Did the Virgin Mary remain a virgin?

Did the Virgin Mary remain a virgin?

  • Yes

  • No


Results are only viewable after voting.

justinangel

Newbie
Feb 19, 2011
1,301
197
Btwn heaven & earth
✟13,949.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Politics
CA-Conservatives

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

Incredible! :doh:

This is what I wrote, so kindly stop wasting my time. :sigh:


In this verse, "the Hebrew word zera means “seed,” including “human seed” and, metonmyically, “descendants.” or "offspring". The Greek sperma functions in similar fashion."
You don't understand Paul.


"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."

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.

They're talking about a natural birth, nonetheless, under extenuating circumstances. It's the spiritual condition of the mother - her tumah - that renders her ritually impure (niddah); not so much the blood itself. Please read everything I write more carefully, so that I don't always have to repeat myself to you.


Why does the midwife believe Mary remained a virgin?

Why don't you ask the midwife?
:congrat:

PAX
:angel:
 
Upvote 0

patricius79

Called to Jesus Through Mary
Sep 10, 2009
4,186
361
✟13,891.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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.

I'm sorry to hear about your experience.

My experience with the historic Church is very different. I find healing and hope in the teachings of the Catholic Church.

I am convinced that the Catholic Church is the Biblical Church, and that everything the Church teaches about the Virgin Mother of Christ, our God, is true.

As John Calvin pointed out, the arguments against Mary's Perpetual Virginity are very unbiblical.

While Catholics and Protestants are sinners, the Blessed Virgin--through whom Christ came to us-- is not, and that is why she can help us so much as our sweet Mediatrix with Christ.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

justinangel

Newbie
Feb 19, 2011
1,301
197
Btwn heaven & earth
✟13,949.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Politics
CA-Conservatives
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.

Valentinianism is very unclear and consists of diverse thoughts which makes it even difficult for scholars to piece together. In Valentinian theology, Jesus, the Messiah, was in a bodily form, but was actually composed in the image of the Demiurge, made of ethereal material from the upper regions - not made of a woman as Catholics believe. For some Valentinians, the Saviour, from the plemora, joined Jesus at his Baptism after he was born. Others believed Jesus was the offspring of Joseph and Mary, from whom he received his inanimate flesh. Catholics believe that in his humanity Jesus was a composite of soul and body as we are. His human soul animated his body which was made from Mary. According to Valentinian theologians, Jesus derived his animate body or essence from the Craftsman. His spiritual essence was derived from Wisdom (Sophia). That is why the angel told Mary, "The Holy Spirit (i.e. Wisdom) will come upon you and the power of the Most High (i.e. the Craftsman) will overshadow you" (Luke 1:35) It's rather ingenuous of you to equate Catholicism with Gnosticism. Catholics like Irenaeus and Hippolytus, who believed in the virginitas in partu, contended against the Gnostics. The Catholic Church excommunicated Valentinius, but he later recanted and was received back into the fold.

PAX
:angel:
 
Upvote 0

Rick Otto

The Dude Abides
Nov 19, 2002
34,112
7,406
On The Prairie
✟29,593.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I'm sorry to hear about your experience.

My experience with the historic Church is very different. I find healing and hope in the teachings of the Catholic Church.

I am convinced that the Catholic Church is the Biblical Church, and that everything the Church teaches about the Virgin Mother of Christ, our God, is true.

As John Calvin pointed out, the arguments against Mary's Perpetual Virginity are very unbiblical.

While Catholics and Protestants are sinners, the Blessed Virgin--through whom Christ came to us-- is not, and that is why she can help us so much as our sweet Mediatrix with Christ.
Your sympathy is wasted because I successfully resisted the lies instead of embracing them as truth.
So I am equally sorry to hear of failure to do the same.
Invoking the name of John Calvin in an attempt to feign truth by association is also wasted on me.
Though I can agree with his soteriology, I part ways with him on Mary doctrines, Sacramento love, and ecclesiology, especially in the area of church discipline.
The guilt or exoneration by association trick doesn't work on me because I have actually done my homework.
 
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟58,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Valentinianism is very unclear and consists of diverse thoughts which makes it even difficult for scholars to piece together. In Valentinian theology, Jesus, the Messiah, was in a bodily form, but was actually composed in the image of the Demiurge, made of ethereal material from the upper regions - not made of a woman as Catholics believe.

Valentinus, like RC after accepting him as orthodox as you note, believed there was no afterbirth, no umbilical cord, no water and blood upon Christ's birth. See the quotes from Tertullian. RC simply assimilated his beliefs, while being careful to clarify Christ entered the world somehow.
 
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟58,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
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.

