Did the Virgin Mary remain a virgin?

Standing Up said:

I also said you wouldn't "get it", until you understood why John said, not by water only, but water and blood. Why does John say that?

Click to expand...

1john5:6 recalls the baptism of Jesus and the cross
Being born of God is the context
"even" Jesus not by water only (john3:5) water and blood and the spirit bearing witness

Blood Acts 20:28
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

Water /spirit
John 1:33-34
And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.

St Ambrose interprets 1john5:6 this way

Panevino said:

1john5:6 recalls the baptism of Jesus and the cross
Being born of God is the context
"even" Jesus not by water only (john3:5) water and blood and the spirit bearing witness

Blood Acts 20:28
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

Water /spirit
John 1:33-34
And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.

St Ambrose interprets 1john5:6 this way

Click to expand...

But Jesus said to them, "You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?"
Mark 10, 38

But I have a baptism to undergo, and what constraint I am under until it is completed!
Luke 12, 50

The baptism Jesus refers to as something he must undergo is his baptism of blood. The apostles are unable to drink the cup that he drinks, since only the blood of Christ can free the human race from guilt and gain forgiveness for the sins of the world. His baptism of water in the Jordan was insufficient for this task. Jesus had to shed his blood to gain the grace of justification for the world. Jesus came not only to regenerate mankind, but also to justify the whole human race. Both justification and regeneration are necessary for salvation. Thus Jesus did not come only by water, but by water and blood. 1 John 5:6 isn't a polemic against the Docestists who denied Jesus was born in the flesh, as some people might think.

PAX

patricius79 said:

The Bible doesn't say that Christ was born normally.

Are there any Church fathers who cite 1 Jn 5:6 as evidence that Christ was born normally?

Doesn't Irenaeus say that Mary gave birth before she went into labor?

Click to expand...

So no answer to my question.

Panevino said:

1john5:6 recalls the baptism of Jesus and the cross
Being born of God is the context
"even" Jesus not by water only (john3:5) water and blood and the spirit bearing witness

Blood Acts 20:28
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

Water /spirit
John 1:33-34
And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.

St Ambrose interprets 1john5:6 this way

Click to expand...

I understand the later interpretation of the verse. Do those same people believe the blood and water coming from Christ's side at His death also point to His baptism and sacrifice? Or do they realize they are both (water/blood and blood/water) proof of His humanity--God with us?

Why does John say, not by water only, but by water and blood? Why blood? What's John's point?

justinangel said:

1 John 5:6 isn't a polemic against the Docestists who denied Jesus was born in the flesh, as some people might think.

Click to expand...

Here's the context of verse 6. It's verse 5.

1 John 5:5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?

justinangel said:

How on earth does any woman remain being a virgin by remaining in the childbirth state? Being found to be a virgin after giving birth presupposes that she wasn't in the childbirth state. And what do you mean by Mary having retained the umbilical cord, placenta, water and blood? And how does this make her a virgin at the time of giving birth? The whole idea of being a virgin after giving birth is the absence of these things altogether at the time of birth. Are you suggesting that some claimed they stayed inside Mary, and this is what Clement objected to? Where do you see this in Clement's text? You should realize that you're making absolutely no sense and just making wild assumptions. Don't expect anyone to get it.

Click to expand...

Reread you PoJames and answer this. Why does the midwife (not Salome) believe the virgin gave birth?

If you're denying the cord, placenta, water and blood, you're saying exactly what Valentinus, Appelles, etc. claimed. Clement and Tertullian believed in a normal human birth, complete with cord, etc.

justinangel said:

I expect you'll butcher this passage, too.

Click to expand...

I'm not the one who quoted Clement out of context. You ignored this sentence just a few above where you cut/paste.

"Milk being thus provided in parturition [action of giving birth], ...",

Again, your denial of a normal human birth is not Clement's view.

Standing Up said:

I understand the later interpretation of the verse. Do those same people believe the blood and water coming from Christ's side at His death also point to His baptism and sacrifice?

Click to expand...

Ambrose, concerning virgins,book3ch5
"..and was wounded in his passion and that from the wound there went forth blood and water and that he gave up his spirit. Water for washing, blood for drink, the spirit for his rising again. For Christ alone is to us hope faith and love- hope in his resurrection, faith in the laver, and love in the sacrament.."

Or do they realize they are both (water/blood and blood/water) proof of His humanity--God with us?

Why does John say, not by water only, but by water and blood? Why blood? What's John's point?

Click to expand...

Just state why you think he did.

