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

[adrift]

I am afraid my signature has come to life.

I merely answered your allegations, perhaps it would be best if such were not made, to steer one off topic

I was answering you so I guess both should not make allegations that are off topic.

 

[Jim19]

What? I am confused by your answer

Hi Erich, quoted Ex 40:34,35, and stated because of this verse Joseph didn’t have a sexual relationship with Mary. But considering the priests and the High priest could enter into the tent of the congregation i fail to see how this analogy carries through?

I am not sure if you so my comment which is very simiar to this one. It supports the virginity of Mary

1. It demonstrates how God felt about even an accidental touch to His Ark
2. Mary carrying Jesus becomes the New Ark.
3. How could anyone touch what God had overshadowed?
4. Would a devout Jew approach where God had been?

No, i haven’t read this post “adrift”, but as i said in a previous post, the teachings of Mary being ever virgin and being the new ark, while they could overlap they must be treated as separately, else we be caught in a veritable web of doctrines at once.

 

[Jim19]

I was answering you so I guess both should not make allegations that are off topic.

Quid pro quo.:thumbsup:

 

[adrift]

No, i haven’t read this post “adrift”, but as i said in a previous post, the teachings of Mary being ever virgin and being the new ark, while they could overlap they must be treated as separately, else we be caught in a veritable web of doctrines at once.

You don’t seem to address the point. To borrow from another post

This is why Joseph refrained from intercourse with Mary during her miraculous pregancy and afterwards as well, because if God’s Presence had indeed “overshadowed” Mary’s womb, then Mary’s womb had become the dwelling place of the Lord, something like the Eastern Gate mentioned by JM3.

and from my own

Ezek. 44:2 Speaks of the gate that the Lord will enter and will be shut after Him.

Even though you say that you don’t find scripture that she remained ever virgin neither will you find scripture that says she didn’t. I would disagree that there is not other scripture besides this one. I would ask you to consider Samuel 6:6 Uzzah is killed for putting his hands on the ark. How could any man dare to touch the place where God dwelled. It is unthinkable to me that Joseph would dare approach where Jesus had been.

 

[Jim19]

This is the first time I have read something that made some kind of sense.

Thankyou

Yes indeed it would be more than a traumatic event. However, us usually in such cases most would blurt out the truth as Mary does.

I agree, she declared she was a virgin.

I would also point out that the Angel does not seem to think it is a strange question for he answers her question.

No reason why he would think it strange, he knew she was a virgin

So even though you have made a good try to explain it, it doesn’t

I merely gave a hypothesis,as did you. i did say i couldnt be dogmatic.

f

or if she was planning a normal marriage her truth would
have been an assumption that she and Joseph would have children.

Her truth was her declaring her virginity, all else is assumption.

Even though you say that you don’t find scripture that she remained ever virgin neither will you find scripture that says she didn’t.

I agree, there is nothing conclusive for either argument in scripture that i am aware off.

I would disagree that there is not other scripture besides this one. I would ask you to consider Samuel 6:6 Uzzah is killed for putting his hands on the ark.

This would infer Mary as the new ark, which is a separate thread.

How could any many dare to touch the place where God dwelled. It is unthinkable to me that Joseph would dare approach where Jesus had been.

There are many scenarios that i find unthinkable, but it does not negate their possibility.

There is actually no scripture that supports that Mary did not remain a virgin.

As mentioned above, we would seem to agree scripture isnt conclusive in either view, though it does supply support.

Now I want to make a statement here. Just because Scripture does not support that Mary had other children

It does, just not conclusively.

does not necessarily prove that she remained a virgin.

??

Scripture does not support that Jesus had uterine brothers.

As above.the above.

You have already been provided the Scripture at the foot of the cross.

Yes i was, supportive yet assumptive reasoning.

There is also John 7:3-4; Mark 3:21 -Jesus brothers are advising Him. In their culture, this would have been disrespectful for a younger brother but not for an older brother. In that culture, younger brothers didn’t offer advise to an older nor would they try to seize Him.

