The Virginity of Mary - Protestant positions

  • Thread starter Thread starter EZweber
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mcq72 said:
I think we both agree her question had nothing to do with Joseph.
Click to expand...
Actually I don’t agree. I don’t believe that she intended to consummate her marriage and the question to the angel was if God wanted this to change.
 
hope said:
Actually I don’t agree. I don’t believe that she intended to consummate her marriage and the question to the angel was if God wanted this to change.
Click to expand...
That is your personal opinion only.
 
hope said:
Actually I don’t agree. I don’t believe that she intended to consummate her marriage and the question to the angel was if God wanted this to change
Click to expand...
Yes, understand. That is why I said not really related to Joseph but more of the vow for you, and for me the how of a virgin birth. Hence I stated that for both of our views Joseph was out of the conceiving picture at the time of the annunciation.

From my point why would she ask for release from vow as if to then conceive with husband Joseph, doing away from prophetic sign of virgin birth? Like you are saying she was asking for release to then have a normal conception between a woman and a man, being totally ignorant of several prophecies. Disagree with this.

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

The angels description of the child as Son of the Highest, the throne of David, a king/ kingdom forever certainly fits an Immanuel, the promised Messiah…and as David prophesied, this king would not be “after the manner of man”.
 
Last edited:
mcq72 said:
From my point why would she ask for release from vow as if to then conceive with husband Joseph, doing away from prophetic sign of virgin birth?
Click to expand...
There is nothing in the text that supports this view.
 
Hmmm lets see I said I don’t believe that should indicate a personal opinion. Yet you have to point it out why? And why didn’t you say the same thing to mcq72 who is also expressing personal opinion only. Mary remained a virgin is a dogma. That she made a vow is expressed in the Protoevangelium of James so it is not just only my opinion but one that is shared by others:
Mary: Ever Virgin
Was Mary a Perpetual Virgin
National Catholic Register
 
hope said:
There is nothing in the text that supports this view.
Click to expand...
as you know some traditions do not need direct support in said text but the view certainly does not contradict text.

and for sure text ( i know no man) definitely is in support even fulfillment of Jeremiah prophetic text of a sign of virgin birth
 
Last edited:
mcq72 said:
as you know some traditions do not need direct support in said text but the view certainly does not contradict text.
Click to expand...
Are you claiming that your view is traditional? I would love to see some citations that Mary was asking about a prophetic sign?
 
Under Jewish law, the marriage between Mary and Joseph would not have been valid unless they had performed intercourse. Although the Church may decree Mary was a perpetual virgin, this could not have been the case, assuming Jewish Law was followed (and there’s no reason to think it wouldn’t be). One may still run with the Immaculate Conception line, but there’s no reason to believe she was physically a virgin her entire life. Would you condemn a husband to not have sex with his wife- ever?
 
As I read your post I was nodding my head in agreement. After all I had read scripture of the wedding ceremony where it was very important that consummation occurred. But wait it wasn’t about consummation but virginity. Then I thought of how marriage takes place and that Joseph was intending a divorce. I wondered then what you meant by validly? If they weren’t validly married why would he divorce her? Then I remembered Numbers 30 When a woman, while still a maiden in her father’s house, makes a vow to the LORD, or binds herself to a pledge,if her father learns of her vow or the pledge to which she bound herself and says nothing to her about it, then any vow or any pledge she has made remains valid."If she marries while under a vow or under a rash pledge to which she bound herself and her husband learns of it, yet says nothing to her that day about it, then the vow or pledge she had made remains valid. According to the Protoevangelium of James Mary made a vow. If according to scripture she had made a vow, and Joseph did not object it would be valid. Interesting way that you phrase the act of voluntary virginity as being condemned. According to the *Protoevangelium of James Joseph was old and a widower. Hardly condemned but a willing guardian of Mary. At first glance I thought you had something, but there is a lot that you have discounted. One is that no where is Mary ever said to be the mother of anyone but Jesus. The early Christian writers upheld her being ever virgin such as: Athanasius , Epiphanius of Salamis, Didymus the Blind and others. Jerome, responded with a treatise called On the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mary when Helvidius introduced the novel idea that Mary had other children. It took 1500 years to revive the idea. Your statement that there is no reason to believe ignores history that this is what has been taught from the beginning. I believe you have it backwards, there is no reason not to believe.
 
hope said:
Are you claiming that your view is traditional? I would love to see some citations that Mary was asking about a prophetic sign?
Click to expand...
I use tradition loosely , as opposed to the Written Word. That is the opinion of some , and that for some generations, even if only back to reformers . Forgot what bible commentary I used which suggests what i posted.

