"virginity even in the act of giving birth"

[Peter_Dawson]

Look, it’s entirely possible that Mary gave birth to Christ Jesus in the ordinary, human way. She. Would. Still. Have. Been. A. Virgin.

Look, please forgive me that the subject obliges me to discuss these sacred matters in unbecoming detail, but an unbroken hymen and untravelled birth canal are not defining attributes of virginity. The physical markers of labor and childbirth would be a pretty convincing argument against virginity in any woman who had not conceived by the Holy Spirit, but the latter is precisely what happened with Mary. There are myriad virgins out there with broken hymens, and if miraculous conceptions were common, there’d be many virgins out there with birth canals that had seen use.

I’m not persuaded of Mary’s perpetual virginity (an argument I’ll leave for a different thread), but even if I were, her endurance of a normal labor/delivery wouldn’t faze me or affect my belief in that respect.

P.S.: Although I understand the arguments suggesting that Mary was exempt from the curses of Eve, they don’t hold water. Jesus himself was obliged to live “by the sweat of his brow” and otherwise shoulder the burdens laid upon Adam, so there’s no call to think the Blessed Virgin had a free pass.

I agree 100% with your first 2 sentences. I think that that business of a virgin in partu is early Middle Ages fanaticism.

 

[Cachonga]

jmjconder:

You are saying that the Catholic Dogma of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity is a fabrication? For if, they had marital relations she would not be Ever-Virgin.

Yes I am! Where does the Bible teach Mary was (or had to be) “ever-virgin”? (Or even sinless?)
jmjconver:

In addition, you state there is “more” support that is biblical for Joseph and Mary having a “normal, marital relationship” than the Church has for the Dogma itself.

Please prove both of your statements from Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

Matt 13:55, Mark 6:3 both clearly mention brothers (by name) and sisters (plural) in reference with Joseph and Mary (and these were people who grew up with the family!). Matt 12:46-50 and Mark 3:31-35 shows His mother traveling with His brothers. In Luke (14:12 and 21:16) Jesus differentiates between brothers and kinsmen. The point here is that Scripture, which is inspired by God, makes a distinction between the two, so on what basis do you expect me to believe the previous references in Matthew and Mark DO NOT mean actual brothers (and sisters)? Are you accusing God of being ambiguous?

To clarify, I said there was SCRIPTURAL evidence. I said nothing about Tradition (I find much to question about “Sacred Tradition” as used by the Roman Catholic Church, but that’s a completely different thread). So, what is YOUR scriptural evidence for the dogma?

 

[Mark77]

**It Doesn’t Get More “SCRIPTURAL” Than JESUS’ Words When He Was Hanging Fro The Cross;
**
"When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home." (Jn 19:26-27)

**No proper Jew would give his mother to any other but his own brothers or sisters to care for.
**
“Brothers and sisters” could easily be any relative, including cousins, etc… in Hebrew.

Jesus Loves You! Stop worrying about all of the details and open your heart to His Infinite Mercy!

His Mercy is our only HOPE!

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

mark

 

[Nita]

I’ve heard this before, and I’ve asked some Rabbi’s about this offering, and it is generally given for “unknown sin”. I suggest that either Mary at least thought she had sinned (and could, with a clear conscience, make an offering for unknown sin), or she knowingly bore false witness (lied) against herself, which is a sin! The only other possibility is that Mary didn’t know she was sinless, which would raise the question - If she didn’t know, how can you?

I know she was sinless because the Church infallibly teaches it.
Whether Mary knew it or not is a matter of speculation. I don’t think she did - at least not at the time of the Annunciation. Hence her confusion and being troubled by the angel’s greeting when he called her “full of grace”.

But it wouldn’t be a lie for her to bring a sin offering; it was a matter of obedience to the law. The law did not say bring a sin offering only IF you think you are guilty of sin. It said to bring a sin offering if you bore a child.

 

[NotWorthy]

Hmmmm… your evasiveness is most telling… Why can’t you answer the question. Are you what the average Catholic would consider Catholic. I’m beginning to think you’ve usurped the word “Catholic”.

Hi, NotWorthy.

