Luke 2:4-7 (Mary had other children?)

[st_felicity]

1st–I’d like to ask why you list yourself as Catholic in your profile? If you are, you should be aware you are in heresy.

In Heb. 9, the writer is explaining how the old covenent is obsolete since Christ has offered the perfect sacrifice. I do not see anything that contradicts the view that Mary is the Ark of the Covenant (I did not say she was the holy of holies–she is the Ark–I did say her virginity was the gate, however). In fact, what the writer says supports the Catholic point of view that Mary is a mediatrix for Jesus–(overshadowing–as in Luke “the power of the Most High will overshadow” Mary) and supports Mary as “co-redemptrix” (oh, I know THAT’'S opening a can of worms… ) with “the place of expiation” being the womb through which Jesus came into the world. But the writer says “Now is not the time to speak of this in detail” because it is not the question he is answering. I agree he speaks of Christ and his sacrifice and Heaven–In what way does that negate (pun) the discourse concerning Mary? Do you believe there cannot be multiple typologies?

 

[st_felicity]

Faithful One:
** Do unerstand what that means?**
you ought to read it before you start flashing off at others.
FaithfulOne
WOW…

**
Faithful One:
CONTRARY TO SCRIPTURE.
**FaithfulOne****In what way?

**
Faithful One:
You’ve propbably never read Hebrews. Only then will you be able to talk intelligently on the issue.
**FaithfulOne****UNBELEIVABLE!

 

[st_felicity]

st_felicity:

(I did not say she was the holy of holies

ooPS…SHOULD READ "…did not MEAN to say…

 

[ferdie]

deborah1313:

This is a real question. I don’t understand why it is important that Mary had no other children, other than to be evidence for perpetual virginity. That Mary was a virgin at Jesus’ birth does not change whether or not she remained a virgin. So why is there such a fuss? And can you cite the scriptures that say Mary was ever-virgin?

deborah1313 /QUOTE
Everything that the catholic church says about mother Mary is in defense for the credebility of Jesus, His humanity and divinity. Just my opinion.

 

[Faithful_One]

1st–I’d like to ask why you list yourself as Catholic in your profile? If you are, you should be aware you are in heresy.

Meow! Ha, Ha; NOw, what’s got your hair up?
Are you now the one to decide what is heresy?
Well, then I guess you’d better start calling Apostle Paul a heretic.

Apparently you are** STILL** missing the whole idea.
This is a thread entitled “Scripture” …
What we are determining here is WHAT is clearly stated in the Scripture. Got it?

Did it sink in that time? Deborah wrote an original question which has never been answered by anyone, including you:

Where in Scripture does it state that Mary remained a Virgin (after Christ’s birth)?
My response was that it states that nowhere in Scripture.

Your OPINION or belief is irrelevant to the question at hand.

I do not see anything that contradicts the view that Mary is the Ark of the Covenant…

Ha, Ha,:tiphat: You might as well use that logic to say that UFO’s are real since we don’t see anythng (in Scripture) that contradicts it.
The point is…again…
Nowhere in Scripture is it stated that Mary is the Ark of the Covenent. Paul said exactly what the O.T. sanctuary means and what it represents in N.T. ; and I choose to believe him. Therefore I am not convinced by your personal revelations. There are plenty of opinions that might be conjured up that could be classified as not contradicting scripture, and yet they still may not be truthful.
However, there are Scripture that indicate the exact opposite; (go back and read the first posts on this thread).

However, in relation to Salmon’s post about looking for a type in the Old testament concerning the entrance to the Sanctuary… Apostle Paul does state exactly what is meant by the first sanctuary and what it respresents figuratively from O.T.and how it relates to Christ. Please read the entire book, you can’t miss it. clue: He never states anything about the sanctuary being a type of how Christ** came to earth, and certainly never mentions Mary or her womb,** but rather he said it speaks of Christ’s entrance into the heavenly sanctuary.
Here’s a clue to help you out:

“For Christ is not entered into the Holy places made with hands, which are the FIGURES of the true; but into the heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us…” Heb 9:24.
If you are not satisfied with Paul’s explanation which was by revelation from Christ, and (since you asked) if you are fully intent on adding your own personal typology to the clearly revealed Word of God; then well, perhaps you ought to take a look at Rev.22;18. He, he.

