Biblical proof of Mary's virginity

[ewq1938]

So according to you, the Bible states in 2 Samuel that Michal gave birth to children after she died?

Step aside Coffee.
This is a job for Alcohol!

 

[prodromos]

So a picture is greater than scripture?

It demonstrates the historical understanding of the Scriptures in Churches far removed from any influence by Rome.

 

[prodromos]

Step aside Coffee.
This is a job for Alcohol!

I guess you don't want to answer.

 

[Barney2.0]

Maybe an Eastern Orthodox can make this claim but the other One True Church would not consider a celibate “marriage” as valid. Your depiction of a sham celibate marriage would be rejected by the Roman Catholic Church and make the supposed arrangement Mary and Joseph had not considered a Christian marriage.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

ARTICLE 7
THE SACRAMENT OF MATRIMONY

1601 "The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament."84

I. MARRIAGE IN GOD'S PLAN

1602 Sacred Scripture begins with the creation of man and woman in the image and likeness of God and concludes with a vision of "the wedding-feast of the Lamb."85 Scripture speaks throughout of marriage and its "mystery," its institution and the meaning God has given it, its origin and its end, its various realizations throughout the history of salvation, the difficulties arising from sin and its renewal "in the Lord" in the New Covenant of Christ and the Church.86

Marriage in the order of creation

1603 "The intimate community of life and love which constitutes the married state has been established by the Creator and endowed by him with its own proper laws. . . . God himself is the author of marriage."87 The vocation to marriage is written in the very nature of man and woman as they came from the hand of the Creator. Marriage is not a purely human institution despite the many variations it may have undergone through the centuries in different cultures, social structures, and spiritual attitudes. These differences should not cause us to forget its common and permanent characteristics. Although the dignity of this institution is not transparent everywhere with the same clarity,88 some sense of the greatness of the matrimonial union exists in all cultures. "The well-being of the individual person and of both human and Christian society is closely bound up with the healthy state of conjugal and family life."89

Actually you forget the Roman Catholic Catechism applies to baptized Christians, Mary and Joseph were not baptized.

 

[ewq1938]

It demonstrates the historical understanding of the Scriptures in Churches far removed from any influence by Rome.

It isn't anything...a picture of a falsehood. Rome wasn't the only issue to avoid.

 

[ewq1938]

I guess you don't want to answer.

I liked your quote...I used it as my answer.

 

[ewq1938]

Actually you forget the Roman Catholic Catechism applies to baptized Christians, Mary and Joseph were not baptized.

How can anyone be a Christian before Christ taught?

 

[Barney2.0]

Tim's target audience is biblically illiterate Christians not informed christians with legitimate questions. I have seen him get dismantled too often in debate which is why I suppose he isn't as prominiate a face of CA as he used to be.


You gave a strong's definition without lexical background or basis. Strong's isn't the same as reading the language.

But you do admit that the word used for brother can have multiple meanings.

 

[Barney2.0]

How can anyone be a Christian before Christ taught?

Well Mary and Joseph were believers, not exactly Christians though.

 

[ewq1938]

Well Mary and Joseph were believers, not exactly Christians though.

I'm making a point that every error is important.

 

[JohnOfWoodGreen]

Bcbsr seems to be practically there, but he didn't point out that
1. νυμφίος only means "Bridegroom" and is never used of a husband except in the context of the marriage feast.
2. νυμφίος is never used in any New Testament Epistle, only ἀνὴρ

So according to Chrétien de Troyes's premises, NONE of the couples to whom the apostles wrote can have actually been married. Please forgive me for being just that teeny weeny little bit sceptical!

 

[Chrétien de Troyes]

He translated the Koine Greek into the Hebrew and then into French?

Yes, and I think someone translated his Hebrew version into English too.

 

[Chrétien de Troyes]

Bcbsr seems to be practically there, but he didn't point out that
1. νυμφίος only means "Bridegroom" and is never used of a husband except in the context of the marriage feast.
2. νυμφίος is never used in any New Testament Epistle, only ἀνὴρ

So according to Chrétien de Troyes's premises, NONE of the couples to whom the apostles wrote can have actually been married. Please forgive me for being just that teeny weeny little bit sceptical!

It's actually only one part of the argument. I developed a little more in the thread.

 

[Chrétien de Troyes]

As early as 33 days after. Not every conjugal visit produces a child. God opens and closes the womb.

OK so they had children several years after they failed to produce one after their mariage?

 

[Chrétien de Troyes]

I beg to differ on what he claimed exegetically by the mere fact that he totally ignores/disregards the Jewish Cultural Context within the Sharia (Law) Sanhedrin System.

Origen studied the alexandrian judaism. The half of his exegesis is based on Philo of Alexandria. A jew philosopher born in a familly of prests.

 

[SuperWarrior10]

The early Christians knew Mary to be virgin, and the early Church fathers wrote in defense of that fact. But it had no bearing on her salvation. She is in no way Divine, but needed salvation as any of us. She died a physical death - the result of sin upon humanity. The miracle of her virginity though she had had a Child points rather to the glory of God and of her Son, as all things do.

She is above cherubims and seraphims, how it does not apply her salvation? She don't need it. She is divine. And she never died. She go alive to heaven. Sin is limited to the people who do sin. She is sinless.

 

[JohnOfWoodGreen]

It's actually only one part of the argument. I developed a little more in the thread.

of the argument for what? that Joseph and Mary were not married? or that Origen was the greatest exegete? or what?

 

[Chrétien de Troyes]

of the argument for what? that Joseph and Mary were not married? or that Origen was the greatest exegete? or what?

The argument is that the term bridegroom is never applied to Joseph, and the term used in Matthew 1:19 is inappropriate as they are still betrothed. Luke's Gospel is a rewrite to correct the translation errors of Matthew's gospel.
Then for Origene I'm just trying to rehabilitate his memory, which has been unfairly treated by history. His works were burned and yet it is he who formulated the perpetual virginity of Mary, we have no older sources. Outside of the tradition, he certainly also understood that the Gospels do not say that Mary had other children.

 

[marineimaging]

Galatians 1:19 specifically calls James the Lord's brother.

Matthew 13:55 says, "Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary? Aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas?" Specifically calls out his brothers.

Matthew 1:24-25 specifically says Joseph took her up to be his wife.

There are numerous verses, but I know you'll refuse to accept them. I don't understand why there's this express desire to keep Mary a virgin and venerate her more by making up all these things about her life.

Saucy, because it is essential to the Catholic denomination that she remain the virgin to match their doctrinal believes. The catholic church has long elevated Mary to the status of deity. We know that she was not but then, as you say, "..., you'll refuse to accept them." But also, think of this. To some people if Mary was just another common woman then the fruit of her womb, Jesus, would be just another common flesh and blood man. In fact, Jesus would have been conceived in sin in that she was not married. That is, unless she were deity worthy of the being mated to God the creator. Then she would not have been bound to the laws of mankind. Then there is the notion that she would have to have remained a virgin to prevent further contamination of her womb from which God incarnate as Jesus came from. The biggest problem we face with the Catholic doctrine and Mary is that there were things about the conception and birth of Jesus that were necessary to fulfill prophesy.

 

[redleghunter]

Who said that Jewish cultural context is NOT Biblical context?

I think the Jewish tradition quoted was from the Talmud. Which of course came a few hundred years after Christ's time. Which, even if used to reach back in time to the 2nd Temple era, should be taken with a grain of salt as the Talmud has nothing nice to say about Jesus and Mary.

http://www.talmudunmasked.com/chapter5.htm