Did the Virgin Mary remain a virgin?

justinangel · Dec 13, 2015

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

How on earth am I suggesting a dual nature - whatever you mean by that? :scratch:

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

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

Same Greek word. Came by water and blood.

Same Greek word, but it doesn't mean "to be born" in either verse. You're begging the question.

"Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life as a ransom for many."
Matthew 20, 28

Same original verb erchomai in the past tense: ēlthen ἦλθεν

Jesus came into the world to give his life as a ransom for many: by blood.

They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. “Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.”
Acts 1, 10-11

Jesus shall come back the same way in his glorified flesh. But this doesn't imply any rebirth. Same original verb erchomai in the future tense: ἐλεύσεται eleusetai.

Jesus, as the one whom he claimed to, the Anointed One of Yahweh, the one sent by Yahweh, the Son of Yahweh, the one who came from his God, is the true foundation upon which our faith should be built. “Other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, Jesus Christ.”
1 Corinthians 3, 11

Did Jesus come from God by water and blood? Same original verb in the past tense: ἐλθὼν elthōn

erchomai: accompany, appear, bring, come, enter, fall out, go, grow

The word never means "to be born". God became man to redeem the world at His conception in Mary's womb, not when He was born.

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

That's only because you keep repeating yourself, as you continue to grasp any straw you can find to keep your pet theory afloat.

:angel:

justinangel · Dec 13, 2015

JoeP222w said:
It does not matter what you believe. What matters is, is what you believe true. Sexual intercourse, within the covenant bond of marriage between one man and one woman, is not inherently sinful, as defined by God. And the Bible never presents that "true spirituality" is attained through abstinence from sexual intercourse.

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

Moses remained continent for the rest of his life after God appeared to Him in the burning bush.

How many women besides Mary have been chosen to be the mother of our Lord Jesus? You overlook Mary's covenant with God which was redolent of a marriage by the fact that Jesus was begotten by the Holy Spirit and Mary. Neither of them were fornicators. Nor does an All Holy God take advantage of women. We must consider what you're saying in light of the Mosaic moral Law which was instituted by God Himself.

Moreover, Mary calls herself the "handmaid of the Lord" (Luke 1:38) which is very significant. Under Jewish law, a master had the right to take his servant girl as his wife (Ruth and Boaz). This right superseded other claims. Mary therefore saw herself as having to accept God's proposal as a servant girl who accedes to her master's betrothal. "The Holy Spirit shall come upon you, and the power of [ רשות] the Most High will overshadow [ להאפיל ] you" (Luke 1:35). Technically she was now espoused to God. This would have voided her betrothal to St. Joseph, and so if she had had conjugal relations with him, she would have committed adultery. The words I've highlighted in bold serve as Hebrew euphemisms for conjugal relations between husband and wife: the power or authority of a man over a woman who belongs to him, and his covering her with his cloak or shadow to hide her nakedness. Tallith, another Aramaic-Hebrew word for cloak, is derived from tellal, meaning "shadow". Thus, "to spread one's cloak (tallith) over a woman" means to cohabit with her (Kiddushin 18b, see also Mekhilta on Exodus 21:8).The angel Gabriel was speaking to Mary in Hebrew-Aramaic, and as a religiously devout Jew, she understood that she would be espoused to God and the implications of being His own possession. Joseph must have understood this himself, too.

Scripture describes Joseph as a righteous man and a devout keeper of the Law. Under Mosaic law, if a man's wife (Mary was espoused to Joseph as his legal wife when the angel appeared to her.) was found to be pregnant by another person, the husband was forbidden to have relations with her from that point on. Further, adultery carried with it a sense of defilement, so that a woman who had known contact with another man, even if by force, was considered no longer fit to be visited by her husband (Genesis 49:4; 2 Samuel 20:3, 16:21-22; Book of Jubilees 33:6-9; Epstein, Marriage Laws in the Biblical Talmud, p.51).

Hence, in Jewish law, marital relations were good, but for a variety of reasons they could be set aside. As we have seen, one reason would be that the wife had been found to be an adulteress. She was forever forbidden to have conjugal relations with her husband and her adulterous lover. In such a situation, a man was never allowed to have marital relations with his wife again. True, he could divorce her, but that was not mandatory either. He could always turn her out and marry someone else because polygamy was permitted under the Torah.