As for me, I will continue to rely on the Scriptural authority as presented by Paul, not by you.

FaithfulOne

 

[st_felicity]

Faithful One:

Meow! Ha, Ha; NOw, what’s got your hair up?
Are you now the one to decide what is heresy?
Well, then I guess you’d better start calling Apostle Paul a heretic.
FaithfulOne

It is Catholic Doctrine that Mary is a Perpetual Virgin–to not believe that is the Heresy.
Faithful One:

Apparently you are** STILL** missing the whole idea.
This is a thread entitled “Scripture” …
What we are determining here is WHAT is clearly stated **in the Scripture. Got it? Did it sink in that time? **
FaithfulOne

Again, WOW! You are not a very nice person…What exactly has you so riled? If I am ignorant–where is your Christain compassion? You cannot be Faithful One if you ignore the directive-do onto others as you would have done to you.

**The thread might be “Scripture” but the forum is CATHOLIC–We DO NOT Believe that Scripture in and of itself the whole of DIVINE REVELATION–it is Divine Revelation along with Sacred Tradition (capital “T”), and the teaching of the magesterium–(bishops in union with the Pope) That is why I bring Catholic Doctrine to this question: I AM CATHOLIC,
**
Faithful One:

Deborah wrote an original question which has never been answered by anyone, including you:

Where in Scripture does it state that Mary remained a Virgin (after Christ’s birth)?
My response was that it states that nowhere in Scripture.
FaithfulOne

It is nowhere EXPLICITELY stated, but it is prefigured in the texts I mentioned and others. Again, Catholics rely on the WHOLE of Divine Revelation for their beliefs–not 1/3 of it.

Your venom belies your lack of Catholic understanding.
IF YOU ARE NOT CATHOLIC, WHY DO YOU SAY YOU ARE IN YOUR PROFILE? That option is there so that posters can know what info is pertinent to a discussion. I would have been more careful with the way I framed my response if I knew you were a Protestant to be sure you understood where I was coming from with my point of view. It could have saved me from a few of those jabs you sailed my way…

 

[st_felicity]

Faithful One:

Meow! Ha, Ha; NOw, what’s got your hair up?
Are you now the one to decide what is heresy?
Well, then I guess you’d better start calling Apostle Paul a heretic.
FaithfulOne

It is Catholic Doctrine that Mary is a Perpetual Virgin–to not believe that is the Heresy.
Faithful One:

Apparently you are** STILL** missing the whole idea.
This is a thread entitled “Scripture” …
What we are determining here is WHAT is clearly stated in the Scripture. Got it? Did it sink in that time?
FaithfulOne
Again, WOW! You are not a very nice person…What exactly has you so riled? If I am ignorant–where is your Christain compassion? You cannot be Faithful One if you ignore the directive-do onto others as you would have done to you.

The thread might be “Scripture” but the forum is CATHOLIC–We DO NOT Believe that Scripture in and of itself the whole of DIVINE REVELATION–it is Divine Revelation along with Sacred Tradition (capital “T”), and the teaching of the magesterium–(bishops in union with the Pope) That is why I bring Catholic Doctrine to this question: I AM CATHOLIC,

Faithful One:

Deborah wrote an original question which has never been answered by anyone, including you:

Where in Scripture does it state that Mary remained a Virgin (after Christ’s birth)?
My response was that it states that nowhere in Scripture.
FaithfulOne

It is nowhere EXPLICITELY stated, but it is prefigured in the texts I mentioned and others. Again, Catholics rely on the WHOLE of Divine Revelation for their belifs–not 1/3.

Your venom belies your lack of Catholic understanding. IF YOU ARE NOT CATHOLIC, WHY DO YOU CLAIM TO BE IN YOUR PROFILE?

