Did the Virgin Mary remain a virgin?

Open Heart · Jul 29, 2015

justinangel said:
As for scripture, your problem with Luke 1:34 is that Mary does not speak in the present perfect tense

I have no problems with Luke 1:34. I have problems with the idea that Mary and Joseph would take vows of celibacy when Jewish law states a man must be fruitful and multiply. No long post needed.

Open Heart · Jul 29, 2015

justinangel said:
the opinions of many Church Fathers and Doctors of the Church

I'm just curious which ECF support this idea of yours. Can you please quote them? I'd be very grateful. I know it would be a lot of work. If you can... Thanks.

bbbbbbb · Jul 29, 2015

justinangel said:
On the contrary, my posts are based on Scripture and Tradition, and I refer to exegetical resources at my disposal to draw inferences. Also, I do cite the Church Fathers and explicate their texts in light of the Catholic faith which I wish to explain for all our readers. Those objectors to whom I've replied simply give their opinions without any sound scriptural, historical, or exegetical support. As for scripture, your problem with Luke 1:34 is that Mary does not speak in the present perfect tense - which you will find in a couple of Protestant Bible versions to suit the Protestant persuasion. You are reading into the text based on your preconceptions and rigid interpretation of the Torah. The original Greek verb ginosko is in the simple present Active Indicative Mood. Further, Hebrew convert to the Catholic faith and exegete rabbinic scholar Brother Anthony Opisso informs us "that the angel does not use the phrase for marital union: “go in unto” (as in Gn 30:3, 4, 16) or “come together” (Mt 1:20) but merely a word meaning leading her into the house as a wife (paralambano gunaika) but not cohabiting with her" by fully consummating their marriage in the normal sense. As you know being Hebrew, at this time the couple were legally married (espoused), having celebrated the first wedding ceremony (Kiddushin) pending the second marriage ceremony of solemnization (Nisuin). Now here we may infer that Mary made a prior vow of chastity and Joseph chose to honour her oath for her sake and reverence for God, since the angel spoke to him after the Annunciation. Gabriel plainly instructed him to go ahead as planned, that is to formally solemnize the marriage and take his wife into his home. Joseph had no cause to fear, since Mary hadn't committed adultery and violated the marriage contract. Finally, since you are bent on focussing more on Scripture alone, there is no record of Mary having made a vow after the angel departed from her. The only verse which logically supports the opinions of many Church Fathers and Doctors of the Church is Luke 1:34 which I've lucidly and concisely tried to explain for the benefit of our readers. The conclusion I've reached doesn't depend on what others have claimed to have drawn as well. Nor does it come out of nowhere. Bald and unsupported statements such as yours, like Mary said she hadn't known a man, do arise out of a vacuum and serve no purpose other than accommodating one's personal religious conviction. These kinds of assertions are a far cry from objective reasoning and are purely subjective in nature. They are just as vain as the trite sarcastic and pathetically witty remarks made by Protestants in this thread.

Finally, I'll get back to you soon to show just how rigid your interpretation of the Torah is with regard to the ordinance of propagation. In ancient time there were exceptions to the norm. And I'm not only referring to some priests of the temple who never married for spiritual reasons.

I am very curious about some priests of the temple who never married for spiritual reasons. What are these reasons and where did God spell them out for us?

Crowns&Laurels · Jul 29, 2015

To believe Mary's perpetual virginity is to acknowledge that Joseph had children apart from Mary. Whether they were illegitimate or simply conceived beforehand is unknown.

Open Heart · Jul 29, 2015

Crowns&Laurels said:
To believe Mary's perpetual virginity is to acknowledge that Joseph had children apart from Mary. Whether they were illegitimate or simply conceived beforehand is unknown.

The oldest oral tradition, one still held by the Eastern Orthodox, is that he was a widower with children.

Crowns&Laurels · Jul 29, 2015

Open Heart said:
The oldest oral tradition, one still held by the Eastern Orthodox, is that he was a widower with children.

It makes sense. To suppose that they were illegitimate would be to say he was either an adulterer or had sex outside of marriage. And one couldn't remarry except under the circumstance of the spouse departing.
If Joseph was a man of integrity, then that oral tradition is true.

prodromos · Jul 30, 2015

Crowns&Laurels said:
.If Joseph was a man of integrity, then that oral tradition is true.