Finish your analysis. The sacrifice of the two turtledoves or pigeons is the sacrifice having the purpose of cleansing a woman who has given birth in a bloody fashion of the blood of childbirth. See Leviticus 12.

If there was no breach of integrity, then Mary did not bleed.

That meant that by engaging in the sacrifice, she was making the Temple believe that she bled, when she did not bleed.

She lied.

Am I missing something here? Leviticus 12 tells us (NAB)*** The LORD said to Moses,****** 2****** "Tell the Israelites: **When a woman has conceived and gives birth to a boy, she shall be unclean for seven days, with the same uncleanness as at her menstrual period.

I don’t see where it means, when a woman gives childbirth and bleeds like any other normal woman does…
*

You ask, “Are you a Catholic, Mr. Dawson?” But your position – not my position, but your position – infers that Mary deceived.

As I pointed out, I don’t see that. Its the conception and childbirth that makes one have to be made clean again.

But your silence in answering the question is still disturbing. Its a simple question.

Additionally, Jesus is a king. Matthew 21:1-5, John 12:14-15. Yet, Wisdom 7:5-6 assures us that all kings are born alike.

I pointed this out to you before.*** For no king has any different origin** or birth, but one is the entry into life for all; and in one same way they leave it*. How many kings do you know were conceived by the Holy Spirit? I would say Jesus has a different origin then, well… every other king in the history of the world!

No joke, calmly ask yourself, “Am I, NotWorthy, Catholic?”

When Liberius taught theology he himself later condemned, was Liberius Catholic, or Athanasius? (Which is why I brought that case up.)

I stipulated the question, are you what others consider Catholic. I think you are your own little pope and you think its perfectly alright to question 2000 years of tradition.

If so, I’ve got no problem with that. Every Protestant would agree with this in some way, shape or form.

I’ve would just have a problem with claiming to be “Catholic” knowing that it is mis-leading others. I don’t think Christ wants us to mis-lead people into learning the Truth.

 

[Omyo12]

Yes I am! Where does the Bible teach Mary was (or had to be) “ever-virgin”? (Or even sinless?)

Matt 13:55, Mark 6:3 both clearly mention brothers (by name) and sisters (plural) in reference with Joseph and Mary (and these were people who grew up with the family!). Matt 12:46-50 and Mark 3:31-35 shows His mother traveling with His brothers. In Luke (14:12 and 21:16) Jesus differentiates between brothers and kinsmen. The point here is that Scripture, which is inspired by God, makes a distinction between the two, so on what basis do you expect me to believe the previous references in Matthew and Mark DO NOT mean actual brothers (and sisters)? Are you accusing God of being ambiguous?

To clarify, I said there was SCRIPTURAL evidence. I said nothing about Tradition (I find much to question about “Sacred Tradition” as used by the Roman Catholic Church, but that’s a completely different thread). So, what is YOUR scriptural evidence for the dogma?

As stated before, the words suggenes and adelphos are used differently.

Many quote Strong’s definition that only states part of the word’s meaning.

Thayer gives a broader definition to adelphos adding:

having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman, a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection and Christians, as those who are exalted to the same heavenly place.

However,
suggenes can mean not only a relative but also one of the same race or country.

So in Luke (14:12 and 21:16), it could have been differentiated between blood relatives and fellow Jews.

I mean, we really aren’t sure.
adelphos could very well mean “brother” in the literal sense and suggenes could mean simply a relative in these verses.

It’s all really based on how we interpret these passages.

Another explanation I’ve read is that Christ’s “brothers” were the sons of Joseph. And since Joseph is Christ’s “father,” James, Joseph, Simeon, and Jude are therefore his “brothers”

One verse I do find of interest (and as Mark77 pointed out) is John 19:27 when Christ entrusts his mother to John. This would be very insulting to his blood brothers assuming he had any. Maybe they all died or didn’t care?

I think a fallacy that many Catholics fall victim to is to defend every single Catholic dogma using Scripture alone since Tradition is a huge part of our theology. Every Church doctrine is at least alluded to in Scripture but, I’m sorry to say, using Scripture alone to prove it is sometimes insufficient since there could be other interpretations of the same passage.

