The Virginity of Mary - Protestant positions

  • Thread starter Thread starter EZweber
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I must say…crowds of Catholics hauling/elevating around a caricature of the Virgin Mary looks suspicious to protestants. And many Catholics are so poorly formed that they don’t even understand what they are doing or why they are doing it. They cant explain to Protestant critics that Mary is the Ark of the new covenant and if she is being elevated it is because she carried the Word just as the old Ark carried the Word and contained God’s presence.

I would bet that 1 in 10 Catholics do not know this stuff. Here on this forum, it’s probably 9 out of 10 that do know it because they are properly formed.
 
Last edited:
EZweber said:
There are a number of cases in Scripture where a woman is told that she will bear a son, in very similar words.
Click to expand...
And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
Luke 1:31 KJV


He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
Luke 1:32 KJV


And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
Luke 1:33 KJV


Please show other cases of such announcements to a virgin,…from Nazareth.
 
Last edited:
po18guy said:
The Catholic Church is the Paul Harvey of Christian history, possessing “ the rest of the story ”
Click to expand...
Agree, from CC point of view, the “rest of the story” (Tradition), is equally true (authoritative and God breathed) as the story itself (God’s Written Word).
 
Last edited:
Here’s the problem: Unless one knows how and what the Apostles presented what was taught to them by Christ and refreshed by the Holy Spirit, one is left an orphan - struggling to understand divinely revealed truth. And, lacking the foundation of the Church’s Spirit-lead magisterium, any worldy spirit eagerly waits to lead astray.

As to the canard of “self-interpreting” scripture, AYKM? Just try to find a word in any dictionary which has but a single definition.
 
thistle said:
40.png
JonNC:
That’s debatable, but off topic.
Click to expand...
It’s not debatable at all. It is also not off topic as we are discussing Protestant positions and Catholic ones cannot be left out.
Click to expand...
The topic is about the Perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin, and specifically, Protestant positions. I provided, on request of the OP, the orthodox Lutheran position as I understand it.
The OP did not ask for the Catholic view, but I think your presentation of it is perfectly fine. It may even be true that Catholic teaching regarding her is historically consistent.
 
Not really
“How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?”

She does not mention scripture. You have to really twist what she is saying to mean what you have conjectured in order to explain away an unusual question from a woman who is married waiting to complete that marriage. Your interpretation does not hold up to scrutiny. As I have pointed out to you, it would be unusual for a woman to be schooled in the theology of the scriptures.
 
It is considered a marriage when the vows are exchanged that is what makes it a marriage.
 
hope said:
As I have pointed out to you, it would be unusual for a woman to be schooled in the theology of the scriptures.
Click to expand...
Well, was not Mary unusual?

Is it anymore unusual to vow virginity then marry?

I would not say that Jewish maidens were ignorant of their salvation thru childbearing, that a Messiah was to be born from one of them . I would not say they were ignorant of the few prophecies possibly pertaining to themselves as females.
 
Last edited:
hope said:
from a woman who is married waiting to complete that marriage
Click to expand...
Again does not explain virgin birth. Agree it is conjecture that she knew scripture of virgin birth. Still find it as reasonable as those that conjecture she was virgin dedicated to temple service since childhood but ignorant of scripture.

Was she ignorant of the meaning of the oft name of " Jesus"? Was she ignorant of such a promised Messiah and could bearing the Son of the Highest mean anything else? Was she ignorant of the meaning of the throne of David, the house of Jacob, her lineage even? Was she ignorant of a promised forever kingdom and it’s king ?
 
Last edited:
Was Mary ignorant that God could do all things? Your conjecture is unreasonable in my opinion. Why would she even question God? Why didn’t the angel punish her like he did Zacharias when he questioned him. The difference is that Zacharias was doubting where as Mary’s question was what she was to do? Was God releasing her from her vow? Your conjecture does not answer why she would state that she didn’t know man. Strange that she didn’t even mention her husband.
 
po18guy said:
Unless one knows how and what the Apostles presented what was taught to them by Christ and refreshed by the Holy Spirit, one is left an orphan - struggling to understand divinely revealed truth.
Click to expand...
the italicized is a very poor caricature of any Christian, and in fact suggests one is not a Christian.
 
hope said:
Your conjecture is unreasonable in my opinion. Why would she even question God?
Click to expand...
Asking how is not asking why.

Asking how is often asking how to obey.

She asked how no matter what conjecture you place on it ( vow of chastity, or how does a virgin birth take place, or its up to Joseph).
 
Last edited:
hope said:
Strange that she didn’t even mention her husband.
Click to expand...
Indeed, nor a vow.

Good point about the elder Zachariah asking similar question. Either angels can see into our hearts, where faith and doubt can abide, or like us, we can detect attitude by the way something is said. (Something not detectable in “writing”, unless specified in writing.) We only have angels response, which tells us who doubted . Obviously from Luke we have it written that Mary gave the amen, even after a humble question from the young teenager.
 
Last edited:
When Paul shut down the Temple of Artemis in Ephesus, he was approached by a group of silversmiths. They explained that shutting down the shrine to the goddess of both motherhood and virginity would put them out of business. They made medals and statues of Artemis to sell to pilgrims and a levy on their profits maintained the temple.

“Mmm,” said Paul: “Medals, statues, virgin, mother, profit - let me think about this for a while.”
 
mcq72 said:
40.png
hope:
Your conjecture does not answer why she would state that she didn’t know man.
Click to expand...
Just another way of asking how does a virgin birth take place.
Click to expand...
No, it’s not. The Angel didn’t say “you will conceive while a virgin.” The angel told a woman who was going to be married that she would conceive. Telling a woman who’s about to get married that she’s going to conceive and have a kid would generally elicit something along the lines of “uh, yeah,” not, “how?”
 
HopkinsReb said:
No, it’s not. The Angel didn’t say “you will conceive while a virgin.” The angel told a woman who was going to be married that she would conceive. Telling a woman who’s about to get married that she’s going to conceive and have a kid would generally elicit something along the lines of “uh, yeah,” not, “how?”
Click to expand...
Yes, understand . But Jeremiah did write,

“Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”

I would not treat Mary or any other devout, betrothed Jewish maiden as ordinary, or without expectation or possibility of fulfilling such prophecy.

Jeremiah does not give the how, of giving birth yet as a virgin. Hence the obvious question from the receiver of the much awaited annunciation.
 
Last edited:
40.png
The Virginity of Mary - Protestant positions Non-Catholic Religions
This assumes that there was once a singular Protestant teaching. That is factually incorrect. The Reformation was actually Reformations. Zwingli, Luther, and Anabaptists were never one group. So even to expect that Baptists, for example, would care what Luther said makes no more sense than expecting them to care what Pope Leo said.
Click to expand...
JonNC, I’ve been a lurker here a long time, and just wish to thank you for being such a quality poster here who is reasonable and respectful of Catholicism while still presenting your non-Catholic view with facts and links. It can’t always be easy being the “out of synch” person, but I appreciate your being on a Catholic site. Your views are appreciated…it is always better to know exactly the people “on the other side of the fence” actually believe rather than speculate.

Maybe someday you’ll make the jump to this side of the fence…🙂 🙂 😉
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top