Finally, the Talmud permitted Rabbis to forego relations with their wives for a time in order to concentrate on their studies. Priests were also forbidden to have marital relations with their wives while they were serving at the Temple. This was most especially true of the High Priest on Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement) when he was called to enter the Holy of Holies and commune with God when He appeared above the Mercy Seat on the Ark between the two cherubim. He was actually sequestered apart from his wife during Roshashana so that he would not violate this law which was kept enforced even after the Ark was lost. The rationale for this was that marital relations were a profane action that would be inappropriate in conjunction with most sacred places and ceremonies where God dwelled in the Temple. Recall how angry Jesus became at the money lenders who were using the Temple as a place to make business. Anyway, it was not that marital relations were evil. They were just inappropriate given the sacred place and occasion. If this were so for the High Priest, how could Mary and Joseph possibly have cohabited together with God in the same house without experiencing shame given their religious sensibilities? The High Priest wasn't even allowed to go home for several days, so that he would remain chaste during the solemn occasion on which he would be communing with God. Mary and Joseph weren't modern day evangelical Christians, so you mustn't expect them to have seen things entirely as you do.

Later I passed by, and when I looked at you and saw that you were old enough for love, I spread the corner of my garment over you and covered your naked body. I gave you my solemn oath and entered into a covenant with you, declares the Sovereign LORD, and you became mine.
Ezekiel 16, 8

A garden enclosed is my sister, my spouse; a spring dried up, a fountain sealed.
Songs of Solomon 4, 12

Albion · Dec 13, 2015

Rick Otto said:
I see.
What we need to believe in is "MYSTERY".
Write it on my forehead.

The more fabulous the idea and the less comprehensible it is, the more devout you are to insist that it's true, right?

Albion · Dec 13, 2015

justinangel said:
Does Luke record Mary having gone into labour or that a mid-wife was present to assist her?

I'm interested to see that the idea of a birth that took place through Mary's side without any physical changes is appealing to you ALTHOUGH there is not a smidgeon of evidence in Scripture to that effect, but when someone says that it was a normal birth--as everything in Scripture indicates--you think it's a good argument to say "Where's the evidence that it was NOT miraculous!" :doh:

Rick Otto · Dec 13, 2015

Albion said:
The more fabulous the idea and the less comprehensible it is, the more devout you are to insist that it's true, right?

It dignifies blissfull ignorance, resolving intellectual and emotional conflicts under a comforting facade of unity.

justinangel · Dec 13, 2015

Albion said:
I'm interested to see that the idea of a birth that took place through Mary's side without any physical changes is appealing to you ALTHOUGH there is not a smidgeon of evidence in Scripture to that effect, but when someone says that it was a normal birth--as everything in Scripture indicates--you think it's a good argument to say "Where's the evidence that it was NOT miraculous!"

What makes you think I believe Jesus passed through Mary's side? And how do you see that everything in Scripture indicates a normal birth? The Songs of Solomon and the prophecies of Isaiah point to a miraculous birth. One must also consider the parallels Luke draws between Mary and Daughter Zion and the Ark of the Covenant. And, of course, we have to keep in mind how the Jews defined marriage in light of the precepts of the moral Mosaic Law. From a theological and a religious point of view everything in Scripture points to a miraculous birth and the PVM. Finally, I haven't been asking where the evidence that it wasn't a miraculous birth is, but rather providing reasons for a miraculous birth and the PVM - not that we have to keep looking for evidence either way. The Catholic Church has professed believe in the PVM and a miraculous birth since the apostolic age, so it's a little too late for you to start an enquiry with your book in hand. :yawn:

justinangel · Dec 13, 2015

Rick Otto said:
It dignifies blissfull ignorance, resolving intellectual and emotional conflicts under a comforting facade of unity.

I see you're still suffering from emotional conflicts over Sister Theresa. Your cheap and unintelligible sarcasm indicates that. How is it that you go by the name of Christian? :scratch:

Rick Otto · Dec 13, 2015

justinangel said:
I see you're still suffering from emotional conflicts over Sister Theresa. Your cheap and unintelligible sarcasm indicates that. How is it that you go by the name of Christian?

Allow me to just say,... not the same way as you.

Albion · Dec 14, 2015

justinangel said:
What makes you think I believe Jesus passed through Mary's side?

