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

[adrift]

Advice, don’t believe so .While Mary was still “pondering”, they were definitely against, hence the sarcasm.

I see no sarcasm and I see no mention of Mary. Explain why it is sarcasm? They didin’t believe in Jesus but that doesn’t make it sarcasm.

Perhaps the dynamics of many siblings vs one overode the respecting the elder rule.

Nope would make no difference.

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.

Nope this doesn’t work either.

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.

they told Jesus to leave and go to Judea. Being public as you say would only make it more likely that this advise, would be given by older not younger according to the custom of this society.

 

[godisgood77]

Nope would make no difference.

Nope this doesn’t work either.
.

These are pretty powerful arguments…you must be right…so authoritative!

 

[adrift]

These are pretty powerful arguments…you must be right…so authoritative!

:bowdown:

 

[Jim19]

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.

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

Hi Her declaration of her virginity was truth. I dont think it is a strange question to ask given the circumstances, I gave a hypothesis as to the possible reason, I can see why you say it was a strange question also, and believe your hypothesis is equally valid. Yet both are assumptions, to state this is not an evasion.

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.

Your statement was…

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.

My reply was…

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

I fail to see any evasion on my part!

Off topic.

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).

Maybe, but i merely replied to what was quoted:shrug:

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.

But this has to do with the culture.

Men and woman did not travel together in a caravan.

Luke 2:43,44 43 “And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned , the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it. 44 But they, supposing him to have been in the company, went a day’s journey; and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance”.
Your quote may be correct regarding culture, but the scripture verse does not imply they traveled separately, but rather would give the impression they did. But there is no sense pursuing this

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.

??? If the children travel with the mother, why would the parents assume 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?

Was not aware the angel appeared the night b4 the marriage (the night b4 Joseph took her to his own home). You gave a hypothesis on why you say Mary made the declaration she did, i also gave a hypothesis and am sure others could give ones equally as valid. I do not reject yours as a valid hypothesis, it would seem that you cannot return the same courtesy and cannot see past your own.

Please clarify. Do you accept the Early Fathers?

Your question is ambiguous, clarification as to what you mean is required! (do i believe there were? do i accept all their teachings)? etc. And as you say, its off topic

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

I assume you refer to biblestudytools.com/comme…kiel-44-2.html ?
I see the commentator used the word “papist”, once. I agree it can be used in a disparaging context, and also to describe one who is a strong advocate of the papacy. The context applied by the commentator i cannot verify! The link was given in support of other opinions as to the rendering of the verse only. I think you have flung the baby out with the bathwater on this one, but leave to others to judge if your comment is off the Richter scale and without foundation!

 

[Jim19]

No they were giving Him advice and in their culture that would not be done by younger siblings, older ones yes, younger ones:nope:

You quoted V3 only, i think quoting more gives a fuller feel! ( as my late Pastor was wont to say, “if you quote the text out of context, you make it a pretext”)
"3 His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest.

4 For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world.

5 For neither did his brethren believe in him."

Verse 5 would incline me to believe they were being far from charitable in their advice, (perhaps antagonistic is too strong a term) and if this rendition of Mark 3: 21 was applied " 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 would add credence. But leaving that aside and just looking at it as “brotherly advice”, because it was “disrespectful for a younger brother but not for an older brother”, as you stated, does not detract from my reply “And to assume brothers always give the respect due would point to a perfect world”.

Where do you find Jacob giving Esau advice?

I never said he did!! I said “Jacob was far from respectful to Esau”!! to show that younger brothers (even in biblical times), don’t always bow down to custom

 

[pismopal]

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.

I think there is more to it than an assumption. I don’t think it is necessary to prove it but I read the testimony somewhere that a person close to her stated she remained a virgin for life and I for one believe it because the church…2000 years old has declared it to be true and the Church has heard the evidence. Another of the many reasons that I am Catholic…your mileage may vary.

 

[Jim19]

Actually no one has provided a logical counter argument.

In reference to godisgood77’s quote
" Several people have already provided logical and sensical counter arguments".
I believe there is accuracy, It would seem that for yourself no other argument would suffice, as you seem to come from the bent that only yours/the catholic church’s is right,and nothing anyone else says will shake you from that perch!