Again, prophetic sign or not, she was asking how a virgin becomes pregnant. Pretty simple.
 
I don’t disagree that she was asking how a virgin becomes pregnant. That is not what we are disagreeing on. What we are at odds with is why she would ask such a question. I do believe that even the reformers(are you referring to Luther) believed her to be ever virgin. When you say opposed to the Written you must mean oral. Where is such a tradition ? If it were a tradition, where is the proof? The tradition of Mary being ever virgin can be demonstrated. A reference in a forgotten bible commentary can hardly be considered a tradition more of an opinion.
 
hope said:
According to the Protoevangelium of James Mary made a vow. If according to scripture she had made a vow
Click to expand...
actually her parents made a vow, not sure Mary did. it is not clear to me that she was to remain a virgin , but to mary, to be taken as a wife. When she was later found to be pregnant by preists, it was not so much for taking her virginity, but doing it secretly (no wedding). Her defilement in Joseph eyes may be seen as or due to adultery, that is, not pregnant by Joseph.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0847.htm
 
Last edited:
no, i meant tradition as apart from scriptures. Not oral.

Yes some reformers believed her ever virgin. Some do not. Some are branded by Catholics wrongly as being ever virgin proponents .

tertullian, origen and helvidius certainly objected to such opinion of ever virgin
 
Last edited:
I think we could argue about why he objected to caring for Mary. There is much wrong about Protoevangelium of Jamesl I mentioned it only to show that there was a tradition for Mary being under a vow. One which was not disputed until 1500 years later
 
I thought the spurious James writing was not accepted by CC until 1500’s… not sure what fathers cite such a vow if any…Not sure jerome mentions vow when responding to helvidius
 
Last edited:
hope said:
Hmmm lets see I said I don’t believe that should indicate a personal opinion. Yet you have to point it out why? And why didn’t you say the same thing to mcq72 who is also expressing personal opinion only. Mary remained a virgin is a dogma. That she made a vow is expressed in the Protoevangelium of James so it is not just only my opinion but one that is shared by others:
Mary: Ever Virgin
Was Mary a Perpetual Virgin
National Catholic Register
Click to expand...
It is not accepted as scripture but it is accepted as an historical document.
How about answering the question I posted. So you don’t have to search for it I will repeat
Hmmm lets see I said I don’t believe that should indicate a personal opinion. Yet you have to point it out why? And why didn’t you say the same thing to mcq72 who is also expressing personal opinion only. Mary remained a virgin is a dogma. That she made a vow is expressed in the Protoevangelium of James so it is not just only my opinion but one that is shared by others:
Mary: Ever Virgin
Was Mary a Perpetual Virgin
National Catholic Register
 
It is still not accepted as the word of God but it is accepted as presenting historical ideas. Spurious is not exactly accurate but prejudicial.
 
Last edited:
mcq72 you must have missed my post to John_the_Blind in which I address Helvidius.
The early Christian writers upheld her being ever virgin such as: Athanasius , Epiphanius of Salamis, Didymus the Blind and others. Jerome, responded with a treatise called On the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mary when Helvidius introduced the novel idea that Mary had other children. It took 1500 years to revive the idea.
Origen Therefore let those who deny that the Son is from the Father by nature and proper to His Essence, deny also that He took true human flesh of Mary Ever-Virgin; for in neither case had it been of profit to us men, whether the Word were not true and naturally Son of God, or the flesh not true which He assumed."
Athanasius,Orations against the Arians
Click to expand...
I will not be posting anymore as I have been told not to as I have posted to much.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top