Biblical proof of Mary's virginity

[The Times]

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.

Ok, fair enough. Good to know.

 

[The Times]

In Islam there is the Sharia which means Shar, that is law. In Judaism the same principle of religious governance applied.

The Sanhedrin applied Sharia, which meant that no man can be with a woman unless they were formally and legally married through their Sanhederin Sharia System.

If Joseph was only engaged to Marry but not married, then they could not live together, because it was not permitted by the Sharia Police. Within that Jewish culture no man could be seen with a woman in public, unless he is legally her husband.

The mere fact that people said they knew Joseph and Marry as a married couple with a son Jesus points to a legally binding marriage within that context of culture.

Twisting the relationship of Mary and Joseph any other way outside of a legal marriage is a case of Proof Texting.

Prooftexting (sometimes "proof-texting" or "proof texting") is the practice of using isolated, out-of-context quotations from a document to establish a proposition in eisegesis.

In this case terms like betrothed on their own as evidence for or against legal marriage is a case of Proof Texting.

 

[Chrétien de Troyes]

In Islam there is the Sharia which means Shar, that is law. In Judaism the same principle of religious governance applied.

The Sanhedrin applied Sharia, which meant that no man can be with a woman unless they were formally and legally married through their Sanhederin Sharia System.

If Joseph was only engaged to Marry but not married, then they could not live together, because it was not permitted by the Sharia Police. Within that Jewish culture no man could be seen with a woman in public, unless he is legally her husband.

The mere fact that people said they knew Joseph and Marry as a married couple with a son Jesus points to a legally binding marriage within that context of culture.

Twisting the relationship of Mary and Joseph any other way outside of a legal marriage is a case of Proof Texting.

Prooftexting (sometimes "proof-texting" or "proof texting") is the practice of using isolated, out-of-context quotations from a document to establish a proposition in eisegesis.

In this case terms like betrothed on their own as evidence for or against legal marriage is a case of Proof Texting.

And what do you think of this? https://www.christianforums.com/thr...marys-virginity.8078624/page-29#post-73111300

 

[Athanasius377]

It is quite unrealistic to think that Mary had other children when twelve years after the birth of Jesus there is still none. How old were the famous brothers of Jesus when he began his ministry?

No, that's you reading that into the text. We don't know if his brothers and sisters accompanied Mary and Joseph or not. It isn't the point of the story rather it was showing just how learned Jesus was in the scriptures. It is unrealistic to you because it would contradict your presupposition that Mary remained a Virgin her entire life.

Since Mary was a Virgin at Jesus's birth they would be younger .

 

[Chrétien de Troyes]

No, that's you reading that into the text. We don't know if his brothers and sisters accompanied Mary and Joseph or not. It isn't the point of the story rather it was showing just how learned Jesus was in the scriptures. It is unrealistic to you because it would contradict your presupposition that Mary remained a Virgin her entire life.

Since Mary was a Virgin at Jesus's birth they would be younger .

And what do you think of this? https://www.christianforums.com/thr...marys-virginity.8078624/page-29#post-73111300

 

[gordonhooker]

I will show that Origen is undoubtedly the greatest exegete in Christian history, and that he was not at all mistaken when he asserted that the Virgin Mary was eternally Virgin and Pure.

First, the word used does not mean "husband" but "man". Then the marriage is not consumed, because the Virgin was not mated by Joseph, he can not be his "Husband". This is a common misinterpretation.

Matthew 1
16 and Jacob begat Joseph the husband (ἄνδρα) of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. Ἰακὼβ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰωσὴφ τὸν ἄνδρα Μαρίας , ἐξ ἧς ἐγεννήθη Ἰησοῦς , ὁ λεγόμενος Χριστός .
19 And Joseph her husband(ἀνὴρ), being a righteous man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.
Ἰωσὴφ δὲ , ὁ ἀνὴρ αὐτῆς , δίκαιος ὢν , καὶ μὴ θέλων αὐτὴν δειγματίσαι , ἐβουλήθη λάθρᾳ ἀπολῦσαι αὐτήν .

According to the Gospel, only Christ is the qualifier of a husband:
25 Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, who took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom (νυμφίου).
Τότε ὁμοιωθήσεται ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν , δέκα παρθένοις , αἵτινες λαβοῦσαι τὰς λαμπάδας ἑαυτῶν , ἐξῆλθον εἰς ὑπάντησιν τοῦ νυμφίου .

Now, note the difference in vocabulary:

1 Joseph is the ἄνδρα and ἀνὴρ
2 Jésus is the νυμφίου

I invite you to do the test on google translate:
1 ἄνδρα = man
2 ἀνὴρ = man
3 νυμφίου = husband

If Joseph is not Mary's husband in the flesh, then he can not have children with her. It is therefore a spiritual marriage and the brothers of Jesus are simply not his brothers, but either cousins or half-brothers.

Therefore, the Virgin Mary is eternally Virgin and Protestants are wrong to debate on the subject.

(And Origen won)

Cordially

Chrétien de Troyes

A doctrine introduced by men who believed the mother of our Lord Jesus Christ could not have possibly had marital relations with a man, Mt. 1:24 pretty much puts those assertions in the incorrect bucket. The fact that he also had siblings which are documented in scripture also indicates she a full sexual relationship with her husband Joseph.

 

[Chrétien de Troyes]

The fact that he also had siblings which are documented in scripture also indicates she a full sexual relationship with her husband Joseph

Where?

 

[Athanasius377]

And what do you think of this? https://www.christianforums.com/thr...marys-virginity.8078624/page-29#post-73111300

Sounds like 19th century German liberal theology .

There is no reason to believe a wedding that was not described in the first place to be symbolic. Again, false premise will result in a false conclusion .

