The Virginity of Mary - Protestant positions

[mcq72]

But ‘until’ does not imply an action follows.

nor does it imply something continues (virginity)

Not.One.Word.(about siblings)

not when you always turn adelphos into cousins or half brothers, and never “siblings”.

They(supposed siblings) didn’t come forth to care for Mary.

Nor did the supposed cousins or half brothers, who were with mary often in scripture.

We have the words of Jesus’ own brothers and sisters that he was always a nutcase. He was no god” etc.)

well we do , but again you call them ''cousins/half brothers"

Nope, for centuries and centuries

glad you didn’t say since the beginning of the church, or by apostles, or by their writing, or tertulian or helvidius …otherwise, yes, for centuries the interpretation was cousins and half brothers.

FULL OF GRACE.” From this special understanding, the Church developed the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception (of Mary)

well, much more, Coronated Queen of Heaven, Co-Redemptrix . Mother of all saints, the greatest person ever born next to Christ
.

 

[JonNC]

Luther being a Catholic priest undoubtedly carried over many periferial concepts that are not basic to God’s plan of Salvation. True, there may be no reason to disagree other than it appears Catholicism is elevating the importance of Mary now more than ever.

I’m not sure how this belief from as early as Jerome qualifies as “now more than ever”, but Luther was very critical of those who elevated Mary for Mary’s sake.

Now just take a look at the perverse lauders of the mother of God. If you ask them why they hold so strongly to the virginity of Mary, they truly could not say. These stupid idolators do nothing more than to glorify only the mother of God; they extol her for her virginity and practically make a false deity of her. But Scripture does not praise this virginity at all for the sake of the mother; neither was she saved on account of her virginity.
…
The Spirit extols this virginity, however, because it was needful for the conceiving and bearing of this blessed fruit. Because of the corruption of our flesh, such blessed fruit could not come, except through a virgin. Thus this tender virginity existed in the service of others to the glory of God, not to its own glory.

(“That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew” [1523], Luther’s Works , Vol. 45 [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1962], pp. 205-06)

While there may be no reason to disagree, what reason is there to agree if it does not appear logical and is not basic to knowing Christ?

I would completely disagree regarding the logic. Luther’s logic is pretty persuasive. Do is Jerome’s.
The creation narrative is not basic to the knowing of Christ, either. And if one extends this thought process, neither is the virgin birth. It isn’t logical, either.
Scripture isn’t explicit in either direction, but I think the exegesis supports the belief.

 

[PatK63]

Yes, I don’t understand so I will have to study.

 

[mcq72]

Yes, I don’t understand so I will have to study.

ok…blessings on that

Romans 8:3 is very powerful to me to show why all the “fitting” hoopla for a “clean” mother when He was destined before the foundations of the world to get “dirty”, to take on “sinful flesh”, seems not so fitting…even counter intuitive to His mission and chosen abasement.

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

Luther being a Catholic priest undoubtedly carried over many periferial concepts that are not basic to God’s plan of Salvation. True, there may be no reason to disagree other than it appears Catholicism is elevating the importance of Mary now more than ever.

I’m not sure how this belief from as early as Jerome qualifies as “now more than ever”, but Luther was very critical of those who elevated Mary for Mary’s sake.

Now just take a look at the perverse lauders of the mother of God. If you ask them why they hold so strongly to the virginity of Mary, they truly could not say. These stupid idolators do nothing more than to glorify only the mother of God; they extol her for her virginity and practically make a false deity of her. But Scripture does not praise this virginity at all for the sake of the mother; neither was she saved on account of her virginity.
…
The Spirit extols this virginity, however, because it was needful for the conceiving and bearing of this blessed fruit. Because of the corruption of our flesh, such blessed fruit could not come, except through a virgin. Thus this tender virginity existed in the service of others to the glory of God, not to its own glory.

(“That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew” [1523], Luther’s Works , Vol. 45 [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1962], pp. 205-06)

While there may be no reason to disagree, what reason is there to agree if it does not appear logical and is not basic to knowing Christ?

I would completely disagree regarding the logic. Luther’s logic is pretty persuasive. Do is Jerome’s.
The creation narrative is not basic to the knowing of Christ, either. And if one extends this thought process, neither is the virgin birth. It isn’t logical, either.
Scripture isn’t explicit in either direction, but I think the exegesis supports the belief.