The scriptures describe him as a just man.

justinangel · Jul 30, 2015

Open Heart said:
I have no problems with Luke 1:34. I have problems with the idea that Mary and Joseph would take vows of celibacy when Jewish law states a man must be fruitful and multiply. No long post needed.

Well you do have a problem with the grammar and with simple logic. Your understanding of the application of the Law has clouded your judgment.

Like I said, there were exceptions made in applying the law. Nor did the command or ordinance to be fruitful and multiply directly apply to women. This brings us back to the Book of Numbers 30, which I cited above. I'll keep it brief and to the point, so as not to muddle the minds of some of our posters to their vexation.

Vows Taken by a Married Woman

"And if she is married to a husband, while under her vows or any thoughtless utterance of her lips by which she has bound herself, and her husband hears of it, and says nothing to her on the day that he hears; then her vows shall stand, and her pledges by which she has bound herself shall stand. But if, on the day that her husband comes to hear of it, he expresses disapproval, then he shall make void her vow which was on her, and the thoughtless utterance of her lips, by which she bound herself; and the LORD will forgive her."

Vows to "Afflict Herself"

"Any vow and any binding oath to afflict herself, her husband may establish, or her husband may make void. But if her husband says nothing to her from day to day, then he establishes all her vows, or all her pledges, that are upon her; he has established them, because he said nothing to her on the day that he heard of them. But if he makes them null and void after he has heard of them, then he shall bear her iniquity."

Vows Taken by a Widow or Divorced Woman

"But any vow of a widow or of a divorced woman, anything by which she has bound herself, shall stand against her. And if she vowed in her husband's house, or bound herself by a pledge with an oath, and her husband heard of it, and said nothing to her, and did not oppose her; then all her vows shall stand, and every pledge by which she bound herself shall stand. But if her husband makes them null and void on the day that he hears them, then whatever proceeds out of her lips concerning her vows, or concerning her pledge of herself, shall not stand: her husband has made them void, and the LORD will forgive her."

Obviously provisions under the Mosaic Law were specifically made for such vows, or else we wouldn't be reading this right now. Notice that vows like these taken by women were permissible, since the command to propagate did not apply to them. It applied to men only which explains why there is no statute about vows taken by married men. If Joseph agreed to a chaste marriage, it was only because of the vow his wife had made by the time of the Kiddushin. Moreover, there is no statute that condemns a man for having sinned by honouring his wife's vow. Nor is there any directive for the husband to abort the first marriage ceremony upon hearing of the vow or to immediately divorce his wife upon hearing of it after. Joseph did have the option to either accept or reject the vow and call the Kiddushin off. By not doing so, he didn't sin. But he would have sinned if he initially honoured Mary's vow, married her, and then attempted to nullify it. Mary would have sinned if she broke her silence after the Kiddushin. Apparently, Mary needed her husband's sanction, but in the meantime he was both free to act on his own judgment and constrained by the provision provided by the law. We know from Scripture that Joseph honoured Mary's vow for reasons only known to them.

And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
Luke 1, 26-27

Notice the tension in this verse which hardly anyone ever will in its proper context. Luke introduces Mary to us as "a virgin (parthenos) espoused to a man" In other words, he refers to a virginal marriage. He is not referring to Isaiah as Matthew does who, by the way, quotes the prophet, since he is not concerned with the Incarnation. The focus here is on Mary, not on the divine Messiah, and it points towards her encounter with the angel which culminates in her consent to be the mother of our Lord. Mary is presented as no ordinary young Jewish maiden (almah) who is espoused/betrothed to a husband. She is introduced to us as Joseph's virgin spouse. The tension here resurfaces in Luke 1:34 and is resolved in verse 35 which explains why Mary had to be a virgin according to God's design. This is literary craftsmanship at its best.

