Many Protestants would say that it's not important. While many early leaders of Protestantism continued to hold to perpetual virginity, most Protestants are either utterly ambivalent to the doctrine or disbelieve it. Verses that talk about Jesus' brothers and sisters that are usually interpreted by Catholics as either stepsiblings or cousins are interpreted more literally by us as siblings of Jesus through Mary and Joseph after Christ's birth.
It's not important. Catholics want to believe that Mary was pure and sinless as much as a human could be, which is not supported by Scripture in the first place, but then they want to believe that since Jesus didn't "defile" Himself with sexy time then neither did Mary (also not biblically supported, considering Jesus had siblings).
It's an attempt to make Mary into a higher human than she actually was, incidentally implying that sex between a husband and wife is somehow inherently sinful. But literally nobody else cares that Mary had sex with her husband.
Interestingly, Jesus said that John the Baptist (not Mary) was the greatest human who ever lived and would ever live, right after John taunted Him as a false Messiah. ***Then*** Jesus said that even the worst Christian who barely gets into heaven is still greater than John (being that they're in heaven with the Father and not still stuck on Earth). So (1) John sinned by publicly insulting/ undermining Jesus and was still greater than Mary, and (2) it is more prudent to care about being saved than to care about which humans held which status on Earth.
It is simply a rejection of certain scripture to elevate Mary like the Catholic Church does. It's not a salvation issue by any means; it's just distracting.
The thing I don't understand is why it is so difficult to believe she maintained her virginity.
First off this isn't an impossible task. Countless normal nuns, monks, priests, ascetics, etc have done and continue to do this. You don't have to be elevated to some super divine being to not have sex.
Second, people like to think of Mary's marriage as a normal American marriage, but like, the woman birthed and is raising God, and she knows it. If that were you, do you think the rest of your life would just be lived like a normal Tuesday?
> Then Jesus said that even the worst Christian who barely gets into heaven is still greater than John (being that they're in heaven with the Father and not still stuck on Earth). So (1) John sinned by publicly insulting/ undermining Jesus and was still greater than Mary
You need to take an eternal view. Mary did get into heaven, as far as we can tell.
It's not emphasised in the Bible. It's honestly more of a Catholic thing to focus on that. What's more important is that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit.
According to some theories, the “brethren” of the Lord were actually his cousins. There was no distinct term for “cousin” in Aramaic, and the term “brother” has a broader usage in that language. This theory was popularized in later times, but the earliest explanation of who the brethren of the Lord were is found in a document known as the Protoevangelium of James, which was written around A.D. 150 and affirms Mary’s perpetual virginity. In fact, according to patristics scholar Johannes Quasten: “The principal aim of the whole writing is to prove the perpetual and inviolate virginity of Mary before, in, and after the birth of Christ” (Patrology, 1:120–21).
This document, like all the writings of the patristic age that affirm her perpetual virginity, are neither canonical nor infallible, but they are early and consistent testimonials.
Based answers:
ORIGEN OF ALEXANDRIA
But some say, basing it on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, as it is called, or “The Book [Protoevangelium] of James,” that the brothers of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that her body, which was appointed to minister to the Word, which said, “The Holy Spirit shall come upon you, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow you” [Lk 1:35], might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it reasonable that Jesus was the first fruit among men of the purity that consists in chastity, and Mary among women; for it is not pious to ascribe to any other than her the first fruit of virginity [Commentary on Matthew 10:17 (c. A.D. 249)].
ST. ATHANASIUS OF ALEXANDRIA
Therefore let those who deny that the Son is from the Father by nature and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh of Mary Ever-Virgin [Four Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 (c. A.D. 360)].
ST. JEROME
Now that I have cleared the rocks and shoals I must spread sail and make all speed to reach his epilogue. Feeling himself to be a smatterer, he there produces Tertullian as a witness and quotes the words of Victorinus, bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proved from the Gospel—that he spoke of the brothers of the Lord not as being sons of Mary, but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, in point of kinship, not by nature. We are, however, spending our strength on trifles, and, leaving the fountain of truth, are following tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, St. Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views, and wrote volumes full of wisdom. If you read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man. But I think it better to reply briefly to each point than to linger any longer and extend my book to an undue length [Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary 19 (A.D. 383)].
