Mary and her Virginity

[ejb21]

This may be off topic, but I was just browsing through this thread and I noticed this statement and I just had to say something.

To the best of my knowledge the tradition of the CC is taken from the magisterium, (church hierarchy) and the early church fathers all of which are men and because they are men are sinners and prone to err. Scripture while written down by men is the divinely inspired word of God, who is not a sinner and never errs. My question to you is, if scripture is the word of God and tradition is the word of man, how could the word of God possibly be subject to the word of man?

Hi there. I guess we are off-topic, but I’d like to try to address your question. Catholics believe that when Jesus told the Apostles that He would send them the Spirit to guide them in all truth; when He told them to go to all the nations; when He told them He would be with them even to the end of the world, he was making these promises to the Apostles and to their successors. Catholics believe that the same Holy Spirit who co-authored each Book of the Bible guides the magisterium of the RCC and guides the Pope. Those early Christian Martyrs didn’t have a New Testament to study; they adhered to Sacred Tradition. Don’t know if this helps with your question. Take care.

 

[wmscott]

Aw no way man, not so fast The burden of proof is yours my friend. You have proven nothing in so far as all you claim about Mary. I told you that the Mary of the Bible and the Mary of Catholic theology resemble nothing of each other and you nor anyone else on your side of the issue has refuted it. And my fallible interpretation is no less prudent than your fallible interpretation. Sorry pal, you cannot continue to side step Scripture and claim things to be true that are in contrast to Scripture. Try again.

Nice try, you come to a Catholic forum and pull this stunt. It is your burden not ours. you are just taking the cheap way out.

 

[Sellers1]

Nice try, you come to a Catholic forum and pull this stunt. It is your burden not ours. you are just taking the cheap way out.

I clearly state my refutations by telling you that Scripture refutes you on all accounts in your dogmas of Mary, you give me no refutation to that. Let me try this again as cordially and as patiently as I can; show me where Mary is perpetually virgin in Scripture and while you are at it, show me in Scripure where I can find the rest of the dogmas of Mary. Talk is cheap so put your money where your mouth is.

 

[Sellers1]

I have a thought; In Mathew 1:25 wouldn’t it have been more logical to insert the word “after” following the word “until” saying “until after” if they meant she had relations or did that word exist then? I’m guessing it probably was left out for a reason if it was in their language…but just a thought

Just read it for what it says. Don’t try and confuse folks and don’t try to make something out of it that isn’t there. Joseph did not have union with Mary UNTIL Jesus was born. It leaves nothing else to be said about it Period!

 

[jpaul1953]

Aw no way man, not so fast The burden of proof is yours my friend. You have proven nothing in so far as all you claim about Mary. I told you that the Mary of the Bible and the Mary of Catholic theology resemble nothing of each other and you nor anyone else on your side of the issue has refuted it. And my fallible interpretation is no less prudent than your fallible interpretation. Sorry pal, you cannot continue to side step Scripture and claim things to be true that are in contrast to Scripture. Try again.

Sellers,

Scripture states that Peter is the Rock (Matt16:15-20), the church is the pillar and foundation of truth (1Tim3:15), and all scripture is inspired by God and USEFUL FOR TEACHING, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness (2Tim3:16).

So, if you believe Scripture then you believe in the Church that Christ built and put Simon Kephas (Peter) as the one He passes the torch to. You also believe that Jesus’ Church will not fail and that Peter was given infallability over Church issues by Christ. You also believe that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth and that the Bible is useful.

So since you believe in the Bible you know you must believe in the interpretation of Scripture that Christ’s Church says is true. You interpretation is nothing more than your interpretation . The Church’s word is everything when it comes to matters of faith. Or, do you know better than Jesus Christ himself.

Our Catholic view of Scripture must be in line with the Church’s view or we are wrong.
So, I guess you now know where you stand and if you don’t you must give up that rather large ego of yours for some old fashion humility that our Lord offers us as the way to the Father.

The truth is hard to eat. Your and my opinion are nothing more than our opinions. Stick with a winner, the Church that Christ built whether you like it or not. I must accept what I don’t understand correctly because the Bible doesn’t say that jpaul1953 or Sellers is the pillar and foundation of the truth. It says the Church of the living God.