Not really--

"The extant complete manuscripts of the Ascension of Isaiah include a brief account of Jesus' nativity, birth, and crucifixion (11:2-22). However, according to Jonathan Knight, "the problem with chapter 11 is that these traditions are found in only one branch of the textual tradition, that represented by the Ethiopic translation (E). The Slavonic and one of the two Latin translations (S and L2) replace them with a short summary of the earthly appearance so that their authenticity—including the Marian material—is disputed."[5]"---wiki.

"The Odes of Solomon is a collection of 42 odes attributed to Solomon. Various scholars have dated the composition of these religious poems to anywhere in the range of the first three centuries AD."-wiki

The earliest quote of OoS is Lanctantius c300ad.

 
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟58,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Incredible! :doh:

This is what I wrote, so kindly stop wasting my time. :sigh:


In this verse, "the Hebrew word zera means “seed,” including “human seed” and, metonmyically, “descendants.” or "offspring". The Greek sperma functions in similar fashion."
You don't understand Paul.
The point is the seed, including Mary's conception per Paul, led to a normal birth with water and blood. As such she would fulfill what was required. Again, per the PoJames and RC, Christ wasn't born normally.

They're talking about a natural birth, nonetheless, under extenuating circumstances. It's the spiritual condition of the mother - her tumah - that renders her ritually impure (niddah); not so much the blood itself. Please read everything I write more carefully, so that I don't always have to repeat myself to you.
Read your own citations more carefully.



Why don't you ask the midwife?
The midwife didn't see in afterbirth, no water and blood (1 John). With the light appearing, disappearing, and leaving behind a young child, she believed Mary's virginity remained intact. ("And by little and little that light withdrew itself until the young child appeared"--PoJ)

Again, at that time, those were the only two views. An infant's normal birth (see scripture and Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria) or a young child's birth somehow most likely from her side (PoJames and Valentinus and now RC).
 
Upvote 0

patricius79

Called to Jesus Through Mary
Sep 10, 2009
4,186
361
✟13,891.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Valentinus, like RC after accepting him as orthodox as you note, believed there was no afterbirth, no umbilical cord, no water and blood upon Christ's birth. See the quotes from Tertullian. RC simply assimilated his beliefs, while being careful to clarify Christ entered the world somehow.

I thought I saw--correct me if I'm wrong--that you are accusing the Church of falling into Docetic beliefs about Mary.

But I thought that you believe that Christ's emphatic words in John 6:51-58 about eating His Flesh are not literal.

For my part, I believe that we must eat Christ's Flesh and Drink His Blood, as He insisted, and that His Mother--the Mother of God--is Ever-Virgin and is the Immaculate Conception.
 
  • Like
Reactions: justinangel
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟58,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I thought I saw--correct me if I'm wrong--that you are accusing the Church of falling into Docetic beliefs about Mary.

The history of the EV belief didn't start a couple 100 years ago. The conflict about EV started about 100 years after Christ's ascension. At that time, there was one of two choices; EITHER one believed Mary gave birth normally in the normal way to Christ thus ending virginity OR Mary remained ever-virgin, giving birth somehow to something.

From there over the following centuries, the two opposed ideas were mixed. Today some believe that Christ came in the flesh somehow AND Mary remained a virgin somehow.

So RC didn't fall into docetic beliefs from Valentinus, Marcion, and others, as much as it assimilated their beliefs, melding what were opposite ideas into one doctrine; that is, Mary gave birth somehow from somewhere in her body to the Christ with flesh somehow (no umbilical cord, no placenta, no afterbirth, no water and blood) thus emphasizing their main idea, she remained EV. God was with us, we just don't know how it happened is the doctrine. Recall that Rome welcomed Valentinus. The Shepard of Hermas has docetic trends whose author had a pope as physical brother. Rome rejected PoJames c400ad, but not because of its docetic lines, but because Rome didn't want a non-virgin husband for their ever-virgin Mary.

For the Christians of the first century or two, they would wonder what in the world that mixture of scripture/tradition is about. They'd still be against the mixture and Valentinus. For those Christians, Christ came by water and blood with umbilical cord and placenta, made of a woman, drawn out from the womb as scripture says. For them, this is all of scripture's Christ came in the flesh, thus virginity ended. That was the deciding line (1 John, 2 John). One believed that with all it entails (Christ came in the flesh, God with us) brother, or didn't.
 
