Defending the Virgin Birth

[fatimite13]

So this is something I hate to ask. It bugs me but the question comes from scruples and I believe Jesus was conceived Virginally, but how do we find evidence (Not that Virgin Birth is possible, that I’ve checked) but against accusations that Our Lady and St. Joseph had relations or that She wasn’t raped by a Roman Soldier, which I guess is from the heretical Talmud but anyways. Please help me! I love Our Lady so much I want to defend Her!

 

[LoyalViews]

The Talmud contains a lot that is anti-truth, false, and against the teaching of Christ’s Holy Church and the continuation of true Judaism found within the scriptures. Even Jews cast doubt upon it. There are many other historical accounts of the Blessed Mother - the Protoevangelium of James, for example.

 

[De_Maria]

I believe Jesus was conceived Virginally, but how do we find evidence

My evidence comes from the Teaching of the infallible Catholic Church. I don’t need anymore. I hope you don’t either.

 

[Kei]

The story about the Roman soldier, pay attention to names.
It’s making fun at our idea of the Virgin birth.

 

[thephilosopher6]

The Talmud is not a good source to go for information about Jesus, no historians takes its claims seriously, especially since it’s clearly just anti-Christian slander.

 

[fatimite13]

Where can I find this?

 

[Kei]

The “common legionary name” Panthera could have arisen from a satirical connection between “Panther” and the Greek word “Parthenos” meaning virgin.
The name Pantera was a common one at least by the second century.

But don’t worry, this explanation is found in hostile Jewish texts. It’s not considered to be historically reliable.

 

[fatimite13]

Thank you for the information!

 

[fatimite13]

The protoevangelium is beautiful I just have an issue with the story of Salome the midwife, what do you make of the story especially if some believe Jesus wasn’t born the natural way? Is there any relation of this story in any mystics, I just feel this tale defiles Our blessed Lady.

 

[po18guy]

She needs no defense! Those who malign her need the defense.

Badly.

 

[Cathoholic]

fatimite 13.

First I just want to make sure you have an understanding of WHAT the doctrine of The Perpetual Virginty of Mary is. (Or do you just want to focus on the Virgin Birth aspect?)

The Blessed Mother was virginal in the act of conceiving our Lord Jesus.

The Blessed Virgin was virginal even in the act of delivering Jesus.

The Blessed Virgin REMAINS EVER-Virgin.

.
I just want to make sure that you understand the basic catechesis of this before going into more detail.

You understand that these teachings are the teachings of The Church right?

(I am sure you know this fatimite 13, but I want to make sure, and also there may be lurkers here that may NOT know these basic catechetical points.)

God bless.

Cathoholic
.

More to follow after your reply.

 

[LittleFlower]

The Talmud is not a good source to go for information about Jesus, no historians takes its claims seriously, especially since it’s clearly just anti-Christian slander.

It completely depends what part of the Talmud you are referring to—the Mishnah, the Gemara or other parts? The Mishnah is a collection of debates on various topics. They argue with each other a fair bit in those as well.

That would be like taking what we write here and saying it is slander towards other religions. They are debating what is relevant to them, and it’s impact on their laws and way of life.

 

[fatimite13]

Yes, I certainly know this an agree 100%! Our Lady is a perpetual virgin, I just need help defending her against the Roman soldier accusation, it appears to me that St. Joseph’s reaction in scripture makes it evident that Mary and Joseph had no relations and that is how that is proved.

 

[De_Maria]

but against accusations that Our Lady and St. Joseph had relations or

If she were to have sex with St. Joseph, she would become an adulteress and St. Joseph an adulterer.

Now, let me show you that Mary is married to the Holy Spirit. The important terminology here is “overshadowed”.

