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

[adrift]

I think it’s reasonable to assume that a person who is engaged and about to be married would think more like:

You’re going to have a baby.
Oh, cool, I’m going to get pregnant on my wedding night!
/scene

Your right. But Mary and Joseph were not engaged they were married. Betrothed did not mean an engagement but the period of time after the marriage that a couple did not live together this period of time could last up to a year. We do not know where Joseph and Mary were in this period. The woman would not know when the husband would come. Jesus used this in the parable of the ten wise and foolish virgins. Since Mary wouldn’t have known when Joseph would arrive she would have assumed that the angel was telling her it would be imminent.

 

[aemcpa]

Your right. But Mary and Joseph were not engaged they were married. Betrothed did not mean an engagement but the period of time after the marriage that a couple did not live together this period of time could last up to a year. We do not know where Joseph and Mary were in this period. The woman would not know when the husband would come. Jesus used this in the parable of the ten wise and foolish virgins. Since Mary wouldn’t have known when Joseph would arrive she would have assumed that the angel was telling her it would be imminent. Instead she asks a very strange question, strange only if you assume she is asking only about sex.

I was responding to the post about the “modern translation”. The closest modern analogy is a woman about to be married.

 

[adrift]

I was responding to the post about the “modern translation”. The closest modern analogy is a woman about to be married.

You are right of course. No matter how you look at it. It is a strange response if you try to ignore the obvious.

 

[The_Serpent]

If it is so important that Mary was sinless why doesn’t the bible just come out and say it. The New Catholic Encyclopedia 1967, Vol. VII, pp. 378-381 acknowledges “…the Immaculate Conception is not taught explicitly in Scripture… The earliest Church Fathers regarded Mary as holy but not as absolutely sinless… It is impossible to give a precise date when the belief was held as a matter of faith, but by the 8th or 9th century it seems to have been generally admitted…” The bible says “Well then, sin entered the world through one man [Adam}, and through sin death, and thus death has spread through the whole human race because everyone has sinned.” (Rom. 5:12, JB)

How do we know that she remained a virgin after Jesus was born? The New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967, Vol. IX, p. 337) regarding the Greek words a-del-phoi’ and a-del-phai’, used at Matthew 13:55, 56, that these “have the meaning of full blood brother and sister in the Greek speaking world of the Evangelist’s time and would naturally be taken by his Greek reader in this sense. Toward the end of the 4th century Helvidius in a work now lost pressed this fact in order to attribute to Mary other children besides Jesus so as to make her a model for mothers of larger families. St. Jerome, motivated by the Church’s traditional faith in Mary’s perpetual virginity, wrote a tract against Helvidius in which he developed an explanation… that is still in vogue among Catholic scholars”
Mark 3:31-35, JB: His mother and brothers now arrived and, standing outside, sent in a message asking for him. A crowd was sitting round him at the time the message was passed to him, ‘Your mother and brothers and sisters are outside asking for you. He replied, Who are my mothers and my brothers? And looking round at those sitting in a circle about him, he said, Here are my mothers and my brothers. Anyone who does the will of God, that person in my brother and sister and mother.’ " (here a clear distincion is drawn between Jesus’ natural brothers and his spiritual brothers, his disciples.

All this information comes from “Reasoning from the Scriptures” published by Jehovah’s Witnesses
Where in the bible does it say that Mary was a perfect virgin for all her life. If everyone sins wouldn’t she too be a sinner. And if she was married, wouldn’t she be aloud to have relations with her husband? I am converting to the Catholic faith and this is one of the things I need answered sense it is a very big deal in the Church. Thank you

John of Damascus, (Born ~ 650A.D.) says Mary was a Virgin before giving birth, while, and after the Lords birth. Her calls her Ever Virgin. You can read a book about her here: svspress.com/wider-than-heaven-eighth-century-homilies-on-the-mother-of-god/


[/quote]

 

[TomFromMD]

They weren’t? That is exactly the stage of marriage they
were in. Mary was waiting for Joseph to come and take her to his home.

You’re assuming she had no clue when Joseph would do this.

That is exactly the problem it is todays mindset. In other words, you are committing a fallacy of anachronism.

You ignore that she just doesn’t say I am not having sex with Joseph. She doesn’t even mention her husband but no sex with anyone.

She’s using an idiom. That idiom means “I am a virgin/I am one that has not had sex (past/present)”. Not “I am a consecrated virgin” or “I have not, and will not ever have sex (past/present/future)”. If you could find a translation that says that, I’d love to see it. If you look at the dynamic translations that translate the idiom (rather than the individual words), you’ll see that they all either say “since I am a virgin”, “I have no husband”, or " I’ve never had sex". If you look at the tense of the words in Greek, you’ll see that it’s present.