Upvote 0

justinangel

Newbie
Feb 19, 2011
1,301
197
Btwn heaven & earth
✟13,949.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Not really--

"The extant complete manuscripts of the Ascension of Isaiah include a brief account of Jesus' nativity, birth, and crucifixion (11:2-22). However, according to Jonathan Knight, "the problem with chapter 11 is that these traditions are found in only one branch of the textual tradition, that represented by the Ethiopic translation (E). The Slavonic and one of the two Latin translations (S and L2) replace them with a short summary of the earthly appearance so that their authenticity—including the Marian material—is disputed."[5]"---wiki.

"The Odes of Solomon is a collection of 42 odes attributed to Solomon. Various scholars have dated the composition of these religious poems to anywhere in the range of the first three centuries AD."-wiki

The earliest quote of OoS is Lanctantius c300ad

"Actually, the section containing the testimony was for long considered an interpolation of the Christian component termed Visio Isaiae, cc. VI—XI, 1-40. Near the end of this piece, c. XI, 2-22, the prophet envisages Christ's life on earth. This section is omitted in a Latin and a Slavonic version. Because of this and other considerations the section, along with certain other parts, was declared interpolated by another Christian some time after the parent piece, the Visio, had been written.23 However, R. H. Charles has disproved one of the principal assumptions on which the theory of interpolation was held, and with further arguments shows convincingly that the disputed section was originally a part of the Visio-, and he assigns this Visio to the end of the first century.24 E. Tisserant accepted this date for the disputed passage, c. XI, 2-22, adding the approximation "entre 88 et ÎOO." ....

" The representation of the utterly sudden and wholly unexpected, apparition-like appearance of the Infant, with Joseph at first completely unaware of His presence, has led to the common assumption that the author (or at least the author of these verses) of the Visio was a Docetist or inclined to Docetism.27 And because the author has been made suspect, the testimony for Mary's virginitas tn partu is sometimes depreciated.28 However, the entire remainder of the Ascensio, both the Jewish and the Christian components, yields no certain traces of Docetism. And this is certain, that the author, whether an orthodox Christian or a Christian with "modern" ideas, does assert virginitas in partu..™ ....

"Finally, if the more recent editors of the Ascensio Isaiae, Charles and Tisserant, are right in placing the writer of this testimony in the last decade or so of the first century, we have in him a contemporary of the subapostolic writer who is regularly mentioned first as witness to Christ's conception and birth of a virgin, Ignatius of Antioch.30 In fact, the unknown writer's testimony would antedate that of the fiery defender of Mary's virginity and her divine Son's humanity by a goodly number of years. And here we should also call attention to a rather astonishing discovery which Charles claims to have made and which he adduces in support of the date he attaches to the Visio.Zl In his Epistle to the Ephesians, 19, 1, Ignatius writes: "And the Prince of this world was in ignorance of the virginity of Mary and her childbearing and also of the death of the Lord—three mysteries loudly proclaimed to the world, though accomplished in the stillness of God."32 This sentence was again and again quoted by the Fathers.33 Charles thinks and he attempts to show that the source of Ignatius was the following sentence in the Ascensio, coming after the account of Christ's birth as quoted above (XI, 16) : "This hath escaped all the heavens and all the princes and all the gods of the world."34 Should Charles's deduction be correct, the writer of this Christian component of the Ascensio certainly was not a Docetist! Ignatius, the uncompromising castigator of Judaizers and Docetists, could not have paid him the compliment of quoting or imitating him. ....

"The testimony with which we conclude comes from a unique source, the Odes of Solomon, quite certainly written originally in Greek and made accessible to us through their discovery and publication in a Syriac version by J. Rendei Harris in 1909.35 In the ensuing floodt ide of scholarly industry much effort was spent to show that this collection originated with the Gnostics or was influenced by them. But more and more scholars agree that one should not "claim these lovely songs of the Spirit for Cerdo, Cerinthus, or Simon Magus,"36 but recognize them for what they are—one of the finest pieces of ancient Christian hymnody, inspired by Johannine piety and mysticism and eminently worthy of companionship in rediscovery with the DidacheP We are here concerned with Ode XIX, which was very probably familiar to Eusebius,38 was quoted by Lactantius from an early collection of Scriptural Testimonia™ and which again, as we shall remark later, seeks the affinity of that ancient witness, Ignatius of Antioch. ...


"Here certain phrases are obscure,41 but the odist's conception of Mary as virgin-mother is given with remarkable clarity and finality. We need but quote the observation of the editors: "The second part appears to present the doctrine of the Virgin Birth in a highly evolved form; as, for instance, Virgin Birth, plus painlessness, plus non-necessity of a mid-wife."42 It should be added that an assertion of Mary's virginal motherhood which is not immediately obvious is very probably contained in the words of verse 10: "And she brought forth, as a man, of her own will." Here the Syriac word for "man" corresponds to the Greek ανήρ (vir) and not άνθρωπος (homo)) that is, human births ordinarily are dependent on the will and the initiative of the man, the father; but Mary bore her Son independent of the antecedent will of a man or human father; this initial generative will was her own, cooperating with God's will.43 ....