My opinion, per Ambrose (taught by st simplicianus-who also taught Augustine) is that it relates to ".. The spirit made us children by adoption, the water of the sacred font washed us, the blood of the lord redeemed us. So we obtain one invisible and one visible testimony in a spiritual sacrament.." Ambrose , of the Holy Spirit book 3ch10:68

Standing Up said:

So no answer to my question.

Click to expand...

Christ says that unless we drink His Blood we have no life in us. Could that have to do with 1 Jn 5:6?

I don't see how you can make your argument without going beyond Sola Scriptura. The Bible never says that Christ was born normally.

Also, do any of the Church fathers cite 1 Jn 5:6 as evidence that Christ was born normally?

I know that Irenaeus says that Mary gave birth before she went into labor, and that Clement says Mary was never in the childbirth state.

justinangel said:

" Even now, in fact, nurses call the first-poured drink of milk by the same name as that food--manna. Further, pregnant women, on becoming mothers, discharge milk. But the Lord Christ, the fruit of the Virgin, did not pronounce the breasts of women blessed, nor selected them to give nourishment; but when the kind and loving Father had rained down the Word, Himself became spiritual nourishment to the good. O mystic marvel! The universal Father is one, and one the universal Word; and the Holy Spirit is one and the same everywhere, and one is the only virgin mother. I love to call her the Church. This mother, when alone, had not milk, because alone she was not a woman. But she is once virgin and mother--pure as a virgin, loving as a mother. And calling her children to her, she nurses them with holy milk, viz., with the Word for childhood."
Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, I:6 (A.D.202)

I expect you'll butcher this passage, too.

Click to expand...

For Clement, scripture gave birth and remains virginal. He calls the virgin mother, the church. He references Mary once in his writings (that I see) and calls her the mother of Christ.

Panevino said:

Ambrose, concerning virgins,book3ch5
"..and was wounded in his passion and that from the wound there went forth blood and water and that he gave up his spirit. Water for washing, blood for drink, the spirit for his rising again. For Christ alone is to us hope faith and love-hope in his resurrection, faith in the laver, and love in the sacrament.."

Click to expand...

Bit odd he'd conflate Christ's death (gave up spirit) with the Spirit for rising again. He's forcing his opinion.

Just state why you think he did.

My opinion, per Ambrose (taught by st simplicianus-who also taught Augustine) is that it relates to ".. The spirit made us children by adoption, the water of the sacred font washed us, the blood of the lord redeemed us. So we obtain one invisible and one visible testimony in a spiritual sacrament.." Ambrose , of the Holy Spirit book 3ch10:68

Click to expand...

Token of virginity is what?

patricius79 said:

Christ says that unless we drink His Blood we have no life in us. Could that have to do with 1 Jn 5:6?

I don't see how you can make your argument without going beyond Sola Scriptura. The Bible never says that Christ was born normally.

Also, do any of the Church fathers cite 1 Jn 5:6 as evidence that Christ was born normally?

I know that Irenaeus says that Mary gave birth before she went into labor, and that Clement says Mary was never in the childbirth state.

Click to expand...

Well, you can stick with your interpretations longer than I can reexplain everything. Came by water and blood, not water only.

Standing Up said:

Here's the context of verse 6. It's verse 5.

1 John 5:5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?

Click to expand...

What does this have to do with Docetism? If you're looking for context, it expands beyond verse 5. Chapter 5 is basically about the witness concerning the Son and the certainty of God's witness, the gist of it being that eternal life is given only in Christ; the knowledge of eternal life; our victory over the world through true faith in Christ.

"Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well." [5:1]
"for everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith. [5:4]
"You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world." [4:4]

"he that came by water and blood - by water" [5:6]

Our Lord's ministry was inaugurated by his baptism in the Jordan river. It was on this occasion that God the Father acknowledged his messiahship and divine sonship.

After Jesus was baptized, he came up from the water and behold, the heavens were opened for him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming upon him. And a voice came from the heavens, saying, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.”
Matthew 3, 16-17

"water and blood"

"but one soldier thrust his lance into his side, and immediately blood and water flowed out."
John 19, 34

This is the blood which Jesus shed for our sins.

"He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves, but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption."
Hebrews 9, 12

"This is the one who came through water and blood, Jesus Christ, not by water alone, but by water and blood."

But Jesus said to them, "You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?"
Mark 10, 38

But I have a baptism to undergo, and what constraint I am under until it is completed!
Luke 12, 50

"The Spirit is the one that testifies, and the Spirit is truth."