A euphemism for marriage in the Old Testament is covering:
Ruth 3:
7 And when Boaz had eaten and drunk, and his heart was merry, he went to lie down at the end of the heap of corn: and she came softly, and uncovered his feet, and laid her down. 8 And it came to pass at midnight, that the man was afraid, and turned himself: and, behold, a woman lay at his feet. 9 And he said, Who art thou? And she answered, I am Ruth thine handmaid: spread therefore thy skirt over thine handmaid; for thou art a near kinsman.

Ruth, effectively asked Boaz to marry her. If you read the rest of the story, you will see that Boaz understood and was determined to do so.

To a Jew, it is clear that when the Holy Spirit “overshadowed” the Virgin Mary, He took her to Himself and the logical outcome is that a Child would be born. The Virgin Mary then married St. Joseph for righteousness sake. The same reason that the sinless Jesus was Baptized.

St. Joseph, being a righteous man, would have known better than to go into the Virgin Mary, having been informed in a dream that she bore the Child by the Holy Spirit:
Matthew 1:20
But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

that She wasn’t raped by a Roman Soldier,

1. There is no indication of this in Scripture.
2. There is no indication of this in Catholic history. If such a thing had occurred, it would have been a big deal in that ancient community and the Plan of Salvation would have been derailed.
   
   So, those who put forth this accusation, need to provide proof. Otherwise, it can be dismissed as easily as it was brought forth. With a wave of the hand.

 

[fatimite13]

Thank you so much for this insight! May Our Lady smile down upon you

 

[Gorgias]

If she were to have sex with St. Joseph, she would become an adulteress and St. Joseph an adulterer.

Yeah… guess they were mistaken about that whole ‘betrothed’ thing…

Now, let me show you that Mary is married to the Holy Spirit. The important terminology here is “overshadowed”.

Here’s the thing, if you’re bound and determined to take the “Mary is the spouse of the Holy Spirit” too literally: that would make God an adulterer. After all, Mary was already espoused to Joseph. And, in fact, if Mary were found to have had relations with another man, that would have made her an adulteress. The penalty for being an adulteress – capital punishment! – was exactly what Joseph was hoping to avoid by divorcing Mary quietly (so that she could take up with her boyfriend without repercussion). So… be careful what you wish for, in making your assertions here…

To a Jew, it is clear that when the Holy Spirit “overshadowed” the Virgin Mary, He took her to Himself and the logical outcome is that a Child would be born. The Virgin Mary then married St. Joseph for righteousness sake.

She was already married to Joseph – he just hadn’t yet taken her into his house. The angel in his dream admitted precisely this: “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary your wife into your home.”

 

[De_Maria]

Yeah… guess they were mistaken about that whole ‘betrothed’ thing…

No. That was obviously part of God’s plan in order to avoid the shame that would have been heaped on Our Lady had she born her Son out of wedlock.

Here’s the thing, if you’re bound and determined to take the “Mary is the spouse of the Holy Spirit” too literally:

Do you mean that you don’t take literally the “child to be born is of the Holy Spirit”?

I take “Mary is the Spouse of the Holy Spirit” as literally as I take, “the Child to be born is of the Holy Spirit”.

that would make God an adulterer.

If you want to call God an adulterer, that’s your problem.

After all, Mary was already espoused to Joseph.

St. Joseph realized that God has prior rights over everyone. Apparently, you don’t.

And, in fact, if Mary were found to have had relations with another man, that would have made her an adulteress. The penalty for being an adulteress – capital punishment! – was exactly what Joseph was hoping to avoid by divorcing Mary quietly (so that she could take up with her boyfriend without repercussion). So… be careful what you wish for, in making your assertions here…

That doesn’t even make sense and has no connection to what I’m saying.

She was already married to Joseph – he just hadn’t yet taken her into his house. The angel in his dream admitted precisely this: “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary your wife into your home.”

No. She was already united to the Holy Spirit from the time of her conception, before she ever met St. Joseph.