John 7, here His brethren are antagonistic toward Him, not offering friendly advice. And to assume brothers always give the respect due would point to a perfect world Jacob was far from respectful to Esau!!
Mark 3, some bible versions say kinsmen/family, some say friends. i have seen it interpreted that they take hold of Him saying He is mad (if that was the case i doubt His being the elder would be an issue). It has also been interpreted to incline that His friends/kinsmen, were rescuing Him from the crowd that was so intrusive He could not even eat bread.
Both hardly conclusive or supportive for your case.

And yet we are left with that question.

Yes, we both are

Everything including Mary’s virginity points and tells us about Jesus.

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.

How so? Would such devotion allow a 12yr old to be un noticed for a day? ( I do not question a mothers love for her son).

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)

Yes 2 Cor. speaks of the** church** as the bride of Christ, as does other scriptures. But have seen none that claim Mary is the bride of Christ (effectively the bride of her son)!! Nor see how this supports Mary being ever virgin?

I stated there is no Scriptural basis, where is the dishonesty in that?

Because there is.

I should have said, no conclusive Scriptural basis, my bad! An error for not being exact, not an attempt at dishonesty.

These other points take us off thread, and we agreed to stay on it:thumbsup:

 

[pismopal]

I am not an apologist…but many women have remained chaste for life for lesser reason than being the mother of God incarnate. I am puzzled why this would be so hard to get ones mind around or why it could not be assumed from our belief in the Holiness of her volunteer mission. After what she did and witnessed…would that not be a “hard act to follow”? Just sayin’

 

[Jim19]

You don’t seem to address the point.

I thought i did! What part did i not address?

This is why Joseph refrained from intercourse with Mary during her miraculous pregancy and afterwards as well, because if God’s Presence had indeed “overshadowed” Mary’s womb, then Mary’s womb had become the dwelling place of the Lord, something like the Eastern Gate mentioned by JM3.

Yes Christ was virgin born, i dont dispute that. Mary’s womb had become the dwelling place of the Lord, but after she gave birth it was no longer His dwelling place!
(I will indulge slightly). Therefore if Mary was the ark, then the Shekina had departed and there was no reason why she/the ark, could not be touched.

Ezek. 44:2 Speaks of the gate that the Lord will enter and will be shut after Him.

I would refer you to. biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/ezekiel-44-2.html
There is more than 1 sentiment as to the meaning of this text. Even to take it in support of ever virgin, is all it would do, it can not be viewed as conclusive.

Even though you say that you don’t find scripture that she remained ever virgin neither will you find scripture that says she didn’t. I would disagree that there is not other scripture besides this one. I would ask you to consider Samuel 6:6 Uzzah is killed for putting his hands on the ark. How could any man dare to touch the place where God dwelled. It is unthinkable to me that Joseph would dare approach where Jesus had been.

I believe this has been covered

 

[pocohombre]

Yes, another scripture clue is the foot of the cross, Jesus entrusts the care of Mary to John. If there had been half brothers, Mary would have automatically gone to live with one of them and there would have been no need of John. I think this and meditating on the foot of the cross scene that helped me to understand and accept what the Church always taught about Mary’s perpetual virginity. When I was in college (a state university) I took a course called Christianity. It was taught by a liberal Protestant theologian. It was an interesting course but the biggest thing I took away from it was when we were covering this topic which both Catholic and Orthodox teach. This professor rather reluctantly said that all the earliest documents and teachers of the faith attested to Mary’s perpetual virginity. So in other words, those that knew Mary or even knew those who knew Mary were able to teach that she was a perpetual virgin.

No are we not colored by presupposition, where you sit is where you stand on any issue? The foot of the cross gave me just the opposite view of Mary/doctrine. “Earliest documents” is a bit vague. Most “early documents” say nothing of Mary doctrine/tradition. There are documents that begin to speak of Mary and you can call those “early”.There are some that are pro and con on this issue, as well as those that warn of elevating her beyond what is truthful. But for sure there are those that are pro CC doctrine and as time goes on the documents, decrees increase, even several thousand years later.

