The not so virgin Mary

[Canto]

Guys can you enlightened me about this issue A lot of non catholic says Mary is not the woman being mention in that verse in the rev.3:15

Do you mean chapter 12 ???

This link might help
matt1618.freeyellow.com/woman.html

Various interpretations are offered by people about who the womne is. To me it seems to be a symbol of Mary and perhaps the Church. From a Marian perspective here is my take on Rev 12.

1 ¶ And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.

Mary crowned Queen of Heaven. A great sign: remember the sign of Isaiah 7:14 the Virgin will conceive.

2 And being with child, she cried travailing in birth: and was in pain to be delivered.

Mary via the Holy Spirit carried Jesus in her womb. The birth pangs relates to the sword that pierced her soul - prophecy of Simeon

3 And there was seen another sign in heaven. And behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns and on his heads seven diadems.
4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven and cast them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to be delivered: that, when she should be delivered, he might devour her son.

Satan after Jesus.

5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod. And her son was taken up to God and to his throne.

Jesus is King of all nations and ascended into heaven.

6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she had a place prepared by God, that there they should feed her, a thousand two hundred sixty days.

St John took care of Mary on Jesus’ command or this could be in Egypt with Joseph and Jesus.

7 And there was a great battle in heaven: Michael and his angels fought with the dragon, and the dragon fought, and his angels.
8 And they prevailed not: neither was their place found any more in heaven.
9 And that great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, who seduceth the whole world. And he was cast unto the earth: and his angels were thrown down with him.

St Michale the Archangel and his Angels boot Satan out of heaven.

10 And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying: Now is come salvation and strength and the kingdom of our God and the power of his Christ: because the accuser of our brethren is cast forth, who accused them before our God day and night.
11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of the testimony: and they loved not their lives unto death.

Christ’s passion redeems us

12 ¶ Therefore, rejoice, O heavens, and you that dwell therein. Woe to the earth and to the sea, because the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, knowing that he hath but a short time.
13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman who brought forth the man child.

Satan goes after Mary. Think how many people blaspheme our Mother. Denying the Mother is one step away from denying the Son.

14 And there were given to the woman two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the desert, unto her place, where she is nourished for a time and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.
15 And the serpent cast out of his mouth, after the woman, water, as it were a river: that he might cause her to be carried away by the river.
16 And the earth helped the woman: and the earth opened her mouth and swallowed up the river which the dragon cast out of his mouth.

The honour (not divine worship) due to Mary and rightly given her by the Church

17 And the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Satan pretty cheesed of so he goes to make war with the rest of Mary’s seed - us - we are her children. c.f. Gen 3:15

 

[Canto]

Guys can you enlightened me about this issue A lot of non catholic says Mary is not the woman being mention in that verse in the rev.3:15

Do you mean Genesis 3:15

…so the most holy Virgin, **united with him **by a most intimate and indissoluble bond, was, with him and through him, eternally at enmity with evil serpent, and most completely triumphed over him, and thus crushed his head with her immaculate foot. From Ineffabilis Deus (Latin for “Ineffable God”)

King James = it
Douay = she (btw Saint Jerome translated the Hebrew for this verse)
Hebrew = the former (no gender stated)
NAB = they (in footnotes says this is more exact)

The Hebrew simply means: “the former” - i.e. the just referred to. The Woman and her seed (plural) are the just refered to.

“She” seems to be the more logical translation in context and you’ll notice the dialogue seems to be a him vs her, ENMITY between YOU and the WOMAN. And who is the prophesised victor, the serpent or the woman – the woman!

I will put enmity
between you (1) and the woman (2)
between your (1) seed (1a) and her (2) seed (2b)
she (2) will strike at your (1) head
and you (1) will strike at her (2) heel.

Hers (her seed) is plural, so it would seem more logical to say "She”

I will put enmity
between you (singular) and the woman (singular)
between your (singular) seed (plural) and her (singular) seed (plural)
she (singular) will strike at your (singular) head
and you (singular) will strike at her (singular) heel.

