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

[adrift]

Sounds plausible I mean it would be easier with Joseph.Two are always better than one. However,"holy"women with vows could find a way to survive, to work.Could she not cook, wash clothes, provide child care, sew, even farm, tend a garden? Were there no households with servants?

The answer to your question is no. Women simply did not go out and earn a living. Woman belonged either to their father or their husband.

Actually it wasn’t in her hands until after the question .It was then that she learned she did not need Joseph to come a calling to have the child. It was precisely because it was, at least partially, up to her to have a child that the question came

As you say, her saying to the angel yes came after the question.

.As you also said on the flip side it would make sense if that is what she said. Well did she say that she made a vow? But she did not say that.

What she didn’t say was “get after Joseph” . What I contend is that her question is about her vow. The statement in the circumstances only make sense if she was asking about her vow.

We are told the “marriage” was not complete,in waiting.That is the only context scripture gives us and the question is fitting. Again, if she had been already fully married I would totally agree with that the context changes and we much search for an insight , a vow being reasonable. But the only context is a betrothed, engaged virgin.

We are told that she was waiting for Joseph to come and take her into his home that was what betrothal was. It cannot be equated with being engaged. That is the context and the question is not what a normal woman in her circumstance would ask. Even if she were frighened and afraid that would not make sense.

 

[adrift]

I believe the above is a credible hypothesis,im not claiming it is correct, it may not satisfy you, but it is credible.

Why isn’t “a credible hypothesis” Because of what the angel said

And the angel said unto her, **Fear not, **Mary: for thou hast found favor with God.

 

[adrift]

I think this has been beaten to death. I am not sure anything can be added. I did however want to say one thing. Once I learned how marriage took place, those words that Mary spoke stood out to me. It was then I realized that the words were out of place if Mary intended a normal relationship with Joseph. This is what I concluded and I was surprised to learn that this was an argument others used as well

It has been asked what difference it would make? I answered with a quote from a saint which laughably was parsed. The answer is anything done by God makes a difference we may not know exactly why. It all point to Jesus what else matters?

There are many reasons we know that Mary had no other children.
She is never said to be the mother of anyone but Jesus. He is listed as the son of Mary not a son of Mary. We have those listed as brethren who:

1. Have other mothers listed for them
   2 Who behave as being older
   Jesus behaves as if He is an only child giving the care of His mother over to John.

Her sinlessness again points to Jesus.
Here is web site that quotes the Church Fathers on Mary’s sinlessness.

 

[davidmlamb]

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

Maybe I missed it but no argument was made against my valid point above.

Peace,

David

 

[pocohombre]

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.

Thank -you but …so Mary and Christ are in the same sense crushing Satan? I would say not in the same sense. No where in Genesis do I see anything but the seed of Eve, for she is the one in the Garden being talked about. There is no distinction of a Mary from any of the other in the line of “seed” in Genesis, as also given by the two gospel geneologies…But understand your view, and i think it goes deep as given by theologians of long ago.This is what i meant by Mary not having children is just the beginning foundation of Mariology that has divided us.

 

[pocohombre]

Maybe I missed it but no argument was made against my valid point above.

Peace,

David

Well it has been addressed so lets go again. .Another tradition also says Joseph made the same vow, was a virgin and, brethren were cousins. The question can also be explained by the fact Mary was not married yet, her final union had not occurred and could have been up to a year away. We are not even sure if a date had been set. We forget that it was a man’s world and do not underestimate the possible anxiety of a maiden in wait. Things were partially out of her hand, though a contract had been "signed. Joseph was in the drivers seat. Mary could not obey “immediately”, for she could not. She only said yes when she realized it was out of Joseph’s hand, when it was between her and God. The initial response/question was normal cause she was really saying it was between Joseph, and herself and God, as when God intervened with John the baptists conception or Abraham. God spoke to the man first. Mary would have found it strange that she would be told or told first. I think her religious tradition would say God would tap the father first with the news. Tradition also taught her that obedience is only obedience if it is immediate. How many times in scripture does God tell someone to do something and we see that “immediately” they respond, and one should not be like Jonah. Mary may have been saying ,“OK but talk to Joseph for who knows when he will commit to taking me” .This is just as plausible as your virginity vow, even more so I believe…Also, if she told God she vowed to stay virgin for Him, and God shortly after says, " No, I want you to birth the Saviour, do you think she would say, “But wait a minute, what about my vow?” I don’t think so. That is what you are suggesting, that she is reminding God of her vow, as if God forgot…So I just hope you will say we have answered and given a plausible answer to her question. Both are plausible. I will not say your does not exist. Please do not say the things I have written do not exist,have not been given.These thoughts/postulations are from antiquity, yours and mine.