It intrigues me how different people see the difference in logic in the activities and ideas we pursue. We are all different most times.

For me it is logical that God would chose a Virgin birth to present his Son into the realm of humanity. Really, how else would that be accomplished? Certainly not by involving a man or finding him under a cabbage leaf or in a storks nest…

I am puzzled how “and knew her not until she brought forth her firstborn son” is any different than " refrain from sexual activity until you are married." Can you help me understand what I am not seeing?

 

[JonNC]

It intrigues me how different people see the difference in logic in the activities and ideas we pursue. We are all different most times.

Agreed.

For me it is logical that God would chose a Virgin birth to present his Son into the realm of humanity. Really, how else would that be accomplished?

I guess He could have chosen a married woman. God can do what He chooses. But I do agree with your point.

I am puzzled how “and knew her not until she brought forth her firstborn son” is any different than " refrain from sexual activity until you are married." Can you help me understand what I am not seeing?

I don’t know that I can do better than Luther,and certainly not better than Jerome.
But I will say that the phrase, “refrain from sexual activity until you are married”, is not a prediction that one will have sex.

 

[Wannano]

Maybe or maybe not…if your engaged daughter is asking why they should not engage in pre-marital sex …?

 

[OddBird]

Yes, we loose each other at the “until”.

I interpret it differently :
“Well, you know, conception dates are hardly precise. Jesus could well have been Joseph’s son.”
“No, impossible, they didn’t have sex from the beginning to the end of her pregnancy”.

That says nothing of what happened next.

I admit I struggle to see how Mary could conceive by the Holy Spirit following her encounter with an angel, give birth to that child among more angels singing “Hosanna”, flee to Egypt to protect her baby because yet another angel warned Joseph about Herod’s murderous intents, before telling him to go live in Nazareth – and then just resume normal conjugal life as if nothing had happened. That, and at least two of Jesus’ “brothers”, James and Joseph, who are mentioned in Mt 13:55, are identified as the sons of another Mary in Mt 27:56 (that Mary who is significantly called “the other Mary” a few verses later, in 27:61), which warns about taking the word “adelphos” too literally.

The fact that early tradition, as early as the Protoevangelium of James (around 150), was unanimous in upholding Mary’s perpetual virginity, is also telling. I think it shows two things :

• that there were still earlier traditions about Mary’s perpetual virginity, which should make us ask ourselves why these traditions developed from the very beginning of Christian dogmatics
• that (and it’s part of the answer) what is at play in Incarnation is so important that it cannot originate anywhere else than in a human life totally consecrated to God in a way none was before, and none afterwards.

I used to think that while virgin birth was a crucial tenet of Christian faith, Mary’s perpetual virginity didn’t matter. I don’t think so any longer. If it wasn’t because Mary was necessary, why did the people of Israel wait so long, through such a painful history, before the birth of the Messiah ? If it wasn’t because Mary was necessary, why didn’t Christ take flesh from just any devout Israelite woman, married or not ? And if Mary and none other was necessary, it can only be for one reason : because of her unique closeness and intimacy with God. I just don’t see how her becoming the Theotokos would have made her discard that intimacy, because of which she had become Jesus’ mother in the first place, and all of a sudden live like just any married woman. The problem is not that she would have lost her virginity ; the problem is that she would have then allowed someone else to take in her life the place that had been God’s, and said goodbye to that special relationship with Him.

As for Moses and seeing God’s glory, well, of course the Incarnation made God approachable. But the feast we’re celebrating today, the Feast of the Transfiguration, is a good remainder of what was fully there under the veil.

But hey, what do I know ? After all, I’m a Mary-loving, Rosary-praying Protestant who believes in the Immaculate Conception, so you would be justified in questioning my Protestant orthodoxy

 

[mcq72]

Well as to the James writing , it is spurious (not written by James), not acceptable reading for Catholics till reformation if i recall.
Early tradition was not unanimous on perpetual virginity.

Incarnation is so important that it cannot originate anywhere else than in a human life totally consecrated to God in a way none was before, and none afterwards.

