Did the Virgin Mary remain a virgin?

Standing Up said:

As you say, it was Mary in need of "cleaning". This is precisely because of His normal birth, the firstborn opening the womb.

Click to expand...

Christ came subject to the Law, to fulfill, btw.

Click to expand...

By nature, Jesus was not subject to the law. He humbly subjected himself to it, though it was unnecessary by virtue of his substantial grace of union with God the Father. Or are you suggesting that our Lord was sinful by nature in his humanity? Similarly, Mary was in no need of being purified. First, she gave birth to Jesus miraculously, as the early Church Fathers testify in keeping with the Apostolic Tradition handed down to them. Second, God raised her above the law by completely, perfectly, and enduringly endowing her with a fullness of grace (kecharitomene) on account of her Divine Maternity. Mary, too, humbly subjected herself to the law as her Son did.

Reformed Lutheran said:

24 Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, 25 and did not know her until [after] she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name Jesus.
Matthew 1

Click to expand...

If there was a place in scripture that would teach the perpetual virginity of Mary it would be found here,, but we find quite the contrary. Instead of saying "and Jospeh NEVER knew Mary" it says he did not know her up until after the virgin birth. And we can assume it was this time afterwards that Jesus' brothers were born of Mary and Jospeh

Click to expand...

n2thelight said:

Is not the scripture's the Word of God?When I hear people say the Bible is not enough,I immediatly say,they think God did'nt give enough.......

You'll can make claims all you want that the Church (ie Catholic)gave us the Bible,but the fact of the matter is,God gave it,it's His Word,not the Catholic Churches..............

Click to expand...

justinangel said:

καὶ οὐκ ἐγίνωσκεν αὐτὴν ἕως οὗ ἔτεκεν τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς τὸν πρωτότοκον· καὶ ἐκάλεσεν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν.

The Greek text reads "until" (heos) - not "until after" (heos meta)

There is no reason for the evangelist to mean that Joseph and Mary had no conjugal relations until after the birth of Jesus, unless he wanted to tell us that. His concern is with the virgin birth and "the time up to" the nativity to stress the fulfilment of Isaiah's prophecy (7,14) which he quotes in v. 23 in the same chapter. Matthew addresses a Hebrew audience, who should understand that the Messiah was of divine origin. The Jews didn't expect the Messiah to be born of a virgin by the time the angel appeared to Mary. And they still don't. Moreover, they have never regarded Isaiah's prophecy even to be messianic. Certainly we as Christians believe, according to the Apostolic Tradition and our interpretation of the OT, that Isaiah 7, 14 points to Christ and the Incarnation as a secondary fulfilment of the prophecy. But the Jews have always looked at the text's primary fulfilment alone in its direct historical context which has nothing to do with the expected Messiah. Hence, Mary had no idea that her Son, who would inherit the throne of his ancestor David and the eternal kingdom, would be born of a virgin until after the angel answered her question: "How shall this be, since I have no relations with a man?" (Lk 1:34). She asked this question because she and her husband had no intention of having any children together. Thus Matthew is strictly concerned with the period of time "before" Jesus was born by stressing Mary did not naturally conceive Jesus by Joseph while they were betrothed. As Luke tells us, Jesus was conceived by the power of the Most High when the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary (cf. Lk 1:35).

Now some Protestants claim that the text reads heos hou, so reference or allusion to the time after our Lord's birth can be made. In other words, this construction indicates that the action or state (virginity) of the first clause discontinues after an event (the birth of our Lord). However, heos hou can be used interchangeably with heos and mean the same thing "up to the time of". We find another example in the NT: "But when Paul had appealed to be kept in custody for the decision of the emperor, I commanded him to be held until (heos hou) I could send him to Caesar" (Acts 25:21). We know for a fact that the apostle remained in custody after he was sent to Caesar; he was held while enroute to Rome (Acts 27:1) and for a short time after he arrived there (Acts 29:16). Thus the action of the main clause (the command to be held in custody) did not necessarily cease at the moment of the pivotal event (being sent to Caesar) in the linear course of time. Paul was no more sent to Caesar free of his chains than Mary was a virgin after the birth of Christ. One can easily have the impression that Matthew is implying she bore another child after Jesus was born, when he reads the text in simple English. But the word until doesn't necessarily reference the future in the ancient Greek or Hebrew language as it may in English usage, though not necessarily: "After the teacher had left the classroom, the students didn't make any noise until (heos hou) he returned." The narrator means that the students worked quietly before their teacher returned after he had left the classroom for a brief period. He doesn't mean that the students became noisy after the teacher returned. Likewise, Matthew doesn't mean to imply that Mary and Joseph had other children after Jesus was born (Joseph didn't know Mary - he knew her not - until the birth of her firstborn son.) but rather they never had Jesus together during the time of their betrothal (kidushin).