 

[Jim19]

I am not an apologist…but many women have remained chaste for life for lesser reason than being the mother of God incarnate. I am puzzled why this would be so hard to get ones mind around or why it could not be assumed from our belief in the Holiness of her volunteer mission. After what she did and witnessed…would that not be a “hard act to follow”? Just sayin’

Hi Im not an apologist either (my first time on a forum)
I agree that indeed many woman have remained chaste for a lesser reason, and it is not hard for me to assume Mary was ever virgin, but that is all it would be, an assumption! In fact, contrary to what others on this thread may believe, i am not convinced she wasn’t, that being said neither am i convinced she was.
I just don’t see why a doctrine should be built and accepted on assumption, and as i have said b4, if Mary was ever virgin, i dont see how it would impact on the finished work of Christ!
It was prophesied the Messiah would be born of a virgin, i believe Mary was that virgin, in fulfillment of prophesy. That is sufficient for me.

 

[pocohombre]

]If one wants to dig deep into Ezekiel with her womb shutting then look at Psalms 69:9 as is referenced by St Paul in Rom 15:3 and John 2:17, “For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up;and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me”. It is clear to John and Paul this speaks of Christ.Well, scripture says His brethren believed on Him not till after the cross, and Mary and His brethren wanted to bring Jesus back “home” for “rest” just after His ministry began to “take off”,that He was “beside” Himself. So back to Psalms 69 verse 8-“I am become a stranger to my brethren and an alien unto my mother’s children”. KJV

 

[godisgood77]

Hi Im not an apologist either (my first time on a forum)
I agree that indeed many woman have remained chaste for a lesser reason, and it is not hard for me to assume Mary was ever virgin, but that is all it would be, an assumption! In fact, contrary to what others on this thread may believe, i am not convinced she wasn’t, that being said neither am i convinced she was.
I just don’t see why a doctrine should be built and accepted on assumption, and as i have said b4, if Mary was ever virgin, i dont see how it would impact on the finished work of Christ!
It was prophesied the Messiah would be born of a virgin, i believe Mary was that virgin, in fulfillment of prophesy. That is sufficient for me.

Agree totally…I think this is why the topic is so polarizing. The teaching is built on a shaky base of information and it doesn’t really matter one way or the other.

I submit to the teaching, but definitely can’t explain it despite 36 years as a Catholic and a bunch of reading

 

[pocohombre]

Agree totally…I think this is why the topic is so polarizing. The teaching is built on a shaky base of information and it doesn’t really matter one way or the other.

I submit to the teaching, but definitely can’t explain it despite 36 years as a Catholic and a bunch of reading

I would partly agree but I think this idea of ever virgin was the beginning of the rest of Mary doctrine-immaculate conception,sinless,and Assumption,Queen of heaven, co-redemptrix, mother of God with further modification s being pursued. I think it all begins with the doctrine of her being ever virgin. If it is inaccurate, then some would say a little leaven spoileth the whole lump and are prediposed to not believe the rest either

 

[adrift]

Thankyou

Her truth was her declaring her virginity, all else is assumption.

In context, it is a strange question for a married woman to ask. You can always say it is an assumption but that is just an evasion.

This would infer Mary as the new ark, which is a separate thread.

This to is an evasion. You have said that Jesus left and therefore all was good. Really? I can’t believe you would think so.

How so? Would such devotion allow a 12yr old to be un noticed for a day? ( I do not question a mothers love for her son).

Off topic. But this has to do with the culture. Men and woman did not travel together in a caravan. The children would go with their mother’s. It would have been easy for the parents to assume that Jesus was with the other parent.

Yes the angel would have know Mary was a virgin. Her question remains strange. We don’t have marriage as they did then so it is hard to relate it todays world. But if an angel would appear to a woman in today’s world the night before her marriage and tell her she would have a baby, do you really think she would ask the same question?

Please clarify. Do you accept the Early Fathers?

One more thing, I tried to go to your link but it was so full of ant catholic rhetoric I could not stomach it.

