A scriptural defense of the Perpetual virginity of Mary

For years there has been disagreement between Catholics and some non-Catholic groups about the Catholic Church’s teaching on the Marian Dogmas, particularly, the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Mother. This will attempt to clear up some of the confusion.

Catholics have always held that Mary remained a virgin before, during, and following the birth of Jesus. Many non-Catholics contend that scripture proves that she did not and points to several instances of people being called brothers or sisters of Jesus.

When we study the scriptures carefully, paying particular attention to the order of sentences and view the language with precision, we see that the Catholic position is both logical and scriptural.

We see the annunciation in Luke Chapter 1. Luke 1:26-27 “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.”
Notice that Mary is described as “betrothed”. For all intents and purposes this means that they are married, but the marriage has not yet been consummated. I will go into more detail about this further on.

The angel says to Mary in Luke 1:30-33 “And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God.
Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus.
He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever. And of his kingdom there shall be no end.”
It is important to note here that the angel has not specified a time when or how this would occur.

Mary’s response is very telling Luke 1:34 “εἶπεν δὲ Μαριὰμ πρὸς τὸν ἄγγελον Πῶς ἔσται τοῦτο, ἐπεὶ ἄνδρα οὐ γινώσκω;” Luke 1:34 “And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?” In both the Douay-Rheims and the King James version ἔσται is correctly translated as “shall” From Strong’s concordance 1510 εἰμί eimí (the basic Greek verb which expresses being, i.e. "to be"). Ἔσται is the future tense or “will be.”

Mary is not a 21st century city girl, She is a 1st century farm girl who understands the mechanics of procreation. Her response only makes sense if she had no intention of having a conjugal relation with the man she was already betrothed to. In the usual state of affairs a woman would expect to have children, but Mary is expressing amazement. Remember the angel has not yet told her that the child will be the literal Son of God only that he would be called the son of the most high and sit on the throne of David.

There are some who will say that the word betrothed meant that they were merely engaged, but scripture shows differently; in the Hebrew culture a couple became betrothed then, the husband prepared a house, returned for the wife, and took her into the house to consummate the marriage.

Jesus used the language of the bridegroom in John 14:1-3 “Do not let your hearts be troubled. You have faith* in God; have faith also in me”.
2 “In my Father’s house there are many dwelling places. If there were not, would I have told you that I am going to prepare a place for you?”
3 “And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back again and take you to myself, so that where I am you also may be”.
Months later after she is already living with Joseph on the way to Bethlehem Mary is still referred to as being betrothed,
Luke 2:5 “to be enrolled with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child.”

If they were not married but only “engaged” it would not have been necessary for Joseph to divorce her.
Matthew 1:19 “Ἰωσὴφ δὲ ὁ ἀνὴρ αὐτῆς, δίκαιος ὢν καὶ μὴ θέλων αὐτὴν δειγματίσαι, ἐβουλήθη λάθρᾳ ἀπολῦσαι αὐτήν.”
Matthew 1:19 “Whereupon Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing publicly to expose her, was minded to put her away privately”. The word ἀπολῦσαι from Strong’s concordance 630 /apolýō ("to release") is specifically used of divorcing a marital partner
We see the exact same term used when Jesus is discussing marriage and divorce in Mt 1:19, 5:31,32, 19:7-9.

At this point the non-Catholics will point out that this does not prevent them from having a conjugal relationship after the birth of Jesus and the purification ritual. I have shown above that Mary had no intention of entering into a conjugal relationship with Joseph and this is is due to her having entered into a “relationship” with the Holy Spirit.
This is evidenced in the language used in Luke when the angel explains how Mary is to conceive.
Luke 1:35 And the angel answering, said to her: “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.”

The term “overshadow” is nuptial language. We see similar language in Ruth and Ezekiel. Ruth 3:9 And he said to her: “Who art thou?” And she answered:” I am Ruth thy handmaid: spread thy coverlet over thy servant, for thou art a near kinsman.”
Ezekiel 16;7-8 “I caused thee to multiply as the bud of the field: and thou didst increase and grow great, and advancedst, and camest to woman's ornament: thy breasts were fashioned, and thy hair grew: and thou wast naked, and full of confusion
. And I passed by thee, and saw thee: and behold thy time was the time of lovers : and I spread my garment over thee, and covered thy ignominy. And I swore to thee, and I entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord God: and thou becamest mine.”

