Defending Mary--Perpetual Virginity

  • Thread starter Thread starter FightingFat
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

FightingFat

Guest
I am being asked to defend the perpetual virginity of Mary and wondered if anyone could help me with the deeper theological dimension of this. I know about the OT prophesies and Protoevangelium of James. I can defend the doctrine with Scripture and the Fathers, but what I want to get to the root of is why. The virgin birth protects the divinity and humanity of Jesus, that’s its theological dimension, it has a deeply Christological importance with respect to the Incarnation, but I don’t see that relating to Mary’s virginity after the birth of Jesus. Why does this matter? 🤷
 
Mary concieved one child, Jesus, by the Holy Spirit. Mary had one spouse, the Holy Spirit.

A Jewish woman could not have children by two different spouses unless the first spouse died. For Mary to have had children by both the Holy Spirit and then by someone else means that Mary would have been an adulterer, and that her son Jesus Christ is the son of an adulterer. This cannot be. It is impossible for the Second Person of the Trinity to have been born into creation through an adulterer. Mary could not have had children by two different spouses because that would make Jesus the son of an unfaithful promiscuous adulter. God’s intent for Mary was that she remain pure, because God intended Mary for himself. .

while David and all the house of Israel danced before the LORD with all their might, with singing, and with lyres, harps, tambourines, sistrums, and cymbals. As they reached the threshing floor of Nodan, Uzzah stretched out his hand to the ark of God and steadied it, for the oxen were tipping it. Then the LORD became angry with Uzzah; God struck him on that spot, and he died there in God’s presence. (2 Samuel 6:5-7)

The ark of the covenant prefigures and forshadows Mary. No one was to touch the ark. Anyone who touched the ark died immediately. Uzzah touched the ark and died on the spot. Just as no one was to touch the ark, no one was to touch Mary. Had anyone attempted to do so, they would have died.

God had reserved Mary for himself, and protected her from the beginning of all creation for her special purpose, to be his spouse and to bring Jesus into the world. God stationed an angel to protect Mary from the beginning of creation.

Then the LORD God said: "See! The man has become like one of us, knowing what is good and what is bad! Therefore, he must not be allowed to put out his hand to take fruit from the tree of life also, and thus eat of it and live forever." The LORD God therefore banished him from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he had been taken. When he expelled the man, he settled him east of the garden of Eden; and he stationed the cherubim and the fiery revolving sword, to guard the way to the tree of life. (Genesis 3:22-24)

God stationed an angel to protect the “Tree of life”, the fruit of which gives eternal life. The fruit of Mary’s womb is Jesus, whose we eat for eternal life. We see from the beginning of creation, God protected Mary - the tree of life who gives the fruit of her womb - to be his spouse, and reserved her for himself.

There was to be no other. No one was to touch Mary or the chrubim with the fiery revolving sword would have killed them instantly. The Bible is full of unmaried virgins who were raped, and their rapists died horribly.

All of this prefigures Mary, and reveals to us God’s plan for Mary.

-Tim-
 
It magnifies who the true Father is and therfore the divinity of the Son. Her commitment to Him and the Son as the handmaid, Luke 1:38.

Also the type of Abraham/Sarah/Isaac, includes an only child.
 
