A Necessity - 4 Marian Doctrines

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Deleted.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

She doesn't look like a Queen of Heaven with a crown on her head. How do you know that the woman described here is really Mary?

How do you know she is not??

 

[JoeT]

She doesn't look like a Queen of Heaven with a crown on her head. How do you know that the woman described here is really Mary?

The woman is the "ark of his testament". Next we see a woman "being with child". The twelve stars represent the 12 tribes of Judaism, and the 12 Apostles. She stands on the moon, a reflective object that reflects the light of the son. She gave birth to the Christ our Lord and the Personification of the Living Covenant. Hence, this is a vision of Mary, the Mother of the Church, seen in heaven.

JoeT

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Deleted.

 

[JoeT]

But this same woman was persecuted and pursued by the dragon and fled into the wilderness. This is not a description of Mary.

That's right and the Church will be persecuted for some time. It's understandable she would remain below the radar till 325 AD.

JoeT

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I have now realised that this is a protected forum for those who sincerely believe in the Marian doctrines. I should not have debated here, and I apologise for breaching the forum guidelines. I therefore will not be making any further contribution to the discussion out of respect to the Catholic members here. I have deleted all my posts in this thread.

 

[prodromos]

I have now realised that this is a protected forum for those who sincerely believe in the Marian doctrines. I should not have debated here, and I apologise for breaching the forum guidelines. I therefore will not be making any further contribution to the discussion out of respect to the Catholic members here.

The rules are no different here than the rest of the forums. Be respectful, don't flame or goad, back up your statements. Where did you get the idea it was 'protected'?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

The rules are no different here than the rest of the forums. Be respectful, don't flame or goad, back up your statements. Where did you get the idea it was 'protected'?

I was alerted to it by the moderator.

 

[JoeT]

Not accepting the Marian doctrines, our faith unravels and salvation falls like a series of dominoes, soon one is lost. One of those is the the rejection of the Ever Virgin Mary.

In doing so we deny the existence of the Trinity. Let me further suggest that denying the Blessed Virgin Mary as mother of God, we reject Jesus is a real man. If we deny Christ was not born of an Immaculate Mary we disavow Christ the Incarnate God. There is no salvation in these prospects – whether it is a ‘once saved, always saved’, or a ‘kinda saved’ proposition, not even a wannabe saved proposition. Avowing belief in the Trinity, there is an imperative in right reasoning of faith with the Blessed Mary being our life, our sweetness, and our hope; every bit immaculate, Ever Virgin. “The appearance of a truly Mariology is Christology itself as a radical as the faith of the Church requires. The appearance of a truly Marian awareness serves as the touch stone indicating whether or not the Christological substance is fully present”. [Ratzinger, Daughter Zion, 35]

There are two ways we can look at Mary figured as a type of Ark. As you mentioned, she was like the vessel of Noah and she was like Moses’ Ark of the Covenant.

MARY AS A TYPE OF VESSEL THAT TRAVERSES OVER DARK WATERS AS NOAH’S ARK CARRIED MANKIND OVER THE DARK WATERS OF DEATH:

In Jewish symbology, 'dark waters' represented death and sin - it’s a cultural memory of the flood. As you might recall in Noah’s day people where “eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, even till that day," all sinning right up till the day of the deluge. Deep and dark waters brought them death, only Noah escaped in a vessel that brought the just man and eight others to the shores of life. As a living symbol Mary was the vessel that carried Christ across the dark waters of sin since Adam’s fall. Being Immaculate, never having known original sin or actual sin she brought the New Adam safely on to the shores of our redemption. Singularly graced, Mary, who was protected from sin, bore the flesh of Christ, becoming the vessel that carries the New Adam to our current age, free of original sin with original justice.

I favor this typology in many ways because it shows God’s plan for salvation through Mary who is singularly graced.

A TYPE OF TABERNACLE - ARK

Moses was ordered by God to build a Tabernacle. It contained an outer court and inner court. [Cf. Ex 25-31; 39-40]. Moses “commissioned” Beseleel, to be the architect of the tabernacle and its furnishings; he was the son of Uri and the grandson of Hur. Beseleel along with Ooliab built the tabernacle. In viewing the Tabernacle moving from outside toward the inside we find a structure surrounded by a wall. Only one gate faces the east, a narrow gate; prefiguring Christ’s warning, “Narrow is the gate of righteousness.” The gate opens into the outer court in which we find the sacrificial altar and the bronze laver. On this altar is where the immolation of the perfect Lamb took place sacrificed. The inner court has a antechamber containing the Menorah, the Altar of Incense, the Table of Shewbread (otherwise known as The Proposition Loaves), behind the veil was the Holy of Holies. In this most Holy place was the Ark of the Covenant. The gate to the new Covenant Ark of the covenant is closed, she becomes the gateway for salvation.

