Mary's virginity ?

[TMC]

Why? Does not Scripture state we are to hang on to oral traditions that have been taught?

That is a bootstrap argument. The fact is that Scripture does not say that Mary was perpetually virgin. That teaching is not contradicted by Scripture, but it also does not come from Scripture. If I am wrong about that, please let me know, but I am pretty sure I am right.

I have no problem with the Church using Tradition as the basis of her teachings, but many Protestants do. That statement is merely descriptive. If you are talking to protestants (as the poster I responded to is), you have to keep their frame of reference in mind.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

The problem you will always have with the separate brethern is that one can show that the Catholic position is consistent with Scripture, but it cannot be shown that the Catholic position is mandated by Scripture. Catholics rely on more than Scripture, and interpret Scripture in light of Tradition. Christians who reject that methodology will have trouble accepting Catholic teachings that rely on Tradition, as is the case with perpetual virginity.

But, Catholic apologists can often show that some of our separated brethren’s positions are implausible with the most likely interpretations of scripture.

For example; Are girls in the middle east who are betrothed, generally ignorant about how babies come into being?

Obviously, no.

Look at what Mary says in Luke 1:34 regarding conception of the child:
“How is this to be since I do not (carnally) know man?”

A person interpreting the scripture needs to think about why she would have asked that particular question.

It can not be because she didn’t know how intercourse worked. For she mentions “man.” Therefore she knows in at least a general sense, where babies come from.
It can not be because she isn’t engaged to be married, because – she is.
So the sentence has to refer to a PROBLEM with her becoming pregnant by Joseph.
She is denying that it can happen that way for some unspecified reason.

The difference between an informed Catholic, and most of our separated brethren; is that we read the sentence and notice there is a problem – whereas our separated brethren ignore it and try to apply their own opinion about marriage in the twenty first century to a situation that simply doesn’t fit.

Everything in scriputre is profitable unto our “eddification.” means at least this much – read carefully!

 

[TMC]

But, Catholic apologists can often show that some of our separated brethren’s positions are implausible with the most likely interpretations of scripture.

For example; Are girls in the middle east who are betrothed, generally ignorant about how babies come into being?

Obviously, no.

Look at what Mary says in Luke 1:34 regarding conception of the child:
“How is this to be since I do not (carnally) know man?”

A person interpreting the scripture needs to think about why she would have asked that particular question.

It can not be because she didn’t know how intercourse worked. For she mentions “man.” Therefore she knows in at least a general sense, where babies come from.
It can not be because she isn’t engaged to be married, because – she is.
So the sentence has to refer to a PROBLEM with her becoming pregnant by Joseph.
She is denying that it can happen that way for some unspecified reason.

The difference between an informed Catholic, and most of our separated brethren; is that we read the sentence and notice there is a problem – whereas our separated brethren ignore it and try to apply their own opinion about marriage in the twenty first century to a situation that simply doesn’t fit.

Everything in scriputre is profitable unto our “eddification.” means at least this much – read carefully!

Very few Protestants deny the virgin birth. They have a problem with perpetual virginity, which is not based on Scripture but on Tradition.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

That is a bootstrap argument. The fact is that Scripture does not say that Mary was perpetually virgin. That teaching is not contradicted by Scripture, but it also does not come from Scripture. If I am wrong about that, please let me know, but I am pretty sure I am right.

I have no problem with the Church using Tradition as the basis of her teachings, but many Protestants do. That statement is merely descriptive. If you are talking to protestants (as the poster I responded to is), you have to keep their frame of reference in mind.

Well it was certainly an apostolic tradition.
In Jerome’s defense of this he says it is a tradition that goes back all the way to Polycarp, the disciple of John.
You know, John the Beloved, right?

 

[808Catholic]

Very few Protestants deny the virgin birth. They have a problem with perpetual virginity, which is not based on Scripture but on Tradition.

But where in Scripture does it say that Mary had sex with anyone???

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Very few Protestants deny the virgin birth. They have a problem with perpetual virginity, which is not based on Scripture but on Tradition.

You’re ignoring the scripture.

Protestants generally do not have an answer as to “Why” Mary did not think Joseph could give her a child even though they were getting married. If Mary was going to have sexual relations with Joseph at a later date (at any later date, ever), then there ought never have been a question as to “how” Mary could get pregnant in the first place.

The evidence for perpetual virginity is still found in scripture – there simply was a problem between Mary and Joseph regarding having a sexual relationship.

The burden of proof is on the protestants to show a reason, from scripture, that the problem ceases to exist at a later date in way that Mary couldn’t have known when the angel appeared to her. They can’t.

Therefore the Catholic position is more scriptural than the protestant one.

Tradition merely affirms what is implicit in Mary’s question.

