How can I prove that the Virgin Mary has always been a virgin?

Hello everyone,

Hey friends my name is Jose and I would like to know how to prove to my friends that the Virgin Mary has always been a virgin.  God Bless You All  :)

It depends upon your audience.

One method: Because an authoritative and infallible Church has defined this as dogma.

Of course, you friends have to understand this first. :stuck_out_tongue:

…when [one who believes that Mary had many children] continues, “the Evangelist would never have applied the words, before they came together [Matthew 1:18] to persons who were not to come together, any more than one says, before he dined, when the man is not going to dine,” I know not whether to grieve or laugh. Shall I convict him of ignorance, or accuse him of rashness? Just as if, supposing a person to say, “Before dining in harbour I sailed to Africa,” his words could not hold good unless he were compelled some day to dine in harbour. If I choose to say, “the apostle Paul before he went to Spain was put in fetters at Rome,” or (as I certainly might) “Helvidius, before he repented, was cut off by death,” must Paul on being released at once go to Spain, or must Helvidius repent after death, although the Scripture says “In sheol who shall give you thanks?” Must we not rather understand that the preposition before, although it frequently denotes order in time, yet sometimes refers only to order in thought? So that there is no necessity, if sufficient cause intervened to prevent it, for our thoughts to be realized. When, then, the Evangelist says before they came together, he indicates the time immediately preceding marriage, and shows that matters were so far advanced that she who had been betrothed was on the point of becoming a wife. As though he said, before they kissed and embraced, before the consummation of marriage, she was found to be with child. And she was found to be so by none other than Joseph, who watched the swelling womb of his betrothed with the anxious glances, and, at this time, almost the privilege, of a husband. Yet it does not follow, as the previous examples showed, that he had intercourse with Mary after her delivery, when his desires had been quenched by the fact that she had already conceived. …

…This, however, is a point which will find its proper place further on. We must now hasten to other matters. The passage for discussion now is, “And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took unto him his wife and knew her not till she had brought forth a son, and he called his name Jesus.” … Our reply is briefly this—the words knew and till in the language of Holy Scripture are capable of a double meaning. As to the former, he himself gave us a dissertation to show that it must be referred to sexual intercourse, and no onedoubts that it is often used of the knowledge of the understanding, as, for instance, “the boy Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem, and his parents knew it not.” Now we have to prove that just as in the one case he has followed the usage of Scripture, so with regard to the word till he is utterly refuted by the authority of the same Scripture, which often denotes by its use a fixed time (he himself told us so), frequently time without limitation, as when God by the mouth of the prophet says to certain persons, Isaiah 46:4 “Even to old age I am he.” Will He cease to be God when they have grown old? And the Saviour in the Gospel tells the Apostles, Matthew 28:20 “Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.” Will the Lord then after the end of the world has come forsake His disciples, and at the very time when seated on twelve thrones they are to judge the twelve tribes of Israel will they be bereft of the company of their Lord? …in the same way must we interpret what we are told concerning Joseph. The Evangelist pointed out a circumstance which might have given rise to some scandal, namely, that Mary was not known by her husband until she was delivered, and he did so that we might be the more certain that she from whom Joseph refrained while there was room to doubt the import of the vision was not known after her delivery.

In short, what I want to know is why Joseph refrained until the day of her delivery? Helvidius will of course reply, because he heard the angel say, Matthew 1:20 “that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.” And in turn we rejoin that he had certainly heard him say, Matthew 1:20 “Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto you Mary your wife.” The reason why he was forbidden to forsake his wife was that he might not think her an adulteress. Is it true then, that he was ordered not to have intercourse with his wife? Is it not plain that the warning was given him that he might not be separated from her? And could thejust man dare, he says, to think of approaching her, when he heard that the Son of God was in her womb? Excellent! We are to believe then that the same man who gave so much credit to a dream that he did not dare to touch his wife, yet afterwards, when he had learned from the shepherds that the angel of the Lord had come from heaven and said to them, “Be not afraid: for behold I bring you good tidings of great joy which shall be to all people, for there is born to you this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord;” and when the heavenly host had joined with him in the chorus Luke 2:14 “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men of good will;” and when he had seen just Simeon embrace the infant and exclaim, “Now let your servant depart, O Lord, according to your word in peace: for my eyes have seen your salvation;” and when he had seen Anna the prophetess, the Magi, the Star, Herod, the angels; Helvidius, I say, would have us believe that Joseph, though well acquainted with such surprising wonders, dared to touch the temple of God, the abode of the Holy Ghost, the mother of his Lord? Mary at all events “kept all these sayings in her heart.” You cannot for shame say Joseph did not know of them, for Luke tells us, Luke 2:33 “His father and mother were marvelling at the things which were spoken concerning Him.” …

