How do we know that Mary was without sin and forever a virgin

[adrift]

Hi

When the angel declared to Mary that she would be the mother of the messiah, she asks how this could be, as how can a virgin conceive and give birth? (she was not asking in respect to a supposed vow! she knew of no way, other than the sexual act for conception, she would know of Isaiah 7:14, but how could she envision how this could be accomplished? it would seem an impossibility to a young maiden or any other woman for that matter ) The answer of the angel to her is in full accord and harmonious to this question, (with God nothing is impossible) "

Where does the angel declare that it is the messiah that Mary will conceive? That isn’t revealed until after her question. It begs the question of why she thought she would be a virgin? She was married. Why did she assume she would be a virgin while she was married with a husband? This is not harmonious at all it a dissonance sound.

 

[adrift]

I guess you win, but at the cost of charity? Was it not the Rev. Fulton Sheen who warned against winning the argument but losing the soul ? I am no better though, saying what about the fruits,or lack thereof, from our Marion doctrine?

What lack of charity? Because I disagree? Because I point out that what you write is not true? There has been a lack of charity not on my part or on yours. Until now, when you accuse me of a lack of charity, and it is not true. Now I guess you feel you have won by making the unsubstantiated accusation of lack of charity. I don’t think in terms of winning or loosing but in defending the truth of our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[pocohombre]

Continued

thank you a lot of good work. No doubt there is history to the contrary; Lord willing if someone had the time to share,but thank -you.

 

[pocohombre]

What lack of charity? Because I disagree? Because I point out that what you write is not true? There has been a lack of charity not on my part or on yours. Until now, when you accuse me of a lack of charity, and it is not true. Now I guess you feel you have won by making the unsubstantiated accusation of lack of charity. I don’t think in terms of winning or loosing but in defending the truth of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Actually we have done quite well in our tone of discussion. I think aempca’s reply was coarse for which I was disappointed when you gave it an amen with your smiley face.

 

[adrift]

Actually we have done quite well in our tone of discussion. I think aempca’s reply was coarse for which I was disappointed when you gave it an amen with your smiley face.

I thought so to that we have been good in our tone. I realized after what you were probably referring to. Perhaps the phrasing could be considered less than kind. I do agree that it could be possible that arguments are being rejected because a Catholic is presenting it. I don’t think we meant to be uncharitable, I am sorry if that is the way you preceived it, but frustrated in what we see as being rejected simply because it is Catholic thought.
What I was mainly agreeing with was.

Call it married, call it engaged, call it whatever you want. The fact is that if Mary had been expecting to have sexual relations with Joseph at a point in the foreseeable future, then it makes no sense for her to ask how it’s possible that she “will conceive and bear a son”. The angel didn’t say “you will conceive tonight”, or “you will conceive as soon as I leave”; the reasonable assumption would have been “the angel is telling me that my first born son with Joseph will be a son, whenever that may happen”.

 

[aemcpa]

Actually we have done quite well in our tone of discussion. I think aempca’s reply was coarse for which I was disappointed when you gave it an amen with your smiley face.

I apologize for that portion of my comment that was extraneous to the substance of my point, as it lacked charity. I should not have characterized your points as nonsense or irrational.

 

[Vico]

Yes, and Mary was up to a year away from such “celebration”. Actually I was going to ask you, and not assume but are you under the impression that Mary was fully married before the annunciation and could have sexual relations(but didn’t) with Joseph legally,morally, that the wedding had taken place, and it’s celebration,just that he take her home? I believe the marriage had been arranged,contracted,legally binding,but the celebration, the wedding, did not take place yet. Also that relations would have been improper at this point, per Jewish custom, irregardless of any virginity vow.

Marriages were contracted with children and there was some waiting until consummation, even though legally married, and the couple would get to know each other. It could be a year or more before consummation.In strict accordance with this sense the rabbinical law declares that the betrothal is equivalent to an actual marriage and only to be dissolved by a formal divorce.
jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3229-betrothal

That is similar to Catholic matrimony. It is valid from celebration (the contract) and may be dissolved through a formal process as long as consummation has not occurred. Whereas Catholics have a covent with celebration, the ancient Jews did not, it was a legal contract between the groom and the father of the bride. The wedding feast waited for the actual consummation in the brides home, … with people waiting for proof!

