Did the Virgin Mary...

[kenalim]

Please don't take offense to this as it is a genuine question and I am not writing this to offend anyone...




I know the Virgin Mary was (at least according to the Bible) a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus. How a virgin can have a child aside, did she die a virgin? Becuase, you know, she was married and (hopefully) in love with Joseph, and I'd find it hard to believe they didn't "get it on" at least once.

Mary only have sex with Joseph after Jesus was born... cos' Jesus have brothers and sisters too...

 

[Serapha]

Please don't take offense to this as it is a genuine question and I am not writing this to offend anyone...




I know the Virgin Mary was (at least according to the Bible) a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus. How a virgin can have a child aside, did she die a virgin? Becuase, you know, she was married and (hopefully) in love with Joseph, and I'd find it hard to believe they didn't "get it on" at least once.

Hello et. al.



Getting the thread back on track for the benefit of the poster....

In reading the responses, there are many statements which are not taken from the Word of God. The Bible should be our first source of information. Other souces that complement the Bible and not contradict the Bible would support Christianity and Christian teachings.

For example, one poster stated that the half-brothers of Jesus were older than Jesus. There isn't any "proof" of that statement and this isn't the forum for guessing.


Let's remember that we are Christians first and forement, that we believe the Bible is the Word of God. When you post and deviate from biblical teaching and speculate... at least advise the seeker that you are speculating without positive proof.


~serapha~

 

[Nanee5]

Hi there!




Therefore God, your God, has anointed you
With the oil of joy above your fellows.
All Your garments are fragrant
with myrrh and aloes and cassia;
Kings’ daughters are among your noble ladies;
At your right hand stands the queen in gold from Ophir. (Ps 45:7-9)



A couple of points concerning that passage... To be a king required that one be annointed with oil ... but at the same time, in the ancient middle east, they would burn incense to scent the clothing...and as a gesture in leaving, the incense burner would be offered to the one leaving who would wave the fragrance of the incense toward his face and to allow the incense to permeate his clothing... a form of perfuming the body, if you will...


The "queen" of the "king" is the Bride of Christ... not the mother of Christ..... and the Bride of Christ is wearing the wedding apparel of "gold"... probably "gold" embroidered material.

~serapha~

I'm glad I'm not the only one who read the whole Psalm.. You are correct.. it is referring to Christ's Bride (US!) Not Mary.. she is not God's queen.

In Him,
Donna

 

[sandman]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who read the whole Psalm.. You are correct.. it is referring to Christ's Bride (US!) Not Mary.. she is not God's queen.

In Him,
Donna

Not wishing to sidetrack either but ..............
Isn’t the Bride Israel ..... are not we Body

 

[Serapha]

Not wishing to sidetrack either but ..............
Isn’t the Bride Israel ..... are not we Body

Hi there!



Judaism would consider Israel as the Bride. In Revelation, the Bride is the city of Jerusalem...

The word "bride" has been used for different symbolisms in the Bible... looking for example to the book Song of Solomon which has different meanings... the woman in Song of Solomon is symbolically the church, or Israel, or an actual marriage manual.

This might help in your understanding in Christianity.

#6....

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=9900080&postcount=6


~serapha~

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

The "queen" of the "king" is the Bride of Christ... not the mother of Christ..... and the Bride of Christ is wearing the wedding apparel of "gold"... probably "gold" embroidered material.

Possibly, but that still leaves Mary as the queen. She is part of the Church.

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Unless, you know, God is wrong when He proclaimed that none were good, none sought Him, and humanity is altogether evil.

True, but people love flirting with this line so badly, it's not funny.

[very important] In the NT, people tried to bless Jesus' mother, but Christ Himself said that blessed, rather, are those that hear God's word and obey it. Mary is no 'better' than any other. Any goodness any human can have is a direct gift from God; else it is of our own merit, and this goes against all of Paul's epistles.

PS I know this sounds like a disagreement, Bizzlebin, but I'm trying to clarify this up as much as possible, though it might turn out to be a disagreement...

God alone is good, yet that doesn't mean people are forced to sin. Job, Abraham, Isaac, David, etc all sought Him, that statement can't be absolute. Humanity may very well be altogether evil, but there are exceptions. Jesus became part of humanity.

Very few flirt with idolatry in regards to Mary and the Saints. Far more fall into lust, the love of money, gluttony, and materialism separately in a day than have probably ever fallen into idolatry of Mary and the saints since the creation of the world. This is one of those problemns which has been blown way out of proportion.

Yet He did honor and bless Mary. He was making the point that all can be part of His family, not that Mary was somehow in sin. He capitalized on the situation to teach the people even more.

Yes, it is a gift from God. So why can't God chose to bestow His gifts on whomever He pleases in what amount He pleases? But in regards to merit, it means nothing for our salvation -without- Jesus Christ. With Jesus Christ however, merit is not altogether useless.

No problem, I was probably a bit unclear.

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

First of all, let's remember that God has no mother.

Second, if Mary did not sin, then why did she acknowledge her need for a Savior in Luke 1:47?