What is that gate of the sanctuary, that outer gate facing the East and remaining closed…? Is not Mary the gate through whom the Redeemer entered the world? … Holy Mary is the gate of which it is written … .[ Synodal Letters 44] (She) is the good gate that was closed and was not opened. Christ passed through it, but he did not open it .[ St. Ambrose, De Institutione Virginis 8, 57]​

You might recall God took residence in a place made holy by his commands to keep the Tabernacle clean. The Ark of the Testimony (Exodus 25:16, 22; 26:33, etc.), the Ark of the Testament (Exodus 30:26), the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord (Numbers 10:33; Deuteronomy 10:8, etc.), the Ark of the Covenant (Joshua 3:6, etc.), the Ark of God (1 Samuel 3:3, etc.), the Ark of the Lord (1 Samuel 4:6, etc.) was the Incarnate Word of God. The Hebrew would never suggest that it reside in an unholy place. Why then would Jesus, who is both man and God, the Word Incarnate, reside in any less a holy place? , The visible presence of God overshadowed the Ark of Moses; "And the glory of the Lord dwelt upon Sinai, covering it with a cloud six days: and the seventh day he called him out of the midst of the cloud” [Exodus 24:16] Just as Mary was called out and overshadowed. When the Ark carried in David’s Jubilee David Jumped for Joy just as the baby in jumped in the womb of Elizabeth when the Ark in the person of Mary passed by. [Cf. Luke 1:44] It is said that Moses Ark carried the Covenant Law of God. Mary was the Ark of the New Covenant of God’s love and mercy.

The spouse taken by God was made both spiritually and carnally pure. The flesh of the woman was purified and made immaculate, kept perpetually pure, though the grace of God, just as the Moses kept the tabernacle clean. The chaste spouse of God she was protected from anything impure touching the Ark incase it defile the temple God made of her. Mary vowed to remain the chaste spouse dedicating herself as the "handmaid" of the Lord in complete submission to her spouse [Luke 1:38] Not only was Mary chaste, so too was Joseph. Just as Uzzah put his hand on the Ark and died, Joseph being a just, knew not to lay hands on Mary as possessing the Ark of Covenant would mean death. We can presume therefore, that Joseph was also chaste as well as Mary.

The Ark was the birth place of the Jewish religion as well as our Catholic faith. Christ said “Do not think that I am come to destroy the law of prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.” He came to live, with perfection, the consummate the Old Covenant and to establish the New Covenant.

Where did the Holy Spirit put the New Covenant word-in the Ark of the Covenant or in a Book? Christ, the New Covenant, was placed in the Ark of the New Covenant, the womb of Mary, the residence of God. (Cf. Luke 1, Rev 11:19, Rev 12:1) God was infused into man to becoming Jesus Christ. Christ was one person with two natures, one of God, the other of man. Thus after a proper time, Christ was born of the Blessed Mary as foretold by the angel; “Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb and shalt bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great and shall be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father: and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever. And of his kingdom there shall be no end.” (Luke 1: 31-33) Eventually, as light passes through a window He passes through the veil, and a veil not rent. Christ now becomes like the Menorah to the world whose Word fell on the Altar of Incense to rise pleasingly to God, whose light fell on the loaves of proposition (likened to the Twelve Apostles). Under Moses’ law, the loaves were consumed by the high Priest who were said to receive Divine knowledge. Likewise the Twelve receive a Divine Hope born out in the knowledge received in the vision of the Divine. Jesus Christ.

The imperative is there as a touchstone, without the Marian doctrins our faith in Christ becomes unraveled and lost in the weeds

JoeT

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Think about it, either there was a spousal relationship or God forced Himself on Mary making her child somehow illegitimate.

JoeT

So that makes Mary an adultress since she was a spouse to God and to Joseph. Or is that an allowable instance of polygamy?

What kind of spouse? The only definition of "spouse" we see in Scripture is between a human man and a human woman. All other uses of the word are symbolic. God is spirit. Spirit cannot be espoused to humanity. I don't recall anything being forced on Mary. She willingly accepted God's will. You are anthropomorphizing when you suggest Jesus could somehow be illegitimate. To human eyes, he was since Joseph was not his father but illegitimacy only applies to children born out of wedlock between two humans. That is not the case here.

You cannot apply the terms of human marriage to the Holy Spirit conceiving a child in Mary.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Not accepting the Marian doctrines, our faith unravels and salvation falls like a series of dominoes, soon one is lost. One of those is the the rejection of the Ever Virgin Mary.