 

[Slaney]

Mary was/is forever a virgin, she is the spouse of the Holy Spirit and no other, to say she had another would make her an adulterer.

Also Mary remained a virgin, and like the analogy of the light shining through a diamond and not shattering the diamond, this is why her body remained virginal…

 

[Jim19]

Go back and reread it had nothing to do with Mary’s virginity. Most of this is unfathonable Why your rant I don’t know:shrug:

My apologies, :i made my comments based on the wrong quote, i assume you meant

“St. Ambrose of Milan wrote that Mary’s virginity was “so great an example of material virtue” because it demonstrated her total devotion to Jesus. In Mary, we see an example of the purity our own hearts must have in total dedication to God. Her virginity also tells us something about the Church, which, like Mary, is both mother to the faithful and “pure bride to her one husband” (2 Cor. 11:2)”

His quote does not substantiate the claim of ever virgin, And again the scripture verse quoted speaks of the church as the bride of Christ.

That she dedicated herself to God does point to Jesus.

I agree, as does the dedication of so many other saints before her and after her.

Did “many women” in history bear a child?

Yes

What I would say is that there are “many women” who remained virgins for the honor of God and that in deed points to Jesus.

And indeed there are many women who did not remain virgins and also honoured God

So scripture shows the named brothers and the sisters as having other mothers? Where?

Matt. 27:56; 27:61, 28:1 Mark 15:47 John 19:25

Yes, James and Joses are the sons of the “other” Mary. But what of Simon,Judas and the sisters?

And all were cousins? Where? If they were not the brothers and sisters of Christ, Why. 1. were they with the mother of Jesus and not their own mother?

You are trying to put there culture in todays.

So it was the culture then for the children not to associate with their own mother?

when Jesus asks, “Who are my mother, and sisters and brothers?,” some Protestants argue that Jesus is rebuking Mary in order to denigrate her. To the contrary, when Jesus’ comments are read in light of Luke 8:5-15 and the parable of the sower which Jesus taught right before His question, Jesus is actually implying that Mary has already received the word as the sower of good ground and is bearing fruit. Jesus is teaching that others must, like Mary, also receive the word and obey it.

I never asked what “some protestants argue” I asked

Why would Jesus say, who is my mother etc to differentiate natural flesh from spiritual if they were only cousins? (as an aside, if Christ held Mary above other women, why was she included in his declaration and why did He never refer to her (directly) as Mother only “woman”)? 3.In Mat 13:55,why would those that knew Joseph and Mary bother to mention His “cousins” in reference to them and not their own parents? 4. Why would the Lord say " a prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own HOUSE, did these “cousins” not have their own house? Was it custom for them all to stay in the one abode?

It would help the discussion along if the questions asked where the ones that were answered, as can be seen by my embarrassment above,
Also,Matt 13:1…, and Mark 4:1…, would disagree with your implication as in both these accounts the parable was spoken in a different venue and timeline,regardless, your exegesis is at variance with Christs explanation of the parable.

Was Jesus Dissing His Mother When He Called Her “Woman”?

No and that was not my suggestion. Also i retract my “aside”, as it had no bearing on this thread.

As already shown, Jacob was the younger, yet did not give his older brother the respect due to him. Was Joseph showing respect to his older brothers (and indeed his parents) when he declared that they would bow themselves down before him? That younger brothers do no show the respect due to an older brother is shown scripturally does not negate them from being brothers!

Nor does it negate that they would not have given advice. What you show as disrespect is not. I think you are reaching and in so doing what truth that you might have is lost.

Your claim was that it was not the custom in those days to give advice, so to do so would in essence be disrespectful, Yes?
My point was not to somehow show they would not have given advice hence negating it, rather as i have stated before, because it was the “custom” in those days, does not mean that all adhered to “custom”.
So to give advice to an elder brother was disrespectful, but to take advantage of an hungry elder brother in such a way, and to tell your parents and older brothers they will basically abase themselves before you isn’t? Wow, my kids will be glad they don’t have to adhere to such customs!

Since she was not their mother, actually this shows that she didn’t have any other children this point is moot.

