Mary a virgin?

[thecolorsblend]

Hi Family,

What is the biblical basis for Mary being considered as a virgin?

What about the fact that she had kids or a kid after Jesus which requires sex?

~Natsumi Lam~

The angel informed Our Lady that she will become pregnant and give birth to a child.

So she asked how that's possible given that she's a virgin. Frankly, that's a really stupid question for her to ask considering that she was betrothed. She was planning to get married soon. So it's not exactly rocket science to figure out how she would've had children.

The only way her question isn't completely idiotic is if she had taken a vow which required her to remain a virgin. If she had taken a vow like that then asking how she could possibly give birth to a child is a very astute and very relevant question to ask.

 

[gordonhooker]

The angel informed Our Lady that she will become pregnant and give birth to a child.

So she asked how that's possible given that she's a virgin. Frankly, that's a really stupid question for her to ask considering that she was betrothed. She was planning to get married soon. So it's not exactly rocket science to figure out how she would've had children.

The only way her question isn't completely idiotic is if she had taken a vow which required her to remain a virgin. If she had taken a vow like that then asking how she could possibly give birth to a child is a very astute and very relevant question to ask.

I don’t know that is a silly question to ask if she has not had marital relations with her husband to be.

 

[prodromos]

I don’t know that is a silly question to ask if she has not had marital relations with her husband to be.

The angel simply said she would conceive, he didn't say when.

 

[gordonhooker]

The angel simply said she would conceive, he didn't say when.

Sorry I don’t get your point, are you suggesting it was an open ended timeline on the visitation? I would suggest you are reading more into the prophesy than is actually there.

 

[prodromos]

Sorry I don’t get your point, are you suggesting it was an open ended timeline on the visitation? I would suggest you are reading more into the prophesy than is actually there.

Seriously?
If you were to tell any young woman who was engaged to be married that she would conceive and bear a son, they would probably ask how you knew they would be having a boy and not a girl. There would not even be a question in their minds as to how they would conceive, since they are about to be married.

 

[thecolorsblend]

I don’t know that is a silly question to ask if she has not had marital relations with her husband to be.

Um, did you even read my post? She was betrothed. She would've been married soon. It shouldn't have been a surprise to her that she would be having children according to how Protestants generally interpret her fertility. If Our Lady was planning to have children through conventional reproductive means, she asked a completely stupid question of the angel.

 

[gordonhooker]

Seriously?
If you were to tell any young woman who was engaged to be married that she would conceive and bear a son, they would probably ask how you knew they would be having a boy and not a girl. There would not even be a question in their minds as to how they would conceive, since they are about to be married.

Yes seriously, I would not have responded if I knew what you meant, you seemed to reading more into it than appeared to be there.

 

[Fascinated With God]

The angel simply said she would conceive, he didn't say when.

I'm not clear on the tense of Greek words. Can the word ginōskō (know) be future tense? If she said "I will never know a man" it would be more convincing to me.

I doubt there is a clear answer to that, so instead, my primary question is, is there a verifiable Jewish tradition of married women taking vows of virginity and/or of "temple virgins" like Roman Vestal Virgins? Proof of that would be far more convincing.

 

[gordonhooker]

Um, did you even read my post? She was betrothed. She would've been married soon. It shouldn't have been a surprise to her that she would be having children according to how Protestants generally interpret her fertility. If Our Lady was planning to have children through conventional reproductive means, she asked a completely stupid question of the angel.

Yes I did read your post and that is why I responded in the way I did. As I said to our brother prodromos you guys seem to be reading more into it than was really there. Then again I have no idea what the basis of the perpetual virginity of our Mother is, as it was never taught in the Church of England / Australian Anglican Church that I was formed in and it was very High Church Anglican.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Yes I did read your post and that is why I responded in the way I did. As I said to our brother prodromos you guys seem to be reading more into it than was really there. Then again I have no idea what the basis of the perpetual virginity of our Mother is, as it was never taught in the Church of England / Australian Anglican Church that I was formed in and it was very High Church Anglican.

It's a very old belief. The Protoevangelium of James mentions it and Church Fathers such as Athanasius believed in it. It's old doctrine for which writings dating back to at least the living memory of the apostles.

That being the case, it's fair to ask why the Early Church believed in this doctrine and why the record was never set straight if Our Lady was not ever virgin.

 

[gordonhooker]

It's a very old belief. The Protoevangelium of James mentions it and Church Fathers such as Athanasius believed in it. It's old doctrine for which writings dating back to at least the living memory of the apostles.

That being the case, it's fair to ask why the Early Church believed in this doctrine and why the record was never set straight if Our Lady was not ever virgin.

As an Anglican I do believe in the virgin birth and I say I do every Sunday morning at the Eucharist when I stand and affirm the faith of Church with the Nicene Creed. What I was never taught in the Church of England/Anglican Church was that our Blessed Mother remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus our Lord, as Matthew 1:24-25 seems to say otherwise.

 

[jongault]

Her virginity was only concerning the conception through birth of Jesus. After his birth, she did indeed have sex which in part resulted in at least one brother, James, being a disciple. Regarding the relationship of Mary and Joseph in Mathew 1:25

But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a Son. And he gave Him the name Jesus.