As I understand from your other posts, you left the Catholic faith because of Sola Scriptura.
While I disagree with your choice and reasoning, there is not much I can say or do to change your mind on this belief.

These passages really depend on our own interpretation of Scripture. As a Catholic, I interpret Scripture based on the teachings of the Catholic Church and of the Church Fathers.

To a “Bible Only” Christian, his interpretation is really his own

 

[Nita]

You object, “Are you also then implying that the Wisdom passage denies the the miraculous conception/origin of Jesus in Mary’s womb (since that “origin” obviously occurred in a manner different from all the other kings)?”

I thought about this. Wisdom 7:5-6 was authored, ultimately, by the Holy Spirit – by almighty God, Himself, in other words.

I think that God had Christ – His Own dearly beloved Son – in mind more than anyone else, when the Holy Spirit inspired Wisdom 7:5-6.

I think that Wisdom 7:4 refers to “swaddling clothes” to make it clear, to an in-your-face extent, that, yes, Wiosdom 7:5-6 is preeminently about Jesus, and that God made Jesus’ origin “like” ours as much as consistency of rational logic, which is “in” and “of” God, permitted. So, perhaps the moment of the Incarnation was not a “non-event” for Mary.

The preceding verses make it very clear that the passage cannot be comprehensively applied to Our Lord’s incarnation and birth. (Wis 7:1-2 …And in my mother’s womb I was molded into flesh… from the seed of man, and the pleasure that accompanies marriage.)

Perhaps God imitated human physiology perfectly by use of a divinely-created male gamete.

Gen 3:15 identifies the one who will crush the serpent’s head as “her seed”.

God says that the origin of Jesus the King, who was wrapped in swaddling clothes, was like the origin of any other king. God’s personal assurance to me, in Wisdom 7:5-6, is good enough for me.

The words are spoken by Solomon of himself. That may be their only application. If they have another Messianic application, it would generally differ from the way it applied to Solomon. (Eg. promises of a kingdom to David and their double application to David and to Messiah. Kingdom of Messiah differs from David’s kingdom here on earth.)

I’m not always sure if I’m understanding you. You say Jesus’ “origin” is like that of any other king. Do you reject His conception in Mary’s womb by the power of the Holy Spirit, without any involvement of a human male?

You also object, “It is conceiving and bearing a child that defines a woman as being in an unclean state after childbirth. It is not the bleeding.”

I do not believe your assurance.

Leviticus 12 – in other words, God, AND OUR OWN MAGISTERIUM – expressly assure me that the purpose of the ritual is to make the woman “clean again after her flow of blood. Leviticus 12:7.” And that statement of purpose is the sentence before the sentence which dramatically declares, “Such is the law for the woman who gives birth to a boy or a girl child.”

Thanks for pointing out verse 7. I missed it before. Altho it doesn’t really change anything.
IMO, the verse just gives the reason for delaying the rite for a length of time – that is, to be sure that there was no flow of blood present at the time of the sacrificial offering. It in no way makes blood flow at the time of birth conditional for fulfilling the rite.

The laws were made for the people in general – normal people in normal circumstances. That doesn’t preclude their being fulfilled or carried out by special people in “abnormal” conditions.

In talking about “her flow of blood,” Who is God likely to have in minmd more than any other woman?

In my opinion, Mary.

Could you expand a little. Why an important connection between Mary and flow of blood. I could understand the significance of flow of blood with Our Lord since He shed His blood for us. But Mary’s role in the events of our redemption didn’t.

Read Luke 2:22-23. “Opened the womb” identifies Jesus? Now, probably, “opened the womb” refers to the first out of the womb, but there is an overall larger assumption that the one they talk about was “born.” I.e., if Luke believed that Jesus “beamed down” out of Mary, would he have applied this verse to Jesus?

Yes. Because the purpose for his quoting the OT Law given in Exodus 13:2 is to tell us why they went to the temple 40 days after Our Lord’s birth.

 

[NotWorthy]

This dogma (apparently) relies upon non-scriptural sources (which I already pointed out) and is without Biblical support. I further assert that the dogmas of Mary’s immaculate conception and bodily assumption are also without Biblical evidence, and should be rejected. The dogma of Mary as Mother of God was originally stated to prove Jesus was fully God and fully man (this was in response to a heresy that was going around at the time), not to elevate Mary. I think there is sufficient evidence in Scripture to prove Jesus is fully God and fully man, therefore I also reject this dogma.

