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

[adrift]

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.

Since the angel used the future tense why couldn’t and wouldn’t she assume the angel meant down the road with her husband? Of course, this whole episode is about the virgin birth that is why there could be no doubt about it. That is why it couldn’t come after they were living together because than there would be a doubt. That she asks a question about her virginity shows that there was a vow of virginity. Your using chastity as if it meant abstinence from sex, it does not. All married couples should be chaise that is they should be faithful to their spouse.

 

[Erich]

The bibles TOC is not a doctrine! Nor presented as such to require scriptural refutation that i am aware of?

1. I assume you believe that the entire Bible is the inspired word of God. If so, do you believe that the table of contents is also inspired?
2. If you answered that the table of contents is not inspired, to whom do you look for assurance that the Bible you have in hand is complete and inspired by God? Remember - a book cannot authenticate itself. SOMEONE or SOMETHING has to review the book and make a decision regarding its authenticity and completeness. I simply would like to know to whom do you look to for your assurance.
3. Where in the entire NT (you don’t have to really look because it is not present, but feel free to search of you wish) did Christ tell ANYONE to write down what he did and taught while he was alive? Considering Christ did NOT tell anyone to write down what he did and taught, why should we look to something that Christ did not instruct people to do?
4. If you do not believe that Christ entrusted the Holy Catholic Church as the final arbiter as to the canon of the OT and NT, don’t you think it odd that Christ would make no provision for his people to be SURE that what they were reading (that is, the OT and NT as the Catholic Church has passed it down from generation to generation) was in fact God’s divine word? And if you agree that such a thing would be odd, but you disagree with the contention that it was the Catholic Church to whom this duty was entrusted, to whom do you look for such assurance?
5. Finally, if you are discussing a particular scripture verse with someone, and both of you come up with two entirely opposite views on the interpretation of that scripture, to whom do you turn to resolve that dispute? If no one, do you not realize that the failure to recognize the Catholic Church as the final arbiter of disputes over biblical verse, results in NO ONE being able to resolve that difference, and thus you and your friend are “left to the wind” to go through life without ever knowing what might be the true resolution to the dispute?

How can i give clear scriptural basis for something you attest has none? There are many issues the bible doesn’t give clear guidance on, hence my objection to doctrines being built around issues we cant be dogmatic about!

See above… and below.

I suggest you read Matt 19:1-10. Yes i know Christ is dealing with the issue of divorce, but verse 5, “For this cause shall a man leave father and mother,
and shall cleave to his wife:
and they twain shall be one flesh” “Gen. 2.24”
would suggest wife not wives, was Gods ordinance.

(adapted from The Lens in My Eye):

Martin Luther was confronted with the question of whether or not the Landgrave Philip of Hesse, an important official of his day, might enter into a bigamous marriage. When pressed to render a judgment in the matter, Luther (together with Philip Melancthon) concluded that monogamy was no necessary part of the Christian revelation and that polygamy was a legitimate practice for a Christian. In his words: I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in such a matter.
Your suggestion that I read Matt 19:1-10 only proves my point. For such an understanding of our Lord’s words depends entirely on the way in which the Church habitually reads these words, not on the bare text alone. That is, it depends on a Tradition of Monogamy andnot merely on the text. For if we read the text strictly, we find it only speaks of divorce and remarriage. It nowhere forbids men multiple wives if they retain previous ones.

In fact, we are given biblical figures such as Jacob, David and Solomon, all of whom are spoken of with great approval by God himself and none of whom are informed that male polygamy per se is a sin.

There’s more, but you probably get the point.

 

[aemcpa]

The bibles TOC is not a doctrine! Nor presented as such to require scriptural refutation that i am aware of?

Actually, for the Catholic Church it is, having been defined by the Council of Trent. Since you reject the authority of the Catholic Church to make such definitions, what is the basis for your assurance that the 66 books you call the Bible are actually inspired, and that they’re the only ones that are?

 

[pocohombre]

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.