This link might help too
matt1618.freeyellow.com/woman.html

It is obvious that if this (Genesis 3:15) is a prophecy about Jesus, and this is called the ‘protoevangelium’, the one whose seed Jesus came from was his Mother Mary. If that is the case, the ‘woman’ spoken of who will be at war with the Devil, would be Mary. This fits again the Revelation 12 where the woman is at war with the devil.

 

[sail1993]

belomasanfilms.com/ ~ two 3min must see videos - youth and the rosary

Love those Rosary videos! I’m going to link to them on my facebook page. Thanks for sharing that link.

 

[sail1993]

I also do not believe that Mary remained a virgin for entire life. Neither do I believe that she gave birth to Jesus as a virgin. There are a few possibilities as to what really happened that I explain below:

I believe that the story of the virgin birth in the Bible is merely a story that one should not take literally. Mary definitely had sexual relations with either Joseph or some other man which is how she conceived Jesus.

It is also possible that the story in the Bible is more than just a story of fiction. It is possible that the “virgin birth” story is a result of mistranslation. The word translated as virgin can also be translated as “young woman” or “unmarried daughter”. Therefore, it is possible that the word translated as virgin has been mistranslated.

And finally it is also possible that a miracle really did happen and that a virgin gave birth to a child. However, this is highly unlikely given what we know about science. But then again, a miracle is something that can’t be explained by science.

Personally, I prefer the first two possibilities. Why? Because I believe that a virgin birth was highly unlikely if not impossible and besides that, we do not have the original copies of the Bible so how do we know that this story was not introduced in to the Bible at a later date than the date that the earliest copies were written? Sorry, but I just have far too many doubts to believe that a virgin birth really occurred.

This is really where faith comes into play. There are so many things, happenings, etc. that my human cannot understand or even conceive of. Yet I know them to be true in the deepest parts of my heart and soul. I believe that without faith we put limitations on God. With Him all things are possible. To put limits on His powers or abilities is to make Him human. He’s not human but divine. With faith I do not need science to reinforce or confirm my beliefs.

 

[Canto]

Love those Rosary videos! I’m going to link to them on my facebook page. Thanks for sharing that link.

Glad you like them I know it’s not May but the more people who start or re-start praying the Rosary the better. I particularly found the first one so inspiring. With the Rosary we can ask for Mary’s intercession, meditate on the Gospel and become better human beings. Deo Gratias!

 

[rev_kevin]

catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp

I read through the article listed above written to explain way reform theology teaches that Mary was no longer a virgin after she had Jesus and bore other children along with the Catholic argument on why Mary remained a virgin.

What the article fails to mention is Matthew 1:24-25. This is (along with the verses mentioned in the article) why reform theology teaches that Mary didn’t remain as a virgin once Jesus was born.

Matthew 1:24-25 (with emphasis).

[NASB]
24 And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife,
25 but **kept her a virgin until **she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

[KJV]
24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

[NIV]
24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

choose your favorite translation…they all say the same thing…

Blessings!

I went on a other site about Mary having other children. You wuold have I opened the gates of hl {can’t say the word they will dot it out} I mentioned 1 Corthians 7:3-8 about Instructions on Christian marrage {sex} I believe Mary and Joseph had other children and pointed out their names James, Joseph,Simon and Judas and his sisters who are not named. They will not accept anything you say about this although they will quote you the bible but if you quote them the bible you are wrong no matter what you say. I read Matthew 1:24-25 and it says exactually what you say it does, but they will not accept it because they say Mary stayed a virgin the rest of her life. I beleive she had other children after all she was only human {oh ya I caught a lot of cr about that also} I got did a angel visit you and your wife, did your wife give birth to God and so on and so on. But I believe she did have other children after Jesus was 12 because there is no mention of anyother children at the time Jesus was at the temple. Now I’m waiting to hear a load of {you know what} from them.