( It is only not wanting to admit that the Catholic Church is right)

Again i say, yes your hypothesis is credible, but far from conclusive!
It is your prerogative to be inflexible in the lack of such evidence

At the moment, i feel i can add little more on the “ever virgin” topic due to its inconclusiveness and as far as i can see pointless doctrine, but as this thread also embraces “without sin”, if any would like to pursue this further i would be happy to engage. I have previously posted on this thread regarding this subject; see #54. I think it was my first post so it will all need to be read to separate my comments from Della’s as i did not use any quote function etc. For a double barreled thread, it has been most singular

 

[pismopal]

Jim
Just a ps…go to “Mary,ever virgin” at Catholic Answers and you will have a better answer than my feeble effort. Another thought…if it was necessary for her to be a virgin before, would not there be some importance to remaining so? She did have a choice at either side of the event.

 

[Jim19]

I think there is more to it than an assumption. I don’t think it is necessary to prove it but I read the testimony somewhere that a person close to her stated she remained a virgin for life and I for one believe it because the church…2000 years old has declared it to be true and the Church has heard the evidence. Another of the many reasons that I am Catholic…your mileage may vary.

Hi You may be right in thinking it is more than assumption, but as i have said, i probably have a foot in both camps!
But i believe it is necessary to prove , if it is to be elevated above “assumption”, until conclusive proof is provided (which, as far as i can see, is improbable for both views), it is no more than assumption.
Someone may have testified on her remaining a virgin, i dont know! but can the validity of the testimony be corroborated? I am aware that many church fathers/theologians, both “catholic” and “protestant”, do hold to Mary being ever virgin, but

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!

Or indeed add to the church!
Yes the catholic church has declared it to be true, but i believe it is a doctrine not a dogma, (not 100% on that one), but there has been declarations/beliefs held by the catholic church that have been discarded in the past eg, limbus infantum.
Whilst the doctrine of ever virgin by itself could be viewed as “harmless”, we need to be aware that the entering in of doctrines that have no sound biblical basis was earnestly opposed by Paul and others, and have also given rise to such as mormonism, jw’s etc

 

[Jim19]

Jim
Just a ps…go to “Mary,ever virgin” at Catholic Answers and you will have a better answer than my feeble effort. Another thought…if it was necessary for her to be a virgin before, would not there be some importance to remaining so? She did have a choice at either side of the event.

Hi i will have a look.
I can see where it was necessary for her to be a virgin (to fulfill the Word of God), Isaiah 7:14,
If there is any scriptural evidence to support the importance of her remaining so, i must admit i have never come across any, nor been pointed to any. It may be that there is, and i am just ignorant of it. I am no theologian or bible scholar and readily admit my scriptural knowledge could easily be classed as feeble also.
I am just a sinner saved by grace, and seeking to “grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen”.2 Peter 3:18:thumbsup:

 

[Jim19]

Originally Posted by Della
The Bible is not a book of doctrines/dogmas. It has no list of approved teachings about any topic. To try to use it like that is to misapply and misinterpret what the authors of the various books were trying to convey to us. You must divest yourself of the “Sola Scriptura” mentality, which was one of the inventions of the reformers and not believed or taught up until they decided to use the Bible as it had never been used before. A great book, that you can read online on the topic: Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church by Right Rev. Henry G. Graham

Granted, the bible has no “list”, but i believe 2Tim 3:16 would refute the above statement.

As to the verse you cited, if “everyone” is to be taken literally, it would mean that Jesus sinned, as well. Since that is ridiculous, we must ask: “What was St. Paul saying?” not “What does this verse say taken out of context?” Yes? St. Paul was discussing the grafting in of Gentile believers into Israel through Christ. He was saying that Jews and Gentiles alike are born into sin. He was not discussing Mary nor Jesus’s births or conceptions. Many non-Catholic groups cite this verse because is “seems” to say that Mary was born a sinner, but that is not what the text is discussing at all. There are many places in Scripture in which the word “all” is used in which is it not all encompassing, but rather refers only to certain persons/groups. This is where proper biblical exegesis needs to be applied.