 

[littlestsouls2]

God said: ‘Even to [until] your old age I am the same…’ (Isaiah 46:4). None would argue that God ceases to be God at some point.

 

[TimothyH]

Jesus was conceived by a union of Mary and the Holy Spirit. Mary is therefor the spouse of the Holy Spirit.

For Mary to have then had relations with another man makes her an adulterer.

If Mary is an adulterer then Jesus is the son of an adulterer. Jesus cannot be both the son of an adulterer and the Son of God. It is not possible.

-Tim-

 

[TMC]

But where in Scripture does it say that Mary had sex with anyone???

It does not, which is why the Tradition is not inconsistent with Scripture.

 

[TMC]

Well it was certainly an apostolic tradition.
In Jerome’s defense of this he says it is a tradition that goes back all the way to Polycarp, the disciple of John.
You know, John the Beloved, right?

Yes, that is what I said. Perpetual virginity is not Scriptural, but comes from Tradition.

 

[TMC]

You’re ignoring the scripture.

Protestants generally do not have an answer as to “Why” Mary did not think Joseph could give her a child even though they were getting married. If Mary was going to have sexual relations with Joseph at a later date (at any later date, ever), then there ought never have been a question as to “how” Mary could get pregnant in the first place.

The evidence for perpetual virginity is still found in scripture – there simply was a problem between Mary and Joseph regarding having a sexual relationship.

The burden of proof is on the protestants to show a reason, from scripture, that the problem ceases to exist at a later date in way that Mary couldn’t have known when the angel appeared to her. They can’t.

Therefore the Catholic position is more scriptural than the protestant one.

Tradition merely affirms what is implicit in Mary’s question.

I am not ignoring Scripture, I am reading it. Scripture is entirely silent on what Mary did or did not do after Jesus was born. Perpetual virginity comes from Tradition, not Scripture. With respect, your contention that Mary’s comments to the angel show that she could not ever have sex make absolutely no sense.

 

[808Catholic]

Jesus was conceived by a union of Mary and the Holy Spirit. Mary is therefor the spouse of the Holy Spirit.

For Mary to have then had relations with another man makes her an adulterer.

If Mary is an adulterer then Jesus is the son of an adulterer. Jesus cannot be both the son of an adulterer and the Son of God. It is not possible.

-Tim-

Never heard this point of view and I’m pretty sure the Catholic Church’s position is different. But, it’s a creative view point!

 

[808Catholic]

It does not, which is why the Tradition is not inconsistent with Scripture.

Yet from Tradition comes the Bible. Does that mean (to you) the Apostles were teaching the Gospel wrong??? Does that mean the early Church fathers who put down the many early heresies were wrong???

 

[TMC]

Yet from Tradition comes the Bible. Does that mean (to you) the Apostles were teaching the Gospel wrong??? Does that mean the early Church fathers who put down the many early heresies were wrong???

I have no idea what you are talking about. When did I ever say anyone was wrong? I have only said what is undeniably true - that the doctrine of perpetual virginity comes from Tradition, is not inconsistent with Scripture, but is not found in Scripture. Catholics do not rely on Scripture alone, and Catholic teaching does not come from Scripture alone.

 

[adrift]

I am not ignoring Scripture, I am reading it. Scripture is entirely silent on what Mary did or did not do after Jesus was born. Perpetual virginity comes from Tradition, not Scripture. With respect, your contention that Mary’s comments to the angel show that she could not ever have sex make absolutely no sense.

I mostly agree with you but Mary does ask how can this be since I know not man? I have yet to have a valid explanation of this question. The unusual response is that she was unmarried or not with Joseph at the time. Both responses fail to recognize that she was married to Joseph She does not say Joseph and I aren’t together yet which kind of a strange response anyway. So as I would agree that there isn’t much mentioned I don’t think it is entirely silent either.

 

[TMC]

I mostly agree with you but Mary does ask how can this be since I know not man? I have yet to have a valid explanation of this question. The unusual response is that she was unmarried or not with Joseph at the time. Both responses fail to recognize that she was married to Joseph She does not say Joseph and I aren’t together yet which kind of a strange response anyway. So as I would agree that there isn’t much mentioned I don’t think it is entirely silent either.

There is some oddness in the exchange, I agree, but that doesn’t come close to supporting a conclusion that there was some impediment to Mary ever having sex. My understanding is that Jewish couples in that time commonly had sex once they were betrothed, so the exchange at least shows that was not happening. One could speculate as to why Mary did not assume that the angel meant she would have a child with Joseph. But it is also not unreasonable to think that Mary assumed the angel meant she was currently pregnant, or would be very soon, when she knew she was still virgin. For all we know they were not to be married for some time, and that is the cause of Mary’s confusion. Certainly drawing an inference of perpetual virginity from the phrasing of this exchange is quite a reach. After all, Mary did not say, how can that be when I am pledged to be ever virgin, or how can that be when Joseph and I have agreed never to have sex, or anything of that sort.

