Was Mary a Perpetual Virgin?

[Ek Pyros]

That is why Uzzah was struck down: not because he touched a gold-plated wood box that God made a rule about not touching, but, rather, because that gold-plated wood box had God's presence dwelling in it which made that box (the ark) utterly holy.  Uzzah's presumption was that it was just a gold-plated box.

Uzzah reached out to keep the ark from falling to the ground.  He was well aware what was in the box, given his position.  Only certain people could carry the Ark according to Jewish tradition.  I want to say it was the Levites, but I don't remember the exact group. [EDIT: Kohathite]

Actually, if Uzzah was "well aware," then he knew good and well that God had proscribed for the Ark to be carried by poles, and not driven on a cart.  If the Israelites would not have mishandled the Ark, then Uzzah would not have had to reach out to steady it.

You're connecting what we know with the idea that we always act according to what we know (which is an obviously fallacious assumption).  You and I both know that we are supposed to be perfect, yet not a day goes by where we fall short.  You don't think it would be easier on their shoulders if they sat the ark on a oxcart instead of carrying it all the way home?  This is going to get too hypothetical... You don't think the Phillistines ever touched the ark?  Why didn't God strike them down?  Maybe because He is a merciful God.  But He is also just, and when one of His own people knowingly (what Israelite didn't know not to touch the ark?) forsakes His commandments (two, really, before the third fateful decision), He is completely just for striking Him down.  Uzzah had no excuse for keeping the ark on a cart, or for even looking at it; but had it fallen, it would have just fallen to God's creation.  Nature is not rebellious against God--it is not sinful.  It took the touch of man, the only sinful creature.  We agree on this, but the point is that no Israelite could touch the ark - something they all knew...

And as if Uzzah didn't know what the ark was... Assuming the Phillistines touched the ark (which is highly probable given its constant movement), you have to wonder why God didn't just strike them all down.  They experienced plagues, sure, but nothing like Uzzah's fate.  Uzzah knew what the ark was.  What Jew didn't?

[James Rondon]

Here's a question for anyone who doubts Mary's perpetual virginity:

If Jesus had all of these brothers and sisters, why do you think that our Lord, when he was hanging on the cross, entrusted Mary to John?

Why would John need to take care of her if there were family members to do it?

Um, even if the "brothers and sisters" of Jesus were really only his "cousins", or his "half brothers and sisters", Jesus still entrusted her care to John, instead of them... So, there were family members around who could do it, no matter how you slice it.

[James Rondon]

Haha, I found some great Papal quotes:

Pope Pius IX: “Our salvation is based upon the holy Virgin... so that if there is any hope and spiritual healing for us we receive it solely and uniquely from her.”

Strange, since she rejoiced in the birth of her Savior (i.e., Jesus). Luke 1:46-47...

And even stranger, if she was sinless, why did she call Him her savior?

Let's see, did Mary give birth to our Savior or not?  Did anyone else but Mary give birth to the Savior?

So, then, our salvation is also dependent upon Mary's mother and father. After all, did anyone else but they give birth to Mary, who gave birth to the Savior?...

[Ek Pyros]

Gal. 1:19But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord's brother.

Interesting.  Interesting choice of word - brother.  He already used the term apostle.  But he distinguishes James - the Lord's adelphos.  Interesting...

[Aaron]

We do not consider Mary holy because she was a virgin, but because she gave God (Jesus) his flesh and carried him in her womb. 

Exactly. 

27While Jesus was saying these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, "Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed."

Mary is blessed and holy because she carried Jesus!  It's so simple.  Until, of course you read Jesus' reply.

28But He said, "On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it."

Alright, well according to Christ, anyone who obeys God's word is holier than Mary.  Which makes sense considering Jesus makes the point of saying:

46While He was still speaking to the crowds, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him.

47Someone said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You."

48But Jesus answered the one who was telling Him and said, "Who is My mother and who are My brothers?"

49And stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, "Behold My mother and My brothers!

50"For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother."

Jesus makes it pretty clear that "DNA" has nothing to do with how holy a person is.

Anyway, to those who keep making the argument: "They meant cousins!  There is no word that defines distant/close relatives", you are wrong.  Suggenes would have been used (as in Luke 1:36).