"The Odes are of the highest antiquity. There is scarcely a scholar who dates them later than the year 150 A.D. In fact, the preponderance of opinion seems to favor an even earlier date. Batiffol gives 100-120 as an approximate date and Syria or Asia Minor as the locus originisi Tondelli suggests that the Odes were written in Asia Minor about the year 120.45 Harris and Mingana are convinced that the home of the collection is Syria, more specificially, Antioch, and that it was composed before the end of the first century.46 They find a considerable number of coincidences between the language of the unknown odist and that of Ignatius of Antioch. ...

"They come to the conclusion that Ignatius knew the Odes; in fact, they speak of quotation or the equivalent of quotation by him.47 The parallelism between the representation of the Virgin Birth in Ode XIX and Ignatius' own statement of Christ's birth of a virgin is also adverted to.48 This presumed familiarity of Ignatius with the Odes could be taken as lending support to BatiffoPs theory that the odist in his Christology and soteriology reveals the same type of mystical Docetism as is denounced by Ignatius. 49 On the other hand, the array of parallelisms offered for our consideration by Harris and Mingana uncovers no criticism or castigation of the Odes on the part of Ignatius. These scholars even find the bishop and the odist in agreement with regard to heretics, perhaps even Docetists!50 In these documents, then, all of them very probably originating with orthodox Christians, we have witnesses for the time of Ignatius of Antioch, and quite likely even for a decade or so preceding the writing of his Letters. ..."

[cf. JOSEPH C. PLUMPE, Theological Studies: Catholic University of America]

http://cdn.theologicalstudies.net/9/9.4/9.4.5.pdf
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

justinangel

Newbie
Feb 19, 2011
1,301
197
Btwn heaven & earth
✟13,949.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Politics
CA-Conservatives
The point is the seed, including Mary's conception per Paul, led to a normal birth with water and blood. As such she would fulfill what was required. Again, per the PoJames and RC, Christ wasn't born normally.

Jesus is a descendant of Abraham, obviously through Mary. That's all. Paul isn't concerned with how Jesus was born. Just because Jesus is a descendant of Abraham, that doesn't mean he had to have been born or conceived normally.

Again, the Hebrew and Greek OT have only the verb "conceived" - not "conceived seed/offspring. " The word conceived in this context means "having become pregnant" and the law applies collectively to firstborn sons who are conceived by the seed of man. The same law applies to the firstborn creatures of the livestock which belong to the Jews. Joseph wasn't Jesus' real father. Nor was Jesus a human creature. Can you imagine Mary and Joseph telling the priest that their son doesn't have to be circumcised because he was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit?


Read your own citations more carefully.

LOL! What's that supposed to mean? I suggest you study Judaism instead of only interpreting the Scriptures to accommodate your own presuppositions.

The midwife didn't see in afterbirth, no water and blood (1 John). With the light appearing, disappearing, and leaving behind a young child, she believed Mary's virginity remained intact. ("And by little and little that light withdrew itself until the young child appeared"--PoJ)

I know what the midwife believed.


Again, at that time, those were the only two views. An infant's normal birth (see scripture and Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria) or a young child's birth somehow most likely from her side (PoJames and Valentinus and now RC)

The nascent and early orthodox Christians (East and West) believed in the virginitas in partu without any dispute. Any conflict was between them and the Gnostic sects as to whether Jesus was a real man in flesh and blood. They didn't think like you do that Jesus had to have been born normally in order to be really human. If they did, they would have had to reject Jesus' miraculous conception to be consistent. The Christology of the Gnostics was based on their rejection of the orthodox Christian doctrine of the Trinity. So believing in the miraculous birth of Jesus does not necessarily equate this belief with Docetism. Orthodox Christians believed in a miraculous birth only because they believed Jesus was made of flesh and blood. In Docetist theology there really isn't much of a miracle because Christ is seen differently. Ignatius, Aristides, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Hippoltytus, who contended with the Gnostics and/or the Jews, believed in the virginitus in partu and didn't argue with the Gnostics over the question of a normal birth. They contended with them over their Trinitarian and Christological beliefs which were heterodox. Only Tertullian rejected this doctrine, which was an extreme and unnecessary measure on his part, because of his contention with the Docetists. He argued for a normal birth more or less just to distance himself from them and refute their Trinitarian and Christological teachings. Clement of Alexandria clearly believed in the virginitas in partu, I've already shown you that way back.