In doing so we deny the existence of the Trinity. Let me further suggest that denying the Blessed Virgin Mary as mother of God, we reject Jesus is a real man. If we deny Christ was not born of an Immaculate Mary we disavow Christ the Incarnate God. There is no salvation in these prospects – whether it is a ‘once saved, always saved’, or a ‘kinda saved’ proposition, not even a wannabe saved proposition. Avowing belief in the Trinity, there is an imperative in right reasoning of faith with the Blessed Mary being our life, our sweetness, and our hope; every bit immaculate, Ever Virgin. “The appearance of a truly Mariology is Christology itself as a radical as the faith of the Church requires. The appearance of a truly Marian awareness serves as the touch stone indicating whether or not the Christological substance is fully present”. [Ratzinger, Daughter Zion, 35]

There are two ways we can look at Mary figured as a type of Ark. As you mentioned, she was like the vessel of Noah and she was like Moses’ Ark of the Covenant.

MARY AS A TYPE OF VESSEL THAT TRAVERSES OVER DARK WATERS AS NOAH’S ARK CARRIED MANKIND OVER THE DARK WATERS OF DEATH:

In Jewish symbology, 'dark waters' represented death and sin - it’s a cultural memory of the flood. As you might recall in Noah’s day people where “eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, even till that day," all sinning right up till the day of the deluge. Deep and dark waters brought them death, only Noah escaped in a vessel that brought the just man and eight others to the shores of life. As a living symbol Mary was the vessel that carried Christ across the dark waters of sin since Adam’s fall. Being Immaculate, never having known original sin or actual sin she brought the New Adam safely on to the shores of our redemption. Singularly graced, Mary, who was protected from sin, bore the flesh of Christ, becoming the vessel that carries the New Adam to our current age, free of original sin with original justice.

I favor this typology in many ways because it shows God’s plan for salvation through Mary who is singularly graced.

A TYPE OF TABERNACLE - ARK

Moses was ordered by God to build a Tabernacle. It contained an outer court and inner court. [Cf. Ex 25-31; 39-40]. Moses “commissioned” Beseleel, to be the architect of the tabernacle and its furnishings; he was the son of Uri and the grandson of Hur. Beseleel along with Ooliab built the tabernacle. In viewing the Tabernacle moving from outside toward the inside we find a structure surrounded by a wall. Only one gate faces the east, a narrow gate; prefiguring Christ’s warning, “Narrow is the gate of righteousness.” The gate opens into the outer court in which we find the sacrificial altar and the bronze laver. On this altar is where the immolation of the perfect Lamb took place sacrificed. The inner court has a antechamber containing the Menorah, the Altar of Incense, the Table of Shewbread (otherwise known as The Proposition Loaves), behind the veil was the Holy of Holies. In this most Holy place was the Ark of the Covenant. The gate to the new Covenant Ark of the covenant is closed, she becomes the gateway for salvation.

What is that gate of the sanctuary, that outer gate facing the East and remaining closed…? Is not Mary the gate through whom the Redeemer entered the world? … Holy Mary is the gate of which it is written … .[ Synodal Letters 44] (She) is the good gate that was closed and was not opened. Christ passed through it, but he did not open it .[ St. Ambrose, De Institutione Virginis 8, 57]​

You might recall God took residence in a place made holy by his commands to keep the Tabernacle clean. The Ark of the Testimony (Exodus 25:16, 22; 26:33, etc.), the Ark of the Testament (Exodus 30:26), the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord (Numbers 10:33; Deuteronomy 10:8, etc.), the Ark of the Covenant (Joshua 3:6, etc.), the Ark of God (1 Samuel 3:3, etc.), the Ark of the Lord (1 Samuel 4:6, etc.) was the Incarnate Word of God. The Hebrew would never suggest that it reside in an unholy place. Why then would Jesus, who is both man and God, the Word Incarnate, reside in any less a holy place? , The visible presence of God overshadowed the Ark of Moses; "And the glory of the Lord dwelt upon Sinai, covering it with a cloud six days: and the seventh day he called him out of the midst of the cloud” [Exodus 24:16] Just as Mary was called out and overshadowed. When the Ark carried in David’s Jubilee David Jumped for Joy just as the baby in jumped in the womb of Elizabeth when the Ark in the person of Mary passed by. [Cf. Luke 1:44] It is said that Moses Ark carried the Covenant Law of God. Mary was the Ark of the New Covenant of God’s love and mercy.

The spouse taken by God was made both spiritually and carnally pure. The flesh of the woman was purified and made immaculate, kept perpetually pure, though the grace of God, just as the Moses kept the tabernacle clean. The chaste spouse of God she was protected from anything impure touching the Ark incase it defile the temple God made of her. Mary vowed to remain the chaste spouse dedicating herself as the "handmaid" of the Lord in complete submission to her spouse [Luke 1:38] Not only was Mary chaste, so too was Joseph. Just as Uzzah put his hand on the Ark and died, Joseph being a just, knew not to lay hands on Mary as possessing the Ark of Covenant would mean death. We can presume therefore, that Joseph was also chaste as well as Mary.

The Ark was the birth place of the Jewish religion as well as our Catholic faith. Christ said “Do not think that I am come to destroy the law of prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.” He came to live, with perfection, the consummate the Old Covenant and to establish the New Covenant.

