How is mary a virgin?

[MaggieOH]

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.

Sorry, but a twentieth century understanding of “until” and of the nature of marriage does not alter the fact that Mary was totally unique in that she dedicated herself wholly to God. Her vow was enforceable because Joseph had not annulled it when he first heard about it.

This neo-Helvidian heresy is very American in origin and what I find so strange about this heresy is that those who are spreading it, should know better.

The word “until” is not evidence that the marriage between Mary and Joseph was consumated after the birth of Jesus. You have to look at what the author was trying to state by making the statement. He was trying to prove that Jesus had no other father than God, and that His conception in the womb of Mary was truly miraculous. The author did not intend to give an understanding that Mary and Joseph came together after the birth of Jesus.

Under Jewish law it would have been impossible for Joseph to have taken Mary as his wife in the fullest sense of the word “wife”. It was impossible because:

1. Since God had been within Mary’s womb she had been sanctified and made holy. Thus mode by which God entered into the world had to remain shut. Please refere to Ezekiel 40 and 41 where it states that the east gate through which Yahweh passed through must remain shut and that no one can enter or leave by it. In other words, Joseph could not “enter” into his wife, and no other child could leave the womb of Mary.
2. Mary made a vow that meant that she had given herself to God in the fullest sense. Joseph was not allowed to insist upon Mary being his wife in the fullest sense because he did not annul the vow when he first heard about it.
3. Under Jewish law if a woman has a child by a man who is not her husband then her husband is forbidden to touch her, because she has become “unclean”.

Maggie

 

[MaggieOH]

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

MichaelP you have completely missed the point about the use of “until” here. It is not a point of Mary being or not being dead, rather it is the Scriptural use of “until”.

In the Scripture, where it says that Michal had no children until she died, has the meaning of saying that she remained barren for the remainder of her days. It is not as you claim the word “death” that is important here, but the usage of the word “until” Very sloppy exegesis.

Maggie

 

[MaggieOH]

doulos1:

So why did your Pope insist that the world was the center of the universe? So much so that he threw the man telling the truth into jail? Huh?

Should the next subject be the mistresses of the Popes through history? The promotion of the illegitmate sons of the Popes? What shall it be next? Were these men the vicar of Christ on earth?

I take it that you have not bothered to read up why Galileo was placed under house arrest, and lived in luxury. If you had then you would know that it was not because of his teaching on the universe but what he was teaching about the Scripture. On that particular matter he was in error.

Maggie

 

[Benadam]

MaggieOH:

The word “until” is not evidence that the marriage between Mary and Joseph was consumated after the birth of Jesus. You have to look at what the author was trying to state by making the statement. He was trying to prove that Jesus had no other father than God, and that His conception in the womb of Mary was truly miraculous. The author did not intend to give an understanding that Mary and Joseph came together after the birth of Jesus.

Maggie

I finally get it. Even though I firmly support the catholic view the debate surrounding the word ‘untill’ effectively made me an objective observer. I really was reading it as a sports fan rooting for a team but the end result being a tally of points. I think I posted an allusion to that theme.

Now I understand, thank you Maggie. I have a question I would need answered by those who support the protestant understanding of it’s application by the author.

What would be the authors intention for teaching that Mary and Joseph had sexual relations after Christ was born?

The word can be nuetral in it’s use in relation to this debate or have an intentional purpose. If it is nuetral and the author had no intent in relation to the issue of this debate then your argument fails. The alternative is for it to be used intentionally for a teaching purpose. What would be the authors intention for pointing out that Mary and Joseph had sex?

 

[pnewton]

doulos1:

Just because the word “until” can mean something different in different context does not mean that it does.

Thank you for this post. You admit that the word can have mean something different. I said this before and no one responded. If the possibility exists at all ( and you are in agreement with current lexicons as to this possibility), then this verse can not stand as proof. To present it as proof is either intellectually dishonest or adding to scripture

I used to be a Baptist and the last thing that I studied before I converted to Catholicism was fundamentalists’ arguements against the Church. There was always a hole in the logic.

BTW - Don’t call it a false church. That is inappropriate behavior for a guest. (This is a Catholic forum, after all.)

 

[doulos1]

Lisa4Catholics:

Oh, I see we are really having hormone problem that is why you don’t believe we can be celibate

you can be celibate you just can’t be married and be celibate for your whole life!

Are you celibate?

 

[doulos1]

Benadam:

Doulos, did ‘our’ world produce the physical manifestation of this universes creator? That would make it a pretty central place if ya ask me…

So do you also believe the worlld is flat?

