Baptist sermon on Mary. need help

[cisco_1]

I think Mary’s perpetual virginity is very defensible from Scripture. Here are a few of the basic passages that support Mary’s perpetual virginity:

1. Luke 1:34 - “Then Mary said to the angel, How shall this be, for I do not know man?”

There are two reasons this supports Mary perpetual virginity. First, the phrase “I do not know man” carries a sense of permanence, like “I do not smoke.”

Second, there is the context. Mary was betrothed to Joseph when the angel told her she would conceive a child. But her question shows that she knew she would not conceive a child with him. By asking how she was to conceive, she shows that she was not planning to.

1. John 19:25-27 - “When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, Woman, this is your son! Then He said to the disciple, This is your mother!”

There are three reasons this supports Mary’s perpetual virginity. First, Jesus’ dying action was to do something to provide for Mary. That suggests that He had no brothers and sisters to take care of her.

Second, the fact that he chose St. John instead of a brother or sister suggests the same thing.

Third, in Greek the words Jesus uses contain a definite article: “This is the son of you,” not “this is a son of you,” suggesting that Jesus was Mary’s only son.

1. Isaiah 7:14 - “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.”

There are two reasons this supports Mary’s perpetual virginity. First, Mary’s virginity is supposed to be a “sign.” The reason God chose a woman who didn’t have children is because the presence of other children would obscure Jesus’ divine origin. That same reason would continue if the children were born either before or after Jesus.

Second, the passage says she will still be a virgin once she has given birth to Jesus. That can only happen by a miracle. But this supplies us with an argument for Mary’s perpetual virginity: why would God have used a miracle to preserve Mary’s virginity at the time of Christ’s birth, if she was only to lose it soon after? This suggests she was not going to lose her virginity.

While i’m not on the side that is against the teaching of Mary being a virigin all her life, i have to say with out most respect that your argument is very straw man.

Like I said before, the belief of Protestants is that sometime after Jesus’ birth, she was no longer a virigin due to verses stating that Jesus had brothers. All the verses you gave all date and are all pertaining to Jesus’ birth (or before birth with Luke). You need to give verses in the bible after Jesus’ birth where it does show Mary was still a virign, sadly you have only given verse prior to that. Even your quoting of Isiah does not fit the logic, it can be easily countered with "yes… Mary was a virigin when she was announced and to the time Jesus was born… she could have lost her viriginity when Jesus was at the age 5, 15, 20, 22, 29, 30…

Your quote on the “i don’t know any man” does not support perpetual viriginity and i have no idea what brings you to that conclusion since it is in present tense. The “I don’t smoke” example doesn’t make sense to it at all. When I was 15 i said “i don’t smoke”, but i ended up being a smoker from 19-26 years old… There is nothing in that terminology that ever fits a life long statement.

Mary’s viriginity is only important during Jesus’ annunciation, conception, and birth. That is all the prophecies have stated, that he would be born of a virigin therefore she had to be a virigin during that period of time. Any time else after Jesus’ birth should not be shed with any importance because it does not contradict or conflict anything in mere-christianity.

 

[Mintaka]

Actually, Mary’s perpetual virginity is very important to testifying to Jesus’ identity as Son of God and Son of Mary.

Look, once Christianity caught on, there were always plenty of people putting stories around that Jesus was not miraculously born of a virgin.

Like - He was really Joseph’s son, and God just adopted him as a son in the royal or messiah sense; or God possessed him with divineness when John baptized him. This would be the heresy of Adoptionism, or Arianism, or Gnosticism, depending on the flavor of the story.

Like - He was really the son of a Roman Greek soldier named Panthera, and either Mary was tricked into having sex with him, or Mary was the kind of girl who sleeps around, or Mary was raped and tried to cover it up with the angel story, and she’s a big cowardly liar or madwoman instead of being blameless of all sin and a great example to all Christian women.

If Mary had had other children, or if Mary was not known to be miraculously still virgin even after childbirth, it would make more sense to believe that the Annunciation didn’t happen and that Jesus was just some guy. Even the Resurrection could be taken as just God performing a miracle on some important prophet (another popular heretical interpretation of the Gospel story).

OTOH, there were heretical stories that Jesus was never really human, and that He just pretended to be alive and human in the first place. (The heresy of Docetism, which comes from the idea that it’s icky for God to take flesh or suffer.) These stories tend to dispose of Mary being pregnant at all.

But if everything about the circumstances of Jesus’ conception and birth were miraculous, it makes a lot more sense to believe that He’s God made Man, instead of just some guy. And if the circumstances of Jesus’ conception and birth were also slightly awkward instead of totally glorious and undoubted by anybody, it’s a lot easier to believe that Jesus was born of a human woman, not just a Divine energy ghost wandering around after being dropped off by an angelic stork.

