Virgin

[mlchance]

BibleReader:

Answer: There is NO chance that he was not accurately portraying Jesus’ birth.

Not to nitpick, but unless the Virgin Mary gave birth to Jesus while standing on the moon, dressed in the sun, and wearing a crown made of stars, it stands to reason that the portrait isn’t accurate.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[BibleReader]

mlchance:

Not to nitpick, but unless the Virgin Mary gave birth to Jesus while standing on the moon, dressed in the sun, and wearing a crown made of stars, it stands to reason that the portrait isn’t accurate.

– Mark L. Chance.

Hi, Mark.

Please! Nitpick all you like!

The Roman Catholic Church, which honors Our Lady of Guadalupe and has given her her own feast day, happily recognizes that the lady standing on the moon, dressed in the sun, and wearing a crown of stars is Mary.

Behold:…

mexconnect.com/mex_/travel/blyons/blvirguadalupe.jpg

 

[Jerusha]

So, are we then constrained to just accept it as a mystery, without explaining how? I agree that the rubber band theory has holes, because, obviously, the miracle happened to prove that it was a Virgin birth, that it was not a human act that conceived Jesus.

This early writing, the whole of it not perfect, certainly presents a reasonable scenario.newadvent.org/fathers/0847.htm
(excerpt)

And immediately the cloud disappeared out of the cave, and a great light shone in the cave, so that the eyes could not bear it. And in a little that light gradually decreased, until the infant appeared, and went and took the breast from His mother Mary. And the midwife cried out, and said: This is a great day to me, because I have seen this strange sight. And the midwife went forth out of the cave, and Salome met her. And she said to her: Salome, Salome, I have a strange sight to relate to thee: a virgin has brought forth – a thing which her nature admits not of. Then said Salome: As the Lord my God liveth, unless I thrust in my finger, and search the parts, I will not believe that a virgin has brought forth.
20. And the midwife went in, and said to Mary: Show thyself; for no small controversy has arisen about thee. And Salome put in her finger, and cried out, and said: Woe is me for mine iniquity and mine unbelief, because I have tempted the living God; and, behold, my hand is dropping off as if burned with fire

Caesarian does not make sense, given the drastic procedure it was in that times, and by its name, documented.

 

[mlchance]

BibleReader:

The Roman Catholic Church, which honors Our Lady of Guadalupe and has given her her own feast day, happily recognizes that the lady standing on the moon, dressed in the sun, and wearing a crown of stars is Mary.

I’m quite familiar with Our Lady of Guadalupe, thank you.

Nice dodge, by the way.

Questions: When Mary gave birth to Jesus, was she standing on the moon? Was she robed in the sun? Was she wearing a crown of stars? If not, while the imagery of Revelation 12 is beautiful and meaningful, it is not an accurate portrait.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[johnq]

mlchance:

Questions: When Mary gave birth to Jesus, was she standing on the moon? Was she robed in the sun? Was she wearing a crown of stars? If not, while the imagery of Revelation 12 is beautiful and meaningful, it is not an accurate portrait.

mlchance :tiphat:

Questions: Can you show me in scripture where the book of Revelation must have a literal interpertation? Can there be a spiritual interpertation? Can there be both literal and spiritual? How do we know if scripture is not clear?
Thanks.

God

 

[justcatholic]

I was asked to post some evidence that not all the church fathers held to the belief that Mary remained a perpetual virgin. Here is that evidence;

Basil

Contrary to what some suggest, there were many people in the early centuries of Christianity who rejected the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. Though the doctrine was popular among the later church fathers, there was opposition to it even in those later centuries. The church father Basil commented that the view that Mary had other children after Jesus “was widely held and, though not accepted by himself, was not incompatible with orthodoxy” (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], p. 495).

** Hegesippus **

The church father Hegesippus apparently didn’t believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Hegesippus refers to Jude as “the Lord’s brother according to the flesh” (church history of Eusebius, 3:20). He refers elsewhere to Symeon, a “cousin of the Lord” (church history of Eusebius, 4:22). We know, then, that Hegesippus understood the differences between the Greek terms for “brother” and “cousin”. He chose “brother”, and added the words “according to the flesh”, to describe Jesus’ sibling named Jude.

Irenaeus

Irenaeus refers to Mary giving birth to Jesus when she was “as yet a virgin” (Against Heresies, 3:21:10). The implication is that she didn’t remain a virgin. Irenaeus compares Mary’s being a virgin at the time of Jesus’ birth to the ground being “as yet virgin” before it was tilled by mankind. The ground thereafter ceased to be virgin, according to Irenaeus, when it was tilled. The implication is that Mary also ceased to be a virgin. Elsewhere, Irenaeus writes:
“To this effect they testify, saying, that before Joseph had come together with Mary, while she therefore remained in virginity, ‘she was found with child of the Holy Ghost;’” (Against Heresies, 3:21:4)
Irenaeus seems to associate “come together” with sexual intercourse. The implication is that Joseph and Mary had normal marital relations after Jesus was born.