 

[adrift]

There is some oddness in the exchange, I agree, but that doesn’t come close to supporting a conclusion that there was some impediment to Mary ever having sex. My understanding is that Jewish couples in that time commonly had sex once they were betrothed, so the exchange at least shows that was not happening. One could speculate as to why Mary did not assume that the angel meant she would have a child with Joseph. But it is also not unreasonable to think that Mary assumed the angel meant she was currently pregnant, or would be very soon, when she knew she was still virgin. For all we know they were not to be married for some time, and that is the cause of Mary’s confusion. Certainly drawing an inference of perpetual virginity from the phrasing of this exchange is quite a reach. After all, Mary did not say, how can that be when I am pledged to be ever virgin, or how can that be when Joseph and I have agreed never to have sex, or anything of that sort.

It was not common and was actually frowned on that they had sex in this betrothal period. Betrothal meant that they were married but in that part of the marriage where the woman was waiting for her groom to come and take her into his house. Think of the parable of the 10 virgins. This period usually lasted about a year. Mary’s response is indeed odd. To assume that she would understand that the Angel meant right away would also have to assume that it meant that Joseph would be at her door soon. Mary’s question is strange if you eliminate the idea that what she was really asking was about her vow of virginity then her question makes sense.

 

[TMC]

It was not common and was actually frowned on that they had sex in this betrothal period. Betrothal meant that they were married but in that part of the marriage where the woman was waiting for her groom to come and take her into his house. Think of the parable of the 10 virgins. This period usually lasted about a year.

Not my understanding based on my readings and study, but frankly not an important point to this conversation.

Mary’s response is indeed odd. To assume that she would understand that the Angel meant right away would also have to assume that it meant that Joseph would be at her door soon. Mary’s question is strange if you eliminate the idea that what she was really asking was about her vow of virginity then her question makes sense.

Odd, true. Of course there was no stenographer there, and we don’t know how Luke came to learn of the exchange, so I would not put too much into the exact word choice. Still, the actual text if very far from establishing that Mary was pledged to be ever virgin. It would not be inconsistent, but it doesn’t say that. And if the point was to communicate that fact, why doesn’t it say that?

Again, the doctrine is not found in Scripture. That does not necessarily mean it is wrong - many Catholic doctrines are not found in Scripture. Catholics are not sola scriptura.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

There is some oddness in the exchange, I agree, but that doesn’t come close to supporting a conclusion that there was some impediment to Mary ever having sex. My understanding is that Jewish couples in that time commonly had sex once they were betrothed, so the exchange at least shows that was not happening.

It shows far more than that.
Consider the word “perpetuate”, that word means to “continue” in a state.
What you probably don’t realize is that Greek tenses of verbs do not agree with English tenses precisely; and you are trying to force Mary’s words to fit a tense she did not use.

If Mary were merely talking about an aspect of the situation, or logical problem, then she ought to have been recorded in the Aorist tense. Aorist is about relationship or logic, and does not strictly have anything to do with time or when something happens. So if Mary had said “I haven’t known a man (until now)” or “I haven’t got a man” the idea would be Aorist. Aorist is something subject to change at a moments notice and has nothing to do with the future at all. In general, the Aorist tense is typically translated as past tense in English, although when it’s evident that it didn’t ever happen in the past; a translator will choose an arbitrary tense to do the translation.

However, when I check the Greek – that’s not the tense I find.
Rather I find Mary speaking in the Greek PIA tense, as anyone can check.

biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/1-34.htm

The PIA tense is often translated as present tense in English. But, if you check any grammar book on Greek, you will find that it is not the same as English present. It is a verb that STRESSES a CONTINUING action. In order to translate it precisely, in English, an adverb is required.

ntgreek.org/learn_nt_greek/verbs1.htm

Present Tense
The present tense usually denotes continuous kind of action. It shows ‘action in progress’ or ‘a state of persistence.’ When used in the indicative mood, the present tense denotes action taking place or going on in the present time.

What Mary precisely said, is, “How can this be since I continually do not know man?”

That’s exactly where the word “perpetual” virginity comes from.

One could speculate as to why Mary did not assume that the angel meant she would have a child with Joseph. But it is also not unreasonable to think that Mary assumed the angel meant she was currently pregnant, or would be very soon, when she knew she was still virgin. For all we know they were not to be married for some time, and that is the cause of Mary’s confusion.

No, the perpetual/continual nature of the verb means that Mary could not see how it would ever change. The condition, whatever it was, had to be resolved – for it would not resolve itself. She believed it would go on exactly like it was for as far into the future as she could see.

