The Virgin Mary was she always so?

[Tom]

Joe, I tried to open the article, all I got was an advertisement. I agree with the points of your post, it’s pretty much what I said. It does include a lot of historical facts, which BTW are also in the threads I posted. So where are my errors?

 

[Tom]

This one in particular is the most common misconception. (no pun intended… )

Mary was not soon to be married, but fully, legally married already. I don’t really have any other objections but some shrewd anti-Catholic might discount your whole reason because it stems from a false assumption (no pun intended again… )

Add this info to what you have and the argument is not debatable as far as I’m concerned.

Joe B

Thanks.

 

[JoeyWarren]

… but some shrewd anti-Catholic might discount your whole reason because it stems from a false assumption …
Joe B

Might you be referring to Atemi?

 

[guanophore]

If we know anything about Jesus it is that He didn’t give a hoot about what was “accepted culturally.”

That is what got Him crucified.

I don’t think so, Atemi. I think it was His religious ideas that got him crucified. After his parents lost him in the temple when He was 12, it says he went home with them, and was obedient to them, and grew in stature, in favor with God and man. He was a good Jew, and practiced His religion and cultural traditions piously. It was not until he began His teaching ministry, and was trying to correct the religious errors that trouble started to happen.

You cannot honor your mother if she is not in your personal care?

For a good Jew of his day (and even today in most areas) the care of one’s elders was considered a basic foundation of good religion (keeping the commandments). Even in the NT we can see a common proverb to this effect: "Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world. " James 1:27

How about that for a way to get “saved”?

No one was to be left alone, and “If a widow has children or grandchildren, let them first learn their religious duty to their own family and make some return to their parents; for this is acceptable in the sight of God.” 1 Tim 5:4

That is why Jesus would not give His mother to the care of a non-relative, had there been any there.

Jesus made known what He felt about much of “Orthodox” culture and He didn’t seem very impressed to say the least.

Christ was a culture shaker, not a culture conformist.

…

Jesus did not object to His culture, just the hypocrisy practiced within it. It was the religious additions to God’s law that he preached against. You can see from passages like the sermon on the mount that he was united with the culture of the people, and counted them blessed for being poor, oppressed, and persecuted.

 

[Valke2]

Hello,

My first question is how do you know that the Bible is the infallible Word of God? Where does it state that it is the sole authority of faith?

Next, in Hebrew there was no word for cousin, uncle, aunt, etc. It was all just brothers and sisters.

Now at the base of the Cross, there stood Mary and John. Jesus gave Mary into the protection of John. Why would He do this if there were other siblings to take care of His mother? Why would one of His last acts be to tear apart His family at the moment of their greatest grief? That doesn’t compute with Him being God and sinless, does it?

Well, doesn’t Jesus talk about sons turning against fathers, etc. Maybe “tearing apart his family” is in line with his teachings.
Which gospel(s) have Jesus telling John to look after Mary?

 

[kra130]

Can anyone reply to my post #87. also post 61 did not help me at all.

 

[guanophore]

if none of the writers of the gospel would have used the word cousin then why does Luke use it in 1:36 “And, 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.” or is this just misinterpreted by every translation i looked at which either said relative or cousin and not sister. i haven’t learned new testament Greek yet but i’m curious what the actual word is. because if it is cousin doesn’t that put to shame everything written here.

Luke is a Greek, and he wrote in Greek, using Aramaic source material. He was also a personal friend of Mary, and heard the stories from her, which is why his gospel has so much more detail than the others on the birth stories.

when you hear the word brother even in our language you must listen to it in context and make an asumption as to whether or not it is to mean biological brother, a brother in the faith, or a fellow countryman. in the example you gave the answer to what was meant was obvious by the context it was put in. As well jesus biological brothers would have been in capernaum during the cruxificition which is about 100 miles away so unless they ran 100 miles in 12 hours there was no way they could have made it to their mothers side.

Are you saying that, when Jesus was in Jerusalem, his blood relatives were in Capernaum? Why do you say that?