That legend was one of the old speculations that led to the teaching that she gave birth like every other woman but yet, somehow, was "ever-Virgin." If you have a different, favorite legend, the principle is the same and your reasoning is the same, i.e. *This would be a neat teaching if true, and Scripture doesn't say anything about it, so it's fair game for being made a doctrine etc.*

bbbbbbb · Dec 14, 2015

Albion said:
That legend was one of the old speculations that led to the teaching that she gave birth like every other woman but yet, somehow, was "ever-Virgin." If you have a different, favorite legend, the principle is the same and your reasoning is the same, i.e. *This would be a neat teaching if true, and Scripture doesn't say anything about it, so it's fair game for being made a doctrine etc.*

It is quite amazing how many doctrines can be spun from the silence of scripture.

Rick Otto · Dec 14, 2015

bbbbbbb said:
It is quite amazing how many doctrines can be spun from the silence of scripture.

Yes. And the cheap sarcasm of the Sister Theresa comment being followed by an accusation of cheap sarcasm is priceless.

justinangel · Dec 15, 2015

Albion said:
That legend was one of the old speculations that led to the teaching that she gave birth like every other woman but yet, somehow, was "ever-Virgin." If you have a different, favorite legend, the principle is the same and your reasoning is the same, i.e. *This would be a neat teaching if true, and Scripture doesn't say anything about it, so it's fair game for being made a doctrine etc.*

Can you provide the source or any documentation of this so-called legend? And even if there were a legend about Jesus proceeding from Mary's side, it would only be because belief in the miraculous birth of Jesus had already existed. The Catholic Church has never universally professed belief in any particular mannner by which Jesus came forth, but only that he never passed through the birth canal as offspring normally do. There are many legends about Jesse James, but only because he actually existed. I'm afraid you have committed the Questionable Cause fallacy:

1. A (belief in Jesus being born from the side of Mary) and B (belief in the miraculous birth of Jesus) regularly occur together.
2. Therefore A is the cause of B.

This fallacy requires that there is not, in fact, a common cause that actually causes both A and B: a miracle by Divine intervention.

I must say, you're very adept at sophistry, but poor at logic. :sorry:

Pay heed to the early Church Fathers who bear testimony to the Church's universal belief in Christ's miraculous birth. It's a liitle too late for you to open an inquiry, not that what you think really matters.

And the Lord said to me: This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it: because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it, and it shall be shut. Only the prince himself may sit inside this gateway to feast in the LORD's presence. But he may come and go only through the entry room of the gateway."
Ezekiel 44, 2-3

The Prince of Peace hadn't left through the gate, just as he hadn't passed through it to enter Mary's womb, for he was Mary's seed. He left Mary, not by passing through the gate, but by the entry room of the gateway. He came and went only through the entry room of the gateway. And since the gate shall remain shut, Mary shan't conceive offspring by the seed of Joseph. No man shall pass through the gate, including Jesus, who simply entered by it when he was miraculously conceived - through the entry room of the gateway. Does Luke tell you that Jesus was conceived vaginally? Sorry, but the Virgin shall conceive and give birth to a Son.

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

In Scripture, signs are associated with miracles and Divine intervention.

Before she travailed, she brought forth; before her pain came, she was delivered of a man child.
Isaiah 66, 7

Scripture doesn't say anything about Mary going into labour and experiencing pain before she gives birth to Jesus. It actually tells us what is contrary to your personal belief.

:angel:

Standing Up · Dec 15, 2015

justinangel said:
Can you provide the source or any documentation of this so-called legend? And even if there were a legend about Jesus proceeding from Mary's side, it would only be because belief in the miraculous birth of Jesus had already existed.

We've already been over and over the source of the idea birth from Mary's side. It's the PoJ and/or AoIsaiah. Both have a baby appearing from nowhere. PoJames goes so far as to say Mary remained in the puerperal state. There was no afterbirth. The baby just appears at her side.

Rick Otto · Dec 15, 2015

Obfuscating, is he?

justinangel · Dec 15, 2015

Standing Up said:
We've already been over and over the source of the idea birth from Mary's side. It's the PoJ and/or AoIsaiah. Both have a baby appearing from nowhere. PoJames goes so far as to say Mary remained in the puerperal state. There was no afterbirth. The baby just appears at her side.

The PoJ and the Ascension of Isaiah do not relate that Jesus passed through Mary's side. Nor do they state that Mary remained in the childbirth state. On the contrary, they state that Mary was found to be a virgin after she gave birth to Jesus. In other words, she didn't give birth as mothers naturally do. The signs pointed to a miracle. I've pointed this out to you already, or have you forgotten? I never heard anything about Jesus passing through the side of Mary until you brought it up. So what is your source, if there is any? Could it be your imagination?

