The not so virgin Mary

[Benadam]

just an additional bit of biblical proof of Mary’s intent to remain celibate in the events surrounding the Incarnation.

I think it’s significant that the Incarnation was revealed to Joseph immediately after he decided how to appropriately respond to the issue of Mary’s pregnancy.

Joseph had decided to divorce Mary ‘privately’. He couldn’t subject her to a life marginilized as an adultress. So, if their divorce was going to remain a secret Joseph’s resolve to be faithull to celibate life seems evident. Maybe the trial Joseph endured was meant to test and prove that there were no unconscious desires to do otherwise and once the test waqs passed the Incarnation was revealed to Joseph.

That part of the story supports Mary’s response to the angel 'How can this be so?" as a question that could only come from someone who did not intend to have children.

 

[Janet1983]

Janet This is between me and the rev and I thank you to stay out of this thank you and have a good night
PS did you read all the post or did you just jump in running your mouth.sorry but this is not for you

I’d like to tell you something that I have heard before too: There is such a thing as a private message.
There is definitely no need to start flinging insults at someone disregarding the reason. Someone might regard criticism of their religion insulting, but that is just what we do here. However calling someone a baby is not part of that category. Lowering the conversation to such a level is not only insulting the person you are talking to, it is also insulting everybody else who participates in such a conversation. There is no charity in this kind of a personal attack and it therefore is a major disturbance.

 

[Janet1983]

That part of the story supports Mary’s response to the angel 'How can this be so?" as a question that could only come from someone who did not intend to have children.

Or from someone who simply knows about her own virginity… no further conclusion.
If you had come to me 5 years ago and told me that I was pregnant, I would have said exactly the same thing: How? (Well I also would have told you other things, but that is beside the point… you are not an angel).
How? Well I was a virgin and that would have been the last thing I would have expected. Today however I am married and there would be a good chance for you to be right… It did not mean that I did not intend to have children at all. It simply meant that I was a virgin and that there are usually 2 in the deal.

 

[guanophore]

Or from someone who simply knows about her own virginity… no further conclusion.

Do you really believe that Jewish maidens of marriagable age were not educated about how children come into the world? Mary is about to be taken to wife by a man. If she had intended to engage in the types of activity that create children, surely she would have assumed that this would be how the baby would result.

Mary asks this of the angel because she had no intention of entering into marital relations with Joseph.

If you had come to me 5 years ago and told me that I was pregnant, I would have said exactly the same thing: How? (Well I also would have told you other things, but that is beside the point… you are not an angel).

The angel did not tell her she was pregnant, did he? He said " you shall conceive", in the future tense.

How? Well I was a virgin and that would have been the last thing I would have expected. Today however I am married and there would be a good chance for you to be right… It did not mean that I did not intend to have children at all. It simply meant that I was a virgin and that there are usually 2 in the deal.

And if you were planning to keep your vows of celibacy when you were married, you would also have been curious about “how”.

 

[YADA]

Or from someone who simply knows about her own virginity… no further conclusion.
If you had come to me 5 years ago and told me that I was pregnant, I would have said exactly the same thing: How? (Well I also would have told you other things, but that is beside the point… you are not an angel).
How? Well I was a virgin and that would have been the last thing I would have expected. Today however I am married and there would be a good chance for you to be right… It did not mean that I did not intend to have children at all. It simply meant that I was a virgin and that there are usually 2 in the deal.

And 5 years ago, if you were betrothed to marry - even though a virgin - and an angel came to you and said that you would [future event] become pregnant and have a male child - your response would be “Yes, of course I will have a child” as that would be the natiral order of things …

You might ask “How do you know it will be a boy and not a girl?” …

If you did not understand the ‘mechanics’ of how a baby is concieved; you might ask “How does a woman have a child?” …

Mary’s repsonse is vastly different … Even though she is betrothed to Joseph, obviously understands the mechanics of intimacy [to *Know a Man], and the proposition is made for this to be a future event - Mary seems confused … She genuinely asks … “How can this be because I know not man?”… this implies that - even though betrothed - and “knowing” a man would be one of the first married actions - there was no intention to “know” …

A Vow of Chastity made to the Lord as described in The Book of Numbers - Chapter 30 - helps to make this passage understandable.

You may choose to discredit this possibility but I have to ask … what makes your intepretation better then the foundational Christians who learned the faith from the original Apostles? They believed differently then you.

What makes your interpretation so much more astute then Martin Luther’s, John Calvin’s or Zwingli’s? Luther was all about biblical intepretation and he believd in Mary;s perpertual Virginity. As did Calvin and Zwingli … Why are you more knowledgable about the “Bible” then they were?