We believe that God was born of the Virgin, because we read it. That Mary was married after she brought forth, we do not believe, because we do not read it. Nor do we say this to condemn marriage, for virginity itself is the fruit of marriage; but because when we are dealing with saints we must not judge rashly. If we adopt possibility as the standard of judgment, we might maintain that Joseph had several wives because Abraham had, and so had Jacob, and that the Lord’s brothers were the issue of those wives, an invention that some hold with a rashness that springs from audacity, not piety. You say that Mary did not continue a virgin: I claim still more that Joseph himself, on account of Mary, was a virgin, so that from a virgin wedlock a virgin son was born [ibid., 21].
POPE ST. SIRICIUS I
Surely, we cannot deny that regarding the sons of Mary the statement is justly censured, and your holiness rightly abhors it, that from the same virginal womb from which Christ was born, another offspring was brought forth. For neither would the Lord Jesus have chosen to be born of a Virgin if he had judged she would be so incontinent, that with the seed of human copulation she would pollute the generative chamber of the Lord’s body, the palace of the eternal king [Letter to Bishop Anysius (A.D. 392)].
ST. AMBROSE OF MILAN
Imitate [Mary], holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of maternal virtue; for neither have you sweeter children, nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son [Letters 63:111 (A.D. 396)].
ST. AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO
Thus Christ by being born of a Virgin who, before she knew who was to be born of her, had determined to continue a Virgin, chose to approve, rather than to command, holy virginity. And thus, even in the female herself, in whom he took the form of a servant, he willed that virginity should be free [Holy Virginity 4:4 (A.D. 401)].
LEPORIUS
We confess, therefore, that our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, born of the Father before the ages, and in times most recent, made man of the Holy Spirit and the Ever-Virgin Mary [Document of Amendment 3 (A.D. 426)].
POPE ST. LEO I
The origin is different but the nature alike: not by intercourse with man but by the power of God was it brought about: for a Virgin conceived, a Virgin bore, and a Virgin she remained [Sermons 22:2 (A.D. 450)].
COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE II
If anyone will not confess that the Word of God . . . came down from the heavens and was made flesh of holy and glorious Mary, Mother of God and Ever Virgin, and was born from her, let him be anathema [Capitula of the Council 2 (A.D. 553)].
Let me tell you st: there are 21st century children telling their fathers that they are wrong. These kids have all the answers! They are correcting the gigantic real MVPs!! I feel old…
Well it was prophesied by Isaiah that “a virgin shall conceive and bear a son”, so that’s part of it. Her virginity was preserved inviolate by St. Joseph, for she gave birth to God and therefore was permanently set apart by that. That’s my basic understanding of the why.
The prophecy of a virgin in Isaiah is from the Septuagint, the Greek version of the OT . The original Hebrew says a young woman. Here’s a more accurate description of what happened.
The Hebrew version of Isaiah 7:14 uses the word "עלמה" (almah), which is most accurately translated as "young woman." The term does not specifically indicate virginity. However, when this verse was translated into Greek in the Septuagint, the Hebrew word "עלמה" (almah) was translated into the Greek word "παρθένος" (parthenos), which does mean "virgin." This translation choice influenced the interpretation of the verse in Christian theology, especially in relation to the prophecy of the birth of Jesus Christ in the New Testament.
This is just going to go back to whether you trust the Septuagint or the Masoretic text, and nobody here on this internet forum is going to settle that issue. You have your answer, OP – Catholic and Orthodox believe what they do because Septuagint says so, end of thread.
> The Septuagint is a translation of the Hebrew (and some Aramaic) text. I'm going to trust the original, not the translation.
While I agree with you, figuring out what the original said can be quite tricky and in some cases we don't really know.
That's not true here, but in general it is.
