[cogs]

This is shown by the words which Mary spake in answer to the Angel announcing to her conception; How,' saith she, shall this be, seeing I know not a man?' Which assuredly she would not say, unless she had before vowed herself unto God as a virgin. But, because the habits of the Israelites as yet refused this, she was espoused to a just man, who would not take from her by violence, but rather guard against violent persons, what she had already vowed.

I don't know how they came to this conclusion. See my earlier post about her being espoused to joseph, so she was concerned about her upcoming wedding, and pregnancy.
Mat 1:19 And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.
Now why would he try to put her away, if her pregnancy wasn't a concern? Guess joseph decided getting rid of his pregnant wife was better than having a wife. Never mind trying to protect her. If he wanted to do that, at least he could say he was the father. Then the baby wouldn't be looked upon as illegitimate.
Also, anti this, and post this... I just know that she didn't have a man to create a baby with, in jesus. The holy spirit was the seed that began jesus.

[ScottRC]

I don't know how they came to this conclusion. See my earlier post about her being espoused to joseph,

I did read your earlier post... but it didn't make much sense to me then either:

she couldn't have a child, as the angel said she would, because she never had sex. But the angel told her how she could have it.

Gabriel tells Mary, an engaged woman, that she will "conceive in your womb and bear a son" (v31)

Mary asks “How can this be, since I am a virgin?” (v34)

THEN Gabriel informs her how: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you... "(v35)

So this still does not explain how an engaged woman, when told she will conceive a child would ask "How can this be, since I am a virgin?"

Notice... Gabriel tells her that she WILL (future tense) conceive and Mary brings up her virginity... so common sense would tell you that Mary most likely had made a vow of chasitity and had no intention of having sexual relations even AFTER (remember FUTURE tense) she was married.

another thing: wasn't mary engaged? So she wouldn't have been able to have sex before marriage, and I believe this is mary's true intent in asking her question. She knew her marriage would take some time to pass, and the angel said she would conceive, so mary was concerned about the pregnancy. She didn't want to argue, so she finally said:

But this only would make sense if Gabriel told her the time frame of her conception, and he didn't... notice again he used the future tense... it could have meant 10 years from then... and Mary still was confused... so I'm not sure how you came to your assumptions.

I just know that she didn't have a man to create a baby with, in jesus. The holy spirit was the seed that began jesus.

Agreed... but that's not what this thread is about.

[cogs]

ScottRC:"Notice... Gabriel tells her that she WILL (future tense) conceive and Mary brings up her virginity..... so common sense would tell you that Mary most likely had made a vow of chasitity and had no intention of having sexual relations even AFTER (remember FUTURE tense) she was married."

This part of the bible says nothing about mary taking a vow of chastity, and nothing of her virginity after she married.

[ScottRC]

this part of the bible says nothing about mary taking a vow of chastity, and nothing of her virginity after she married.

That's why it is important to understand a bit about the culture of the period... and I think I provided some evidence as to why this text shows Mary's vow of chastity... as well as showing Scripture and the teachings of the early Church that should make it clear Mary remained a virgin after she married.

An important historical document which supports the teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity is the Protoevangelium of James, which was written probably less than sixty years after the conclusion of Mary’s earthly life (around A.D. 120), when memories of her life were still vivid in the minds of many.

According to the world-renowned patristics scholar, Johannes Quasten: "The principal aim of the whole writing [Protoevangelium of James] is to prove the perpetual and inviolate virginity of Mary before, in, and after the birth of Christ" (Patrology, 1:120–1).

To begin with, the Protoevangelium records that when Mary’s birth was prophesied, her mother, St. Anne, vowed that she would devote the child to the service of the Lord, as Samuel had been by his mother (1 Sam. 1:11). Mary would thus serve the Lord at the Temple, as women had for centuries (1 Sam. 2:22), and as Anna the prophetess did at the time of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:36–37). A life of continual, devoted service to the Lord at the Temple meant that Mary would not be able to live the ordinary life of a child-rearing mother. Rather, she was vowed to a life of perpetual virginity.

However, due to considerations of ceremonial cleanliness, it was eventually necessary for Mary, a consecrated "virgin of the Lord," to have a guardian or protector who would respect her vow of virginity. Thus, according to the Protoevangelium, Joseph, an elderly widower who already had children, was chosen to be her spouse. (This would also explain why Joseph was apparently dead by the time of Jesus’ adult ministry, since he does not appear during it in the gospels, and since Mary is entrusted to John, rather than to her husband Joseph, at the crucifixion).

According to the Protoevangelium, Joseph was required to regard Mary’s vow of virginity with the utmost respect. The gravity of his responsibility as the guardian of a virgin was indicated by the fact that, when she was discovered to be with child, he had to answer to the Temple authorities, who thought him guilty of defiling a virgin of the Lord. Mary was also accused of having forsaken the Lord by breaking her vow. Keeping this in mind, it is an incredible insult to the Blessed Virgin to say that she broke her vow by bearing children other than her Lord and God, who was conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit.

[RickJ]

Some folk go with man's tradition over God's word.

Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2) - and he instructs us to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).

Here's a helpful article on Mary, Ever Virgin:
Mary: Ever Virgin

[Tj3]

Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2) - and he instructs us to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).

2 Tim 2:2
2 And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.
NKJV

He never says, nor does scripture say, that he is, or that we are to go outside of what scripture says. Indeed scripture says that we are NOT to go beyond what is written.

[JoeT777]

ScottRC:"Notice... Gabriel tells her that she WILL (future tense) conceive and Mary brings up her virginity..... so common sense would tell you that Mary most likely had made a vow of chasitity and had no intention of having sexual relations even AFTER (remember FUTURE tense) she was married."

this part of the bible says nothing about mary taking a vow of chastity, and nothing of her virginity after she married.

Why is this so hard to believe that Mary didn’t have a physical relationship after the birth of Christ?

My nature is that of a doubting-Thomas (I usually need some credible reason), but I’ve never questioned that Mary was ever virgin. I’ve never been able to put a finger on why my nature is incongruous when it comes to the ever virgin Mary. I can discuss the topic openly (maybe not as well as Scott), but in the end I still can’t visualize Mary any other way except as ever virgin. Go figure!

JoeT

[RickJ]

2 Tim 2:2
2 And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.
NKJV

He never says, nor does scripture say, that he is, or that we are to go outside of what scripture says. Indeed scripture says that we are NOT to go beyond what is written.

??
Where does scripture say that scripture is the sole authority? Nowhere. Of course this is a major dividing point (Why, I am not sure since Scripture affirms that it is NOT the sole authority).

There was no New Testament for the first 300 years of Christianity. What did the early Christians rely on?

The Answer: The teaching of the Apostles whom Christ designated as the leaders of His Church.

[cogs]

In order not to wrestle with scripture, let me say that if I tell you something, you can infer whatever you want. Then, if that becomes the standard inference, it's like it becomes set in stone. I think this is what was done with these documents that infer things from the scripture that I would never infer myself.
However, that's not the point. The pharisees had the scriptures, and they did err. It was the scriptures that spoke of jesus. The pharisees thought they could find their salvation in the words, but the means to their salvation was staring them in the face. Words are not living. I'll take the living god, and learn from him. If he happens to let me know what his intention for some scripture means, then at least I'll have the interpretation from the living god, staring me in the face, rather than what someone wrote.

[tadita83]

One of the prophecies of the Messiah was that he would be born of a virgin. Christ's virgin birth is part of what made him so special because he did not have an earthly father, because his father was God. If Mary's other children were also virgin births wouldn't that be considering them to be more than just men, but also God in the flesh as Christ was? And in turn wouldn't that be in essence be declaring them almost as deity? Considering the other children of marry to also be virgin births (which would mean their father was God) seems to be stepping outside of the purpose of the virgin birth in the first place. Mary was a wonderful, Godly woman. My favorite woman of the Bible and one of my role models, but I just don't believe she remained a virgin all her life. Does that make her any less of a Godly woman or role model? Absolutely not. For starters, she was married!! She was well within God's "law" to lose her virginity!

[JoeT777]

in order not to wrestle with scripture, let me say that if i tell you something, you can infer whatever you want. then, if that becomes the standard inference, it's like it becomes set in stone. i think this is what was done with these documents that infer things from the scripture that i would never infer myself.
however, that's not the point. the pharisees had the scriptures, and they did err. it was the scriptures that spoke of jesus. the pharisees thought they could find their salvation in the words, but the means to their salvation was staring them in the face. words are not living. i'll take the living god, and learn from him. if he happens to let me know what his intention for some scripture means, then at least i'll have the interpretation from the living god, staring me in the face, rather than what someone wrote.

One of the prophecies of the Messiah was that he would be born of a virgin. Christ's virgin birth is part of what made him so special because he did not have an earthly father, because his father was God. If Mary's other children were also virgin births wouldn't that be considering them to be more than just men, but also God in the flesh as Christ was? and in turn wouldn't that be in essence be declaring them almost as deity? Considering the other children of marry to also be virgin births (which would mean their father was God) seems to be stepping outside of the purpose of the virgin birth in the first place. Mary was a wonderful, Godly woman. My favorite woman of the Bible and one of my role models, but i just don't believe she remained a virgin all her life. Does that make her any less of a Godly woman or role model? absolutely not. for starters, she was married!!! She was well within God's "law" to lose her virginity!

But why not? It’s not out of the question that she couldn’t have retained her virginity. If you’re willing to believe in the seemingly more incredible virgin birth, then why not believe that she remained celibate?

"Quid est enim fides nisi credere quod non vides?" (What is faith but belief without seeing?)

JoeT

[tadita83]

I totally agree with you joe that she COULD have retained her virginity, I just don't believe that she did because that would diminish the miraculous birth of Christ. I hope what I'm saying make sense. I believe without a doubt that God can do anything including have a child be born of a virigin because he did once already. I am not one to say that I understand God's plan entirely, but it seems to me that Christ's virgin birth was meant to be a special event unique to the Messiahs birth only. For Mary to have had other children though was a virgin would make the birth of the Messiah not so unique.

