The Virginity of Mary - Protestant positions

[PatK63]

The argument I was making, maybe not well, was if they were brothers and sister they surely would have been ask to care for Mary!

 

[mcq72]

Mary in the new testament is Ark of the Covenant. Which was so sacred few could enter into it’s presents and no one could touch!

Not sure if the ark would be so sacred devoid of its contents…( even His Shekhinana glory).

 

[OddBird]

Thank you for clarifying! I think I am indeed tired and misread you.

My point was flesh was in Mary’s womb with Christ, just as flesh would be in Mary’s womb if she had other children with their spirits ( however “fallen”).

But that still begs the question : if you believe that Christ was both fully human and fully divine, then it wasn’t just flesh in Mary’s womb. It was also God - and fully so. The fact that his divinity was united to his humanity does not make him any less divine than if he had been God only.

 

[PatK63]

If I am not mistaken, the ark is venerated by the Jews to this day!

 

[PatK63]

@mcq72
With modern knowledge of DNA, Mary provided the egg and the Holy Spirit provided the sperm. So Otis 50/50 but God’s divinity can not be diluted and we believe Mary’s humanity can not be diluted by the will of God.
To those who think Mary was not Immaculately Conceived they have to believe God would coexist with sin. That is an impossibility in a our view. Besides we believe the correct translation is Hail full of grace, spoken my Gabriel at the annunciation.

 

[Wannano]

EZweber:

tgGodsway:

You missed the point. Matthew’s gospel says He was the first to be born of Mary.

Agreed. He was Mary’s firstborn, which is a technical term about heredity which implies nothing about later children.

Correct.

Now this refutes also the false interpretation which some have drawn from the words of Matthew, where he says, “Before they came together she was found to be with
…
Therefore, one cannot from these words [Matt. 1:18, 25] conclude that Mary, after the birth of Christ, became a wife in the usual sense; it is therefore neither to be asserted nor believed. All the words are merely indicative of the marvelous fact that she was with child and gave birth before she had lain with a man. The form of expression used by Matthew is the common idiom, as if I were to say, “Pharaoh believed not Moses, until he was drowned in the Red Sea.” Here it does not follow that Pharaoh believed later, after he had drowned; on the contrary, it means that he never did believe. Similarly when Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her. Again, the Red Sea overwhelmed Pharaoh before he got across. Here too it does not follow that Pharaoh got across later, after the Red Sea had overwhelmed him, but rather that he did not get across at all. In like manner, when Matthew [1:18] says, “She was found to be with child before they came together,” it does not follow that Mary subsequently lay with Joseph, but rather that she did not lie with him. Elsewhere in Scripture the same manner of speech is employed. Psalm 110[:1] reads, “God says to my Lord: ‘Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool.’” Here it does not follow that Christ does not continue to sit there after his enemies are placed beneath his feet. Again, in Genesis 28[:15], “I will not leave you until I have done all that of which I have spoken to you.” Here God did not leave him after the fulfilment had taken place. Again, in Isaiah 42[:4], “He shall not be sad, nor troublesome, till he has established justice in the earth.” There are many more similar expressions, so that this babble of Helvidius is without justification; in addition, he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom. -Luther (“That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew,” pp. 211-13)

I am willing to admit I find his arguments here rather unconvincing. I am willing to bet that Pharoah believed Moses when he realized he was drowning.

“SHe was found to be with child before they came together” does not indicate me that they never ever did come together or that they indeed did after the child was born.

Maybe I am naive, but I can’t quite figure out what difference it makes anyway.

 

[PatK63]

What difference does it make? Only that Mary was a sacred vessel reserved for the gestation of the Son of God. Not a common vessel to be used later. Also that the church with the guidance of the Holy Spirit teaches these truths infallible. If the forces of evil could prove the church wrong, it would be a devastating blow. But there is no proof only assertions.

 

[Wannano]

What difference does it make? Only that Mary was a sacred vessel reserved for the gestation of the Son of God. Not a common vessel to be used later. Also that the church with the guidance of the Holy Spirit teaches these truths infallible. If the forces of evil could prove the church wrong, it would be a devastating blow. But there is no proof only assertions.

Don’t get me wrong…I too believe Mary was a sacred vessel reserved for the gestation of Jesus , God’s Son. She was certainly the only Virgin who became pregnant with out knowing a man. She was told she would bear a son which she did. She was obedient to what was asked of her.

 

[tgGodsway]

a weak and non-persuasive argument here.

 

[Wannano]

Gee, thanks. You go for it.

I wasn’t trying to give a strong persuasive arguement, just stating how I see it.

 

[tgGodsway]

Yeah. I think you’re right. sorry.

 

[Wannano]

What difference does it make? Only that Mary was a sacred vessel reserved for the gestation of the Son of God. Not a common vessel to be used later. Also that the church with the guidance of the Holy Spirit teaches these truths infallible. If the forces of evil could prove the church wrong, it would be a devastating blow. But there is no proof only assertions.