Anyway, Mary was around in the early days of Christianity, and she did chat quite a bit with Luke from what we read in that Gospel. No other kids of Joseph and Mary are mentioned in the genealogical texts in Luke and Matthew, even though most Bible texts that get into genealogy are happy to mention the blood siblings of important people. (Like Moses’ siblings, Miriam and Aaron.) Cousins, not so much. The coverage of Jesus’ “brothers” is much more like Biblical coverage of cousins, and Christian tradition and the minutiae of Gospel identification of people like Salome and James have always indicated that they were cousins.

There are other early Christian texts that try to make perpetual virginity even more explicit, but Luke pretty much says all that needs saying if one pays attention.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Like I said before, the belief of Protestants is that sometime after Jesus’ birth, she was no longer a virigin due to verses stating that Jesus had brothers. All the verses you gave all date and are all pertaining to Jesus’ birth (or before birth with Luke). You need to give verses in the bible after Jesus’ birth where it does show Mary was still a virign, sadly you have only given verse prior to that. Even your quoting of Isiah does not fit the logic, it can be easily countered with "yes… Mary was a virigin when she was announced and to the time Jesus was born… she could have lost her viriginity when Jesus was at the age 5, 15, 20, 22, 29, 30…

Then the burden of proof is upon those protestants to provide proof that this happened, because it has been the constant teaching of the Church that Mary remained ever-virgin. The first record of anyone saying otherwise is found in the writings of Jerome who defended the PPV from the novelty of Helvidius. Here is support for that:

Jerome on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

“[Helvidius] produces Tertullian as a witness [to his view] and quotes Victorinus, bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian, I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proven from the gospel—that he [Victorinus] spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship, not by nature. [By discussing such things we] are . . . following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against [the heretics] Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man.”

This quote is taken from chapter 19 of St. Jerome’s work, “Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary—a work written in A.D. 383 in response to the teaching of Helvidius who denied that Mary had remained a virgin throughout her life.

In this passage, Jerome states that Ignatius of Antioch (d. A.D. 107), Polycarp of Smyrna (d. A.D, 155), Justin Martyr (d. A.D. 165) and Irenaeus of Lyons (d. A.D. 202) all held that Mary was ever-virgin. It is especially important to note that both Ignatius and Polycarp were disciples of the Apostles Peter and John—a fact which ties this discussion directly to the original Twelve Apostles of Jesus.

Although the works of these men with which Jerome was evidently familiar do not survive to this day, the fact that Jerome cites them in his refutation of Helvidius provides evidence that belief in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary existed from the earliest days of the Church.

Your quote on the “i don’t know any man” does not support perpetual viriginity and i have no idea what brings you to that conclusion since it is in present tense. The “I don’t smoke” example doesn’t make sense to it at all. When I was 15 i said “i don’t smoke”, but i ended up being a smoker from 19-26 years old… There is nothing in that terminology that ever fits a life long statement.

Yeah…there really is.

Concerning the Annunciation, we read the following exchange between the angel Gabriel and Mary:

Luke 1:31-34
31You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. 32He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end." 34"How will this be," Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”

At the time of this conversation, Mary was betrothed to Joseph. Under Jewish law, they were already married but not yet living under one roof. If she had taken no vow of perpetual virginity, she would soon be engaging in normal marital relations with the likelihood of conception in the very near future. In this case, her question, “How will this be since I am a virgin?” makes no sense. If her virginity was only temporary, she knew that pregnancy would occur naturally soon enough.

On the other hand, if Mary had made a vow of perpetual virginity to the Lord, then her question makes much more sense. “How will this be since I am a virgin?” indicates that Mary questioned how this conception could occur since she had no plans to engage in marital relations because she was a virgin – a consecrated virgin by means of a vow before the Lord. Since Mary obviously understood how babies are made, she asked the angel how she could conceive without violating her oath to God. The angel responded that she would be overshadowed by the power of the Most High.

In preparing for the Incarnation, God performed two miracles: He preserved the young virgin’s womb during conception, and He opened the barren womb of the older woman, Elizabeth. “For nothing is impossible with God.” (Luke 1:37)

 

[Gorgias]

Third, in Greek the words Jesus uses contain a definite article: “This is the son of you,” not “this is a son of you,” suggesting that Jesus was Mary’s only son.

Koine Greek doesn’t use articles in exactly the same way that English does. So, this distinction that you’re making – while perfectly valid in English – doesn’t hold up in Koine Greek. So, I don’t think that you can make this argument validly.

1. Isaiah 7:14 - “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.”

Second, the passage says she will still be a virgin once she has given birth to Jesus. … why would God have used a miracle to preserve Mary’s virginity at the time of Christ’s birth, if she was only to lose it soon after? This suggests she was not going to lose her virginity.

Well… it doesn’t really speak to Mary’s perpetual virginity, but rather, to her virginity at the time of Jesus’ birth.

