Why was it important that Mary was Virgin before she had Christ?

[narnia59]

And who has suggested otherwise?




Yes, and?


Let me go out on a limb here.... His plan?



Well of course, he is God. I am consecrated to Him for His purposes. So are you if you are a born again believer!




He would never? How do you know... oh yes... because he gave a sign that he would use a virgin. Tada! Jesus was born of a virgin, this we know because he gave us the sign.



He doesn't? I thought that we all share in His dwelling place, the Kingdom of God.




Well, God has used me for His purposes and has set me aside and I am of normal use. What are you talking about?


Who says, God?

Oh yes, that's right, we're all of "equal" purpose -- nothing special about anyone, no special roles, no special place in the kingdom for anyone, nothing to designate one from the other -- Christianity as designed by the great American experiment.

And the Incarnation becomes just another everyday event, nothing out of the ordinary, nothing special -- and certainly not the masterpiece of God's plan of salvation for the fulness of time.

 

[washedagain]

Oh yes, that's right, we're all of "equal" purpose -- nothing special about anyone, no special roles, no special place in the kingdom for anyone, nothing to designate one from the other -- Christianity as designed by the great American experiment.

And the Incarnation becomes just another everyday event, nothing out of the ordinary, nothing special -- and certainly not the masterpiece of God's plan of salvation for the fulness of time.

What on earth are you going on about. The incarnation was special... that is why it was a sign.

What else is beautiful is that God saved me. How precious is that?

Is God saving you from hell less precious? Are not all of His signs of His glory equally precious? God says that when one is added to the Kingdom, even the angel rejoice!

What is it that you are going on about?

All roles in God's economy are special and precious. God is no respecter of persons. God says so.


Yes, Mary being blessed to carry the Messiah is precious as are all of God's miracles... it is the miracles that are special, not the person.

What is troubling you?

How gracious of God to reveal His plan by giving us signs. One of those signs is that Jesus would be born of a virgin so we as believers can point to it as FURHTER evidence of his divinity. Praise God for His wisdom and mercy.

 

[lionroar0]

Well, God has used me for His purposes and has set me aside and I am of normal use. What are you talking about?

What do you mean by normal use?

I think we need to identify how you are using that phrase.

Normal means not unique. We are all normal as in we are all God's children but we all have a unique use, because we are all individuals and by that nature we are unique.

 

[washedagain]

What do you mean by normal use?

I think we need to identify how you are using that phrase.

Normal means not unique. We are all normal as in we are all God's children but we all have a unique use, because we are all individuals and by that nature we are unique.

You will have to ask the poster who coined the phrase... I was not the one who used it.

I agree with you... we are all unique. And God uses us each uniquely.

 

[Standing Up]

I gave the reason back in post #47. It was important that she be a virgin before she had Christ for the same reason she remains one afterwards.

Set apart (sanctified) to God for life. But many were set apart and have been since. That doesn't answer the question why must she have been a virgin.

 

[Standing Up]

So you believe it was necessary for Christ to born of a virgin in order to prove his divinity and that he does not have an earthly father.

I don't. Because I believe that the testimony of the Holy Spirit through scripture would be sufficient to prove his divinity and origin to those who believe, without such a sign. For those who do not believe Scripture, they would never be convinced by such a sign -- they would simply assume Mary was making up a story.

Are you saying if Mary had not been a virgin, there had been no such 'sign' given -- you would reject Scripture's claims that Christ was divine and had no earthly father?

Where are those claims? They only make sense within the context of God the Father, Christ born of a virgin.

 

[Standing Up]

And I have given you my reasoned response... now I ask you again....

How does God giving a sign make God dependent on the sign?
-snip-

In the same way God bound Himself to His vow, His promise. He said it and will do it. These things are sure (Hebrews).

 

[washedagain]

In the same way God bound Himself to His vow, His promise. He said it and will do it. These things are sure (Hebrews).

Amen and AMen... he is true to His word.