Where did the Holy Spirit put the New Covenant word-in the Ark of the Covenant or in a Book? Christ, the New Covenant, was placed in the Ark of the New Covenant, the womb of Mary, the residence of God. (Cf. Luke 1, Rev 11:19, Rev 12:1) God was infused into man to becoming Jesus Christ. Christ was one person with two natures, one of God, the other of man. Thus after a proper time, Christ was born of the Blessed Mary as foretold by the angel; “Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb and shalt bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great and shall be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father: and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever. And of his kingdom there shall be no end.” (Luke 1: 31-33) Eventually, as light passes through a window He passes through the veil, and a veil not rent. Christ now becomes like the Menorah to the world whose Word fell on the Altar of Incense to rise pleasingly to God, whose light fell on the loaves of proposition (likened to the Twelve Apostles). Under Moses’ law, the loaves were consumed by the high Priest who were said to receive Divine knowledge. Likewise the Twelve receive a Divine Hope born out in the knowledge received in the vision of the Divine. Jesus Christ.

The imperative is there as a touchstone, without the Marian doctrins our faith in Christ becomes unraveled and lost in the weeds

JoeT

Wrong, and worse, heretical. Mary was the mother of Jesus. Period. She is not the "new Eve", she is not our ark, or any other such nonesense. She did not have to be immculately conceived or ever-virgin and no other doctrines depend on those things. That is Roman Catholic jibberish. You and I have debated elsewhere so I won't repeat myself here.

This is typical Catholic theology. Very little from the Bible and a ton of speculation and allergory. As I posted last night, God cannot have a spouse. A spouse is a *human* being being part of a *human* marriage. The Bible uses analogies like the church being the bride of Christ for our understanding just like it speaks of God's strong right arm or His protecting us with His wings. In no sense can Mary being a spouse to God. Therefore, she did not have to remain a virgin and Joseph would not have sinned to have children by her as we see mentioned in Scripture (yes I know the RC church says they were cousins or adopted...). For all this Catholic invention about Mary, you would have thought Peter or Paul in their epistles would have clearly and strongly taught on this! If this understanding is essential to salvation, as you state above, they how is it they wrote *nothing* about it? Paul said salvation is by faith alone. Never did he say anything about devotion to Mary and belief in her being ever-virgin or immaculately conceived. Neither did Peter whom you think is the first Pope.

No, this is RC heresy. It is "another gospel." Rightly did the Rerformers protest and rightly did Biblical Christians denounce such teaching. The emperor (the RC church) has no clothes but parades around as though it is regally dressed. It's nakedness is there for all to see except those blinded by its teachings.

 

[JoeT]

So that makes Mary an adulteress since she was a spouse to God and to Joseph. Or is that an allowable instance of polygamy?

Mary was betrothed at the time of conception, it would have made the Holy Spirit an adulterer taking anther's betrothed. It is not an allowable polygamy. Likewise had their been a marital relationship between Mary and Joseph then both Mary and Joseph were adulterers. For this reason alone St. Jerome propose that not only was Mary chaste, so too was Joseph.

What kind of spouse? The only definition of "spouse" we see in Scripture is between a human man and a human woman. All other uses of the word are symbolic. God is spirit. Spirit cannot be espoused to humanity. I don't recall anything being forced on Mary. She willingly accepted God's will. You are anthropomorphizing when you suggest Jesus could somehow be illegitimate. To human eyes, he was since Joseph was not his father but illegitimacy only applies to children born out of wedlock between two humans. That is not the case here.

You cannot apply the terms of human marriage to the Holy Spirit conceiving a child in Mary.

When Rachel could not bear children the handmaiden Bilhah was given to Jacob as if she were his wife. There was Hagar, Sarai's handmaiden given to Abraham to bear children. It was common in antiquity for a man to take his wife's handmaiden to bear his children. Both these examples willingly accepted the will of their masters. The relationship between the handmaiden and the head of the household was spousal in nature.



JoeT

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Mary was betrothed at the time of conception, it would have made the Holy Spirit an adulterer taking anther's betrothed. It is not an allowable polygamy. Likewise had their been a marital relationship between Mary and Joseph then both Mary and Joseph were adulterers. For this reason alone St. Jerome propose that not only was Mary chaste, so too was Joseph.

When Rachel could not bear children the handmaiden Bilhah was given to Jacob as if she were his wife. There was Hagar, Sarai's handmaiden given to Abraham to bear children. It was common in antiquity for a man to take his wife's handmaiden to bear his children. Both these examples willingly accepted the will of their masters. The relationship between the handmaiden and the head of the household was spousal in nature.



JoeT

No, the Holy Spirit could not be an adulterer as adultery is a sin involving humans. The Holy Spirit is spirit. There were no relations.