‘She gave birth and did not give birth’, Scripture says, since she conceived by herself, not as a result of union with a man.”
Clement of Alexandria

Some said, "The virgin Mary has given birth before she has been married two months." 14 But many said, "She did not give birth; the midwife did not go up (to her), and we did not hear (any) cries of pain." And they were all blinded concerning him; they all knew about him, but they did not know from where he was. 15 And they took him and went to Nazareth in Galilee. 16 And I saw, O Hezekiah and Josab my son, and say to the other prophets also who are standing by, that it was hidden from all the heavens and all the princes and every god of this world.
The Ascension of Isaiah, Xl: 13-16 [inter A.D. 80/100]


It was also hidden from the midwife.
Justin Angel [A.D. 2015] :D


"And the Prince of this world was in ignorance of the virginity of Mary and her childbearing and also of the death of the Lord—three mysteries loudly proclaimed to the world, though accomplished in the stillness of God."

Ignatius of Antioch, Ephesians 19, 1 [c. A.D. 110]

"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)


Now it is evident to all, that in the race of Abraham according to the flesh no one has been born of a virgin, or is said to have been born [of a virgin], save this our Christ. But since you and your teachers venture to affirm that in the prophecy of Isaiah it is not said, ‘Behold, the virgin shall conceive,’ but, ‘Behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son;’ and [since] you explain the prophecy as if [it referred] to Hezekiah, who was your king, I shall endeavour to discuss shortly this point in opposition to you, and to show that reference is made to Him who is acknowledged by us as Christ. (Ch. 43)

“Moreover, the prophecy, ‘Behold, the virgin shall conceive, and bear (give birth to) a son,’ was uttered respecting Him. For if He to whom Isaiah referred was not to be begotten of a virgin, of whom did the Holy Spirit declare, ‘Behold, the Lord Himself shall give us a sign: behold, the virgin shall conceive, and bear a son?’ For if He also were to be begotten of sexual intercourse, like all other first-born sons, why did God say that He would give a sign which is not common to all the first-born sons?

Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 43,84 (A.D. 155)


"For this cause then is He Saviour. Now Emmanuel is, being interpreted,


With you God ; [194] or as a yearning cry [195] uttered by the prophet, such as this: With us shall be God; according to which it is the explanation and manifestation of the good tidings proclaimed. For

Behold, He saith, the virgin shall conceive and shall bring forth a son; and He, being God, is to be with us. And, as if altogether astonished [196] at these things, he proclaims in regard to these future events that With us shall be God. And yet again concerning His birth the same. prophet says in another place:

Before she that travailed gave birth, and before the pains of travail came on, she escaped and was delivered of a man-child. Thus he showed that His birth from the virgin was unforeseen and unexpected."

(His birth took the midwife by surprise.) :D


Irenaeus, Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching [A.D.180]

"But the pious confession of the believer is that, with a view to our salvation, and in order to connect the universe with unchangeableness, the Creator of all things incorporated with Himself a rational soul and a sensible body from the all-holy Mary, ever-virgin, by an undefiled conception, without conversion, and was made man in nature, but separate from wickedness: the same was perfect God, and the same was perfect man; the same was in nature at once perfect God and man."
Hippolytus (of Rome), Against Beron and Helix, Fragment Vlll (A.D. 215)


PAX
:angel:
 
Upvote 0

patricius79

Called to Jesus Through Mary
Sep 10, 2009
4,186
361
✟13,891.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The history of the EV belief didn't start a couple 100 years ago. The conflict about EV started about 100 years after Christ's ascension. At that time, there was one of two choices; EITHER one believed Mary gave birth normally in the normal way to Christ thus ending virginity OR Mary remained ever-virgin, giving birth somehow to something.

If one is taking the argument that the Catholic Church's beliefs about the Ever-Virgin Mary are Docetic, and then declining to accept Christ's most-emphatic words about eating His Flesh and Drinking His Blood.... how does that make sense?

I think that the Mother of God miraculously gave birth without any loss of her Virginal integrity, because she is the Immaculate Conception.

Likewise she conceived Christ physically without any intercourse with a man. Rather, she conceived the body of Christ by the Holy Spirit.

I'm not sure why one would accept the mystery of the Virginal conception of Christ without accepting the mystery of the Virgin's physical integrity in giving birth (and forever).

As JustinAngel seems to have pointed out repeatedly and with superior erudition, neither idea is more Docetic than the other.

All they both require is true faith in the power and holiness of God and His Mother, the highest of all creatures.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟58,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The word conceived in this context means "having become pregnant" and the law applies collectively to firstborn sons who are conceived by the seed of man. The same law applies to the firstborn creatures of the livestock which belong to the Jews.
Oops, you just contradicted yourself and confirmed the plain words of scripture.
 