 

[Philothei]

Who knows the mind of God ? or the mind of people? I would not say if I would not know.... So it seems you both think "one way" we "think another" based on what we have experienced. Dogma is NOT only in isolation but a thread that was put together after everything was taken into consideration. That is not so with other theological traditions esp. some that "form it as they go" unfortunately.

 

[Philothei]

Set apart (sanctified) to God for life. But many were set apart and have been since. That doesn't answer the question why must she have been a virgin.

What would?

 

[Philothei]

You will have to ask the poster who coined the phrase... I was not the one who used it.

I agree with you... we are all unique. And God uses us each uniquely.

The incarnation was NOT just an event was it? Do you see lots of virgins around giving birth to a God-man? I think not so no! The incarnation was a soteriological event with "huge" dimensions and effects tht were more than just plain "unique" it was extraordinary "unique"

 

[Standing Up]

What would?

I might begin by saying I pretty much agree (now) that Mary did remain a virgin throughout her life. She changed her mind. There's some indications in scripture of that.

Anyway, I didn't know this discussion was really about some people actually trying to establish the ever-virginity of Mary. That underlying motive seems to be a roadblock to understanding the OP, which is answered by the simplicity that Isaiah spoke 'thus sayeth the LORD', a virigin will conceive and bring forth a child, God-with-us. She had to be a virgin because God said she would be. There is nothing, however, in that prophecy about her being ever-virgin.

Okay. Why a virgin? Anyone may do their own research on it. What does EO and RC and P say about it? The reason is ...

 

[Philothei]

#43

 

[Standing Up]

Actually accoring to this ... she would be showing pregnant that indeed meant that Joseph had dishonored her... that also was not looked at favorably in their society ...
So the ONLY reason for the virginity was that the scriptures to be fulfilled...I am in doubt that was the only reason... For her virginity was indeed seen by the Fathers as the redemption of the "new Eve" as per the image of the "new Eve" who through her birth of Christ she prefigured the woman's race and Christ was the image of the First Adam.

Her pious living has to do with the will of God but also her will to live a life of virginity after she was "called blessed for all generations" ... I think the Gospel is not about to point her private life but nevertheless gives her a place of highest honor and her virginity is of highest honor for she consent to what God willed for her and the human race.

No other individual in the Bible is "called blessed for all generations" than Mary. Her virginity in indeed not a physical state only but spiritual in nature.

So, she had to be a virgin in order to provide redemption for us or for women?

For the same reasons I think it was important she remained a virgin after his birth.

John the Baptist said he was not worthy to untie the sandal of Christ. Yet we are to believe that there are those who are worthy to take their flesh from the same woman God took his human flesh from? To dwell in the same womb, whether before or after God was incarnated in it?

Read the OT. What God consecrates and sets aside for his purpose, he does not share.

Part of the issue lies in whether one views the incarnation as merely a means to an end, or actually an integral part of the plan of salvation that occurs in the fulness of time.

I also think that God respects covenant -- those he makes with us and those a man and woman would make with each other. If Mary and Joseph were entering into a normal marital covenant relationship, I do not think God would circumvent that.... detour it so that he could 'borrow' Mary to have His son, and then return her to Joseph. That very much turns Mary into an object of the flesh. We would never believe it's okay for a man to 'borrow' another man's wife to have a child. We would never believe it's okay for a man to ask an engaged or married woman to agree to such a thing. We would be outraged that someone would think they could so easily set aside the covenant between a man and woman for their own purpose. But we're willing to believe that God would choose to do just such a thing? That makes no sense.

So I believe that God entered into a covenantal relationship with Mary to be the mother of His son, and into a covental relationship with Joseph to be the earthly father of His son and the protector of Him and His mother. As the angel says to Joseph when Herod was after Christ, "Take the child and his mother" to Egypt -- not "take your wife and the child". The definition of their relationship was not husband and wife, but their mutual relationship to "the child". The center for them was not a covenant of marriage to each other but the covenant God had entrusted to them to parent His son.

So, she had to be a virgin because she had entered a covenant?