What are your credentials for biblical scholarship?

 

[Janet1983]

Do you really believe that Jewish maidens of marriagable age were not educated about how children come into the world? Mary is about to be taken to wife by a man. If she had intended to engage in the types of activity that create children, surely she would have assumed that this would be how the baby would result.
Mary asks this of the angel because she had no intention of entering into marital relations with Joseph.
The angel did not tell her she was pregnant, did he? He said " you shall conceive", in the future tense.
And if you were planning to keep your vows of celibacy when you were married, you would also have been curious about “how”.

She was engaged. The only way to not marry Joseph would have been to get a divorce… She was young and probably not too educated about sexuality, but she sure was not daft. People marry and have children so that had something to do with that…Apart from that she said that she did not know any man… Looking at this word (and I got this explanation in Catholic Religious Education classes at school… and we did not use the English language, but the verse meant the same) it means that she did not have sexual intercourse with any man… that is the archaic meaning of the word… She knew what she was talking about. She was only betrothed and we do not know how long it was till the wedding. She was told that she would conceive and I would be as shocked as she was… The punishment for adultery in that day and age was stoning and her getting pregnant before the marriage would have meant exactly that.
There was no celibacy within a marriage back then. Children took care of their parents in their old age and it would have been disastrous not to have children. It was already shameful for a woman to be barren… Just look at Elisabeth or other women in the Bible who were not having children for the longest time. Many children were great riches.

 

[YADA]

She was engaged. The only way to not marry Joseph would have been to get a divorce… She was young and probably not too educated about sexuality, but she sure was not daft. People marry and have children so that had something to do with that…Apart from that she said that she did not know any man… Looking at this word (and I got this explanation in Catholic Religious Education classes at school… and we did not use the English language, but the verse meant the same) it means that she did not have sexual intercourse with any man… that is the archaic meaning of the word… She knew what she was talking about. She was only betrothed and we do not know how long it was till the wedding. She was told that she would conceive and I would be as shocked as she was… The punishment for adultery in that day and age was stoning and her getting pregnant before the marriage would have meant exactly that.
There was no celibacy within a marriage back then. Children took care of their parents in their old age and it would have been disastrous not to have children. It was already shameful for a woman to be barren… Just look at Elisabeth or other women in the Bible who were not having children for the longest time. Many children were great riches.

The angel did not tell Mary that she was to conceive before her marriage and there is nothing in the passage that implies that. Mary would know that angel told Abraham that Sarah would concieve a child [Isaac] and Sarah was married … and as for ‘archaic’ to “know” another in an intimate - unifying - embrace is not what I would call ‘archaic’ … we may use different terms today but the meaning was very clear … and mary;s use of the term “know a man” illustrates that she fully understood how children were concieved. Had she intended to live other than a chaste life with Joseph her question to the Angel makes little sense.

 

[Bill_Pick]

I’d like to tell you something that I have heard before too: There is such a thing as a private message.
There is definitely no need to start flinging insults at someone disregarding the reason. Someone might regard criticism of their religion insulting, but that is just what we do here. However calling someone a baby is not part of that category. Lowering the conversation to such a level is not only insulting the person you are talking to, it is also insulting everybody else who participates in such a conversation. There is no charity in this kind of a personal attack and it therefore is a major disturbance.

Janet I ask you nice as was possible to mind your own buss but being who you are you could not do that. You did not read all the post,if you had you would not be butting in something that is not your buss stay in your lane I know how to drive.

 

[Good_Fella]

rev_kevin:
Rev Kevin, we know for a fact that Jesus had cousins and relatives who were also apostles of his: James, Jude, and Simon. And the gospels only record that Mary gave birth to Jesus. Moreover, the Greek term for “brothers” (adelphos) does not strictly refer to siblings. Neither does the Hebraic word for brother (ach) nor for sister (achoth). There really are no grounds to ignore the list of the Apostles and assume that the above persons were siblings of Jesus unless one wishes to contest a Marian doctrine of the Church that has been more or less explicitly taught and believed in from earliest times. The early Church Fathers either explictly mentioned or alluded to the universal belief in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary as handed down by Apostolic Tradition. Their teachings and belief in the Virgin Birth and the Hypostatic Union of two natures in Jesus Christ were likewise handed down to them through Tradition. They ocassionally referred to the Scriptures to support traditional belief, since Scripture proceeds from Tradition.