 

[LilyM]

If you read the rest of this thread - you know that scripture actually names the parents of all the other ‘brothers’ of Jesus mentioned in scripture - none of them are Mary’s or Joseph’s children, not one - all are the children of other people.

Pray tell, why on earth would Christian rules on marriage apply to Mary and Joseph any more than they applied to Abraham who married his half-sister Sarah and had relations with her maid? Or Jacob who had two wives and had relations with BOTH of their maids?

 

[Libertarian_FL]

I’ve been thinking about this does the your Holy Book the Bible ,anywhere, say Mary stayed a virgin after having Jesus? I can’t think of a passage where in the Four Gospels that was mentioned. If not then how can ou be sure she stayed a virgin after all it would be a gray area not mentioned that she did or did not stay a virgin.

 

[LilyM]

I’ve been thinking about this does the your Holy Book the Bible ,anywhere, say Mary stayed a virgin after having Jesus? I can’t think of a passage where in the Four Gospels that was mentioned. If not then how can ou be sure she stayed a virgin after all it would be a gray area not mentioned that she did or did not stay a virgin.

In common with other aspects of the faith, Mary’s Perpetual Virginity is not a doctrine based on any explicit Bible verse or passage.

Neither, though, are many central Christian doctrines - such as the doctrine of the Trinity, neither is the idea of Jesus actually being God - and moreover the same God as the Father. As opposed to being ‘Son of God’ (as we are all children of God) or ‘in the form of God’ (as we are all in His image and likeness).

For that matter the canon of the Bible itself (which writings are to be included or excluded) is an extrascriptural bit of faith, but I don’t think any Christian believes that God hasn’t set His stamp on the canon of scripture and that it isn’t an article of faith, do they?

Not to say that those doctrines are untrue or that support for them is not to be found in scripture, just that they aren’t explicit.

Same with the perpetual virginity of Mary. It’s implicit in her response to the angel. A normal betrothed woman, intending to consummate her marriage in the normal way, on being told that at some unspecified future point she would have a child, would naturally assume that the child would come about as a result of normal marital relations.

She would hardly ask ‘how can this be?’. The mothers of Samson and Samuel - and Elizabeth - didn’t ask ‘how can this be?’ when they were told by the angels that they would bear children, because they knew how babies happen!

If Mary was planning on consummating the marriage she’d just say ‘thanks for telling me that my marriage will be blessed with a child’ as they did. Her response only really makes sense if she was planning on NEVER having relations with Joseph, NEVER consummating the marriage.

 

[guanophore]

I believe Mary and Joseph had other children and pointed out their names James, Joseph,Simon and Judas and his sisters who are not named… Now I’m waiting to hear a load of {you know what} from them.

Well, it looks to me as though you have already posted the “load of you know what”.

If you look up these names in your bible, it is easy to see that they are children of another Mary, described as the “sister” of the mother of Jesus. This could be a blood relative of Mary, or the sister of Joseph, or another near kin.

 

[Good_Fella]

I went on a other site about Mary having other children. You wuold have I opened the gates of hl {can’t say the word they will dot it out} I mentioned 1 Corthians 7:3-8 about Instructions on Christian marrage {sex} I believe Mary and Joseph had other children and pointed out their names James, Joseph,Simon and Judas and his sisters who are not named**. They will not accept anything you say about this although they will quote you the bible but if you quote them the bible you are wrong no matter what you say.** I read Matthew 1:24-25 and it says exactually what you say it does, but they will not accept it because they say Mary stayed a virgin the rest of her life**. I beleive she had other children after all she was only human {oh ya I caught a lot of cr** about that also} I got did a angel visit you and your wife, did your wife give birth to God and so on and so on. But I believe she did have other children after Jesus was 12 because there is no mention of anyother children at the time Jesus was at the temple. Now I’m waiting to hear a load of {you know what} from them.