My understanding is that the CC does not teach that it was necessary for Mary to be immaculately conceived but rather that it is “fitting” that she was.

 

[GodIsPerfection]

The topic requests comments on the Protestant positions on the perpetual virginity of Mary. I was Protestant for many years before becoming a confirmed Catholic.

Generally, the Protestant laity has learned to deemphasize the divine aspects of Mary. While most accept her virginal conception of Jesus by the Holy Spirit, beyond that she is generally viewed by the laity as an ordinary woman.

Concepts of Mary dear to The Catholic Church, such as the Immaculate Conception (of Mary, herself), her Perpetual Virginity, and her position in the Church as Highest Saint (The Blessed Mother of God), her Assumption into Heaven, etc., are foreign to most Protestants because 1.) Protestantism generally excludes Oral Tradition of the Church as having equal validity to the printed Bible; and 2.) I observe that Protestants sometimes interpret their Bible verse-by-verse, but not necessarily phrase-by-phrase as the Church does. An example in the Annunciation, Gabriel calls Mary “Hail, Full of Grace.” That bolded name is given great spiritual significance in Catholicism, but not much in Protestantism.

In Catholic Catechism, I was taught that Mary had perpetual virginity. Mary bore Jesus in her virgin womb by the Holy Spirit, but Jesus, the infant, never passed through her birth canal. He was born into the world “Light from light, true God from true God.”

Protestants frequently cite a scripture to indicate that Mary mothered other children than Jesus (ordinary childbearing) as in Mark 3:32:

Mark 3:32 New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)​

32 A crowd was sitting around him; and they said to him, “Your mother and your brothers and sisters are outside, asking for you.”

In Catechism it was explained to me that the vernacular translation of the verse is “your brothers and sisters” OR “your cousins,” which was used interchangeably." The Catholic interpretation as “your cousins” leaves the Doctrine of Perpetual Virginity intact.

Or did “your brothers and your sisters” make spiritual reference to those following Jesus’ ministry? That is my own speculation. I cannot say that I have heard this explanation elsewhere.

 

[hope]

That wasn’t the Law. The law required a son to take care of the mother. A widow had to rely on her son for support.

Jesus is the ark, not Mary. At best Mary is the last plank, the last mortar, of the ark that delivered salvation thru Christ. She was the last in lineage, the last child birther fulfilling the original promise made to Eve.

The Ark carried that which was sacred containing the two of the Ten Commandments, Aaron’s Rod and Manna. When you say carried, the image of Mary is obvious. It is really not keeping with the imagery to say it is Jesus carrying anything. Marry carried Jesus. Joseph is a righteous man. It is impossible that as a righteous man he would dare tough where God had been. It would be too sacred. You address Mary’s womb as common and ordinary after holding the King of Kings.

 

[JonNC]

I am willing to admit I find his arguments here rather unconvincing. I am willing to bet that Pharoah believed Moses when he realized he was drowning.

“SHe was found to be with child before they came together” does not indicate me that they never ever did come together or that they indeed did after the child was born.

Maybe I am naive, but I can’t quite figure out what difference it makes anyway.

I don’t think you’re naive. I just think that outside of the “magisterial” reformers and Anglicanism , many non-Catholic traditions simply have not accepted such beliefs. And I believe the later traditions have had an influence on Lutherans and Reformed on the matter, at least here in America.

Luther here expresses the historic teaching of the Church Catholic, going back to Jerome and before. I see no reason to disagree.

 

[mcq72]

But that still begs the question : if you believe that Christ was both fully human and fully divine, then it wasn’t just flesh in Mary’s womb. It was also God - and fully so. The fact that his divinity was united to his humanity does not make him any less divine than if he had been God only.

Correct, and did not say anything otherwise, hence don’t see any begging question.

The fact that his divinity was united to his humanity does not make him any less divine than if he had been God only.

No but his flesh veiled his divinty. His flesh made it possible to gaze at God without perishing on the spot. They still saw carbon atoms, dust of the earth. ( the veil).

 

[mcq72]

f I am not mistaken, the ark is venerated by the Jews to this day!

Venerated as an historical artifact and it’s Shekhinah glory…which we all due “venerate” today.

Again my point is God’s Shekhinah presence resided in the flesh of Jesus, which for 9 months resided in Mary, and there after obviously not.

Again would the ark be the ark if God’s presence shifted to something , someone (Christ) else ?

We incline to mystify things to much. Yes the conception was mystical, but everything else was quite natural, fleshly. That is incarnation. The birth itself was flesh and blood, to be handled and touched was Jesus, even both Mary and Jesus thereafter.

Not sure when the first spark of “divinity” showed through after the birth, save what we are told when He was in the temple at twelve years old.