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

st_felicity:

It is Catholic Doctrine that Mary is a Perpetual Virgin–to not believe that is the Heresy.

Again, WOW! You are not a very nice person…What exactly has you so riled? If I am ignorant–where is your Christain compassion? You cannot be Faithful One if you ignore the directive-do onto others as you would have done to you.

The thread might be “Scripture” but the forum is CATHOLIC–We DO NOT Believe that Scripture in and of itself the whole of DIVINE REVELATION–it is Divine Revelation along with Sacred Tradition (capital “T”), and the teaching of the magesterium–(bishops in union with the Pope) That is why I bring Catholic Doctrine to this question: I AM CATHOLIC,

It is nowhere EXPLICITELY stated, but it is prefigured in the texts I mentioned and others. Again, Catholics rely on the WHOLE of Divine Revelation for their belifs–not 1/3.

Your venom belies your lack of Catholic understanding. IF YOU ARE NOT CATHOLIC, WHY DO YOU CLAIM TO BE IN YOUR PROFILE?Because faithful one is not very faithful when it come to not telling the truth

 

[Veritas]

Faithful One:

I agree with you Deborah.
As to your question, “Can you site the scriptures that say Mary was ever-virgin?” No one can because there are none.

For your rhetorical question to have any relevance, you would need to first show that it is necessary for a Christian doctrine to be backed by an explicit Scripture verse. Presumably you believe in the Trinity, but the word “Trinity” never appears in the Bible. Nor is the triune godhead explicit. Similarly, the two wills of Jesus, one divine and one human, is not spelled out in Scripture. Obviously some basic doctrines needed to be derived based on clues found in the Bible.

The other problem with your question is that it pre-supposes a strict reliance on Scripture only – the old sola Scriptura heresy. Again, for your rhetorical question to have any relevance, you would also need to show that Scripture is the “sole” source of Christian doctrine. Since Scripture does not explicitly list its own canon, nor does it say that Scripture is the sole deposit of the faith (quite the opposite in fact), let alone specify a requirement for doctrines to be derived by explicit verse(s), your task is formidable indeed.

As such, it is safe to conclude that such rhetorical questions are simple irrelevant.

For the matter at hand, Catholic doctrines simply do not conflict with Scripture in the least bit. Neither the Gospel accounts nor the early Christians attest to the notion that Mary bore other children besides Jesus. For more information, see:
‘Brethren of the Lord’
Mary: Ever Virgin
Mary: Full of Grace

 

[MaggieOH]

Faithful One:
I didn’t make an assumption, I merely showed Salmon from Hebrews what Apostle Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, showed exactly what the Holiest of Holies is. It is in heaven according to him, and Christ is the High Priest who entered in.

FaithfulOne
So I can deduce from your statement that:

1. you place the writings of St. Paul above that of the Evangelists who wrote the Gospels;
2. you deny that Jesus was born in the flesh.

Now I will leave you wondering how I came to that conclusion. Just read what you have written and see how it denies the Incarnation.

Maggie

 

[MaggieOH]

Faithful One:

Meow! Ha, Ha; NOw, what’s got your hair up?
Are you now the one to decide what is heresy?
Well, then I guess you’d better start calling Apostle Paul a heretic.

Apparently you are** STILL** missing the whole idea.
This is a thread entitled “Scripture” …
What we are determining here is WHAT is clearly stated in the Scripture. Got it?

Did it sink in that time? Deborah wrote an original question which has never been answered by anyone, including you:

Where in Scripture does it state that Mary remained a Virgin (after Christ’s birth)?
My response was that it states that nowhere in Scripture.

FaithfulOne

I have a response for you: where in the Scripture does it name precisely Mary as the mother of James, Judas, Simon and Joseph?

It does not. In fact the names of their parents are: Alphaeus and the other Mary. This is verifiable within the Scripture.

Do some homework instead of spending time slinging off at others because of that chip on your shoulder.

 

[MaggieOH]

Faithful One:

Nowhere in Scripture is it stated that Mary is the Ark of the Covenant

FaithfulOne

Please note that I have corrected your poor attempt at spelling. It is pathetic that you cannot copy this word correctly.