Since the angel used the future tense why couldn’t and wouldn’t she assume the angel meant down the road with her husband? Of course, this whole episode is about the virgin birth that is why there could be no doubt about it. That is why it couldn’t come after they were living together because than there would be a doubt. That she asks a question about her virginity shows that there was a vow of virginity. Your using chastity as if it meant abstinence from sex, it does not. All married couples should be chaise that is they should be faithful to their spouse.Sorry about messing up quotes and chastity may be the wrong word but it can mean obstaining from any sex, lawful or not. The gospel begins telling us she was a virgin, and it does not say anything about a vow, and would not it have been a good time to do so? That some virgins did take vows is one thing, but then to be espoused, get married ? Why ? Why not just stay virgin and single ? Find it strange to make a vow of marriage and abstinence at the same time, and forever. You have made your point well, but I still believe the question from Mary was to show it was out of her hands as far as timing and obedience. (We tell church kids if it isn’t immediate response to a command/wish it is not obedience.How many times do we see in the bible where a saint is told to do something by God and we read that “immediately” they get to it,and if not it is a big deal like Jonah). As a humorous note perhaps she was chiding with the angel as if to say get after Joseph, he has been slacking and is slow and who knows when he will come for me, like people today with long engagements, the man putting off the final committment and the woman complaining).

 

[adrift]

The gospel begins telling us she was a virgin, and it does not say anything about a vow, and would not it have been a good time to do so?

I see the question as saying something about the vow.

That some virgins did take vows is one thing, but then to be espoused, get married ? Why ? Why not just stay virgin and single ? Find it strange to make a vow of marriage and abstinence at the same time, and forever.

Mary would need a protector for a couple of reasons.

1. Women didn’t support themselves. It isn’t like she could go get a job at the local super market or go to school and become a lawyer.
2. Joseph taking her into his home saved her from public scorn. It said to her society that it wasn’t adultery which was punishable by death.

You have made your point well, but I still believe the question from Mary was to show it was out of her hands as far as timing and obedience. (We tell church kids if it isn’t immediate response to a command/wish it is not obedience.How many times do we see in the bible where a saint is told to do something by God and we read that “immediately” they get to it,and if not it is a big deal like Jonah). As a humorous note perhaps she was chiding with the angel as if to say get after Joseph, he has been slacking and is slow and who knows when he will come for me, like people today with long engagements, the man putting off the final committment and the woman complaining).

It was of course out of her hand and in God’s. It interesting your analogy to telling a child what to do. What was Mary being told to do? Nothing it wasn’t in her hands other than to say Yes but that yes came after her question. I like your humorous note. That would made sense if that what she had said. My point has been that she didn’t say anything like that which would have been a normal reaction. Instead, we have a question that is not a normal response for the situation.

 

[Jim19]

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.

Terrible lack of communication between the parents!

:tsktsk: Why do you have to make it a personal attack

Not a personal attack Merely an observation based upon the fact

It seems that because you do not provide a valid reason that I am being discourteous?

I believe i did provide a valid reason! It may not have ticked all your boxes, but that does not make it invalid

You calling the fact that Mary remained always virgin a man made doctrine is courteous?

My calling the doctrine of ever virgin, man made, is neither courteous nor discourteous, it is factual! There is no explicit evidence in scripture to support it.
You calling the doctrine a fact is discourteous to truth, as it is merely fiction.

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.

As i stated previously, valid explanations have been made. It would appear that acceptance would not be forthcoming if one already holds the doctrine to be FACT, and comes from the perspective off,

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

to quote yourself, “The answers I have gotten are from those who cannot see past there own prejudice”. As i have stated on more than one occasion, i am neither fully convinced Mary was ever virgin or that she wasn’t. Much of scripture would imply the Lord Jesus had brothers/sisters. I see no scripture to imply He didn’t, i do see scripture being rendered to support a preconception. Yes many church fathers, catholic/protestant theologians, did embrace the ever virgin doctrine, yet as stated it is not explicit in scripture for either viewpoint, so to hold it as regula fidei, is erroneous.

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

supports itself on assumptions and extra biblical writings??

You asked me " Do you accept the Early Fathers"? The above is still ambiguous.

Can be used in a disparaging context?

Merriam-Webster-(papist adjective, usually disparaging)
Yes, it can be used in a disparaging context, and i readily admit it all too often is.
Yet it can also be used thus, Noun 1. papist - an offensive term for Roman Catholics; originally, a Roman Catholic who was a strong advocate of the papacy
(Based on WordNet 3.0, Farlex clipart collection. © 2003-2012 Princeton University, Farlex Inc).

The article meant it as disparaging.

I neither defend or condemn the writers use of the word, as i cannot be certain as to his context, i lack your insight! But clearly the article is far from disparaging

That you cannot see it only shows where your mind is.