Matthew is simply saying that the couple never had sexual relations before Jesus was born. Rather, Jesus was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit. He implies nothing more than this. Anything more is just wishful thinking.

PAX

Click to expand...

Nikti said:

Thankyou for this!

Click to expand...

justinangel said:

And when the time came for their purification according to the law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord.
Luke 2, 22 [RSVCE]

Most Protestant versions (including the fallible KJV) erroneously omit the possessive pronoun to accommodate Protestant thinking.

I never said Mary was in need of cleansing. That's your biased thinking. Both Mary and Jesus were required by Mosaic law to be cleansed and sanctified, the Son for reason of his being dedicated to God.

Click to expand...

sahjimira said:

MaybeOTE="Wgw, post: 68680890, member: 377082"]Here you quote John Wesley, who did believe that St. Mary remained a virgin.

Click to expand...

patricius79 said:

Maybe he did but I don't

Click to expand...

justinangel said:

By nature, Jesus was not subject to the law. He humbly subjected himself to it, though it was unnecessary by virtue of his substantial grace of union with God the Father. Or are you suggesting that our Lord was sinful by nature in his humanity? Similarly, Mary was in no need of being purified. First, she gave birth to Jesus miraculously, as the early Church Fathers testify in keeping with the Apostolic Tradition handed down to them. Second, God raised her above the law by completely, perfectly, and enduringly endowing her with a fullness of grace (kecharitomene) on account of her Divine Maternity. Mary, too, humbly subjected herself to the law as her Son did.

Click to expand...

patricius79 said:

I agree, and it is true that the arguments against the Perpetual Virginity of Mary usually do have logical implications which argue against Christ's Divinity.

Click to expand...

n2thelight said:

Is not the scripture's the Word of God?When I hear people say the Bible is not enough,I immediatly say,they think God did'nt give enough.......

You'll can make claims all you want that the Church (ie Catholic)gave us the Bible,but the fact of the matter is,God gave it,it's His Word,not the Catholic Churches..............

Click to expand...

Rick Otto said:

No, The Holy Spirit testifies to no such thing. It was made up hundreds of years later.
Just like The Donation of Constantine was made up, and the Two Swords Doctrine was made up.

Click to expand...

patricius79 said:

I understand your perspective. However, the Bible doesn't tell us which books are in the Bible or which books are inerrant. HIstorically, Protestantism didn't arise until the 1500s. The historic Church which discerned which books are Biblical is the Catholic Church.

Meanwhile the Bible says that we should hold fast to both the written and oral traditions 2 Thes 2:15, and never says anything about the Bible alone being the Word of God.

Nor does the Bible ever say that Mary and Joseph had a normal marriage involving sex and children. Rather, the Holy Spirit testifies that Mary is Immaculate and Ever-Virgin.

Click to expand...

bbbbbbb said:

Don't dare tell that to our Eastern Orthodox brethren.

Click to expand...

Standing Up said:

The explanation of the verse is found in the next couple of verses and in OT. Christ was sanctified (set apart). Mary had to offer a sacrifice.

Click to expand...

And you shall be to me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation.
Exodus 19, 6

You are to be holy to me because I, the LORD, am holy, and I have set you apart from the nations to be my own.
Leviticus 20, 26

The meaning of sanctification (Qadosh) in the original Hebrew context literally means "to leave behind and be separate from for a distinct purpose," and figuratively being "set apart" by God to serve His purpose includes being removed from what is profane and distancing oneself from any uncleanliness so as to be acceptable to God as His chosen servant. The Israelites were expected to be a holy people, since they were set apart from all the other pagan nations by God, who is all-holy, to be His own people. Israel was set apart for the purpose of bringing forth the Messiah into the world. Thus the nation was called to be holy. Mary is the personification of Daughter Zion by being the woman of promise who has personally brought forth the fruit of her womb into the world through her faith. "I will set upon your throne the fruit of your body" (Ps 132:11). She, too, had to be holy to God, since she was set apart from all other women to be the mother of our Lord.

