How is mary a virgin?

[OhioBob]

bloodwater:

the only arguement i’ve heard so far is that we can’t understand our own bible and to look up what “until” means. but the context of the sentence points to joseph waiting to have union with her. the entire sentence would need to be changed.i think these excuses are kind of weak guys.

The context of the sentence is that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus. That was the point that Matthew was making and that’s all that can be directly inferred from the statement. You are the one extending the inference to mean that Joseph “was waiting to have union with her”. The statement itself infers nothing about what happened after Jesus was born.

The dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary is formed through a variety of scriptural inferences (of which this is only one, and not a very good one) and the teachings of the early Church fathers. There are tracts about it on Catholic Answers and other apologetics sites. I suggest you read one if your question concerns Mary’s perpetual virginity.

 

[bloodwater]

OhioBob:

The context of the sentence is that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus. That was the point that Matthew was making and that’s all that can be directly inferred from the statement. You are the one extending the inference to mean that Joseph “was waiting to have union with her”. The statement itself infers nothing about what happened after Jesus was born.

The dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary is formed through a variety of scriptural inferences (of which this is only one, and not a very good one) and the teachings of the early Church fathers. There are tracts about it on Catholic Answers and other apologetics sites. I suggest you read one if your question concerns Mary’s perpetual virginity.

this verse is obvious to me. mary’s perpetual virginity is not in a variety of scriptures.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

What was that about personal interpretation of the scriptures? Let me think. . .

The verse is equally obvious to me, and many posters above. Yet your interpretation and our interpretation are diametrically opposed.

By what authority do you base your assertion that your interpretation is correct, and ours is not?

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

bloodwater:

this verse is obvious to me. mary’s perpetual virginity is not in a variety of scriptures.

Details of Mary and Joseph’s sex life seem to be missing as well.

 

[vern_humphrey]

bloodwater:

the only arguement i’ve heard so far is that we can’t understand our own bible and to look up what “until” means. but the context of the sentence points to joseph waiting to have union with her. the entire sentence would need to be changed.i think these excuses are kind of weak guys.

It isn’t “our own bible.” It’s Christianty’s bible, written more than 1900 years ago, in a different language (the Koine, a dialect of Greek) in an entirely different era.

To understand the bible takes years of study, and the ability to put aside all the assumptions we bring to the study based on our life experiences – which are vastly different from those of the inspired authors.

If you disagree, interpret this passage (from Shakespeare, written IN ENGLISH only about 400 years ago), "And smote the sledded polacks in the snow."http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

 

[serendipity]

2 Peter 1:20 At the same time, we must recognize tht interpretation of scriptural prophecy is never a mtter for the individual. For no prophecy ever came form human initiative. When people spoke for God it was the Holy Spirit that moved them.

2 Peter 2:1 As there were false prophets in the past history of our people, so you will have false teachers, who will insinuate their own disruptive views

Me: I read something recenlty that said when an individual sets out to interpret the Bible on his own accord, he kmakes himself equal of the Bible, or even its superior, if he diecdes that what is written in the Bible is less valid than his own interpretation of the past. I can’t remember who was claiming this; some one who worked as a Protestant evangelizer, but through studying the Bible decided that Catholcism had the aproach that most repsented the teachings of Jesus and the Bible. It was either Daivd Currie or Dave Armstrong. I think it makes much sense.

We have been told many times in the Bible that when two or more are gathered in God’s name, he is there in their midst. We don’t get that guarantee when we are all alone, figuring things out for ourselves. The apporach to Biblical study under the Catholic tradition does not say we can not read the Bible for guidance on out own. What it implies though, is that to be assured that our interpretation is guided by the Holy Spirt, we should consider other sources.

And the Catholic tradition has the longest and most consistent approach to studying scripture; sop we look to the words of the early church fathers for their itnerpretations and other scholars who come form that traidition for advice. We don’t need to consult a priest specifically, but we are foolish not to utilize such a resource,who does not speak from a historical vacuum with and independent voice, but instead culls his adivce on interpretation from thousands of years of church wisdom.

 

[Tom]

bloodwater:

I was reading the bible and i came to this little verse.