But seriously, you’re irrelevant references to human behaviour that may or may not be understood correctly is much like dysfunctional relationships that remain encircled by the serpent forever swallowing it’s tail as the same external realities are rehashed because the internal objects they represent are denied.
There is a heel that crushes the head of that serpent my friend.

Jesus heal or Mary’s/

I’m sorry to have caused you this scandal.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

doulos1:

you can be celibate you just can’t be married and be celibate for your whole life!

Are you celibate?

Really So you don’t really believe with God all things are possible?Interesting,so that is what Protestants teach

 

[Benadam]

doulos1:

Originally Posted by Benadam
*Doulos, did ‘our’ world produce the physical manifestation of this universes creator? That would make it a pretty central place if ya ask me…

So do you also believe the worlld is flat?

***of course not. ***
*But seriously, you’re irrelevant references to human behaviour that may or may not be understood correctly is much like dysfunctional relationships that remain encircled by the serpent forever swallowing it’s tail as the same external realities are rehashed because the internal objects they represent are denied.
There is a heel that crushes the head of that serpent my friend.

Jesus heal or Mary’s/

***God’s heel formed in Mary womb.

---

I’m sorry to have caused you this scandal.

 

[Tom]

doulos1:

I have read this all before. It is all a pitiful attempt to read RC theolgoy back into the Scriptures. Eisegesis is you all. The question “how can this be” is modified by the statement “seeing I know not a man.” Again the familiar euphamism “know” being for sexual relations. And it is in the present tense meaning she was not then in a normal marriage relationship of ongoing sexual relations to her husband. And Numbers 30 is not about your eisegetical interpretation of reading celibacy back into the Bible. (the idea of life long celibacy with in marriage is not found in the Bible). It is the law of vows for women as it regards the authority of her father and her husband. This is all to sad

You ignore the point, please explain why a woman who was “betrothed” and expected to have a normal sexual marriage would ask ANY question when told by the angel she was to bare a son? Isn’t it obvious “how” you’re going to have sex aren’t you? The “normal” response would be “ oh, I’m going to have a boy” NOT how shall this be!

 

[jimmy]

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?

The word until does not mean that after Jesus was born they had sex. St. Jerome speaks about this in this treatis.

catholicfirst.com/thefaith/churchfathers/volume29/jerome2919.cfm

 

[jimmy]

doulos1:

So Peter was married not celibate. God has told us Mary was not a virgin after the birth of Jesus!

Peter was married, but that does not matter. Mary was a virgin, perpetually. Nowhere in the scriptures does it say anything about Mary not being a virgin.

Like I said above, the word until does not mean that after that point then she had sex. I could say, “he lived a hard life untill he died.” But that does not mean he lived an easy life after he died. That line means nothing.

Of course if you want, you can search the scriptures and find word that appear to contradict the Catholic Church, but if you read the words in context you will find that they do not contradict. They only support.

I think you are looking for holes.

 

[jimmy]

I gave you a link above to St. Jerome. St. Jerome was a fourth century saint. He was one of the great apologists of the Catholic Church. He was a great linguist, he was fluent in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. He is a great source for the matter.

 

[Tom]

doulos1:

Another fallacy appeal to the age of a certain held belief. The treating of women as chattle was a long held belief in most cultures does the age of this belief make it correct? I think not. Your church held a terrestriallly centered universe in contrast to Gallileo’s heliocentric universe, did your Pope’s view, (though he sent Gallileo to jail) change the nature of the universe (we should call this "again the Pope is proved wrong)!

And exactly what does the shape of the earth have to do with virginity? Oh, it’s just to prove the Church wrong. Well not really, Jesus never said they’d be perfect (impeccable), He just said they be led to the truth (infallible). You’re obviously confused between impeccability and infallibility. There are sources on this web site, which will explain the difference.

doulos1:

I reply that the obvious meaning of the word (the normal meaning of reversal of the verb in the main clause) stands and that the RC church is simply wrong. This means the Pope is wrong, and not infallible. And it means Mary is not perpetually a virgin and had other children.

And here finally is the whole purpose of the question of Mary’s’ virginity. It isn’t if it’s true or not, it’s if you can put doubt in someone’s mind to leave the Church Jesus established. Your authority over the Church. O.k. gottcha. For you or your church to have any authority means the Catholic Church must be wrong. Unfortunately for you the Catholic Church is not wrong.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Tom:

And here finally is the whole purpose of the question of Mary’s’ virginity. It isn’t if it’s true or not, it’s if you can put doubt in someone’s mind to leave the Church Jesus established. Your authority over the Church. O.k. gottcha. For you or your church to have any authority means the Catholic Church must be wrong. Unfortunately for you the Catholic Church is not wrong.