You have claimed (although without any proof) that this dogma originates from the Proto-Evangelium of James. What you have totally failed to mention (or maybe the web-site you got this info from failed to pass it on) is that the protoevangelium of James is based on the common Christian tradition of the time. It didn’t introduce new teachings - it simply reflects the traditional teachings.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

The preceding verses make it very clear that the passage cannot be comprehensively applied to Our Lord’s incarnation and birth. (Wis 7:1-2 …And in my mother’s womb I was molded into flesh… from the seed of man, and the pleasure that accompanies marriage.)

Hi, Nita. I thought about that, too, years ago.

In the Bible, the Man Type = “God” or “representative of God” or “empowered by God.” (The Woman Type = “mankind.”)

So, “seed of man” may actually refer to “seed of God.”

Additionally, who’s to say that the incarnation was a “non-event” for Mary. Sex is from God. Sexual pleasure is God’s invention. In the proper context, it is a good thing, even a great thing. So, I don’t think that you should infer that the Incarnation was not sexually pleasurable for Mary.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Gen 3:15 identifies the one who will crush the serpent’s head as “her seed”.

Well-l-l-l-l-l-l, doesn’t your analysis, here, then infer that the parallel language addressed to the Satan serpent means that the Devil also miraculously produces offspring by incarnated gametes? Do you think it is intellectually honest to limit your analysis to two words in one sentence, to avoid the previous three words.

In other words, look what you do to the Book of Wisdom – go back to prior VERSES.

In other words, isn’t what you do here perfect intellectual hypocrisy?

And if you respond with a typical repartee – by thinking of some reason to call me a hypocrite, back – then maybe we shouldn’t be talking. So, think of a better answer than that, gentle soul, please.

The words are spoken by Solomon of himself. That may be their only application. If they have another Messianic application, it would generally differ from the way it applied to Solomon. (Eg. promises of a kingdom to David and their double application to David and to Messiah. Kingdom of Messiah differs from David’s kingdom here on earth.)

I’m not always sure if I’m understanding you. You say Jesus’ “origin” is like that of any other king. Do you reject His conception in Mary’s womb by the power of the Holy Spirit, without any involvement of a human male?

Re application of the swaddling clothes to Solomon, alone, that is unlikely. The book was written about 800 years after Solomon’s death. The intertestamental Jewish author only uses Solomon as a tool. The book is not really about Solomon at all.

In fact, Christ quotes or paraphrases or imitates the Books of Wisdom and Sirach liberally, as though He is the one anticipated.

Christ, who used the Alexandrian Canon of the OT which included the Book of Wisdom, and the gospel writers after Him, would have been extremely aware that when they dedicate verses to discussions of the swaddling cloth, they were connecting Christ to the Book of Wisdom.

I dealt with the second paragraph quoted here elsewhere, above.

Could you expand a little. Why an important connection between Mary and flow of blood. I could understand the significance of flow of blood with Our Lord since He shed His blood for us. But Mary’s role in the events of our redemption didn’t.

That’s an interesting question. Why would loss of blood by Mary be important?

The Bible gets around to teaching a lot of Marian theology. It’s surprising. I maintain that Mary’s sinlessness is referred to in the Book of Ezekiel, her Assumption is referred to in the Book of Revelation, and Mary’s role as a special intercessor is referred to in John’s gospel.

Perhaps what we are being assured of, here, is that the sacrifice of the Sacrificed One will stop the loss of the SAVING BLOOD from Mary. In other words, it is a portrayal of the Doctrine that Christ’s sacrifice even saved Mary (by paying for her immaculate conception).

 

[SemperReformada]

Peter_Dawson:

Christ, who used the Alexandrian Canon of the OT which included the Book of Wisdom, and the gospel writers after Him, would have been extremely aware that when they dedicate verses to discussions of the swaddling cloth, they were connecting Christ to the Book of Wisdom.

I dealt with the second paragraph quoted here elsewhere, above.