May God guide you to acceptance of the truth, not for God and His Church to accept Sellers’ point of view as the truth.

jpaul1953

 

[Sellers1]

Sellers,

Scripture states that Peter is the Rock (Matt16:15-20), the church is the pillar and foundation of truth (1Tim3:15), and all scripture is inspired by God and USEFUL FOR TEACHING, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness (2Tim3:16).

So, if you believe Scripture then you believe in the Church that Christ built and put Simon Kephas (Peter) as the one He passes the torch to. You also believe that Jesus’ Church will not fail and that Peter was given infallability over Church issues by Christ. You also believe that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth and that the Bible is useful.

So since you believe in the Bible you know you must believe in the interpretation of Scripture that Christ’s Church says is true. You interpretation is nothing more than your interpretation . The Church’s word is everything when it comes to matters of faith. Or, do you know better than Jesus Christ himself.

Our Catholic view of Scripture must be in line with the Church’s view or we are wrong.
So, I guess you now know where you stand and if you don’t you must give up that rather large ego of yours for some old fashion humility that our Lord offers us as the way to the Father.

The truth is hard to eat. Your and my opinion are nothing more than our opinions. Stick with a winner, the Church that Christ built whether you like it or not. I must accept what I don’t understand correctly because the Bible doesn’t say that jpaul1953 or Sellers is the pillar and foundation of the truth. It says the Church of the living God.

May God guide you to acceptance of the truth, not for God and His Church to accept Sellers’ point of view as the truth.

jpaul1953

My zeal is for Christ and his Holy Word is like fresh water for my soul. I believe in his sacrifice for me and all of my brothers and sisters who believe and have faith in him. We are saved by grace through faith in Christ. Only Christ can save us, not the Catholic church, not Mary and not St. Peter. Come to know who Christ truly is and you will find that trying to be exclusive in your denomination and condemning others to being invalid through your own manmade authority is really ridiculous and not Christianlike.

Peace

 

[wmscott]

I clearly state my refutations by telling you that Scripture refutes you on all accounts in your dogmas of Mary, you give me no refutation to that. Let me try this again as cordially and as patiently as I can; show me where Mary is perpetually virgin in Scripture and while you are at it, show me in Scripure where I can find the rest of the dogmas of Mary. Talk is cheap so put your money where your mouth is.

You spouted your personal opinion. So do not expect us to dance your dance.

 

[Sellers1]

you spouted your personal opinion. So do not expect us to dance your dance.

i can see now that you won’t show me in scripture because you can’t.

 

[wmscott]

i can see now that you won’t show me in scripture because you can’t.

No, you made the accusations, you need to provide proper citation. Anything else is just your opinion.

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

i can see now that you won’t show me in scripture because you can’t.

If Mary, at the time of the Annunciation, was nota virgin and did not intend to reamin a virgin ewven after her marriage, how do you explain her question to the angel Gabriel as to how she would conceive?

 

[wmscott]

i can see now that you won’t show me in scripture because you can’t.

Out of curiosity, do you ascribe to scripture alone and reject Sacred Tradition?

 

[erigby27]

Would you actually believe that?

This book could not have been written by James, the Lord’s brother. He was martyred prior to 70 AD. This book is pseudepigraphical. Things mentioned in it came from the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew Masoetic Text and is not to be trusted. It was written around 150 AD long after James and Mary were both dead.

Scholars believe it was written specifically to embellish the events surrounding Mary in the gospels and for no other reason.

Origen of Alexandria is the first to mention it in the third century. He says the text is of “dubious, recent appearance” and was written to make the claim that Joseph had been married prior and had children. There is absolutely no truth accepted by any scholars to this writing. It is simply wistful thinking to support the false claims.

The Septuagint is not to be trusted? The Septuagint is the form of Scripture Jesus and His disciples used. If it was good enough for God, why is it not good enough to you?

Origen of Alexandria also writes that Mary was perpetually a virgin, by the way.