I personally would have to agree with Atemi that i would not trust my mother in the hands of a non Christian brother. ain first corinthians when it talks about being married to a nonbeliever Paul is saying that if you get married and then convert
to Christianity you should stay with your spouse if they are willing.

Jesus came from an entire community of faithful Jews. He was not able to work miracles there because they did not believe He was the Messiah, but they were good Jews. They would have cared for Mary, even though they might have thought she had lost her mind (believing she got pregnant by the HS, and gave birth to God). Mentally ill people were not shunned.

So therefore Jesus would be dishonoring his mother if he let her stay with his biological brother. who did not believe he was God at the time.

Supposing His relatives DID believe? Scripture and early church tradition eaches us that James the bishop of Jerusalem is the brother of the Lord, and was clearly a believer.

Also in this Aramaic vs to Greek idea doesn’t make sense. although their main languages were aramaic and hebrew they were also fluent in Greek

What makes you say this? Clearly, Jesus chose uneducated country boys and fisherman for His disciples.

thus it wouldn’t have been hard for them to say cousin in a language that they are familiar with. as well Luke was a gentile he would have been even more familiar with Greek and he was writing to a Greek audience who wouldn’t be able to distiguish the different interpretations of the word brother and cousin. he would be expected to write cousin when the word applied and the word brother like wise. to do other wise would be misleading and lead to people stumbling in their faith which is sin. so then are the apostles sinning in writting the scripture with loosly fitting words when exact is possible. isn’t that just being lazy or ignorant or both.

Even if they were fluent in Greek, which I am not sure is true, that does not change the culture they were from. To the Jews, all who are sons of the covenant are brothers, fathers, and sons. I am not at all sure that this cultural shift would have made it into the writings done in Greek.

i really don’t know if any of this makes sense it’s just my train of thought and how i work through arguments. please feel free to rip apart my arguements because “He who listens to a life-giving rebuke will be at home among the wise.” (Proverbs 15:31)

It makes sense. I think where you are hung up is not accepting the testimony of the early fathers. The Church has always taught that Mary was “ever virgin” up until the reformation. Why would that be? If Jesus is able to keep the Church from error, why would such an error spread? I have been studying the Eastern Liturgies of St. Basil and St. Chrysostom that are used in the Orthodox Church. These are very ancient, and represent the early teachings of the Church on Mary. If you do not want to accept it from a Catholic source, why not be open to that?

 

[VociMike]

So therefore Jesus would be dishonoring his mother if he let her stay with his biological brother. who did not believe he was God at the time.

Show me anyplace in Christian history where such was taught. Show me believers anywhere separating mothers from their unbelieving sons and daughters. If Christ really taught this, then Christians would have done it. But the plain fact is, Christians don’t teach this, and don’t do it and they never have. They don’t pull mothers out of the homes of their unbelieving children.

Also see my post demonstrating that unbelieving sons, by their very unbelief, would never, ever have allowed their mother to go live in the house of John.

 

[eddieg57]

So i’ve read through the Bible and i know what it says. but my question is what proof does the Catholic church have that proves that Mary was a virgin all her life? i know what you say about the different ways of interpretting until but that doesn’t really sit with me. because in all the references to it one of two things were involved. either they are comparing two different (Greek and Hebrew) a 1200 year gap in between or they say “John was faithful until he died” saying that he was not unfaithful after death which obviously he wasn’t because he’s dead which is a bad arguement because it was physically impossible for him to be unfaithful. also there are verse in the Bible which say that Jesus had brothers and sisters. here are some verse that dispute the catholic claim: Matt 12:46, mark 3:31, Luke 8:19, and Matt 13:55. so please give me proof of why the catholic church believes she never had children or sinned. also no quoting Saints and Popes because their opinions mean nothing to me, because they are just that, opinions. i want the proof to come from the Bible which is the infallable word of God.

 

[Atemi]

Atemi, imagine what might have happened if you had put this much energy into learning your Catholic faith instead of into rejecting it.

1. I am only interested in the faith passed on by Christ and His Apostles
2. I have learned more than enough about Catholicism.

 

[Atemi]

Scripture teaches the fact that she was always a virgin.

Any plain reading does not in the least.

