Mary and her Virginity

[Harpazo]

I am aware of Martin Luther’s position on this. I don’t agree with every thing he taught either. However we must remember he lived in the 16th century and for almost 1500 years everyone had been taught the story of Mary’s perpetual virginity. I believe that had Martin Luther researched Mariology as closely as he did indulgences, he would have also learned the truth about Mariology. After all, he believed Scripture was true and certainly there is much more evidence that Mary and Joseph had other chuldren than the opposite. There is absolutely nothing to support her perpetual virginity. We also have no writers of the first and second century writing about it. One writer mentions it but is not teaching it. He merely called her the virgin Mary. This belief came about long after Mary had died and at least a hundred or more years after.

Just curious, if you don’t agree with all of what Luther taught, why are you Lutheran?

I agree with you that it is a non-issue. It doesn’t affect my salvation one iota but I worry about those who pray to her instead of the Father as directed in Scripture.

If the early Church, who was taught and nourished by the Apostles believed it, I have no problem believing it. When someone, be they Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, etc. asks for the Theotokos to pray for them, they are doing just that. It in no way subtracts from going to God anymore than you praying for someone on a prayer chain at your church.

Answering your points one by one…

1. Scripture doesn’t even come close to supporting those beliefs. In fact, Scripture would have most anyone who studies it believing that there were other children. There is no mention of Joseph being older or having children when he married Mary. So that is a total wash. I believe your statements indicates there is some evidence of Mariology but not enough to explicitly support it. Is that what you mean? If so, please tell me what Scriptures do that.

Of course this is your opinion on the matter. Christians for 1500+ years (that’s quite a while) believed it, read the Scriptures and writings of the fathers. If it was what you say, don’t you think others would have reached that conclusions much earlier than someone in say, the 1700s?

1. When Mary made the statement that she had never “known” a man, remember she was still unmarried and had just been told she would bear Jesus. This certainly was not after she was married. Perhaps she remained a virgin is you want to consider only sex but that would have been only until her marriage was consumated. And there again, we have mentions of other siblings and several mentions in Scripture of James, the Lord’s brother.

A bit of history and linguistics is certainly useful in this regard, as well as reason. The Fathers of the Church compare the Theotokos to the Ark of the Covenant. If you know your Scripture as much as you claim, you’ll remember that the unworthy who touched the Ark were killed on the spot. Can you explain to me why ANYONE would touch the woman who held GOD in her womb? The whole “until” debate has been hased out ad nauseum in this thread. Perhaps you can look through some of the preceding pages?

JC
Also I feel you must be aware of the letter from Ignatius to John about Mary and James when he said everyone who knew James said he was the(to use my terms), the “spittin image of Jesus and he looks as if he came from the same womb.”

I feel you are mistaken on this. The consensus patrum, i.e. the consensus of the Fathers has taught us that St. Joseph had children from a prior marriage. Also, it is highly likely that those who are styled “brothers and sisters” are actually cousins. In Koine Greek and ancient Hebrew, there is no term for cousin or relative, so the term “adelphos/adelphi” was used instead. For instance, look at Lot and Abraham in the OT.

1. It is unlike Mary could have been of child-bearing age and never committed a sin. When she referred to Jesus as her Saviour, I feel certain she had been taught all about sin since she was a good Jewish girl.

Again, you think that the woman who bore the God of the universe in her womb sinned?

Con’t…

 

[Harpazo]

1. I agree with number 4 except as 3 states above.
   As a brother in Christ, I agree it is of absolutely no importance whether Mary remained a virgin or not. The problem comes when people start praying to her and saying she is their path to God. We are taught by Scripture to not pray to anyone but the Father. It is my opinion, after serious study of the Roman Catholic Church and its complete history, that the heresies that began in Paul’s day flourished after all the apostles had died and even though the earliest church fathers tried to teach that if it isn’t supported by Scripture, then it isn’t true, eventually the heretics prevailed and after Constantine introduced so many paganistic methods and ideas into the church, the heretics finally took over and it was only a couple of hundred years after Constantine that a Bishop declared that he was a pope over all the church. Even though many of the leaders rejected this idea, it finally won over and that is the result of what we have today.

I’m sorry, but this is complete balderdash. Please read history again and then get back to us. Never has a bishop declared himself to be over the entire Church until the Pope of Rome did in the early 1000s (hence the schism between Rome and the Orthodox). St. Constantine simply legalized Christianity in the empire where it was allowed to flourish even more. There were no new doctrines added or subtracted from the faith.