Look at the problems you create when you ignore the plain meaning of the text. I can say that I have a consistent hermeneutic in my reading while you, not so much .

 

[The Times]

And what do you think of this? https://www.christianforums.com/thr...marys-virginity.8078624/page-29#post-73111300

I read post #577. Could you please elaborate further, because I don't follow.

 

[Chrétien de Troyes]

There is no reason to believe a wedding that was not described in the first place to be symbolic. Again, false premise will result in a false conclusion .

The nuns consider themselves to be married to God. I believe that the phenomena is identical with the Virgin Mary, her true "husband" is God, in the symbolic sense. Joseph remained his betroth in the flesh, but his "husband" in spirit is God (symbolically). Moreover, in Hellenistic Judaism it is often said that wisdom is the wife of God.

 

[Chrétien de Troyes]

I read post #577. Could you please elaborate further, because I don't follow.

They did not respect the Law, because Jesus is not "a legitimate son", so the passage is symbolic, Mary was married to God, like nuns.

 

[redleghunter]

The nuns consider themselves to be married to God. I believe that the phenomena is identical with the Virgin Mary, her true "husband" is God, in the symbolic sense. Joseph remained his betroth in the flesh, but his "husband" in spirit is God (symbolically). Moreover, in Hellenistic Judaism it is often said that wisdom is the wife of God.

 

[The Times]

If it's a wedding, then it can only be symbolic.
They took the child to the Temple while Joseph is not the biological father of Jesus.

Luke 2:22 And when the days of their purification according to the law of Moses were fulfilled, they brought him up to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord 23 (as it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord), 24 and to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.

Deuteronomy 23:2 A bastard shall not enter into the assembly of God; even to the tenth generation shall none of his enter into the assembly of God.

Conclusion: it will be necessary to review the classic interpretation of marriage between Mary and Joseph.

This is after an angel had instructed Joseph to not let Mary go and this would highly suggest that he had actually wedded her for many exegetical points that you are missing.

Firstly, did you know that in their time a man and a woman could not get a lodge in if they could not prove that they were legally married?

Secondly, when you get two terms side by side like Betrothed Woman, it actually conveys that Mary is Joseph's Woman as she is no longer a girl in the sense of an unmarried girl, regardless of her age. A girl can be 40 years old because she is not married until she is married and becomes a woman. So the term woman alongside betrothed very strongly implies a legally married couple.

Thirdly, to be taxed together strongly suggests that they are legally a family unit to be taxed together for taxation purposes of their days.

Lastly, when a purification ceremony like baptism is performed on a child, the parents must prove legal union and ownership of the child under the Sanhedrin Sharia Law System. No different to our society friend.

Deuteronomy 23:2 prevents a bastard child from being purified and so Joseph had to prove legal fathership of the child as the angel had instructed him to do so through a legally binding marriage. This means that it would be against God for Joseph and Mary to present a child before God if there is no legal union between them. The implication is would Mary and Joseph lie to God?

Something to think about friend.

 

[JohnOfWoodGreen]

It is quite unrealistic to think that Mary had other children when twelve years after the birth of Jesus there is still none. How old were the famous brothers of Jesus when he began his ministry?

12 Years after the birth of Jesus they would have been young enough so to take the attention of Joseph and Mary that they could start off for home assuming He was with other members of the party. Had they not had other children to attend to, they might have been more assiduous about keeping Him in sight - That is, of course, if they hadn't left the younger children to be looked after by grandparents at home.
Either way, there is no evidence that there were still no children 12 years after the birth of Jesus.
How old were they when He began His ministry? Old enough to not believe in Him, also old enough to wait outside with His mother wanting to speak to Him, and also old enough later, after His resurrection, for Him to appear to one of them.

 

[Chrétien de Troyes]

You never heard that nuns consider themselves as maried to God?

 

[Athanasius377]

The nuns consider themselves to be married to God. I believe that the phenomena is identical with the Virgin Mary, her true "husband" is God, in the symbolic sense. Joseph remained his betroth in the flesh, but his "husband" in spirit is God (symbolically). Moreover, in Hellenistic Judaism it is often said that wisdom is the wife of God.

You can literally prove anything using this method. That's how you get people saying that Jesus only rose spiritually from the grave, or that it was symbolic. Of course Luke states he is writing a history not apocalyptic literature so I don't know what you do with that .

 

[The Times]

They did not respect the Law, because Jesus is not "a legitimate son", so the passage is symbolic, Mary was married to God, like nuns.

Nonsense!

Marriage is for humans as God ordained it in the Garden. Human Marriage and Vows is not for God.

 

[Chrétien de Troyes]

being purified and so Joseph had to prove legal fathership of the child as the angel had instructed him to do so through a legally binding marriage. This means that it would be against God for Joseph and Mary to present a child before God if there is no legal union between them. The implication is would Mary and Joseph lie to God?

Something to think about friend

The Gospels are not historical texts, I personally believe that they are midrashim. But this is another topic.

 

[Chrétien de Troyes]

Either way, there is no evidence that there were still no children 12 years after the birth of Jesus.

There is no evidences of the opposite.

 

[Chrétien de Troyes]

You can literally prove anything using this method. That's how you get people saying that Jesus only rose spiritually from the grave, or that it was symbolic. Of course Luke states he is writing a history not apocalyptic literature so I don't know what you do with that .

It is a method where we try to understand the meaning of symbols. It is therefore much more reliable than a method where the existence of symbols is deliberately ignored.

 

[The Times]

They did not respect the Law, because Jesus is not "a legitimate son", so the passage is symbolic, Mary was married to God, like nuns.

A legitimate Son must be admitted for the purification by a legitimate marriage between a man and a woman, not between a woman and God. The Law was for man and not for God, for they were presenting themselves before God and not God presenting himself before himself..