Now you are wrong about stating that it is not in the Scripture:

“Then the sanctuary of God in heaven opened, and the ark of the covenant could be seen inside it…” (Rev 11:19)

Guess what the ark was not a wooden box that had disappeared. There is only one conclusion, and I can see the Protestant Fundamentalist Evangelical, as well as the Liberal Catholic writhing in disgust not wanting to face facts here, that the ark of the covenant is none other than the Woman who is clothed with the sun. That Woman is Mary. That Woman is also the Church and Israel.

Maggie

 

[MaggieOH]

Windmill:

Parrallels between Mary and the OT Ark:

This Post comes from Pat Madrid’s tape “Do Whatever He Tells You”

2 Sam 6:9 And David was afraid of the Lord that day; and he said, “How can the ark of the Lord come to me?”

Lk 1:41-43 … And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit 42 and she exclaimed with a loud cry, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! 43 And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

Elizabeth’s words are identical to David’s upon seeing the Ark of the Covenant.

2 Sam 6:12-14 And it was told King David, “The Lord has blessed the household of Obed-edom and all that belongs to him, because of the ark of God.” So David went and brought up the ark of God from the house of Obed-edom to the city of David with rejoicing; 13 and when those who bore the ark of the Lord had gone six paces, he sacrificed an ox and a fatling. 14 And David danced before the Lord with all his might; and David was girded with a linen ephod.

Lk 1:41 And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit…

John the Baptist danced for joy in Elizabeth’s womb, just as David danced before the ark.

Ex 40:34-35 Then the cloud covered the tent of meeting, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle. 35 And Moses was not able to enter the tent of meeting, because the cloud abode upon it, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle.

Lk 1:35 And the angel said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.

The verb “overshadow” used in Luke is the same verb used in Exodus to describe how the Lord “filled” the tabernacle. The ark contained the Ten Commandments (the Word), the rod of Aaron (power), and manna (food). Mary carries the Word of God, the Power of God, and the True Bread which is come down from heaven. She is the Ark of the New Covenant. That is why Jeremiah could prophesy:

Jer 3:15-19 "'And I will give you shepherds after my own heart, who will feed you with knowledge and understanding. 16 And when you have multiplied and increased in the land, in those days, says the Lord, they shall no more say, “The ark of the covenant of the Lord.” It shall not come to mind, or be remembered, or missed; it shall not be made again. 17 At that time Jerusalem shall be called the throne of the Lord, and all nations shall gather to it, to the presence of the Lord in Jerusalem, and they shall no more stubbornly follow their own evil heart. 18 In those days the house of Judah shall join the house of Israel, and together they shall come from the land of the north to the land that I gave your fathers for a heritage.

That time is now. The original ark will not be remade, nor missed. God has given us new shepherds after His own heart, the houses of Judah and Israel are joined. Through Mary’s “Yes,” the promise has been fulfilled.

The First Ark of the Covenant.

It held the Word of GOD written on stone tablets. It held the symbol of the High Priest, the Rod of Aaron It held the Manna, the Bread come down from Heaven.

Hebrews 9:4

It was made of incorruptible wood. “And thou shalt make the ark of testimony of incorruptible wood…”

Exodus 25:10,

The New Ark of the Covenant…

She carried the Word of GOD Incarnate. She carried the High Priest of GOD. She carried the Bread come down from Heaven.

Luke 2:7

She was assumed, incorruptible into Heaven.

“And the temple of GOD in Heaven was opened, and there was seen the “Ark of His Covenant” in His temple, and there came flashes of lightning, and peals of thunder, and an earthquake, and great hail. And a great sign appeared in Heaven: a Woman clothed with the sun, and the moon was under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars.”

Rev 11:19-12:1

The Old Testament Ark of the Covenant was a “Type” of the New Testament reality, the “Antitype” reality being the Blessed Virgin Mary. The Ark as seen in Heaven is not the Old Testament wooden box. It is the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Good work, but FAITHLESS ONE does not want to hear the truth; he/she wants to spread the lies the neo-Helvidius heretics.