Here are 20 translations, none of which support the idea that she’s making a statement about her planned perpetual virginity.

biblehub.com/luke/1-34.htm

Secondly, I suggested that Mary may have took the angel to mean that this was imminent. And in fact, the text suggests that it was imminent! For immediately after the angel leaves her, the next sentence has her going to visit Elizabeth, who recognizes that she’s pregnant with Jesus. And the text describing when this occurred in Greek is “in the days this”, which is translated as “at that time”, “a few days later”, “soon afterward”, or “in those days”.

Greek word-by-word translation:biblehub.com/text/luke/1-39.htm
Several English translations: biblehub.com/text/luke/1-39.htm

I’m not saying that Mary wasn’t ever-virgin. That’s the ancient teaching of the Church, and I accept it. I’m just saying that yours isn’t the only possible logical interpretation of this text. And to claim that any other reading is illogical is kind of silly, considering that a good chunk of the Sola Scriptura crowd disagrees with you.

 

[adrift]

You’re assuming she had no clue when Joseph would do this.

Actually, that was the custom. The woman didn’t know when her husband would come to take his wife into his home. The parable of the ten wise virgins demonstrate this.

She’s using an idiom. That idiom means “I am a virgin/I am one that has not had sex (past/present)”. Not “I am a consecrated virgin” or “I have not, and will not ever have sex (past/present/future)”. If you could find a translation that says that, I’d love to see it. If you look at the dynamic translations that translate the idiom (rather than the individual words), you’ll see that they all either say “since I am a virgin”, “I have no husband”, or " I’ve never had sex". If you look at the tense of the words in Greek, you’ll see that it’s present.

So? It avoids the fact that the question is strange from a married woman.

Here are 20 translations, none of which support the idea that she’s making a statement about her planned perpetual virginity.

All have the same problem as being a strange statement from a married woman.

Secondly, I suggested that Mary may have took the angel to mean that this was imminent. And in fact, the text suggests that it was imminent! For immediately after the angel leaves her, the next sentence has her going to visit Elizabeth, who recognizes that she’s pregnant with Jesus. And the text describing when this occurred in Greek is “in the days this”, which is translated as “at that time”, “a few days later”, “soon afterward”, or “in those days”.

The angel words dispute that it is an imminent time.
In the Greek the tense of the angel is future.

A married woman would not say I don’t have sex but would assume that her husband was taking her to his home soon. But no she isn’t asking about Joseph she is asking something else. How soon she went to see Elizabeth is irrelevant.

I’m not saying that Mary wasn’t ever-virgin. That’s the ancient teaching of the Church, and I accept it. I’m just saying that yours isn’t the only possible logical interpretation of this text. And to claim that any other reading is illogical is kind of silly, considering that a good chunk of the Sola Scriptura crowd disagrees with you.

You have not given a logical interpretation. Nor has any sola scriptura crowd because they cannot address logically why a married woman would say that she was did not have sex with a man. You have not addressed the point that she didn’t even mention Joseph

 

[TomFromMD]

Actually, that was the custom. The woman didn’t know when her husband would come to take his wife into his home. The parable of the ten wise virgins demonstrate this.

It would be after he had prepared it. To claim that she could not possibly have known it was not imminent is conjecture. He was a carpenter, and he was not in his homeland. Perhaps he was building a house. To claim that she MUST have had no idea is conjecture.

The angel words dispute that it is an imminent time.
In the Greek the tense of the angel is future.

This is incorrect in two ways. First, “imminent” is still “future”. If I say “I’m going to clap my hands in 2 seconds”, I’ve spoken in the future tense (“going to clap” vs. “am clapping”), but it’s certainly imminent. Second, the conception was imminent, as the text suggests. She was pregnant when she visited Elizabeth. The Greek idiom used suggests that happened in short order. Quite possibly, she conceived the moment she stated " Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word".

 

[adrift]

It would be after he had prepared it. To claim that she could not possibly have known it was not imminent is conjecture. He was a carpenter, and he was not in his homeland. Perhaps he was building a house. To claim that she MUST have had no idea is conjecture.

What in the world are you writing about? What would be after he prepared it? You are speaking of Joseph? He wasn’t in his homeland? Joseph’s homeland was Israel. The only time he left it was after Jesus was born. If you are speaking of Mary knowing when Joseph would come, than the conjecture is yours. But really this is a red herring as it would still make her question strange because she was in that part of her marriage waiting for her husband to come for her. She doesn’t mention anything about her husband which is strange.