:tsktsk:Why do you have to make it a personal attack

 

[aemcpa]

My calling the doctrine of ever virgin, man made, is neither courteous nor discourteous, it is factual! There is no explicit evidence in scripture to support it. You calling the doctrine a fact is discourteous to truth, as it is merely fiction.

Were you there when she supposedly lost her virginity? Do you have eyewitness testimony, or a document affirming such?

As I posted earlier, this isn’t a theological formulation. It’s an historical fact about a real person who actually lived on our real Earth and who actually never had sex.

You still have not provided the explicit evidence in Scripture for the false doctrine of sola scriptura, or the explicit evidence in Scripture that inerrantly defines the Bible’s table of contents.

 

[Jim19]

Originally Posted by Jim19

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.

As i said, there is no evasion. Because you claim Mary is the new ark,does not make it so. If you wish to start a thread to discuss that, i will be more than happy to contribute to the discussion, once i feel i have reached my limits of (name removed by moderator)ut regarding “sinless” and “ever virgin”

Because like Uzzah could not touch the Ark Joseph would not be able to touch the New Ark.

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:thumbsup:

 

[pablope]

As i said, there is no evasion. Because you claim Mary is the new ark,does not make it so. If you wish to start a thread to discuss that, i will be more than happy to contribute to the discussion, once i feel i have reached my limits of (name removed by moderator)ut regarding “sinless” and “ever virgin”

:

So you know better than the early church fathers who started viewing Mary as indeed the ark?

So you are wiser and better guided by the Holy Spirit than the church council that defined Mary’s perpetual virginity and sinlessness?

So…do you think the Holy Spirit that guided the church council in saying that Mary was sinless and a perpetual virgin…and here you are, 1500 yrs later…you know better than the church council…and the Holy Spirit is guiding you to a different conclusion?

 

[aemcpa]

So you know better than the early church fathers who started viewing Mary as indeed the ark?

So you are wiser and better guided by the Holy Spirit than the church council that defined Mary’s perpetual virginity and sinlessness?

So…do you think the Holy Spirit that guided the church council in saying that Mary was sinless and a perpetual virgin…and here you are, 1500 yrs later…you know better than the church council…and the Holy Spirit is guiding you to a different conclusion?

We all know the Holy Spirit doesn’t guide Church councils, only individual Christians who happen to be fortunate enough to be able to read and to afford a Bible. Never mind that He leads them in thousands of different directions simultaneously.

 

[Jim19]

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.

I do not claim it diminishes the point they were giving advice, only that because they were younger does not mean they adhered to custom. If my older brother (if i had one), was walking about claiming to be God incarnate, it is not improbable for me not to accord him the respect he deserves!

It still shows that they were younger.

I know you only mean that for the sake of your point, so i wont beat that dead horse:thumbsup:

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?

Israel was a theocracy, it was possible customs changed, though i would think it unlikely.
The firstborn would seem to span the generations.

 

[pocohombre]

Mary would need a protector for a couple of reasons.

1. Women didn’t support themselves. It isn’t like she could go get a job at the local super market or go to school and become a lawyer.
2. Joseph taking her into his home saved her from public scorn. It said to her society that it wasn’t adultery which was punishable by death.

 

[Jim19]

Originally Posted by Jim19
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

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.

Hi Its a biblical fact that Christ was virgin born, its a historical fact that many embraced the teaching of ever virgin, if it was as you claim, then this discussion would have been wrapped up a long time ago
I guess its not really a case if i understand why its important, its more a case of where is the importance?

 

[aemcpa]

Hi Its a biblical fact that Christ was virgin born, its a historical fact that many embraced the teaching of ever virgin, if it was as you claim, then this discussion would have been wrapped up a long time ago
I guess its not really a case if i understand why its important, its more a case of where is the importance?

It was wrapped up a long time ago.

 

[Jim19]

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.

It could be argued that having an angelic visitation which caused her to be troubled and fearful, would be enough for anyone to give a reply that would seem strange, when viewed from a calm and untroubled viewpoint!

I believe the above is a credible hypothesis,im not claiming it is correct, it may not satisfy you, but it is credible.
I agree, it doesn’t say anywhere she misspoke because of her fear, claiming she was a virgin was true! But then, i haven’t noticed the post where it is claimed she misspoke.

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.