After Jesus was baptized, he came up from the water and behold, the heavens were opened [for him], and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming upon him.
Matthew 3, 16

And the holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.”
Luke 3, 22

John testified further, saying, “I saw the Spirit come down like a dove* from the sky and remain upon him.
John 1, 32

Standing Up said:

Well, you can stick with your interpretations longer than I can reexplain everything. Came by water and blood, not water only.

Click to expand...

I think that you can't answer my questions. I agree that Christ came by water and blood.

But the Bible doesn't teach that Christ was born normally.

The Bible does say that we must drink Christ's blood.

I think you haven't shown that anyone in the early Church interpreted 1 Jn 5:6 the way you do.

Clement and Tertullian believed in a normal human birth, complete with cord, etc.

Click to expand...

To the contrary, Clement taught that Mary was never in the childbirth state. He never said it is a normal birth.

Likewise Irenaeus said that Mary gave birth before she went into labor.

Tertullian did teach a normal birth, which is something the Bible never teaches.

Standing Up said:

I'm not the one who quoted Clement out of context. You ignored this sentence just a few above where you cut/paste.

"Milk being thus provided in parturition [action of giving birth], ...",

Again, your denial of a normal human birth is not Clement's view.

Click to expand...

Incredible!

"The blood of the Word has been also exhibited as milk. Milk being thus provided in parturition, is supplied to the infant; and the breasts, which till then looked straight towards the husband, now bend down towards the child, being taught to furnish the substance elaborated by nature in a way easily received for salutary nourishment. For the breasts are not like fountains full of milk, flowing in ready prepared; but, by effecting a change in the nutriment, form the milk in themselves, and discharge it. And the nutriment suitable and wholesome for the new-formed and new-born babe is elaborated by God, the nourisher and the Father of all that are generated and regenerated,--as manna, the celestial food of angels, flowed down from heaven on the ancient Hebrews. Even now, in fact, nurses call the first-poured drink of milk by the same name as that food--manna. Further, pregnant women, on becoming mothers, discharge milk. But the Lord Christ, the fruit of the Virgin, did not pronounce the breasts of women blessed, nor selected them to give nourishment; but when the kind and loving Father had rained down the Word, Himself became spiritual nourishment to the good....."

This has absolutely nothing to do with Mary giving birth to Jesus normally. He is referring to pregnant mothers in general whose milk is nothing compared with the spiritual nourishment Jesus has to offer through Mary. Clement goes on by referring to Luke 11:27-28 to point out that the milk Mary has provided for us as our spiritual mother is the Word for childhood. We receive our true nourishment from the fruit of her womb, which is contrasted with the milk we had received for physical nourishment from our mothers when we were infants. I'm afraid, you are the one who is in a state of denial, which apparently is affecting your ability to read. You are the one who is arguing for a normal human birth - not Clement.

Standing Up said:

For Clement, scripture gave birth and remains virginal. He calls the virgin mother, the church. He references Mary once in his writings (that I see) and calls her the mother of Christ.

Click to expand...

" Even now, in fact, nurses call the first-poured drink of milk by the same name as that food--manna. Further, pregnant women, on becoming mothers, discharge milk. But the Lord Christ, the fruit of the Virgin, did not pronounce the breasts of women blessed, nor selected them to give nourishment; but when the kind and loving Father had rained down the Word, Himself became spiritual nourishment to the good. O mystic marvel! The universal Father is one, and one the universal Word; and the Holy Spirit is one and the same everywhere, and one is the only virgin mother. I love to call her the Church. This mother, when alone, had not milk, because alone she was not a woman. But she is once virgin and mother--pure as a virgin, loving as a mother. And calling her children to her, she nurses them with holy milk, viz., with the Word for childhood."
Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, I:6 (A.D.202)

Clement does not call Mary the mother of Christ. Rather he says Jesus is "the fruit of the Virgin". Thus the object pronoun "her" refers back to "the Virgin", "the only virgin mother". I doubt Clement would be so silly as to say anything redundant like "I love to call the Church Church." Even my browser warned me of the error of repeating the same word in this statement. Anyway, Clement adds that when this mother was alone, she had no milk to discharge. In other words, she didn't give birth to the fruit of her womb as all pregnant women normally do. But she was still a mother - a virgin and a mother, whose holy milk was something of a spiritual nature: the Word for childhood. Mary was no ordinary woman and mother who by nature had milk to give to her offspring. But because Jesus is the fruit of her womb, Mary is our spiritual mother. "She is once virgin and mother" who nourishes us with spiritual milk. She is the new Eve and caretaker of our souls, not our bodies. In this sense, she is like the Church through whom the Word comes to us and grace is channelled. Mary was more blessed for hearing the word of God and keeping it (Lk.1:38) than for giving birth to Jesus and nursing him (Lk 11:27-28). God ordained that Jesus should redeem the world in association with Mary because of Eve's transgression. Alone she is not woman (the new Eve) who has spiritual milk to give. Her maternal role depends on the role of her Son, the new Adam.