 

[pocohombre]

I think this has been beaten to death. I am not sure anything can be added. I did however want to say one thing. Once I learned how marriage took place, those words that Mary spoke stood out to me. It was then I realized that the words were out of place if Mary intended a normal relationship with Joseph. This is what I concluded and I was surprised to learn that this was an argument others used as well

It has been asked what difference it would make? I answered with a quote from a saint which laughably was parsed. The answer is anything done by God makes a difference we may not know exactly why. It all point to Jesus what else matters?

There are many reasons we know that Mary had no other children.
She is never said to be the mother of anyone but Jesus. He is listed as the son of Mary not a son of Mary. We have those listed as brethren who:

1. Have other mothers listed for them
   2 Who behave as being older
   Jesus behaves as if He is an only child giving the care of His mother over to John.

Her sinlessness again points to Jesus.
Here is web site that quotes the Church Fathers on Mary’s sinlessness.

You must address the the cultural backdrop of the development of her virginity.The time it was being talked about, solidified (3-4th century) ,marriage was seen as second class,even evil by some fathers.Sex was dirty, hence how could Mary engage in such action .The Jewish tradition is the opposite where childbearing is blessed and the opposite is cursed. I am not saying the CC made decrees against marriage/sex but some of her theologians did,the same that helped put forth her perpetual virginity.

 

[pocohombre]

The answer to your question is no. Women simply did not go out and earn a living. Woman belonged either to their father or their husband.

 

[Vico]

Thank -you but …so Mary and Christ are in the same sense crushing Satan? I would say not in the same sense. No where in Genesis do I see anything but the seed of Eve, for she is the one in the Garden being talked about. There is no distinction of a Mary from any of the other in the line of “seed” in Genesis, as also given by the two gospel geneologies…But understand your view, and i think it goes deep as given by theologians of long ago.This is what i meant by Mary not having children is just the beginning foundation of Mariology that has divided us.

The Jews saw this passage as referring to the struggle between Christ and Satan:

New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)**

Genesis 3:15** "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will strike your head, and you will strike his heel.”

Satan :: Christ
You {Serpent} :: Woman {Eve}
Your offspring :: her offspring
head stricken :: heel stricken

“She” or “the seed”, shall crush (strike).

 

[Jim19]

It has been asked what difference it would make?

I answered with a quote from a saint which laughably was parsed.

How so?? The following quote in no way alludes to Mary being ever virgin!** 1.** I am within the church and understand Mary as shown in the scriptures! **2. **I thought all Christians were true Christians?? 3. A Christian is one who is a follower of Christ. 4. Of course Mary makes sense, its just your allusions to Mary that don’t:shrug: 5. Yes, each and every facet is clearly shown in scripture 6. When is a Christian not truly a Christian? 7. Didn’t realise that a Christian had to somehow apply for membership, always thought we Christians were the Church! 8. Please refer to point number 1.

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.1. The thing is, understanding Mary is not easy for someone who is not within the Church.2. She is the symbol of a true Christian,3. and until you understand what a Christian is,4. Mary does not make sense.5. 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. **6. **But only once one becomes truly a Christian **7. **can one enter our church **8. **and know about Mary.

The answer is anything done by God makes a difference we may not know exactly why. It all point to Jesus what else matters?