Your parallel between Mary and handmaidens only applies in the human realm. Yes, Mary was the handmaiden of the Lord in the sense that she saw herself as the Lord's servant but she did not bear a child the way a human handmaiden would from her human master. Saying it was a spousal relationship is an analogy at best. The Holy Spirit was not her spouse and she didn't need to be sinless to bear the Messiah nor did she need to remain ever-virgin. She was not married to the Holy Spirit so wasn't "cheating" when she bore children with Joseph.

 

[JoeT]

No, the Holy Spirit could not be an adulterer as adultery is a sin involving humans. The Holy Spirit is spirit. There were no relations.

Mary seemed to think there was a relationship, [Cf. Luke 1:46-55]

Your parallel between Mary and handmaidens only applies in the human realm.

We are discussing human realms, not Spiritual.

Yes, Mary was the handmaiden of the Lord in the sense that she saw herself as the Lord's servant but she did not bear a child the way a human handmaiden would from her human master.

If Christ wasn't born in "the way a human" is born, then one of Christ's natures would be absent. Consequently, your contentions create a Jesus Christ that does not reflect the real Jesus Christ by eliminating one of his natures. Jesus Christ has two unique and inseparable natures, a Divine nature and a human nature.

Saying it was a spousal relationship is an analogy at best. The Holy Spirit was not her spouse and she didn't need to be sinless to bear the Messiah nor did she need to remain ever-virgin. She was not married to the Holy Spirit so wasn't "cheating" when she bore children with Joseph.

If it wasn't considered "cheating" then why did Joseph have such a hard time deciding to "expose her, was minded to put her away privately" [Matthew 1:19]? After all Joseph was a just man, i.e. righteous.

JoeT

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Mary seemed to think there was a relationship, [Cf. Luke 1:46-55]

We are discussing human realms, not Spiritual.

If Christ wasn't born in "the way a human" is born, then one of Christ's natures would be absent. Consequently, your contentions create a Jesus Christ that does not reflect the real Jesus Christ by eliminating one of his natures. Jesus Christ has two unique and inseparable natures, a Divine nature and a human nature.

If it wasn't considered "cheating" then why did Joseph have such a hard time deciding to "expose her, was minded to put her away privately" [Matthew 1:19]? After all Joseph was a just man, i.e. righteous.

JoeT

Mary does not imply a marital or spousal relationship. She calls herself the bondslave of the Lord. That means a servant who surrenders to the will of their master. The fact that some female servants bore children for their masters does not mean that's what's going on here. Those were human slaves having relations with human masters. If this makes Mary a spouse to the Lord then what about Paul? He calls himself a bondslave of the Lord. In Greek, they are nearly identical words. For Mary, the word denotes a female slave whereas for Paul a male slave. So is Paul also a spouse to the Lord? All who are in Christ are his bondslaves.

When I wrote that Christ wasn't born in the human way, I was referring to how Mary got pregnant. She conceived by the Holy Spirit and then gave birth in the normal way.

Joseph's thoughts of putting Mary away privately occurred before the angel visited him and told him she was pregnant by the power of God and had not been unfaithful (i.e. cheated). Once Joseph understood he had no further thoughts of putting her away. What he thought was cheating was based on the assumption Mary had become pregnant by another man. He had no idea the Holy Spirit had conceived a child in her. That is why the angel visited him. So he did not consider her being pregnant by the Holy Spirit as cheating.

If Mary was God's spouse, why would Joseph even marry her? That would still be polygamy. It wouldn't matter if they both stayed chaste or are you saying it would not be a real marriage because they did not consummate it? We are to avoid even the appearance of evil so why would Joseph marry a woman who already had a spouse?

No, Joseph and Mary got married and went on to have children who were half-brothers and half-sisters to Jesus.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Mary does not imply a marital or spousal relationship. She calls herself the bondslave of the Lord. That means a servant who surrenders to the will of their master. The fact that some female servants bore children for their masters does not mean that's what's going on here. Those were human slaves having relations with human masters. If this makes Mary a spouse to the Lord then what about Paul? He calls himself a bondslave of the Lord. In Greek, they are nearly identical words. For Mary, the word denotes a female slave whereas for Paul a male slave. So is Paul also a spouse to the Lord? All who are in Christ are his bondslaves.

When I wrote that Christ wasn't born in the human way, I was referring to how Mary got pregnant. She conceived by the Holy Spirit and then gave birth in the normal way.

Joseph's thoughts of putting Mary away privately occurred before the angel visited him and told him she was pregnant by the power of God and had not been unfaithful (i.e. cheated). Once Joseph understood he had no further thoughts of putting her away. What he thought was cheating was based on the assumption Mary had become pregnant by another man. He had no idea the Holy Spirit had conceived a child in her. That is why the angel visited him. So he did not consider her being pregnant by the Holy Spirit as cheating.