Tell that to the church who surmised widow Joseph brought up to 6 children (Protoevangelium of James-(9:8) And Joseph replied, saying, “I have sons and am old, while she is young.”) from previous marriage into the marriage with mary…and if cousins, how many times are they with Mary ? 80%?

If it wasn’t because Mary was necessary,

not sure what you mean here

because of her unique closeness and intimacy with God.

agree this is cause and not vow of virginity that attracted her being chosen…and yet this intimacy and uniqueness(as we all are) is still all by grace

I used to think that while virgin birth was a crucial tenet of Christian faith, Mary’s perpetual virginity didn’t matter. I don’t think so any longer. If it wasn’t because Mary was necessary, why did the people of Israel wait so long, through such a painful history, before the birth of the Messiah ? If it wasn’t because Mary was necessary, why didn’t Christ take flesh from just any devout Israelite woman, married or not ? And if Mary and none other was necessary, it can only be for one reason : because of her unique closeness and intimacy with God.

Again, me thinks this is a slight elevation of Mary, like God waiting for such a person, when in fact He waited not at all, but when the appointed time came , He graced Mary to be whatever she had to be to be “chosen”. I also feel her claim to fame is not her "greatness’’, but her mission itself…being chosen elevated her…being chosen was the full grace, the high favor…yes she was obedient, and God foreknew this also even before choosing her.

The problem is not that she would have lost her virginity ; the problem is that she would have then allowed someone else to take in her life the place that had been God’s, and said goodbye to that special relationship with Him.

again this is dualism…this kind of thought is not apostolic. The Holy Spirit did not have sexual relations with Mary ( Joseph would not be competing, or taking the place of God if he were to consummate the marriage ) . God’s place with her was in bringing forth the Christ child. She completed that. Bringing forth other children does not compete with such a thing, and is quite in accord with God’s plan in marriage and children to His glory. One is not more intimate with God being sexually active than is not. One is not a better parent with one child than with more (and Joseph brought a handful of brethren from another marriage goes the oldest tradition). Again, we are all betrothed to be married to Jesus, to be His bride, including Mary.

 

[mcq72]

As for Moses and seeing God’s glory, well, of course the Incarnation made God approachable.

except for Joseph and other children…they could not go where Jesus had been according to tradition.

 

[mcq72]

The Lord’s brethren are mentioned about fifteen times. Not once are more specific and available words for cousin or child from another father used.

I think in all but two instances Mary is with these “cousins”.

And Mary has a sister named Mary?

Understand my view is not without critique, but most of it being fueled from starting position that Mary must be perpetual virgin, and that according to most long held tradition.

 

[dandytree7771]

marriage as we know it did not exist in the same way before the sacraments were established. sacramental marriage only existed when the sacraments were established. the marriage they had before the establishment of the church was in many ways a very different thing with different rules.

 

[OddBird]

Well as to the James writing , it is spurious (not written by James)

I’m not citing it as an authoritative writing. I’m citing it to make this point : one of the first things you learn when you start doing exegesis, specifically source criticism, is that early Christian writings do not come out of nowhere. There are anteceding traditions. The fact that the protoevangelium, around 150, speaks of Mary’s perpetual virginity, points to the fact that the concept predates 150.

Early tradition was not unanimous on perpetual virginity.

Name names, please (heretics not accepted).

Tell that to the church who surmised widow Joseph brought up to 6 children

I don’t see what that has to do with it. Are you saying that Mary and Joseph had sex because he had kids from a previous marriage ? Or that Mary couldn’t have been totally consecrated to God because her husband had grown sons ?

me thinks this is a slight elevation of Mary,

No. It’s putting its proper weight on the incarnation, which has consequences on the way Mary is viewed. Conversely, a deficit in incarnation theology usually leads to downplaying Mary’s status.

She completed that. Bringing forth other children does not compete with such a thing, and is quite in accord with God’s plan in marriage and children to His glory. One is not more intimate with God being sexually active than is not. One is not a better parent with one child than with more (and Joseph brought a handful of brethren from another marriage goes the oldest tradition)

This is where I completely disagree. As much as what you write may be true for us, when applied to Mary it only produces the effect of shrugging off the extraordinary character of the Incarnation. God became man for us. That’s not at all the same thing as the cute little couple next door who just had a baby (not that there is anything wrong with them).