At this point some will ask how could Mary be in a matrimonial relationship with both the Holy Spirit and Joseph, The answer is in the exact same way that all Christians are in that relationship with Christ.
Mary had both an earthly temporal nuptial relationship with Joseph and an eternal nuptial relationship with the Holy Spirit, just as all Christians hope to have with God. This comes from the Hebrew word אֲרוּסָה (kiddush) which means betrothed, The root of kiddush is קָדוֹשׁ (kadash) which means holy or sacred.

Matthew 9:14-15 Then the disciples of John came to Him, asking, "Why do we and the Pharisees fast, but Your disciples do not fast?" And Jesus said to them, "The attendants of the bridegroom cannot mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them, can they? But the days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast.” (See also Mark 2:18-20, Luke 5:33-35) Matthew 25:1 "Then the kingdom of heaven will be comparable to ten virgins, who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom”
Isaiah 61:10 “I will rejoice greatly in the LORD, My soul will exult in my God; For He has clothed me with garments of salvation, He has wrapped me with a robe of righteousness, As a bridegroom decks himself with a garland, And as a bride adorns herself with her jewels.”
John 3:29 "He who has the bride is the bridegroom; but the friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him rejoices greatly because of the bridegroom's voice So this joy of mine has been made full.
2 Corinthians 11:2 “For I am jealous of you with the jealousy of God. For I have espoused you to one husband that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.”
Revelation 21:2 “And I John saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.”

The difference between Mary’s nuptial relationship with God and ours is that hers intersected here in the temporal world and resulted in the conception of the Man, Christ Jesus.
John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

The question will still remain to some: How does this prevent Mary and Joseph from engaging in a conjugal relationship?
By law he was strictly prohibited from entering this type of relationship with Mary. To understand this we need to refer to the Old Testament, specifically the book of Deuteronomy and Jeremiah.
Deuteronomy 1:1-4 1 “When a man, after marrying a woman, is later displeased with her because he finds in her something indecent, and he writes out a bill of divorce and hands it to her, thus dismissing her from his house,
2 if on leaving his house she goes and becomes the wife of another man,
3 and the second husband, too, comes to dislike her and he writes out a bill of divorce and hands it to her, thus dismissing her from his house, or if this second man who has married her dies, 4 then her former husband, who dismissed her, may not again take her as his wife after she has become defiled. That would be an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring such guilt upon the land the LORD, your God, is giving you as a heritage.”

Jeremiah 3:1 “If a man divorces his wife and she leaves him and then becomes the wife of another, Can she return to the first? Would not this land be wholly defiled? But you have played the prostitute with many lovers, and yet you would return to me!—oracle of the LORD.”

In the The Babylonian Talmud: (Neusner vol 11 pg 123) It states that a man can not enter into a marriage contract with a woman who has been made pregnant by a former husband. If he does, he is required to give her a bill of divorce.and not remarry her.

We see this in 2 Samuel. Absalom had relations with ten of David’s concubines.
2 Samuel 16:22 “So a tent was pitched on the roof for Absalom, and Absalom went to his father’s concubines in view of all Israel.
After Absalom’s plot to overthrow his father failed David did the only thing he could. He took them back but he never had relations with them.
2 Samuel 20:3 David came to his house in Jerusalem, and the king took the ten concubines whom he had left behind to care for the palace and placed them under guard. He provided for them, but never again saw them. And so they remained shut away to the day of their death, lifelong widows.”

As we saw in Matthew 1:19 Joseph had planned to divorce her quietly, but again an angel intervened.
Matthew 1:20 “But while he thought on these things, behold the angel of the Lord appeared to him in his sleep, saying: Joseph, son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her, is of the Holy Ghost.
21 And she shall bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his name JESUS. For he shall save his people from their sins.”
Now we need to compare the language used 1:18 and in 1:20 Matthew 1:18 “Τοῦ δὲ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἡ γένεσις οὕτως ἦν. μνηστευθείσης τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ Μαρίας τῷ Ἰωσήφ, πρὶν ἢ συνελθεῖν αὐτοὺς εὑρέθη ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχουσα ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου.” Sunerchomai συνελθεῖν to come together, to assemble, to marry to have marital relations.
Matthew 1:20 “ταῦτα δὲ αὐτοῦ ἐνθυμηθέντος ἰδοὺ ἄγγελος Κυρίου κατ’ ὄναρ ἐφάνη αὐτῷ λέγων Ἰωσὴφ υἱὸς Δαυείδ, μὴ φοβηθῇς παραλαβεῖν Μαρίαν τὴν γυναῖκά σου, τὸ γὰρ ἐν αὐτῇ γεννηθὲν ἐκ Πνεύματός ἐστιν Ἁγίου·”
Paralambanó παραλαβεῖν I take from, receive from, or: I take to, receive (apparently not used of money), admit, acknowledge; I take with me.To take charge of.