If you check the list of the apostles and examine it more closely, you’ll find that James, Judas (Thaddeus/Jude), and Simon are included among the Twelve. The term “brothers” means relatives (cousins) and close disciples of Jesus in their case.

Matthew is purely insisting that Jesus isn’t the biological offspring of Joseph, but was miraculously born of the Virgin Mary as alluded to by the prophet Isaiah.

*Therefore the Lord himself will give you this sign: the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him **Emmanuel *(God with us).
Isaiah 7, 14

He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him* Jesus**.*
Matthew 1, 25

By the way, there were no siblings of Jesus standing at the foot of the cross with their mother Mary. If Jesus had uterine brothers and sisters, they would have been there with their mother, seeing that it was the time of Passover when entire families travelled to Jerusalem to celebrate the feast. And Jesus would surely have placed his mother in the care of the next elder son, not a disciple of his, according to Judaic custom.

Pax Christu:harp:

 

[Canto]

I’ve been thinking about this does the your Holy Book the Bible ,anywhere, say Mary stayed a virgin after having Jesus? I can’t think of a passage where in the Four Gospels that was mentioned. If not then how can ou be sure she stayed a virgin after all it would be a gray area not mentioned that she did or did not stay a virgin.

Does it need too? Not everything is contained in the Bible.
The Bible does not contradict the doctrine and actually supports it in many verses for example Ezekiel 44:2

“And the Lord said to me: This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it: because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it, and it shall be shut.”

We can be sure she stayed a virgin as the doctrine is part of the word of God. The word of God is not confined to the Bible alone, there is sacred oral tradition too which confirms the doctrine.

 

[kristine105]

catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp

I read through the article listed above written to explain way reform theology teaches that Mary was no longer a virgin after she had Jesus and bore other children along with the Catholic argument on why Mary remained a virgin.

What the article fails to mention is Matthew 1:24-25. This is (along with the verses mentioned in the article) why reform theology teaches that Mary didn’t remain as a virgin once Jesus was born.

Matthew 1:24-25 (with emphasis).

[NASB]
24 And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife,
25 but **kept her a virgin until **she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

[KJV]
24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

[NIV]
24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

choose your favorite translation…they all say the same thing…

Blessings!

maybe you just misunderstood the verses and so as the grammar. Try to focus more on other bible verses and see what those words really meant…

 

[Insight]

Does it need too? Not everything is contained in the Bible.

That is were the value of Private Revelation comes in. The visions and revelations of Saint Bridget hold that Mary’s Virginity remained intact; “I too in the Holy Spirit knew for very certain that my virginity would remain forever unharmed even though, as a result of God’s hidden plan, I was being betrothed to a husband.” Saint Bridget was canonized by Pope Boniface IX in the year 1391, and confirmed by Pope Martin V in the Council of Constance in the year 1415. Her Visions and Revelations were approved and confirmed by Pope Gregory XI (1371-78).

Although Maria Valtorta’s writings have been controversial, they also hold Mary’s Virginity intact; “She is the Virgin. She is the Only One. She is the Perfect One. The Complete One. Conceived as such. Generated as such. Remained such. Crowned such. Eternally such”.

God Bless

 

[rev_kevin]

Well, it looks to me as though you have already posted the “load of you know what”.

If you look up these names in your bible, it is easy to see that they are children of another Mary, described as the “sister” of the mother of Jesus. This could be a blood relative of Mary, or the sister of Joseph, or another near kin.

Thanks you just proved my point. You Cahtolics will not accept any other view. That is your point of view on the names. I noticed you are not too sure yourself. "This COULD be a blood relative of Mary, OR the sister of Joseph, OR another near kin. You don’t know yourself.hmmm. Could you be giving me a load of -----. Besides Joseph was not one of the disciples.

 

[LilyM]

If you check the list of the apostles and examine it more closely, you’ll find that James, Judas (Thaddeus/Jude), and Simon are included among the Twelve. The term “brothers” means relatives (cousins) and close disciples of Jesus in their case.