People must be taught to believe otherwise, IMO.

Here are the eight, you decide which should have been assumed, which would be noteworthy, and which are truly remarkable.

1. You will conceive in your womb a child.
2. The child shall be a boy
3. You shall call Him “Jesus” (means “God with us)
4. He shall be great
5. He shall be called the “Son of the most high”. (A term used only for a great King.)
6. The Lord shall give Him the throne of David, His father.
7. He shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever.
8. His kingdom shall have no end.
   So, you’re Mary, have any questions? Which of the eight items above would a woman who is soon to be married and planning on having sex with her husband ask? Which items, if any could be assumed? Which would be news but not earth shattering? And which blow your mind? Which ones would YOU ask about?

I would start with the first just as she did.

You erroneously assume that the claim that she is conceiving a child is not earth shattering.

No way.

She is a virgin and will be for the near future. Marriages were regularly at least a year out from betrothal.

Gabriel said she is going to be pregnant.

Mary’s obvious question is how.

Mary, like the reader, assumes that the conception is not going to be a year away.

The only question a woman who was planning to have a normal sexual marriage would NOT ask is how she shall become pregnant. That’s the one question she does ask!

When you are told that you are conceiving a child, and your marriage is possibly a year away, then this is not strange.

You seek peculiarity in the obvious.

Notice in Luke 1:28-33 Gabriel stops short of telling Mary that Joseph would not be the biological father, why did Gabriel not continue?

Had the angel continued on, and explained the true Father, there would have been no reason for her question in verse 34.

Gabriel already told her that her conception will be the Son of God.

Forcing her to ask “how” can only make any sense if Scripture wants you to know she was indeed planning on remaining a virgin.
Gabriel continues verse 35, after Mary has proclaimed her perpetual virginity to tell her “how” this shall be.

Mary proclaimed no such thing. You are adding your personal flair to the text.

Now read Luke chapter 1 with the knowledge that you will remain a virgin your entire life. Your question of “how shall this be” makes perfect sense in this context doesn’t it?
It ONLY makes sense in this context.

Not in the slightest.

If you read the parallel event right before, it is the same.

Zachariah is told that he and his wife (repeat) will conceive and that John will do and be all these amazing things.

And what is Zachariah’s first question?

“How shall I know this? For I am an old man, and my wife is well advanced in years.”

Zachariahs concern was his age and Mary’s concern was her present virginity. Both would be in a marriage.

As for why she remained a virgin after His birth, the answer is in Matthew chapter 1

What we find in Matt 1 is a sexual relationship with her husband after Christ’s birth:

Mat 1:25 “and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn son. And he called His name JESUS.”

Yes. Not only did Joseph “know” his wife after Jesus’ birth, but they also had at least one other son.

This is where you say that “till” does not really mean “till.”

I know, I know.

Luke confirms Mary had at least one more son:

Luk 2:7 “And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths”

If there was ever a good time to confirm that Mary was always a virgin, it was now. You have us seeking this doctrine between the lines and through innuendo.

No.

The gospel writers plainly did not feel as hardpressed to make Mary out to be a virgin forever as you do.

and Numbers chapter 30.

There is nothing there about virginity.

You are imlicitly citing apocryphal writings as an authority and I just do not recognize those.

I seek my doctrine in God’s Word.

Joseph took Mary into his house while she was under a vow of virginity. He knew about this vow and allowed it. He may not later change his mind about her vow, it is forever

Of course, this is all your personal addition to the inspired witness of Scripture. I don’t know why so many feel so free about adding their own details to the given text.

…

 

[Jacafamala]

Luke confirms Mary had at least one more son:

Luk 2:7 “And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths”

…

Not true. Luke uses “firstborn son” here because of its significance to the Jewish culture. The firstborn son received the anointing. So Luke was reflecting on the fact that Christ is the anointed one.
Peace in Christ,
Ann

 

[Jacafamala]

You are imlicitly citing apocryphal writings as an authority and I just do not recognize those.

I seek my doctrine in God’s Word.

