Did the Virgin Mary remain a virgin?

Standing Up · Nov 28, 2015

patricius79 said:
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.

Sorry, no you don't agree that Christ came by water and blood in a normal birth and yes the bible teaches a normal birth (God with us). But tell us exactly what you understand John to be saying. Not by water only (what water?) but by water and blood (what water and blood)?

And please don't go into the view that Jesus became Christ at His baptism (water).

patricius79 · Nov 28, 2015

Standing Up said:
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.

Where does John say that Christ's birth was normal? Or is there anyone in the early Church who cites 1 Jn 5:6 as evidence of a normal (non-miraculous) birth?

Sorry, no you don't agree that Christ came by water and blood in a normal birth and yes the bible teaches a normal birth (God with us).

Where does the Bible teach that Christ's birth was normal?

As to my interpretation: I don't know what difference it makes, since I'm not making an argument from that verse, while you are making an argument from that verse.

Moreover, based on the oral tradition of Sola Scriptura, I think you have to accept only what the Bible plainly teaches.

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

I think the Bible plainly teaches that we must drink Christ's Blood to have His life in us. Do you believe this?

If not: why are you going beyond 1 Jn 5:6 while--at the same time-- not accepting the plain teaching of Scripture about drinking Christ's Blood?

Panevino · Nov 28, 2015

bbbbbbb said:
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.

A "sign" Is being foretold in Isaiah ,i.e. Something noteworthy a miracle.
"Behold" it says
There are 3 things in the sign
1.A virgin shall conceive (not very special in itself unless you concede it's done without a man)
2.Bear a son (what special could be about this? Perhaps it could be tied to "virgin" just like conception is)
3.immanuel (the special thing here is that the name actually is pointing to a truth )

justinangel · Nov 28, 2015

Standing Up said:
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.

Straw man! I agree with Clement that Mary gave birth to Jesus miraculously. The foetus acquires its flesh and blood once it's conceived in the womb, not at birth. Parturition is the threefold act or process of giving birth to offspring. The second stage of lactation is called Lactogenesis. This is when a mother starts to actually produce milk. .

:angel:

justinangel · Nov 28, 2015

Standing Up said:
Sorry, no you don't agree that Christ came by water and blood in a normal birth and yes the bible teaches a normal birth (God with us). But tell us exactly what you understand John to be saying. Not by water only (what water?) but by water and blood (what water and blood)?

It's already been explained to you more than once what John means, but you prefer to go "on and on". :tutu:

And please don't go into the view that Jesus became Christ at His baptism (water).

Straw man! Nobody has said that Jesus became the Christ at his water baptism. This is the heresy of Adoptionism which some Gnostics believed and taught. 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. Coming by water refers to our Lord's public inauguration.

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

The Spirit is the one that testifies, and the Spirit is truth.
John 5, 6

justinangel · Nov 28, 2015

Panevino said:
A "sign" Is being foretold in Isaiah ,i.e. Something noteworthy a miracle.
"Behold" it says
There are 3 things in the sign
1.A virgin shall conceive (not very special in itself unless you concede it's done without a man)
2.Bear a son (what special could be about this? Perhaps it could be tied to "virgin" just like conception is)
3.immanuel (the special thing here is that the name actually is pointing to a truth )

Indeed, virgins don't normally give birth, besides conceive offspring. The sign embraces both the conception and birth of Jesus (cf. Isaiah 66:7).

Jesus therefore said to him: Unless you see signs and wonders, you believe not.
John 4, 48

A miracle is the occurrence of any event apparently contradictory to and unexplainable by the laws of nature, and is usually attributed to God as a sign from Him. Our Lord's virginal conception and birth are a sign that he is the divine Messiah.