This is incorrect in two ways. First, “imminent” is still “future”. If I say “I’m going to clap my hands in 2 seconds”, I’ve spoken in the future tense (“going to clap” vs. “am clapping”), but it’s certainly imminent.

What this doesn’t show is that Mary thought it was imminent. The angel spoke of a future event so why would Mary think it would happen that very second. Nothing stated indicates that she thought it would certainly not by the future tense that the angel used.

Second, the conception was imminent, as the text suggests. She was pregnant when she visited Elizabeth. The Greek idiom used suggests that happened in short order. Quite possibly, she conceived the moment she stated " Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word".

Not it doesn’t. Because she was pregnant when she visited Elizabeth does not indicate that Mary knew that what the angel said was going to happen immediately. I would also state we don’t know when it happened. My belief like you stated it happened when Mary said “yes” and that was** after **her question and the answer by the angel.

What is never answered logically is

1. Why a married woman would ask this question?
2. Why she doesn’t mention her husband?

 

[godisgood77]

What is never answered logically is

1. Why a married woman would ask this question?
2. Why she doesn’t mention her husband?

I’m confused…you’re not trying to argue that Mary was married to Joseph when she said “…I know not man”…that would obviously be absurd.

 

[adrift]

I’m confused…you’re not trying to argue that Mary was married to Joseph when she said “…I know not man”…that would obviously be absurd.

But in fact she was married to Joseph. She was in the first part of marriage which was called “betrothed”. This was the part of marriage that a couple was married but did not live together. You see this reflected as I have said more than once in the parable of the foolish and wise woman. This period lasted about a year in which time the wife prepared to take over the duties of her husbands household. The husband would prepare a place for them to live.
Note Matthew 1

Notice what is said in Matthew 1 Joseph is Identified as her husband and the angel tells Joseph to take his wife into his home thereby completing the second part of the marriage.

19 And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.20 But when he thought on these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.

What is absurd is applying todays meaning and culture on a different time and culture.

 

[snarflemike]

I think it would be useful to insert a reminder here that the Catholic Church does not look to the bible to find her doctrines. Her doctrines come directly from Christ, as given to the apostles. So there is no point in arguing whether the bible says that Mary was forever virgin. Some can read it one way, some can read it another, but the Church will never say “OK, we’re going to reverse ourselves on a doctrine because of what the bible says.” The Church knew what was in the bible (and a lot more) before the books of the bible were ever written.

 

[eamonnroma]

I think it would be useful to insert a reminder here that the Catholic Church does not look to the bible to find her doctrines. Her doctrines come directly from Christ, as given to the apostles. So there is no point in arguing whether the bible says that Mary was forever virgin. Some can read it one way, some can read it another, but the Church will never say “OK, we’re going to reverse ourselves on a doctrine because of what the bible says.” The Church knew what was in the bible (and a lot more) before the books of the bible were ever written.

I think you will find that most of the doctrines of the Church were formulated by the Church Councils long after the deaths of the apostles

 

[davidmlamb]

According to scripture Christ was born of a virgin. Yes

However there is no scriptural evidence that she remained a virgin. In fact the Gospels even suggest that she was not.

Why is it important that she remained a virgin? After all sex and procreation in marriage is considered one of God’s greatest gifts.

When the Angel Gabriel appeared to Mary, she was betrothed to Joseph yet she asked the Gabriel how was it possible that she could conceive since she has never known a man. Why would Mary ask that question if she was planning on having normal marital relations with Joseph? She would have reasoned that she would have conceived on her wedding night and never asked the question to begin with. But she asked the question because she had already pledged her perpetual virginity to God. Eastern Catholic Tradition teaches that Joseph was a much older man and a widower with grown children from a previous wife who died. Joseph was of the house of David and was chosen by God to take Mary as his wife so that the child Jesus could grow up with a mother and a human father. Christian antiquities supports this tradition. .

Peace,

David

 

[snarflemike]

I think you will find that most of the doctrines of the Church were formulated by the Church Councils long after the deaths of the apostles

Based upon the deposit of faith the apostles received from Christ.

 

[adrift]

I think you will find that most of the doctrines of the Church were formulated by the Church Councils long after the deaths of the apostles

I am not certain what you mean by formulated? Would you please explain?

 

[TomFromMD]

What in the world are you writing about? What would be after he prepared it? You are speaking of Joseph? He wasn’t in his homeland? Joseph’s homeland was Israel.

His ancestral home was Bethlehem, in Judea. He was living in Nazareth, in Galilee.

If you are speaking of Mary knowing when Joseph would come, than the conjecture is yours.