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟58,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
If one is taking the argument that the Catholic Church's beliefs about the Ever-Virgin Mary are Docetic, and then declining to accept Christ's most-emphatic words about eating His Flesh and Drinking His Blood.... how does that make sense?

Originally, the EV belief necessitated docetic beliefs. That was their argument (EV meant an abnormal birth). Only 300 years later was the heresy changed to EV meant a birth somehow.

You won't find anyone in the early church (pre 250ad) who says Mary is EV and Christ was born normally with cord, afterbirth, water and blood.

In John 6:35, Christ defines what He means, to come to Him is eating, to believe in Him is drinking.
 
Upvote 0

patricius79

Called to Jesus Through Mary
Sep 10, 2009
4,186
361
✟13,891.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Originally, the EV belief necessitated docetic beliefs. That was their argument (EV meant an abnormal birth). Only 300 years later was the heresy changed to EV meant a birth somehow.

You won't find anyone in the early church (pre 250ad) who says Mary is EV and Christ was born normally with cord, afterbirth, water and blood.

In John 6:35, Christ defines what He means, to come to Him is eating, to believe in Him is drinking.

A miraculous birth is a real birth. As you seem to be admitting, even prior to 250 AD, there was testimony that Mary was a Virgin even in the act of giving birth. There's nothing Docetic about that. It's no more Docetic than believe in the Virginal conception of Christ, or believing that Christ had a real body yet was able to walk on water and pass through walls.

John 6:35--and John 6:41, and John 6:48, and John 6:51-- says that Jesus is the Bread of Life. Bread is a food. So in that verse, Jesus is saying that coming to Him means eating Him.

I assume the Docetists denied this, and denied John 6:53,John 6:54, John 6:55,John 6:56.

But the words of the Lord remain most emphatic and clear, requiring our faith.

I don't know all the history--obviously JustinAngel does better than anyone, and testifies most powerfully that Mary is Ever-Virgin-- but I know that Augustine, Cyril, Athanasius, Ambrose, Jerome, and the fathers taught that the Mother of God is Ever-Virgin: a Virgin, before, during, and after the birth of the God-man.

In both the case of denying the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, and in denying the Lord's most emphatic words about eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood, John 6:53, John 6:54, John 6:55, John 6:66, I think we have a tendency to deny the power of God to work miracles through natural creation.

Your argument keeps trying to set up an either/or between Mary giving birth naturally and giving birth supernaturally. But that reality is that God created both nature and grace, and is thus able to empower Mary to give birth physically without any loss of her bodily virginal integrity, just as she conceived Christ physically without sex.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
27,813
13,119
72
✟362,419.00
Faith
Non-Denom
John 6:35 says that Jesus is the Bread of Life. Bread is a food. So in that verse, Jesus is saying that coming to Him means eating Him.

I assume the Docetists denied this, and denied John 6:53,John 6:54, John 6:55,John 6:56.

But the words of the Lord remain most emphatic and clear, requiring our faith.

I don't know all the history--obviously JustinAngel does better than anyone, and testifies most powerfully that Mary is Ever-Virgin-- but I know that Augustine, Cyril, Athanasius, Ambrose, Jerome, and the fathers taught that the Mother of God is Ever-Virgin: a Virgin, before, during, and after the birth of the God-man.

In both the case of denying the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, and in denying the Lord's most emphatic words about eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood, John 6:53, John 6:54, John 6:55, John 6:66, I think we have a tendency to deny the power of God to work miracles through natural creation.

Your argument keeps trying to set up an either/or between Mary giving birth naturally and giving birth supernaturally. But that reality is that God created both nature and grace, and is thus able to empower Mary to give birth physically without any loss of her bodily virginal integrity, just as she conceived Christ physically without sex.

Jesus also said that He is the door. That means, of course, that He is made of wood with metal hardware.
 
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟58,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
A miraculous birth is a real birth. As you seem to be admitting, even prior to 250 AD, there was testimony that Mary was a Virgin even in the act of giving birth.

Yes, there was testimony of EV Mary; we find this in PoJames, GoPeter, Valentinus, and Marcion. The alternative was John--came by water and blood, or Paul--made of a woman, or Tertullian--natural birth in normal way, or Clement of Alexandria--Mary did not remain in the childbirth state, or Cyril of Jerusalem--female virgins emulate Mary's 9-months.

What you won't find at that stage is anyone saying it was a normal birth with cord, placenta, water and blood and Mary remained a virgin. The two ideas were completely separate.