 

[godisgood77]

Yes the angel would have know Mary was a virgin. Her question remains strange. We don’t have marriage as they did then so it is hard to relate it todays world. But if an angel would appear to a woman in today’s world the night before her marriage and tell her she would have a baby, do you really think she would ask the same question?
.

You seem very hung up on this “strange question” argument…Several people have already provided logical and sensical counter arguments.

I don’t find the question strange at all…She was betrothed which is more like today’s engagement than today’s marriage. Prior to visiting with the Angel, she would have expected to marry and be with Joseph as normal. However, we must remember, after learning that Mary was pregnant, Joseph was going to leave her quietly before the marriage was complete. She told him that she was pregnant! Therefore, something about the interaction with the angel told her that her maternity was not going to go the normal course (never mind that she was talking with an angel). So how is the question strange?

This interaction really tells us little about Mary’s celibacy…

 

[aemcpa]

You seem very hung up on this “strange question” argument…Several people have already provided logical and sensical counter arguments.

I don’t find the question strange at all…She was betrothed which is more like today’s engagement than today’s marriage. Prior to visiting with the Angel, she would have expected to marry and be with Joseph as normal. However, we must remember, after learning that Mary was pregnant, Joseph was going to leave her quietly before the marriage was complete. She told him that she was pregnant! Therefore, something about the interaction with the angel told her that her maternity was not going to go the normal course (never mind that she was talking with an angel). So how is the question strange?

This interaction really tells us little about Mary’s celibacy…

All that happened after the fact. Her initial reaction to being told she would conceive and bear a son is the point here. And you are begging the question by assuming “Prior to visiting with the Angel, she would have expected to marry and be with Joseph as normal.” That is precisely the point at contention.

 

[adrift]

All that happened after the fact. Her initial reaction to being told she would conceive and bear a son is the point here. And you are begging the question by assuming “Prior to visiting with the Angel, she would have expected to marry and be with Joseph as normal.” That is precisely the point at contention.

Exactly:thumbsup:

Several people have already provided logical and sensical counter arguments.

Actually no one has provided a logical counter argument. What your post lacks is the perspective that she was married at the time of the Angel’s pronouncement but not yet living with her husband. Joseph was going to** divorce **her quietly.

 

[adrift]

John 7, here His brethren are antagonistic toward Him, not offering friendly advice. And to assume brothers always give the respect due would point to a perfect world Jacob was far from respectful to Esau!!

No they were giving Him advice

3 So his brothers said to him, "Leave here and go to Judea, so that your disciples also may see the works you are doing.

and in their culture that would not be done by younger siblings, older ones yes, younger ones:nope: Where do you find Jacob giving Esau advice?

 

[pocohombre]

In context, it is a strange question for a married woman to ask. You can always say it is an assumption but that is just an evasion.

 

[pocohombre]

No they were giving Him advice and in their culture that would not be done by younger siblings, older ones yes, younger ones:nope: Where do you find Jacob giving Esau advice?

Advice, don’t believe so .While Mary was still “pondering”, they were definitely against, hence the sarcasm.Perhaps the dynamics of many siblings vs one overode the respecting the elder rule. Also, it was now beyond just a family matter, it was a public matter and each now had a right to say something .A bit like David rising up to "public’ challenge from Goliath, where sibling lines disappear and it is now national, racial, religious lines that count.

 

[adrift]

adrift;10781923:

I didn’t know Mary was married before the annunciation. I understand she was “betrothed”, something halfway between engaged and the wedding night, the night of “union”, becoming one.Hence she declared, “I have known no man”. Betrothed-much stronger term than “engaged” but lesser than our modern day “married”.

Betrothed was the first part of marriage. That is why the Angel tells Joseph to take his wife into his home. I have explained it multiple times. Mary was in that part of the marriage where she was waiting for her husband to come and take her to his home. That is why it make not sense for her to ask “how” when she should have been assuming that Joseph was coming unless there was something more. That something more was her vow of virginity. Such a vow would make her question relevant. It is only not wanting to admit that the Catholic Church is right that makes for this to be a strange question which has not been answered keeping in mind that she was married and waiting for Joseph to take her to his home.