[ScottRC]

But why not? It's not out of the question that she couldn't have retained her virginity. If you're willing to believe in the seemingly more incredible virgin birth, then why not believe that she remained celibate?

Good point Joe... my opinion on this as a convert to the Church relied on this.

I just could not see Joseph putting his selfish desires ahead of the most important "job" any parents in history were given: raising our divine Lord into the man that would save us all from sin.

I know this is not "proof" of anything... but just wanted to share.:D

All with Peter to Jesus through Mary!

[ScottRC]

I am not one to say that i understand God's plan entirely, but it seems to me that Christ's virgin birth was meant to be a special event unique to the Messiahs birth only.

Very well stated.. God bless you for this wonderfully Christian attitude... I know I'm guilty at times of forgetting the "mystery" of our faith.

God bless.

[tadita83]

Please clarify scott, why are joseph's desires selfish? They were a married couple. What's wrong with them having sex? I just don't understand why it is such taboo to believe that Mary had sex with her husband not in Jesus' case, but in the case of her other children?

[ScottRC]

please clarify scott, why are joseph's desires selfish? they were a married couple. whats wrong with them having sex? i just don't understand why it is such taboo to believe that Mary had sex with her husband not in Jesus' case, but in the case of her other children?

Thank you for your question.

And to clarify: my answer is based upon my personal opinion.

I believe that Joseph was a pure and holy man... and I believe sex is intended for the procreation of children... and since (as I mentioned before) I believe Joseph and Mary decided that they would remain pure to focus on their primary task: raising Jesus... having sex "just for fun" and not for procreation would have certainly been simply "selfish".

Just my opinion... thanks for the chat.

[JoeT777]

i totally agree with you joe that she COULD have retained her virginity, I just don't believe that she did because that would diminish the miraculous birth of Christ. I hope what i'm saying make sense. I believe without a doubt that God can do anything including have a child be born of a virigin because he did once already. I am not one to say that i understand God's plan entirely, but it seems to me that Christ's virgin birth was meant to be a special event unique to the Messiahs birth only. for Mary to have had other children though was a virgin would make the birth of the Messiah not so unique.

Good point Joe.... my personal opinion on this as a convert to the Church relied on this.
I just could not see Joseph putting his selfish desires ahead of the most important "job" any parents in history were given: raising our divine Lord into the man that would save us all from sin.

I know this is not "proof" of anything... but just wanted to share.:D

All with Peter to Jesus through Mary!

Tadita83, Scott, et al

I don't think that God needed to prove himself, as it were to make the virgin birth even more miraculous. Or, for that matter, whether Joseph (by the way, that's a great name) had “desires.” I think Mary remaining virgin had more to do with the following verse:

Luke 1:45 And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord: be it done to me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

Mary completely subjected herself to the will of God; in effect became the “handmaiden” of God, willingly, knowingly, in spite of her young age. And after this proclamation, her spirit “rejoiced.”

Luke 1:45.. My soul doth magnify the Lord.
47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
48 Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid: for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. Shall call me blessed... These words are a prediction of that honour which the church in all ages should pay to the Blessed Virgin. Let Protestants examine whether they are any way concerned in this prophecy.
49 Because he that is mighty hath done great things to me: and holy is his name.
50 And his mercy is from generation unto generations, to them that fear him.
51 He hath showed might in his arm: he hath scattered the proud in the conceit of their heart.
52 He hath put down the mighty from their seat and hath exalted the humble.
53 He hath filled the hungry with good things: and the rich he hath sent empty away.
54 He hath received Israel his servant, being mindful of his mercy.
55 As he spoke to our fathers: to Abraham and to his seed for ever.

I would say that it was more a spiritual response of subjecting oneself (Mary's self) to God's will. If there is a “proof” I would vote for this one.

JoeT

[Tj3]

??
Where does scripture say that scripture is the sole authority? Nowhere. Of course this is a major dividing point (Why, I am not sure since Scripture affirms that it is NOT the sole authority).

We could go into that in detail, but we don't need to. Simply because there are 66 books that we agree are canonical, and scripture commands that we not add to the word of God (Prov 30:5-6 and others). So if you wish to add to those 66 books, show us that validation rthat proves that they are in fact the word of God. The onus is on you to validate any additional claims.

There was no New Testament for the first 300 years of Christianity. What did the early Christians rely on?

Really? Why are parts referred to even in the NT itself as scripture?

[tsila1777]

Mark 6:2-4 (King James Version)


2And when the sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were astonished, saying, Whence hath this man these things? And what wisdom is this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands?


3Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.
4But Jesus, said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.


Galatians 1:18-20



18Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. 19But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.
20Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.

[tsila1777]

There was no New Testament for the first 300 years of Christianity. What did the early Christians rely on?

300 years of Christianity?...it's only been about 2008, and matthew was written between 61 and 70 A.D Acts was written between 60 and 64 A.D. Rev. was written between 90 and 99 A.D.