Of course, this is all your personal addition to the inspired witness of Scripture. I don’t know why so many feel so free about adding their own details to the given text.

…

A little Catechism lesson, if I may…

Question: And where did you receive God’s Word?

Answer: It was brought to you through the same Church that has given you the “apocryphal writings” which actually are God’s word, also.

So who’s picking and choosing here?
Peace in Christ,
Ann

 

[Jacafamala]

The gospel writers plainly did not feel as hardpressed to make Mary out to be a virgin forever as you do.
…

Mary was so humble. If the authors didn’t “feel hardpressed” to “make her out” as forever virgin, it was because they didn’t fully know her–yet. Why? Because it pleased God to have it be that way.

ewtn.com/library/Montfort/TRUEDEVO.HTM

True Devotion to Mary. St. Louis Marie De Monfort:

*2. Because Mary remained hidden during her life she is called by the Holy Spirit and the Church “Alma Mater”, Mother hidden and unknown. So great was her humility that she desired nothing more upon earth than to remain unknown to herself and to others, and to be known only to God.

1. In answer to her prayers to remain hidden, poor and lowly, God was pleased to conceal her from nearly every other human creature in her conception, her birth, her life, her mysteries, her resurrection and assumption. Her own parents did not really know her; and the angels would often ask one another, “Who can she possibly be?”, for God had hidden her from them, or if he did reveal anything to them, it was nothing compared with what he withheld.
2. God the Father willed that she should perform no miracle during her life, at least no public one, although he had given her the power to do so. God the Son willed that she should speak very little although he had imparted his wisdom to her.

Even though Mary was his faithful spouse, God the Holy Spirit willed that his apostles and evangelists should say very little about her and then only as much as was necessary to make Jesus known.

1. Mary is the supreme masterpiece of Almighty God and he has reserved the knowledge and possession of her for himself. She is the glorious Mother of God the Son who chose to humble and conceal her during her lifetime in order to foster her humility. He called her “Woman” as if she were a stranger, although in his heart he esteemed and loved her above all men and angels. Mary is the sealed fountain and the faithful spouse of the Holy Spirit where only he may enter. She is the sanctuary and resting-place of the Blessed Trinity where God dwells in greater and more divine splendour than anywhere else in the universe, not excluding his dwelling above the cherubim and seraphim. No creature, however pure, may enter there without being specially privileged.
2. I declare with the saints: Mary is the earthly paradise of Jesus Christ the new Adam, where he became man by the power of the Holy Spirit, in order to accomplish in her wonders beyond our understanding. She is the vast and divine world of God where unutterable marvels and beauties are to be found. She is the magnificence of the Almighty where he hid his only Son, as in his own bosom, and with him everything that is most excellent and precious. What great and hidden things the all-powerful God has done for this wonderful creature, as she herself had to confess in spite of her great humility, “The Almighty has done great things for me.” The world does not know these things because it is incapable and unworthy of knowing them. *

Mary is so humble. She is the model of a Christian. That is why I love her.
Peace in Christ,
Ann

 

[guanophore]

1. I am only interested in the faith passed on by Christ and His Apostles
2. I have learned more than enough about Catholicism.

Are you saying then, that you don’t believe the writings of the early church fathers reflect the faith of Jesus and His Apostles?!

Any plain reading does not in the least.

People must be taught to believe otherwise, IMO.

I suppose, if you are of the belief that everyone must do what is right in his own eyes, then you must do that. However, I feel obligated to remind you that anti Catholic proselytizing is not permitted on this Board, so you may need to find another venue.

You erroneously assume that the claim that she is conceiving a child is not earth shattering.

Certainly not, since she had become betrothed. However, if she intended to get married and have sex, why did she ask the angel how it was going to happen? wouldn’t she just assume that things would follow their natural course?

The Gospel writers plainly did not feel as hardpressed to make Mary out to be a virgin forever as you do.

No, I don’t think they considered it an essential element of salvation. They also knew the facts, most of which were NOT written down, either about Jesus or Mary, or his relatives.

You are imlicitly citing apocryphal writings as an authority and I just do not recognize those.