So I see Joseph as only naturally perceiving Mary in holy matrimony and holy child begetting. Again Jesus was quite a natural, fleshly child …a fully human experience, not lending to a mysticism to avoid pursuing other children…would not want to inject what we know now into their thoughts, eliminating all Mary and Joseph’s ponderings.

 

[mcq72]

So Otis 50/50 but God’s divinity can not be diluted and we believe Mary’s humanity can not be diluted by the will of God.

Not sure there was any 50/50 in the sense that Jesus was 100 percent human dna and 100 percent divine ( zero dna, zero atoms of any kind but spirit yes).

I think what you mean is to discuss the origin of the Lord’s dna. Obviously nothing came from man as in male, and we presume Mary provided the egg or half dna and God created the other half dna…but God was not dna…he made fully human dna…God makes many things but they then are not divine…now the completed set of DNA making a full human is what God chose to incarnate with…hence nothing 50/ 50 but only 100/100

To those who think Mary was not Immaculately Conceived they have to believe God would coexist with sin.

My friend God has coexisted with sin since the beginning. He is not diminished by it . He does not get the cooties from sin. Otherwise we would get raptured or taken up up to heaven immediately upon our first cleansing.

Flesh and blood are a good creation. Our spirits are the source of the problem, and sin consequences effect the natural creation. Doesn’t make sense that Mary had to be pure to carry Jesus for after the birth many humans would touch and carry the incarnate infant, from Joseph to relatives, to the priests, etc. From thereafter Jesus himself would walk and breathe and eat, on soil, and air, and fruit from a fallen sin infested earth. He would physically touch many sinners. Why would Mary’s womb be any different? After conception Jesus was his own seperate and distinct identity apart from Mary.

Any purity needed was done at the conception of Jesus and his dna, not Mary’s conception.

 

[stpurl]

Well it made sense to the entire Christian world for 1500 plus years for Mary to be conceived without sin.
I’m not sure you realize that maternal and fetal blood ‘cross’ the placenta. (That is the reason that in an Rh negative mother whose first child is Rh positive, the mother’s blood builds up antibodies to the child’s blood that ‘crosses’ into her blood, and the reason why with subsequent pregnancies this mother will receive RhoGAM; otherwise, later children who are conceived with the positive Rh factor will have their blood otherwise ‘attacked’ by antibodies built up in the maternal blood crossing over and the child can die .)

I’m curious that nobody has yet given me an answer to the "Zeus’ factor. Remember, Jesus was born into a GrecoRoman society where gods having children by ‘mortal’ women married to mortal men (and then later the women having ‘regular mortal children’ by the mortal husband, AKA ‘half-siblings’ to the half-god/half man child) was part of their whole culture and religion.

Having Mary and Joseph just another regular ‘mortal couple’ with the wife ‘used’ by “God” to have the ‘godly offspring’ followed by Mary and Joseph subsequently bearing ‘full mortal/half sibs’) would have had the One True God abusing marriage itself.

Seriously.
Oh hai, I’m God. I want to have a Son who is fully human and fully God, but I’m not going to make some ‘human woman’ who is a virgin and who will stay a virgin the mother of my child, so that she won’t have the shame of being a MARRIED woman, her husband the shame of being cuckolded by GOD, and then, OK, God’s done with her, she can go back to her husband, just like all those Greek and Roman matrons did after the Greek and Roman gods committed adultery with them, it’s all good.

You’re really saying, "God, Almighty God, has no problem committing adultery with a married woman, impregnating her, and then telling her, “now get on with your husband, and give my Only Son half-sibs. You are nothing more than a random woman whose uterus I need for 9 months, you’re nothing special, you’re sinful, but hey, I’ll make sure everybody calls you ‘blessed’ from now on. . .oh wait, that’ll only be the Catholics and some of the more enlightened Protestants, with caveats. Sadly, a lot of Christians won’t want to call you anything. They won’t want to be reminded of you at all, because their faith relies on a false egalitarianism,. . . the extremes of “Everybody is a sinner, Mary and Joseph too, Everything is sinful, and God covers up that sin like snow on poop”. . .or “NOBODY is a sinner, having adultery isn’t a sin, nothing is really sinful, everybody is saved, so why argue about 'trifles”, sex is good so everybody must have had it, shut up and sing Kumbayah”.

 

[mcq72]

That wasn’t the Law. The law required a son to take care of the mother. A widow had to rely on her son for support.

Correct and Jesus obeyed the spirit of the law. The law is also spiritual. John was a spiritual being, even son. The " brethren" of Jesus were not spiritual sons…

Tell me, does the church teach that non believers are the “sons and daughters” of Mary or are true believers her " children"?

Furthermore if the brethren were cousins, even apparently close for they were seen together often , why did not Jesus give Mary’s care to them ? Are you denying any natural law besides any Jewish custom, for kinfolk taking care of their widows. John had no blood relation to Mary.