If Mary was God's spouse, why would Joseph even marry her? That would still be polygamy. It wouldn't matter if they both stayed chaste or are you saying it would not be a real marriage because they did not consummate it? We are to avoid even the appearance of evil so why would Joseph marry a woman who already had a spouse?

No, Joseph and Mary got married and went on to have children who were half-brothers and half-sisters to Jesus.

Your post is full of contradictions. Joseph knew what he should do according to law and custom of the time; God told him different.

God used all sorts of what we would call "illegitimate" means to grow Israel; just read Genesis and Exodus. This is another example of what the New Testament calls the wisdom of God vs the folly of mankind. In the Magnificat Mary calls herself the Handmaiden of God; what is the status of a wife in that society at that time? A wife is the property of the husband, and socially has the responsibility of an indentured servant as you stated.

The Bible is funny that way, God tells us what He wants us to know, and what we need to know; He does not always tell us what we want to know. So what do we know? God mentioned Her a lot, so she is important. We know we are to call her Blessed. She bore a Son called Jesus; she is His mother. Jesús has two natures, Divine and Human. She is the mother of Jesus and therefore of God. As a confessional Lutheran, convicted by Scripture, I continue to hold the traditional and Historic position of the Church, that Mary remained a virgin and had no more children.

Also, Jesus commended her to the care of St. John just before his death. If he had natural born siblings, it would be their responsibility to care for her; so it seems that she has no other Children to care for her.

If it did happen that you are right and I am wrong, I will be guilty of giving her honor above what she is due; if you are wrong, then you will be guilty of dishonoring the Mother of God. You chose.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Let me update my comments and say that Scripture does not tell us how Joseph first knew of Mary's pregnancy. She did not return from visiting Elizabeth until she was 3 months pregnant so would have been showing. We don't know if she immediately told him of Gabriel's message or if what we read in verses 19 and 20 happened before she told him. Or did she tell him and he did not believe her? We don't know. Whatever the reason, after the angel's visit in his dream, he no longer wished to send her away.

19 And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned [t]to send her away secretly. 20 But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for [u]the Child who has been [v]conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for [w]He will save His people from their sins.” 22 Now all this [x]took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet: 23 “Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name [y]Immanuel,” which translated means, “God with us.” 24 And Joseph [z]awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, 25 [aa]but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

Notice verse 25 says he kept her a virgin until she gave birth. That implies they consummated the marriage after she gave birth. Why put it that way if he kept her a virgin forever? Why say "until she gave birth?" Why not say "kept her a virgin for their entire marriage?" I think the plain meaning is that she was no longer a virgin after Jesus was born. The text itself does not clarify. Nothing in Scripture clearly states that Mary remained "ever virgin." Neither she nor Joseph was instructed to refrain from having their own children after Jesus was born. To state dogmatically that Mary remained a virgin is reading into or adding to the text. Later, we are told of Mary coming to Jesus with his brothers and sisters. Yes, the word could include cousins but why would Mary come with a group of his cousins? For moral support? Again, the natural reading is that he had half-brothers and half-sisters.

Why did Jesus leave Mary in John's care? We are not told. We know Mary was one of Jesus' disciples. Jesus was 30 when he began his public ministry. We don't know how old his siblings would have been nor what their availability was. We don't know how many were believers at the time of Jesus' death. Because of Mary's time with the disciples, she and John may have known each other well. John was one of the "inner" disciples and called himself the "disciple Jesus loved." It could be he was the best person, at that time, to care for Mary and keep her among the disciples. We simply don't have enough information to draw any conclusions one way or the other.

I am not dishonoring Mary. She is blessed. She is to be admired and honored. I don't believe she was immaculately conceived or sinless or ever-virgin. None of those things are cleary taught in Scripture.

 

[prodromos]

Notice verse 25 says he kept her a virgin until she gave birth. That implies they consummated the marriage after she gave birth.

It actually says nothing about what happened after she gave birth, and as I've stated before, the Greek text is probably the most concise and efficient use of the language in stating that Jesus was not the result of a sexual union. The evangelist has no reason to state or imply something that has zero bearing on the Gospel, yet Protestants insist that Matthew is getting into the nitty gritty of their personal life.

 

[JoeT]

Let me update my comments and say that Scripture does not tell us how Joseph first knew of Mary's pregnancy. She did not return from visiting Elizabeth until she was 3 months pregnant so would have been showing. We don't know if she immediately told him of Gabriel's message or if what we read in verses 19 and 20 happened before she told him. Or did she tell him and he did not believe her? We don't know. Whatever the reason, after the angel's visit in his dream, he no longer wished to send her away.