I spoke of the possibility. It is you who are positing that there is only one possible logical reading of the text.

But really this is a red herring as it would still make her question strange because she was in that part of her marriage waiting for her husband to come for her.

At some point, yes.

What is never answered logically is

1. Why a married woman would ask this question?
2. Why she doesn’t mention her husband?

1)We don’t know. Luke doesn’t say. He doesn’t say that she was a consecrated virgin (which is not Catholic dogma). It could be that, though it’s kind of a big story point for Luke to have left out. It could be some difference in understanding about exactly when conception occurred (not how, but when). She might have thought that the angel was indicating that she already had sex, and going to conceive. It could be that she thought the angel was talking about something that was imminent, in a way that she know Joseph’s coming wasn’t. It could be something else that I’m not thinking of. I’m not the one arguing that there’s only one possible logical reading.
2) Beats me. If she thought that the angel was implying that she was not currently a virgin, it wouldn’t be relevant.

 

[adrift]

I spoke of the possibility. It is you who are positing that there is only one possible logical reading of the text.

No one has logically provided a reason for her question keeping in mind

1. The customs of the day.
2. The circumstances that existed
3. What Mary said

Mary is not a single woman. She is married. I like how davidmlamb phrased it so I will repost his statement

Why would Mary ask that question if she was planning on having normal marital relations with Joseph? She would have reasoned that she would have conceived on her wedding night and never asked the question to begin with.

You want to say that there is a logical way to read it differently. BUT only if you ignore the 3 things I have stated than it is no longer logical. What logically cannot be answered is the question davidmlamb has posted. The question which I have asked numerous times not only in this thread but others is why didn’t she mention Joseph.

The Angel is coming with a message from God. I doubt that the angel didn’t know what was going on especially in light of the answer he gave Mary. This line of thinking is grasping at straws and not logical.

The only reason that this is disputed is anti catholicism.

 

[Jim19]

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 where 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!!

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”.

When a person is in RCIA and knows little about Church teaching, it’s not a good idea to go to non-Catholic sources for information about Church teachings. The objections they raise have all been answered a million times over. You need to read competent Catholic sources.

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).

 

[aemcpa]

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).

Hence the analogy of the Fathers, calling Mary the second Eve.

 

[Jim19]

No one has logically provided a reason for her question keeping in mind

1. The customs of the day.
2. The circumstances that existed
3. What Mary said

Mary is not a single woman. She is married. I like how davidmlamb phrased it so I will repost his statement

You want to say that there is a logical way to read it differently. BUT only if you ignore the 3 things I have stated than it is no longer logical. What logically cannot be answered is the question davidmlamb has posted. The question which I have asked numerous times not only in this thread but others is why didn’t she mention Joseph.

The Angel is coming with a message from God. I doubt that the angel didn’t know what was going on especially in light of the answer he gave Mary. This line of thinking is grasping at straws and not logical.

The only reason that this is disputed is anti catholicism.

Hi, i cant but help feel, that for someone who would imply a grasp of logic, that your argument and the use of the quote from davidmlamb, flies in the face of logic and common sense. (This is not intended as a personal attack ).

It is not illogical for someone when they have just been told that they will be having a baby, (from an angelic source or otherwise), to question how this can be possible, when they know they have not had sexual intercourse!! Why would Mary not ask this question, whether she was or wasn’t planning on having a sexual relationship with Joseph??? If she was planning on having sexual intercourse with Joseph, she would be just as surprised to find out she was going to conceive as she would be even if she wasn’t planning sexual intercourse! I would very much doubt that Mary was ignorant of the fact that generally, a man and a woman needed to have sex for the possibility of conception to take place!
That Mary says “i know not a man”, rather than, i have not known Joseph, and advocate an “ever virgin” doctrine from that premise, goes beyond illogical and grasping at straws. Is it too far fetched to consider a virgin being given an angelic visit (and i dont think Gabriel gave prior notice), and being told she will be having a baby (the promised messiah none the less), to blurt out (i will use vernacular license), how can that be ive not had sex???
Matt 1, clearly shows they were espoused, Joseph had not as yet taken Mary to the marital home (according to custom), finds out she is pregnant so seeks to put her away privately, then has an angelic visit to allay his fears/concerns in that Mary has conceived the Messiah by the Holy ghost, then takes her to the marital home and did not “know” her as a wife till she brought forth her firstborn.
To not see that as a logical progression(shown in no mean place but in sacred writ), but to countenance heresay and the imaginations of men, with no scriptural perogative, baffles.
It is illogical to try and explain away the revealed word of the Infallible God with vain imaginationings of fallible man… Let God be true and every man a liar.