At this point Joseph became her guardian/ protector and legal spouse. This fulfilled the prophecy that the Messiah would come from the line of David of which Joseph was a member. Had he divorced her Mary would have been subject to at least ridicule and scorn and possibly stoning, which was the punishment for adultery. Joseph was able to fulfill all the temporal duties of a father that the Holy Spirit could not.
Further evidence of Mary’s perpetual virginity is seen Ezekiel.
Ezekiel 44:1-2 “Then he brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary facing east, but it was closed.2The LORD said to me: This gate must remain closed; it must not be opened, and no one should come through it. Because the LORD, the God of Israel, came through it, it must remain closed.”
The Sanctuary is the Temple and only God is permitted to enter through that gate. Jesus told us in John that He was the Temple
John 2:19-21
19 Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.” 20The Jews said, “This temple has been under construction for forty-six years, and you will raise it up in three days?”
21 But he was speaking about the temple of his body.
Logically if Jesus is the temple then Mary must be the eastern gate since she is how He entered the world.

There will still be some die hards that will say: But what about the “brothers” and “sisters” referred to in the gospels?
In John 19:26-27 we read 26 When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son.”
27 Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother.” And from that hour the disciple took her into his home.

Some have offered that his siblings were unbelievers. Paul describes James in Galatians 1:19 “But I did not see any other of the apostles, only James the brother of the Lord.” So much for James being an unbeliever if he was one of the Apostles. Also nowhere does James describe himself as related to Jesus.
Jude describes himself as “a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James” (Jude 1). If Jude is a sibling of Jesus, why does he talk in this weird way?
If any of them were to be unbelievers it would be a very temporary state of affairs. We see this in John 17:12 When I was with them I protected them in your name that you gave me, and I guarded them, and none of them was lost except the son of destruction, in order that the scripture might be fulfilled.
The claim of unbelief came in John 7:5 For his brothers did not believe in him. During the feast of tabernacles (See John 7:2). That was 6 months prior to the Passover and both James and Jude were present for that.
Further Jesus would have known that they would to him based on his predictions of the behavior of others in the gospels.
Matthew 26:13 He knew the woman that anointed Him with oil would be remembered.
Matthew 26:34 He knew of Peter’s triple denial.
Peter's death in John 21:18-19, and the list goes on.
Even if they did not believe in Him they were still faithful Jews and had a responsibility that Jesus went into great detail about ignoring parents for “religious” reasons.

Mark 7:9-12 9 He went on to say, “How well you have set aside the commandment of God in order to uphold your tradition!
10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and ‘Whoever curses father or mother shall die.’
11 Yet you say, ‘If a person says to father or mother, “Any support you might have had from me is qorban” (meaning, dedicated to God),
12 you allow him to do nothing more for his father or mother.

We also know from the Gospel that Jesus was the First born of Mary, and siblings would be younger and it was absolutely unheard of in the middle eastern culture that a younger sibling would upbraid and older brother for any reason.

If non-Catholics are going to be consistent then are they willing to say that Joseph is the biological father of Jesus?
John 6:42 and they said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph? Do we not know his father and mother? Then how can he say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?
Luke 2:33 The child’s father and mother were amazed at what was said about him; Luke 2:48 When his parents saw him, they were astonished, and his mother said to him, “Son, why have you done this to us? Your father and I have been looking for you with great anxiety.” Of course not, every Christian realizes that Joseph was His father by adoption not by nature.

Let’s look further at the gospels.
Matthew 13:55 “Is he not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother named Mary and his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas?”
Matthew 27:56 “Among them were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.”
Matthew 28:1 “After the sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb.”
We see when we look at John that the biological father of these men is actually Clopas. John 19:25 “Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala.”
Notice that John refers to Mary the mother of Jesus and Mary the wife of Clopas as “sisters” Most families do not give uterine relatives the same first name. At best they are probably first cousins, which would make the sons of Clopas 2nd cousins to Jesus.

