Did the Virgin Mary remain a virgin?

patricius79 · Nov 30, 2015

Standing Up said:
Already provided evidence from both camps numerous times in this thread.

I haven't seen any example of a Church father who cites 1 Jn 5:6 as evidence that Christ's birth was ordinary.

Do you have one?

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

With the exception of Tertullian, the Montanist heretic, I think you've failed to provide any evidence for these claims.

Irenaeus says that Mary gave birth before any labor. And Clement says: "many regard Mary, on account of the birth of her child, as having been in the childbirth state, although she was not."

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

Doesn't Irenaeus say that Mary gave birth before any labor?

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

You claimed that Rev 12 is referring to Mary, and that it says Christ was born normally. But Rev 12 doesn't say Christ was born normally.

I think my position on Rev 12 is immaterial to your argument, which must be made from Scripture Alone. Does Scripture say that the book of Revelation is a literal, non-allegorical description of history?

Standing Up · Nov 30, 2015

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,

patricius79 said:
You claimed that Rev 12 is referring to Mary, and that it says Christ was born normally. But Rev 12 doesn't say Christ was born normally.

I think my position on Rev 12 is immaterial to your argument

Rev. 12:4 uses the greek word tikto. Why would you twist its meaning to mean "miracle birth" to fit your religion? Do you have an example of tikto being used to describe a "miracle birth"? If not, then why use it here?

If Rev. 12:4 is a picture of Mary, it is a picture of Mary in pain giving birth. So which do you believe? In pain or not at His birth?

Also, since you believe Mary did not give birth normally, what do you think happened to the umbilical cord, placenta, blood and water? How do you think Christ was born? Or were those things never present? Was Christ born from her side or out her navel or did the baby just appear?

Standing Up · Nov 30, 2015

For those who think Jesus was not born like a human (through the birth canal with placenta water and blood, thus virginity ended), could you answer where his flesh came from? Tertullian asked Valentinus, Marcion, Appelles, and other heretics some 1800 years ago. You agree Christ had a body. Whence came His body, if His body was not flesh? Whence came His flesh, if it were not born?

"To the arguments, however, which have been indicated just above, we have now to show our resistance. They allow that Christ really had a body. Whence was the material of it, if not from the same sort of thing as that in which He appeared? Whence came His body, if His body were not flesh? Whence came His flesh, if it were not born? Inasmuch as that which is born must undergo this nativity in order to become flesh."

patricius79 · Dec 1, 2015

Standing Up said:
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.

Does the passage say that Christ was "born normally"?

Is there anyone in the early Church who cites 1 John 5:6 or Revelation 12:4 to show that Christ was not born miraculously?

Standing Up · Dec 1, 2015

patricius79 said:
Does the passage say that Christ was "born normally"?

You must be thrown off by the word "normally". This is simply to clarify what scripture and tradition through Irenaeus, Clement, Tertullian teach, as opposed to the "miracle" birth idea of Valentinus, PoJames, etc.

"Normal" human birth (tikto is the Greek word) with cord, placenta, water and blood.

"Miracle" birth from Mary's side or navel or head or just appears somehow, leaving her to retain the cord, etc, in the childbirth state.

patricius79 · Dec 2, 2015

Standing Up said:
You must be thrown off by the word "normally". This is simply to clarify what scripture and tradition through Irenaeus, Clement, Tertullian teach, as opposed to the "miracle" birth idea of Valentinus, PoJames, etc.

"Normal" human birth (tikto is the Greek word) with cord, placenta, water and blood.

"Miracle" birth from Mary's side or navel or head or just appears somehow, leaving her to retain the cord, etc, in the childbirth state.

Is there anyone in the early Church who cites 1 John 5:6 or Revelation 12:4 to show that Christ was not born miraculously?

It seems like you don't accept some explicit Scriptures like John 6:53, but are adding to others.

Clearly the Bible does not teach that Mary gave birth normall (non-miraculously).

As to Irenaeus, doesn't he say that Mary gave birth before any labor (Isaiah 66:7)?

And doesn't Clement say this: "Many regard Mary, on account of the birth of her child, as having been in the childbirth state, although she was not".

Albion · Dec 2, 2015

patricius79 said:
Is there anyone in the early Church who cites 1 John 5:6 or Revelation 12:4 to show that Christ was not born miraculously?

It seems like you don't accept some explicit Scriptures like John 6:53, but are adding to others.

Clearly the Bible does not teach that Mary gave birth normall (non-miraculously).

Clearly, it does not. Everything in Scripture describes a normal birth.

patricius79 · Dec 2, 2015

Albion said:
Clearly, it does not. Everything in Scripture describes a normal birth.

Where does Scripture say it was a "normal birth"?

Albion · Dec 2, 2015

patricius79 said:
Where does Scripture say it was a "normal birth"?

Where does Scripture say it was NOT? Everything that the Bible records about the birth makes the delivery seem to be like everyone else's. The conception wasn't normal, of course, but the way Mary gave birth itself is nowhere described as anything other than standard for humans. Not the Lucan account, not anywhere else.

Panevino · Dec 2, 2015

Albion said:
Where does Scripture say it was NOT? Everything that the Bible records about the birth makes the delivery seem to be like everyone else's. The conception wasn't normal, of course, but the way Mary gave birth itself is nowhere described as anything other than standard for humans. Not the Lucan account, not anywhere else.

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? tied to "virgin" just like conception is)
3.immanuel (the special thing here is that the name actually is pointing to a truth )

Albion · Dec 2, 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? tied to "virgin" just like conception is)
3.immanuel (the special thing here is that the name actually is pointing to a truth )

Well, yes, but this does not answer the point that we were dealing with at the time of my last post. We'd all agree to these three points, I assume, but none of them addresses the thought that patricius, if I understand correctly, was promoting.

It was that the birth itself, the passage through the birth canal, was not normal. I don't see anything in Scripture to substantiate that.

Panevino · Dec 3, 2015

Albion said:
Well, yes, but this does not answer the point that we were dealing with at the time of my last post. We'd all agree to these three points, I assume, but none of them addresses the thought that patricius, if I understand correctly, was promoting.

It was that the birth itself, the passage through the birth canal, was not normal. I don't see anything in Scripture to substantiate that.

Sign part#2 "bear"
Other translations have it as "bring forth"
See - http://biblehub.com/isaiah/7-14.htm
And also
http://biblehub.com/hebrew/3205.htm
New International Version
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

Rick Otto · Dec 3, 2015

And so the virgins I'd conceive and give birth, thus ending the technical part of her virginity, in my pious opinion.

Standing Up · Dec 3, 2015

Right. The virgin Mary does give birth normally with water and blood and cord and placenta; thus virginity ends at the "bringing forth". But they think, in order to maintain her virginity, even after/at birth, she brought forth from her side or navel or head or somewhere somehow, while others (PoJames) think the baby just appears at her side miraculously.

Albion · Dec 3, 2015

Standing Up said:
Right. The virgin Mary does give birth normally with water and blood and cord and placenta; thus virginity ends at the "bringing forth". But they think, in order to maintain her virginity, even after/at birth, she brought forth from her side or navel or head or somewhere somehow, while others (PoJames) think the baby just appears at her side miraculously.

Good summary, SU. A lot of the discussions of this subject have seemed to me to involve people not appreciating what is meant by 'normal' birth or what losing virginity means. They somehow assume that Mary could rightly be called ever-virgin after having given birth merely by abstaining from further sexual relations.

Panevino · Dec 3, 2015

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 (give birth what special could be about this? tied to "virgin" just like conception is)
3.immanuel (the special thing here is that the name actually is pointing to a truth )

Panevino · Dec 4, 2015

Standing Up said:
I ....

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

That water baptism benefits by the price paid by his blood
Related to the context of "born of God"

Standing Up · Dec 5, 2015

Panevino said:
That water baptism benefits by the price paid by his blood
Related to the context of "born of God"

I understand you believe it is a reference to water baptism, but the context is Christ's birth. We don't believe Jesus became Christ at His baptism.

4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
5:5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?
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.

patricius79 · Dec 6, 2015

Albion said:
Where does Scripture say it was NOT? Everything that the Bible records about the birth makes the delivery seem to be like everyone else's. The conception wasn't normal, of course, but the way Mary gave birth itself is nowhere described as anything other than standard for humans. Not the Lucan account, not anywhere else.

It sounds like you agree that the Bible doesn't say that Christ's birth was non-miraculous.

I think the Bible doesn't tell us which books are in the Bible. Nor does it teach Sola Scriptura. Nor does it say that Christ was born normally. Nor does it deny any other Catholic doctrine.

One can deny a Catholic teaching about Mary, the Mother of God only by going beyond Scripture.

Albion · Dec 6, 2015

patricius79 said:
It sounds like you agree that the Bible doesn't say that Christ's birth was non-miraculous.

No.

One can deny a Catholic teaching about Mary, the Mother of God only by going beyond Scripture.

Going beyond Scripture is the only way to sustain a belief in an abnormal birth for Jesus. Everything in Scripture speaks of the birth itself as being just like everyone else's.

Did the Virgin Mary remain a virgin?

Did the Virgin Mary remain a virgin?

Yes

No

Called to Jesus Through Mary

On and on

On and on

Called to Jesus Through Mary

On and on

Called to Jesus Through Mary

Facilitator

Called to Jesus Through Mary

Facilitator

Newbie

Facilitator

Newbie

The Dude Abides

On and on

Facilitator

Newbie

Newbie

On and on

Called to Jesus Through Mary

Facilitator

Similar threads