We've said she had to be a virgin in the first place because God provided a sign per Isaiah----virgin will conceive and so, God-with-us.

If she remained a virgin because of some sort of "new eve" idea or covenant idea, sure, why not?

 

[Thekla]

IN the MT, it is interpreted by some "young woman", not virgin (though there is debate on the meaning of almah).

But at any rate, Matthew says the Virgin, indicating her perpetual virginity (because one cannot have as a name a condition that is temporary).

Her ever virginity has a meaning; it is ordained by God, this that is ordained by God is then recorded, then comes to be.

 

[Standing Up]

IN the MT, it is interpreted by some "young woman", not virgin (though there is debate on the meaning of almah).

Yes, but the point is the sign, a virgin will ... IOW, there's no sign if a young woman brings forth God-with-us. You agree, right?

But at any rate, Matthew says the Virgin, indicating her perpetual virginity (because one cannot have as a name a condition that is temporary).

Tell that to Saul/Paul or sons of Zebedee/thunder.

Her ever virginity has a meaning; it is ordained by God, this that is ordained by God is then recorded, then comes to be.

It's not about her ever-virginity. The question is why a virgin? To be the new Eve, to be in covenant, to be set aside, sure, why not. But to start with a virgin (and perhaps for her to choose to remain a virgin, which I agree with) is the question.

Apart from the prophecy (a virgin will bring forth and God will provide per Abraham), I'd say it was the blood. Your groups (EO and RC) don't have any teachings about that?

 

[washedagain]

=Philothei;58603299]The incarnation was NOT just an event was it?

No. Never suggested it was.

Do you see lots of virgins around giving birth to a God-man?

No, not sure why you are asking such a silly question.

I think not so no!

Well OK! You sure are worked over something that was never suggested.

The incarnation was a soteriological event with "huge" dimensions and effects tht were more than just plain "unique" it was extraordinary "unique"

Well, sure it was.... Just like Moses parting the red see, Water coming out of a rock and Jesus raising people from the dead. What is your point?

 

[Incariol]

Well, sure it was.... Just like Moses parting the red see, Water coming out of a rock and Jesus raising people from the dead. What is your point?

You think the entry of omnipotent God into the universe, Him becoming human, and the infinite Logos living a human life as the son of a carpenter and later an itinerant teacher is even comparable to the miracles of Moses?

umm...

 

[washedagain]

You think the entry of omnipotent God into the universe, Him becoming human, and the infinite Logos living a human life as the son of a carpenter and later an itinerant teacher is even comparable to the miracles of Moses?

umm...

All of God's miracles are FABULOUS.

Psssssst.

It wasn't Moses' miracle.

Nor Jesus being born of a virgin, Mary's miracle. Just say'n.

 

[Thekla]

Yes, but the point is the sign, a virgin will ... IOW, there's no sign if a young woman brings forth God-with-us. You agree, right?

That's the Masoretic, not the LXX.
But recall, Moses was a murderer and others of the Scriptures were impure but changed - so for God anything is possible.
The works of Christ were indeed signs, as was the star, etc.
So the question still remains ...

Tell that to Saul/Paul or sons of Zebedee/thunder.

Different usage in the verse, and Mark does not use the article with the new name.

It's not about her ever-virginity. The question is why a virgin? To be the new Eve, to be in covenant, to be set aside, sure, why not. But to start with a virgin (and perhaps for her to choose to remain a virgin, which I agree with) is the question.

Actually, by saying "the virgin", the ever virginity is part of the sign.
So again ... why ?

Apart from the prophecy (a virgin will bring forth and God will provide per Abraham), I'd say it was the blood. Your groups (EO and RC) don't have any teachings about that?

I'm not sure I understand about the blood, so if you could explain what you mean it is possible there is a parallel.

What is also of interest, since you brought up the blood, is that the mother and unborn infant do mix blood - to the extent that the mother continues to carry genetic material for a male infant for over a decade. (I'm not sure if anyone has been looking for longer persistence, as this was a relatively recent accidental discovery.)