More at source: newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm

If they believe the Bible is the Word of God, then here is where it was foreshadowed:

Ezekiel 44

1 Then the man brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary, the one facing east, and it was shut. 2 The LORD said to me, “This gate is to remain shut. It must not be opened; no one may enter through it. It is to remain shut because the LORD, the God of Israel, has entered through it. 3 The prince himself is the only one who may sit inside the gateway to eat in the presence of the LORD. He is to enter by way of the portico of the gateway and go out the same way.”


And here is much more Scriptural support along with writings from the early Church:

scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html

Juan,

The simple answer is that there is no Scripture that supports Mary having no other children. However, while there are Scriptures that suggest Mary may have had other children, there is no Scripture that positively confirms siblings.

So I ask you this, What difference does it make if Mary had other children with Joseph after the birth of Jesus?

It would not be a sin as they were legally married according to Jewish law.

It would not change who Jesus was nor deter his mission.

It would not change God not His sovereign nature.

So what difference does it make?

It’s simply a matter of accepting or rejecting Truth. “Truth does not care how many it concvinces!”

There aren’t any scriptures that suggest Mary had any children other than Jesus.

“Brother” in the Middle East meant any close male relative - not just siblings.

Most of the people named as “Brothers” of Jesus can be identified as children of other people.

To quote Anthony Opisso
Having been enlightened by an angel in a dream regarding her pregnancy, and perhaps further by Mary concerning the words of the archangel Gabriel to her at the Annunciation, Joseph knew that God had conducted himself as a husband in regard to Mary. She was now prohibited to him for all time, and for the sake of the Child and Mary he could only live with her in an absolutely chaste relationship.

There aren’t any Scriptures that** positively confirm** siblings.

Just like there are non that deny siblings :slight_smile:

While scriptural evidence of siblings may be questionable, I would say that there is far less evidence that Mary had made a vow of virginity or that Joseph and Mary never had normal, marital relations.

Luke 1:26-27 shows that Mary was already engaged to Joseph before Gabriel came to tell her about being chosen to be the mother of Jesus. To suggest that Mary had ever taken a vow of virginity is to go beyond Scripture (which is a dangerous thing to do).

In Matt 1:19-25 we see the Angel tell Joseph not to be afraid to take Mary as his wife (not to be her guardian), which he does. The Angel did advise Joseph that the child was conceived by the Holy Spirit, so Joseph kept her a virgin as long as she was pregnant, but there was no command from the Angel to keep her a virgin all her life. Any suggestion that he did is not based on Scripture.

That raises a question…

Where do Catholics get the idea Mary is “ever virgin”.

I was raised Catholic and taught that from the beginning, but I’m not sure if I was ever taught where the supporting evidence stems from.

I know they say “it is fitting because…” but that is not evidence, it is an example of drawing conclusions based on human reason - which God’s logic often defies. :slight_smile:

So, can anyone tell me where this dogma comes from. I don’t mean the huge leap from the Ark to Mary. That is one example of the human reasoning I just mentioned.

Thanks. I appreciate your help.

Ginger

So what difference does it make?

What God MAKES holy, STAYS holy.
To understand what holy means, you have to look at the Old Testament Ark that forshadow the New Testament Ark. The parallels are unmistakeable.
see scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html#the_bvm-II

There were about 120 “brothers” at Pentacost. Can anyone expect me to believe Mary was pregnant for 90 years with all these “brothers”?:confused:

Faith without reason is dangerous.

From what i know people dont pray to equal or lower beings they pray to higher beings.

A thought,
If Mary (bbhn) was involved in carnal activities like reprocriation she would not have been an attractive image for those used to godess prayer to convert.

Some would not move to a masculine deity.

Scripture,
Jesus taught to pray to the Father the highest being but do as you will take for your selves new teachers other than he who taught.

There were about 120 “brothers” at Pentacost. Can anyone expect me to believe Mary was pregnant for 90 years with all these “brothers”?

I am unsure i follow you.

If you mean the word Brother in the book refers to Yahooshua (pbwh) having brothers in the spiritual sense only this is not so.

At some stage Yahooshua (pbwh) was told your family is wanting to see you he answers some thing like those who are obedient to my Father are my family. Not in these words of course.