Paul states in Galatians 1:17-19
17 “nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; rather, I went into Arabia and then returned to Damascus.”
18 “Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to confer with Cephas and remained with him for fifteen days.”
19 “But I did not see any other of the apostles, only James the brother of the Lord.”

There were two Apostles named James. The first was the son of Zebedee He was killed by Herod (Acts 12:1-2). This James must be the son of Alphaeus referred to in Luke 6:15-16. Jude refers to himself as the brother of James in Jude 1:1
Three of the four have been ruled out as uterine brothers of Jesus. It should also be noted that not one of these “brothers” was ever referred to as either the son of Joseph or Mary. Also note that in Luke 2:41-52 when Jesus was lost and later found in the temple no mention is made of any other children.

The only conclusion that can be drawn, based entirely on the Scriptures, is that Mary did remain a virgin for her entire life.

There is Catholicism, and the there is every other piece of rot out there from Joel Ostend’s “prosperity” gospel to Rev. Wright’s “God Damn America,” gospel to the lunatic followers of Rev. Moon, Rev. Jim Jones, and Rev. David Koresh.

You always cite these guys. Here's the way to know if they, or any other preacher/messanger, etc, is right.

You can tell by their fruits if their message is in accord with the Word.

I don't think you'll find anyone on this thread that believes these people you mentioned are in accord with the Word.

But that's a difference with Christianity and Catholicism. Christianity has one source, the Bible, against which to measure truth.

Catholicism has so much stuff that is written (some of which is not even known by catholics), some of it is contradictory in message, and a good part of it, as we have discussed on this thread, is against the Word.

Each person arrogates to himself and herself, like metmom and other do here, and to lift isolated scriptural passages for conducting a driveby superficial analysis that contradicts the towering intellectual tradition of the Church including a string of eminent Episcopalian (Cardinal Newman) and Protestant, (yes actual scholars, historians, and theologians) who upon examining the beliefs of the Catholic Church, in good conscience, abandoned their prior false convictions, and converted to Catholicism.

How is verga's vanity post different from what you criticize? He's offered his opinion with no documentation to his sources. I know as I've asked him for them.

Plus, we've been told on these threads that some catholic beliefs are on a take it or leave it basis. For example, if Frances says something crazy we are free to take it or leave it. Same with the apparitions catholicism places so much emphasis on.

Catholicism has no standard against to measure truth.

Really? I wonder how my ancestors missed that! Just as a matter of curiosity, why do you suppose God let the Christian world get it so wrong for so long? Why did He wait over 1500 years to “enlighten” a bunch of non Greek speaking Western Europeans as to the Truth and since then to limit the understanding of that Truth to so few people, virtually all of whom are English speaking Westerners?

So just where in the Greek do you see any created being receiving the manner of adulation given to the Mary of Catholicism, or even one word of praise to Mary in the life of the Nt church (Acts-Rev.)?