In any event, any binding oath of a young maiden of marriageable age to "afflict herself" her husband may sanction (establish) or nullify. But if he remains silent in the course of time, then his wife's vow stands upon what he has established. The eminent Torah scholar Jacob Milgrom informs us that the woman's vow "to afflict herself" meant to the Jews in ancient time as fasting and abstaining from sexual relations. Judith, for instance, may have made such a vow after her encounter with God to collaborate with Him in delivering His chosen people from their enemy. She never remarried at her young age after her husband died because of her calling; she was widowed without children. And it wasn't until after her husband had died that God summoned her to do His will. Anyway, similar terminology was used by the Jews regarding the Day of Atonement, when the entire people were expected to fast and refrain from having conjugal relations on account of this solemn observation (cf. Exodus 19:15).

So there were exceptions to the rule. If it were sinful to remain chaste for a high spiritual cause, whether permanently or temporarily, Jesus himself would have condemned it. However, he commends it as something better than a consummated marriage, since a closer communion with God is the primary object of this state. Our Lord must have had his blessed mother Mary and John the Baptist in mind when he spoke the following words:

"There are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who accepts it should accept it."
Matthew 19, 12

PAX
:angel:

bbbbbbb · Jul 30, 2015

Crowns&Laurels said:
It makes sense. To suppose that they were illegitimate would be to say he was either an adulterer or had sex outside of marriage. And one couldn't remarry except under the circumstance of the spouse departing.
If Joseph was a man of integrity, then that oral tradition is true.

Whether or not it is true, it is still highly implausible. Here is the situation, according to this story. Joseph had been married, had children (which were later called the brothers and sisters of Jesus even though there was no blood relationship whatsoever), was widowed and now was an elderly and impotent man. Mary, who was totally desperate to get married and could not attract any other man, had to settle for a man the age of her grandfather. She knew that this old geezer was impotent and that she would never be a mother. However, that was okey-dokey with her because she had a hang-up about marital sexual relations and had decided that not only did she not want any children, but she recoiled at the very thought of intercourse. She had determined that this sort of relationship was disgusting, if not outright sinful.

So, Joseph, seeing a prime opportunity, proposed to Mary. His children and other relatives thought he had lost his mind and could not believe that Mary would have the slightest interest in him. In the meantime, Mary's family thought she had lost her mind in wanting to marry a man who was older than her grandfather. But, as they say, love is blind.

All is well until Mary is approached by the angel who informs her that, despite her repulsion of all things sexual, she would get pregnant. She asked how this could be since she was a virgin and had not been sleeping around. The angel explained the process to her and she was fine with it. However, when Joseph found out about it he was ready to dump her, not being willing to understand that she actually might want children even though she had told him of her peculiar abhorence of marriage. However, an angel appeared to him in a dream and told him that all was well and he would have his virgin bride forever.

So, when the time came for Mary to give birth a miracle occured which permitted Mary to retain her hymen intact, and thus her virginity. Jesus Christ did not pass through her birth canal, but emerged from her side.

Now, if you believe this to be true, I have a really wonderful bridge in Brooklyn for sale.

Open Heart · Jul 30, 2015

justinangel said:
Like I said, there were exceptions made in applying the law. Nor did the command or ordinance to be fruitful and multiply directly apply to women. This brings us back to the Book of Numbers 30, which I cited above. I'll keep it brief and to the point, so as not to muddle the minds of some of our posters to their vexation.

I understand that "Be fruitful and multiply" doesn't apply to women. You don't need to school me in Halakha. However, for her to have taken the vow prior to the annunciation, it would mean that she was assisting Joseph in sin. Under ordinary circumstances you must agree that this would have been impossible. Of course, having an Angel appear to you is no ordinary circumstance -- there is no problem with her perpetual virginity after that.

Standing Up · Jul 30, 2015

"And if she is married to a husband, while under her vows ..."

"And if she had at all an husband, when she vowed, or uttered ought out of her lips, wherewith she bound her soul;"

IOW, the point remains that Mary did not take a vow to never get married and then got married anyway. If she had, Joseph could annul the vow (v8).

Standing Up · Jul 30, 2015

Crowns&Laurels said:
To believe Mary's perpetual virginity is to acknowledge that Joseph had children apart from Mary. Whether they were illegitimate or simply conceived beforehand is unknown.