Thank God for Martin Luther, John Wycliffe, Johannes Hus, Ulrich Zwingli, John Calvin and many others, the world was finally able to see what the Scriptures actually said instead of what they had been told by someone who wanted them to say what they wanted.

I would agree with Martin Luther however that if the Roman Catholic Church had cleaned up its act and went back to the original Catholic beliefs of Scripture first, dropped its heirarchal methods, etc. perhaps things would have been different. Butthis way, we now have over a billion people who know what the Scriptures actually say and what they mean.
I wish he would have returned to Rome. Perhaps there would not be the mess that we have in Christianity to day. . People are more confused now than ever with what the Scriptures say. There is a milieu of televangelists, preachers and self-help books to “bring you to the correct interpretation” yet none of those can agree what it is! You need not look any farther than your phone book to see the division in belief and interpretation. Funny thing is, the Catholic Church has about 1,000,000,000 members, with the Orthodox Church in second place. So if you’re talking about Catholics and Orthodox knowing their Bibles because of Luther, well, that’s not true. We knew about our Bibles before.

Take care my brother in Christ. We also have many brothers who are still connected here although many of their beliefs are different. I wish them well also and hope they will, at some point in time, study to learn the truth.

I did not mean to take this post and hijack your conversation with JonNC, but I wanted to point out some of the flaws in your thinking and ask that you take a look and study to learn the truth. Take a look at pure, unfiltered, ancient Christianity. You will not be disappointed.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

When Mary made the statement that she had never “known” a man, remember she was still unmarried and had just been told she would bear Jesus. This certainly was not after she was married. Perhaps she remained a virgin is you want to consider only sex but that would have been only until her marriage was consumated. And there again, we have mentions of other siblings and several mentions in Scripture of James, the Lord’s brother.

However, she was at the time already betrothed to Joseph- why would she not assume that Joseph would be the child’s father?

 

[JonNC]

Just curious, if you don’t agree with all of what Luther taught, why are you Lutheran?

Andrew,
No Lutheran believes everything Luther taught. In fact, the Formula of Concord is not completely in conformity with some of what Luther said. And obviously, while much of his early writings were fine, I would hope that none of us would agree with his later writings about the Jews.

Jon

 

[wmscott]

Not so fast. The question was where are these things found in Scripture. I never said anything about sola scriptura or tradition.

The reason I asked is because if you practice sola scriptura then there are issues. I was trying to get a point of reference as to how you view things. Nothing sinister or covert about it.

 

[Harpazo]

Andrew,
No Lutheran believes everything Luther taught. In fact, the Formula of Concord is not completely in conformity with some of what Luther said. And obviously, while much of his early writings were fine, I would hope that none of us would agree with his later writings about the Jews.

Jon

Hello Jon,

I have heard that before and it seems a little bit confusing. I am curious as to why this is the case and why is t church called Lutheran if it does not adopt and follow everything he believed at taught?

I do understand what you are saying in your last sentence. For me, it would be a big problem and a big scandal, but I guess that’s not the case for everyone.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[JonNC]

Hello Jon,

I have heard that before and it seems a little bit confusing. I am curious as to why this is the case and why is t church called Lutheran if it does not adopt and follow everything he believed at taught?

I do understand what you are saying in your last sentence. For me, it would be a big problem and a big scandal, but I guess that’s not the case for everyone.

In Christ,
Andrew

Hi Andrew,
The term “Lutheran” has similar roots as the term “Roman Catholic”, a name whose founding is as a pejorative by opponents. More accurate names would be “Evangelical Catholic” or “Catholic of the Augsburg Confession”.

While Luther plays a significant role, evangelical Catholicism had the contributions of numerous priests and theologians. In fact, the Book of Concord was not fully compiled until well after Luther’s death.

Luther’s anti-jewish writings, as well as the anti-jewish writings of many in the Church through the centuries, is a big problem, for they reflect the sinfulness of men who in many other ways were men of God.

Hope that answers your question.

Jon

 

[Harpazo]

Hi Andrew,
The term “Lutheran” has similar roots as the term “Roman Catholic”, a name whose founding is as a pejorative by opponents. More accurate names would be “Evangelical Catholic” or “Catholic of the Augsburg Confession”.

While Luther plays a significant role, evangelical Catholicism had the contributions of numerous priests and theologians. In fact, the Book of Concord was not fully compiled until well after Luther’s death.

Luther’s anti-jewish writings, as well as the anti-jewish writings of many in the Church through the centuries, is a big problem, for they reflect the sinfulness of men who in many other ways were men of God.