Since you nor anyone else has shown she wasn’, your point is moot

 

[PeaceInChrist]

Since you nor anyone else has shown she wasn’, your point is moot

Actually, Scripture never once calls Mary the mother of anyone else. So you would have just as much of a burden to show that she did have other children, as we have of showing she didn’t.

The theory up to St. Jerome’s time (early 400s) was that Joseph had children from a previous marriage. Then Jerome popularized the theory that the word ‘brother’ in Aramaic would have been used for cousins, because there is no actual word for ‘cousin’ in Aramaic, or at least in 1st Century Palestine.

Also, I would like to point out that the original Reformers held to the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. Only recently has the Blessed Mother’s virginity come under attack, probably because fundamentalist Protestants dislike the idea of celibacy (even though Paul was celibate, and Christ spoke of it as a good thing).

In light of the extra-biblical evidence against this fundamentalist position, and the lack of Biblical evidence, why do you persist?

catholic.com/tracts/brethren-of-the-lord

 

[mcrts]

The term first born doesn’t mean she had other children. Only children are their parents first born. Also, not a single passage in the Bible refers to these ‘brethren’ as Mary’s sons. Why do you think the writers would take care not to mention them as Mary’s sons and daughters if they were?

At the cross there was another Mary, the wife of Cleopas. She is thought to be the mother of Jesus’ brethren. They are related through St. Joseph, who was Cleophas’ brother, thus making his children and Jesus cousins.

While it may seem unnatural or strange that Mary and Joseph had no relations the Holy Family itself is a unique unit. They are brought together by God and each member’s main purpose is to do the will of the Father. That much we need to know, that their quiet life in Nazareth provided the stability and security that Jesus would need to start His mission here.

 

[Jim19]

There is scripture which you dismiss. Because you close your eyes and say there isn’t doesn’t make it true.

I most humbly beg to differ, i have shown many scriptures that would imply Christ having brothers and sisters, neither yourself nor anyone else has shown scripture that imply He didn’t. What has been proffered, is scripture that has been rendered to fit into the box of a presupposed belief (and even then it fits rather badly), If one was to put the scriptures i have set before you and the ones you have set before me, and offered them side by side ,as they stand,and without any inference attached, before an impartial judge, do you honestly believe he/she would see an implied “ever virgin”?
My eyes are far from closed, show me one scripture that stands alone and void of external assumption, that would imply Mary was “ever virgin”, till then, i think rather " cast out first the beam in thy own eye, and then shalt thou see to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye".

You would claim that Luke 1:26… is testament to the ever virginity of Mary, a claim based on a vow that cannot be scripturally proven, merely on hearsay,(if Mary had made that vow, why could she not continue at the temple)?

Because it wasn’t allowed.

Ah thankyou, your eloquent reply explains much!

Was it common in that day for maidens to vow and dedicate themselves to the temple? In what capacity did they serve? Was it the custom in those days for people to marry and then deny the purpose of such a “sacrament”?

Sacrament didn’t exist.

Oh, so marriage to the Jews, was not looked upon as a sacred union?

Was it common for a virgin to give birth?

I fail to see how this comment has any bearing on my question?(as it was neither inferred nor alluded too). Perhaps it is merely distraction and evasion of a legitimate answer?

Really, is it because I don’t find you convincing that you accuse me of not having an open mind.

No, i would not give such credence to my ability to convince, it is more a case off your own statements that show you “, hold this teaching to be true because the catholic church has declared it so”,

Could it actulally be you who is not humble and bow to scripture which says You are Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church. I give you the keys to heave what you bound on earth will be bound in heaven and what you loose on earth will be loose on heaven.

But i do bow down and acknowledge the quoted scripture!! That Christ declared to Peter He would build His church on the declaration of sonship that Peter made in verse 16 of Matt 16, hence the Lord saying “upon this rock” and not saying upon you! (but this is irrelevant to this thread) I would suggest you read Matt 18 where the Lord was addressing the disciples (plural), and attributed to them also the power to bind and loose.

Can you be humbe enough to admit that you have listened to a false prophet?

And what false prophet is this, that you refer to in your disparaging remark? And in what context have i listened to the aforementioned prophet?

Wrong! Her (so claimed) sinlessness is contrary to clear scriptural teaching. her sinfulness points to Jesus, for He came to die for sinners!

On the contrary it is in harmony with scripture. The fact is that you have misread and have been mislead.

