300 years of Christianity?...it's only been about 2008, and matthew was written between 61 and 70 A.D Acts was written between 60 and 64 A.D. Rev. was written between 90 and 99 A.D.