Tertullian

Tertullian apparently didn’t believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. He writes that Jesus’ brothers were “really” his brothers, his “blood-relationship” (Against Marcion, 4:19). Elsewhere, Tertullian comments:
“Behold, there immediately present themselves to us, on the threshold as it were, the two priestesses of Christian sanctity, Monogamy and Continence: one modest, in Zechariah the priest; one absolute, in John the forerunner: one appeasing God; one preaching Christ: one proclaiming a perfect priest; one exhibiting ‘more than a prophet,’ - him, namely, who has not only preached or personally pointed out, but even baptized Christ. For who was more worthily to perform the initiatory rite on the body of the Lord, than flesh similar in kind to that which conceived and gave birth to that body? And indeed it was a virgin, about to marry once for all after her delivery, who gave birth to Christ, in order that each title of sanctity might be fulfilled in Christ’s parentage, by means of a mother who was both virgin, and wife of one husband.” (On Monogamy, 8)
Tertullian says that Mary is representative of both ideals, monogamy and continence. She represented virginity for a while, then represented monogamy within marriage. The latter seems to replace the former, as something distinct from it, which is a denial of the perpetual virginity doctrine.

 

[BibleReader]

Jerusha:

So, are we then constrained to just accept it as a mystery, without explaining how? I agree that the rubber band theory has holes, because, obviously, the miracle happened to prove that it was a Virgin birth, that it was not a human act that conceived Jesus.

This early writing, the whole of it not perfect, certainly presents a reasonable scenario.newadvent.org/fathers/0847.htm
(excerpt)

The book you are quoting from was affirmatively barred from the Canon of Scripture.

 

[BibleReader]

mlchance:

I’m quite familiar with Our Lady of Guadalupe, thank you.

Nice dodge, by the way.

Questions: When Mary gave birth to Jesus, was she standing on the moon? Was she robed in the sun? Was she wearing a crown of stars? If not, while the imagery of Revelation 12 is beautiful and meaningful, it is not an accurate portrait.

– Mark L. Chance.

It’s not such a “dodge.” It’s a problem for “beamer-downers.” If, indeed, the entire painting is genuine, and if it is miraculous (and there is a *good *chance that it is miraculous), then the painting suggests that God, Himself, regards the Revelation 12 “woman” as “Mary.”

For those who don’t know about the miraculous Guadalupe image, Mary in that image is pregnant. That is the meaning of that sash she is wearing.

It is you who imposes on Revelation 12 an assumption that the Revelation 12:1 part of the vision occurred at the same moment as the Revelation 12:2 part of the vision. The Bible text does not do that.

One of the really ironical aspects of the “beamer-downers’” interp of Revelation 12:1-2 is that it is so far “over the edge,” they end up in the Protestant camp! Our Protestant brothers, anxious to dethrone Mary, also insist that the Revelation 12 plaintext “woman” is not Mary.

 

[Jerusha]

The book you are quoting from was affirmatively barred from the Canon of Scripture.

Understood. Other excerpts plainly show why. However, that does not negate the entire content.

 

[BibleReader]

Jerusha:

Understood. Other excerpts plainly show why. However, that does not negate the entire content.

Oh, I agree with you, there.

What disturbs me, however, is how the “beamer-downers” talk as if the Bible didn’t exist!

In other words, in their enthusiasm to make poor Mary’s body do wierd things – NOT “break water,” have NO contractions, experience NO opening of tissues of any sort, miraculously absorb the afterbirth, stretch like rubber bands, release Jesus’ body like Captain Kirk on Star Trek – the beamer downers never quote inspired sacred Scripture, itself, and never look at it.

In effect, they’re setting-up their own non-Biblical religion around wierd things Mary’s body didn’t do!

The truth is that if the Bible is on one side of the scales, and 500 Church Fathers and the CCC are on the other side of the scale, the Bible should win.

Note that the CCC quotes the Bible, itself as an authoritative source on most questions.

Many hesitate to do the same, because they lazily assume, “Well, Church Tradition is enough for me! Why read the Bible?”

Well, the Bible itself is an expression of the Magisterium.

Many quietly fear that the Magisterium “can say anything it wants” – including by declaring the meaning of verses to be the opposite of what they say.

No, the Magisterium can not do that.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

BibleReader,

Although this is a tangent I believe that it is crucial to ongoing discussion on this issue. You said:

BibleReader:

The truth is that if the Bible is on one side of the scales, and 500 Church Fathers and the CCC are on the other side of the scale, the Bible should win.

And you also said:
I also consider the Catholic Bible to be a more authoritative expression of the Magisterium than the CCC or the Church Fathers.

Could you please explain how the bible will “win”? Who is doing the interpreting of the bible in your scenario???

Thanks!
VC

 

[Lazerlike42]

Verbum Caro:

BibleReader,

Although this is a tangent I believe that it is crucial to ongoing discussion on this issue. You said:

And you also said:

Could you please explain how the bible will “win”? Who is doing the interpreting of the bible in your scenario???