Yes her being a sinner is in harmony with scripture. Strange, i thought Gal 3:22, Rom 5:12, Ps 14:3. and others, were fairly explicit in what they say! Perhaps you could provide an exegesis and show where i was misled:thumbsup:

I couldn’t find anything on your web site.

My apologies, maybe it was a bad link, (bible.com/) never mind i’m sure your priest would maybe have one lying around somewhere that he could let you borrow

 

[adrift]

Yes

And indeed there are many women who did not remain virgins and also honoured God

I left out an important part.
you said

Many women in history were ever virgin and it in no way points to Jesus.

What I meant to say was how many women gave birth as virgins?

I never asked what “some protestants argue” I asked
It would help the discussion along if the questions asked where the ones that were answered, as can be seen by my embarrassment above,
Also,Matt 13:1…, and Mark 4:1…, would disagree with your implication as in both these accounts the parable was spoken in a different venue and timeline,regardless, your exegesis is at variance with Christs explanation of the parable.

What made you think that my posting was answering your question:shrug:

Your claim was that it was not the custom in those days to give advice, so to do so would in essence be disrespectful, Yes?
My point was not to somehow show they would not have given advice hence negating it, rather as i have stated before, because it was the “custom” in those days, does not mean that all adhered to “custom”.
So to give advice to an elder brother was disrespectful, but to take advantage of an hungry elder brother in such a way, and to tell your parents and older brothers they will basically abase themselves before you isn’t? Wow, my kids will be glad they don’t have to adhere to such customs!

If you aren’t going to consider the culture, than of course you will come to all sorts of erroneous conclusions. By dismissing cultural norms, you miss the truth.

 

[Jim19]

My original quote

Without the shekina, the ark was no more than a wooden box, if we hold that Mary was the ark, after she gave birth to Jesus then the shekina was no longer present, therefore removing any inhibitions

Your questions regarding this quote

Where is the scripture to back up this claim. Where in Scripture is the word shekina?

I ask for clarification regarding your first question question,

What claim? That the ark was made from acacia wood (covered in and out with gold), or that after Mary gave birth to Jesus He was no longer within the womb?

I’m sorry but im not sure what you are asking or implying in the quote below? I made no claim to the “shekina” (we do agree on my implication when using this term)? being in the ark, (that would be your claim) as clearly according to scripture it wasn’t. “Jesus may not have been in the womb but He had been”. This loses me completely

That there was any “shekina” in the ark? Jesus may not have been in the womb but He had been. For any other to be in the same place is unthinkable. If you weren’t so mered in your bad teachings you would see it.

As mentioned before, there are many things i also find unthinkable, but unfortunately that does not dismiss them.

I agree with you on this but I disagree that once Jesus left the womb there was no more Shekina. For the Angel said “hail full of grace” before she was pregnant.

The “shekina”, is not the grace of God, As you so gracefully agreed to, it is the “abiding,dwelling or habitation” of the physical manifestations of God.
To in some way infer that it is and to disagree that after Christ who is/was, the very presence and glory of God, still resided in the womb of Mary after He obviously left at birth, would make a travesty of claiming that i am mired in bad teachings!!
see above

And again i reiterate concerning Ex 40:34,35 that you quoted to supposedly support Mary being ever virgin! yes it is true that Moses could not enter the tent of the congregation after the completion of the tabernacle, but are you seriously trying to dispute or portray that thereafter no-one else could? So the priests could not enter the holy place to fulfill their obligations? and neither could the high priest enter the holy of holies?

Do you have scripture that says they did while the glory of Jehovah filled the tabernacle?

I will not inundate you with scripture as that fails to leave any impression, so i will just suggest verses 36-38 of Ex 40, for your perusal and let you decide ( in case you miss it, i would like to see Aaron and the levites fulfill their duties on the move) Hopefully Num 7:89, and Ex 25:22, will also help.

 

[Jim19]

Answer by Bill Bilton on 07-01-2002:
No Christian who takes the Scriptures seriously can doubt Mary’s virginity up to the birth of Jesus since the Gospels are so clear on this point (see Matthew 1:18 and Luke 1:34). However, the Catholic Church teaches that Mary was a virgin not only when she conceived Our Lord in her womb but for the remainder of her life.
Regarding the so-called brothers and sisters of Jesus, it is crucial to realize that a deficiency in Hebrew and Aramaic makes it difficult to discern whether the expression carries the connotation of blood brothers and sisters, cousins, or some other relations between the two. One cannot prove that Mary had other children from the Gospel accounts for this reason.

