Proof of Mary's virginity

Some believe that because Holy Scripture calls Jesus, Mary's first born , she must have had other children. Scriptural use of firstborn does not mean or imply that Mary had other children.

The Scriptural use of firstborn means a person's first child, and this could very well be an only child. It does not mean more children are to come, or a foreknowledge of more children.

When the Lord said to Moses, “Number every firstborn male of the sons of Israel from a month old and upward, and make a list of their names.” He was not saying that these month old children would be guaranteed other siblings. Firstborn means number one child, it doesn't mean there is going to be number 2 and 3.

Mary does have other children however, because Jesus gave her to us on the cross:

When Jesus then saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He *said to His mother, "Woman, behold, your son !" Then He *said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother !" John 19:26

There is nothing in Holy Scripture that shows Mary did not remain a virgin after the birth of Jesus Christ.

God Bless

 

Don't you realize that to refuse that Mary was a common sinner just as you, I and every other sinner Jesus personally touched is to belittle the intent of God by being born of a "woman?" You take away from Jesus' humanity and the whole purpose of Him becoming human.

Remember, God created humanity without sin, and sin actually makes us less human. In Christ Jesus, our human nature is healed, perfected, and elevated with the divine life of the Most Holy Trinity through the power of the Holy Spirit.

For Jesus to be born of an immaculate mother is to actually say that he was born of a more "human" mother than any of us were born of.

As well, a fundamental component of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is that Mary is preserved from the stain of Original Sin (which is fundamentally a privation of grace in the human soul; Adam and Eve were created with this divine life - and so the New Adam and the New Eve are created with it as well) by the merits of the Paschal Mystery. This is possible because God is outside of time; this is how the saints of the OT (cf. Hb 11) can be saved by Jesus Christ who came after them.

That means she urinated and defecated. Would a holy object have been able to do that?

Was Jesus able to do that?

Scripture established the Ark and the Tabernacle as "holy." Scripture forbade the Ark being touched or the Tabernacle being entered by anyone other than those specified. Did Scripture ever say that Mary could not be touched by her husband?

Scripture also mandated that the Ark be adorned with gold. Does this mean that Mary has to wear clothes made out of gold? Scripture also commands that two angels be created to form the mercy seat upon the ark. Does this mean that Mary has to walk around with two golden cherubim atop her head?

Your requirements miss the typological significance of Scripture by demanding literalistic prefigurements.

Luke has already made it abundantly clear that Mary is the New Ark of the New Covenant through the use of typology through the use of literary allusion in his Gospel. This has been noted by numerous Protestant Biblical scholars.

Fr. Antoine Bakh demonstrates this here:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/9587/maryark.html

In my estimation, to disregard this clear typological narrative in Luke's Gospel is to wear an anti-Mary prejudice on one's sleeve. Why resist the Word of God? What is to fear? God and his message?

This is why Jesus made it a point to downplay Mary in Scripture.

Consider what Pope John Paul II writes in his Encyclical Redemptoris Mater:

"But to the blessing uttered by that woman upon her who was his mother according to the flesh, Jesus replies in a significant way: 'Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it' (Lk. 11:28). He wishes to divert attention from motherhood understood only as a fleshly bond, in order to direct it towards those mysterious bonds of the spirit which develop from hearing and keeping God's word...

"Now, when Jesus left Nazareth and began his public life throughout Palestine, he was completely and exclusively 'concerned with his Father's business' (cf. Lk. 2:49). He announced the Kingdom: the 'Kingdom of God' and 'his Father's business,' which add a new dimension and meaning to everything human, and therefore to every human bond, insofar as these things relate to the goals and tasks assigned to every human being. Within this new dimension, also a bond such as that of 'brotherhood' means something different from 'brotherhood according to the flesh' deriving from a common origin from the same set of parents. 'Motherhood,' too, in the dimension of the Kingdom of God and in the radius of the fatherhood of God himself, takes on another meaning. In the words reported by Luke, Jesus teaches precisely this new meaning of motherhood.