The angel uses no Greek tenses to indicate Mary was pregnant immediately or very soon. It’s ridiculous to think Mary thought the angel said she was “already” pregnant; I mean she wouldn’t have asked “how shall this be.” (future tense, middle voice) if she believed she was already to be pregnant. She is talking about the future, and indicating that there is an ongoing, perpetual problem that she doesn’t know how to solve.

The only tense Mary could have used that would have been stronger is the perfect tense. That would mean that Mary refuses to ever have sexual relations with a man, ever.

But she is faced with God who has the power to over-rule even a person’s oath, and such a statement would be both prideful and border on sinful. It’s not surprising she doesn’t use it. If God wanted her to have sexual relations with Joseph, he certainly could tell her to do so in spite of any oath or other impediment. But God doesn’t tell her anything of the sort through the angel.

Certainly drawing an inference of perpetual virginity from the phrasing of this exchange is quite a reach. After all, Mary did not say, how can that be when I am pledged to be ever virgin, or how can that be when Joseph and I have agreed never to have sex, or anything of that sort.

Of course not. She can’t say that.
But the idea of perpetual, (AKA continual), not knowing of man (AKA virginity) is exactly what is said in the Greek. I know of NO Greek speaking church, Orthodox or other, which misses the inference. It’s only in Latin and English, where the verb tense is not as clear, that people begin to wonder if she is talking about an ongoing problem or a transient issue.

Where in scripture is the CHANGE which indicates that the problem is resolved and exactly when does it happen? There is no indication of change, and the evidence points to a perpetual problem!

 

[TMC]

It shows far more than that.
Consider the word “perpetuate”, that word means to “continue” in a state.
What you probably don’t realize is that Greek tenses of verbs do not agree with English tenses precisely; and you are trying to force Mary’s words to fit a tense she did not use.

If Mary were merely talking about an aspect of the situation, or logical problem, then she ought to have been recorded in the Aorist tense. Aorist is about relationship or logic, and does not strictly have anything to do with time or when something happens. So if Mary had said “I haven’t known a man (until now)” or “I haven’t got a man” the idea would be Aorist. Aorist is something subject to change at a moments notice and has nothing to do with the future at all. In general, the Aorist tense is typically translated as past tense in English, although when it’s evident that it didn’t ever happen in the past; a translator will choose an arbitrary tense to do the translation.

However, when I check the Greek – that’s not the tense I find.
Rather I find Mary speaking in the Greek PIA tense, as anyone can check.

biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/1-34.htm

The PIA tense is often translated as present tense in English. But, if you check any grammar book on Greek, you will find that it is not the same as English present. It is a verb that STRESSES a CONTINUING action. In order to translate it precisely, in English, an adverb is required.

ntgreek.org/learn_nt_greek/verbs1.htm
What Mary precisely said, is, “How can this be since I continually do not know man?”

That’s exactly where the word “perpetual” virginity comes from.

No, the perpetual/continual nature of the verb means that Mary could not see how it would ever change. The condition, whatever it was, had to be resolved – for it would not resolve itself. She believed it would go on exactly like it was for as far into the future as she could see.

The angel uses no Greek tenses to indicate Mary was pregnant immediately or very soon. It’s ridiculous to think Mary thought the angel said she was “already” pregnant; I mean she wouldn’t have asked “how shall this be.” (future tense, middle voice) if she believed she was already to be pregnant. She is talking about the future, and indicating that there is an ongoing, perpetual problem that she doesn’t know how to solve.

The only tense Mary could have used that would have been stronger is the perfect tense. That would mean that Mary refuses to ever have sexual relations with a man, ever.

But she is faced with God who has the power to over-rule even a person’s oath, and such a statement would be both prideful and border on sinful. It’s not surprising she doesn’t use it. If God wanted her to have sexual relations with Joseph, he certainly could tell her to do so in spite of any oath or other impediment. But God doesn’t tell her anything of the sort through the angel.

Of course not. She can’t say that.
But the idea of perpetual, (AKA continual), not knowing of man (AKA virginity) is exactly what is said in the Greek. I know of NO Greek speaking church, Orthodox or other, which misses the inference. It’s only in Latin and English, where the verb tense is not as clear, that people begin to wonder if she is talking about an ongoing problem or a transient issue.

Where in scripture is the CHANGE which indicates that the problem is resolved and exactly when does it happen? There is no indication of change, and the evidence points to a perpetual problem!

You are levering a lot of meaning into words that Mary did not actually speak - unless you think that Mary spoke Greek to the angel. You are also asking for proof of a change away from a condition that is not really found in the text. Again, I think that the passage in Luke allows for perpetual virginity but does not mandate it. I think most biblical scholars agree with that (not that that is conclusive, either).

If the words are so clear and plain, why is it that the Church teaches that perpetual virginity comes from the Sacred Tradition? And why is it that those that reject Sacred Tradition also tend to reject perpetual virginity?