Why is that, Atemi? Why do you accept your canon, which was developed by the same people during the same years?

I seek my doctrine in God’s Word.

Fortunately God’s word is not confined within that book you are clinging to with such defensive gusto.

Of course, this is all your personal addition to the inspired witness of Scripture. I don’t know why so many feel so free about adding their own details to the given text.

It so happens on the teachings of Mary, I agree with you. I can’t see how these beliefs can be developed entirely from scripture. I can see the seeds there, but, like the teaching on the Trinity, I do not find it explicitly there. I did not come to appreciate the beliefs of the church on it until I started studying the early fathers.

 

[Randy_Carson]

1. I am only interested in the faith passed on by Christ and His Apostles
2. I have learned more than enough about Catholicism.

These statements are contradictory.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

75 "Christ the Lord, in whom the entire Revelation of the most high God is summed up, commanded the apostles to preach the Gospel, which had been promised beforehand by the prophets, and which he fulfilled in his own person and promulgated with his own lips. In preaching the Gospel, they were to communicate the gifts of God to all men. This Gospel was to be the source of all saving truth and moral discipline."32

In the apostolic preaching. . .

76 In keeping with the Lord’s command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:

• *orally *“by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit”;33
• in writing “by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing”.34

. . . continued in apostolic succession

77 "In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority."35 Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time."36

78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, "the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes."37 "The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer."38

79 The Father’s self-communication made through his Word in the Holy Spirit, remains present and active in the Church: "God, who spoke in the past, continues to converse with the Spouse of his beloved Son. And the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel rings out in the Church - and through her in the world - leads believers to the full truth, and makes the Word of Christ dwell in them in all its richness."39

II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE

One common source. . .

80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.41

. . . two distinct modes of transmission

81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42
"And [Holy] *Tradition *transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and
interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44

Apostolic Tradition and ecclesial traditions

83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus’ teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church’s Magisterium.

III. THE INTERPRETATION OF THE HERITAGE OF FAITH

The heritage of faith entrusted to the whole of the Church

84 The apostles entrusted the “Sacred deposit” of the faith (the depositum fidei),45 contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to the whole of the Church. "By adhering to [this heritage] the entire holy people, united to its pastors, remains always faithful to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. So, in maintaining, practicing and professing the faith that has been handed on, there should be a remarkable harmony between the bishops and the faithful."46

The Magisterium of the Church

85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."48
87 Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”,49 the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.

Hope this helps.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Any plain reading does not in the least.

Plain reading?

“Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you.”

“Confess your sins to one another.”

“You are Peter and on this rock I will build what I must call my Church. Whatever you bind on earth is also bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth is also loosed in heaven.”

“You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.”

You lecture us about “plain reading”?

 

[JButky]

Any plain reading does not in the least.

People must be taught to believe otherwise, IMO.

You erroneously assume that the claim that she is conceiving a child is not earth shattering.

No way.

She is a virgin and will be for the near future. Marriages were regularly at least a year out from betrothal.

Again this is incorrect according to Jewish Law and a Scripture reading. Mary was already fully legally married and could have marital relations with her legal husband. Mary asks the question in Scripture because she is married already. You are assuming Mary is not married yet and Jewish law says otherwise. Kiddushin is legal contractual marriage witnessed and signed according to Jewish law and legally binding according to the ketubah. For Mary to be a virgin at the annunciation meant that her virginity was declared in the ketubah (THAT is what WE know as the bethrothal.) Kiddushin is commonly translated as bethrothal but it is a full force marriage. How could Joseph then “divorce her quietly” if they were not married???

This is where your error comes in, you are thinking of how we do marriage today…not how it was done back then according to Jewish Law…

Gabriel said she is going to be pregnant.

Mary’s obvious question is how.

Mary, like the reader, assumes that the conception is not going to be a year away.

Mary doesn’t assume that…you are. Scripture and Jewish Law are quite clear…You are deceiving yourself…The question of “how” is completely understandable since she is a married Virgin…and so she gave the question she gave…

When you are told that you are conceiving a child, and your marriage is possibly a year away, then this is not strange.

You seek peculiarity in the obvious.