Rom 3:23, Yes Paul was asserting both Jews/gentiles were sinners, and to take the verse literally would not mean that Christ was a sinner, as it seems the latter part of the verse “and come short of the glory of God”, is never taken into account. Christ was/is God, therefore He never sinned and couldn’t come short of His own glory! Scripture testifies that Christ was without sin, 2Cor 5:21, 1Pet 2:22, 1John 3:5, and concludes that all else were under sin Gal 3:22, Rom 5:12, Ps 14:3.
If you read Rom 3:9 onward, it is clear that indeed Paul is declaring all as sinners, (Christ excluded as ratified by scripture) and that verse 23, is not being taken “out of context” and a “proper biblical exegesis”, would confirm that “all” in this case means “all”!
Holy Ghost, inspired scripture, is not silent on the sinlessness of Christ, is not silent on the sinfullness of man, but is deafingly silent on the assumed sinlessness of Mary!!

Non-Catholics groups, such as the JWs love to quote passages out of context with the assumptoin that what they are saying is supported by them. But again, this is poor exegesis. Firstly, theologians and Bible scholars are free to speculate about any teaching/topic until the Church speaks definitely on it. This does not mean that the Church ever supported their speculations. The final say is with the Magisterium, not with theologians/scholars/bishops or priests speaking on their own. Also others have explained what “brothers and sisters” meant in this context, so I won’t go into that again.

I agree wholeheartedly that JW’s and other groups quote scripture out of context and would build a doctrine therein, but equally as speculative or maybe even more so is to build a doctrine or assert a dogma, that is without any scriptural support but would appear to be contrary to scripture.

I make reference to " theologians and Bible scholars are free to speculate about any teaching/topic until the Church speaks definitely on it. This does not mean that the Church ever supported their speculations. The final say is with the Magisterium". In Acts 17:11, the Bereans did not automatically accept the teachings of Paul, but searched the scriptures for Authority.

Whilst i cannot be dogmatic that “brothers and sisters”, refers to the actual children of Mary, the greek word Adelphos, (brethren), used in Matt 12:46, Mk 3:31 and Luke 8:19, can mean countryman,half brother etc. It is also used to explicitly mean brothers from the same father/mother, Mat 4:18, Acts 7:13 etc. So to strictly apply the former rendition and build a doctrine around it, is fall into the very trap that you so rightly warned against!
Especially in the light of Matt 13: 55,56,57 and Mark 6:3,4, where the Greek word for sister, (Adelphe), is as far as i can ascertain used in reference to a family member/ direct sister. Exegetically, the weight of scripture would seem to point to Mary not being “ever virgin”.

Finally, everything the Church teaches about Mary is not to exalt her, per se. It may do that, but that’s not its primary function. Marian teachings, like all the Church’s teachings, tell us things about Christ, our place before God, and our duty to others. Certainly we love Mary, we ought to love all our brethren in Christ, non-Catholics, non-Christians, indeed, everyone. We honor her most especially for her fiat and her faithfulness. Think how hard it would have been for her if she had not been prepared by God for her very special mission as the Mother of God. Hers were sufferings and trials of the most unique kind–ones other mothers will never have to go through. Why? Because her Son was the Son of God and the Son of man. God prepared her for her special mission by preserving her from original sin, thus keeping her free of concupiscence (the desire to sin) because she was the Second Eve and the Ark of the New Covenant who conceived and bore in her womb the Christ of God.

Also finally, i do hold Mary to be blessed of God and to rightly hold a special place in our hearts as the mother of Jesus. (As an aside, i would consider your statement “preserving her from original sin, thus keeping her free of concupiscence (the desire to sin)”, as initially in the garden, both Adam and Eve where without original sin, yet the desire to sin still overcame them).

 

[adrift]

Hi Her declaration of her virginity was truth. I don’t think it is a strange question to ask given the circumstances, I gave a hypothesis as to the possible reason, I can see why you say it was a strange question also, and believe your hypothesis is equally valid. Yet both are assumptions, to state this is not an evasion.

No use in beating a dead horse.

??? If the children travel with the mother, why would the parents assume Jesus was with the other parent

In my hast to not go into something that could be off topic I didn’t explain everything. Children would go with their mothers. Jesus being 12 was at an in between age. Joseph would still be thinking of Him as a child who would travel with His mother and Mary would expect Him to be traveling with the men.