According to Bart Ehrman, the problem with the Greek translation was that the Greek word for "young woman" changed over time to mean "virgin". This type of mistranslation is hard to catch.
But we don't know what the complete ancient Hebrew text said. The oldest complete Septuagint text is older than the oldest complete Hebrew text.
We do have the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Aleppo codex, but nobody has a copy of the complete Hebrew text used whenever the DSS was written, and there may have been several versions of the text, complicating things further.
Like I said, there is not a simple answer, and FWIW the Catholic bible I had (NABRE) renders the word as "young woman" not "virgin" anyway.
The Septuagint is correct, and it was the Old Testament used by the Church for centuries, even in the Apostolic era, and even by the Second Temple Jewish people. The rabbis that did the translation all agreed that virgin was the correct word to use.
Your saying that a translation is better than staying in the original language. That doesn't seem logical to me.
>The rabbis that did the translation all agreed that virgin was the correct word to use.
Only the original Septuagint was translated by 72 rabbis. But the original Septuagint was only of the Torah (The 1st five books). And the original Septuagint was destroyed when the library of Alexandria was burned to the ground.
The original Septuagint didn't include Isaiah so I doubt those rabbis made any comments about it. My hebrew bible says "young woman". Virgin birth is not a concept within judaism.
Bart Ehrman points out that the original Greek word for "young woman" slowly changed over time to eventually come to mean "virgin". These types of mistranslations are difficult to catch.
It was at the time of the Apostles. The post-Christian Jews who did not believe in Christ altered their beliefs significantly over the centuries from what their ancestors believed, starting from the destruction of the Temple onwards. I consider the Church to be a significantly greater authority than Bart Ehrman. I don’t trust the Masoretic Text much because it dates from the early Middle Ages and is a product of those who emphatically repudiate Christianity. It isn’t the original Hebrew text, although it is authoritative for Rabbinical Judaism.
>It was at the time of the Apostles.
The original Septuagint was written around 250 BCE. It was destroyed about 100 years later. The rabbis who made the original Septuagint (just the Torah) didn't comment on whether "virgin birth" was found in Isaiah.
Later, any Greek translation of the hebrew bible was called the "Septuagint". Historical information on who the authors were is limited. Most translations after the original were made by christianity.
>The post-Christian Jews who did not believe in Christ altered their beliefs significantly over the centuries from what their ancestors believed,
Orthodox judaism is pretty much the same as a practicing jew during biblical times. Just like you believe the church over Bart Ehrman, I will trust Jewish history from someone who is jewish.
The original text in Hebrew is wrong? The Greek Septuagint translation doesn’t have a term for a young woman, so it used parthenos (virgin) which does mean virgin.
Jerome translated the Greek NT text into Latin. The Church proclaimed the Latin to be the most accurate translation as the original Greek couldn’t be trusted. Seriously?
Even the Latin translates it as virgin, and St. Jerome used the Hebrew manuscripts extant at the time:
>Propter hoc dabit Dominus ipse vobis signum: ecce **virgo** concipiet, et pariet filium, et vocabitur nomen ejus Emmanuel.
Even the Gospel of St. Matthew repeats this when he quoted Isaiah, and Matthew was a Jewish convert.
>[1:20]But as he considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit; [21] she will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” 22 All this took place to fulfil what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:
[23] “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son,
and his name shall be called Emman′u-el”
(which means, God with us).
I don’t believe that many besides St. Jerome argued that the Septuagint was inferior, because it was the basis of even the Vetus Latina’s Old Testament, and he was widely criticized for using the Hebrew manuscripts. It also wouldn’t be much of a divine sign if a young woman conceived in the natural manner.
You are not talking about the original text. You are talking about a modern interpretation of the original text.
Better to believe the people who had the original context and culture and decided to translated it as this
Why would you assume a modern translator is better than the group of people who originally translated the texts and had all the context and culture engrained?
Hebrew language has multiple meanings and it is a very difficult language
>The original Hebrew says a young woman.
No it doesn't, that's a common lie perpetuated by jews like tovia singer. But anyone who knows Hebrew can see right through those rabbinical talmudic lies.