Maggie

 

[deborah1313]

Hey, people! This is getting really nasty! I’m sorry I asked the question, if this discord is a result.

I am Catholic, and an adult convert. The heart of Catholicism, for me, is the Real Presence. I don’t understand it well enough to explain it in words, but I know in the deepest reaches of my heart and soul that it is true.

I still don’t see why Mary being ever-virgin is such a big deal. I think the reason is that in the face of the Real Presence, it doesn’t matter whether Mary being ever-virgin would increase belief that Jesus was the Son of God. In fact, I think that the reason there isn’t anything in the NT directly about it is that it was either a) taken for granted that everybody knew it or b) it isn’t important. After all, the Gospels and the rest of the NT are about Jesus. And doesn’t Mary efface herself for Jesus? Don’t you think all this fighting over her place really makes her sad?

And two corrections to statements made:

1. :bible1: Jesus WAS ransomed: “And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem to present him to he Lord; (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.” Luke 2:22-24 Note also that it is every male that opens the womb.
2. There is general agreement among a number of scripture scholars that the author of the lettrer to the Hebrews was NOT the Apostle Paul. Which doesn’t, and shouldn’t detract one bit from the importance of the Letter to the Hebrews. I learned this in a class taught by Sister Jeanne Marie of the Carmelite Community of the Word, in the diocese of Altoona-Johnstown. CCW’s main Charism is religious education for adults. I think they are a community of diocesan right, but don’t quote me.

deborah

 

[Salmon]

Faithful One:

However, you have made a fallacius assumption in referring to the ‘gate to the sanctuary’ (Eze 44) as being a ‘type’ or ‘shadow’ of “the gate of Christ’s entrance into the world” as you state.

To help you see this clearly, let me ask you a question. What is the sancturay in O.T.?? What was it’s purpose?
Clearly, it (the gate) is the place where the high priests entered into the sanctuary to offer sacrifices on behalf of the people in preparation for atonement for their sins, IT IS THE PLACE THAT LEADS TO THE PRESENCE OF GOD, not to the WORLD, as your have erroneously alluded. The sanctuary and the gate thereof never has been a reference to the ‘world’, but to God’s presence.

There are a few errors here.

First of all, you state that “Clearly, it (the gate) is the place where the high priests entered into the sanctuary…”

The priests did not enter the sanctuary through the east gate. This would be in direct contradiction to God’s ordinance found in: Ex. 44:2 Then said the LORD unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut.

The east gate faced the rising sun each day, a perspective found in:

John 8:12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.

Faithful One:

IT IS THE PLACE THAT LEADS TO THE PRESENCE OF GOD, not to the WORLD

There were four outer gates that led into or out of the sanctuary. The east gate referenced in Exekiel 44 was just one of the four outer gates. In order to access the sanctuary, one had to enter through one of these outer gates. The gate served as a portal separating the sanctuary from the courtyard. Both the sanctuary and the courtyard were part of the temple, and hence “in the world”.

Your citation of Paul’s writings might be more interesting if he was writing in regard to the same temple as in Ezekiel (Zerubabbel’s temple), but of course, Paul is referencing Solomon’s temple (v. 8) which had been destroyed a half a millennium earlier.

In any event, let’s take a look at your argument:

Faithful One:

“Verily, the first covenent had also ordinances of divine service, and a wordly sanctuary; for there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread, which is called the sanctuary”. (Heb.9)

Then he goes on to explain how the priest went into the first and second tabernacle (into God’s presence) to offer sacifice for sin.
(Heb.9:.6-8). Going into the tabernacle represents going into God’s presence and also something to come.

You are combining the first tabernacle and the second tabernacle into a single location. Entering the first tabernacle (the sanctuary) did not put one into God’s presence. It is analogous to the Israelites at the foot of Mt. Sinai being charged to stay a distance from the base of the mountain while Moses climbed up to be in God’s presence.