Yes anything done by God makes a difference and it all points to Jesus. The virgin birth, prophesied by God and clearly pointing to Jesus. Ever virgin, never mentioned by God and in no way points to Jesus. Many women in history were ever virgin and it in no way points to Jesus. Mary is the only woman in history to have a virgin birth and of course points to Jesus.

[There are many reasons we know that Mary had no other children.
She is never said to be the mother of anyone but Jesus. He is listed as the son of Mary not a son of Mary.

Mt 4:21, 10:2 James the son of, and John, not a son of, and your point is? ( Jesus **the **son of Mary, to differentiate from anyone else called Jesus, James the son of Zebedee to differentiate him from anyone else called James

We have those listed as brethren who:

1. Have other mothers listed for them

So scripture shows the named brothers and the sisters as having other mothers? Where? And all were cousins? Where? If they were not the brothers and sisters of Christ, Why. 1. were they with the mother of Jesus and not their own mother? 2. Why would Jesus say, who is my mother etc to differentiate natural flesh from spiritual if they were only cousins? (as an aside, if Christ held Mary above other women, why was she included in his declaration and why did He never refer to her (directly) as Mother only “woman”)? 3.In Mat 13:55,why would those that knew Joseph and Mary bother to mention His “cousins” in reference to them and not their own parents? 4. Why would the Lord say " a prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own HOUSE, did these “cousins” not have their own house? Was it custom for them all to stay in the one abode?

2 Who behave as being older

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

Jesus behaves as if He is an only child giving the care of His mother over to John.

No, Jesus behaves as one who has the care of his mother at heart, by fulfilling His duty as eldest. The care of Mary is given to one who loves Christ and so loves the brethren, John shows his love by being there, his brethren show their lack of love by not being with Him and not at the side of their grieving mother!
As i said, the weight of scripture implies that Christ had brothers and sisters, there is no scripture to imply He didn’t and that Mary was ever virgin. You would claim that Luke 1:26… is testament to the ever virginity of Mary, a claim based on a vow that cannot be scripturally proven, merely on hearsay,(if Mary had made that vow, why could she not continue at the temple)? Was it common in that day for maidens to vow and dedicate themselves to the temple? In what capacity did they serve? Was it the custom in those days for people to marry and then deny the purpose of such a “sacrament”?
Previously i gave a credible reason for Mary’s declaration and admittedly not one for the angels declaration. Yet if one was forthcoming it would not lead to a rejection and refutal of the assumed doctrine, as you clearly (as has been shown), hold this teaching to be true because the catholic church has declared it so, and do not appear to come with an open mind and the humbleness to bow to the authority of scripture.

Her sinlessness again points to Jesus.

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

Here is web site that quotes the"http://www.churchfathers.org/category/mary-and-the-saints/mary-without-sin/"] Church Fathers
[/quote]

on Mary’s sinlessness

Here is a website that quotes Mary (and all) as a sinner, bible.com/

 

[Jim19]

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.

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.

Hi

You would elevate Mary to the same level as Christ. He is the only perfect “CREATURE”.
***** This would infer that Christ can be known by all, but the mystery that is Mary is greater and cannot be known by all, thus elevating her above Christ.

 

[Ion]

Hi

You would elevate Mary to the same level as Christ. He is the only perfect “CREATURE”.
***** This would infer that Christ can be known by all, but the mystery that is Mary is greater and cannot be known by all, thus elevating her above Christ.

“Behold, i am the handmaid of the Lord” It was not a figure of speach. Virgin Mary loved God more than anything else, and dedicated her life to Him. There was no place in her life for other child.
Also, Joseph rejected the regular marriage from which children result through procreation, because Virgin Mary was already with child.
Their marriage was not for their procreation.

 

[Ion]

Hi

You would elevate Mary to the same level as Christ. He is the only perfect “CREATURE”.
***** This would infer that Christ can be known by all, but the mystery that is Mary is greater and cannot be known by all, thus elevating her above Christ.

You guys are falling in all the heresies that happened from the begining of the church, and you do not even know it. You can read the CCC so at least you know them.

 

[po18guy]

Lenny! It is a grace from God that you are considering the Catholic faith!