However, why does the Church make such an issue over Our Lady’s Perpetual Virginity? First of all, because it is a matter of preserving the truth. The Church has always taught that Mary was a perpetual virgin. This information can be gleaned from many sources, but especially from the earliest liturgical prayers in which reference is made to “the Virgin.”

When the teaching that Mary was perpetually a virgin was first questioned, the adverb “ever” was added. Thus do the Creed of Epiphanius (374 A.D.), the Second Council of Constantinople (553 A.D.), and the Lateran Council (649 A.D.) all speak of the “ever-Virgin Mary.” St. Augustine, St. Jerome, and St. Cyril of Alexandria followed the same usage. It is also of interest to note that the Protestant reformers Martin Luther and John Calvin maintained the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity; it was never denied by them.

Some Protestants claim that the Church’s doctrine of Our Lady’s perpetual virginity is only traditional, which is not completely accurate. First, the belief is associated with Church Tradition; not just tradition. There is a very distinct difference. To say something is only tradition leaves it open for discussion and further consideration. However, Church Tradition means all of divine revelation–from the dawn of human history to the end of the apostolic age–as passed on from one generation of believers to the next and as preserved under divine guidance by the Church established by Christ.

After her life on earth ended, Mary was reunited with her Son. She was taken up to Heaven in body as well as soul. There is no explicit reference in Scripture to the Assumption of Mary. However, the doctrine has deep roots in the Scripture’s teaching on the holiness and dignity of Mary, and on the meaning of man, sin, death, and the resurrection of the body.

Because she was the Mother of God she had been kept holy always as a singular gift of God. As the fruits of redemption were anticipated to preserve her from original sin, so they were anticipated to bring her bodily to Heaven before the general resurrection at the end of time. Since she had never been subject to sin, she–like her divine Son–was not to remain in the grave, subject to the empire of death that sin brought into the world. It was fitting, then, that she who gave bodily birth to Jesus should be with Him bodily in Heaven as she adores Him in the glory of His risen body.

Devotion to Mary in the glory of her Assumption is ancient in the Church. As early as around the year 500 A.D., the Eastern Church celebrated on August 15th the feast of Mary’s Dormition–her “falling asleep” in the Lord. By the end of the eighth century, the feast was celebrated throughout the Western Church. Toward the middle of the eighth century, St. John Damascene–in three magnificent homilies on Mary’s Dormition–summed up the traditional faith and teaching of the Eastern and Western Church concerning Mary’s glorious Assumption and meditation of graces in Heaven.

Ah yes, such a spiritual and Godly man, how did i manage to miss such authority

 

[PeaceInChrist]

Ah yes, such a spiritual and Godly man, how did i manage to miss such authority

I don’t think I need to point it out, but this is not a refutation of the argument posed. The author makes valid points, regardless of his character.

 

[Ion]

Ah yes, such a spiritual and Godly man, how did i manage to miss such authority

What do you think Jim, do you love Jesus Christ more that Virgin Mary? Yes or no…

 

[aemcpa]

My eyes are far from closed, show me one scripture that stands alone and void of external assumption, that would imply Mary was “ever virgin”, till then, i think rather " cast out first the beam in thy own eye, and then shalt thou see to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye".

Show me one scripture that affirms the principle of sola scriptura. Then, show me one scripture that affirms that you personally, and not the Church founded by Jesus Christ, have the authority to derive explicit doctrine from what is merely implied in the Scriptures.

 

[adrift]

Ah yes, such a spiritual and Godly man, how did i manage to miss such authority

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of “argument” has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A’s claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

 

[adrift]

The “shekina”, is not the grace of God, As you so gracefully agreed to, it is the “abiding,dwelling or habitation” of the physical manifestations of God.
To in some way infer that it is and to disagree that after Christ who is/was, the very presence and glory of God, still resided in the womb of Mary after He obviously left at birth, would make a travesty of claiming that i am mired in bad teachings!!
see above

And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.