The above in no way explains Mary being ever virgin. All it seems to declare is a cultic elitism that elevates Mary over Christ. Paul taught many things that were hard to understand, but i guess the Marian understanding mentioned above, was beyond even his ability to expound

 

[Vico]

…

Catholic Encyclopedia gives Genesis 3:15:Only the continual union of Mary with grace explains sufficiently the enmity between her and Satan.
Holweck, F. (1910). Immaculate Conception. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved May 25, 2013 from New Advent:
newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

Genesis 3:15 (Douay)

[15] I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel. [15] She shall crush: Ipsa, the woman; so divers of the fathers read this place, conformably to the Latin: others read it ipsum, viz., the seed. The sense is the same: for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent’s head.
​

 

[pocohombre]

Catholic Encyclopedia gives Genesis 3:15:Only the continual union of Mary with grace explains sufficiently the enmity between her and Satan.
Holweck, F. (1910). Immaculate Conception. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved May 25, 2013 from New Advent:
newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

Genesis 3:15 (Douay)

[15] I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel. [15] She shall crush: Ipsa, the woman; so divers of the fathers read this place, conformably to the Latin: others read it ipsum, viz., the seed. The sense is the same: for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent’s head.
​

The context of Genesis is a conversation between four people, including God. It is Eve’s seed and Satan’s seed that are talked about .The enmity began right there and then in the garden. It did not begin with Mary. Satan has seed,thru humans-hence Jesus calls some sons of Satan. Eve has seed, believers in the promises which began there in the garden, carried thru Abel and Enoch and Abraham, Moses, David down to Joseph and Mary ,seeds by faith going back to Eve, and blood seeds going back to David, he going back to Eve. The enmity is between Satan and believers in God, dating back to the Garden . Furthermore better translations do not say “she” will bruise your head for Christ did that .The KJV says “it” shall bruise thy head, it being Eve’s seed-Christ

 

[Vico]

The context of Genesis is a conversation between four people, including God. It is Eve’s seed and Satan’s seed that are talked about .The enmity began right there and then in the garden. It did not begin with Mary. Satan has seed,thru humans-hence Jesus calls some sons of Satan. Eve has seed, believers in the promises which began there in the garden, carried thru Abel and Enoch and Abraham, Moses, David down to Joseph and Mary ,seeds by faith going back to Eve, and blood seeds going back to David, he going back to Eve. The enmity is between Satan and believers in God, dating back to the Garden . Furthermore better translations do not say “she” will bruise your head for Christ did that .The KJV says “it” shall bruise thy head, it being Eve’s seed-Christ

There is no claim that the enmity began with Mary and the gloss is in agreement with what you said about “it”, yet the sense is the same. [15] She shall crush: Ipsa, the woman; so divers of the fathers read this place, conformably to the Latin: others read it ipsum, viz., the seed. The sense is the same: for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent’s head.
It could easily be re-phrased: Only the continual union of Mary with grace explains sufficiently the enmity between her [seed] and Satan.

Genesis 3:15 was specifically given as the main biblical reference in the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I believe the above is a credible hypothesis,im not claiming it is correct, it may not satisfy you, but it is credible.
I agree, it doesn’t say anywhere she misspoke because of her fear, claiming she was a virgin was true! But then, i haven’t noticed the post where it is claimed she misspoke.

The above in no way explains Mary being ever virgin. All it seems to declare is a cultic elitism that elevates Mary over Christ. Paul taught many things that were hard to understand, but i guess the Marian understanding mentioned above, was beyond even his ability to expound

Mary is not elevated over Christ. She is a perfect CREATURE; Christ is God Almighty. The difference is infinite. The respect we give to a perfect woman is completely different from the respect we give to God.

Let’s suppose that we were all statues created by Michelangelo, one of the greatest sculptors of all time. Let’s suppose we, while remaining marble, or clay, somehow had the capacity to think or reason. We would still be inferior to Michelangelo, of course. He created us, we didn’t create him.

But ONE statue would be the most (comparatively) perfect one, while others might have many good points, some would be indifferent, some would be flawed to the point of being pretty near useless and downright ugly.

If we had the capacity to reason, we would be able to discern which statue was, comparatively among statues, the most beautiful, and to admire accordingly. But that admiration of a fellow statue would be totally unlike the admiration, wonder, joy, gratitude etc that we would give MICHELANGELO, because unlike the other statues, HE was the reason for our existence.

That is an obviously imperfect comparison to the way that Catholic and Orthodox Christians view Mary and Jesus. We honor Mary as the ‘finest’ among us humble creatures, but that honor is nothing like the honor and awe and gratitute and admiration etc etc we give to God who created all of us.

 

[adrift]

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:thumbsup:

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