This is a pretty good indication Joseph did have sex with Mary AFTER Jesus' birth. In Matthew 13:55 he tells us about the locals who knew the family of Jesus when he returned to Nazareth :

55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?
​

So here we learn he had 4 brothers. Many consider them "half brothers" because God is the father, but I don't discount the possibility that God could have given Jesus any combination of DNA he chose. After all, the fleshly body of Jesus was described as a "tent of flesh". That tent can be made of anything, it is what indwells within that tent that makes it special.

 

[ViaCrucis]

"Bob was a good man right up until he died." doesn't mean "Bob stopped being a good man after he died." it means that the entire duration mentioned Bob was good--if Bob continued to be good even after isn't addressed in the statement.

That Joseph and Mary did not have sexual relations until the birth of the Lord only tells us that they did not have relations in that entire duration, it tells us nothing about what happened or didn't happen afterward.

By insisting that Joseph and Mary did have sex after Jesus' birth is your own private opinion and you are engaging in eisegesis by claiming that is what is in Scripture. It's not, this is what you are reading into the text, because the text doesn't say it.

Scripture is completely silent about the sexual relationship (or lack thereof) of the Blessed Virgin and St. Joseph after the birth of the Lord; any view on the subject is entirely extra-biblical. The historic and pious opinion of the Church has been that Mary remained a virgin even after Christ's birth, and that the relationship between Joseph and Mary wasn't a romantic-sexual one (the idea of romance-based marriage is a pretty modern one anyway, not wrong, just not how it worked in most societies throughout history); in part because the earliest Christians received, as tradition, that Joseph was already quite old when Mary was betrothed to him. Marriage, as a social institution, would have meant that Joseph was her protector and provider; unmarried women (especially of lower social station) would normally be under the care of their father until given in marriage to a husband. It is not inconceivable that in this case that Joseph and Mary's marriage was one rooted in this cultural situation. And though while sex and procreation would follow as per the commandment "be fruitful and multiply", should special circumstances intervene, something extraordinary, it wouldn't be particularly shocking that:

1) Joseph's advanced age would have meant he wasn't in any shape to sire children with Mary and
2) The divine and miraculous conception and birth of the Eternal Son of God would make every dimension of Mary and Joseph's life radically extraordinary.

Ultimately it's simply not my business to know the sex life of the mother of God Incarnate. But attacking the historic position as being at odds with the biblical text is, simply put, false.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[blackribbon]

"Bob was a good man right up until he died." doesn't mean "Bob stopped being a good man after he died." it means that the entire duration mentioned Bob was good--if Bob continued to be good even after isn't addressed in the statement.

That Joseph and Mary did not have sexual relations until the birth of the Lord only tells us that they did not have relations in that entire duration, it tells us nothing about what happened or didn't happen afterward.

By insisting that Joseph and Mary did have sex after Jesus' birth is your own private opinion and you are engaging in eisegesis by claiming that is what is in Scripture. It's not, this is what you are reading into the text, because the text doesn't say it.

Scripture is completely silent about the sexual relationship (or lack thereof) of the Blessed Virgin and St. Joseph after the birth of the Lord; any view on the subject is entirely extra-biblical. The historic and pious opinion of the Church has been that Mary remained a virgin even after Christ's birth, and that the relationship between Joseph and Mary wasn't a romantic-sexual one (the idea of romance-based marriage is a pretty modern one anyway, not wrong, just not how it worked in most societies throughout history); in part because the earliest Christians received, as tradition, that Joseph was already quite old when Mary was betrothed to him. Marriage, as a social institution, would have meant that Joseph was her protector and provider; unmarried women (especially of lower social station) would normally be under the care of their father until given in marriage to a husband. It is not inconceivable that in this case that Joseph and Mary's marriage was one rooted in this cultural situation. And though while sex and procreation would follow as per the commandment "be fruitful and multiply", should special circumstances intervene, something extraordinary, it wouldn't be particularly shocking that:

1) Joseph's advanced age would have meant he wasn't in any shape to sire children with Mary and
2) The divine and miraculous conception and birth of the Eternal Son of God would make every dimension of Mary and Joseph's life radically extraordinary.

Ultimately it's simply not my business to know the sex life of the mother of God Incarnate. But attacking the historic position as being at odds with the biblical text is, simply put, false.

-CryptoLutheran

I think there is no Biblical evidence that she remained a virgin. You get to believe what you want to believe based on your religious beliefs...however, it is not any more Biblical than believing that a married couple would actually consummate their marriage (the normal definition of a real marriage). To believe that the town identifying Jesus as "the brother of " and that Joseph didn't consummate his marriage until Jesus was born is actually solid reason for a Biblical belief that they had a normal happy marriage life. However, ultimately, it doesn't matter in the whole picture. It is Jesus' life and death that saves us. As long as we understand that He was both God and human, then you can realize this role as Savior and God as well as His understanding and love for those of us that are all human.

Jesus is the important one.