We are told,

As the the Son of God supernaturally, spiritually makes believing souls into children of God, Mary is said to be the mother of Christians in "supernatural and spiritual generation."
as Christ was sinless, so Mary was;
as the Lord remained a virgin, so Mary;
as Christ was called the Son of God, indicating ontological oneness, so Mary is called the Mother of God (which naturally infers the same, and is not the language of Scripture, which even clarifies Israel birthed Christ "according to the flesh, God blessed for ever": Rm. 9:4,5);
as the emphasis is upon Christ as the Creator through whom God (the Father) made all things, including Mary, so it is emphasized that uniquely “to her, Jesus owes His Precious Blood,” shed for the salvation of mankind, (the logic behind which can lead back to Eve);
as Catholics (adding error to error) believe Christ gave His "real" flesh and blood to be eaten, so it is emphasized that Mary gave Him this, being fashioned out of Mary's pure blood and even being “kneaded with the admixture of her virginal milk,” so that she can say, "Come and eat my bread, drink the wine I have prepared" (Prov. 9:5);
as Scripture declares that Christ suffered for our sins, so Mary is said to have done so also;
as Christ saves us from the condemnation and death resulting from the fault of Adam, so it is taught that man was condemned through the fault of Eve, the root of death, but that we are saved through the merits of Mary; who was the source of life for everyone.
as the Lord was bodily ascended into Heaven, so Mary also was;
as Christ is given all power in heaven and in earth, so Mary is “surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven.”
as Christ is the King of the saints and over all kings, (Rv. 15:3; 17:14; 19:16) so Mary is made Queen of Heaven and the greatest saint, and that “Next to God, she deserves the highest praise;”
as the Father made Christ Lord over all things, so Mary is enthroned (all other believers have to wait for their crowns) and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things;
as Christ is the express image of God, and highly exalted above all under the Father, having the primary position among all creation, so Mary is declared to be the greatest saint of all, and the first of all creatures, and as having a certain affinity with the Father, with a pre-eminent resemblance which she bears to the Father;
as Christ ever liveth to make intercession for the saints, so is Mary said to do so;
as all things come from the Father through the Son, so Mary is made to be the dispenser of all grace;
as Christ is given all power on Heaven and on earth, Mary is said to have (showing some restraint) “almost unlimited power;”
as no man comes to the Father but through the Son, so it is taught that no one can come to the Son except through Mary in Heaven;
and as the Lord called souls to come to Him to be given life and salvation, so (in misappropriation of the words of Scripture) it is said of Mary, “He that shall find me shall find life, and shall have salvation from the Lord;” “that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will, that we obtain everything through Mary.”
And as Christ is given many titles of honor, so Mary also is, except that she is honored by Catholics with more titles than they give to the Lord Himself!
We must never adore her; that is for God alone. But otherwise we cannot honor her to excess, because it is not possible to overestimate the privileges God gave her in making her His own Mother. “What the church teaches,” by Monsignor J.D. Conway/ Imprimatur of Ralph L. Hayes,, New York; Harper and Brothers; 1962 (He also states, “It seems manifest that Christians simply adapted the art of pagan Rome to their religious needs:” p. 218)
Pope Pius XII asserts in an address on the Queenship of Mary, “after your assumption into heaven, he crowned you Queen of the Universe....In your name, resounding harmoniously in heaven, may they recognise that they are all brothers. Receive, O most sweet mother, our humble supplication above all obtained for us, that on that day, happy with you, we may repeat before your throne that hymn which is sung today around your altars. You are all beautiful, O Mary, you are the glory, you are the joy, you are the honour of our people.’ Catholic Culture, Prayer of Pope Pius XII, Composed for the Marian Year, 1954
“The power thus put into her (Mary’s) hands is all but unlimited. How unerringly right, then, are Christian souls when they turn to Mary for help...How rightly, too, has every nation and every liturgy without exception acclaimed her great renown, which has grown greater with the voice of each succeeding century. Among her many other titles we find her hailed as ‘our Lady, our Mediatrix,’ — (St. Tharasius, Orat. in Praesentatione) ‘the Dispenser of all heavenly gifts.’ (On Off. Graec., 8 Dec.).” Pope Leo XIII, in Adiutricem (On the Rosary), Encyclical promulgated on September 5, 1895, #8. http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13adiut.htm
When therefore we read in the writings of Saint Bernard, Saint Bernardine, Saint Bonaventure, and others that all in heaven and on earth, even God himself, is subject to the Blessed Virgin, they mean that the authority which God was pleased to give her is so great that she seems to have the same power as God. Her prayers and requests are so powerful with him that he accepts them as commands in the sense that he never resists his dear mother’s prayer because it is always humble and conformed to his will.... — St. Louis de Montfort, in Treatise on True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin, #27, 246. http://www.ewtn.com/library/Montfort/TRUEDEVO.HTM
Mary can be declared by the Church to be not only the “helpmate” of that Second Divine Person — Co-Redemptrix in Salvation, Mediatrix in grace — but actually “like unto Him.”...when she acts, it is also He who acts; and that if her intervention be not accepted, neither is His.... Her position as "the first of all creatures, the most acceptable child of God, the nearest and dearest to him," (Cardinal Newman); As Mother of God, says Lepicier, Mary contracts a certain affinity with the Father; · The pre-eminent resemblance which she bears to the Father, which has fitted her to pour out into the world the everlasting light which issues from that loving Father.... He has no children but by her, and communicates no graces but by her...and through her alone does He dispense His favours and His gifts. A Marian Synthesis; http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/general/msynthesis.htm
Mary is the sealed fountain and the faithful spouse of the Holy Spirit where only he may enter...She is the sanctuary and resting-place of the Blessed Trinity...the holy City of God, the greatness of the power which she wields over one who is God cannot be conceived...her prayers and requests are so powerful with him that he accepts them as commands...because it is always humble and conformed to his will, the dispenser of all he possesses...What immeasurable greatness...Mary has authority over the angels and the blessed in heaven...God gave her the power and the mission of assigning to saints the thrones made vacant by the apostate angels who fell away through pride....all the angels in heaven unceasingly call out to her...They greet her countless times each day with the angelic greeting, "Hail, Mary", while prostrating themselves before her, begging her as a favour to honour them with one of her requests...The whole world is filled with her glory,... Moreover, we should repeat after the Holy Spirit, "All the glory of the king's daughter is within".... Whatever desires the patriarchs may have cherished, whatever entreaties the prophets and saints of the Old Law may have had for 4,000 years to obtain that treasure, it was Mary alone who merited it and found grace before God by the power of her prayers and the perfection of her virtues." — St. Louis de Montfort, in Treatise on True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin, miscl. http://www.legionofmarytidewater.com/docs/true.doc
Sources and more blasphemy.