Standing Up said:

Bit odd he'd conflate Christ's death (gave up spirit) with the Spirit for rising again. He's forcing his opinion.

Click to expand...

beside the point? He was consistent with his view on 1john5:6 which you asked me to investigate

Token of virginity is what?

Click to expand...

Do you mean like blood on the sheet etc..?
I think with Mary the idea revolves around
Isaiah 7:14
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign;
Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son,
and shall call his name Immanuel.
(Note young woman/maid defined in deu22:15) and interpreted as virgin in matt1:23

With
Psalms 22:9-10
But thou art he that took me out of the womb:
thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts.
I was cast upon thee from the womb:
thou art my God from my mother's belly.

Psalms 71:5-6
For thou art my hope, O Lord God:
thou art my trust from my youth.
By thee have I been holden up from the womb:
thou art he that took me out of my mother's bowels:
my praise shall be continually of thee.

Panevino said:

beside the point? He was consistent with his view on 1john5:6 which you asked me to investigate

Do you mean like blood on the sheet etc..?
I think with Mary the idea revolves around
Isaiah 7:14
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign;
Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son,
and shall call his name Immanuel.
(Note young woman/maid defined in deu22:15) and interpreted as virgin in matt1:23

With Psalm 22:9-10
But thou art he that took me out of the womb:
thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts.
I was cast upon thee from the womb:
thou art my God from my mother's belly.

Psalms 71:5-6
For thou art my hope, O Lord God:
thou art my trust from my youth.
By thee have I been holden up from the womb:
thou art he that took me out of my mother's bowels:
my praise shall be continually of thee.

Click to expand...

Thank you for this -

Isaiah 7:14
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign;
Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son,
and shall call his name Immanuel.

A woman does not bear children by having them mysteriously appear on the scene. They bear children when the baby passes through the birth canal (birth being a closely related word to bear) with placenta, blood, water, etc. Thus, we see that it was prophesied that this virgin (Mary) would bear a son, not have a son mysteriously pop onto the scene.

justinangel said:

Clement adds that when this mother was alone, she had no milk to discharge. In other words, she didn't give birth to the fruit of her womb as all pregnant women normally do. But she was still a mother - a virgin and a mother, whose holy milk was something of a spiritual nature: the Word for childhood. Mary was no ordinary woman and mother who by nature had milk to give to her offspring. But because Jesus is the fruit of her womb, Mary is our spiritual mother. "She is once virgin and mother" who nourishes us with spiritual milk. She is the new Eve and caretaker of our souls, not our bodies. In this sense, she is like the Church through whom the Word comes to us and grace is channelled. Mary was more blessed for hearing the word of God and keeping it (Lk.1:38) than for giving birth to Jesus and nursing him (Lk 11:27-28). God ordained that Jesus should redeem the world in association with Mary because of Eve's transgression. Alone she is not woman (the new Eve) who has spiritual milk to give. Her maternal role depends on the role of her Son, the new Adam.

Click to expand...

That bolded part is from the camp of Valentinus, Apelles, etc. You agree with them that the virgin did not give Christ flesh. If she had, then she'd have milk.

Panevino said:

beside the point? He was consistent with his view on 1john5:6 which you asked me to investigate

Click to expand...

He's mixing ideas, rather than staying with the same definitional usage. One is Christ died (gave up the spirit) with the Spirit who raised Him.

Do you mean like blood on the sheet etc..?
I think with Mary the idea revolves around
Isaiah 7:14
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign;
Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son,
and shall call his name Immanuel.
(Note young woman/maid defined in deu22:15) and interpreted as virgin in matt1:23

With
Psalms 22:9-10
But thou art he that took me out of the womb:
thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts.
I was cast upon thee from the womb:
thou art my God from my mother's belly.

Psalms 71:5-6
For thou art my hope, O Lord God:
thou art my trust from my youth.
By thee have I been holden up from the womb:
thou art he that took me out of my mother's bowels:
my praise shall be continually of thee.

Click to expand...

Yes, the token of the virgin was blood. So John, not by water only (normal birth), but by water (normal birth) and blood (of a virgin). Pretty simple now that it's seen.