I would burn any and all JW propaganda, as there is no - zero, zip, nada - authority behind it. It is personal opinion and nothing else. It is not deductive reasoning, it is inductive - biased, opinionated and dangerous, as its conclusions appeared nowhere on earth prior to 1800s America. That cannot be the truth.

Quick! Get a copy of Catholicism for Dummies. This is an excellent resource that the average believer can read and understand regarding the beliefs and practices of the Catholic faith. I learn each time I read my copy.

 

[pocohombre]

QUOTE=Ion;10802191]“Behold, i am the handmaid of the Lord” It was not a figure of speach. Virgin Mary loved God more than anything else, and dedicated her life to Him. There was no place in her life for other child.

Sounds cold to me.I sometimes pity an only child. Brothers and sisters are a blessing. Actually every firstborn was dedicated fully to the Lord. A vow of virginity was optional and was not required for such dedication. All circumcised were “of the Lord” or the Lord’s.There is much speculation in your reading of the scripture also, and that is ok just wouldn’t make it doctrinal.

 

[po18guy]

Just don’t like your “only” in possible answers.Just as she did not say, “get after Joseph” she did not say, “release me from my vow”. Are you suggesting she is reminding God of the vow as if He forgot?

I believe that your opinions are inconsistent. Why? I will assume that you trust the bible. Let’s go way back to the question in the OP. We know that Mary remained ever virgin for the same reason that we know the bible (73 books) is inspired by God: The Church that Christ founded to shepherd all Christians has declared it by the power of the Holy Spirit. Those of us who are plagued by doubts about this can dissemble for the rest of our lives, contorting reason beyond recognition, but that has zero impact on God’s revealed truth. And that truth is that the bible is His word, and Mary was ever virgin.

Why do you fear that the Catholic Church might be correct?

 

[Jim19]

“Behold, i am the handmaid of the Lord”
It was not a figure of speach.

What was not a figure of speech? That Mary said she was the handmaid (slave/servant) of the Lord?

Virgin Mary loved God more than anything else, and dedicated her life to Him. There was no place in her life for other child.

Your proof?

Also, Joseph rejected the regular marriage from which children result through procreation, because Virgin Mary was already with child.

Mmm! So Joseph rejected “regular” marriage.
Your proof?
So he rejected it because Mary was pregnant? (strange statement!)
Again, your proof?
Their marriage was not for their procreation. “(And God created man to His own image: to the image of God He created him: male and female He created them. And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it.)” (Genesis 1:27-28)

Yet, i will admit that not everyone who marries, desires to have kids. But your statement would give both Mary and Joseph more than one problem!

 

[Jim19]

My quote,

You would elevate Mary to the same level as Christ. He is the only perfect “CREATURE”.

• This would infer that Christ can be known by all, but the mystery that is Mary is greater and cannot be known by all, thus elevating her above Christ.

You guys are falling in all the heresies that happened from the begining of the church, and you do not even know it. You can read the CCC so at least you know them.

1. I do not see any heresy in my statement?
2. I do see scriptural refutation of the likes of,Gnosticism,Docetism,Arianism,Pelagianism etc, none of which i adhere to!

 

[Ion]

“Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord”

What was not a figure of speech? That Mary said she was the handmaid (slave/servant) of the Lord?

Your proof?!

Dear Jim, it is not me who has trouble reading the Holy Bible, but you. Proof is in the tradition if your hearth/mind doesn’t work properly. And your hearth/mind doesn’t work properly because it looks like you, in the same circumstance, would have meant "handmaid ( but only couple of hours a day) ". Holy Virgin mary is Holy Virgin Mary, no matter your personal opinion.

 

[po18guy]

My quote,

You would elevate Mary to the same level as Christ. He is the only perfect “CREATURE”.

• This would infer that Christ can be known by all, but the mystery that is Mary is greater and cannot be known by all, thus elevating her above Christ.

1. I do not see any heresy in my statement?
2. I do see scriptural refutation of the likes of,Gnosticism,Docetism,Arianism,Pelagianism etc, none of which i adhere to!

Bible alone. Heresy.