Like any apocryphal document, credibility may be doubted by certain scholars. But the credibility of this document is hardly denied by ALL scholars as you claim. I imagine most of the “scholars” you are referring to are non-Catholic Christians. It is convenient to disregard this document which supports Mary’s perpetual virginity, just as it is convenient to disregard 2 Maccabees because it supports the notion of Purgatory.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Aw no way man, not so fast The burden of proof is yours my friend. You have proven nothing in so far as all you claim about Mary. I told you that the Mary of the Bible and the Mary of Catholic theology resemble nothing of each other and you nor anyone else on your side of the issue has refuted it. And my fallible interpretation is no less prudent than your fallible interpretation. Sorry pal, you cannot continue to side step Scripture and claim things to be true that are in contrast to Scripture. Try again.

God himself makes the prophecy that he will place “enmity” between Mary and her seed (original Hebrew text) Jesus. Making her a Virgin because Man carries the seed, not a woman. But this Woman carries her own seed revealing a virgin who gives birth from her seed (Jesus). God places “enmity” between Mary and her son, meaning sin (satan) will come against them, but he will never and could not taint Mary or her son with sin because God placed “enmity” between the Woman and sin.

Genesis 3:15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel." 16 To the woman he said: “I will intensify the pangs of your childbearing; in pain shall you bring forth children. Yet your urge shall be for your husband, and he shall be your master.”

Mary remains a virgin after giving birth to Jesus. Mary is full of God’s Grace, that God had placed enmity between Mary and the serpent, that birth pains never affected Mary from Adams and Eve’s original sin, Thus she was saved immaculately in the womb of St. Anna, according to the prophet Isaiah.

Pains of child bearing comes from the result of original sin, Mary gives birth with her virginity never affected by this miraculous child bearing of the Messiah.

Isaiah 66: 7 Before she comes to labor, she gives birth; Before the pains come upon her, she safely delivers a male child. 8a. Who ever heard of such a thing, or saw the like? Can a country be brought forth in one day, or a nation be born in a single moment? 9 Shall I bring a mother to the point of birth, and yet not let her child be born? says the LORD; Or shall I who allow her to conceive, yet close her womb? says your God. 10 Rejoice with Jerusalem and be glad because of her, all you who love her; Exult, exult with her

Isaiah 7: 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you this sign: the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.

Matthew 1: 22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet:
23 “Behold, the virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel,” which means “God is with us.”

Scriptures confirms Mary’s virginity, but nowhere in scripture does scripture claim that Mary was not a virgin before Jesus birth, during Jesus birth and after Jesus birth.

 

[Jerom3]

Sellers1 - in order to remain in meaningful dialogue it would be helpful if you stopped telling contributors that their arguments are weak and putting forward one-liners that prove nothing for your side.

The bible does tell us that Mary remained a virgin when she exclaimed that she “knew not man”. In ancient times that would mean that she had a vow of virginity, which was not uncommon in those times. Fr Sippo, has a paper on this very subject which I will endeavour to find a link to and post to you. Perhaps we need to get our heads out of the 21st century and get them into ancient times. Please avail yourself with some good material which Catholic Answers can provide. I say it is very important whether we believe in the Marian doctrines. I think Tim Staples CD set explains this very well. So if your journey to the CC is to be fully complete, please take the time to know as much as you can. Ignorance can be a problem, particularly when debating with ‘bible-Christians’.

This is completely false. There are no scriptures that say Mary remained a virgin. When she was conceived she was already betrothed to marry Joseph. She did marry Joseph and it would be foolish to believe that she remained a virgin. They had other children as scripture tells us.

Whatyou are saying is simply not true. If so, then please list the scriptures saying that she remained a virgin or that she took a vow of virginity.

Sellers1 - the early church was the Catholic Church. They believed in the Eucharist, infant baptism, priesthood, MARY and so on. How do you know that the bible you have is the bible Jesus intended us to have. There were several canons being tossed around at the time of the early church. It wasn’t until the 4th century that the Church defined the canon of scripture. In fact, in the NT when Jesus was quoting from the OT He used the Septuagint version, which coincidentally contained all the books of the OT that the Catholic Church have, eg Maccabbees. The Protestant church has removed them.

The early church was called the catholic church meaning only the universal church. The Roman Catholic Church heirarchy came into being in the 5th century and not before.

Please list the writings of the early church fathers (2nd and 3rd century) that mention Mary remaining a virgin. This only came into being in the third or fourth century.