PAX
:angel:

Panevino · Nov 28, 2015

Guys come on
" The spirit made us children by adoption, the water of the sacred font washed us, the blood of the lord redeemed us." St Ambrose on 1john5:6

The broader context of1jn5:6 is not proving his humanity , it's about believers being born of God (1john5:1) who love him and keeping his commandments(v3) v5 "son of God" relates back to the relationship of loving the father and the son v1"begotten of Him"

Then V6 illustrated the elevation of Jesus above the "children of God" illustrating the power of believing in him, per previous versus....
Note 1john1:7 ,1john2:2, 1John 3:16 and 1john4:10

It's unecessarily complicated to suggest that the blood in 5:6 is now related to a token of marys lost virginity or that water is his birth, when the context is being born of God and the power of what Jesus won for us and how that naturally relates to baptism and how it relates to the value of his blood on the cross.
Clearly to me it is as Ambrose says.

justinangel · Nov 28, 2015

bbbbbbb said:
Thank you for this -

Isaiah 7:14

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.

A woman does not conceive a child by having the male gamete mysteriously pop into her. The embryo does not come out of nowhere. Do you suppose Jesus was actually the son of the carpenter?

PAX
:angel:

Standing Up · Nov 29, 2015

justinangel said:
Coming by water refers to our Lord's public inauguration.

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

The Spirit is the one that testifies, and the Spirit is truth.
John 5, 6

Hello? Not by water only, which is your water baptism interpretation. But by water and blood. Maybe you're thinking the Jordan had been mixed with blood? If not, then your opinion doesn't make sense.

Standing Up · Nov 29, 2015

Panevino said:
Guys come on
" The spirit made us children by adoption, the water of the sacred font washed us, the blood of the lord redeemed us." St Ambrose on 1john5:6

The broader context of1jn5:6 is not proving his humanity , it's about believers being born of God (1john5:1)

How is this believed, in order to be born again? What is the context? 1 john 5:1 ...Jesus is the Christ...

1 John 5:6
This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.

What's John's point?
1 John 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

The opposition like Simon Magus, and disciples like Valentinus, Appelles, Marcion, PoJ, AoIsaiah taught that 1) Christ did not come in the flesh. Then they taught 2) even if he was born, He didn't take anything from Mary (like born from her side (east gate)).

It's unecessarily complicated to suggest that the blood in 5:6 is now related to a token of marys lost virginity or that water is his birth, when the context is being born of God and the power of what Jesus won for us and how that naturally relates to baptism and how it relates to the value of his blood on the cross.
Clearly to me it is as Ambrose says.

Except you're mixing pronouns. Is it about Him or us? The context is that Jesus is the Christ, God with us. Not at His baptism or by appearance or by some odd miracle birth, but Jesus Christ in the flesh.

Anti-Christ preaches against this in a variety of ways. It wasn't by a virgin. It really wasn't flesh. It really wasn't a human birth. There wasn't any afterbirth (water and blood). The sign/token will be spoken against prophesy.

Standing Up · Nov 29, 2015

patricius79 said:
Where does the Bible teach that Christ's birth was normal?

We've been over them, but you disagree. Here's another one.

Rev. 12:4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

Delivered and born are in the active voice. Mary delivers; Mary brings forth. There's no sense of anything besides Mary delivering normally.

Vines on "tikto":
Beget, Bear (Of Begetting), Born:
"to bring forth," Luk 1:57; Jhn 16:21; Hbr 11:11; Rev 12:2,4, or, "to be born," said of the Child, Mat 2:2; Luk 2:11,

PS. In the bible, there are numerous examples of barren women becoming pregnant. Miracles from God. And they all give birth normally. A virgin conceives. Miracle from God. And she gives birth normally. IOW, there's no sense of a miracle birth anywhere. Miracle conceptions, yes. Miracle births, no.

patricius79 · Nov 29, 2015

Standing Up said:
We've been over them, but you disagree. Here's another one.

Rev. 12:4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

Delivered and born are in the active voice. Mary delivers; Mary brings forth. There's no sense of anything besides Mary delivering normally.