Well there's another explanation. Jerome thought it horrible, scandalous to have a widowed (or divorced) sexual Joseph (with children from a previous marriage) married to Mary, so he invented the explanation that the brothers of Christ were actually cousins. In this way, we have a very married, very celibate twosome.

Standing Up · Jul 30, 2015

Open Heart said:
The oldest oral tradition, one still held by the Eastern Orthodox, is that he was a widower with children.

Well, it's not oral once written in the PoJames. But remember Origen will contrast PoJames with scripture. Presumably we agree that four gospels were written before PoJ, making scripture the oldest oral (until written) tradition.

" And they spoke, wondering, (not knowing that He was the son of a virgin, or not believing it even if it was told to them, but supposing that He was the son of Joseph the carpenter,) is not this the carpenter's son? Matthew 13:55 And depreciating the whole of what appeared to be His nearest kindred, they said, Is not His mother called Mary? And His brethren, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us? Matthew 13:55-56 They thought, then, that He was the son of Joseph and Mary. But some say, basing it on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, as it is entitled, or The Book of James, that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary."
-Origen on Matthew Book X-

As such, the oldest tradition is that the brothers of Jesus were sons of Mary/Joseph.

Open Heart · Jul 30, 2015

Standing Up said:
Well, it's not oral once written in the PoJames.

It's written down eventually, but at a later date, I understand. What is the date of PoJ?

bbbbbbb · Jul 30, 2015

Open Heart said:
It's written down eventually, but at a later date, I understand. What is the date of PoJ?

Here is a link which you might find helpful - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_James

There were many good reasons this was rejected from the canon of scripture.

prodromos · Jul 30, 2015

bbbbbbb said:
Whether or not it is true, it is still highly implausible. Here is the situation, according to this story. Joseph had been married, had children (which were later called the brothers and sisters of Jesus even though there was no blood relationship whatsoever), was widowed and now was an elderly and impotent man. Mary, who was totally desperate to get married and could not attract any other man, had to settle for a man the age of her grandfather. She knew that this old geezer was impotent and that she would never be a mother. However, that was okey-dokey with her because she had a hang-up about marital sexual relations and had decided that not only did she not want any children, but she recoiled at the very thought of intercourse. She had determined that this sort of relationship was disgusting, if not outright sinful.

So, Joseph, seeing a prime opportunity, proposed to Mary. His children and other relatives thought he had lost his mind and could not believe that Mary would have the slightest interest in him. In the meantime, Mary's family thought she had lost her mind in wanting to marry a man who was older than her grandfather. But, as they say, love is blind.

All is well until Mary is approached by the angel who informs her that, despite her repulsion of all things sexual, she would get pregnant. She asked how this could be since she was a virgin and had not been sleeping around. The angel explained the process to her and she was fine with it. However, when Joseph found out about it he was ready to dump her, not being willing to understand that she actually might want children even though she had told him of her peculiar abhorence of marriage. However, an angel appeared to him in a dream and told him that all was well and he would have his virgin bride forever.

So, when the time came for Mary to give birth a miracle occured which permitted Mary to retain her hymen intact, and thus her virginity. Jesus Christ did not pass through her birth canal, but emerged from her side.

Now, if you believe this to be true, I have a really wonderful bridge in Brooklyn for sale.

If this is what you believe we teach, I wouldn't blame you for rejecting it. It isn't, however.

bbbbbbb · Jul 30, 2015

prodromos said:
If this is what you believe we teach, I wouldn't blame you for rejecting it. It isn't, however.

Thank you. Please tell us what you do believe.

justinangel · Jul 31, 2015

Open Heart said:
I understand that "Be fruitful and multiply" doesn't apply to women. You don't need to school me in Halakha. However, for her to have taken the vow prior to the annunciation, it would mean that she was assisting Joseph in sin. Under ordinary circumstances you must agree that this would have been impossible. Of course, having an Angel appear to you is no ordinary circumstance -- there is no problem with her perpetual virginity after that.

Not according to Numbers. If Joseph would have been led into sin, there would be no sense in having any provision that forbade him to forever hold his peace once he established the arrangement. In fact, he would have been enjoined to reject it from the beginning and cancel the Kiddushin. Do you see the logical inconsistency in your interpretation of the Law? The fact that such a provision was set in place at the time shows that celibate marriages, however rare, were tolerated although perhaps frowned upon.