Thanks!
VC

If the Bible says Jesus liked steak, and 500 Church Fathers and the Magesterium says Jesus hated steak, well then yes, the Bible wins. However, there never has been a situation where 500 Church Fathers said something contrary to the Bible, or the Magesterium, there never will be (as far as the Magesiterium), and that is the key.

 

[Jerusha]

Or, the first miracle Jesus performed was healing His mother from the effects of childbirth. That’s better than either “beamerdowner” or “rubberband”

 

[LaSalle]

Virginity is not lost with the tearing of the hymen.

Virginity is lost only through sexual intercourse.

A torn hymen is only circumstantial evidence that sexual intercourse took place.

Young girls can tear their hymens riding bicycles or by doing strenous exercise like gymnastics - it doesn’t mean they’re not virgins any longer.

 

[deb1]

We are talking about God here, a being that created gravity for goodness sake. If he can devise a method to keep all the planets in their orbits, he can find a way to keep Mary’s hymen from tearing.

I do agree with BibleReader on the fact that her birth was probably messy but that really has no effect on her virginity. I didn’t know that there were any people who argued the fact.

 

[BibleReader]

Verbum Caro:

BibleReader,

Although this is a tangent I believe that it is crucial to ongoing discussion on this issue. You said:

And you also said:

Could you please explain how the bible will “win”? Who is doing the interpreting of the bible in your scenario???

Thanks!
VC

I’ll answer that question after I see the answer to this hypothetical: If the pope suddenly denies that Jesus did not die on the cross, must you believe him?

 

[ElizabethJoy]

BibleReader:

I’ll answer that question after I see the answer to this hypothetical: If the pope suddenly denies that Jesus did not die on the cross, must you believe him?

I think you meant, “If the Pope suddenly denies that Jesus died on the cross, must you believe him?”

I’m a new convert and know exactly nothing of canon law, but it seems to me that the answer is “no.”

If the Pope declares that Jesus did not die on the cross, I would think that he has just excommunicated himself and therefore, no, I must not believe him.

Elizabeth

 

[Cathoholic]

Jerusha, you stated . . .

(Quote) “I have difficulty BELIEVING the teaching that she gave birth without loss to her physical virginity.” ??

Right. I asked the question many years ago, and got a shut-down, rather than a reasoned response. So the question had never been answered.]

But you can say that about ANY miracle in Scriptures (or anywhere else). What you are really saying it seems to me is “I won’t trust the authority of the Church when they are telling me of certain miraculous occurrences, unless I happen to agree with them.”

You can’t find complete NATURAL proofs for ANY SUPERNATURAL events. Evidence perhaps, but not complete proofs on a natural level. If you can, you can be sure they weren’t SUPERnatural events to begin with. These are mysteries that are revealed. That being said, we can certainly investigate and meditate on these truths (such as the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary) in a more profound sense.

Perhaps this is why St. Justin the Martyr who was very early in the Church (died in 165 A.D.) says . . . . “And hear again how Isaiah in express words foretold that He should be born of a virgin; for he spoke thus: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bring forth a son, and they shall say for His name, ‘God with us.’ " **For things which were incredible and seemed impossible with men, these God predicted by the Spirit of prophecy as about to come to pass, in order that, when they came to pass, there might be no unbelief, but faith, because of their prediction.” ** (First Apology. Chapter 23)

As far as you saying about whenever you ask about this you get “shut-down, rather than a reasoned response”, I think you are getting a reasoned response on this thread by many people. What you may be looking for (? a natural PROOF?) is something nobody in this world is going to be able to provide. A “reasoned response” yes, but a PROOF (in terms of science or whatever) no.

I read my Denzinger (a compendium of many Church documents) on this subject last night and there was so much stated in defense of this in the early Church that I wouldn’t know where to start as far as bringing it here. But if you reject the Church’s authority, then all the Church statements in the world won’t help will they? There is evidence that the Perpetual Virginity Doctrine is what the Church has always taught, but it is Ecclesiastical and Patristic evidence, not scientific (if that’s what you are looking for) evidence. It involves believing a miracle.

BibleReader, The “Original Greek” argument in post #16 didn’t seem persuasive to me. None of the ancient native Greek-speaking Fathers thought of this. And they didn’t have to go to Seminary to learn Greek. It seems to me if that argument were so strong, they would have been the first to present it.

For example the Greek speaking St. Epiphanius had this to say . . “We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy EVER-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit.” (The Man Well-Anchored 120 [A.D. 374]). (All caps mine for emphasis).

The Greek speaking St. Athanasius said this . . . “Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that He took true human flesh from the EVER-virgin Mary.” (Discourses against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]). (All caps mine for emphasis).

( staycatholic.com/ecf_mary_ever-virgin.htm )

 

[porthos11]

'scuse me, but by “virginity” are we talking about the existence of the hymen?

Does it really matter if the hymen ruptured or not?

Doesn’t “virgin” mean “never had sexual intercourse”?

 

[BibleReader]

BibleReader:

I’ll answer that question after I see the answer to this hypothetical: If the pope suddenly denies that Jesus did not die on the cross, must you believe him?

Oops. I meant to write, “If the pope suddenly denies that Jesus did die on the cross, must we believe him?”