CCC#508 From among the descendants of Eve, God chose the Virgin Mary to be the mother of his Son. “Full of grace”, Mary is “the most excellent fruit of redemption” (SC 103): from the first instant of her conception, she was totally preserved from the stain of original sin and she remained pure from all personal sin throughout her life.

Notice that God chose Mary to be the mother of His Son, from the moment of her conception. That means that Mary was betrothed to God, from the moment of her conception.

God is not an interloper. God is not an adulterer.

 

[Gorgias]

Do you mean that you don’t take literally the “child to be born is of the Holy Spirit”?

Apples and oranges. “The child is of the Holy Spirit” =/= “Mary is the Spouse of the Holy Spirit”. Don’t accuse me of heresy by quoting an off-topic verse.

I take “Mary is the Spouse of the Holy Spirit” as literally as I take, “the Child to be born is of the Holy Spirit”.

That’s shocking. You take non-Scriptural, non-dogmatic assertions at the same level as Scripture?!?!?

In any case, here’s a description of what “spouse of the Holy Spirit means”, from Fr Grodin: "The pious custom of referring to the Holy Spirit as the spouse of Mary is a symbolic expression of Mary’s perpetual virginity and the virgin birth of Jesus. It is not meant in a literal manner but rather in terms of Mary’s singular devotion to God and unique relationship to the Trinity. "

It’s a pious custom. It’s not meant in a literal manner. QED.

De_Maria:

that would make God an adulterer.

If you want to call God an adulterer, that’s your problem.

Oh, I certainly don’t… but that’s what your assertions do.

De_Maria:

After all, Mary was already espoused to Joseph.

St. Joseph realized that God has prior rights over everyone. Apparently, you don’t.

You completely misunderstand Scripture. If Joseph did as he had intended – to quietly divorce Mary – and no man showed up to claim her as his wife (and thus give cover to her pregnancy), she would have been regarded as an adulterer. Can you not see that? This wasn’t about Joseph saying, “oh, yeah, God, my bad. She’s yours!”, but about him saying “she committed adultery but I don’t want to see her stoned over it.”

De_Maria:

That doesn’t even make sense and has no connection to what I’m saying.

No, it’s what’s going on in the passage in Matthew. Think about it a bit – why else would Joseph want to divorce Mary? And yes… it has everything to do with the spurious claims you’re making…

De_Maria:

She was already married to Joseph – he just hadn’t yet taken her into his house.

No. She was already united to the Holy Spirit from the time of her conception, before she ever met St. Joseph.

That’s why Gabriel asked for her assent? Because it had already been given? Nice try…

God is not an interloper. God is not an adulterer.

I know. It’s a shame that the implications of your assertions make Him out to be one.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

Do you mean that you don’t take literally the “child to be born is of the Holy Spirit”?

You didn’t answer the question. Do you mean that you don’t take literally that the “child to be born is of the Holy Spirit”? Yes or no.

Apples and oranges. “The child is of the Holy Spirit” =/= “Mary is the Spouse of the Holy Spirit”.

Yes, it does.

Don’t accuse me of heresy by quoting an off-topic verse.

I’m not. I’m just highlighting your misunderstanding of the Word of God in Catholic Doctrine and Scripture.

I take “Mary is the Spouse of the Holy Spirit” as literally as I take, “the Child to be born is of the Holy Spirit”.

That’s shocking. You take non-Scriptural, non-dogmatic assertions at the same level as Scripture?!?!?

Now who’s being literal?

The Catholic Church has always taught that the Virgin Mary is the Spouse of the Holy Spirit because she was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit and because the Holy Spirit engendered Jesus Christ in her womb. That’s all in Scripture.

The only thing not in Scripture is the title, “Spouse of the Holy Spirit.” Do you also object to the title, Blessed Trinity?