Vines on "tikto":
Beget, Bear (Of Begetting), Born:
"to bring forth," Luk 1:57; Jhn 16:21; Hbr 11:11; Rev 12:2,4, or, "to be born," said of the Child, Mat 2:2; Luk 2:11,

PS. In the bible, there are numerous examples of barren women becoming pregnant. Miracles from God. And they all give birth normally. A virgin conceives. Miracle from God. And she gives birth normally. IOW, there's no sense of a miracle birth anywhere. Miracle conceptions, yes. Miracle births, no.

Your argument involves citing Scriptures like 1 John 5:6 and Revelation 12:4 which don't say that Christ's birth was normal.

Do any of the Church fathers cite 1 John 5:6 or Revelation 12:4 as evidence that Christ's birth was a normal (non-miraculous) birth?

It seems your arguments are going beyond Scripture, and thus are violating your principle of Sola Scriptura, which is, also, an idea which goes beyond Scripture.

justinangel · Nov 29, 2015

Standing Up said:
Hello? Not by water only, which is your water baptism interpretation. But by water and blood. Maybe you're thinking the Jordan had been mixed with blood? If not, then your opinion doesn't make sense.

I replied to what you said to Patricius about Christ becoming the Messiah at his baptism in the Jordan, then explained what is meant by his water baptism. Patricius did not suggest this in the least. Let's not be disingenuous. I've already explained what is meant by water and blood and what is meant by not by water alone. Our Lord's shedding of blood on the cross for the forgiveness of sins was his other baptism which he alluded to.

"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

For this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Matthew 26, 28

For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
Hebrews 9, 15

The other baptism Jesus must undergo is of blood. The early Christians regarded their martyrdom as a baptism of blood. I've already quoted the ECFs who refer to this form of baptism.

:angel:

Standing Up · Nov 29, 2015

patricius79 said:
Your argument involves citing Scriptures like 1 John 5:6 and Revelation 12:4 which don't say that Christ's birth was normal.

Everything I've shown from scripture say it was a normal birth. There's nothing there that says or even hints it abnormal.

At this stage, we're repeating ourselves. So unless you have something new to offer, c/u around.

Standing Up · Nov 29, 2015

justinangel said:
I replied to what you said to Patricius about Christ becoming the Messiah at his baptism in the Jordan, then explained what is meant by his water baptism. Patricius did not suggest this in the least. Let's not be disingenuous. I've already explained what is meant by water and blood and what is meant by not by water alone. Our Lord's shedding of blood on the cross for the forgiveness of sins was his other baptism which he alluded to.

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

There's nothing in 1 John about water baptism or blood baptism. Again, you're suggesting a dual nature, which is foreign to Christianity. John is all about proving God in the flesh.

4:1-2Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

5:6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.

Same Greek word. Came by water and blood.

Like I said to Patricius, we're repeating ourselves.

So, at this point, all I've seen still are the two camps: One is a miracle birth somehow, maybe from Mary's navel as you believe or Mary's side as others believed, and virginity-retained; this is from the camp of Appelles and PoJames, etc. This is anti-Christ, speaking against Jesus Christ who came in the flesh. The other camp believes Jesus Christ came in the flesh. Born normally of water and blood, hence virginity over.

You understand there is no one and no scripture who believes it a normal birth and virginity retained.

Standing Up · Nov 30, 2015

I mentioned Irenaeus who is in the camp of a normal human birth.

Carefully, then, has the Holy Ghost pointed out, by what has been said, His birth from a virgin, and His essence, that He is God (for the name Emmanuel indicates this). And He shows that He is a man, when He says, “Butter and honey shall He eat;” and in that He terms Him a child also, [in saying,] “before He knows good and evil;” for these are all the tokens of a human infant.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.xxii.html

Take away His normal birth and you take away a token of a human infant.

Panevino · Nov 30, 2015

Standing Up said:
I mentioned Irenaeus who is in the camp of a normal human birth.

Carefully, then, has the Holy Ghost pointed out, by what has been said, His birth from a virgin, and His essence, that He is God (for the name Emmanuel indicates this). And He shows that He is a man, when He says, “Butter and honey shall He eat;” and in that He terms Him a child also, [in saying,] “before He knows good and evil;” for these are all the tokens of a human infant.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.xxii.html

Take away His normal birth and you take away a token of a human infant.

JoeP222w · Nov 30, 2015

bbbbbbb said:
Unless . . . you happen to believe that sexual intercourse is inherently sinful and true spirituality is attained through abstinence from sexual intercourse.

It does not matter what you believe. What matters is, is what you believe true.

Sexual intercourse, within the covenant bond of marriage between one man and one woman, is not inherently sinful, as defined by God. And the Bible never presents that "true spirituality" is attained through abstinence from sexual intercourse.

In fact, sexual intercourse in the covenant of marriage, is a very God glorifying, beautiful picture of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The union of "One flesh" between husband and wife is a picture of the intimacy of Jesus Christ with the believer. I am not referring to the physical aspect, as we do not have sexual intercourse with Jesus. But there is a level of intimacy between a husband and wife, that is a picture of the level of intimacy between Jesus Christ and the believer. And as Paul says, it is a profound mystery.

patricius79 · Nov 30, 2015

Standing Up said:
Everything I've shown from scripture say it was a normal birth. There's nothing there that says or even hints it abnormal.
.

It sounds like you don't know of any evidence that the early Church interpreted 1 John 5:6 or Revelation 12:4 the way you do.

Where does the Bible say that it was a normal birth? Or where does the Bible say that there is nothing in Scripture to hint at a miraculous birth?

What do you think of Isaiah 66:7?

I find that people who espouse the human tradition of Sola Scriptura are often going beyond Scripture like this.

I think it's especially sad when it is in denial of plain Biblical teaching like John 6:53, or is detracting from the Mother of God.

I mentioned Irenaeus who is in the camp of a normal human birth.

Carefully, then, has the Holy Ghost pointed out, by what has been said, His birth from a virgin, and His essence, that He is God (for the name Emmanuel indicates this). And He shows that He is a man, when He says, “Butter and honey shall He eat;” and in that He terms Him a child also, [in saying,] “before He knows good and evil;” for these are all the tokens of a human infant.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.xxii.html

Take away His normal birth and you take away a token of a human infant.

I think it's obvious that the quote you give here does not say it was a normal birth.

Doesn't Irenaeus say that Mary gave birth before she came to labor?

Doesn't Clement, also, say this?: "there are many who regard Mary, on account of the birth of her child, as having been in the childbirth state, although she was not"

Likewise I know that Augustine and others say that Mary is Ever-Virgin.

Praise be to Jesus Christ for giving us such a holy Mother!

Standing Up · Nov 30, 2015

patricius79 said:
It sounds like you don't know of any evidence that the early Church interpreted 1 John 5:6 or Revelation 12:4 the way you do.

Already provided evidence from both camps numerous times in this thread. You simply disagree.

Camp 1: Normal birth and virginity over (scripture, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyril of Jerusalem).

Camp 2: "Miracle" birth somehow (ideas: from her side, from her navel, baby just appears) without any afterbirth, without taking anything from Mary (PoJames, AoIsaiah, Valentinus, Marcion, Appelles, Origen).

I think it's obvious that the quote you give here does not say it was a normal birth.

Why would you think Irenaeus agrees with heretics and a heresy?

You agree Rev 12 is not about Mary because that verse tells us a woman pained in birth. You think she didn't pain.

Did the Virgin Mary remain a virgin?

Did the Virgin Mary remain a virgin?

Yes

No

On and on

Called to Jesus Through Mary

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

On and on

On and on

On and on

Called to Jesus Through Mary

Newbie

On and on

On and on

On and on

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Called to Jesus Through Mary

On and on

Similar threads