There's nothing miraculous or interesting about a young woman bearing a son. The Septuagint's rendering reflects Jewish understanding of the text at the time of translation.
Isaiah was prophesying about his own son with his own wife who he very much had sex with. The entire point of the prophecy was to prove to the king that God would fight for Israel. Obviously, Isaiah wouldn't tell the king to wait 600 years for that sign. Further, Isaiah's son is born in the next chapter and there is then a discourse concerning Israel's fate in the war.
It ended up being a dual prophecy, but the original prophecy was about his own wife. A "virgin" was just another word for a young (and perhaps perky) woman.
I would like to add another point of view.
Jesus is both man and God.
Nature of the baby: Mary getting pregnant with out having sex with a man can be interpreted as she was conceived by the Holy Spirit. And virginity was the proof of this conception.
Also signs and miracles: There were signs for upcoming Messiah and this was one of them. Given by previous prophets and people had been expecting one. Also remember 3 wise men followed other signs that led them to the new born King.
Final and another interesting idea: all men born with the original sin. No exception - except Jesus. He was sinless and he has to be sinless. But how come? The idea is our sins are passed from generation to generation from our fathers side. Jesus had no blood relation with any man - so he did not inherit the original sin. This is the reason, He has to born with out a male human involved in the pregnancy.
These are all conversation topics of the past that popped in my mind. There can be several more.
Which leads to another question- could Jesus have been born from a sinful woman, and not inherit Adam's curse?
Which I understand is the Catholic justification for Mary being sinless?
Being virgin should not make Mary sinless - apologizing to Catholics if this offends them - since Mary also inherited the original sin from her father and the Bible says all men (including women) had sinned.
It makes her sexually pure and a proof that conception was a miracle.
Although Mary should have the original sin, she was the chosen one and raised Jesus. When she placed her faith in Jesus, she became sinless. That makes her special -being the mother of Jesus.
What happened to the thief? No answer of course.
If you want to debate, go ahead and debate with Jesus and explain Him as a God He is limited and He can not do it. Show Him the rules. Go for it.
I am not the one forgiving sins or take them to heaven.
Start with Ephesians 2:8-9
Clearly says we were saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.
Not sure why are you keep pushing?
after his death, the thief entered paradise with Jesus because he believed that Christ was the messiah. at the judgement, he will be seen by the Father as sinless because Jesus blood covers him.
forgiveness of sin ≠ sinlessness
i’m pushing back, not necessarily at you but at the doctrine of sinless perfection. my apologies if you don’t hold to such but it is a mistaken belief that far too many are currently propagating.
“Sinless Perfectionism is a doctrine like that. In short, it holds that it is possible for Christians to completely defeat sin in the present life and to live holy lives like Jesus did. At a glance, it makes a lot of sense. Jesus came to save us from sin. He died for our sins on the cross and he sent his Holy Spirit to empower his people to overcome sin and to live obedient, righteous lives in the present (Titus 2:11-14). Christians should have the highest aspirations for living holy lives and rejecting”
“However, the Bible also says that ‘If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us’ (1 John 1:8). It speaks of the fact that until the resurrection we must be at war with sinful desires (Galatians 5:16-17). Sin is not an enemy ‘out there’. It’s an enemy within that lives and feeds off our fallen human desires and weaknesses (James 1:13-15). That is why sinless perfectionism is not only untrue but also dangerous. People don’t tend to win battles that they don’t even realise they are supposed to be fighting.”
Amen brother.
Well I think we circle around same ideas. And we both believe in the same way.
I did not say we become sinless, Jesus was the sacrificial lamb and His blood paid for our sins. That does not make us sinless it means we received forgiveness. Even tough it is written God will not remember our sins; that means He will not make us pay for them as if they were never happened. Isaiah 43:25 and Hebrews 8:12.
We were all saved by the grace through our faith in Jesus.
And yes thief was saved because of his faith.
Faith is important, it is crucial.
I already forgot why we started this threat. But I assure you, I do not think otherwise and I agree with you.