Matthew is purely insisting that Jesus isn’t the biological offspring of Joseph, but was miraculously born of the Virgin Mary as alluded to by the prophet Isaiah.

Therefore the Lord himself will give you this sign: the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him **Emmanuel **(God with us).
Isaiah 7, 14

He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him** Jesus**.
Matthew 1, 25

By the way, there were no siblings of Jesus standing at the foot of the cross with their mother Mary. If Jesus had uterine brothers and sisters, they would have been there with their mother, seeing that it was the time of Passover when entire families travelled to Jerusalem to celebrate the feast. And Jesus would surely have placed his mother in the care of the next elder son, not a disciple of his, according to Judaic custom.

Pax Christu:harp:

Even if some of these alleged siblings had disowned Jesus, as noted James Jude and Simon had not - so it’s not like Jesus had no other candidates to leave Mary with. Yet we’re expected to believe that He chose the totally unrelated John instead of His faithful siblings? Doesn’t stand up to logical scrutiny.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I been skimming through this thread, and I noticed how our Non-Catholic Christians failed to ponder as to why Jesus on the cross gave John his Mother rather than his “supposedly” brothers or sisters. It is common for Jews to take care of their older parents.

If Jesus did have siblings, he would have to give his mother to his brother or sister. He didn’t. He gave his Mother to John, the Apostle. Second, the brothers and sisters of the Lord are sons and daughters of other Mary. Third, not one of the so called brothers and sisters of Jesus are referred to as "Mary’s daughter or sons.

Catholics are not the only who believe this also Eastern Orthodox believe it.,

 

[rev_kevin]

If you check the list of the apostles and examine it more closely, you’ll find that James, Judas (Thaddeus/Jude), and Simon are included among the Twelve. The term “brothers” means relatives (cousins) and close disciples of Jesus in their case.

Matthew is purely insisting that Jesus isn’t the biological offspring of Joseph, but was miraculously born of the Virgin Mary as alluded to by the prophet Isaiah.

Therefore the Lord himself will give you this sign: the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him **Emmanuel **(God with us).
Isaiah 7, 14

He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him** Jesus**.
Matthew 1, 25

By the way, there were no siblings of Jesus standing at the foot of the cross with their mother Mary. If Jesus had uterine brothers and sisters, they would have been there with their mother, seeing that it was the time of Passover when entire families travelled to Jerusalem to celebrate the feast. And Jesus would surely have placed his mother in the care of the next elder son, not a disciple of his, according to Judaic custom.

Pax Christu:harp:

These were common names back then just like we have common names today. What about the name Joseph that is mentioned as his brother, he’s not part of the 12.

RELATIVE-a word referring grammatically to an antecedent. a thing having a relation to or connection wtih or necessary dependence upon another thing. an individual connection with another by blood or marriage(source-websters dictionary)
BROTHER-a mail who has one or both parents in common with another. a fellow member—usd as a title for ministers in some evangelical denominations. one related to another by common ties (as in race or interests). a man who is religious but not a priest. (source-websters dictionary)
Never said Joseph was the FATHER of Jesus.
FATHER-a male parent. forefather. one who cared for another as a fahter might. first person in the trinity. one deserving the peapect and love given to a father. priest. (soure-websters dictionary)

I don’t believe I mentioned anything about sibblings at the cross. As a matter of fact I didn’t mention aything you wrote here.

You have not mentioned anything about what I wrote on, which was 1 Corinthians 7:3-8. Kinda by passed that one didn’t ya. Thanks for conferming what I said about not willing to accept othere points of views, that they will quote scripture. That you are wrong no matter what and everyone eles is wrong.