Hope that answers your question.

Jon

Hello John,

Yes that does indeed answer my question. Thank you!

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Sellers1]

If Mary did not intend to remain a virgin afterwards, then her question makes no sense.

??? What are you reading into the passages that isn’t there?

No, because that’s not what Scripture says. We know by what Gabriel told Mary that she would give birth to Jesus as a virgin.

 

[Sellers1]

First off, it’s not the Bible that is the Word of God, it is Jesus that is the Word of God. Jesus, who set up His Church. Let us follow Jesus and not worship the Bible.

It is the point. I don’t know your beliefs, like I said, we could be talking past each other. Do you believe Jesus is Lord and the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, uncreated, God come down to take on our nature? This really does have a lot to do with the issue.

Note, in Genesis 3:15, God is talking to Satan. The Woman He is referencing is Mary. In Genesis 3:16, God is talking to Eve. Eve brought forth many children, Mary did not.

Mary did not sin. Mary needed a saviour to save her from sin. Her Saviour preserved her from sin. She needed God; she could not have done that on her own.

Mary did remain a virgin after her birth. Virgin is somebody who didn’t have sex. This has no bearing on whether they had a child or not.

This is not at all what Scripture says therefore you cannot prove any of what you claim by Scripture. You are performing mental gymnastics, not interpreting Scripture.

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

No, because that’s not what Scripture says. We know by what Gabriel told Mary that she would give birth to Jesus as a virgin.

When does Gabriel tell her that she would give birth as a virgin? I can’t find that anywhere.

Here’s Luke 1:26-38. Feel free to point it out to me where Gabriel tells Mary that she ill give birth to Jesus as a virgin.

26And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,

27To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.

28And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

29And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.

30And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.

31And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.

32He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

33And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

34Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

35And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

36And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

37For with God nothing shall be impossible.

38And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

 

[jlhargus]

Nowhere in Scripture does it say that Mary remained a virgin her whole life nor does it speak to any of the Catholic dogmas regarding Mary. They must admit that these teachings come from their Magisterium and not the Scriptures.

It is important for Catholics to believe that she remained a virgin to be able to balance all of their other beliefs about Mary although Scripture never even hints toward this.

JL: Ezek 44:1 Then THE MAN BROUGHT ME BACK TO THE OUTER GATE of the sanctuary, THE ONE FACING EAST, and IT WAS SHUT. 2 THE LORD SAID to me, THIS GATE IS TO REMAIN SHUT. IT MUST NOT BE OPENED; NO ONE MAY ENTER THROUTH IT. It is to remain shut BECAUSE THE LORD, THE GOD OF ISRAEL, HAS ENTERED THROUGH IT.

[Ezek44:1 is an OT prophecy. This gate, Mary’s womb, is to remain shut. It must NOT BE OPENED, NO ONE may enter THROUGH IT, She is to remain ever virgin, NO ONE, no other children are to enter through it. Because The Lord God, Jesus, has entered through Mary the gate of heaven.]

NBRS 30:3 “WHEN A YOUNG WOMAN still living in her father’s house MAKES A VOW TO THE LORD or obligates herself by a pledge 4 AND HER FATHER HEARS about her vow or pledge BUT SAYS NOTHING TO HER, then all HER VOWS and every pledge by which she obligated herself WILL STAND. 5 But if her father forbids her when he hears about it, none of her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand; the LORD will release her because her father has forbidden her. 6 "IF SHE MARRIES AFTER SHE MAKES A VOW or after her lips utter a rash promise by which she obligates herself 7 AND HER HUSBAND HEARS about it BUT SAYS NOTHING to her, THEN HER VOWS or the pledges by which she obligated herself WILL STAND. 8 But if her husband forbids her when he hears about it, he nullifies the vow that obligates her or the rash promise by which she obligates herself, and the LORD will release her.

[Lk1:30 And THE ANGEL SAID unto her FEAR NOT MARY for thou hast found favour with God 31 And behold THOU SHALT CONCEIVE in thy womb AND BRING FORTH A SON and shalt CALL HIS NAME JESUS 32 He shall be great and shall be called THE SON OF THE HIGHEST and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever and of his kingdom there shall be no end 34 THEN SAID MARY unto the angel HOW SHALL THIS BE SEEING I KNOW NOT A MAN? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her THE HOLY GHOST SHALL COME UPON THEE and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God]

Unless Mary had taken a vow of virginity, as the early Church Fathers taught, why would she a betrothed woman ask, “HOW SHALL THIS BE, SEEING I KNOW NOT A MAN? Wouldn’t conceiving be the most natural and desired thing for a betrothed to expect, especially a Jewish woman?