"24When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25But he had no union with her UNTIL she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus. "
NASB matthew 1:24-25

it basiclly says joseph waited until mary had Jesus to have union with her.what the heck?

No, it basically says Mary was a virgin. Nothing more.
I have my own opinion of her perpetual virginity but it doesn’t really make much difference in the grand scheme of things concerning her Son, so please ask yourself, what difference does it make to you? Are you asking to increase your knowledge? Or to further your own misguided idea of your authority over the authority Jesus established in His Church? If you read the discourse of the last supper, you should notice He tells His Church leaders that He will send the Holy Spirit to guide THEM, as His Church leaders, to all truth. He says nowhere He will do this for you or I. Yes, we interpret Scripture on our own, however if it is contrary to the interpretation of His Church, just whom did He guarantee would be led to all truth? His Church, not you, not I. I follow the teachings of the leaders of His Church, not because I feel they are smarter or better, or more holy, but because Jesus established it this way. Vanity is what keeps most people from following His Church, how can “they” tell me? They tell me because Jesus established it that way. I may not like the way He established His Church, but He is God, not me.

 

[serendipity]

Tom:

No, it basically says Mary was a virgin. Nothing more.
I have my own opinion of her perpetual virginity but it doesn’t really make much difference in the grand scheme of things concerning her Son, so please ask yourself, what difference does it make to you?

 

[pnewton]

bloodwater:

the only arguement i’ve heard so far is that we can’t understand our own bible and to look up what “until” means. but the context of the sentence points to joseph waiting to have union with her. the entire sentence would need to be changed.i think these excuses are kind of weak guys.

I have no idea what you find in the context to seggest Joseph was going to be engaging in relations with Mary. But if you want a contextual arguement for Mary’s perpetual virginity, look to her response to Gabriel. If she did not know how she was going to bear a child. If, as many suppose, she was going to be having relations with Joseph, then why this response?

For Mary, being able to bear a son in the future would only be incredulous if she had planned to never have relations (consecrated as a virgin).

 

[Tom]

pnewton:

I have no idea what you find in the context to seggest Joseph was going to be engaging in relations with Mary. But if you want a contextual arguement for Mary’s perpetual virginity, look to her response to Gabriel. If she did not know how she was going to bear a child. If, as many suppose, she was going to be having relations with Joseph, then why this response? For Mary, being able to bear a son in the future would only be incredulous if she had planned to never have relations (consecrated as a virgin).

Amen, please re-read post # 14. also, visit this thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=11145

 

[Curious]

In 2 Sam 6:23 it says
‘Michal the daughter of Saul had no children until the day of her death’

So with the above reasoning, she gave birth to children AFTER she had died…?

I had the same question as the poster of this thread. It’s the simple things like this that are such good answers. I wonder why I can’t think of them myself?

Anyway. thanks.

 

[SusanG]

Hmmm, does anyone else notice the irony here. We have gentlemen that presumably follow the sola scriptura doctrine…which cannot possibly include the NT as it was not even Scripture until declared so by whom? Oh yes, that’s right, the Catholic Church. These same gentlemen refuse to answer to the other texts using similar language because why? They were not taught to refute those you see.

So the Bible is open to personal interpretation, okay. But you cannot pick and choose guys. If word choice means something in one verse it must therefore mean the same or very similar in others, n’est pas? Literal or figurative, you can’t have it both ways. There needs to be an ultimate authority, we accept that and you don’t.

Please address the valid points brought up by our mutual friends and then we will have a good ole fashioned discussion going on.

Blessings.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

THE CONCEPT OF MARY BEING EVER VIRGIN IS SO EASY.
MOST PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE THE CORRECT MINDSET TO UNDERSTAND WHY! IT DOESNT HAVE TO BE SPELLED OUT BECAUSE IT WOULD BE OFFENSIVE.

WHEN SHE WAS FOUND TO BE THE MOTHER OF THE MOST IMPORTANT PERSON WHO WAS EVER BORN HER LIFE WAS NO LONGER SAME OLD SAME OLD.