I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you.
1 Corinthians 11, 2

And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.
2 Timothy 2, 2

Pax Christu :harp:

 

[Good_Fella]

The word “until” is a preposition and means, “up to that time, before a specified time, to the extent that.”

1. *]Up to the time of: “I ate until I was stuffed.” This means that I ate and stopped when I was full and designates a change of action. “I ate up to the time that I was stuffed.”
   *]Before a specified time: “You can’t go until you’ve paid the fine.” This designates a condition required before a change can occur. “You can’t go before you’ve paid the fine.”
   *]To the extent that: I worked until I was exhausted. Signifying an effect or condition as a result. “I worked to the point that I was exhausted.”
   
   In each verse, the word “until” does not designate cessation of the condition mentioned. In 1 Cor. 15:25 Jesus still reigns after he puts all enemies under his feet. In Phil. 1:10 we will still be blameless after the day of Christ. In 1 Tim. 6:14, we are to still keep the commandments of God after Jesus returns. Therefore, the Roman Catholics say that Mary retained her virginity because the word “until” does not necessitate that she stopped being a virgin.
   
   Of course, is just as easy to find verses that show a change in condition.
   
   Acts 20:11, “And when he had gone back up, and had broken the bread and eaten, he talked with them a long while, until daybreak, and so departed.”
   Acts 23:12, “And when it was day, the Jews formed a conspiracy and bound themselves under an oath, saying that they would neither eat nor drink until they had killed Paul.”
   Rev. 7:3, “Do not harm the earth or the sea or the trees, until we have sealed the bond-servants of our God on their foreheads.”
   In each verse above, the word “until” designates a change in condition/action. In Acts 20:11, Paul talked with them until daybreak and then left. In Acts 23:12, evil men would not eat or drink until after Paul had been killed. Rev. 7:3 prohibits harm to the earth, see, and trees, until the bond servants were sealed.
   
   Therefore, we can see that the word “until” is used in different contexts and it is not appropriate to look to other persons to see how the word is used and transfer the meaning of that word to Matt. 1:25. What are we to do?
   
   Context is the most significant thing we must look at when determining the meetings of words. The context of Matt. 1:25 is,
   
   “Now all this took place that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled, saying, 23 “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which translated means, “God with us.” 24 And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took her as his wife, 25 and kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus,” (Matt. 1:22-25).
   
   The context deals with a virgin bearing a child. Virginity is here the important topic and Matthew clearly wants us to understand that Jesus was not the result of normal sexual relations between a husband and wife. This is why Mary’s virginity is cited in prophecy in the Old Testament and its fulfillment in the New. The issue of her virginity is primary since Jesus is the son of God, the divine Messiah. Matthew then tells us that Joseph kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a son. The most natural reading is to conclude that he kept her a virgin until Jesus was born; that is, she wasn’t a virgin after Jesus was born because Joseph and she had sexual relations.
   In addition to this we see in other verses that Jesus indeed did have brothers.

1. 
   The reading you propose, that “Joseph had relations with his wife not until Jesus was born,” actually should be “Joseph had no relations with his wife up to the time Jesus was born”. The Greek word for “until” (heos) never references the time after the event. In the Scriptures, “until” (heos) means that something did or did not occur up to a certain point. The conjunction does not function to imply what may happen after a certain point in time.
   
   Obviously, one would be stuffed if she ate too much. But Mary and Joseph didn’t necessarily have to have relations after Jesus was born because they had abstained beforehand. You are merely assuming what Matthew must have meant by his use of “until”. The evangelist is strictly concerned with the fulfillment of a prophecy that rests on the period before the expected event occurs. He uses the conjunction heos when referring to the Holy Family’s flight into Egypt in light of Hosea’s prophecy, and again he is strictly concerned with the time before they returned from Egypt after Herod’s death in demonstrating the fulfillment of the prophecy. It isn’t a question of whether they would necessarily be no longer in Egypt. That’s beside the point. And I’m sure Matthew wasn’t thinking about what should necessarily follow in the course of time.
   
   Pax Christu :harp:

 

[LilyM]

James, Jude, and Joseph were cousins of Jesus, sons of “the other mary”, Joseph not included as an apostle. Do you honestly believe that Jesus had uterine brothers, cousins, and apostles all with the same names? That’s a remarkable coincidence, don’t you think?

The ‘common name’ argument is an incredibly weak one. Mary the mother of Jesus had a remarkably common name, since no less than two other women in the Gospels shared it with her. Scripture shows no difficulty whatsoever in distinguishing between them - ‘Mary the mother of Jesus’, ‘Mary of Magdala/sister of Martha and Lazarus’, ‘Mary wife of Clopas’.