And since, as has been pointed out again and again, both Luther and Calvin stongly supported the perpetual virginity of Mary, then Protestantism must be wrong too!

So were does this leave our young hero?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

 

[pnewton]

Tom:

. It isn’t if it’s true or not, it’s if you can put doubt in someone’s mind to leave the Church Jesus established. .

I noticed this a mile a way. I hope that some of the prosylizers who some here to save us Catholics leave with the knowledge that we, too, are Bible Christians.

It is just that as Catholics read the Bible, we notice there is a strong doctrine of authority taught. There is the apostolic tradition that the New Testament Church adhered to. We know through history that those closest to the time of the apostles were Catholic in form and faith.

No dogma of the church contradicts scripture and all doctrines are ate least alluded to (such as the topic here, triune God, etc.)

 

[vern_humphrey]

pnewton:

I noticed this a mile a way. I hope that some of the prosylizers who some here to save us Catholics leave with the knowledge that we, too, are Bible Christians.

It is just that as Catholics read the Bible, we notice there is a strong doctrine of authority taught. There is the apostolic tradition that the New Testament Church adhered to. We know through history that those closest to the time of the apostles were Catholic in form and faith.

No dogma of the church contradicts scripture and all doctrines are ate least alluded to (such as the topic here, triune God, etc.)

No doubt God sends such shallow-minded anti-Catholics here to strengthen our faith.

Who, seeing such weak argument and obvious bigotry could fail to be innoculated against anti-Catholicism? http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

 

[jimmy]

You protestants are great fans of St. Augustin. What did St. Augustin think of the perpetual virginity of Mary? Lets see. This is what he says.

This is from his treatis on holy virginity.

1. Her virginity also itself was on this account more pleasing and accepted, in that it was not that Christ being conceived in her, rescued it beforehand from a husband who would violate it, Himself to preserve it; but, before He was conceived, chose it, already dedicated to God, as that from which to be born. This is shown by the words which Mary spake in answer to the Angel announcing to her her conception; “How,” saith she, " shall this be, seeing I know not a man?"(3) Which assuredly she would not say, unless she had before vowed herself unto God as a virgin. But, because the habits of the Israelites as yet refused this, she was espoused to a just man, who would not take from her by violence, but rather guard against violent persons, what she had already vowed. Although, even if she had said this only, “How shall this take place?” and had not added, “seeing I know not a man,” certainly she would not have asked, how, being a female, she should give birth to her promised Son, if she had married with purpose of sexual intercourse. She might have been bidden also to continue a virgin, that in her by fitting miracle the Son of God should receive the form of a servant, but, being to be a pattern to holy virgins, lest it should be thought that she alone needed to be a virgin, who had obtained to conceive a child even without sexual intercourse, she dedicated her virginity to God, when as yet she knew not what she should conceive, in order that the imitation of a heavenly life in an earthly and mortal body should take place of vow, not of command; through love of choosing, not through necessity of doing service. Thus Christ by being born of a virgin, who, before she knew Who was to be born of her, had determined to continue a virgin, chose rather to approve, than to command, holy virginity. And thus, even in the female herself, in whom He took the form of a servant, He willed that virginity should be free.

Augustin is refering to Luke Chapter 1 here. It appears that Augustin believed that Mary had made a vow of virginity and that he believes she was a perpetual virgin.

 

[doulos1]

Benadam:

Doulos, your rage has unbalanced you. You teach what you don’t see. Mary never had sex, something impossible for you to accept. Is it so difficult to accept a life driven by purposes other than breeding?

It is impossible to accept marriage without sex which is what you are asking us to do, which would violate Pauls commands to married couples in Romans 7.

According to God’s holy word Mary lived a normal married life with Joseph and had other children.

We teach what we have seen and what we have seen is there is no one claiming to be a sibling of Christ or the offspring of Mary. You would think this Royal line of people would be impossible to hide wouldn’t ya? Da Vinci Code flashback. Whew! man! gotta lay off the media hype and caffein.

This paragraph makes no sense. Are you saying you have seen Mary? That would be an interesting claim! Is she always with you?

 

[doulos1]

Lisa4Catholics:

Celibacy was instituted later.Why?Because the Pope had the authority to bind and loose, given to him by Jesus.Your argument is with Jesus not the Pope.You would have turned away from Christianity and not followed Jesus because of Judas, oh angry one

So the Pope has more authority that Paul who tells us that the bishop must be the husband of one wife? 1Tim. 3:2? I think that he does not. So I have a choice, I can believe Paul or the Pope, hmmmm let me see, I chose Paul (and God through him).

And it is because your church forces us to choose that it is evidently anti-christian.