And, I understand the argument you’re making here, but it doesn’t seem very solid. Does a miracle cease being a miracle if it doesn’t repeat or have eternal duration? Of course not. (Counterexample: did Moses’ snake on a pole continue to heal people of their otherwise-fatal snakebites? No; but that doesn’t mean that it wasn’t miraculous or that people ceased revering the miracle God showed them.)

Now, please note that I’m not arguing against Mary’s perpetual virginity… just against these particular arguments in favor of it.

 

[Randy_Carson]

EARLY PROTESTANTS ON THE PERPETUAL VIRGINITY OF MARY

Martin Luther
“Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb…This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.”

“Christ…was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him…I am inclined to agree with those who declare that ‘brothers’ really mean ‘cousins’ here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.”

“A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ…”

“Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity…When Matthew says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her…This babble…is without justification…he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.”

John Calvin
“Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s ‘brothers’ are sometimes mentioned.”

“The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband…No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words…as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called ‘first-born’; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin…What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us…No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.”

“Under the word ‘brethren’ the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity.”

Huldreich Zwingli
“I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonourable, impious, unworthy or evil…I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity.”

Heinrich Bullinger
“The Virgin Mary…completely sanctified by the grace and blood of her only Son and abundantly endowed by the gift of the Holy Spirit and preferred to all…now lives happily with Christ in heaven and is called and remains ever-Virgin and Mother of God.”

John Wesley
“I believe…he [Jesus Christ] was born of the blessed Virgin, who, as well after as she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.”

 

[Gorgias]

Your quote on the “i don’t know any man” does not support perpetual viriginity and i have no idea what brings you to that conclusion since it is in present tense.

There are a number of aspectual subtleties of the present tense, of which perhaps you aren’t aware:

The historical present relates a past event through the use of the present tense as a means of intensifying the description. For example: “καὶ ἔρχεται πρὸς τοὺς μαθητὰς καὶ εὑρίσκει αὐτοὺς καθεύδοντας, καὶ λέγει τῷ Πέτρῳ” (Mt 26:40). The literal translation is “And [Jesus] comes to the disciples and finds them sleeping, and says to Peter”. The verbs here are all in the present tense, but the meaning is “Jesus came to the disciples and found them sleeping, and said to Peter” – but the usage here creates a more forceful narrative.

The gnomic present talks about a truth that holds for all time, but is expressed in the present. For example, “ἐκ τῆς Γαλιλαίας προφήτης οὐκ ἐγείρεται” (John 7:52). Literally, “out of Galilee a prophet is not raised”. Present tense, but a meaning that extends both back in the past and into the future.

The futuristic present makes a claim about an action which may have begun in the past and/or may exist in the present, but which extends into the future. For example, “Ἰδοὺ ἀναβαίνομεν εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα” (Mk 10:33). Literally, “[Jesus said] behold, we are going up to Jerusalem”. Here, we have a present tense that describes something that had already begun, is still in process, and which will continue into the future.

Hopefully, this demonstrates to you that the use of the present tense in Koine Greek is not limited to expressions that only speak to what is happening at the present moment.

Blessings,
G.

 

[zz912]

Your quote on the “i don’t know any man” does not support perpetual viriginity and i have no idea what brings you to that conclusion since it is in present tense. The “I don’t smoke” example doesn’t make sense to it at all. When I was 15 i said “i don’t smoke”, but i ended up being a smoker from 19-26 years old… There is nothing in that terminology that ever fits a life long statement.

That’s a bad example. Mary was already married when the angel declared to her that she would give birth to a Son. And her response is confusion about how this could happen. But she’s a married woman, who will soon enter her husband’s home. WHY is this confusing to Mary? She’s a young woman, who knows how biology works and how babies are made. There’s absolutely NO REASON for her confusion about HOW she is supposed to give birth.

And yet, she is confused. So why? The answer is that she was a consecrated virgin who was not going to have a normal marriage to Joseph. She was wondering how it would happen without her violating her vow. But she trusted that God would not make her violate her vows.

Mary’s viriginity is only important during Jesus’ annunciation, conception, and birth. That is all the prophecies have stated, that he would be born of a virigin therefore she had to be a virigin during that period of time. Any time else after Jesus’ birth should not be shed with any importance because it does not contradict or conflict anything in mere-christianity.

This is wrong. Her perpetual virginity is a very important fact of the Christian faith. It declares more who Jesus is, shows us that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant, and proclaims His Divinity.

 

[cisco_1]

That’s a bad example. Mary was already married when the angel declared to her that she would give birth to a Son. And her response is confusion about how this could happen. But she’s a married woman, who will soon enter her husband’s home. WHY is this confusing to Mary? She’s a young woman, who knows how biology works and how babies are made. There’s absolutely NO REASON for her confusion about HOW she is supposed to give birth.