Read Numbers 30.
Num 30:1 (30:2) And he said to the princes of the tribes of the children of Israel: This is the word that the Lord hath commanded:
Num 30:2 (30:3) If any man make a vow to the Lord, or bind himself by an oath: he shall not make his word void but shall fulfil all that he promised.
Num 30:3 (30:4) If a woman vow any thing, and bind herself by an oath, being in her father’s house, and but yet a girl in age: if her father knew the vow that she hath promised, and the oath wherewith she hath bound her soul, and held his peace, she shall be bound by the vow:
Num 30:4 (30:5) Whatsoever she promised and swore, she shall fulfil in deed.
Num 30:5 (30:6) But if her father, immediately as soon as he heard it, gainsaid it, both her vows and her oaths shall be void, neither shall she be bound to what she promised, because her father hath gainsaid it.
Num 30:6 (30:7) If she have a husband, and shall vow any thing, and the word once going out of her mouth shall bind her soul by an oath,
Num 30:7 (30:8) The day that her husband shall hear it, and not gainsay it, she shall be bound to the vow, and shall give whatsoever she promised.
Num 30:8 (30:9) But if as soon as he heareth he gainsay it, and make her promises and the words wherewith she had bound her soul of no effect: the Lord will forgive her.
Num 30:9 (30:10) The widow, and she that is divorced, shall fulfil whatsoever they vow.
Num 30:10 (30:11) If the wife in the house of her husband, hath bound herself by vow and by oath,
Num 30:11 (30:12) If her husband hear, and hold his peace, and doth not disallow the promise, she shall accomplish whatsoever she had promised.
Num 30:12 (30:13) But if forthwith he gainsay it, she shall not be bound by the promise: because her husband gainsaid it, and the Lord will be merciful to her.
Num 30:13 (30:14) If she vow and bind herself by oath, to afflict her soul by fasting, or abstinence from other things, it shall depend on the will of her husband, whether she shall do it, or not do it.
Num 30:14 (30:15) But if the husband hearing it hold his peace, and defer the declaring his mind till another day: whatsoever she had vowed and promised, she shall fulfil: because immediately as he heard it, he held his peace.
Num 30:15 (30:16) But if he gainsay it after that he knew it, he shall bear her iniquity.
Num 30:16 (30:17) These are the laws which the Lord appointed to Moses between the husband and the wife, between the father and the daughter that is as yet but a girl in age, or that abideth in her father’s house.
Click to expand...
 
Just as Jesus’ tomb remains empty to this day as a silent witness of his resurrection, so also Mary’s uterus at a silent witness of his virginal conception.
 
Rainaldo said:
Just as Jesus’ tomb remains empty to this day as a silent witness of his resurrection, so also Mary’s uterus at a silent witness of his virginal conception.
Click to expand...
Suggesting perhaps that “womb” might have been a better word choice (which coicidently and conveniently rhymes with “tomb”).
 
One answer to “why” is to ask the question “when is it permissible for a woman to bear the children of two different fathers?”
 
snarflemike said:
One answer to “why” is to ask the question “when is it permissible for a woman to bear the children of two different fathers?”
Click to expand...
There are several reasons, a widow for one. I really don’t care if she did or didn’t stay a virgin, I am interested in this topic because I don’t see why it’s important.
 
Irishgal49 said:
There are several reasons, a widow for one. I really don’t care if she did or didn’t stay a virgin, I am interested in this topic because I don’t see why it’s important.
Click to expand...
It is, of course, a matter of Catholic belief. In that regard, it should be viewed as important by professed Catholics. Have you studied the matter at all, or have you arrived at your current position on the subject purely as a matter of preference or opinion?
 
The doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary was really never questioned until recently. All of the protestant founding reformers accepted the doctrine.

When the angel Gabriel told Mary that she was to conceive and bear a son, she asked “How can this be, since I do not know man?” How can this be?–that was her question, in spite of the fact that she was betrothed to be married, and could certainly as a married woman expect to conceive and bear a child at some point, sooner rather than later. But she asked "How can this be?

One might rather have expected some response such as “Oh praise God! I’m going to bear a son!”

The fact that she replied “How can this be?” has caused many to conclude that she had already taken a vow of virginity, and that her marriage was intended to be what has become known as a “Josephite marriage.”

(Now, I realize that scripture scholar Raymond Brown has suggested that her response may just be a literary device on the part of Luke, but frankly, I just don’t believe that. I think that was her actual response.)

And I wonder why many have such difficulty with the idea of Mary as Mother of God, but no difficulty with brothers of God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top