Posted on 04/15/2016 7:25:23 AM PDT by verga
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.
well and truly stated ... and thank you for that bit of education.
Excellent point. We are on shifting sand when we stray from the Rock of God’s Truth.
ping
I would guess that the Akathist is much more eloquent in Greek.
I believe US is NOT in the list for a reason.
Hebrews 6:4-6
Then I'll ask a Catholic:
"Is the bible adequate enough teaching from GOD?"
The ping was an invitation to post that list of ECFs refuting that ‘Peter is the rock’ assertion. ... And this time I’m gonna add it to my desktop file.
I was going by John 10:28-30...
Hebrews says elightened — maybe not saved. As has been pointed out, I’m no theologian. But I believe what Christ said — when we’re saved, no one can snatch us out of his hand. And if God is sovereign, we can’t snatch ourselves out either.
Only God knows if those folks are saved.
Hoss
Won't need to since she is posting articles from Bible teachers and pastors - not her own work. She doesn't post them and then challenge everyone to prove the writer wrong like you did here. Your intent was crystal clear in writing what you did and the fact that you are incapable of hearing opposing views without accusing others of not reading, being ignorant, lacking intelligence, etc., only proves it.
I wrote and posted this for two reasons:
1) It is the absolute unvarnished truth that needed to be said and heard.
Unvarnished??? Nope, you slathered on the varnish so thick there was very little "truth" showing at all. Do you think you stated anything new or undiscovered over the dozens of times this topic has come up in the past?
2) Not one of you can say that "There is no scriptural backing for the Catholic belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary." If you are honest the very most you can say is: "There is scriptural backing, we just choose to read/ interpret it differently."
There you go again. We must not be "honest" if we reject your conclusion? Here's the thing verga, IF there really was Scriptural proof of this dogma I WOULD accept it. You really don't have undeniable proof from Scripture and more than a few places in Scripture that prove the opposite. It is you who seems to be unwilling to be honest about them.
Why can't you just agree to disagree seeing as this is not a salvific tenet of the Christian faith? I certainly can. I'll bet metmom can, too.
No it's not but wresting the scriptures certainly could be.
Where Catholicism erred is by having a pope declare this a dogmatic truth under an ex cathedra pronouncement. This makes belief in this a mandatory matter of faith for Catholics with some of them asserting it must also apply to all of Christendom. That's why we have these never ending, never resolved arguments on the RF. Trying to prove it by Scripture is futile. Not only does it not say that in Scripture, it is disputed by Scripture. That's why they must place God's word on equal footing with their traditions and their magesterium.
Nice to hear from you! How's the weather? My nephew and his wife just got back from vacation from there and New Zealand. They had a great time. I'd love to visit there one day.
I worry naught about Mary...Jesus is the big guy....Mary is an afterthought. I am extremely comfortable with that...no need to comment to me. I am not Catholic and never will be :)
There you go again. We must not be "honest" if we reject your conclusion?
Difficulty withy the reading again. Go back, I clear said there is scriptural proof, You (ALL) just don't accept it.
Admitting your error is the first step to correcting it. I am glad you have taken such a bold step. I will pray for your further improvement.
We’ll have to disagree here.
I don’t think my free will vanished when I got ‘saved’.
If; at some point; I no longer ‘believe’ in the One; I’m toast.
Yup...
But first one has to see the error; THEN own it.
Yup, I can, too.
Hoss
You put a lot of effort into that essay. Sadly, your mind is so biased by the catholiciism interpretations that you are apparently unable to see where there is a massive difference in catholiciism and Christianity. We can't fix that.
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.