Access to the first tabernacle (the sanctuary) was restricted, to be sure, but access behind the veil (Holy of Holies) was granted only once a year to the high priest on Yom Kippur.

In any event, this is irrelevant to the east gate which was an outer gate that led from the outside into the sanctuary (not the Holy of Holies).

Paul says what it represents:
“The Holy Ghost thus signifying that the way into the holiest of all was not yet manifest…” What did it represent? It represented the way into the holiest of all, that is, into God’s presence in heaven.

Your interpretation is at odds with Jewish thought. The Jews had a strong faith in the Real Presence of God in the Holy of Holies. They felt that God Himself was absolutely holy regardless of His location. It was for this reason that the high priest wore a rope tied around his ankle when he entered the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur. If he died while seeking atonement for the people, no one could enter the Holy of Holies to secure his body. They would have to drag him out by means of the rope.

In any event, this is irrelevant to the east gate, an outer gate that led into the sanctuary and not the Holy of Holies.

(cont.)

 

[Salmon]

Faithful One:

This is eveidenced by Paul’s next statements (vs.11)
“But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands,…he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us”.

This is a reference to Christ, our high priest, offering ‘once and for all’ the eternal sacrifice in the sanctuary of heaven before God. The meaning is clear: the reason the ‘gate’ to the sanctuary was shut was because there was no longer any need for priests after Christ to go to God to ‘continually offer sacrifice’.

There might be some slight legitimacy to your argument if ANY priests had EVER used the east (outer gate) to access the sanctuary to EVER offer sacrifice in the sanctuary, but scripture is quite clear that the east (outer) gate was NEVER used by or proposed as a gate to be used by ANY human priest.

Ex. 44: 2 Then said the LORD unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut.

Scripture is quite clear as to the purpose of the closure of the gate. The gate was for God alone, and NOT for priests or any other people. Your argument is spurious.

Faithful One:

According to Apostle Paul the very type & shadow you brought up (Eze44), refers not to Christ entering the world, but rather to his entering into the presence of God in the heavenly sanctuary to offer his blood for the sins of the world!

The claim was made that the east gate was seen by the Jews as God’s gate. It was by the east gate that God accessed the temple interior. God was really and truly present and made Himself manifest in this world in a very personal manner. Access to the Holy of Holies was through the veil (shroud, see Matt. 27:51 and Mark 15:38), which separated the first tabernacle from the second. God personally manifested Himself through the gate to the Old Testament Jews.

The question remains: Through what gate did God personally manifest Himself to the world in the New Testament?

Faithful One:

Please read completely Hebews 9-10 for a complete journey into this wonderful revelation of Christ from O.T.sanctuary to N.T. fulfilment.

I have done so, and I stand convinced that the constant teaching of the Church is a most reliable guide.

Peace in Christ……………Salmon

 

[Salmon]

Windmill:

I Also, consider the Lucan passage where it says, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the child to be born will be called holy,] the Son of God.”

This word “overshadow” has marital connotations. Is it any wonder that in the Early Church Mary was called the “Spouse of the Holy Spirit”?

A questions then arises. Would Joseph cheat on the Holy Spirit?

Rich

Faithful One:

Ha, ha; that’s the most hilarious thing I’ve ever heard, Rich.

The Jews didn’t think it was humorous at all:

from:
phatmass reference section

Marriage to the Holy Spirit

We also have to take into consideration that when Mary was told by the archangel Gabriel “Behold, you shall conceive in your womb, and bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus” (Lk 1:31), he also added that this was to come about because “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the Holy one to be born shall be called the Son of God” (Lk 1:35). By stating it in those terms the archangel declared to Mary that God would enter into a marital relationship with her, causing her to conceive His Son in her womb, For “to lay one’s power <(reshuth)> over a woman” <(Targum to Dt> 21:4) was a euphemism for “to have a marital relationship with her.” Likewise “to overshadow” (Lk 1:35) by spreading the “wing” or “cloak” over a woman was another euphemism for marital relations. Thus, the rabbis commented <(Midrash Genesis Rabbah> 39.7; 3.9) that Ruth was chaste in her wording when she asked Boaz to have marital relations with her by saying to him “I am Ruth you handmaid, spread therefore your cloak ( literally, “wing”: <kanaph)> over your handmaid for you are my next-of-kin” (Ruth 3:9). , another Aramaic-Hebrew word for cloak, is derived from = shadow. Thus, “to spread one’s cloak <(tallith)> over a woman” means to cohabit with her <(Kiddushin> 18b, see also <Mekhilta on Exodus 21:8)>. Did not the Lord say to His bride Israel: “I am married to you” (Jr 3:14) and “your Maker is your husband”? (Is 54-5:5; Jr 31:32)? And what is more intimate than what the Lord said to His bride: “You developed, you grew, you came to full womanhood; your breasts became firm and your hair grew… you were naked… and I saw that you were now old enough for love so I spread my cloak over you… I gave you My oath, I entered into a covenant with you and you became Mine, says the Lord God” (Ezk 16:7, 8).

Peace in Christ…Salmon

 

[deborah1313]

Faithful One:

I agree with you Deborah.
As to your question, “Can you site the scriptures that say Mary was ever-virgin?”
No one can because there are none.

However, there are clear references to the fact that she consumated the marriage after the birth of Christ.
“Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife; and knew her not **UNTIL she had brought for her firstborn son…” **Matt.1:24-25

The term “knew her” or ‘to know’ in scripture is a specific reference to consumating the marrage through sexual intercourse.

Faithful One

Well, I think I need to ask you, faithful one, if you can cite a specific scripture that says Mary did NOT remain a virgin for the rest of her life. Since your arguments are all based on there being no specific scripture that says Mary remained a virgin, then you must be able to supply specific scripture, since that is what you demand from others?

The verb “to know” does mean sexual intercourse, but not only in consummating a marriage, nor necessarily even in a marriage.

Also, you should remember that the vocabulary and sentence structure and usage of the KJV (most Protestants would not quail at using the KJV) is Elizabethan, published in 1600 when James had succeeded Elizabeth I, so you must be careful not to analyze structure, usage or vocabulary based on modern American English. :nope:

respectfully,
deborah1313

 

[MaggieOH]

Faithful One:

I agree with you Deborah.
As to your question, “Can you site the scriptures that say Mary was ever-virgin?”
No one can because there are none.

However, there are clear references to the fact that she consumated the marriage after the birth of Christ.
“Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife; and knew her not **UNTIL she had brought for her firstborn son…” **Matt.1:24-25

The term “knew her” or ‘to know’ in scripture is a specific reference to consumating the marrage through sexual intercourse.

Faithful One

The passage exists not to state that Mary and Joseph had what we say was a consumated marriage. All it is saying is that Joseph did not touch Mary and that the child that she carried was not from the seed of man but the result of a union between Mary and the Holy Spirit.

The meaning of “to know” is not disputed here. What is being falsely interpreted is the word “until”. In the Scripture this does not mean that the thing happened after that time.

Alleged apologists such as James White and Svendsen are dead wrong in what they are saying regarding what is meant in the Scripture.

Please provide the Scripture that names Mary as the mother of any other children. I bet that you cannot find anything other than the misquoted verses.

Maggie

 

[BlueMit11]

MaggieOH:

Please note that I have corrected your poor attempt at spelling. It is pathetic that you cannot copy this word correctly.

Maggie, I’m not entirely sure that you meant to sound as nasty as you do, but please be aware that you are coming off very uncharitably in this thread. As with other instances where people represent the correct side in an uncharitable way, you are doing the opposite of helping.

That said, Faithful’s argument, hinged entirely on the word “until”, has been shot down, and we all eagerly await your long-overdue refutation of the several posts that contradict your interpretation of this word, Faithful. If I could speak for everyone else, please address this before anything else, as I am eager to see why, after all the evidence to the contrary, you still think the word “until” has any implications about what happens after the event in question. I’d especially like to see your (hopefully charitable) reply to Windmill’s post that mentions other scripture passages using the word “until” in a way that contradicts your interpretation.