Why wouldn’t she be confused? This can be easily argued that at this time, when Mary was approached by an Angel she was still a Virgin. What you guys are forcing here is that mary’s reaction at that present part of the scene shows her entire life afterwards, which it does not.

Like i said before, Mary being a perpetual virigin is something i don’t disagree with but at the same time I am not biased enough to just say their are any clear verses supporting it. You guys don’t see it in the replies you are making but none of what you gave are verses that show she remained a virigin after Jesus.

“She was confused and said she was with no man during the annunciation, so this means that she was a virgin all here life regardless of any logical reasoning that these statements could be in reference to that specific time.”

This is wrong. Her perpetual virginity is a very important fact of the Christian faith. It declares more who Jesus is, shows us that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant, and proclaims His Divinity.

Mary being a virigin post Jesus’ birth is not an important argument of the Christian faith. Her losing her viriginity does not change she was sinless or the mother of God. Just because a woman eventually has intercourse with some one she is married to doesn’t mean her value in God’s eyes changes or degrades as what you guys think.

 

[cisco_1]

There are a number of aspectual subtleties of the present tense, of which perhaps you aren’t aware:

The historical present relates a past event through the use of the present tense as a means of intensifying the description. For example: “καὶ ἔρχεται πρὸς τοὺς μαθητὰς καὶ εὑρίσκει αὐτοὺς καθεύδοντας, καὶ λέγει τῷ Πέτρῳ” (Mt 26:40). The literal translation is “And [Jesus] comes to the disciples and finds them sleeping, and says to Peter”. The verbs here are all in the present tense, but the meaning is “Jesus came to the disciples and found them sleeping, and said to Peter” – but the usage here creates a more forceful narrative.

Do you see the logical flaw in this reply of yours. So because of this, the rendered translation of Jesus approaching his disciples while they are asleep,this equates to the mistranslaton and shows that Mary’s statement does infact mean a life long status? Since the “life long status” is the key issue here, then based on this you gave i’m supposed to take the mistranslation of Jesus going to his disciples while they were asleep as something life long as well and continue on to the future based on this explanation of “ignomic present”.

Protestants can argue with the verses such as Matt 1:25, and the fact that there are numerous verses where it is stated that Jesus had brothers.

Sorry but this translation of yours just holds no weight.

 

[Gorgias]

Do you see the logical flaw in this reply of yours.

There’s no logical flaw here. I think you’re misunderstanding the point I’m making.

So because of this, the rendered translation of Jesus approaching his disciples while they are asleep,this equates to the mistranslaton

There’s no mistranslation here. I’m simply pointing to the literal translation (which uses the present tense) and demonstrating that the meaning of the sentence is an intensified narration of a past event.

and shows that Mary’s statement does infact mean a life long status? Since the “life long status” is the key issue here, then based on this you gave i’m supposed to take the mistranslation of Jesus going to his disciples while they were asleep as something life long as well and continue on to the future based on this explanation of “ignomic present”.

Wow. You really mis-read my post. The citation of Matthew 26:40 was of the ‘historical present’, not the ‘gnomic present’. The argument to be made from the Annunciation narrative, I would assert, would be one of the ‘futuristic present’, not of the gnomic present (after all, it would be an indication of an action started in the past and continuing into the future, not of some sort of proverb).

My point was simple: you seem to be asserting that the use of the present tense can only be to indicate something that is presently true, without the implication that it will be true in the future as well. I provided a counter-example to disprove your assertion: I gave you three ways in which grammatical present tense constructions can be used in Koine Greek to talk about things not only in the present, but in the past and the future as well.

Blessings,
G.

Sorry but this translation of yours just holds no weight.

Dang. I guess I’m gonna hafta start writing all the scholars of Koine Greek in the world, and let them know that their understanding of how Greek grammar works is all wrong…

 

[cisco_1]

There’s no logical flaw here. I think you’re misunderstanding the point I’m making.

There’s no mistranslation here. I’m simply pointing to the literal translation (which uses the present tense) and demonstrating that the meaning of the sentence is an intensified narration of a past event.

But the point is about Mary being/not being a virigin post the birth of christ. You providing this demonstration is rather unfitting. How exactly does this verse of Matt show that Mary’s statement “I am with no man” means a life time, because the meaning is actually intense/stronger when rendered in it’s actual format?

Wow. You really mis-read my post. The citation of Matthew 26:40 was of the ‘historical present’, not the ‘gnomic present’. The argument to be made from the Annunciation narrative, I would assert, would be one of the ‘futuristic present’, not of the gnomic present (after all, it would be an indication of an action started in the past and continuing into the future, not of some sort of proverb).

My point was simple: you seem to be asserting that the use of the present tense can only be to indicate something that is presently true, without the implication that it will be true in the future as well. I provided a counter-example to disprove your assertion: I gave you three ways in which grammatical present tense constructions can be used in Koine Greek to talk about things not only in the present, but in the past and the future as well.