 

[jongault]

By insisting that Joseph and Mary did have sex after Jesus' birth is your own private opinion and you are engaging in eisegesis by claiming that is what is in Scripture. It's not, this is what you are reading into the text, because the text doesn't say it.
-CryptoLutheran

As I mentioned in my post, Matthew 15:54-56 it does indicate additional children of at least 4 boys and un-numbered girls were born to Mary and Joseph:

Coming to His hometown, He taught the people in their synagogue, and they were astonished. “Where did this man get such wisdom and miraculous powers?” they asked. 55“Is this not the carpenter’s son? Isn’t His mother’s name Mary, and aren’t His brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas? 56Aren’t all His sisters with us as well? Where then did this man get all these things?”…
​

Acts 1:14

14 All these fwith one accord gwere devoting themselves to prayer, together with hthe women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and ihis brothers.
​

Again in Galatians 1:19

19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.
​

There are a few other places that mention James as the brother of Jesus. The fact that Jesus had siblings (regardless of if you call them half or full) would make a pretty strong, biblical case for Mary and Joseph engaging in intimate relationship following the birth of Jesus.

I do understand that Mary was blessed by being honored with raising and caring for our Lord Jesus in his vulnerable days, but beyond that, Mary holds no special position in God's court beyond that of an honored saint (saint being the term all believers in Jesus Christ earn and were repeatedly referenced by Paul in his letters to the churches.). Her status as a virgin following the birth of Jesus served no purpose as her virginity could no longer be proven in the way in which it would have been in that period.

 

[ViaCrucis]

As I mentioned in my post, Matthew 15:54-56 it does indicate additional children of at least 4 boys and un-numbered girls were born to Mary and Joseph:

Coming to His hometown, He taught the people in their synagogue, and they were astonished. “Where did this man get such wisdom and miraculous powers?” they asked. 55“Is this not the carpenter’s son? Isn’t His mother’s name Mary, and aren’t His brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas? 56Aren’t all His sisters with us as well? Where then did this man get all these things?”…
​

Acts 1:14

14 All these fwith one accord gwere devoting themselves to prayer, together with hthe women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and ihis brothers.
​

Again in Galatians 1:19

19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.
​

There are a few other places that mention James as the brother of Jesus. The fact that Jesus had siblings (regardless of if you call them half or full) would make a pretty strong, biblical case for Mary and Joseph engaging in intimate relationship following the birth of Jesus.

I do understand that Mary was blessed by being honored with raising and caring for our Lord Jesus in his vulnerable days, but beyond that, Mary holds no special position in God's court beyond that of an honored saint (saint being the term all believers in Jesus Christ earn and were repeatedly referenced by Paul in his letters to the churches.). Her status as a virgin following the birth of Jesus served no purpose as her virginity could no longer be proven in the way in which it would have been in that period.

The children of Joseph from a previous marriage would still be counted as Jesus' siblings. No one doubts that Jesus had brothers and sisters, that much is obvious. The question is whether these are the biological children of Mary or not; and Scripture doesn't tell us one way or the other.

Again, you are reading something into Scripture that Scripture doesn't say. The ancient fathers understood these to be the children of Joseph from a previous marriage, later some of the Latin fathers, notably St. Jerome, opined that these may be cousins on the basis that it is possible for adelphos to refer to close kin, not only siblings. I don't know if I find Jerome and the Western opinion to be that convincing, so I think that the older view (and the one that remains the view in the Christian East to this day) has more merit. But, again, it's simply not my business to know the sex life of the Blessed Virgin, so it's a non-issue for me doctrinally. I just take issue with bad biblical analysis and bad arguments. The chief argument in this case is an example of what I'd call Argumentum Contra Romanum, argument against Rome, i.e. "Rome believes X, therefore X is wrong." It is, at its core, simply a form of the Association Fallacy.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[SinoBen]

Hi Family,

What is the biblical basis for Mary being considered as a virgin?

What about the fact that she had kids or a kid after Jesus which requires sex?

~Natsumi Lam~

Hi Natsumi. I must admit, I'm very surprised there has been 7 pages in the thread so far. Such a simple question and a simple answer. Mary is no longer a virgin after the birth of Jesus i.e. relation with her husband, the conception of the other children via Joseph.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Hi Natsumi. I must admit, I'm very surprised there has been 7 pages in the thread so far. Such a simple question and a simple answer. Mary is no longer a virgin after the birth of Jesus i.e. relation with her husband, the conception of the other children via Joseph.

Where did you get your answer from? It's not the Bible, because Scripture is totally silent on the matter.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[SinoBen]

Where did you get your answer from? It's not the Bible, because Scripture is totally silent on the matter.
-CryptoLutheran

I think others have already quoted or mentioned Matthew 12:46 Matthew 13:55 Mark 3:21 Acts 1:14

 

[SinoBen]

The children of Joseph from a previous marriage would still be counted as Jesus' siblings. No one doubts that Jesus had brothers and sisters, that much is obvious. The question is whether these are the biological children of Mary or not; and Scripture doesn't tell us one way or the other.

I think this is called an argument from silence.
Up to you to show from scripture that Joseph had a previous marriage and children from that.