This narration would show that indeed he had kin, id does not offer from whom womb they came.

We know from Jewish history begotten can mean adoption.
To take as yours. So in this she could still be virgin and the Brothers Joseph other wife/s.

You can’t prove it. The Bible doesn’t define it one way or another. Catholics accept it on faith.

It was provided to the Church thru Divine Revelation.

Peace and blessings Br Rich,
do you know when the revelation was received and by whom?

Bless ya

my short summary

  1. bretheren/brothers is also used in the bible for nephews/cousins
    (Lot, for example, is called Abraham’s “brother” (Gen. 14:11-16)KJV, even though, being the son of Haran, Abraham’s brother (Gen. 11:26–28)KJV, he was actually Abraham’s nephew.
    there are other examples

  2. the ‘bretheren/brothers’ of jesus are never associated directly with BVM’s motherhood, but rather are listed as bretheren/brothers of jesus. (ie: mark6:3 & mat 13:55)
    John 6:42 does not mention these bretheren/brothers in his version.

some protestants are convinced that the “other Mary” listed as Mother of James and Joses in mat 27:56 & Mark 15:40 & luke 24:10 is the BVM.
hard justify why they would change reference to her like that and not list her ‘firtsborn’ first.

  1. cross reference of above verses suggests that the 'other Mary" is a sister of BVM and/or Mary wife of Cleophas. (Matthew and Luke seem to me to differentiate the two Marys by Mariam and Maria in greek in the above versus, though this could be rubbish as I know nothing about greek)

  2. Matthew 1:25: “[A]nd he did not know her till she brought forth her firstborn son.”
    I hope everyone knows by now that Firstborn is a biblical title and is not in the bible to illustrate a 2nd/3rd etc… an only son is still a ‘firstborn’ that
    Exodus13:2 “Sanctify unto me all the firstborn male for me. Every firstborn male offspring among the Israelites is mine…”KJV
    Num 3:12 God says “… the firstborn that openth the matrix(womb in other translations) …”)KJV)
    Exodus 34:20: “…All the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem. And none shall appear before me empty.”(KJV)

  3. Matthew 1:25: “[A]nd he did not know her till she brought forth her firstborn son.”
    the ‘till’ verse is meant to illustrate that joseph played no part in the conception of Jesus – the verse is not meant to try to show us that they did get to sleep together after the birth. i think everyone would agree that would be ridiculous

  4. (John 19:25 KJV) jesus gives care of his mother to john.
    why not to James and Joses etc… if they are the biological sons of BVM. I know some think he did not because they were not believers.
    others say jesus would of known that theirs hearts would of turned as James became a believers afterwards…yet he still gave care of his mother to John?

  5. The Protoevangelium of James (written around the year 120)

  6. for what its worth… Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli & John Wesley —honored the perpetual virginity of Mary and recognized it as the teaching of the Bible. references available if anyone wants

  7. for what its worth…apparently muslims believe she did not have other children

10 . the James listed in mat 27:56etc is apparently the one who wrote the book of James ( james 1:1) – he calls himself the servant of God and the lord Jesus, but not brother - this is weak i Know…

  1. The Jude (Ioudas Jude 1:1) is apparently the Jude listed as a brethren of the Jesus- this Jude is apparently the author of the book of Jude, he introduces himself as the servant of Jesus and Brother of James only.

  2. “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).

I also find the idea that Mary had around 6 other children after jesus difficult to digest, particularly given the angel in Luke 1:28 told her that she would give birth to the son of the highest who’ll be given the throne…

  1. Matthew 1:25: “[A]nd he did not know her till she brought forth her firstborn son.”
    the ‘till’ verse is meant to illustrate that joseph played no part in the conception of Jesus – the verse is not meant to try to show us that they did get to sleep together after the birth. i think everyone would agree that would be ridiculous

I am not sure this actually helps your argument, what does “know” mean here?

If it is to assert how you say it, no “till” is needed and then it would be as you assert.

I guess the other big question is in Jewish law can you be married if you are never in union.

I understand that Christians see it as essential.

From what i can learn in Jewish culture sex is a part of marriage and part of what is good and right as a Jewish person.

Given Joseph was told not to fear taking her as his wife i consider G-d intended them to get married.

Given he was not to know her until her first born son those two things would point to her not being a virgin or they were never married.

Dear original poster, i realise now i have left the intention of your thread, and have taken it in the opposite direction sorry.

If i am in your way let me know and i will move on

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.