The sacrifice Mary offered was symbolically an atonement for having brought forth a sinner into the world. It wasn't the customary sin offering for one's own sins against their neighbour. Literally, in the Levitical rite of purification, the sin offering served to remove taboos related to sexual matters. But we know that Mary and Joseph did not conceive Jesus together. Jesus' formal sanctification actually took place when he was circumcised and dedicated to God (brit milah) for the purpose which turned out to be his own self-sacrifice for the sins of the world. He, too, had to leave behind any uncleanliness he may have come in contact with during his birth, just as Israel had to be removed from her former profanity in order to be God's servant. The initial rite of purification prepared Jesus for his circumcision.

But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.
1 Peter 2, 9

In the Catholic tradition, all Christians share in the priesthood of Jesus through the common priesthood of the faithful: "and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father" (Rev 1:6). In light of this divine revelation, the early Church affirmed much more about Mary in the designation of sacrificial priest when she presented her Son in the temple, whose act fulfilled the divine role of Israel which brought forth the Lamb of God and, therefore, in whom all nations shall be blessed.

The Presentation in the Temple (Purification) contextually speaks of sacrifice. According to the Apostolic Tradition, this event foreshadows Calvary. When Mary dedicated her firstborn infant Son to God as a Jewish mother customarily did on this occasion, she was in fact offering Jesus to the Father for the sake of the world. And, not unlike Israel, she acted as mother to all nations by offering the sacrificial victim for the sins of the whole world. Since Jesus was too young to offer himself to be of Divine service at the time of his presentation to God, Mary performed the offering as priest, as her Son assumed the place of being the sacrificial victim. She acted as priest in her Son's name by offering back to God what was most precious to her. Mosaic law required the sacrificial sin offering of a pair of turtle doves or two young pigeons, if the couple couldn't afford to offer a pure and spotless one year old lamb (ewe) to serve as a substitute for their sins, or more precisely the impurities associated with the sexual act and bearing children. But in truth, the real substitute for sins during this particular observance was Mary's infant Son.

Fundamental to the priesthood is the role of acting as an intermediary to bring God to people and people to God. Through her divine motherhood, Mary is the ultimate example. In the Incarnation, the flesh and blood of Jesus crucified was the flesh and blood of his mother. As our Lord's mother, Mary offered her Son to God for the world, as the Father offered His Son to the world so that it would be reconciled with Him. In 1873, Pope Pius IX said of Mary: ‘She was so closely united to the sacrifice of her divine Son, from the virginal conception of Jesus Christ to his sorrowful Passion, that she was called by some Fathers of the Church the Virgin Priest’. All the priestly functions attributed to Mary by the Fathers and Doctors of the Catholic Church are construed in maternal terms. The Levitical priests, too, had to undergo a similar rite of purification before they could offer up sacrifice for the sins of Israel. But there were no impurities of the flesh that had to be cleansed because of the conception and birth of Jesus before Mary could offer up her Son to God for our sins.

“There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first possible and then impossible, even Jesus Christ our Lord."
Ignatius, To the Ephesians, 7 (c. A.D. 110)

"After this, we receive the doctrine of the resurrection from the dead, of which Jesus Christ our Lord became the first-fruits; Who bore a Body, in truth, not in semblance, derived from Mary the mother of God in the fullness of time sojourning among the race, for the remission of sins: who was crucified and died, yet for all this suffered no diminution of His Godhead."
Alexander of Alexandria, Epistle to Alexander, 12 (A.D. 324)

"Many, my beloved, are the true testimonies concerning Christ. The Father bears witness from heaven of His Son: the Holy Ghost bears witness, descending bodily in likeness of a dove: the Archangel Gabriel bears witness, bringing good tidings to Mary: the Virgin Mother of God bears witness: the blessed place of the manger bears witness."
Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, X:19 (c. A.D. 350)

"Yes, a sword shall pierce through your own soul also."

PAX

rockytopva said:

Did the Virgin Mary remain a virgin

Click to expand...

yesyoushould said:

Is that good or bad?

Click to expand...