Blessings,
G.

Dang. I guess I’m gonna hafta start writing all the scholars of Koine Greek in the world, and let them know that their understanding of how Greek grammar works is all wrong…

No. I think it’s you who doesn’t understand his own point.Your counter-example is not a solid disaproval of the assertion. You are just using your own assertion based on Greek Grammar as some how implying that this shows that she was a virgin even after Jesus. I’m telling the argument is not a solid one.

 

[Gorgias]

You are just using your own assertion based on Greek Grammar as some how implying that this shows that she was a virgin even after Jesus. I’m telling the argument is not a solid one.

Nope. That’s not what I’m attempting to do here.

You claimed that a verb in the present tense could not speak to a future reality (i.e., the perpetual virginity of Mary):

cisco_1:

Your quote on the “i don’t know any man” does not support perpetual viriginity and i have no idea what brings you to that conclusion since it is in present tense.

My claim is simply that a verb in the present tense in Koine Greek can, in fact, express something about the past and/or the future. It’s a counter-example to your assertion that a verb in the present tense cannot address the perpetual virginity of Mary. I’m not making a positive claim here; I’m merely demonstrating that your claim is false. Hopefully, you can see that this distinction does not imply that I “don’t understand [my] own point.”

 

[cottice]

While i’m not on the side that is against the teaching of Mary being a virigin all her life, i have to say with out most respect that your argument is very straw man.

Like I said before, the belief of Protestants is that sometime after Jesus’ birth, she was no longer a virigin due to verses stating that Jesus had brothers. All the verses you gave all date and are all pertaining to Jesus’ birth (or before birth with Luke). You need to give verses in the bible after Jesus’ birth where it does show Mary was still a virign, sadly you have only given verse prior to that. Even your quoting of Isiah does not fit the logic, it can be easily countered with "yes… Mary was a virigin when she was announced and to the time Jesus was born… she could have lost her viriginity when Jesus was at the age 5, 15, 20, 22, 29, 30…

Your quote on the “i don’t know any man” does not support perpetual viriginity and i have no idea what brings you to that conclusion since it is in present tense. The “I don’t smoke” example doesn’t make sense to it at all. When I was 15 i said “i don’t smoke”, but i ended up being a smoker from 19-26 years old… There is nothing in that terminology that ever fits a life long statement.

Mary’s viriginity is only important during Jesus’ annunciation, conception, and birth. That is all the prophecies have stated, that he would be born of a virigin therefore she had to be a virigin during that period of time. Any time else after Jesus’ birth should not be shed with any importance because it does not contradict or conflict anything in mere-christianity.

I tink what Mary said to the angel is very telling regarding her continued virginity, Mary tells the angel, I am the handmaid of the Lord. What exactly is a handmaid? It is not a concept we see employed in modern society. But in first century time a handmaid was a servant who was dedicated to serving one person. In most cultures it was a slave but not necessarily so. Mary is, in effect, saying that she is dedicating herself to the Lord. How can she then have children with Joseph? To do so she would have to dedicate herself to Joseph. And how about Joseph? He is said to be a righteous man. Is he going to have relations with someone who is dedicated to the Lord?

As for the so called sisters and brothers of Jesus that interpretation relies on a strict interpretation of the Greek word adelphos as meaning a sibling. Now if adelphos is used in the bible exclusively to mean a sibling then that interpretation would be valid. But it is not. Jesus calls the apostles his brothers. He also calls the apostles Peter’s brothers. But only Andrew was Peters siblng brother not the other ten. The fact is that adelphos is used in scripture to mean a host of different relationships and not all of them are blood relationships. So to force the strict meaning on the word does violence to the scriptures.

 

[Cathoholic]

Cisco_1.

You asked zz912 (with parenthetical addition mine):

Why wouldn’t she (the Blessed Virgin Mary) be confused? This can be easily argued that at this time, when Mary was approached by an Angel she was still a Virgin.

Think about it. The Blessed Virgin Mary is already a married woman. (That’s WHY the angel tells St. Joseph don’t be afraid to take Mary YOUR WIFE into your home. They have completed what is called “kiddushin” and thus are MARRIED).

If you got married and an angel appeared to your wife after your wedding that afternoon (while she was still a virgin and the marriage not yet consummated), and this angel told your wife she was going to have a son, how would your wife react?

Probably she might say . . .

“Well I’m not sure I can believe you.” . . . or . . .
“Great. A son huh!” . . . . .or . . . .
“Hey look. I really wanted a daughter.” . . . . or . . .
“WHO are you?? Are you REALLY an angel?” . . . .or . . .
“I’m outta here. This angel appearing-to-me stuff is scary!”