"Is Jesus thereby distancing himself from his mother according to the flesh? Does he perhaps wish to leave her in the hidden obscurity which she herself has chosen? If this seems to be the case from the tone of those words, one must nevertheless note that the new and different motherhood which Jesus speaks of to his disciples refers precisely to Mary in a very special way. Is not Mary the first of 'those who hear the word of God and do it'? And therefore does not the blessing uttered by Jesus in response to the woman in the crowd refer primarily to her? Without any doubt, Mary is worthy of blessing by the very fact that she became the mother of Jesus according to the flesh ('Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts that you sucked'), but also and especially because already at the Annunciation she accepted the word of God, because she believed it, because she was obedient to God, and because she 'kept' the word and 'pondered it in her heart' (cf. Lk. 1:38, 45; 2:19, 51) and by means of her whole life accomplished it. Thus we can say that the blessing proclaimed by Jesus is not in opposition, despite appearances, to the blessing uttered by the unknown woman, but rather coincides with that blessing in the person of this Virgin Mother, who called herself only 'the handmaid of the Lord' (Lk. 1:38). If it is true that 'all generations will call her blessed' (cf. Lk. 1:48), then it can be said that the unnamed woman was the first to confirm unwittingly that prophetic phrase of Mary's Magnificat and to begin the Magnificat of the ages.

"If through faith Mary became the bearer of the Son given to her by the Father through the power of the Holy Spirit, while preserving her virginity intact, in that same faith she discovered and accepted the other dimension of motherhood revealed by Jesus during his messianic mission. One can say that this dimension of motherhood belonged to Mary from the beginning, that is to say from the moment of the conception and birth of her Son. From that time she was 'the one who believed.' But as the messianic mission of her Son grew clearer to her eyes and spirit, she herself as a mother became ever more open to that new dimension of motherhood which was to constitute her 'part' beside her Son. Had she not said from the very beginning: 'Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word' (Lk. 1:38)? Through faith Mary continued to hear and to ponder that word, in which there became ever clearer, in a way 'which surpasses knowledge' (Eph. 3:19), the self-revelation of the living God. Thus in a sense Mary as Mother became the first 'disciple' of her Son, the first to whom he seemed to say: 'Follow me,' even before he addressed this call to the Apostles or to anyone else (cf. Jn. 1:43)."

 

How do we know that Jesus was resurrected? Mere hearsay?

Show me his resurrected body. Or, give me credible witnesses.

 

Lisamc>>>>>>>>>You know, the only reason we would not build a bowling alley on Bull Run is out of desire to preserve history. Not because we consider the land holy or sacred. <<<<<<<<<

Lisa, No, I don't know that to be the only reason. President Lincoln said that the land itself is 'consecrated' and 'sacred'. The land itself is *sacred*. Old fashioned people both north and especially south of the Mason Dixon understand that.

You show your youth and modern outlook in making such an adolescent and irreverent assertion.

raymond

 

How can anyone say this and claim to be a Christian? Christ was the New Ark of the New Covenant. Is not blood 'carried' within the body? And isn't the New Covenant the covenant of Christ's blood? I'm pretty sure Jesus tells us this in the Bible.

In Christ,
Smaug

 

raymond,

Okay, if I'm honest, I have to say that I guess that's not the only reason. However, are we allowed to walk on those pieces of land? To touch them?

Did president have the authority to declare that land holy or sacred? I didn't know that presidents could declare anything to be holy or sacred.

Well, I guess we all know that I'm not from that area. Guess now we know I'm not old fashioned.

I should be offended I guess, but I'm getting to be just the age that to hear someone say my youth is apparent has a nice ring to it. It's even better to be called "adolescent."

 

Smaug,

I've presented this argument on numerous occasions, maybe not on this MB, but others. Anyhow, it just gets ignored. But, I agree with you on this point.

God Bless!!

Lisa

 

Smaug,

You asked, "How can anyone say this and claim to be a Christian?"

How could St. Luke say it through the device of literary allusion to 1 Samuel 6 and still remain a Christian?

Christ was the New Ark of the New Covenant.

Is not blood 'carried' within the body? And isn't the New Covenant the covenant of Christ's blood?

You're misunderstanding what a covenant is. A covenant is not a physical thing. You cannot say, "Look, here is a covenant," and examine it - like Jesus' resurrected flesh.

A covenant is an agreement between two parties that creates kinship family bonds, and in many cases, this involves a sacrificial victim. In the New Covenant, the sacrifice of the covenant is Jesus Christ. The oaths by which we cut and renew this covenant are the sacraments (The Latin for "oath" is sacramentum).

Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant because of what she carried in her womb as prefigured by the Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament.

That ark contained (1) A portion of the heavenly manna from the Exodus, (2) The tablets containing the Decalogue (literally, the "ten words"), and (3) the priestly staff of Aaron, Israel's High Priest.

Mary carried in her womb (1) The Bread of Life, (2) The Word Incarnate, and (3) The Eternal High Priest of the New Covenant.

 

Carson,

Uh . . . those of us who give Scripture due credibility as the inspired word of God, the testimony of those therein is enough. The apostles saw Him, spoke with him, and Doubting Thomas put his finger in the wound on Jesus side. That's all the proof I need.

Well, I consider the Bible to be credible witness.

 

The ultimate authority on all things for a truly born-again Christian has to be the Word of God. The oly proof that should be sufficient for us is the evidence as found in the 66 books of Holy Writ.

The prophet Isaiah said that the Messiah would be born of a "virgin" (7:14). Those who would render the Hebrew 'ahmah, by "young woman", do so because they are anti-truth, and take pleasure in twisting the Word of God. The apostle Matthew, himself a Jewish convert, used the Greek "parthenos" when quoting from Isaiah (see, Matthew 1:23). Had he wished to say "young woman", he would have employed the Greek "neos". It is not that I would object to the use of "young woman", is there is an explaination that the "young woman" in question is a "virgin". In which case "virgin" better suites the context. For those who insist that the Hebrew word for "virgin" is "betulah", are indeed wrong. If this word did clerarly identify a person to be a "virgin", then there would be no need for it to be further qualified. In Genesis 24:16, Rebakah is called "betulah", but then it goes on to say: "neither had any man known her". There would be no need for this statement, if the word "betulah" by itself meant "virgin"! Nowhere in Scripture, or its use outside the Bible, does "'almah" ever need to be qualified in any way.

Further to the use of the word "parthenos" by both Matthew and Luke, for Mary, we have this further testimony by both. In Matthew 1:16 we read: "Joseph the husband of Mary, from whom was begotten Jesus who is called Christ" (ton Iôsêph ton andra Marias ex hês egennêthê Iêsous ho legomenos Christos). Note the two little words "ex hês", "out of her", which is in the feminine in the Greek, and clearly EXCLUDES Joseph as being the father of Jesus! Likewise, in Luke 1:35 we read (according to the best and oldest manuscripts) "therefore, also, the holy child to be born of thee (ek sou, singular, personal pronoun, which clearly excludes Joseph), shall be called the Son of God"

As to whether Mary had any sexual relations BEFORE Jesus was born, is clear from Matthew 1:25: where it says that Joseph "ouk eginôsken autên" (knew her not) UNTIL (eos ou, till such time) she brought forth her Son, her First-born. Clearly indicating that there were other childern to follow the birth of Jesus, and showing that she indeed remained a virgin upto this time.

 

Augustine quotes Ambrose:

 

Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:

Jer 31:33 But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

2Cr 3:3 [Forasmuch as ye are] manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

Hbr 8:9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

Hbr 8:10 For this [is] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

The Ark of the Covenant contained the Ten Commandments written by the finger of God on Stone Tablets. Scripture tells us that the New Covenant will be written on our hearts. So, if there is an Ark of the New Covenant, it is our hearts.

Not an exact comparison, since as I've exhibited above, the New Covenant is carried on our hearts. In Communion we consume the Bread of Life, and the Eternal High Priest dwells within us.

 

Can you expand on this? Provide references? Sorry, I just don't understand.

Actually, I'm not. I just assumed my point was clear. Sorry. I was writing from work and on serious time constraints !

This, to me, sounds too much like deifying Mary. She was just a woman, albeit blessed among her peers across the ages. To claim she was some sort of holy object borders on idolatry IMHO. Several friends of mine who happen to be Catholic are dumbfounded when they find out I don't pray to Mary. Then again, they're also taken aback when I give my opinion on purgatory, praying to the saints, praying for the dead, and confession.

Maybe I *am* closed-minded, but I feel that Catholic doctrine venerates Mary while (albeit unintentionally) denegrating Christ, resulting in a net loss of millions of souls. They believe they are saved because they are so steeped in the traditions of 'Mother Church".

In Christ,
Smaug

 

Can you expand on this? Provide references? Sorry, I just don't understand.