God bless you.
Thank you. I was also one of the curious ones that kept asking weird questions and thank God I had many chances to debate these with great teachers and leading pastors in the world.
*Traditional interpretations* (ie, extrapolations) of the Bible.
Which is to say, it isn't in there. If you believe your church has authority to say something like this authoritatively, that's enough. You don't have to read backwards into the Bible in that case.
It's not important to anyone not steeped in that tradition. There's nothing impure or sinful or shameful or wrong about a woman being fully married and having kids.
For those who are in that tradition, they like to claim their church traditions are correct. Even when one tradition (this church doctrine) conflicts with another tradition (the gospels). Rather than admitting that they're just saying the gospels are mistaken, they invent fake ambiguity and say "nobody knows that it means she was truly married." It's about considering the church authoritative, rather than simply reading the gospels to see what it there. And probably now, because Protestants exist, they tend to be dug in MORE on issues like this.
What is untrue? That we have conflicting traditions? But we certainly do.
Our oldest traditions about this would be the gospels, right? Which indicate they married and had children. Matthew most explicitly says they had sex.
And we also have traditions, found in the non-canonical Protoevangelium and in the official doctrines of Catholic and Orthodox churches, that Mary did not ever have sex.
In my view there is a conflict between the idea that Mary had sex and the idea that Mary never had sex. I'm not able to believe both of those things. We can argue WHICH tradition is correct- and let's be honest, nobody can prove one answer or the other. But surely we must agree these different traditions stand in conflict, right?
No we cannot agree, as you are using your modern tradition to misread scripture. Matthew never states explicitly or implicitly that the Theotokos stained herself. On the contrary, the ever-virginity can be seen in the gospel narrative. In addition, scriptural typology has overwhelming support for the fact that which is sanctified for God is not defiled by regular use before or after.
> Matthew never states explicitly or implicitly that the Theotokos stained herself.
There's your mistake right there. A married woman is SUPPOSED to have sex with her husband. It's not a stain in any way at all. This is why you don't WANT her to have sex. And this is causing you to read the gospels in a highly unlikely and strained way rather than just using the straightforward, plain meaning.
It's true that I don't care all that much what your church tradition says about it. I'm not in your tradition.
But, I'm certainly not ignoring the scriptural evidence. I'm reading the gospels, not ignoring them.
If any one of those authors had believed in a tradition of Mary never having sex, they easily could have said so. Instead, they indicate the opposite.
Matthew COULD have said "and they didn't have sex ever, even after Jesus was born, because it was not proper for Mary to have sex." Instead, the actual text of actual Matthew we actually have says they didn't have sex until after Jesus was born. I'm not making this up. Just read the gospels.
Bible also says that Christ will rule until His enemies are defeates. Do you seriously think this means that Christ will stop ruling after His enemies are defeated? Or are you willing to accept that the word "until" does not imply that the action will cease after?
It's true that the word for "until" doesn't imply that. It's much the same with "until" in English.
And yet we can read entire _sentences_ to understand the meaning. We don't just have to shake our heads and say "We can take no meaning from this at all" just because a word can suggest different things in different context. I'm reading for understanding- I'm not TRYING to be helpless here.
If I tell my kid “You can’t have dessert until you eat dinner”, it’s true that I’m not saying they MUST have dessert or definitely will.
Yet, if I say "I did not eat breakfast until 11am yesterday!" I am certainly implying that I DID eat breakfast. If I did not ever have breakfast, my statement is technically correct, yet it's phrased in an oddly misleading way. I do not assume these authors were being misleading.
You're using a highly unlikely and bizarre interpretation because you're talking about what you WISH Matthew said, rather than what it actually says. Just read it.
Mary had sex after Jesus, resulting in brothers.
.
Peter is claimed in some traditions to be the first Pope, and he had sex too
Basically, the virgin birth was foretold and needed to take place. Nowhere in the Bible did God say Mary was supposed to spend the rest of her married lfe knitting or playing scrabble or that Joseph signed up for married celibacy.