And as for the Septuagint, Jesus never quoted anything from any of the apocryphal books that were included in the Septuagint but not included in the canon of the Old Testament.

And the protestant church never removed any books. The apocryphal books were not considered canonical by the Roman Catholic Church until the council of Trent and I believe that was in the 16th century. The protestants never accepted them as they were not inspired and no one knows who wrote them.

 

[Jerom3]

The Septuagint is not to be trusted? The Septuagint is the form of Scripture Jesus and His disciples used. If it was good enough for God, why is it not good enough to you?

Origen of Alexandria also writes that Mary was perpetually a virgin, by the way.

The Old Testament was canonized by the Jews and did not include the apocryphal books. They were not inspired and no one knows when they were written for sure. Even the Roman Catholic Church chose not to consider them canonical until the council of Trent in the 16th century. They only did that to refute the reformation. It was the only way they would try to confirm their beliefs about Mary, etc.

The Septuagint was a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament because so many people were speaking Greek then. And what makes you think Jesus used the Septuagint? We have no copy of it dated prior to 400 A.D. so we really don’t know what was used by Jesus and the apostles. In any event Jesus never quoted from it.

Like any apocryphal document, credibility may be doubted by certain scholars. But the credibility of this document is hardly denied by ALL scholars as you claim. I imagine most of the “scholars” you are referring to are non-Catholic Christians. It is convenient to disregard this document which supports Mary’s perpetual virginity, just as it is convenient to disregard 2 Maccabees because it supports the notion of Purgatory.

Even Catholic scholars know that the apocryphal books were not inspired and were spurious. That’s why they were considered deutero-canonical until the council of Trent. When Jerome translated the Old Testament into Latin, he refused to list the apocryphal books until Augustine finally prevailed upon him to list them. Even then he denounced them.

 

[Jerom3]

God himself makes the prophecy that he will place “enmity” between Mary and her seed (original Hebrew text) Jesus. Making her a Virgin because Man carries the seed, not a woman. But this Woman carries her own seed revealing a virgin who gives birth from her seed (Jesus). God places “enmity” between Mary and her son, meaning sin (satan) will come against them, but he will never and could not taint Mary or her son with sin because God placed “enmity” between the Woman and sin.

Genesis 3:15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel." 16 To the woman he said: “I will intensify the pangs of your childbearing; in pain shall you bring forth children. Yet your urge shall be for your husband, and he shall be your master.”

Well you seem to prove it yourself. God said woman shall bring forth children in pain and the urge would be for her husband and he shall be her master. Sounds like God had it right. That’s why Mary must have had other children.

Mary remains a virgin after giving birth to Jesus. Mary is full of God’s Grace, that God had placed enmity between Mary and the serpent, that birth pains never affected Mary from Adams and Eve’s original sin, Thus she was saved immaculately in the womb of St. Anna, according to the prophet Isaiah.

Pains of child bearing comes from the result of original sin, Mary gives birth with her virginity never affected by this miraculous child bearing of the Messiah.

You are making a statement that says Mary remained a virgin. Please back that up with scripture. Also Mary mentions her “saviour” meaning she had sinned. In addition, she gave a sin offering after Jesus was born according to Jewish law.

Isaiah 66: 7 Before she comes to labor, she gives birth; Before the pains come upon her, she safely delivers a male child. 8a. Who ever heard of such a thing, or saw the like? Can a country be brought forth in one day, or a nation be born in a single moment? 9 Shall I bring a mother to the point of birth, and yet not let her child be born? says the LORD; Or shall I who allow her to conceive, yet close her womb? says your God. 10 Rejoice with Jerusalem and be glad because of her, all you who love her; Exult, exult with her

Isaiah 7: 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you this sign: the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.

Matthew 1: 22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet:
23 “Behold, the virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel,” which means “God is with us.”

Scriptures confirms Mary’s virginity, but nowhere in scripture does scripture claim that Mary was not a virgin before Jesus birth, during Jesus birth and after Jesus birth.

We all know Mary was a virgin prior to Jesus’ birth but the burden of proof is upon you to show that she was a virgin after the birth. That is an impossibility as Jesus came from her womb. You can’t be a virgin after that! And that isn’t eventaking into consideration that scripture names Jesus’ siblings. Now He can not have siblings unless they came from Mary because He had no biological connection with Joseph.