SHE DID NOT JUMP INTO BED WITH JOSEPH AND CONTINUE WITH “BUSINESS AS USUAL”, SHE IS THE MOTHER OF GOD. SHE UNDERSTANDS HER NEW PURPOSE AND RESPONSIBILITY! THE THOUGHT OF SOMEONE IN THAT POSITION GETTING INTO BED IS OFFENSIVE AND PROOF OF MISUNDERSTANDING SCRIPTURE!
THIS IS THE RIGHT UNDERSTANDING.

ALSO JUST AS THE ARK CANNOT BE TOUCHED EVER, SAME GOES FOR THE NEW ONE.

 

[michaelp]

Isidore_AK:

In 2 Sam 6:23 it says
‘Michal the daughter of Saul had no children until the day of her death’

This cannot qualify since Mary was NOT DEAD after the “until” was complete. Of course Michal had no children after she had died. That is presupposed by the word “death” not “until.” Very sloppy exegesis.

Michael

 

[Benadam]

I think alot of meaning is revealed if one looks into the timing of the events in relation to the state of mind a person is apparently in according to the description.

The angel reveals to Joseph what the Lord wishes him to do after he decides to make the divorce a private matter being unwilling to expose Mary to the environment she would have to endure as an adultress.

I think these events point out Josph’s character as a Just man. This is remarkable in that the OT states their is no just man.

It’s also remarkable in it’s implications in regards of what it means to divorce privately in that place and time. It implies that Joseph was willing to live a celibate life for Mary’s sake and that Mary would be willing as well unless she divorced him, at least in his own thinking of what Mary would do. This decision may have been at the heart of Joseph’s trial as a husband that reveals him as an example of a Just man. In this light the celibate life is pointed out as an important vocation in the mind of God and adds validity to the perpetual virginity of Mary.

 

[quaysman]

Even Luther & Calvin maintained Mary’s Perpetual Virginity:

“It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a Virgin.” (Martin Luther)

“Helvidius has shown himself too ignorant, in saying that Mary had several sons, because mention is made in some passages of the brothers of Christ.” (John Calvin)

See the article The Protestant Reformers on Mary
mariology.com/sections/reformers.html

 

[Isidore_AK]

michaelp:

This cannot qualify since Mary was NOT DEAD after the “until” was complete. Of course Michal had no children after she had died. That is presupposed by the word “death” not “until.” Very sloppy exegesis.

Michael

The point of the post was the usage of the word ‘until’. The fact is that it only shows the state of being to a certain point…it implies nothing after.

Definition of Until:
un·til
prep.

1. Up to the time of: We danced until dawn.
2. Before (a specified time)

I wouldn’t consider holding to the definition of a word ‘sloppy’.

 

[john_doran]

bloodwater:

the only arguement i’ve heard so far is that we can’t understand our own bible and to look up what “until” means. but the context of the sentence points to joseph waiting to have union with her. the entire sentence would need to be changed.i think these excuses are kind of weak guys.

this is an almost singularly unhelpful statement to make: exactly what do you find weak about them? in what specific ways do you find the explanations deficient? why do you think they’re poor?

if you could elaborate, we might be able to provide you with information, for instance, that we mistakenly assume you already possess; or correct a misunderstanding we currently do not know you have. or…

thanks.

 

[Tom]

oudave:

Hi
You are correct, it even says that in the Catholic Bible.

Very interesting. Since the verse in question deals with the New Testament, what’s the difference between the Catholic New Testament, and any other New Testament? After all the New Testament was handed down, and the content established, thru the Catholic Church. If “your” New Testament is different from the Catholic Church, who told the editor what to put into it?

 

[Axion]

quaysman:

Even Luther & Calvin maintained Mary’s Perpetual Virginity:

“It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a Virgin.” (Martin Luther)

“Helvidius has shown himself too ignorant, in saying that Mary had several sons, because mention is made in some passages of the brothers of Christ.” (John Calvin)

See the article The Protestant Reformers on Mary
mariology.com/sections/reformers.html

Calvin was even more dismissive of the ‘non-virgin’ argument in this quote.

There have been certain folk who have wished to suggest from this passage [Matt 1:25] that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph’s obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company… And besides this, Our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or not there was any question of the second."
John Calvin; “Sermon on Matthew”, published 1562