 

[Good_Fella]

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?

Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the Word of God, committed to the Church.
Dei verbum, 2

To paraphrase Vatican ll Council, the Word of God is expressed in both inseparable forms of divine revelation: non-verbal and verbal. Sacred Tradition consists of the unwritten infallible truths revealed by God pertaining to faith and morals. This medium of divine revelation is “the deeds wrought by God in the history of salvation” and their meanings. These deeds include the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ and the immaculate conception and assumption of Mary. Before the New Testament was ever written, the mysteries surrounding the life of Christ were revealed to the Church by way of Sacred Tradition. The same can be said for Mary’s sinlessness, her preference to remain chaste, and her assumption into heaven. The full implications of her immaculate conception probably never came to light among the faithful by way of divine revelation in apostolic time.

The unwritten infallible truths of Sacred Tradition revealed by God through the Paraclete can be discussed and articulated by the faithful in words and thereby transmitted to generations of believers. But when the unwritten truths of Sacred Tradition are discussed or put into writing by the faithful, the forms of expressions they take lack the guarantee of infallibilty. But these forms of expressions mustn’t be confused with the infallibly true deeds wrought by God. Thus the individual writings and sermons of the Church Fathers and Doctors of the Church are in themselves fallible as are the oral traditions and written sources the apostles referred to when they wrote their gospels or letters in light of Sacred Tradition. The writings and sermons of the Church Fathers and Doctors of the Church serve to transmit Sacred Tradition and draw from it over time. But their written works and orations are not Sacred Tradition itself. Tradition and its transmission are distinct but collaborative.

But the one who gives us security with you in Christ and annointed us is God; he has also put his seal upon us and given the Spirit in our hearts as a first installment.
2 Corinthians 1, 21-22

Only the Sacred/Universal Magisterium can verbally express an unwritten and unspoken truth revealed by God by the medium of Sacred Tradition with the guarantee of infallibilty that stems from the charism of this Apostolic Divine Office. Without this unique gift of the Holy Spirit, the Pope in union with the College of Bishops could never pronounce an infallible divine truth belonging to Sacred Tradition. And, again, these pronouncements themselves musn’t be identified as Sacred Tradition: the unwritten deeds wrought by God in the history of salvation. The deeds include the act of Jesus speaking and the meanings behind his words.

“I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming.”
John 16, 12-13

“The Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth.”
1 Timothy 3, 15

PAX :harp:

 

[Selene]

Strictly speaking, this is not “proof” of Mary’s virginity, but Mary’s virginity can be seen as a fulfillment of this passage.

Hello Tim,

The Old Testament is read in light of the New Testament because the Old Testament does speak about Christ and also about Mary. Our bodies are temples, and Mary’s body was the temple or the vessel that carried Jesus. The words of Ezekiel is a prefigurement of Mary’s virginity just as the burning bush is a prefigurement of Mary’s immaculate conception.

The burning bush that spoke to Moses is a prefigurement of Mary’s immaculate conception because Mary was born without sin. The child she carried in her womb was a living fire that can consume sin. If Mary had been born with sin, she would have died because sin can never contain holiness. In the same way, the gate is a prefigurement of Mary’s virginity. Where the Lord God passes, no man can enter. The gate remains shut.

Peace be with you,
Selene

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

Hello Tim,

The Old Testament is read in light of the New Testament because the Old Testament does speak about Christ and also about Mary. Our bodies are temples, and Mary’s body was the temple or the vessel that carried Jesus. The words of Ezekiel is a prefigurement of Mary’s virginity just as the burning bush is a prefigurement of Mary’s immaculate conception.

The burning bush that spoke to Moses is a prefigurement of Mary’s immaculate conception because Mary was born without sin. The child she carried in her womb was a living fire that can consume sin. If Mary had been born with sin, she would have died because sin can never contain holiness. In the same way, the gate is a prefigurement of Mary’s virginity. Where the Lord God passes, no man can enter. The gate remains shut.

Peace be with you,
Selene

What you have said is legitimate; however, part of the nature of prophecy is its ambiguity. The passages were written before, not after the birth of Christ: while the case could certainly be made that the Ezekiel’s prophecies regarding the Temple refer in fact to Jesus (who referred to Himself as a temple), it is not something that can be proved absolutely.