In any case, here’s a description of what “spouse of the Holy Spirit means”, from Fr Grodin:

I’ll call your Fr. Grodin and raise you a Saint and a Pope:

But Kolbe sees the union between Mary and the Holy Spirit being even more intimate than that of spouses in marriage:

Among creatures made in God’s image, the union brought about by married love is the most intimate of all. In a much more precise, more interior, more essential manner, the Holy Spirit lives in the soul of the Immaculata, in the depths of her very being.5
Library : The Holy Spirit And Mary | Catholic Culture

Pope Leo XIII

“Let all Christian peoples add their prayers also, invoking the powerful and ever-acceptable intercession of the Blessed Virgin. You know well the intimate and wonderful relationship existing between her and the Holy Spirit, so that she is justly called His Spouse. May she continue to strengthen our prayers with her prayers” (Divinum Illud Munus/That Divine Gift, n.14)
http://www.xt3.com/askapriest/view.php?id=15966

"The pious custom of referring to the Holy Spirit as the spouse of Mary is a symbolic expression of Mary’s perpetual virginity and the virgin birth of Jesus. It is not meant in a literal manner but rather in terms of Mary’s singular devotion to God and unique relationship to the Trinity. "

It’s a pious custom. It’s not meant in a literal manner. QED.

As Col Klink would say, “Interrresting…verrrry interrresting.”

What do you mean by “pious custom”? or symbolic expression? Do you mean that it’s a fiction?

How about the words, Our Father? Do you consider them a pious custom? a symbolic expression? a fiction?

cont’d

 

[De_Maria]

cont’d

that would make God an adulterer.

If you want to call God an adulterer, that’s your problem.

Oh, I certainly don’t… but that’s what your assertions do.

Nope. You used that word with reference to God.

After all, Mary was already espoused to Joseph.

St. Joseph realized that God has prior rights over everyone. Apparently, you don’t.

You completely misunderstand Scripture.

I understand it in accordance with Catholic Teaching.

If Joseph did as he had intended – to quietly divorce Mary – and no man showed up to claim her as his wife (and thus give cover to her pregnancy), she would have been regarded as an adulterer.

Agreed.

Can you not see that? This wasn’t about Joseph saying, “oh, yeah, God, my bad. She’s yours!”, but about him saying “she committed adultery but I don’t want to see her stoned over it.”

That is your misunderstanding of Scripture.

First of all, Scripture is clear that St. Joseph was going to divorce her. True or false.
Second, therefore, she would eventually have been discovered and stoned or at a minimum, had to live in shame.

Matthew 1:19 Joseph her husband, since he was a righteous man,[a] yet unwilling to expose her to shame, decided to divorce her quietly. …

That was his intention.

20 Such was his intention when,

Third, But he didn’t do it. Not because of his trying to protect her. By divorcing her, he was only protecting his own reputation. She would have still had to live without a husband’s protection. But because he received new information, in a dream.

behold, the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary your wife into your home. For it is through the holy Spirit that this child has been conceived in her. 21 She will bear a son and you are to name him Jesus,[c] because he will save his people from their sins.”

Notice that the Angel informed him who brought about Mary’s pregnancy.

That doesn’t even make sense and has no connection to what I’m saying.

No, it’s what’s going on in the passage in Matthew. Think about it a bit – why else would Joseph want to divorce Mary?

To protect his reputation. To put away a sinful wife.

And yes… it has everything to do with the spurious claims you’re making…

On the contrary, I don’t know which Scripture you’re reading. But in the one written by the Catholic Church, it is plainly spelled out that St. Joseph did not put Mary away, because he learned that the Child’s Father, was God.

She was already married to Joseph – he just hadn’t yet taken her into his house.

No. She was already united to the Holy Spirit from the time of her conception, before she ever met St. Joseph.

That’s why Gabriel asked for her assent? Because it had already been given? Nice try…

Do you deny that Mary was united to the Holy Spirit from her conception? Yes or no.

God is not an interloper. God is not an adulterer.

I know. It’s a shame that the implications of your assertions make Him out to be one.

On the contrary, it is you who’s teachings will lead to that conclusion.