From what I've read, there appears to be a difference of opinion between conservative and orthodox Jews on this matter. The latter view the first command of the Torah to 'be fruitful and multiply' as an overarching command that negatively carries with it the weight of sin. Those in the conservative camp, like Rabbi Gil Student, see it more as a divine directive or mandate which people should follow to satisfy God's desire according to His good purpose. In his own words, he says that the command to populate the earth is not a "meta-mitzvah" such as "'And you shall do the right and the good,'" (Deut. 6:18). I presume he might add that the 10 Mitzvahs given to Moses on the stone tablets are meta-mitzvahs that carry with them the indictment of mortal sin. Indeed, both Jew and Gentile are bidden to fulfil what God in His goodness desires, but procreation is nothing more than a divine mandate given to us by God for a good reason. The penalty for the whole world by rejecting this mandate is the extinction of the human race which all would bring upon themselves. Our redemption does not depend on whether we follow this divine mandate, as the more orthodox maintain. The apostle Paul apparently chose to remain celibate before he converted to the Faith, so he must have interpreted the law differently from how the orthodox do.

http://www.torahmusings.com/2014/10/the-super-mitzvah-to-have-children/

Returning to the Annunciation, Mary's question, "How can this be (How will I conceive), since I have no relations with a man?" makes absolutely no logical sense unless she was referring to a prior vow. She assumed that Joseph would be the father of the Messiah until the angel explained how she would conceive Jesus. The angel gives no indication that she shall conceive our Lord during the period of time before the Nisuin. If Mary had in fact misunderstood that the angel meant that, we would have an entirely different reading in Koine Greek which would have to do with the instant of time rather than Mary's virginal state, indicating temporality rather than ongiong permanence, such as this translated into English: 'I have no relations with a man now', or 'I am not having relations with a man.' Luke writes in the Active Indicative Mood of the Simple Present to convey something of special significance. This grammatical exponent is often used for that purpose.

So there is no problem with her perpetual virginity after the angel appeared to her? Are you suggesting that God gave Joseph a green light to commit sin while dismissing His own Law? That it's okay now for Mary to consecrate herself to God, and for Joseph to honour her pledge, but it wasn't beforehand? This corollary is inescapable.

PAX
:angel:

Open Heart · Jul 31, 2015

justinangel said:
Not according to Numbers. If Joseph would have been led into sin, there would be no sense in having any provision that forbade him to forever hold his peace once he established the arrangement. In fact, he would have been enjoined to reject it from the beginning and cancel the Kiddushin. Do you see the logical inconsistency in your interpretation of the Law? The fact that such a provision was set in place at the time shows that celibate marriages, however rare, were tolerated although perhaps frowned upon.

No, actually your explanation makes no sense to me. The law is the law unless a) there is an exception spelled out in Torah or b) a higher law takes precedence (such as saving a life), aka the lesser of two evils. Once the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary, b) kicked in. But not before.

The question is not what Orthodox or Conservative Jews believe today, but what was believed during the second temple period. Orthodox Judaism is built on the same Oral Torah that Second Temple Judaism was built. Thus, we can be sure that it was considered a sin. Conservative observance is a recent thing; it only came into existence in the 20th century.

Please tell me where you learned this?

Standing Up · Jul 31, 2015

bbbbbbb said:
Here is a link which you might find helpful - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_James

There were many good reasons this was rejected from the canon of scripture.

It makes you wonder, though. There were some, like Origen, who thought PoJ was scripture or its equivalent. See post 1073 where he says, scripture says X, but some say per PoJ that it says Y. Origen chose to believe PoJ. IOW, there's no sense from him that scripture is God's prophets/apostles speaking to us, but only mere opinion we might or might not believe, especially if something else is written we like better. In this case, Origen likes PoJ because it maintains EV, while scripture doesn't. This is perhaps the beginnings of the false teaching that Tradition (as someone defines) and Scripture as on par with each other.

Did the Virgin Mary remain a virgin?

Did the Virgin Mary remain a virgin?

Yes

No

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

On and on

On and on

On and on

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

On and on

Similar threads