There is no evidence of an Alexandrian canon and there is no way currently available to us to determine precisely what books Christ or the apostles thought to be canonical.

While there may be some allusions or perhpas a quote from one of the deuterocanonical books none of them are quoted in such a way that would lead one to conclude the dc’s were deserving of canonical status.

 

[RobbyS]

While this idea of “beaming out” of Mary’s body is a pious belief, it is certainly not a requirement. All we are required to believe is that Mary was and continues to be ever-virgin.

Also, as you point out, this would have been a miracle, and both the Scriptures and the Holy Tradition teach us that Christ’s first miracle occurred after His sojourn in the desert and His battle with Satan, at the Wedding of Cana.

No, not at all.

The same result could have been effected by an iinstantaneous healing. However, I wonder if this is not going beyond the basic doctrine of the Virgin Birth. The miracle itself is great enough without going any further than what the text tells us.

 

[SemperReformada]

Peter_Dawson:

That’s an interesting question. Why would loss of blood by Mary be important?

The Bible gets around to teaching a lot of Marian theology. It’s surprising. I maintain that Mary’s sinlessness is referred to in the Book of Ezekiel, her Assumption is referred to in the Book of Revelation, and Mary’s role as a special intercessor is referred to in John’s gospel.

Perhaps what we are being assured of, here, is that the sacrifice of the Sacrificed One will stop the loss of the SAVING BLOOD from Mary. In other words, it is a portrayal of the Doctrine that Christ’s sacrifice even saved Mary (by paying for her immaculate conception).

Pete,

After thinking about this a little bit, my post about the Alexandrian canon is going to derail this thread. If you would like to discuss this, PM me and we can do it that way.

 

[Nita]

Well-l-l-l-l-l-l, doesn’t your analysis, here, then infer that the parallel language addressed to the Satan serpent means that the Devil also miraculously produces offspring by incarnated gametes?

No. The woman is always taken to be a human (body and soul). The serpent Satan is a spirit only. He doesn’t have gametes. His offspring would involve only the spiritual aspect – not the bodily/physical aspect.

Do you think it is intellectually honest to limit your analysis to two words in one sentence, to avoid the previous three words.

In other words, look what you do to the Book of Wisdom – go back to prior VERSES.

In other words, isn’t what you do here perfect intellectual hypocrisy?

And if you respond with a typical repartee – by thinking of some reason to call me a hypocrite, back – then maybe we shouldn’t be talking. So, think of a better answer than that, gentle soul, please.

Why would I call you a hypocrite? I hope that, like me, you’re just being open and honest in putting forward what you truly think. Just because we disagree doesn’t mean I’d consider you a hypocrite. I’m sorry you interpret my responses as “perfect intellectual hypocrisy”.

 

[Nita]

Peter_Dawson:

Perhaps what we are being assured of, here, is that the sacrifice of the Sacrificed One will stop the loss of the SAVING BLOOD from Mary. In other words, it is a portrayal of the Doctrine that Christ’s sacrifice even saved Mary (by paying for her immaculate conception).

Now that is a reeeaaalll stretch – to read all that into the fact of Mary making the required sacrificial purification and sin offerings after the birth of her firstborn son.

And where are getting the concept of loss of blood by Mary being a loss of SAVING BLOOD??

 

[RobbyS]

There is no evidence of an Alexandrian canon and there is no way currently available to us to determine precisely what books Christ or the apostles thought to be canonical.
**
While there may be some allusions or perhpas a quote from one of the deuterocanonical books none of them are quoted in such a way that would lead one to conclude the dc’s were deserving of canonical status.

There was no canon, period! There were only The Books," and the Jews of Alexandria used books that some Jews of Palestine did not. But Greece was the lingua franca of the region, and given that a large Greek town was so close to Nazareth, it is quite possible that Jesus knew Greek. The fact that all the Gospels used the Greek form of Our Lord’s name* may *mean he may have even gone by that name, even if he spoke Aramaic. Just to be playful the flight to Egypt did, after all, take the Holy Family to live among Greek-speaking Jews, and we do not know how long they stayed there. Maybe it was a “pet name” like Francisco (Frenchie) used by the family that stuck.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Departed from topic and closed.