Sure Smaug. Here is a link for you to read that goes through this portion of Luke's Gospel:

http://www.cin.org/archives/cinapol/200008/0060.html

For a more complete transcript of a presentation one of my professors gave on this subject (incidentally, he is a former Protestant seminary professor and pastor; he also used to consider himself an "Anti-Catholic"), see:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/scriptur/maryark.TXT

This, to me, sounds too much like deifying Mary.

How does recognition that Mary's role in the New Covenant is prefigured by and fulfills the role of the ark of the covenant in the Old Covenant to be equated with deifying Mary?

That doesn't follow.

She was just a woman, albeit blessed among her peers across the ages. To claim she was some sort of holy object borders on idolatry IMHO.

But aren't we all made holy as Christians? Isn't that the point of our sanctification (i.e., being made holy) by the Holy Spirit? This isn't idolatry. This is our life of grace, which is a gift of God given to us because we are made sons in the Son - children of God adopted into God's family through Jesus Christ.

Mary's holiness isn't of her own doing or making. It is a gift of God given to her in view of the merits gained by Jesus Christ through his Paschal Mystery (his passion, death, resurrection, and ascension). No person is made holy (e.g. given a participation in the divine nature; cf. 2 Peter 1:4) apart from the redemption gained by the blood of Christ.

Maybe I *am* closed-minded, but I feel that Catholic doctrine venerates Mary while (albeit unintentionally) denegrating Christ

But that is to fundamentally misunderstand the Christian doctrine of participation, which is the very purpose of creation itself. God didn't need to create; he is an infinite and perfect communion of divine persons as Blessed Trinity. Creation is the manifestation of the Trinity's abundant life-giving love, so that God might have creation share in his glory (and ultimately, so that angels and man might share in his divine life).

Christ became a man in order to heal, perfect, and elevate our human nature - he receives glory by sharing it with others! We become sons of God by sharing in the only Son of God. We are able to pray and intercede for others because the one mediatorship of Jesus Christ (1 Tim 2:5) is made manifest in us who become priests, prophets, and kings in him.

This participation is eloquently brought out by Paul in his epistles time and time again. Consider: "I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me" (Gal 2:20).

Take, also, for instance, how St. John the Seer describes the Church Triumphant in his heavenly vision: "And in the Spirit he carried me away to a great, high mountain, and showed me the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God, having the glory of God, its radiance like a most rare jewel, like a jasper, clear as crystal" (Rev 21:10f).

They believe they are saved because they are so steeped in the traditions of 'Mother Church".

Consider two verses:

"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions" (2 Thes 2:15)

"But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother" (Gal 4:26). Jerusalem was used by the early Christians as an Old Testament foreshadow and type of the New Testament Church. They saw the Church as essentially heavenly and our membership in the Church on earth as a participation in this heavenly reality.

This is demonstrated by the writer of the Letter to the Hebrews in Heb 12:22f:

"But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven, and to a judge who is God of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect"

 

Lisa --

I'm sorry I'm not making myself more clear. The point I am trying to get across is that UNTIL Jesus' miracles VALIDATED HIS MESSIAHSHIP, the only word that the people who knew of Mary would have had would have been that of Mary herself, unless of course, they were enlightened by the Spirit of God as was Simeon in the Temple regarding the baby he held in his arms.

Just having the OT prophesies would mean nothing in and of itself, for certainly ANY pregnant young girl could have said "The reason I am pregnant is because I am the fulfillment of the prophecy."

But the proof of that being true would be the child born actually proving to be the Messiah, right? So until Jesus began His ministry, how would the Blessed Virgin prove the truth of any such claim?

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

 

Lisamc>>>>>Did president have the authority to declare that land holy or sacred? I didn't know that presidents could declare anything to be holy or sacred.<<<<


President Lincoln about Gettysburg>>>>>We are met here on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of it as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But in a larger sense we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled, here, have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract<<<


Lisa,
It seems like you think that it is not possible for something material to become holy. I think you might be ignoring a basic part of the meaning of holiness, i.e.to be separated off; dedicated to one particular Godly purpose.

If you would think about what caused *objects* in the O T to be holy, you might see that a great part of it was this *dedication solely* for God's purpose. I believe this was the reason why Belshazzar excited God's wrath so much when he used the holy vessels taken from the Temple for party ware.

