Ask Me Help Desk - Why was Mary called the "Ever virgin"

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).