You are wrong and your selective quoting proves my point.

Oh? I was pressed for time and am just getting back to this now, but my only engaging and refuting two of your arguments as proof in your prolix polemic were not even needed, for the very fact that you must engage in such laborious attempts come up with some support from Scripture is an argument against it, for as the Holy Spirit characteristically states such exceptions to the norm even among minor character, how much more does a dogma require such, rather than your specious leaping reaching argumentative attempts. Just admit that the veracity of this dogma rests upon the premise of the unScriptural ensured veracity of Rome.

You assert such non-sense as, "I have shown above that Mary had no intention of entering into a conjugal relationship with Joseph and this is is due to her having entered into a “relationship” with the Holy Spirit." "The question will still remain to some: How does this prevent Mary and Joseph from engaging in a conjugal relationship? By law he was strictly prohibited from entering this type of relationship with Mary." "Jeremiah 3:1 “If a man divorces his wife and she leaves him and then becomes the wife of another, Can she return to the first? Would not this land be wholly defiled? But you have played the prostitute with many lovers, and yet you would return to me!—oracle of the LORD.”

But Christians are already married to Christ, and beget spiritual children for Him, and are members of His flesh and of His bones, but which certainly does not prevent them from having earthly spouses! In addition, while you quote Jer. 3:1, you ignore the rest of it in which God clearly showed that He is not bound by such Laws regulating earthly relationship which you vainly presume to place Him under, for although He clearly stated that He divorced Israel, (Jer. 3:8) and she become another man's, yet He clearly called Israel to return to Him. (Jer. 3:14) What men will do to God in order to support Catholicism!

You go one to come up with this:

Had he divorced her Mary would have been subject to at least ridicule and scorn and possibly stoning, which was the punishment for adultery.

That is absurd! If anyone would be stoned it would be Mary, since if Joseph disowned the child then it would be Mary who broke the contract, while even without a marriage contract, then unless Mary could claim rape, then at worse Joseph would be forced to marry her and never put her away.

Then we have this anaillogical gem of presumption: "If Jesus is the temple then Mary must be the eastern gate since she is how He entered the world." However, this not only speaks of a future literal temple, which is not the same as that under Moses, and its details go far beyond what can be merely typographical, yet regardless, if the Lord Jesus is the temple and Mary is the Eastern Gate then one one can get into the temple even thru Mary.

However, what Scripture says is that believers have "boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus," (Hebrews 10:19) not Mary, as Christ is the only Heavenly intercessor the Holy Spirit speaks of and sends believers to!

Some of what you argue regarding “brothers” and “sisters" has some merit (and i am not opposed to Mary being a perpetual virgin, but to specious arguments for any doctrine), but as regards your assertion that "it was absolutely unheard of in the middle eastern culture that a younger sibling would upbraid and older brother for any reason,"the argument is not John 7:5 has the younger kin upbraiding the Lord, for it says that they simply exhorted the Lord to "go into Judæa, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest.