Ditto for Mary. Giving us our Savior was her one purpose in life. Did this cause her life to be a little strange? most certainly. Her life was touched more intimately by the Almighty than anyone in the history of the world. Agreed?

However,if you examine the life of John the Baptist, or even O T saints like Elijah or Elisha, you might see this same "strangeness" and that in a very holy life, many things we normal people see as necessities take a back seat. Among those things: seeking sexual gratification or fulfillment.

your brother

[ May 01, 2003, 04:20 PM: Message edited by: raymond ]

 

Ed,

Who said that anybody believed Mary? We know Joseph did, eventually--after a visit from an angel.

And we know how Joseph knew, an angel appeared to him. There was no satisfactory way for this to be proven except by faith and discernment given by God. When Jesus started His ministry, people did not know He was the Son of God, nor that He would claim to be.

Now, haven't you heard of the Protoevangelium of James? I can't believe you guys haven't sprung this one on us yet.

 

raymond,

Um, I never actually said that I didn't think objects could be deemed "holy." But, I went back over my posts to see why you may think that's what I believed. Certainly, if used in the context you mention above, i.e. to be separated off, dedicated to one particular Godly purpose, the term "holy" would be reasonable. Anyhow, what I said was: If Mary was a thing like the Ark of the Covenant or the Tabernacle, then nobody would have been able to touch her, not even a hug. How would she have been allowed to perform menial tasks? Not to mention the unmentionable, eating and digesting food. That means she urinated and defecated. Would a holy object have been able to do that? If so, then why would performing marital relations with her husband have been wrong or not allowed?

What I do not believe is that Mary was an object. If you think her person was holy or sacred, she should have been placed in a luxurious room and nobody would have had access to her. Think of all the holy objects in the Churches possession today? How many can you not touch, based upon their holiness? People make pilgrimages to holy shrines just to get to touch them and receive healing powers.

You say that Mary must have been holy because she carried Christ in her womb for nine months. But, I say Jesus touched many, many people. Do you consider all those He touched to now be holy objects?

What deemed them to be holy was the very words of God. Very clearly in the OT we are told just how holy those objects were. For instance, if you take into account the Protoevangelium of James, that Mary was indeed raised as a "temple virgin," then you have to consider two things: 1) that it was anticipated that Mary would bear the Messiah, or 2) That once she neared the age of maturity, the temple priests feared that if she began her menses, her presence would defile the temple. Do you think that a "holy" object could defile a "holy" place?

How do you know this? If that was so, then why did she ever leave the temple or get married?

Yes, I agree. But, that does not exalt her above the rest of mankind.

Are you saying that Mary was a prophet? If her sole purpose was to bear Christ, what did she do after He was born, when He was grown; taking care of His Father's business?

The fact is we eat to live, but especially during OT times, marital relations were necessary for procreation, very, very important in the eyes of God. Sex within marriage is not sinful or dirty. If Mary experienced every other human weakness that could seemingly demean a person, why would she have been denied the privilege of bearing other children?

 

raymond>>>>>if you examine the life of John the Baptist, or even O T saints like Elijah or Elisha, you might see this same "strangeness" and that in a very holy life, many things we normal people see as necessities take a back seat. Among those things: seeking sexual gratification or fulfillment.<<<<<
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa>>>>
Are you saying that Mary was a prophet? If her sole purpose was to bear Christ, what did she do after He was born, when He was grown; taking care of His Father's business?<<<<<


Lisa, allow me to quote from the 'Baptist Hymn to Mary'. The author is the son of a southern baptist preacher, yet I believe his song says a lot about how the Catholic Church defines holiness:

Not a martyr, nor missionary,
....nor pontiff crowned with gold.
Thy Glory shown brightest
....in the quietest shadow.
Our most holy, most shining saint
....is a housewife.

I believe Mary's secret of holiness was her humble, quiet life. She wasn't a lady pastor, or church busybody, or the type that likes to hear the sound of her own voice. Perhaps this is why marian devotion is totally lacking in modern feminists; even ones who are putatively catholic. Mary was everything they're not.

They, along with evangelicals make the mistake of equating holiness with talking the most, or of standing in the front, or having the most power over others. This is why Mary gets overlooked.

raymond

[ May 05, 2003, 05:19 PM: Message edited by: raymond ]