There's nothing Docetic about that. It's no more Docetic than believe in the Virginal conception of Christ, or believing that Christ had a real body yet was able to walk on water and pass through walls.

Christ performed miracles only after His coming of age (30, as High Priest). There's nothing of any miracles prior to that, except from non-scriptural material.

John 6:35--and John 6:41, and John 6:48, and John 6:51-- says that Jesus is the Bread of Life. Bread is a food. So in that verse, Jesus is saying that coming to Him means eating Him.

Correct. Come to Him, believe on Him, the bread of life, is eating Him. Eating Him does not mean bite His flesh, as those thought who walked off.

I don't know all the history--obviously JustinAngel does better than anyone, and testifies most powerfully that Mary is Ever-Virgin-- but I know that Augustine, Cyril, Athanasius, Ambrose, Jerome, and the fathers taught that the Mother of God is Ever-Virgin: a Virgin, before, during, and after the birth of the God-man.

The dogma is very clear about DURING. That's the crux of the argument some 1900 years ago. On one side was Valentinus arguing for an abnormal birth so Mary remained a virgin and on the other was Tertullian arguing for a normal birth so Mary's virginity ended.

Again, only centuries later has the melded idea of a miraculous birth somehow so Mary remained a virgin somehow entered the minds of men. After all, it wouldn't do to have Valentinus' idea that denies that Christ came in the flesh clearly in Christianity. By all means, they thought, retain the EV as more important.

In both the case of denying the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, and in denying the Lord's most emphatic words about eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood, John 6:53, John 6:54, John 6:55, John 6:66, I think we have a tendency to deny the power of God to work miracles through natural creation.

Your argument keeps trying to set up an either/or between Mary giving birth naturally and giving birth supernaturally. But that reality is that God created both nature and grace, and is thus able to empower Mary to give birth physically without any loss of her bodily virginal integrity, just as she conceived Christ physically without sex.

God works miracles. We see Christ do this after He comes of age, but not before, and certainly not as He was in the birth canal being brought forth God-with-us.
 
Upvote 0

justinangel

Newbie
Feb 19, 2011
1,301
197
Btwn heaven & earth
✟13,949.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Christ performed miracles only after His coming of age (30, as High Priest). There's nothing of any miracles prior to that, except from non-scriptural material.

So what you're saying is that Jesus wasn't a divine Person in the flesh until he was 30. If I'm not mistaken, this presupposition is unscriptural and smacks of heresy. Adoptionism is the Christological idea that Jesus was born human and became divine when he was adopted by God at his baptism. Scripture does not record everything Jesus did in his entire life. And what is recorded about him prior to his baptism and the beginning of his public ministry is only that which is of primary Christological and soteriological significance.

And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.
John 21, 25


The Virgin Mary's conceiving and bearing (giving birth to) Jesus was a secret work of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit operated supernaturally to create the son of man in Mary's womb from her humanity. Once Jesus was conceived by the immediate agency of the Holy Spirit, he developed by the mediate agency of secondary causes according to the natural laws that God had set in place for the procreation of human life. The Greek word gennoa (to conceive) refers to the male active principle of begetting human life. But the Holy Spirit worked apart from the male principle by causing the conception of Himself. The conception is the fruit of the Holy Sprit in Mary's womb. He set in motion the designed course of Mary's pregnancy, but without male seed. Jesus acquired his physical human attributes from Mary, the female passive principle of begetting human life. He was the woman's seed (Gen. 3:15). Jesus was not formed out of the substance of the Holy Spirit, who served simply as the efficient cause of his humanity. His flesh and blood were not of ethereal matter. Once the gestation period was complete, the Holy Spirit acted as the immediate cause of Jesus' birth which, as a result, was supernatural as well. There is no division in the common activity of the Trinity, So in the hypostatic order, the divine Word and the Holy Spirit worked in unison to beget the son of man.


Come to Him, believe on Him, the bread of life, is eating Him. Eating Him does not mean bite His flesh, as those thought who walked off.