The Nativity Gospel of James, Chapter 19

(12) So the midwife went with him. (13) And they
stood near the cave and a dark cloud was hovering
over the cave. (14) And the midwife said, "My
soul glorifies this day, for today my eyes have
seen a miracle: salvation has come to Israel."

(15) And immediately, the cloud withdrew from the
cave and a great light appeared in the cave so that
their eyes could not bear it. (16) And a little while
later the same light withdrew until an infant
appeared. And he came and took the breast of his
mother, Mary.

(17) And the midwife cried out and said, "How
great this day is for me, for I have seen this new
miracle."

(18) And the midwife departed from the cave and
met Salome and said to her, "Salome, Salome, I
have to describe this new miracle for you. A virgin
has given birth, although her body does not allow
it."

Nothing about Jesus coming from the side of Mary. There is only a bright cloud which obscures a miraculous delivery. The midwife has witnessed a miraculous birth, a virginal birth. Jesus has been born, although there are no bodily signs on Mary having given birth. The fact that Mary isn't found to be in the childbirth state doesn't allow for a birth, although there is one. So the birth of Jesus is attributed to a divine miracle.

Ascension of Isaiah, Chapter 11

It came to pass that when they were alone that Mary straight-way looked with her eyes and saw a small babe, and she was astonished.

9. And after she had been astonished, her womb was found as formerly before she had conceived.

10. And when her husband Joseph said unto her: "What has astonished thee?" his eyes were opened and he saw the infant and praised God, because into his portion God had come.

11. And a voice came to them: "Tell this vision to no one."

12. And the story regarding the infant was noised broad in Bethlehem.

13. Some said: "The Virgin Mary hath borne a child, before she was married two months."

14. And many said: "She has not borne a child, nor has a midwife gone up (to her), nor have we heard the cries of (labour) pains." And they were all blinded respecting Him and they all knew regarding Him, though they knew not whence He was.

Again, nothing about Jesus coming from the side of Mary. So what is your source?

Standing Up · Dec 16, 2015

justinangel said:
Nothing about Jesus coming from the side of Mary. There is only a bright cloud which obscures a miraculous delivery. The midwife has witnessed a miraculous birth, a virginal birth. Jesus has been born, although there are no bodily signs on Mary having given birth. The fact that Mary isn't found to be in the childbirth state doesn't allow for a birth, although there is one. So the birth of Jesus is attributed to a divine miracle.

Why does the midwife believe Mary is still a virgin? There's a baby, but there is no afterbirth. "No bodily signs", as you agree. "Her body doesn't allow it." is your translation. Mary is still in the childbirth state. Why is this such a problem for you?

justinangel · Dec 16, 2015

Standing Up said:
?
Why does the midwife believe Mary is still a virgin? There's a baby, but there is no afterbirth. "No bodily signs", as you agree. "Her body doesn't allow it." is your translation. Mary is still in the childbirth state. Why is this such a problem for you?

How can Mary still be in the childbirth state after giving birth to Jesus and there is no afterbirth? You're making absolutely no sense. You see a problem where there isn't one. Like Clement of Alexandria said: "She brought forth and yet had not brought forth". Jesus was truly born - but miraculously. You believe that Jesus was conceived miraculously, don't you? If so, do you also believe that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary through her side?

By the way, I'm still waiting for you to provide a source that relates Jesus came from the side of Mary.The PoJ and the Ascension of Isaiah don't record such an event. But what they do record is simply a miraculous birth. The midwife in the PoJ herself exclaims that the birth was a "miracle". That's all we we are told.

:angel:

justinangel · Dec 16, 2015

Rick Otto said:
Obfuscating, is he?

What I say is obfuscating only to those who can't see the difference between sense and nonsense.

:angel:

Albion · Dec 16, 2015

justinangel said:
What I say is obfuscating only to those who can't see the difference between sense and nonsense.

and all the host of heaven flapped their ears in approval. (?)

Standing Up · Dec 16, 2015

justinangel said:
How can Mary still be in the childbirth state after giving birth to Jesus and there is no afterbirth?

Seriously? You don't get it even though you say it? Childbirth (puerperal) means an infant and an infant in a womb, attached to a cord, placenta, water and blood.

Did the Virgin Mary remain a virgin?

Did the Virgin Mary remain a virgin?

Yes

No

Newbie

Newbie

Facilitator

Facilitator

The Dude Abides

Newbie

Newbie

The Dude Abides

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

The Dude Abides

Newbie

On and on

The Dude Abides

Newbie

On and on

Newbie

Newbie

Facilitator

On and on

Similar threads