Does Mary not being an ever virgin take anything away from Christ?

[Dorothea]

1. The Perpetual Virginity of Mary was declared Dogma in the 4th Century? That's news to me....

2. It's not typically disputed if Mary was a virgin. But some see no substantiation for dogma that she never once had sex. She was a virgin at the conception and birth of Jesus as in "BORN of the virgin Mary" but not "born of one who ever once had sex after He was born." Apples and oranges.

3. Did you read the title (and thus the subject) of this thread? I don't see it as a discussion of whether Mary was a virgin at the birth of our Lord, or whether some denominations insist dogmatically that Mary never had sex. I think the issue is whether being not being ALWAYS a virgin would take anything away from Jesus. It's about the theoretical POSSIBILITY of a case of loving intimacies perhaps years AFTER His birth - would THAT have some impact on Jesus. I gave my response.

4. As the "regulars" here know, I do not deny OR accept as dogma the teaching that Mary never once had sex. Why? Because neither Scripture or Tradition teaches it or denies it. But the issue of this thread is not whether the point is correct, the point is does such AFTER the birth of Jesus have consequences for Jesus.

.

That's right. She was always a virgin.

Two dogmas concerning the Mother of God are bound up, in closest fashion, with the dogma of God the Words becoming man. They are: a) Her Ever-virginity, and b) Her name of Theotokos. They procede immediately from the dogma of the unity of the Hypostasis of the Lord from the moment of His Incarnation-the Divine Hypostasis.

The birth of the Lord Jesus Christ from a Virgin is testified to directly and deliberately by two Evangelists, Matthew and Luke. This dogma was entered into the Symbol of Faith of the First Ecumenical Council...

*From Fr. Michael Pomazansky, trans. Fr. Seraphim Rose, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology (Platina, CA: St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1994), pp. 187-189.

 

[bbbbbbb]

.

 

[Philothei]

Are you kidding me? This thread is still going on? I've been gone for at least nine months!!

hehehe...love your baby Fotini


Our most Holy and Blessed Mary and Ever Virgin Theotokos is keeping us going strong

 

[Philothei]

If Mary was not an ever virgin as some believe she was, does it really matter in the fact that Christ is who He is? Does it take anything away from or add anything to the Fact that Christ is Lord and Savior?

I do not knwo about taking away...and that is not the problem. It is the fact that it disorts the incarnation to believe that the mother of God, our Lord and Savior, came to this world as a human yet He was God. He came through a natural birth yet it was God incarnated and still His mother would not be Virgin. In the Gospel it says "for I know no man" and that is in the Greek proof enough to say she was not meant to "know" any man. And so she was.... as she was to bear Christ

 

[bbbbbbb]

I do not knwo about taking away...and that is not the problem. It is the fact that it disorts the incarnation to believe that the mother of God, our Lord and Savior, came to this world as a human yet He was God. He came through a natural birth yet it was God incarnated and still His mother would not be Virgin. In the Gospel it says "for I know no man" and that is in the Greek proof enough to say she was not meant to "know" any man. And so she was.... as she was to bear Christ

Perhaps you have missed the point of this thread. No Christian here denies the Virgin Birth of our Lord Jesus Christ. The point under discussion is whether the intimate relationship that may or may not have occurred between Mary and Joseph following the birth of Jesus does or does not detract from our opinion of Him. I myself do not see anything that would detract from His character.

 

[Philothei]

Perhaps you have missed the point of this thread. No Christian here denies the Virgin Birth of our Lord Jesus Christ. The point under discussion is whether the intimate relationship that may or may not have occurred between Mary and Joseph following the birth of Jesus does or does not detract from our opinion of Him. I myself do not see anything that would detract from His character.

Or maybe not... I am not missing the point... at all. From translating into English it may means that ...but it does say In Greek that she knew(s) no man... That is your opinion and I respect that. Still that is not what the text says in Greek

 

[bbbbbbb]

Or maybe not... I am not missing the point... at all. From translating into English it may means that ...but it does say In Greek that she knew(s) no man... That is your opinion and I respect that. Still that is not what the text says in Greek

Although I hardly claim to be a Greek scholar, even a brief look at the word ginosko (translated as know) in Luke 1:34 reveals that is a very common word used in many, many verses of the New Testament with many, many meanings which are generally seen in the context of the verse and the passage.

It is interesting to note that the very same word is used in Matthew 1:25 where it says the Joseph did not know Mary until after she gave birth to Jesus. There is little doubt that in both verses the word carries the same meaning - to know carnally. It is absurd to imagine that in Matt. 1:25 Joseph had no idea who Mary was until she gave birth to Jesus.

As for Luke 1:34 there is not a scintilla of doubt that Mary said that she did not know a man (carnally) prior to the announcement to her by Gabriel. She does not say that she would never know a man ever, but merely that she had not known a man up to that time.

I respect your opinion, but do not see how it adds to or detracts from the person and work of Christ.

 

[Philothei]

The text you are interpeting does not say that... per fact the translation is possible to mean two things and according to what Greek scholars agree it does not jive with what you are saying.The "until after" is not what you think it means and it is an obvious mistranslation. I could go into specifics but we have gone through that in one of those many threads ...if truly interested I could direct you after I do a search


The "until after" is not applying to her... it signifies when their "marriage contract' took place not their actual sexual union. The scripture is found not supportng ANY opinion on the matter if any.... That much I will agree but the fact the tense is simple present (in Luke 1.34) "knows" means in the future also if you want to be truthful with the Greek....then again if you are in desperate need to prove the point one can "force" the text to say what one wants to say

 

[Hammster]

MOD HAT ON

Some thread clean up occurred here. If your post is missing, and we haven't contacted you, fear not. You have done nothing wrong.

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[WarriorAngel]

The focus is not according to the flesh. We are to recognize no man according to the flesh.

You recognise what YOU think it all means [and you are flesh], and yet not those who God put in the Church as Bishops.

Are you flesh? YES! And do you follow what you believe because you feel you are led that way?
YET....
How come the scriptures make it a point not once, but a few times that we OBEY the Church and the Bishops - and that can be over looked?


What verse were you referring to??
And is it contextual?

 

[WarriorAngel]

Does Mary not being an ever virgin take anything away from Christ?

Yes again - i say it does.
Because it removes the prophecies to His flesh.
It removes prophecies of His Mother - whom was given a special rule.

Kecharitomene <~ As the Pope said [JPll]:

The expression "full of grace" is the translation of the Greek word kecharitomene, which is a passive participle. Therefore to render more exactly the nuance of the Greek word one should not say merely "full of grace," but "made full of grace," or even "filled with grace," which would clearly indicate that this was a gift given by God to the blessed Virgin. This term, in the form of a perfect participle, enhances the image of a perfect and lasting grace which implies fullness. The same verb, in the sense of "to bestow grace," is used in the Letter to the Ephesians to indicate the abundance of grace granted to us by the Father in His beloved Son (Eph. 1:6) and which Mary receives as the first fruits of Redemption (c.f. Redemptoris Mater, no. 10).

And the other OT foreshadowing of prophecy such as the Gate that the Lord passes through - NO MAN shall pass through.

AGAIN - a gate is just a gate - but He was actually referring to the future of His Mother and that her virginity would remain such.