Same with the two Simons among the Twelve - Simon Peter and Simon the Zealot - never confused with Simon the Leper, Simon Magus and the numerous other NT Simons. Same with the two Jameses - respectively sons of Zebedee and Clopas (Alpaeus). And the two Jud(as)es - Iscariot and Thaddeus.

For that matter Jesus ITSELF was a very common name - a derivative of ‘Joshua’. Hence Jesus Barabbas, Jesus surnamed Justus and so on.

Point being - scripture writers had no problem distinguishing between different people who bore the same first name. If these ‘brothers of Jesus’ were different from the others named in scripture, they would’ve been distinguished in some way - named as sons of Joseph or of whichever other individuals their parents were!

 

[Benadam]

Or from someone who simply knows about her own virginity… no further conclusion.
If you had come to me 5 years ago and told me that I was pregnant, I would have said exactly the same thing: How? (Well I also would have told you other things, but that is beside the point… you are not an angel).
How? Well I was a virgin and that would have been the last thing I would have expected. Today however I am married and there would be a good chance for you to be right… It did not mean that I did not intend to have children at all. It simply meant that I was a virgin and that there are usually 2 in the deal.

First , the angel didn’t tell her she was pregnant. That’s obvious in the words used.

Ok, so, a woman engaged to be married, if told she was going to have a baby boy, it would be perfectly normal for her to ask how You are saying a state of chastity would cause confusion as to how she would become pregnant? Even though she had committed to pregnancy by her husband to be?

In fact if Mary had been a woman expecting to have kids the Incarnation would not have been revealed because the angel wouldn’t have presented anything that would be conflictual to her current condition.

The angels message would no have presented something conflictual with the state a woman enters when she vowed to be someone’s wife.

I don’t understand what would put that question in the mind of a woman who is engaged to be married and have kids.

 

[Good_Fella]

The ‘common name’ argument is an incredibly weak one. Mary the mother of Jesus had a remarkably common name, since no less than two other women in the Gospels shared it with her. Scripture shows no difficulty whatsoever in distinguishing between them - ‘Mary the mother of Jesus’, ‘Mary of Magdala/sister of Martha and Lazarus’, ‘Mary wife of Clopas’.

Same with the two Simons among the Twelve - Simon Peter and Simon the Zealot - never confused with Simon the Leper, Simon Magus and the numerous other NT Simons. Same with the two Jameses - respectively sons of Zebedee and Clopas (Alpaeus). And the two Jud(as)es - Iscariot and Thaddeus.

For that matter Jesus ITSELF was a very common name - a derivative of ‘Joshua’. Hence Jesus Barabbas, Jesus surnamed Justus and so on.

Point being - scripture writers had no problem distinguishing between different people who bore the same first name. If these ‘brothers of Jesus’ were different from the others named in scripture, they would’ve been distinguished in some way - named as sons of Joseph or of whichever other individuals their parents were!

Good point, Lily.

These so-called brothers of Jesus aren’t referred to as “sons of Joseph”. I was thinking that there already are enough of them Jamses, Simons, Judases, and Josephs for us to add more in the circle of our Lord’s relations.

And I was thinking today how terribly awkward it would have been for Mary and Joseph to have to explain to the younger kids, or hide from them, the fact that their elder brother was a divine person and Joseph wasn’t his real father:

“Children, there’s something your father and I have to tell you concerning Jesus.”

Pax Christu :harp:

 

[Canto]

Romans 9:3

For I wished myself to be an anathema from Christ, for my brothers: who **are my kinsmen **according to the flesh

 

[Good_Fella]

First ,** the angel didn’t tell her she was pregnant. That’s obvious in the words used.**

Ok, so, a woman engaged to be married, if told she was going to have a baby boy, it would be perfectly normal for her to ask how You are saying a state of chastity would cause confusion as to how she would become pregnant? Even though she had committed to pregnancy by her husband to be?

In fact if Mary had been a woman expecting to have kids the Incarnation would not have been revealed because the angel wouldn’t have presented anything that would be conflictual to her current condition.

The angels message would no have presented something conflictual with the state a woman enters when she vowed to be someone’s wife.

I don’t understand what would put that question in the mind of a woman who is engaged to be married and have kids.

Indeed, the archangel Gabriel is speaking of an indefinite future event. He says to Mary: “You will conceive and bear a son.” If Mary had intended to have marital relations with Joseph, she would have asked the angel: “When will this be?”