 

[Bill_Pick]

The Protestant Reformer Ulrich Zwingli had this to say:
“It was not enough that the conception of Jesus take place without a male role, for if a woman who had previously known a man had conceived him even through the Holy Spirit, ‘who would ever have believed that the child that was born was of the Holy Spirit? For nature knows no birth that is not besmirched with stain.’ For the same reason she had to be ever a virgin, she who bore the one in whom there could not be even the least suspicion of blemish. For the birth of Jesus to be absolutely pure of every stain, Mary herself had to be free of any pollution of normal child-bearing…” Zwingli

Why do his followers deny his words today?

Bob Stanley

 

[littleangel28]

Where is there ANY evidence that Mary did this? Anything? Anywhere? Don’t you think that this would have been important enough to, y’know, MENTION?

Yeah, she was actually something like 13 or 14. So?

I repeat. Where is there any evidence that she actually made vows like that?

Where is there ANY evidence of this? Anywhere?

Where? Everything you are supposing as ‘very likely’ or ‘probable’ hinges upon something we have absolutely no evidence for. None. Zip. Nada. Everybody is assuming that she made such a vow because, well…the early church fathers didn’t want to think about her actually having sex with Joseph and producing children. ewww.

The problem is, though, that you can’t DO this backwards. First find evidence that she actually MADE this vow, or that she actually did NOT have sex (and children) with her lawful husband, or that Joseph was an elderly decrepit widower and decide from that evidence the reasons why she chose to live the life she did. That’s not what I am seeing here though. I’m seeing this: ‘we don’t want to think that she had sex and other children, therefore she must have made this vow.’

No, it simply means he has a better handle on what would have been more likely, given the cultural and religious times. Joseph and Mary were JEWS, remember? And I hate to break it to you like this, but so was Mary’s Son. He was perfect–and part of that perfection was that He would have obeyed the Mosaic Law until it came time for Him to fulfill it rather publicly. Marian remained a Jew all her life–a Jew who saw the Messiah, her son, come.

The average lifespan of humans around Jesus’ time was 25. Of course, there were some old timers, too…but the culture of the time had men marrying around the age of 30, when they were considered old enough, and to have passed most of the danger years. VERY few people lived past 65 or 70.

Women were married to these 30 year olds as soon as they reached puberty. Why? Because child birth was DANGEROUS. Get the babies before something happened to mom.

The point of the above is this: according to Jewish custom of the day, Joseph would have been 30. Jesus began His ministry when He was 30. Joseph would have been 60…and that, quite frankly, was pretty ancient for those times. Shoot, it’s an accomplishment in THESE times. Millions of people nowadays don’t make it that long. My own husband did not…he didn’t see fifty. The fact that Joseph wasn’t around when Jesus began teaching is not proof that he was an old man when he married Mary. Not even close.

I’d just like a prime source, or a quote.

The whole thing makes no sense to me, y’know. Oh, not the “Did Mary have other kids or not” debate–her doing so or not doing so makes no difference to the fact that Jesus is the Christ–but that there are people on this thread whose faith in Him would be utterly destroyed if it turns out that Mary DID have other children.

That…I don’t get.

Kudos Dianaiad! That’s what I am wondering also, and I am Catholic, went to Catholic grammar school from kindergarten to 8th grade and graduated from a Catholic High School (Pope John XXIII in NJ). I remember whenever someone had a question about any Catholic dogma at all, they were berated as lacking faith or influenced by the devil if they wanted some proof, or a reference from something other than catechism or tradition. This is why many people think Catholics “make up stuff” i.e. - limbo, a concept “made up” to explain what happens to unbaptized babies. This makes some people doubt the legitimacy of the Catholic religion altogether and seek elsewhere. I find it interesting that people are accusing others as being bad for starting this thread or asking questions about Catholic dogma. Wow. I remember my mother telling me that in Ireland they were discouraged from reading THE BIBLE, and told just to study catechism. I also don’t get Catholics being so hung up on the virgin thing either. Mary was a woman chosen by God to give birth to Christ. She remained a virgin until he was born - that is what we absolutely know. Everything else is speculation. I am looking for the truth, not to uphold an ideology.