 

[Selene]

That’s really stretching it…This verse has absolutely nothing to do with the birth of Jesus. This was simply instructions how to set up the Jewish temples and who could come and go, etc.

Hello Jerom,

In the Old Testament, the temples are buildings and God dwelled in them. In the New Testament, the temple is seen as the body. When Christ said to destroy this temple and within 3 days, he will raise it up, the Jewish people didn’t understand because they thought he was referring to the building when Jesus was actually referring to his body. The Old Testament is read in light of the New Testament (Luke 24:45). In the New Testament, the Holy Spirit dwells in the Church, which is not a building, but the bodies of assembles of people. The passage of God going through the gate is symbolic.

 

[Sellers1]

When does Gabriel tell her that she would give birth as a virgin? I can’t find that anywhere.

Here’s Luke 1:26-38. Feel free to point it out to me where Gabriel tells Mary that she ill give birth to Jesus as a virgin.

26And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,

27To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.

28And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

29And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.

30And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.

31And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.

32He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

33And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

34Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

35And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

36And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

37For with God nothing shall be impossible.

38And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

How shall this be, I know not a man. Mary is a virgin at the time of the Annunciation.

Joseph did not have union with Mary until the birth of Jesus. Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born. How do you not see this?

 

[Sellers1]

JL: Ezek 44:1 Then THE MAN BROUGHT ME BACK TO THE OUTER GATE of the sanctuary, THE ONE FACING EAST, and IT WAS SHUT. 2 THE LORD SAID to me, THIS GATE IS TO REMAIN SHUT. IT MUST NOT BE OPENED; NO ONE MAY ENTER THROUTH IT. It is to remain shut BECAUSE THE LORD, THE GOD OF ISRAEL, HAS ENTERED THROUGH IT.

[Ezek44:1 is an OT prophecy. This gate, Mary’s womb, is to remain shut. It must NOT BE OPENED, NO ONE may enter THROUGH IT, She is to remain ever virgin, NO ONE, no other children are to enter through it. Because The Lord God, Jesus, has entered through Mary the gate of heaven.]

NBRS 30:3 “WHEN A YOUNG WOMAN still living in her father’s house MAKES A VOW TO THE LORD or obligates herself by a pledge 4 AND HER FATHER HEARS about her vow or pledge BUT SAYS NOTHING TO HER, then all HER VOWS and every pledge by which she obligated herself WILL STAND. 5 But if her father forbids her when he hears about it, none of her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand; the LORD will release her because her father has forbidden her. 6 "IF SHE MARRIES AFTER SHE MAKES A VOW or after her lips utter a rash promise by which she obligates herself 7 AND HER HUSBAND HEARS about it BUT SAYS NOTHING to her, THEN HER VOWS or the pledges by which she obligated herself WILL STAND. 8 But if her husband forbids her when he hears about it, he nullifies the vow that obligates her or the rash promise by which she obligates herself, and the LORD will release her.

[Lk1:30 And THE ANGEL SAID unto her FEAR NOT MARY for thou hast found favour with God 31 And behold THOU SHALT CONCEIVE in thy womb AND BRING FORTH A SON and shalt CALL HIS NAME JESUS 32 He shall be great and shall be called THE SON OF THE HIGHEST and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever and of his kingdom there shall be no end 34 THEN SAID MARY unto the angel HOW SHALL THIS BE SEEING I KNOW NOT A MAN? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her THE HOLY GHOST SHALL COME UPON THEE and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God]

Unless Mary had taken a vow of virginity, as the early Church Fathers taught, why would she a betrothed woman ask, “HOW SHALL THIS BE, SEEING I KNOW NOT A MAN? Wouldn’t conceiving be the most natural and desired thing for a betrothed to expect, especially a Jewish woman?

But you must read the entire context of the Scripture instead of inserting opinions and your own interpretation of it intermixed with unsupported opinions and dogmas. Biblically, Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Christ. That’s very central to most any Christian doctrine.

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

How shall this be, I know not a man. Mary is a virgin at the time of the Annunciation.

Joseph did not have union with Mary until the birth of Jesus. Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born. How do you not see this?

That most certainly does not answer my question.

What prompts Mary to ask the angel, “How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?”

You’ve cited things that happened afterwards, but this does not explain why Mary asked in the first place.

 

[Sellers1]

That most certainly does not answer my question.

What prompts Mary to ask the angel, “How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?”

You’ve cited things that happened afterwards, but this does not explain why Mary asked in the first place.

What don’t you get here?? Mary was a virgin. How could she be expecting a child if she never had sex before is what she is asking.

How much simpler could this be?