Reread the Gospels. Matthew and John especially have it all over. Also, Acts 1:14-

They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus...

Because being sinless can't get you saved either. If all we had to do to be saved was to be without sin, then it wouldn't be too hard. But we are not only sinners, we are seperated from God by death. Jesus alone conquered death. So, while sin is part of our predicament, it is not the only thing that keeps us from salvation.

 

[Woodsman]

If Mary ever rises from the dead, you can ask her why.

 

[Serapha]

Possibly, but that still leaves Mary as the queen. She is part of the Church.

Hi there!



You need to do a search of "queen of heaven" and see who the queen of heaven really is in the Bible.


If one has to make a choice between what the Word says and what tradition says, I recommend staying with the Word.


There isn't any passage in the Bible that tells us that Mary is the Queen because she is part of the Church... that's tradition. If you want to place your faith on tradition, that is your choice.


~serapha~

 

[ani]

[bible]Matthew 13:55-56[/bible]

They weren't actually his literal brothers. Back then they referred to close friends as "brothers." When they mentioned Simon, Judas etc. and the women they were perobably talking about the followers of Christ as "brothers" and "sisters."

 

[heron]

Ani, I hope you're having a good experience on the forum so far!
...because I'm about to disagree?

When scholars try to figure out details like this, they take the context of the surrounding verses to make their educated guess. Here, people are doubting the divinity of Jesus because they knew him growing up. There would be no reason to mention his disciples, or his buddies (unless his friends vandalized the town).

We're taught a lot of things out of tradition that make sense together, and it's hard to sort out church teaching from Biblical teaching unless we read the whole Bible ten times over, with those questions in mind. You are probably respecting the teachings of a very good church.

 

[12volt_man]

Reread the Gospels. Matthew and John especially have it all over.

Would you mind being a little more specific?

Also, Acts 1:14-

OK. Here's Acts 1:14 -

These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.

Notice that we see Mary called the mother of Jesus, and she is.

Remember that Jesus has two natures: a human nature and a divine nature.

Mary is the physical mother of Jesus' human incarnation, not His divine nature.

Because being sinless can't get you saved either. If all we had to do to be saved was to be without sin, then it wouldn't be too hard.

But how would it be easy to go without sinning, when we have a sin nature? If it's easy to be sinless, then why does the Bible tell us that all have sinned?

But we are not only sinners, we are seperated from God by death. Jesus alone conquered death. So, while sin is part of our predicament, it is not the only thing that keeps us from salvation.

But if Mary was sinless, why would she have tasted death? If she was assumed, as the Roman Catholic church supposes, how would she have tasted death?

 

[chilehed]

I know the Virgin Mary was (at least according to the Bible) a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus. How a virgin can have a child aside, did she die a virgin? Becuase, you know, she was married and (hopefully) in love with Joseph, and I'd find it hard to believe they didn't "get it on" at least once.

darthvader,

I don’t know if you’re still following this thread but here’s my understanding.


The virgin birth of Jesus is a miracle, the result of a direct intervention of God, and it's no surprise that it's hard to believe. I've heard that it's a medical fact that, on extremely rare occasion, some of the cells in a woman's reproductive system can begin to develop without the presence of any sperm. The result is inevitably a random mass of adult cells (could be anything: bits of skin, hair, bone, organs) that is not viable. It's theoretically conceviable (but extremely unlikely / almost impossible) that a healthy child could be born of this, but the child would be a female clone of the mother. There's no way, even under these remote circumstances, that the child could be a male. Jesus’ birth of a virgin is a miracle from God.

As for the perpetual virginity of Mary, you can see this is a topic of much disagreement. As a Catholic, I believe that she remained a virgin her entire life; I find the Protestant arguments to the contrary to be unconvincing (and I say that as a former Protestant).


For example, there are many places in the Old Testament where it says that no one knows the location of a place “until this day”, the meaning being that no one knows where it is at all. There’s also a place (can’t find the reference right now but I believe it was one of David’s wives) that says that a woman had no children “until she died”, and it’s obvious that she couldn’t have any afterward. So the passage in Matthew that says that Mary did not have relations with Joseph “until” she gave birth to Jesus only refers to what didn’t happen before the birth; it does not demand the conclusion that she had relations with him afterward.

Also, in the original language, the references to the brothers of Jesus use a word that actually means “kinsmen”, which includes cousins. Again, the original texts do not demand the conclusion that Mary had other children.

The perpetual virginity of Mary was believed without question by all Christians for the first 1600 years of Chrisitanity. In fact, Martin Luther himself, the architect of the Protestant Reformation, absolutely believed that Mary remained a virgin her entire life.


As for the other issues being talked about here, the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, the authority of the Bishop of Rome and all, I have strong disagreements with many of the posters here. You didn’t ask about those things so I won’t go there, other than to notice that there have been a number of instances in this thread of people implying that Catholics don’t believe the Bible but Protestants do. Suffice it to say that I find it disingenuous for someone to make such outrageous slanders, and then in the same breath decry the presentation of alternative docrinal understandings as being divisive.