Was not aware the angel appeared the night b4 the marriage (the night b4 Joseph took her to his own home). You gave a hypothesis on why you say Mary made the declaration she did, i also gave a hypothesis and am sure others could give ones equally as valid. I do not reject yours as a valid hypothesis, it would seem that you cannot return the same courtesy and cannot see past your own.

:tsktsk: Why do you have to make it a personal attack It seems that because you do not provide a valid reason that I am being discourteous? You calling the fact that Mary remained always virgin a man made doctrine is courteous? When I get something valid that would explain why Mary said she was virgin so how could she get pregnant when she was married awaiting her husband, I would accept it. BUT that has not happened. The answers I have gotten are from those who cannot see past there own prejudice.

Your question is ambiguous, clarification as to what you mean is required! (do i believe there were? do i accept all their teachings)? etc. And as you say, its off topic

supports itself on assumptions and extra biblical writings??

I wondered if you meant the Church Fathers here as bolded.

I assume you refer to biblestudytools.com/comme…kiel-44-2.html ?
I see the commentator used the word “papist”, once. I agree it can be used in a disparaging context, and also to describe one who is a strong advocate of the papacy. The context applied by the commentator i cannot verify! The link was given in support of other opinions as to the rendering of the verse only. I think you have flung the baby out with the bathwater on this one, but leave to others to judge if your comment is off the Richter scale and without foundation!

Can be used in a disparaging context?
Merriam-Webster

papist adjective, usually disparaging

The article meant it as disparaging. That you cannot see it only shows where your mind is.

 

[adrift]

Your statement was…
Quote:
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.

My reply was…
Quote:
This would infer Mary as the new ark, which is a separate thread

I fail to see any evasion on my part!

Because you don’t address the point which is Because Mary is the New Ark like the old she would not be touched. Because like Uzzah could not touch the Ark Joseph would not be able to touch the New Ark.

 

[adrift]

You quoted V3 only, i think quoting more gives a fuller feel! ( as my late Pastor was wont to say, “if you quote the text out of context, you make it a pretext”)
"3 His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest.

4 For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world.

5 For neither did his brethren believe in him."

Verse 5 would incline me to believe they were being far from charitable in their advice, (perhaps antagonistic is too strong a term) and if this rendition of Mark 3: 21 was applied " 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 would add credence. But leaving that aside and just looking at it as “brotherly advice”, because it was “disrespectful for a younger brother but not for an older brother”, as you stated, does not detract from my reply “And to assume brothers always give the respect due would point to a perfect world”.

I never said he did!! I said “Jacob was far from respectful to Esau”!! to show that younger brothers (even in biblical times), don’t always bow down to custom

Your quotes of the Scripture does not diminish the point that they were giving advice. It doesn’t matter if they believed or were being charitable. It still shows that they were younger. I wondered about Jacob as I am not certain that the society was the same. How many generations and customs changed between Jacob and Jesus?

 

[aemcpa]

Hi i will have a look.
I can see where it was necessary for her to be a virgin (to fulfill the Word of God), Isaiah 7:14,
If there is any scriptural evidence to support the importance of her remaining so, i must admit i have never come across any, nor been pointed to any. It may be that there is, and i am just ignorant of it. I am no theologian or bible scholar and readily admit my scriptural knowledge could easily be classed as feeble also.
I am just a sinner saved by grace, and seeking to “grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen”.2 Peter 3:18:thumbsup:

This is an historical fact, not a theological formulation. Even if you don’t understand why it’s important that she was ever-virgin, she was a real person who in actual fact never had sex in her whole life.

 

[adrift]

In reference to godisgood77’s quote
" Several people have already provided logical and sensical counter arguments".
I believe there is accuracy, It would seem that for yourself no other argument would suffice, as you seem to come from the bent that only yours/the catholic church’s is right,and nothing anyone else says will shake you from that perch!
Again i say, yes your hypothesis is credible, but far from conclusive!
It is your prerogative to be inflexible in the lack of such evidence

At the moment, i feel i can add little more on the “ever virgin” topic due to its inconclusiveness and as far as i can see pointless doctrine, but as this thread also embraces “without sin”, if any would like to pursue this further i would be happy to engage. I have previously posted on this thread regarding this subject; see #54. I think it was my first post so it will all need to be read to separate my comments from Della’s as i did not use any quote function etc. For a double barreled thread, it has been most singular

No one has provided an answer to why a married women would ask the question. They dance around twisting here and there but they do not answer that question. It isn’t that no answer would suffice but that question is never answered. They go to “well the angel meant right away” and when it is pointed out that if she intended to have a normal relationship that wouldn’t make sense. A come back is that is is a credible hypothesis Another one was that she was frightened by the Angel. That one fails too because no where does it say that she misspoke because of her fear.