But in the end, the only conclusion that can be drawn, based entirely on the Scriptures, is at the least, the belief that Mary did remain a virgin for her entire life lacks the warrant needed for dogma.

We DO NOT know that it isn't also found elsewhere. We believe that from the beginning God has planted the "sporoi tou Theou", the seeds of God, throughout Creation.

As far as I can discover, there are no "sporoi tou Theou" in the New Testment. There is only one seed, "Sporos tou Thou"--One Seed of The God; in Person His Only Begotten Son, and figuratively the Word of The God, written (graphe) and/or spoken (hrema):

εστιν δε αυτη η παραβολη ο σπορος εστιν ο λογος του θεου (TR)

"Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God" (Lk 8:11 AV).

It stands to reason that there may well be other ways.

Not only to your fallible reasonings from the Orthodoxen, but of a truth from the infallible, inerrant, plenary and verbally inspired, and preserved Word of The God (Mt. 4:4, Lk. 4:4). The men and women of God are born of the Flawless Seed (herespora, singular; in other places sporos, singular) of God:

αναγεγεννημενοι ουκ εκ σπορας φθαρτης αλλα αφθαρτου δια λογου ζωντος θεου και
μενοντος εις τον αιωνα (TR)

"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which
liveth and abideth for ever" (1 Pet. 1:23 AV).

But these regenerated disciple-priest-servant-ambassador-friends of Jesus (The Lord and Spirit-Anointed Son of The God) are not the only sowers, and their seed is not the only seed being cast along with the Good Seed:

προσελθοντες δε οι δουλοι του οικοδεσποτου ειπον αυτω κυριε ουχι καλον σπερμα
εσπειρας εν τω σω αγρω ποθεν ουν εχει τα ζιζανια (TR)

"So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?" (Mt. 13:27 AV).

It is the Enemy, sending his sowers of tares, that have continually, persistently, and perniciously been sowing tares, false doctrine (to me, "pseudologos"), since the time of Adam and Eve:

εγερθησονται γαρ ψευδοχριστοι και ψευδοπροφηται και δωσουσιν σημεια και τερατα
προς το αποπλαναν ει δυνατον και τους εκλεκτους (TR)

"For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to
seduce, if ~~it were~~ possible, even the elect" (Mk. 13:22 AV; cf Mt. 7:15, 24:11; Lk. 6:26; 1 Jn. 4:1).

The figurative fruit of the tares come into maturity, is not hard for the husbandman to discern, for the tare-seed is evil, black and spiritually discerned, fit to be separated and burned at harvest.

But what does the evil seed look like when it is growing? These evil sowers come into both the local field as well as the local Temple of the Holy Spirit, and start scattering, broadcasting the news of another Christ of the same kind, another gospel of a different kind, and recommend the guidance of another spirit of a different kind than the true believers originally received, The Faith once delivered to the original Saint-Disciple-Apostles (2 Cor. 11:3-4).

Surely the visible churches, the various companies of professors of Christ, are not clean of tare-scatteres, any more than were the Twelve chosen by Jesus as a warning as to whom you will trust. There is only one standard we can trust, and it is the Word of Christ:

"Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord" (Col. 3:16 AV).

It is the Word of Christ that unifies, not the words of men unless the words are inspired and inscripturated:

"Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas;
and I of Christ.
Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?"
(1 Cor. 1:12-13 AV).

As a practical matter, metmom, that meant measuring scripture against the Divine Liturgies, devotions, canons and the writings of The Fathers. So, while I have no doubt you folks would be here, you wouldn't be believing what you do.

Your view creates distortions and divisions, not heals them as Paul's did. The church you describe is already lost in sin and apostasy.

My lad, you're on a slippery slope here, and rapidly descending. Apparently you will not grasp the only steady thing in your universe, the Holy Word of God, Sola Scriptura to Life.

Sorry to see you go, but . . . don't say you were not warned, over and over, with true "in spite of" love.

=====

καθως γεγραπται εσκορπισεν εδωκεν τοις πενησιν η δικαιοσυνη αυτου μενει εις τον αιωνα
ο δε επιχορηγων σπερμα τω σπειροντι και αρτον εις βρωσιν χορηγησαι και πληθυναι
τον σπορον υμων και αυξησαι τα γεννηματα της δικαιοσυνης υμων (TR)

(As it is written, He hath dispersed abroad; he hath given to the poor: his righteousness
remaineth for ever.
Now he that ministereth seed* to the sower~ both minister bread for ~~your~~ food, and multiply
your seed** sown, and increase the fruits of your righteousness;) (2 Cor. 9:-10 AV) .