19 And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned [t]to send her away secretly. 20 But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for [u]the Child who has been [v]conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for [w]He will save His people from their sins.” 22 Now all this [x]took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet: 23 “Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name [y]Immanuel,” which translated means, “God with us.” 24 And Joseph [z]awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, 25 [aa]but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

Notice verse 25 says he kept her a virgin until she gave birth. That implies they consummated the marriage after she gave birth. Why put it that way if he kept her a virgin forever? Why say "until she gave birth?" Why not say "kept her a virgin for their entire marriage?" I think the plain meaning is that she was no longer a virgin after Jesus was born. That is the natural meaning of the text and it would take some unnatural interpretation to say otherwise. We also have a later reference to Jesus having brothers and sisters. Yes, the word could include cousins but why would Mary come with a group of his cousins? For moral support? Again, the natural reading is that he had half-brothers and half-sisters.

Why did Jesus leave Mary in John's care? We are not told. We know Mary was one of Jesus' disciples. Jesus was 30 when he began his public ministry. We don't know how old his siblings would have been nor what their availability was. We don't know how many were believers at the time of Jesus' death. Because of Mary's time with the disciples, she and John may have known each other well. John was one of the "inner" disciples and called himself the "disciple Jesus loved." It could be he was the best person, at that time, to care for Mary and keep her among the disciples. We simply don't have enough information to draw any conclusions one way or the other.

I am not dishonoring Mary. She is blessed. She is to be admired and honored. I don't believe she was immaculately conceived or sinless or ever-virgin. None of those things are cleary taught in Scripture.

The "till" or "until" argument about Mary is nearly 1600 years old, you might say 1000 years before your sect existed.

And when he had taken her, he knew her not, till she had brought forth her first-born Son. He has here used the word till, not that you should suspect that afterwards he did know her, but to inform you that before the birth the Virgin was wholly untouched by man. But why then, it may be said, has he used the word, till? Because it is usual in Scripture often to do this, and to use this expression without reference to limited times. For so with respect to the ark likewise, it is said, The raven returned not till the earth was dried up. [Genesis 8:7]. When the Church is preaching the Old Testament, and saying, “In his days shall justice spring up, and abundance of peace, till the moon be taken away." [Psalms 71:7], it does not set a limit to this fair part of creation. Does God cease to be just when the moon is taken away? So then here likewise, it uses the word till, to make certain what was before the birth, but as to what follows, it leaves you to make the inference. Thus, what it was necessary for you to learn of Him, this He Himself has said; that the Virgin was untouched by man until the birth; but that which both was seen to be a consequence of the former statement, and was acknowledged, this in its turn he leaves for you to perceive; namely, that not even after this, she having so become a mother, and having been counted worthy of a new sort of travail, and a child-bearing so strange, could that righteous man ever have endured to know her. For if he had known her, and had kept her in the place of a wife, how is it that our Lord John 19:27 commits her, as unprotected, and having no one, to His disciple, and commands him to take her to his own home? [St. John Chrysostom (347-407) , On Matthew, Homely 5]​

Other examples:

"Behold I am with you all days, even, [heōs], until, the consummation of the world." Matthew 28:20. Are we to understand that once the world is consummated Jesus is no longer with us?​

“And the child grew, and was strengthened in spirit; and was in the deserts until (heōs) the day of his manifestation to Israel." [Luke 1:80]. Does the Christ lose his strength in spirit when He is revealed to Israel at the wedding in Cana [John 2:1]?​

"And she was a widow until (heōs) fourscore and four years; who departed not from the temple, by fastings and prayers serving night and day."[Luke 2:37] Did Anna suddenly become un-widowed after 84 years.​

​

{added - couldn't help it} But I will tarry at Ephesus until Pentecost. (1 Corinthians 16:8) On Pentecost we might see the dust-trail drop off precipitously behind Paul as the guy turns indolent. I can only sympathize with the literal Paul who became instantly slothful after Pentecost. I had a funny feeling about that fellow, the lazy bum!​

Now, we know Jesus Christ taught up and down the breath of Israel one should honor Mother and Father. Presuming Christ's earthly father had past that would leave Joseph's progeny to care for his wife or the matriarchal family figure. That task would have fallen on the oldest son. Contending that Joseph had children from another wife would have made Jesus Christ the youngest. Contending that Jesus Christ was born as the only son then or the the oldest of a series of siblings (by some protestant renderings this number of siblings range from three or four to 26 or 28 including a small number of female siblings all vaginally related). Being the only son is the only reason to explain his act of giving the Apostle John His mother. Had there been siblings the act would have insulted and belittled them in public for not taking their mother. I mean with 26 siblings each would only need to keep the Uber-Mom for about two weeks a year. If the latter is true and Mary had 26 or 28 children, all of which would have been demigods, she should truly be honored above all mothers - a small fact not likely to allude the Gospel writers.

JoeT

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

The "till" or "until" argument about Mary is nearly 1600 years old, you might say 1000 years before your sect existed.