But how WOULDN’T a married woman react if she were told she was going to have a son?

She WOULDN’T say . . . “How can this come about?”

She wouldn’t say: “HOW can I, a married woman, possibly have a son??”

She wouldn’t say . . . “How can this come about? . . . . unless . . . .

. . . . Unless she at least intended to REMAIN a virgin.

The ONLY response that makes sense given the way the Archangel Gabriel asks this and the way the Blessed VIRGIN Mary responds is that the Blessed Mother is a Consecrated Virgin.

That’s WHY St. Augustine could say back in about 400 A.D. . .

ST. AUGUSTINE "Surely, she would not say, ‘HOW shall this be?’ unless she had already vowed herself to God as a virgin . . . If she intended to have intercourse, she wouldn’t have asked this question! “In being born of a Virgin who CHOSE to REMAIN a Virgin even BEFORE she KNEW who was to be born of her, Christ wanted to approve virginity rather than to impose it. And He wanted virginity to be of FREE CHOICE even in that woman in whom He took upon Himself the form of a slave.”

— St. Augustine. Holy Virginity 4:4. 401 A.D.​

It is evident from the context of Luke 1:26 and following, that the Blessed Virgin Mary is a consecrated Virgin (Numbers 30 implicitly teaches about this subject of married consecrated virgins).

And WHY did women who were married consecrate their virginity to God? Because as the Blessed Virgin says (as cottice in post 53 reminds) . . . because they are “handmaid(s) of the Lord.” If that’s true for the proverbial Jane Doe, how much MORE true would that be in this situation?

Someone might object and say: “OK. I can see that Mary at least INTENDS virginity. But that doesn’t mean Mary will REMAIN a virgin in the future. That only tells us about the past and the present!”

That might be true if a person were telling me this. But remember. The Blessed Virgin Mary is being told and asked about this from a being who is “sent from God”!

LUKE 1:26a 26 In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God . . . .

God knows the future for the Blessed Virgin.

Assuming the Angel was sent by God to a Virgin, and this “Virgin” means not merely someone who is “still having this virginity” but a “Consecrated Virgin” this at least powerfully suggests Mary will REMAIN Virginal.

Remember God sent the angel to a “Consecrated Virgin” who was married.

Mary was a “Consecrated Virgin” BEFORE even knowing about the Incarnation!

To deny the Blessed Mother’s Perpetual Virginity means someone has to posit that NOW . . . AFTER the Incarnation . . . . Mary who is FULL OF GRACE, now decides to toss away her consecrated virginity (whereas before Mary even knew about Jesus, Mary was steadfast about maintaining her virginity)!

What would this be saying about the exclusiveness of Jesus?

This is one reason WHY Marian doctrine is so important. Because it affects the way you think about our Lord Jesus.

You also said:

Protestants can argue with the verses such as Matt 1:25, and the fact that there are numerous verses where it is stated that Jesus had brothers.

Jesus DID have “brothers”. The Bible says so. The relevant question here is IN WHAT SENSE is “brothers” being used in Scripture? That’s the issue.

Let’s look at some New Testament examples where Adelphos (brothers) is used and HOW it is used:

1. Children of the same parents (Mt. 1:2, 14:3)
2. Male descendants of the same parents (Acts 7:23, 7:26, Heb. 7:5)
3. People of the same nationality (Acts 3:17, 3:22, Rom. 9:3)
4. Any man, a neighbor (Lk. 10:29, Mt. 5:22, Mt. 7:3)
5. Persons united by a common interest (Mt. 5:47)
6. Persons united by a common calling (Rev. 22:9)
7. All mankind (Mt. 25:40, Heb. 2:17)
8. The disciples (Mt. 28:10, Jn. 20:17)
9. Believers (Mt. 23:8, Acts 1:15, Rom. 1:13, 1st Thes. 1:4, Rev. 19:10)

The “Brothers” objection does not convince. Especially in light of Sacred Tradition, the above passages, & history.

There are 2000 years of unbroken history to support the Blessed Virgin Mary’s Perpetual Virginity!

Aside from heretics (and one Catholic Bishop {Bonosus] who was removed from office over his denial of the Perpetual Virginity doctrine), NOBODY denied the Blessed Virgin Mary’s Perpetual Virginity until AFTER the Protestant Reformation (as Randy pointed out in post 45, not even the immediate Protestant “Reformers” denied this).

Hope this helps.

God bless.

Cathoholic

 

[zz912]

Why wouldn’t she be confused? This can be easily argued that at this time, when Mary was approached by an Angel she was still a Virgin. What you guys are forcing here is that mary’s reaction at that present part of the scene shows her entire life afterwards, which it does not.

Like i said before, Mary being a perpetual virigin is something i don’t disagree with but at the same time I am not biased enough to just say their are any clear verses supporting it. You guys don’t see it in the replies you are making but none of what you gave are verses that show she remained a virigin after Jesus.