* = σπερμα = sperma (accusative, singular)
~ = σπειροντι = sower (dative, singular)
** = σπορον = sporon (accusative, singular)

>> The fruit of true disciples is more disciples (Jn. 15:8,16). <<

=========

(Go to it, MM!)

Words (I found) used for worship in the NT (KJV)

Proskyneō/Proskuneō — a masculine noun meaning to prostrate, almost always in worship. It occurs 60 times, mainly for worship of God, but sometimes for false gods, including images and demonic incarnations, which is idolatry. (Acts 7:43; Rv 9:20; 13:4, 8, 12, 15; 14:9; 16:2)

It is used twice for obeisance before men, once in forbidding a pious man to do so, before Peter no less, (Act 10:25) and another in compelling false brethren to show obeisance before the feet of true brethren. (Rv. 3:9)

Furthermore it is used once in reproving John for trying to worship an angel of Christ, telling him to worship (proskyneō) God instead. (Rv. 22:8,9)

Thus this act of prostration normatively denotes worship, only once being clearly used for less than that, and worship is always the case when proskyneō is used as a volitional activity, or in the context of supernatural beings.

Nowhere is the act of believers bowing down to believers sanctioned, much less bowing down before a statue of them in prayer, praise and adulation, and ascribing to them attributes which are only ascribed to God. And which is blasphemous, and outside of worship of God this manner of prostration and ascription is only seen in pagan worship, which is idolatry.

Proskunētēs — a masculine noun, which occurs just once (John 4:23) and describes those who worship God. Therefore latreia is not the only word that uniquely means worship, contrary to what many Catholics argue.

Sebō/Sebomai — A verb which occurs 10 times, denoting worship of God as well as false gods, and to describe devout persons.

Sebazomai. A verb occurring once (Rm. 1:25) in describing those who worshiped and served false gods.

Latreuō — service of worship. It occurs 21 times, mostly as "serve" in describing the activity of worship of God, and twice for service to false gods. (Acts 7:42; Rm. 1:25: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped [sebazomai (G4573)] and served [latreuō (G1391)] the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

It is never used for service to man, and is what we see Catholics giving to the Mary of Catholicism, to whom they ascribe Divine attributes and functions, and dedicate themselves to her.

Latreia — From latreuō; service of worship. Occurs 5 times as denoting service toward God, not any created being, yet it is corespondent to the dedicatory service of Catholics to their Mary.

Eusebeō — to be pious, reverent as in the only place it occurs in describing worship of unknown God. .(Acts 17:23)

Conclusion: From this brief study we can see that any assurance the Catholics are not engaging in worship in their "hyperdulia" of Mary, crossing the invisible line into latreia, is plainly specious. For just as souls were quite obviously engaging in worship described as proskyneō or latreuō or sebazomai, even if latreia was not used to describe them, so also can Catholics.

While sometimes the words for worship can be used in regards to obeisance toward men, yet as with the words for praise, they are never used in regards to created beings being bowed or prostrated to (much less before representative statues) beings in adulation and praise and prayed to as unseen beings having supernatural abilities in the heavenly realm, including the ability to hear corporate, even mental prayer in Heaven from those on earth, and engaging in making sacrificial offerings to them.

And in Scripture constitutes worship, with such activity and ascriptions being unseen toward anyone but God, and otherwise it belongs in the pagan world.

And thus by engaging in such towards Mary, it is evidenced that many Catholics are materially engaging in worship, or at the least blasphemy (if a difference can be made), even if unawares.

In response some Catholics argue that one cannot engage in worship if that is not intended in the persons heart. However, this is not the case, for one can easily be unaware of what constitutes worship, including of money, and in any case one can deny they are engaging in such, even taking the mark of the Beast but denying it represents worship of him.

Moreover, idolaters are described as being such, not based upon their hearts, but their dedicatory actions and ascriptions.

See link for verses and more, by God's grace. But no doubt being able to speak Greek means that engaging in the manner of "veneration" only given to God or by pagans to false gods, and ascribing attributes that are only ascribed to God or by pagans to false gods, does not constitute worship when Catholics do so toward created beings.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.