And when he had taken her, he knew her not, till she had brought forth her first-born Son. He has here used the word till, not that you should suspect that afterwards he did know her, but to inform you that before the birth the Virgin was wholly untouched by man. But why then, it may be said, has he used the word, till? Because it is usual in Scripture often to do this, and to use this expression without reference to limited times. For so with respect to the ark likewise, it is said, The raven returned not till the earth was dried up. [Genesis 8:7]. When the Church is preaching the Old Testament, and saying, “In his days shall justice spring up, and abundance of peace, till the moon be taken away." [Psalms 71:7], it does not set a limit to this fair part of creation. Does God cease to be just when the moon is taken away? So then here likewise, it uses the word till, to make certain what was before the birth, but as to what follows, it leaves you to make the inference. Thus, what it was necessary for you to learn of Him, this He Himself has said; that the Virgin was untouched by man until the birth; but that which both was seen to be a consequence of the former statement, and was acknowledged, this in its turn he leaves for you to perceive; namely, that not even after this, she having so become a mother, and having been counted worthy of a new sort of travail, and a child-bearing so strange, could that righteous man ever have endured to know her. For if he had known her, and had kept her in the place of a wife, how is it that our Lord John 19:27 commits her, as unprotected, and having no one, to His disciple, and commands him to take her to his own home? [St. John Chrysostom (347-407) , On Matthew, Homely 5]​

Other examples:

"Behold I am with you all days, even, [heōs], until, the consummation of the world." Matthew 28:20. Are we to understand that once the world is consummated Jesus is no longer with us?​

“And the child grew, and was strengthened in spirit; and was in the deserts until (heōs) the day of his manifestation to Israel." [Luke 1:80]. Does the Christ lose his strength in spirit when He is revealed to Israel at the wedding in Cana [John 2:1]?​

"And she was a widow until (heōs) fourscore and four years; who departed not from the temple, by fastings and prayers serving night and day."[Luke 2:37] Did Anna suddenly become un-widowed after 84 years.​

​

{added - couldn't help it} But I will tarry at Ephesus until Pentecost. (1 Corinthians 16:8) On Pentecost we might see the dust-trail drop off precipitously behind Paul as the guy turns indolent. I can only sympathize with the literal Paul who became instantly slothful after Pentecost. I had a funny feeling about that fellow, the lazy bum!​

Now, we know Jesus Christ taught up and down the breath of Israel one should honor Mother and Father. Presuming Christ's earthly father had past that would leave Joseph's progeny to care for his wife or the matriarchal family figure. That task would have fallen on the oldest son. Contending that Joseph had children from another wife would have made Jesus Christ the youngest. Contending that Jesus Christ was born as the only son then or the the oldest of a series of siblings (by some protestant renderings this number of siblings range from three or four to 26 or 28 including a small number of female siblings all vaginally related). Being the only son is the only reason to explain his act of giving the Apostle John His mother. Had there been siblings the act would have insulted and belittled them in public for not taking their mother. I mean with 26 siblings each would only need to keep the Uber-Mom for about two weeks a year. If the latter is true and Mary had 26 or 28 children, all of which would have been demigods, she should truly be honored above all mothers - a small fact not likely to allude the Gospel writers.

JoeT

I updated my post. The text does not tell us if Mary remained a virgin until Jesus was born or for the rest of her life. In Greek, the words don't make it clear. What we do know is that Gabriel did not instruct her or Jospeh to keep her a virgin. It would have been normal and natural for them to go on and have children of their own and to provide Jesus with siblings. To claim that Mary had to remain a virgin is making a supposition not taught in Scripture. As to why Jesus left Mary to John's care, the most likely reason is that at that time none of his siblings believed in him as Messiah. We know that eventually James and Jude came to believe. We don't know about his other siblings and how many there were. It was usually a son that would have cared for their widowed mother.

Mary was clearly one of the disciples and was traveling with them at least at times. Why would Jesus leave his believing mother in the care of an unbelieving son probably cut off from the disciples she had been in the company of? There is the suggestion that John may have been a cousin in which case he was related. Did not Jesus teach that to follow him you must be willing to give up sister and brother and mother and father? If his siblings (half-siblings) were unbelievers Jesus would be right to put his believing mother in the care of one of his closest disciples to keep her among the disciples. Keeping to Jewish tradition would not have been Jesus' concern. He turned many Jewish traditions on their heads. He would have prioritized Mary's spiritual care ahead of any Jewish expectations.

Bottom line...there is nothing in Scripture that proves Mary remained a virgin. There is nothing that disallows them to have other children. The RC Church assumed Mary's perpetual virginity based on other doctrines they were trying to build but Scripture itself does not prove their case. This is an example of RC tradition becoming dogma. Scripture itself does not prove she remained a virgin and allows for her to have other children. She was not commanded to remain a virgin nor was Joseph commanded to keep her a virgin. To teach she was "ever virgin" is speculation driven by a conclusion looking for support.