“She was confused and said she was with no man during the annunciation, so this means that she was a virgin all here life regardless of any logical reasoning that these statements could be in reference to that specific time.”

Mary was married, she just hadn’t entered into Joseph’s house yet. That is why she is referred to as his wife by the angel, and that is why Scripture says that he planned to quietly divorce her. You can’t divorce someone you’re not married to.

So a married woman is told by an angel that she will have a baby. And she’s surprised by this and wonders how it will happen. This is NOT the reaction of someone who is planning to have a normal marriage. Any other woman would assume her husband would impregnate her. But Mary wonders HOW she’s going to bear a son.

Mary being a virigin post Jesus’ birth is not an important argument of the Christian faith. Her losing her viriginity does not change she was sinless or the mother of God. Just because a woman eventually has intercourse with some one she is married to doesn’t mean her value in God’s eyes changes or degrades as what you guys think.

Read a bit more about the OT, and especially the Ark of the Covenant and the items used in the Temple. Something that has been consecrated to God can never be used for normal purposes again. There is nothing wrong about normal uses for things, but once something is consecrated to God, you can’t use it for normal purposes. A chalice that was consecrated for use in the Temple could never be used for regular drinking.

Similar to this, Mary was consecrated to God, and if she would have sexual relations with Joseph or bear other children, she would be committing a great sin by using her body for normal purposes after being consecrated to God.

 

[cottice]

Mary was married, she just hadn’t entered into Joseph’s house yet. That is why she is referred to as his wife by the angel, and that is why Scripture says that he planned to quietly divorce her. You can’t divorce someone you’re not married to.{/QUOTE]

Mary was not married at the time of the visitation. She was “betrothed” an arrangement which we have no modern day counterpart but one which our term “engaged” maybe comes closest. The angel says to Joseph that he should not be afraid to take Mary as his indicates he had not married her yet.

 

[Cathoholic]

Cisco_1. You stated:

Mary was not married at the time of the visitation. She was “betrothed” an arrangement which we have no modern day counterpart but one which our term “engaged” maybe comes closest. The angel says to Joseph that he should not be afraid to take Mary as his indicates he had not married her yet.

Mary WAS married to St. Joseph BEFORE the archangel appeared to her.

A Jewish marriage includes . . . .

. . . . The actual getting married. . . . Then the groom goes and prepares a place for his bride. This can be a brief duration or it can be a long duration. But they are still MARRIED. This initial aspect of the marriage is called kiddushin (also called “betrothal” or “erusin”). The MARRIAGE is now inseparable in a Jewish community except by divorce.

After the husband goes and prepares a place for his bride, he then comes back and takes his bride into his home. This is called nisuin.

It is kind of like a Catholic marriage today.

We have the marriage ceremony (then you are really “man and wife”). Later (usually that night) the marriage is consummated.

With the Blessed Virgin Mary and St. Joseph, their marriage was NOT consummated.

With the line of questioning in Luke 1:26 and following it is evident that the Blessed Virgin Mary was a married Consecrated Virgin (as per Numbers 30 implicitly describes).

Mary is “betrothed” to St. Joseph. That is WHY the angel can call Mary, Joseph’s . . . . “WIFE”.

Mary and Joseph had already completed kiddushin . . . .

**MATTHEW 1:18a ** 18 When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together . . . .

This (above kiddushin) is a ratified Old Covenant marriage separable ONLY by divorce at this point.

The Rabbis even say . . .

Once kiddushin is complete, the woman is legally the wife of the man. The relationship created by kiddushin can only be dissolved by death or divorce.

Mary and Joseph had NOT YET completed nisuin . . . .

MATTHEW 1:18-20 When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together . . . .

Sometime between the initial marriage ceremony (kiddushin) and the ceremony of taking the bride to his home (nisuin), the Blessed Mother was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit.

MATTHEW 1:18 When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit;

Then notice what the verses DON’T say:

NOT MATTHEW 1:18-19 18 When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit; 19 and her husband Joseph, resolved NOT to marry her in the first place.

No! They ARE already married. That’s WHY St. Joseph was considering “putting her away” (apolysai).

MATTHEW 1:18-20 18 When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit; 19 and her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to send her away. 20 But as he considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit;

MATTHEW 1:24 24 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took his wife, 25 but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus.

 

[Cathoholic]

Apologies regarding my last post.

I said:

Cisco_1. You stated:

Mary was not married . . . .

I meant:

cottice. You stated:

QUOTE:
Mary was not married at the time of the visitation. She was “betrothed” an arrangement which we have no modern day counterpart but one which our term “engaged” maybe comes closest. The angel says to Joseph that he should not be afraid to take Mary as his indicates he had not married her yet.

 

[Cathoholic]

Concerning the Hebrew idiomatic expression (literally, “what to me and you”) at Cana.