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Notice that we see Mary called the mother of Jesus, and she is.
Remember that Jesus has two natures: a human nature and a divine nature.
Mary is the physical mother of Jesus' human incarnation, not His divine nature.

But how would it be easy to go without sinning, when we have a sin nature? If it's easy to be sinless, then why does the Bible tell us that all have sinned?

But if Mary was sinless, why would she have tasted death? If she was assumed, as the Roman Catholic church supposes, how would she have tasted death?

Yes, Mary was the mother of Jesus, both Human and Divine. She gave birth to both natures. TO claim otherwise asserts that Jesus was not fully divine, or that He was not divine until some later time. Therefore, Mary is the Theotokos, or God-bearer.

Literary device. Jesus didn't sin. He is part of "all."

If Jesus was also sinless, why did He die? Just because you are sinless doesn't mean you can't die. While we do not hold that sin is passed down from generation to generation, the consequence of sin, death, is.

 

[Svt4Him]

Yes, Mary was the mother of Jesus, both Human and Divine. She gave birth to both natures. TO claim otherwise asserts that Jesus was not fully divine, or that He was not divine until some later time. Therefore, Mary is the Theotokos, or God-bearer.

Literary device. Jesus didn't sin. He is part of "all."

If Jesus was also sinless, why did He die? Just because you are sinless doesn't mean you can't die. While we do not hold that sin is passed down from generation to generation, the consequence of sin, death, is.

Why did Jesus die? Well, the weight of His body causes His muscles to expand, causing Him to not be able to breath...As He had a spike in His leg, it would be really hard to lift up to catch breath, although possible, very painful. But for Jesus, He really died because He laid down His life for us.

As for the perpetual virginity of Mary, you can see this is a topic of much disagreement. As a Catholic, I believe that she remained a virgin her entire life; I find the Protestant arguments to the contrary to be unconvincing (and I say that as a former Protestant).

And as a former Catholic, I find the Catholic argument to the contrary not only unconvincing, but unBiblical.

As said before, you will find a lot of church dogma and church teaching in this type of discussion.

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Why did Jesus die? Well, the weight of His body causes His muscles to expand, causing Him to not be able to breath...As He had a spike in His leg, it would be really hard to lift up to catch breath, although possible, very painful. But for Jesus, He really died because He laid down His life for us.

Thank you

Anyways, as I was trying to point out, one does not have to be a sinner to die.

 

[12volt_man]

Yes, Mary was the mother of Jesus, both Human and Divine. She gave birth to both natures.

I see. So then, how did Mary go back to the beginning of time, even before the beginning of the beginning of time to accomplish this?

If Jesus could not exist without Mary and the Bible tells us that Jesus is the Creator, who created Mary?

TO claim otherwise asserts that Jesus was not fully divine, or that He was not divine until some later time. Therefore, Mary is the Theotokos, or God-bearer.

It doesn't assert this at all. Jesus was God forever before His incarnation. He did not take on a human nature until His incarnation.

If Jesus was also sinless, why did He die?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that it was perhaps because He was stabbed in the heart with a spear.

Would you mind showing us where in scripture we see that Mary is the mother of God?

 

[chilehed]

darthvader,

I found the references (at http://catholicoutlook.com/objmary2.php):

• “Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death” (2 Sam. 6:23). Did she have children after her death?
• “‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet”’” (Matt. 22:44). Will the Lord no longer sit at God’s right hand after his enemies have been put under his feet?
• “I charge you to keep this command without spot or blame until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Tim. 6:13-14). Could Timothy disregard this command after the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ?
• “Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching” (1 Tim. 4:13). Was Timothy supposed to quit reading the Scripture, preaching, and teaching, after Paul arrived?

Another indication that Mary had no other children is seen at the Crucifixion, where Jesus tells John “See, your Mother” tells Mary “See, your son”, thus giving Mary into the care of John. He would not have had to do this if she had other children, because they would have taken care of her, and indeed if he had done it anyway they would have howled in protest. There’s no record of any such protest, and the common rational that Jesus did it because his alleged siblings were not believers is merely a transparent supposition that is not at all supported by any biblical text.

Additionally, one of the messianic prophesies indicates that the Messiah would be an only child: “...they shall look him who they have thrust through, and they shall mourn for him as one mourns for an only son, and they shall grieve over him as one grieves over a firstborn.” (Zech. 12:10).

 

[Serapha]

So the passage in Matthew that says that Mary did not have relations with Joseph “until” she gave birth to Jesus only refers to what didn’t happen before the birth; it does not demand the conclusion that she had relations with him afterward.

Hi there!



Nor does the statement demand the conclusion that she did not have relations with Joseph after the birth of Christ.

Everyone seems to forget that consumation of the marriage was a must, or that to remain "betrothed" for a lifetime instead of being married would have been a disgrace to everyone involved, particular with any births--even the birth of the Christ child.

There is no passages in the Bible to indicate that the "brothers and sisters" of Jesus were older than He was, however, since the "brothers" of Jesus were traveling with their mother to Capernaum, that is a indication that they were younger than Jesus was... that is...to be remaining in the family structure with their mother and traveling with her.


Mark 3:31 There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him.


~serapha~