In John 6: 23-53, the original Greek word phago ("to eat" or "physically consume") is used nine times. So a symbolic interpretation is out of the question. Physical consumption is strongly emphasized here. In John 54, 56, 57, and 58, the evangelist uses an even more literal verb. The Greek word trogo means "to gnaw", "chew" or "crunch". The word is used on two other occasions in the NT (Mt. 24:38; Jn. 13:18) to literally mean gnaw on and chew meat. So even if the word phago might have a spiritual application, it doesn't when combined with the word trogo. There is not one verse in Scripture where trogo is used figuratively. In John 6:55, Jesus stresses that his flesh is "real" food and his blood is "real" drink. The Greek word John uses is alethes which means "really" and "truly". It is used by the speaker only when there are doubts concerning the reality of what he means to say. The Jews already knew Jesus was speaking literally even before Jesus used the word “trogo” when they asked: “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” (John 6:52).They wouldn't have asked this question by having doubted what they understood Jesus meant to say if they thought Jesus was speaking figuratively. The Greek word for flesh is sarx. It always literally means flesh. See John 1:13,14; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2; Matt. 16:17; 19:5; 24:22; 26:41; Mark 10:8; 13:20; 14:38; and Luke 3:6; 24:39. The Jews knew that Jesus literally meant his own flesh, which explains why many of his own followers decided to leave him at this point. They didn't walk away because Jesus failed to provide a spiritual explanation. Jesus would have provided an explanation if he had spoken figuratively. He always explained the meanings of his parables, didn't he? Instead he asked his disciples if what he had said offended them (6:61). He even asked the Twelve if they wanted to leave, too (6:67). No, many who followed Jesus deserted him because they knew exactly what he literally meant which they found hard to believe for lack of faith, just as Protestants do today. They asked in John 6:60: "Who can listen to it?" In other words, "I can't believe my ears!"

Now Protestants who voice their objection to this Catholic dogma and attempt to refute it cite the phrase "the spirit gives life" (Jn. 6:63) to show that Jesus was speaking symbolically. However, Jesus used this phrase to stress that his disciples needed supernatural faith as opposed to human reasoning to understand and accept what he truly was saying. He even associated his disciples' disbelief with Judas' betrayal (6:64, 70). In John 6:3, Jesus draws a comparison between the spirit and the flesh only to teach about the necessity of having supernatural faith as opposed to a natural understanding. There is not one place in all of Scripture where the word spirit is to be taken symbolically as an expression of figurative language beyond the context of faith. "
Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit" (Jn 3:6). The spirit has to do with that which is supernatural, flesh with that which is natural. The juxtaposition of the two mark two literal distinctions which oppose each other. In In 1 Cor. 2:14,3:3; Rom 8:5; and Gal. 5:17, for instance, Paul uses the spirit-flesh paradigm to teach that unspiritual people have not received the gift of faith, but are still in the flesh. Their natural passions keep them in bondage.


"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again."
Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110)


"For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh."
Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165)

PAX
:angel:
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

justinangel

Newbie
Feb 19, 2011
1,301
197
Btwn heaven & earth
✟13,949.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Politics
CA-Conservatives
The dogma is very clear about DURING. That's the crux of the argument some 1900 years ago. On one side was Valentinus arguing for an abnormal birth so Mary remained a virgin and on the other was Tertullian arguing for a normal birth so Mary's virginity ended.

Again, only centuries later has the melded idea of a miraculous birth somehow so Mary remained a virgin somehow entered the minds of men. After all, it wouldn't do to have Valentinus' idea that denies that Christ came in the flesh clearly in Christianity. By all means, they thought, retain the EV as more important.

Confirmation Bias (Myside Bias)

The tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's beliefs or hypotheses, while paying disproportionately less attention to information that supports alternative possibilities. It is a type of cognitive bias and a systematic error of inductive reasoning. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way.

Valentinius believed that Jesus had a supernatural body which was designed by the eternal craftsman and then passed into Mary. It's only because he was made of ethereal matter that he wasn't born naturally. Just as the person of Jesus passed into Mary in an ethereal way ("like water through a tube") so he passed out of her in the same manner. His view of the incarnation differed from the orthodox Christian view of his time, that the conception of Jesus was effected by the immediate agency of the Holy Spirit, and that he developed normally according to the mediate natural laws of procreation in the womb. Ignatius of Antioch, Aristides, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Clement of Alexandria (who I've already quoted) believed in the miraculous birth of Christ which was effected by the immediate agency of the Holy Spirit like his conception was; only they didn't believe that Jesus was designed and made of ethereal matter by God and then planted pre-made in Mary's womb through the agency of the Holy Spirt to develop in ethereal form. Nor did they believe that Jesus was made of the substance of the Holy Spirit, but of Mary, albeit a supernatural conception and birth. The virginitas in partu was a traditional Marian doctrine of the Church as early as the 1st century.

Because of his tendency to deviate from the orthodox norm in his speculative theology, Tertullian was eventually excommunicated for espousing the Montanist heresy. Valentinius was actually excommunicated for his Trinitarian and Christological views, but not for having argued for a supernatural birth. It was the raison d 'etre (the reason for his belief in the supernatural birth of Jesus) that was anathematized.. At least he eventually recanted and was reconciled with the Catholic Church before he died. Alas, the same can't be said for Tertullian.


PAX
:angel:
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0