Pax Christu :harp:

 

[Benadam]

Indeed, the archangel Gabriel is speaking of an indefinite future event. He says to Mary: “You will conceive and bear a son.” If Mary had intended to have marital relations with Joseph, she would have asked the angel: “When will this be?”

Pax Christu :harp:

Exactly. Or Too cool!! Our first born is gonna famous !

That was funny about the siblings.

 

[LilyM]

Indeed, the archangel Gabriel is speaking of an indefinite future event. He says to Mary: “You will conceive and bear a son.” If Mary had intended to have marital relations with Joseph, she would have asked the angel: “When will this be?”

Pax Christu :harp:

More than that. Mary would, being a woman well-educated in her faith, have consciously had in mind the numerous previous examples of angelic announcements of impending births - Isaac, Samuel and Samson. This is evident from her prayer of praise to Elizabeth - ‘my soul glorifies the Lord …’ which very much borrows from the prayer of praise Samuel’s mother offered to God, as recorded in scripture.

In none if these precedent births was the child conceived supernaturally, despite the angelic announcement, in all cases the child was conceived as a result of marital relations. These were the cases Mary would have been thinking about. Hence her confusion since she not only was a virgin at the time but intended to remain one afterwards.

 

[YADA]

More than that. Mary would, being a woman well-educated in her faith, have consciously had in mind the numerous previous examples of angelic announcements of impending births - Isaac, Samuel and Samson. This is evident from her prayer of praise to Elizabeth - ‘my soul glorifies the Lord …’ which very much borrows from the prayer of praise Samuel’s mother offered to God, as recorded in scripture.

In none if these precedent births was the child conceived supernaturally, despite the angelic announcement, in all cases the child was conceived as a result of marital relations. These were the cases Mary would have been thinking about. Hence her confusion since she not only was a virgin at the time but intended to remain one afterwards.

Exactly, and these sons were born of ‘married’ parents as well !!!

 

[dianaiad]

Do you really believe that Jewish maidens of marriagable age were not educated about how children come into the world? Mary is about to be taken to wife by a man. If she had intended to engage in the types of activity that create children, surely she would have assumed that this would be how the baby would result.

Mary asks this of the angel because she had no intention of entering into marital relations with Joseph.

I’m sorry, I don’t follow that logic. Mary was not yet married to Joseph. she was his affianced wife…but was still living with her parents. The marriage was not solemnized–and of course, not yet consummated.

I honestly do not see anything in Mary’s comments to the angel, no matter what language is used, to show that she had made any sort of vow of life long celibacy. It was simply a statement of fact; she ‘knew not’ any man. She’d better NOT have ‘known’ any man, because she, uhm…wasn’t married yet. She was STUCK with Joseph contractually, yes–but not actually married.

As the other poster mentioned, I remember way back…if an angel gave me that sort of news before my wedding, I would have said precisely the same thing, using the same present tense, since I was quite aware of the ‘facts of life,’ and knew very well that there had to be some action going on that I had not participated in. That didn’t mean that I intended to stay a virgin–which is a good thing, since my five kids are fairly happy to be on the planet.

The angel did not tell her she was pregnant, did he? He said " you shall conceive", in the future tense.

You have a point…but I believe that it is more logical to assume that Mary figured that the angel was speaking about a more immediate event than to assume that she had made a vow of life long celibacy; after all, there is absolutely no scriptural evidence of the latter, and the former is a very appropriate and logical reaction. Occam’s razor, and all that.

And if you were planning to keep your vows of celibacy when you were married, you would also have been curious about “how”.

You would also be curious about ‘how’ if you assumed that the angel was talking about an immediate event–and the wedding was some months off (as it, quite obviously, was).

Which explanation requires the least assumption of things not in evidence?

 

[Canto]

The angel tells Mary she is *going to *be pregnant
Mary asks how how will this be
Well der fred, you have sex with Jospeh and get pregnant

Mary is not that thick however, just look at the Magnificat for example
She knew how babies were made
In lieu of her vow of virginity she asks how it is that she will become pregnant without breaking her vow
The angles explains that the Spirit will overshadow her and so keeping her virignity intact
Mary then says YES

Now Matthew has the angel saying don’t be affraid to take Mary your wife
This implies they were married
Even if not, it was not uncommon for a woman to become pregnant during the betrothal period

Mary’s question only makes sense if she intended to remain a virgin
If she didn’t intend this she would have known to get pregnant she would have to have sex with Joseph
Thus she would not have asked how will this be
As the *will *would obviously involve her having sex with Joseph