Shaolen. You said:

Please if you can elaborate on the idiom you mentioned regarding cana

My initial reply was:

I’ll see what I can do. Scott Hahn discusses this in detail on his Gospel of John Series (here and here) but I will have to dig it up and re-listen to it before I try to elaborate. I don’t want to lead you or some other reader of this thread astray in this (or any other) area.

I have since found where Dr. Hahn elaborates on this in writing.

• Hebrew idiomatic expression at Cana = literally, "what to me and you"

I’ll include it below (and I hope this is helpful to you) . . . .

Concerning the Hebrew idiomatic expression (“what to me and you”) at Cana Dr. Hahn has this to say . . .

QUOTE:

II. The Mother of Jesus

A. Scolding Mary?

Read in context, then, we see that Mary is present on the new Sabbath of God’s new creation. As the Sabbath was the sign of God’s first covenant, Mary is a part of the “sign” of God’s new and everlasting covenant with His creation.

In the creation story only the name of God is spoken. The first man and woman are identified not by name but as “the man” and “the woman.”

The same is true in the Cana story. Notice that only Jesus is referred to by name. Mary is never named. John refers to her as “the mother of Jesus” and Jesus calls her “woman.”

This is another indicator that John intends us to find a deeper, symbolic connection between what happens at Cana and the Genesis story.

And we should keep this deeper meaning in view as we try to understand the tricky or difficult passages in the account.

The most infamous of these is Jesus’ response to Mary: “Woman, how does your concern affect me? My hour has not yet come.”

Quite often this text is used by non-Catholics to “prove” that Catholic devotion to Mary is “unscriptural.” Jesus, they argue, is obviously distancing himself from Mary in this passage - He even seems to be scolding her.

This interpretation doesn’t hold up to careful study. It’s true that to our ears Jesus sounds like He is telling Mary to mind her own business and that He doesn’t care whether the wine has run out.

But we have to remember that the Gospel wasn’t written in English. It was written in Greek and recounts a dialogue that originally took place in a Hebrew dialect.

Actually, the words Jesus uses (literally, “what to me and you”) were a figure of speech common in the Greek and Hebrew of His day.

The phrase has several shades of meaning in the Old and New Testaments.

However, in each biblical instance where it is found, the phrase expresses a situation similar to what’s going on at Cana: Someone is reluctant or refuses to do something and doesn’t agree that he has any business involving himself in the situation.

Sometimes the phrase implies a hostility between the two parties (see Judges 11:12; 2 Chronicles 35:21; 1 Kings 17:18; Mark 1:24; 5:7; Luke 8:28). Other times it expresses a simple disagreement or difference of opinion (see 2 Kings 3:13; Hosea 14:8).

With that background, how should we understand Jesus’ use of this idiom? First, there is no evidence anywhere in John or the rest of the New Testament to suggest that Jesus harbored hostility toward His mother.

Jesus was without sin (see Hebrews 4:15). Among other things that means He was faithful to the fourth commandment and honored and obeyed His parents (see Luke 2:51).

Nor do we find any evidence in the Cana episode that implies separation or tension between Mary and Jesus. In fact, four times in these twelve verses she is referred to as “the mother of Jesus.”

Perhaps the best evidence for what Jesus meant is found in Mary’s reaction to His words. She turns to the servants and says: “Do whatever He tells you.”

Certainly, she doesn’t take His words to be dismissive. And if Jesus had intended to reproach her, surely He wouldn’t have complied with her implied request.

More complete info. at this link:
salvationhistory.com/studies/lesson/queen_wedding_at_cana_garden_in_eden

 

[cottice]

Apologies regarding my last post.

I said:

Cisco_1. You stated:

Mary was not married . . . .

I meant:

cottice. You stated:

QUOTE:
Mary was not married at the time of the visitation. She was “betrothed” an arrangement which we have no modern day counterpart but one which our term “engaged” maybe comes closest. The angel says to Joseph that he should not be afraid to take Mary as his indicates he had not married her yet.

My position is that Mary was betrothed but not married. Marriage was not a simple one act play as it it now adays. There was the marriage proposal and the dowery if the proposal was accepted then the couple were betrothed. Then the man went to prepare a place for his bride. When the place was finished he then came for his bride and then they lived together as man and wife. That was when the marriage ceremony was complete. The angel visited Mary before Joseph had completed their home and had come for her. So the marriage was not complete and they were still in the betrothal stage. But since a covenant existed between them, Jewish law restricted them from backing away from their commitment to each other. Adultery was one of the avenues by which the covenant could be dissolved. Scripture tells us that was exactly what was on Joseph’s mind until he was approached by the angel.

Notice that in all of this I mentioned nothing of marital relations at all so don’t even think of accusing me of the marriage not being consumatedt because that dog just won’t hunt.