There was a really good post that it explains it all. I will repost it.

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG
I’d like to chime in from an Orthodox point of view.

Mary is not prominent in Scripture. You can see more references of St. Peter and St. Paul. She disappears from Scripture after Acts, and very early on in Acts. The thing is, understanding Mary is not easy for someone who is not within the Church. She is the symbol of a true Christian, and until you understand what a Christian is, Mary does not make sense. So when we preach, we preach about Christ and his life and death and resurrection. We talk about Christ as the man, the teacher, the prophet, and our God. But only once one becomes truly a Christian can one enter our church and know about Mary.

 

[adrift]

hold to Mary being ever virgin, but
Or indeed add to the church!
Yes the catholic church has declared it to be true, but i believe it is a doctrine not a dogma, (not 100% on that one), but there has been declarations/beliefs held by the catholic church that have been discarded in the past eg, limbus infantum.
Whilst the doctrine of ever virgin by itself could be viewed as “harmless”, we need to be aware that the entering in of doctrines that have no sound biblical basis was earnestly opposed by Paul and others, and have also given rise to such as mormonism, jw’s etc

Limbo was never taught as a dogma.

 

[pocohombre]

pocohombre;10784030:

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.

From my understanding it could take up to a year between betrothal and actual “union”. I don’t think we know their timeline, and we can not assume the final “union” was to be soon, as in “tomorrow”. If it was soon, Joseph could just take her and the baby would be born about 9 months later, and their would be no fornication problem, no one could say that Jesus was “illegitimate”, or born out of wedlock. It would lead to suppose that the pregnancy began much before the scheduled wedding night, up to a year earlier. Hence the problem for Joseph. If he moved the wedding union up, and the baby came exactly 9 months later or sooner, people would figure it out. Again Mary was not “married”, as you insist on saying. If she indeed had married, finalized the deal, but both taking the vow of chastity, then the question makes sense. But this had not occurred. The time for chastity in marriage had not come yet. They were not married yet, as we know the term today. She was in “waiting”…True, no one can answer your “hypothesis”, but with another one, and in the end, neither side has “answered”(proved). Only faith can attain this.

 

[adrift]

From my understanding it could take up to a year between betrothal and actual “union”.

My understanding too.

I don’t think we know where their timeline, and we can not assume the final “union” was to be soon, as in “tomorrow”.

You are right we don’t know. We do know that it was the first part of the marriage and that she would be waiting for Joseph to come. The angels announcement should have meant to Mary that his coming was about to happen.

If it was soon, Jospeh could just take her and the baby would be born about 9 months later, and their would be no fornication problem, no one could say that Jesus was “illegitimate”, or born out of wedlock.

Since they were married this is a moot point.

It would lead to suppose that the pregnancy began much before the scheduled wedding night, up to a year earlier. Hence the problem for Joseph. If he moved the wedding union up, and the baby came exactly 9 months later or sooner, people would figure it out.

You have got me lost here. I am not sure of your point. As you said earlier, we have not idea where they were in the first part of their marriage. But the fact that Mary was waiting for Joseph to take her into his home does make her statement at the very least odd.

 

[pocohombre]

Since they were married this is a moot point.

But the fact that Mary was waiting for Joseph to take her into his home does make her statement at the very least odd.Understand . To me it makes sense cause she is telling the angel I am still in waiting, and sorry I can not get pregnant yet .She did not want to say no and she can not assume the angel meant down the road when Joseph takes you in, hence my time has not come yet , or “I have known no man”. I like it cause that scripture might be fulfilled that “a virgin should conceive”. Furthermore, had they been chaste with a vow, the angel could have come at any time after the “taking in” or finalizing the marriage and caused less of a problem for Joseph.That the angel came much before the “union” date shows they had no vow of chastity, at least in my opinion.