 

[Sam_777]

In today’s society of free love and sex it may be hard to understand the concept of giving oneself to only one person and to honor one’s self and body. Mary gave herself only and completely to the service of God. Another model of what out lives should try to follow.

Peace, FAB

 

[LilyM]

That’s absolutely right, but what does that have to do with what Scripture DOES explicitly say regarding the fact that Joseph abstained from having union with Mary UNTIL Jesus was born? You can’t declare something to be true when it is contrary to Scripture. You can’t make it up as you go just to fit with you’re already unbiblical doctrines and dogmas.

The same scripture says that Michal, wife of David, had no children until the day of her death. It’s bleeding obvious that that passage is not meant to state that Michal DID have children AFTER her death!

It’s equally bleeding obvious that the word that we translate (obviously imperfectly) as ‘until’, in the scriptural languages simply has no bearing on what happens after the event named.

And is not meant to imply that the specified state of events (be it virginity in the case of Joseph and Mary or childlessness in the case of Michal) didn’t continue ever after, even after the event.

There are many other examples of this use of ‘until’ in scripture - ‘sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool’, ‘I will be with you always, until the end of the world’ and so on.

 

[jpaul1953]

My zeal is for Christ and his Holy Word is like fresh water for my soul. I believe in his sacrifice for me and all of my brothers and sisters who believe and have faith in him. We are saved by grace through faith in Christ. Only Christ can save us, not the Catholic church, not Mary and not St. Peter. Come to know who Christ truly is and you will find that trying to be exclusive in your denomination and condemning others to being invalid through your own manmade authority is really ridiculous and not Christianlike.

Peace

Sellers,

I’m not trying to take away your salvation. I’m just explaining to you the way Christ set up His Church for the sole purpose of salvation.

The Church’s stewards have given many people reason to doubt it’s authority and right of passage from this life to the next, but it still doesn’t diminish the way Christ set it up. Christ said the gates of Hell would never prevail. He didn’t say that the gates of His Church wouldn’t be rattled by Satan and his followers.

I know you love Christ, but again your human choice of the way is not the way Jesus originally set it up. You would have to admit that many non-Catholic Christians churches differ in their belief systems. The Church has one belief system with Rites of the Church having some differences but not on matters of salvation. There are many Catholics who know little of the 2000+ year Body of Christ (Church) they attend. That’s sad, but that’s not to say that your congregation doesn’t have lukewarm followers.

The Church completed God’s book and offered it to the world as Jesus wanted. Since some of the Church’s stewards much later in time slipped away from praticing what they preach, people walked. Instead of fighting for the truth at the place that Christ set up, they walked. And look at how far they have walked. They have walked further from each other than from their original separation from the Church. And some keep walking always to make a congregation suitable to their view on how it should be.

Please tell me you can see this to be true.

May Christ’s peace be with you also, my fellow Christian.

jpaul1953

 

[Richard_Kastner]

God himself makes the prophecy that he will place “enmity” between Mary and her seed (original Hebrew text) Jesus. Making her a Virgin because Man carries the seed, not a womanBut this Woman carries her own seed revealing a virgin who gives birth from her seed (Jesus)…

This prophesy is not about Mary. It’s about Jesus and His church. Seed hear is refering to the offspring of God’s true church. Women do carry seed Heb. 11:11Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.

God places “enmity” between Mary and her son, meaning sin (satan) will come against them, but he will never and could not taint Mary or her son with sin because God placed “enmity” between the Woman and sin.

You seem to have two different definitions for enmity here: one, sin (satan) and two “enmity” In the second instance you say "God placed “enmity” between the Woman and sin. Taken with the first meaning you have God placing sin between the woman and sin. This is very confusing and doesn’t make a lot of sense

Genesis 3:15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel." 16 To the woman he said: “I will intensify the pangs of your childbearing; in pain shall you bring forth children. Yet your urge shall be for your husband, and he shall be your master.”

Here God says to the woman “I will intensify the pangs of your childbearing; in pain shall you bring forth children.” Children here is the plural for one child. Unless Mary had children (plural). This cannot be talking of her.

that birth pains never affected Mary from Adams and Eve’s original sin,

The prophecy says the opposite of what you say here