I think you’ve missed the obvious Historical facts. Repeating again…MARY WAS MARRIED ALREADY!!!

Yes. Not only did Joseph “know” his wife after Jesus’ birth, but they also had at least one other son.

And where is that in Scripture? Mary has already declared marital virginity in her marriage contract…you make another false assumption. First born means just that…First born…If you have had only one child that child is still the first born…Let’s not make more of it by putting more into it than is there because you want to add to Scripture… As you do here:

Luke confirms Mary had at least one more son:

Luk 2:7 “And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths”

That’s not a strong argument at all considering all the other facts…It’s rather quite flimsy.

The gospel writers plainly did not feel as hardpressed to make Mary out to be a virgin forever as you do.

The Gospel writers knew Jewish law, which unfortunately you have left out and MUST ignore to make the claims you have made. That leads to this distortion of the Gospel that you have presented.

Joe B

 

[Randy_Carson]

Mary, like the reader, assumes that the conception is not going to be a year away.

When you are told that you are conceiving a child, and your marriage is possibly a year away, then this is not strange.

You change the words and the meaning of the text to suit your own theology. How Protestant of you! Luther would be so proud!

Gabriel did not say, “You are conceiving” but “you will be with child”. Your faulty rendering of the text implies immediacy, but that is not correct.

Perhaps you might reflect upon the story of Abraham and Sarah. How long did it take before the promise that Sarah would conceive was fulfilled? So long that Abraham, that great pillar of faith, decided to take matters into his own hands and Hagar into his own bed?

Mary was puzzled by the angel’s words since her marriage to Joseph was arranged specifically to protect her vow of perpetual virginity.

You seek peculiarity in the obvious.

And you, my friend, “twist the scriptures to your own destruction.” (cf 2 Peter 3:16)

This is what Paul was talking about when he wrote:

“For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.”

Mary proclaimed no such thing. You are adding your personal flair to the text.

Spoken like one with experience here.

If you read the parallel event right before, it is the same.

Zachariah is told that he and his wife (repeat) will conceive and that John will do and be all these amazing things.

And what is Zachariah’s first question?

"How shall I know this? For I am an old man, and my wife is well advanced in years."Zachariah’s concern was his age and Mary’s concern was her present virginity. Both would be in a marriage.

Zechariah’s question, “How shall I know this?” is asking, “What sign will you give so that I can know that what you are saying is true.” In other words, “Prove it!” Mary did not ask for a sign; she asked for clarification.

His question was obviously different than Mary’s because Zechariah was struck dumb until after the baby’s birth whereas Mary wasn’t. God was offended by Zechariah but not by Mary. See the difference?

What we find in Matt 1 is a sexual relationship with her husband after Christ’s birth:

Mat 1:25 "and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn son. And he called His name JESUS."Yes. Not only did Joseph “know” his wife after Jesus’ birth, but they also had at least one other son.

This is where you say that “till” does not really mean “till.”

I know, I know.

Luke confirms Mary had at least one more son:

Luk 2:7 "And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths"If there was ever a good time to confirm that Mary was always a virgin, it was now. You have us seeking this doctrine between the lines and through innuendo.

Atemi, if you were an honest seeker, I would understand why you wrote this, but as a lapsed Catholic who attacks the faith, I have to take issue with you more firmly. After all, Jesus said,

“If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.”

“Firstborn” is a technical term within Jewish culture that ascribes specific rights, privileges and responsibilities upon the son who “breaks the womb”. A woman who had only daughters afterward would still refer to her only son as her “firstborn” as a title that he alone would bear. A woman with only a single child would have done the same.

:JewishEncyclopedia.com - TITLES****HONORThe title of birth, “bekor,” assigned to the first-born son in every family

I seek my doctrine in God’s Word.

But you do not find it because you are fallible.

Of course, this is all your personal addition to the inspired witness of Scripture. I don’t know why so many feel so free about adding their own details to the given text.

See above concerning false interpretations.

This is why Paul quoted Isaiah who wrote:

“You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.”
27For this people’s heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.’

Hope this helps. :tiphat: