Did the Virgin Mary remain a virgin?

[Rick Otto]

QUOTE="justinangel, post: The Magisterium itself does not exegete. It teaches and governs.

That's their story and they're stickin' to it! lol

Actually, Scripture proceeds from Tradition. Holy Writ must be interpreted in light of Tradition. But, of course, the Jews reject Matthew's interpretation of Isaiah 7,14 just as many Protestants object to the Church's interpretation of Isaiah 66, 10 in light of the Apostolic Tradition.

Specious.

 

[Rick Otto]

If you believe that the above claim makes Mary part of the godhead, then I've got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

If you think it doesn't, I have a fortune waiting for me to inherit in Nigeria, and I just need a hundred bucks from you to get to it.
I promise I'll pay ya back double.

 

[Rick Otto]

You should know by now that he is not a Christian. Some time ago he stated that Mary is part of the godhead. He believes in Mary (the Queen of heaven), the Holy Spirit (the spouse of Mary), and Jesus Christ (the King of heaven).

I know, right? It's like watching a reality show. Not much reality there.

 

[patricius79]

There's that word blasphemy again. So I have addressed what you implicitly wrote after all. Maybe the problem is you don't understand what you're really saying. You certainly did equate being sinless with being divine. The truth is many Protestants do reject the Immaculate Conception because they believe it makes Mary a "goddess" and not really human.

Yes, I talked to a Protestant Evangelical pastor who said that seeing Mary as sinless detracted from God, who, he believed, is the only one without sin. Besides being unbiblical, this idea makes God's uniqueness dependent on humans, and even on human sinfulness!

But on the contrary, God is glorified by the Immaculate Virgin, His Mother, and our Mother.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Yes, I talked to a Protestant Evangelical pastor who said that seeing Mary as sinless detracted from God, who, he believed, is the only one without sin. Besides being unbiblical, this idea makes God's uniqueness dependent on humans, and even on human sinfulness!

But on the contrary, God is glorified by the Immaculate Virgin, His Mother, and our Mother.

So, following your logic, God is glorified by any and every sinless individual. It would be, by far, to His benefit if there was more than one sinless individual, would it not?

 

[Standing Up]

Either you can't read, or you want words to mean what you want them to. Call it a state of denial. The Mosaic law explicitly applies to mothers who have conceived their offspring by the seed of man.

You're denying the plain words of scripture to uphold your man-made Tradition.

Lev. 12:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.

Gal. 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

The point is she conceived seed and gave birth. As a normal birth in the normal way, she became unclean because of the issue of blood.

Lev. 12:7 Who shall offer it before the LORD, and make an atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood. This is the law for her that hath born a male or a female.

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.

At His normal birth with water and blood and cord and afterbirth, virginity ended. Her going to the temple proves it. Incidentally, the docetic PoJames mentions nothing about this; of course it wouldn't since it portrays a birth from Mary's side.

 

[Rick Otto]

Yes, I talked to a Protestant Evangelical pastor who said that seeing Mary as sinless detracted from God, who, he believed, is the only one without sin. Besides being unbiblical, this idea makes God's uniqueness dependent on humans, and even on human sinfulness!

But on the contrary, God is glorified by the Immaculate Virgin, His Mother, and our Mother.

Yeah, I grew up in parochial school and saw "unbiblical" permeate the entire religion.
Even the simplest things were done backwards along Roman traditional lines.
I looked in their catechism book and saw a long haired man in a white robe, children laughing and smiling, running toward him.
I looked up from the book and they all wore black, were practically hairless, and all the children were scared to death, as Sister Mary Theresa patrolled the isles, ready to poke or slap anyone not participating enough.
Couldn't get the simplest things right, turning things upside down, inside out, and backwards.

So it is no surprise to see this same thing happening here.

 

[patricius79]

So, following your logic, God is glorified by any and every sinless individual. It would be, by far, to His benefit if there was more than one sinless individual, would it not?

Yes. God is glorified by the holiness of his creatures. He doesn't need us to sin to be uniquely holy, as the Protestant pastor falsely believed.

But there is no creature who gives God anything like the glory that the Immaculate Virgin gives to God. She gives more glory to God than all the rest of creation together.

I love her.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Yes. God is glorified by the holiness of his creatures. He doesn't need us to sin to be uniquely holy, as the Protestant pastor falsely believed.

But there is no creature who gives God anything like the glory that the Immaculate Virgin gives to God. She gives more glory to God than all the rest of creation together.

I love her.

So, if God is glorified by sinless individuals, why did He not immaculately conceive all of us?

 

[patricius79]

I know, right? It's like watching a reality show. Not much reality there.

Christians don't believe that Mary is part of the Godhead. We believe that she is, by far, the highest of all creatures, and is the Ever-Virginal, Immaculate Mother of God.

She is the Spouse of the Holy Ghost, since she conceived Jesus Christ through Him, and He through her.

Even though Mary is holier and more loving than all the rest of creation, that does not make her God, who is infinitely superior to Her.

Yet God Himself is Sovereign, the King of all Creation, and can submit himself to Mary as He wills, and as He did in the Incarnation and throughout his childhood.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Christians don't believe that Mary is part of the Godhead. We believe that she is, by far, the highest of all creatures, and is the Ever-Virginal, Immaculate Mother of God.

We know what Christians believe - it is spelled out in the Nicene Creed, not to mention the Bible. I am getting to know what you believe, which is in neither. You believe in a heaven where a King (Jesus Christ) and a Queen (Mary) reign with her spouse, the Holy Ghost. Thus far you have not described any role to God, the Father.

 

[justinangel]

You're denying the plain words of scripture to uphold your man-made Tradition.

Lev. 12:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.

Speak to the children of Israel, and thou shalt say to them: If a woman having received seed shall bear a man child, she shall be unclean seven days, according to the days of the separation of her flowers.
Lev 12, 2 [DRB]

ṯaz·rî·a‘,

תַזְרִ֔יע

Zera

.זָ֫רַע

In the KJV translation, the verb phrase Taz ri a is derived from the 3 consonant root word zera (seed) which can mean either "offspring" or "verile sperm", which is the intended definition in Leviticus. The DRB translation is the more accurate one. The standard Hebrew Bible used by the Jews simply reads "conceives" כִּי תַזְרִיעַ - not "conceives offspring", though it is understood that a woman conceives offspring by receiving the seed of her husband. The Septuagint does as well. Thus you are mistaken if you think the Hebrew word for seed only means offspring.


בדַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר אִשָּׁה כִּי תַזְרִיעַ וְיָלְדָה זָכָר וְטָמְאָה שִׁבְעַת יָמִים כִּימֵי נִדַּת דְּו‍ֹתָהּ תִּטְמָא

Speak to the children of Israel, saying: If a woman conceives כִּי תַזְרִיעַ and gives birth to a male, she shall be unclean for seven days; as [in] the days of her menstrual flow, she shall be unclean.

"If a woman conceives: Rabbi Simlai said: “Just as in the Creation, man was created after all domestic animals, wild beasts, and birds, so too, the law [concerning the cleanness] of man is stated after the law [concerning the cleanness] of domestic animals, wild beasts, and birds.- [Vayikra Rabbah 14:1]

"as [in] the days of her menstrual flow: According to the order of all the uncleanness mentioned in regard to the menstruating woman (נִדָּה), she becomes unclean on account of giving birth. [This is true] even if the womb opens without [any issue of] blood."

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9913#showrashi=true

The woman being ritually impure (niddah) is essentially a spiritual and mental condition. So Mary did not necessarily have to discharge blood during the birth of Jesus to be rendered ritually impure. The concept of her tumah has to be taken into account. Having been conceived and born naturally, Jesus was rendered ritually impure and in the state of tumah until his circumcision, which prepared the way for his presentation to God. The rites of purification and circumcision were intended as monuments testifying to the taint of imperfection and sin inherited by every child descended from man. These rites did not necessarily apply to Jesus and Mary, but as a religiously devout Jewish mother who was obligated to observe the law, Mary humbly and devotedly submitted herself and her Son to these legal requirements under which they were born and had to live in obedience to God who instituted the Mosaic law.

Gal. 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

The Hebrew word zera means “seed,” including “human seed” and, metonmyically, “descendants.” or "offspring". The Greek sperma functions in similar fashion.

The point is she conceived seed and gave birth. As a normal birth in the normal way, she became unclean because of the issue of blood.

Lev. 12:7 Who shall offer it before the LORD, and make an atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood. This is the law for her that hath born a male or a female.

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.

Actually, the assumed issuance of blood by a woman after the delivery of a child required the separation period of purification ("as in the days of her menstrual flow").

1 John does not refer to Jesus' birth. I've already explained this, and if you do your research, you'll find many eminent Protestant biblical scholars tell us the same thing. You're infusing your own presuppositions into the text. This results in eisegesis. At least provide some hermeneutical support for your conclusion.

At His normal birth with water and blood and cord and afterbirth, virginity ended. Her going to the temple proves it. Incidentally, the docetic PoJames mentions nothing about this; of course it wouldn't since it portrays a birth from Mary's side.

The PoJ does not record that Jesus came from Mary's side. Nor does Luke record the manner of Jesus' birth. All you can do is keep presuming how Jesus was born. The PoJ is no more Doctetic than the gospels are, where we find Jesus walking on water and entering a closed room as if he were a ghost. We've already discussed this.

Mary's going to the temple proves she was Jewish.

PAX

 

[bbbbbbb]

Speak to the children of Israel, and thou shalt say to them: If a woman having received seed shall bear a man child, she shall be unclean seven days, according to the days of the separation of her flowers.
Lev 12, 2 [DRB]

ṯaz·rî·a‘,

תַזְרִ֔יע

Zera

.זָ֫רַע

In the KJV translation, the verb phrase Taz ri a is derived from the 3 consonant root word zera (seed) which can mean either "offspring" or "verile sperm", which is the intended definition in Leviticus. The DRB translation is the more accurate one. The standard Hebrew Bible used by the Jews simply reads "conceives" כִּי תַזְרִיעַ - not "conceives offspring", though it is understood that a woman conceives offspring by receiving the seed of her husband. The Septuagint does as well. Thus you are mistaken if you think the Hebrew word for seed only means offspring.


בדַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר אִשָּׁה כִּי תַזְרִיעַ וְיָלְדָה זָכָר וְטָמְאָה שִׁבְעַת יָמִים כִּימֵי נִדַּת דְּו‍ֹתָהּ תִּטְמָא

Speak to the children of Israel, saying: If a woman conceives כִּי תַזְרִיעַ and gives birth to a male, she shall be unclean for seven days; as [in] the days of her menstrual flow, she shall be unclean.

"If a woman conceives: Rabbi Simlai said: “Just as in the Creation, man was created after all domestic animals, wild beasts, and birds, so too, the law [concerning the cleanness] of man is stated after the law [concerning the cleanness] of domestic animals, wild beasts, and birds.- [Vayikra Rabbah 14:1]

"as [in] the days of her menstrual flow: According to the order of all the uncleanness mentioned in regard to the menstruating woman (נִדָּה), she becomes unclean on account of giving birth. [This is true] even if the womb opens without [any issue of] blood."

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9913#showrashi=true

The woman being ritually impure (niddah) is essentially a spiritual and mental condition. So Mary did not necessarily have to discharge blood during the birth of Jesus to be rendered ritually impure. The concept of her tumah has to be taken into account. Having been conceived and born naturally, Jesus was rendered ritually impure and in the state of tumah until his circumcision, which prepared the way for his presentation to God. The rites of purification and circumcision were intended as monuments testifying to the taint of imperfection and sin inherited by every child descended from man. These rites did not necessarily apply to Jesus and Mary, but as a religiously devout Jewish mother who was obligated to observe the law, Mary humbly and devotedly submitted herself and her Son to these legal requirements under which they were born and had to live in obedience to God who instituted the Mosaic law.



The Hebrew word zera means “seed,” including “human seed” and, metonmyically, “descendants.” or "offspring". The Greek sperma functions in similar fashion.



Actually, the assumed issuance of blood by a woman after the delivery of a child required the separation period of purification ("as in the days of her menstrual flow").

1 John does not refer to Jesus' birth. I've already explained this, and if you do your research, you'll find many eminent Protestant biblical scholars tell us the same thing. You're infusing your own presuppositions into the text. This results in eisegesis. At least provide some hermeneutical support for your conclusion.



The PoJ does not record that Jesus came from Mary's side. Nor does Luke record the manner of Jesus' birth. All you can do is keep presuming how Jesus was born. The PoJ is no more Doctetic than the gospels are, where we find Jesus walking on water and entering a closed room as if he were a ghost. We've already discussed this.

Mary's going to the temple proves she was Jewish.

PAX

Here is the relevant passage from the PoJ -

And the widwife said to him: Is this true? And Joseph said to her: Come and see. And the midwife went away with him. And they stood in the place of the cave, and behold a luminous cloud overshadowed the cave. And the midwife said: My soul has been magnified this day, because my eyes have seen strange things— because salvation has been brought forth to Israel. And immediately the cloud disappeared out of the cave, and a great light shone in the cave, so that the eyes could not bear it. And in a little that light gradually decreased, until the infant appeared, and went and took the breast from His mother Mary. And the midwife cried out, and said: This is a great day to me, because I have seen this strange sight. And the midwife went forth out of the cave, and Salome met her. And she said to her: Salome, Salome, I have a strange sight to relate to you: a virgin has brought forth— a thing which her nature admits not of. Then said Salome: As the Lord my God lives, unless I thrust in my finger, and search the parts, I will not believe that a virgin has brought forth.


20. And the midwife went in, and said to Mary: Show yourself; for no small controversy has arisen about you. And Salome put in her finger, and cried out, and said: Woe is me for mine iniquity and mine unbelief, because I have tempted the living God; and, behold, my hand is dropping off as if burned with fire. And she bent her knees before the Lord, saying: O God of my fathers, remember that I am the seed of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob; do not make a show of me to the sons of Israel, but restore me to the poor; for You know, O Lord, that in Your name I have performed my services, and that I have received my reward at Your hand. And, behold, an angel of the Lord stood by her, saying to her: Salome, Salome, the Lord has heard you. Put your hand to the infant, and carry it, and you will have safety and joy. And Salome went and carried it, saying: I will worship Him, because a great King has been born to Israel. And, behold, Salome was immediately cured, and she went forth out of the cave justified. And behold a voice saying: Salome, Salome, tell not the strange things you have seen, until the child has come into Jerusalem.

There is not a single indication that Jesus Christ was born normally. Instead, He simply appears. The midwife affirms his non-birth appearance by thrusting her finger. That is an obvious euphemis for sticking her finger into Mary's clitorus to determine if her hymen was still intact, thus affirming her status as a virgin. According to PoJ the hymen was intact, the midwife was astounded, and Jesus had just mysteriously appeared on the human scene.

 

[patricius79]

So, if God is glorified by sinless individuals,

It sounds to me that you are doubting that God is glorified by sinlessness. I don't understand that. God is glorified by holiness, not by sin. He doesn't need us to sin to be Uniquely, Infinitely Holy

why did He not immaculately conceive all of us?

I think it's because we failed to receive it. Where the Immaculate, Ever-Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, was humble and receptive, we were proud, greedy, and inadequately receptive.

I'm no theologian or scholar like Justinangel, but that's my opinion.

All Glory be to God through Jesus Christ, the God-man, through the Ark of the New Covenant! May we all enter into the Heart of the Immaculate Virgin, as into the Ark of Noah, and be saved by the blood of Christ.

 

[bbbbbbb]

It sounds to me that you are doubting that God is glorified by sinlessness. I don't understand that. God is glorified by holiness, not by sin. He doesn't need us to sin to be Uniquely, Infinitely Holy



I think it's because we failed to receive it. Where the Immaculate, Ever-Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, was humble and receptive, we were proud, greedy, and inadequately receptive.

I'm no theologian or scholar like Justinangel, but that's my opinion.

All Glory be to God through Jesus Christ, the God-man, through the Ark of the New Covenant! May we all enter into the Heart of the Immaculate Virgin, as into the Ark of Noah, and be saved by the blood of Christ.

The Immaculate Conception of Mary had nothing whatsoever to do with a choice on her part. According to Catholic dogma she was conceived in the womb without Original Sin and, therefore, was born sinless, unlike the rest of humanity who are born with the stain of Adam's sin.

Is God glorified by only immaculately conceiving one individual out of the billions of humans or do you think he would be more glorified if all of us were immaculately conceived?

 

[justinangel]

As I said, the PoJ does not record Jesus coming from the side of Mary, only his appearing in the flesh when the light diminishes.

Here is the relevant passage from the PoJ -

And the widwife said to him: Is this true? And Joseph said to her: Come and see. And the midwife went away with him. And they stood in the place of the cave, and behold a luminous cloud overshadowed the cave. And the midwife said: My soul has been magnified this day, because my eyes have seen strange things— because salvation has been brought forth to Israel. And immediately the cloud disappeared out of the cave, and a great light shone in the cave, so that the eyes could not bear it. And in a little that light gradually decreased, until the infant appeared, and went and took the breast from His mother Mary. And the midwife cried out, and said: This is a great day to me, because I have seen this strange sight. And the midwife went forth out of the cave, and Salome met her. And she said to her: Salome, Salome, I have a strange sight to relate to you: a virgin has brought forth— a thing which her nature admits not of. Then said Salome: As the Lord my God lives, unless I thrust in my finger, and search the parts, I will not believe that a virgin has brought forth.


20. And the midwife went in, and said to Mary: Show yourself; for no small controversy has arisen about you. And Salome put in her finger, and cried out, and said: Woe is me for mine iniquity and mine unbelief, because I have tempted the living God; and, behold, my hand is dropping off as if burned with fire. And she bent her knees before the Lord, saying: O God of my fathers, remember that I am the seed of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob; do not make a show of me to the sons of Israel, but restore me to the poor; for You know, O Lord, that in Your name I have performed my services, and that I have received my reward at Your hand. And, behold, an angel of the Lord stood by her, saying to her: Salome, Salome, the Lord has heard you. Put your hand to the infant, and carry it, and you will have safety and joy. And Salome went and carried it, saying: I will worship Him, because a great King has been born to Israel. And, behold, Salome was immediately cured, and she went forth out of the cave justified. And behold a voice saying: Salome, Salome, tell not the strange things you have seen, until the child has come into Jerusalem.

There is not a single indication that Jesus Christ was born normally. Instead, He simply appears. The midwife affirms his non-birth appearance by thrusting her finger. That is an obvious euphemism for sticking her finger into Mary's [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] to determine if her hymen was still intact, thus affirming her status as a virgin. According to PoJ the hymen was intact, the midwife was astounded, and Jesus had just mysteriously appeared on the human scene.

As I said, the PoJ doesn't record Jesus coming from the side of Mary, only his appearance in the flesh when the light (Shekinah?) diminishes. Jesus may have passed through the hymen ("the gate shall remain closed") as easily as he passed into a locked room and walked on water. Even as a human infant, he was God incarnate, in essence one with the Father possessing a divine mind along with his human mind. He saw Nathaniel sitting under the fig tree before they shortly met. Our Lord wasn't created a man like any ordinary firstborn son or created physiologically like the firstborn among the livestock (both subject to the Mosaic law), but was "made in human likeness" (Phil. 2:7), having been fashioned in his mother's womb. Jesus is Mary's seed - not Joseph's. He didn't have to be conceived or born naturally to take his flesh and blood from his mother. Jesus was fully man, but he wasn't a human creature.

"But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,"
Galatians 4, 4 [KJV]

γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός is translated "born of a woman" in all Protestant Bible versions save Darby and Young's Literal Translation which have "come of a woman". The Catholic DRB has this as well. The translation "made of a woman" was what Thomas Aquinas preferred to "born of a woman".

"Moreover, although he (Paul) might have said “born of a woman,” he distinctly says made, and not “born.” Indeed, for something to be born it must not only be produced of a principle conjoined to it but be made from a principle separate from it. Thus a wooden chest is made by an artisan, but fruit is born from a tree. Now the principle of human generation is twofold, namely, material—and as to this, Christ proceeded from a conjoined principle, because He took the matter of His body from the Virgin; and it is according to this that He is said to be born of her: “Of whom [Mary] was born Jesus Who is called Christ” (Mt 1:16).—The other is the active principle, which in the case of Christ, so far as He had a principle, i.e., as to the forming of the body, was not conjoined but separate, because the power of the Holy Spirit formed it. And with respect to this He is not said to have been born of a woman, but made, as it were, from an extrinsic principle. From this it is obvious that the saying, of a woman, does not denote a defloration; otherwise he would have said 'born’ and not 'made.'"
[Commentary on Galatians: 4:4]

at ubi venit plenitudo temporis misit Deus Filium suum factum ex muliere factum sub lege

But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent his Son, made of a woman, made under the law:
[Latin Vulgate of St. Jerome]

First of all the affair of the impiety and lawlessness of Arius and his followers was discussed in the presence of the most pious emperor Constantine. It was unanimously agreed that anathemas should be pronounced against his impious opinion and his blasphemous terms and expressions which he has blasphemously applied to the Son of God,

saying
"he is from things that are not", and
"before he was begotten he was not", and
"there once was when he was not",
saying too that
by his own power the Son of God is capable of
evil and
goodness,
and calling him
a creature and a work.
Council of Nicea l (A.D. 325)

PAX

 

[bbbbbbb]

As I said, the PoJ does not record Jesus coming from the side of Mary, only his appearing in the flesh when the light diminishes.


As I said, the PoJ doesn't record Jesus coming from the side of Mary, only his appearance in the flesh when the light diminishes. Jesus may have passed through the hymen ("the gate shall remain closed") as easily as he passed into a locked room and walked on water. Even as a human infant, he was God incarnate, in essence one with the Father possessing a divine mind along with his human mind. He saw Nathaniel sitting under the fig tree before they immediately met. Our Lord wasn't created a man like any ordinary firstborn son or created physiologically like the firstborn among the livestock (both subject to the Mosaic law), but was "made" man in the likeness of a created being, having been fashioned in his mother's womb. Jesus is Mary's seed - not Joseph's. He didn't have to be conceived or born naturally to take his flesh and blood from his mother.

"But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,"
Galatians 4, 4 [KJV]

γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός is translated "born of a woman" in all Protestant Bible versions save Darby and Young's Literal Translation which have "come of a woman". The Catholic DRB has this as well. The translation "made of a woman" was what Thomas Aquinas preferred to "born of a woman".

"Moreover, although he might have said “born of a woman,” he distinctly says made, and not “born.” Indeed, for something to be born it must not only be produced of a principle conjoined to it but be made from a principle separate from it. Thus a wooden chest is made by an artisan, but fruit is born from a tree. Now the principle of human generation is twofold, namely, material—and as to this, Christ proceeded from a conjoined principle, because He took the matter of His body from the Virgin; and it is according to this that He is said to be born of her: “Of whom [Mary] was born Jesus Who is called Christ” (Mt 1:16).—The other is the active principle, which in the case of Christ, so far as He had a principle, i.e., as to the forming of the body, was not conjoined but separate, because the power of the Holy Spirit formed it. And with respect to this He is not said to have been born of a woman, but made, as it were, from an extrinsic principle. From this it is obvious that the saying, of a woman, does not denote a defloration; otherwise he would have said 'born’ and not 'made.'"
[Commentary on Galatians: 4:4]

at ubi venit plenitudo temporis misit Deus Filium suum factum ex muliere factum sub lege

But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent his Son, made of a woman, made under the law:
[Latin Vulgate of St. Jerome]

First of all the affair of the impiety and lawlessness of Arius and his followers was discussed in the presence of the most pious emperor Constantine. It was unanimously agreed that anathemas should be pronounced against his impious opinion and his blasphemous terms and expressions which he has blasphemously applied to the Son of God,

• 
  
  
  • saying
    • "he is from things that are not", and
    • "before he was begotten he was not", and
    • "there once was when he was not",
  • saying too that
    • by his own power the Son of God is capable of
      • evil and
      • goodness,
  • and calling him
    • a creature and a work.
    • Council of Nicea l (A.D. 325)

PAX

And why do you think the midwife stuck her finger into Mary's cervix?

 

[Standing Up]

Thus you are mistaken if you think the Hebrew word for seed only means offspring.

You're arguing now with Paul of Scripture who says the seed was Christ.

"as [in] the days of her menstrual flow: According to the order of all the uncleanness mentioned in regard to the menstruating woman (נִדָּה), she becomes unclean on account of giving birth. [This is true] even if the womb opens without [any issue of] blood."

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9913#showrashi=true

Read the paragraph above the one you've bolded for context. They're not saying anything about a normal human birth in the normal way.

The PoJ does not record that Jesus came from Mary's side.

Why does the midwife believe Mary remained a virgin?

 

[Standing Up]

"But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,"
Galatians 4, 4 [KJV]

γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός is translated "born of a woman" in all Protestant Bible versions save Darby and Young's Literal Translation which have "come of a woman". The Catholic DRB has this as well. The translation "made of a woman" was what Thomas Aquinas preferred to "born of a woman".

It's a bit odd to find this Valentinian argument that was put to bed some 1800 years ago. Valentine was arguing for an abnormal birth with no blood, no afterbirth, and maintained virginity. So odd to find people still embrace that docetic view.

"But Paul, too, silences these critics72167216 Grammaticis. when he says, “God sent forth His Son, made of a woman. ... But by saying “made,” he not only confirmed the statement, “The Word was made flesh,”72187218 John i. 14. but he also asserted the reality of the flesh which was made of a virgin. ... Here is a third point. Now let us carefully attend to the sense of these passages. “Thou didst draw me,” He says, “out of the womb.” Now what is it which is drawn, if it be not that which adheres, that which is firmly fastened to anything from which it is drawn in order to be sundered? If He clove not to the womb, how could He have been drawn from it? If He who clove thereto was drawn from it, how could He have adhered to it, if it were not that, all the while He was in the womb, He was tied to it, as to His origin,72237223 i.e. of His flesh. by the umbilical cord, which communicated growth to Him from the matrix? Even when one strange matter amalgamates with another, it becomes so entirely incorporated72247224 Concarnatus et convisceratus: “united in flesh and internal structure.” with that with which it amalgamates, that when it is drawn off from it, it carries with it some part of the body from which it is torn, as if in consequence of the severance of the union and growth which the constituent pieces had communicated to each other."
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.vii.xx.html

We all know you can't change your mind, but at least try to see the irony of your arguing for Valentine's position.

C/u around.

 

[justinangel]

And why do you think the midwife stuck her finger into Mary's cervix?

Why do you think Thomas put his finger into the holes in Jesus' hands and feet and his hand into his side? The apostle was astounded by what was incredible. The midwife sought an explanation for the sudden appearance of the infant Jesus. Mary hadn't gone into labour (as Isaiah foretold) which would have required the midwife's assistance. Yet, lo and behold, there was the child. I believe Jesus passed through the sealed womb, as he had passed through the sealed tomb, through Mary's belly. This is only fitting, since it is through the untilled soil of her pure womb that we all are regenerated unto God. Mary is the new Eve, the spiritual mother of all the living.

In any event, I don't believe that there was a mid-wife present in the cave where Jesus was born.

And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.
Luke 2, 7

Normally, women are much too weak and tired to actually clothe and tend to the baby right after the long and intense rigours of childbirth, let alone move from one location (a cave) to another (a manger) as soon as she gives birth. This is why birth attendants such as midwives are necessary. Yet the evangelist tells us that Mary did all these things by herself, right after giving birth; no midwife is mentioned as aiding her. This was no normal birth!

Incidentally, there was a tradition that existed in apostolic time which held that no mid-wife was actually present.

The report concerning the child was noised abroad in Bethlehem. Some said, 'The Virgin Mary has given birth before she was married two months.' And many said, 'She has not given birth; the midwife has not gone up to her, and we heard no cries of pain.'"
Ascension of Isaiah 11 (c. 70 AD)

"So the Virgin became a mother with great mercies. And she laboured and bore the Son, but without pain, because it did not occur without purpose. And she did not seek a midwife, because he caused her to give life. She bore as a strong man, with will."
Odes of Solomon 19 (c. 80 AD)

These works were written about 65 years before the Infancy Gospel of James was. Not unlike the PoJ, they bear witness to a Marian tradition that had already existed in the Church. If the Virgin Birth was a contentious issue before the death of the last apostle, it would have been addressed in a NT epistle.

Whether there was a mid-wife is unimportant. What matters is that the faithful of the nascent church in Palestine believed in the miraculous virgin birth of our Lord. The Virgin Birth has been a sacred Tradition of the Church since earliest time, albeit the conflicting rumours pertaining to minor details which may have adulterated the oral tradition as word passed from mouth to mouth.

The early Church Fathers bear witness to the universal belief in the Virgin Birth which has been passed down from one generation to the next by the guaranty of the Holy Spirit, who Jesus promised would be with his Church and Bride "forever" and "guide her in all truth". Paul describes the Bride of Christ as "unblemished", meaning she is indefectible with regard to her doctrines.

"Jesus Christ was born of a holy Virgin without seed of man, and took flesh without defilement."
Aristides of Athens, Apology, 15 (c. 140 AD)

The Word will become flesh, and the Son of God the son of man—the Pure One opening purely that pure womb, which generates men unto God.
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4, 33, 12 (A.D.180-190)

Apology 15 was written about 5 years before the PoJ was. So it's wrong to claim that the PoJ is the source of belief in the Virgin Birth. Neither are the 1st century apocryphal works the source - not to mention Luke's gospel. The oral word precedes the written word. This law applies also to the gospels and epistles of the NT. Moses himself preached the Torah before he actually wrote it down.

PAX