 

[FiveLinden]

Do any Protestants follow the belief of Catholics that Mary’s ‘physical virginity’ was preserved during the process of birth?

 

[mcq72]

is that early Christian writings do not come out of nowhere.

Correct…the gospels provide the foundation…there was a Mary…she had a virgin ay some believe birth with the Christ child etc…the book was condemned by some and yet even today some believe most of the traditional details.

You mention James as not authoritative, yet derived perpetual virginity became authoritative teaching in church history, despite authoritative scriptures not once denoting the " virgin Mary" after the Lord’s birth.

Name names, please (heretics not accepted).

Well, they would later be considered heretics to say so differently . And if a spurious James writing could have some merit for prevalent thought, so could a heretical writing of Tertullian or Helvidius . There is one other that escapes me, perhaps final writing of Origen ( not earlier writing)…again no apostle or scripture writers attest perpetual virginity.

Or that Mary couldn’t have been totally consecrated to God because her husband had grown sons ?

well that is your interjection of grown sons…so grown they apparently still all lived at home, and followed Mary most of the time ?.. but yes, that is the sentiment of many…that it be fitting for the Lord to have the utmost attentive parents…step kid theory was dropped for a better fit that they were cousins, even though they again were usually with Mary.

 

[mcq72]

Do any Protestants follow the belief of Catholics that Mary’s ‘physical virginity’ was preserved during the process of birth?

I am wondering how many Catholics believe this.

Doesn’t fit the teaching of applying a supposed OT prophecy of the Lord passing thru a certain Jerusalem gate and thereafter sealing it up so that no one could pass thru it again.

I suppose your question asks if the James version is correct ( a miraculous just coming out somehow)… or do many believe it was normal birth process but with a miraculous “closing up” ?

 

[FiveLinden]

Not a great many I imagine. But it is Church teaching

I am wondering how many Catholics believe this.

Doesn’t fit the teaching of applying a supposed OT prophecy of the Lord passing thru a certain Jerusalem gate and thereafter sealung it up so that no one could pass thru it again.

I suppose your question asks if the James version is correct ( a miraculous just coming out somehow)… or do many believe it was normal birth process but with a miraculous “closing up” ?

I am surprised that it is believed. But the teaching is clear -and no “closing up” according to the catechism: 499 The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary’s real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man.[154] In fact, Christ’s birth “did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it.”[155]and so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the “Ever-virgin”.[156]

 

[OddBird]

Correct…the gospels provide the foundation…

Saying so shows a weird notion of how the New Testament came to be.

It wasn’t written from the start, as if the evangelists had started taking notes on Easter Monday. What were first were a wide variety of oral traditions, stemming from different apostolic sources, which were by and by crystallized into writings (for what it’s worth, the earliest Gospel, Mark, dates from around 70, while the latest, John, was probably written around 90).

These writings abounded, including what we now call “canonical texts” and “apocrypha”, and the NT as we now know it took form over at least two centuries (that’s if you accept the earlier datation of the Muratori fragment, the first list of NT canonical books we know of). As late as the 4th century, Eusebius of Cesarea, if memory serves, still thinks that Revelation is a nasty book which has nothing to do within the canon. The apocryphal Shepherd of Hermas, on the other hand, was so well-loved and so widely spread it almost made it into the canon.

The point is, the Gospels were not the basis for oral tradition. They were (part of) the oral tradition’s written crystallization.

As for the rest, well… you seem to agree with me ?

 

[mcq72]

am surprised that it is believed. But the teaching is clear -and no “closing up” according to the catechism: 499 The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary’s real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man.[154] In fact, Christ’s birth “did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it.”[155]and so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the “Ever-virgin”.[156]

Ok, so they concur with “James” account, of a miraculous, unnatural birth.

A few early church fathers then got out voted on this, who believed in perpetual virginity but also in a normal birth…not sure if they believed in a physical sealing up again or that she continued to never know a man, even Joseph.

It all remains to be proven and taken out of faith realm on the other side of life.

Either His truth on Mariology has marched on preserved by tradition, or a vivid display of how a little bit of leaven ruins the whole lump.

 

[OddBird]

I do.

(ten characters.)