And again, to all those who keep telling Ek Pyros: "Let's see: we offer a rational argument that we do not.  Our church dogma, liturgy and practice forbids such worship.  And we explicitly deny that we do.  No, it's your psychological state that refuses to honestly engage what we teach and practice, continually impugning us with false accusations." -- you're lying, or very confused, because he knows about the Catholic Church from an 18 year participant.  (Oh, and if you aren't a member of the Roman Catholic Church, don't go and make statements about it thinking that Orthodox is 'close enough' to it.)

10as it is written,
         "THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;

[James Rondon]

Gal. 1:19But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord's brother.

Interesting.  Interesting choice of word - brother.  He already used the term apostle.  But he distinguishes James - the Lord's adelphos.  Interesting...

Also interesting is the fact that the New American Bible, the Bible approved by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, renders "adelphos", here, the same way: "But I did not see any other of the apostles, only James the brother of the Lord."

[janine]

To whom did Jesus pray?

[CDHealy]

Mary is blessed and holy because she carried Jesus!  It's so simple.

You have distorted what I've argued.  I did not claim that Mary was blessed and holy because she carried Jesus in her womb simpliciter, I clearly argued that God's grace worked in her completely.  But, in point of fact, Jesus has a human body and nature.  Where did he get it?  From his Mother.  Who was that?  Mary.  Did anyone else give it to him?  No.  Mary's uniqueness--in God's grace--is manifest and self-evident.

Until, of course you read Jesus' reply.

28But He said, "On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it."

Alright, well according to Christ, anyone who obeys God's word is holier than Mary.

Read the text again.  He did not say that anyone was holier than Mary.  You're eisegeting.  What he said was, true blessing is not merely because Mary gave birth to such a holy, wise and wonder-working man (Jesus), apart from faith and obedience.  In fact, Mary so much more closely fits Jesus' words than any of us dare claim: she is truly blessed because she DID hear the word of God and obey.  In other words, far from "putting Mary in her place," Jesus in fact elevates her precisely because she is one of those "blessed rather are those who hear and obey the word of God."

Which makes sense considering Jesus makes the point of saying:

46While He was still speaking to the crowds, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him.

47Someone said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You."

48But Jesus answered the one who was telling Him and said, "Who is My mother and who are My brothers?"

49And stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, "Behold My mother and My brothers!

50"For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother."

And I point out once again: Mary is precisely one who did/does the will of Jesus' Father in heaven.

Your mariamachia is getting the better of your reason.  You so want to put Mary down that you cannot even read the text for what it says.

Jesus makes it pretty clear that "DNA" has nothing to do with how holy a person is.

Once again, you distort my argument into something I'm not saying.  (And you give a whiff of manichean dualism.)

Anyway, to those who keep making the argument: "They meant cousins!  There is no word that defines distant/close relatives", you are wrong.  Suggenes would have been used (as in Luke 1:36).

Let me yet again point out: adelphos, on the basis of OT and NT Greek usage, cannot be delimited to children of the same mother.  You can pull out other synonyms of "kinsman" (i.e., suggenes above) all you want.  What we're talking about is the semantic range of adelphos.  If you can demonstrate, referencing all uses of adelphos that Scripture requires it to mean children of the same mother, then we can talk.  Until then you're just delivering your opinion.  And opinions are only that, no matter how many times you state them and how loud you shout them.  But facts are facts, and the biblical fact is that adelphos is a generic word indicating kinship with a wide range of meanings.  That fact that suggenes is used to refer specifically to a near kinsman in a passage does not mean that adelphos must mean children of the same mother.  That's a non sequitor.

And again, to all those who keep telling Ek Pyros: "Let's see: we offer a rational argument that we do not.  Our church dogma, liturgy and practice forbids such worship.  And we explicitly deny that we do.  No, it's your psychological state that refuses to honestly engage what we teach and practice, continually impugning us with false accusations." -- you're lying, or very confused, because he knows about the Catholic Church from an 18 year participant.  (Oh, and if you aren't a member of the Roman Catholic Church, don't go and make statements about it thinking that Orthodox is 'close enough' to it.)

If you can demonstrate that I've made any statements in error about the Roman Catholic Church, go for it.  But until then, I'm well qualified to speak of the things I know about, and Roman Catholicism is something I know a few things about.  And since there's a current "participant" (or two) of the Roman Catholic Church on these boards, I would think they're even more qualified to speak of what Rome believes than someone who left and now views the Roman Church through jaundiced and manifestly uncharitable eyes.

But again, when I've spoken in factual error about Rome, I'm happy to be corrected.

(Besides, the schism between us notwithstanding, Rome and Orthodoxy are extremely close in their apostolic doctrine and practices.)