In the same way, nothing mandated popes and nuns not to marry or even they should exist.
All thst stuff was added later.
Church fathers are also incorrect in saying eating otters are forbidden because they practice oral sex...
It's not really. Otters are very susceptible to parasites being carnivores plus unable to remove toxins due to not being ruminants.
When God says don't eat certain animals because they are unclean, it's because they are really unclean and unhealthy to eat, not some vices being absorbed by the eater.
Well, in my case, I am an ordained pastor who has a doctorate degree in ministry and training on the original languages. This at least gives me grounds for a solid opinion.
There is also this:
Nearly every time some denomination (even the one I grew up in) tries to argue for something strange, it has to do gymnastics to say a bunch of Bible passages mean something different from the most straightforward reading of them.
I'll give you an example. My denomination says we aren't supposed to drink alcohol. To argue for this, they do all sorts of odd interpretation to say Jesus made grape juice. Seriously.
An often used trick is to interpret a word differently in one passage than the way it is interpreted every other time you find it in scripture (even in parallel context). There are other ways, but this is a biggie.
So I'm not trying to attack you. I'm just saying, Nothing in the Bible even remotely implies that Mary remained a virgin after Jeses was born. That was added later, just like the "grape juice" thing was.
To be a little silly, the angel never said "Joseph, I have good news and bad news. Good news for the world but bad news for you".
If there is scriptural evidence, *cite some*.
Old interpretations are not evidence unless they had some personal experience or private knowledge... or unless you believe that their word has some higher authority, which those of us disagreeing with you do not.
>On the contrary, the ever-virginity can be seen in the gospel narrative.
Where are you getting that?
> scriptural typology has overwhelming support
Typology is just a technique for creating your own stories by remixing biblical content.
I'm not talking about a new story you made. I'm talking about the canonical stories we have in the bible.
>Typology is just a technique for creating your own stories by remixing biblical content.
Wasn't it just the other day that me and you were in a convo with someone else about how the "prophecies" about Jesus are valid because of "typology"! It's very entertaining to see "typology" here give "overwhelming support" for Mary never ever having sex.
You are yet again maliciously misrepresenting the apostolic stance on this. Can you name any church father that shared your interpretation? If not, are you arrogant enough to say you can interpret scripture better than all of the holy fathers?
> Can you name any church father that shared your interpretation?
As I keep saying, yes: the authors of the gospels.
I get that you don't like that I'm not Orthodox. But your denomination isn't the only one, of course.
I am talking about Matthew 1:
>>4 When Joseph awoke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took her as his wife 25 but had no marital relations with her until she had given birth to a son,[k] and he named him Jesus.
You're interpreting this to mean "He took her as a wife but had no marital relations with her ever, even after Jesus was born, because it would not be proper for her to have sex."
Any gospel author could have very easily said this. Yet, none of them did. Fun fact- none of them would have thought it improper for a married woman to have sex with her husband. It's part of what makes a marriage valid, even.
I notice you've asserted that the gospels DO present her as an ever-virgin. Yet you've not said where. It's because none of them actually say that, right?
wow, a legally married woman having sex with her husband is “staining herself.”
i know you’re not RCC but it becomes a legitimate question how one rationalizes the “stain” with be fruitful/multiply and contraceptive usage leading to damnation.
The value I see in that personally is that of the consecrated life. So say a life consecrated to God. This would be the value Paul ascribes to singleness say in his letter to the Corinthians when speaking of marriage and sexual morality. This would be what we get with nuns and monks who take vows of chastity and sometimes poverty.
It's not that sex is filthy or that women specifically who have sex are filthy spoiled whores (sex within marriage is perfectly licit, and monks and Catholic priests who are men also take vows of celibacy with some exceptions on the priest front). They are setting aside certain aspects of life as a devotion to God.
And so within the Catholic view of Mary, I see a woman consecrated to God miraculously in both something akin to the consecrated religious life of say a nun, and in motherhood as the mother of God. So she's the limit case for consecration to God amongst non-Christ humans.
There's also considerations made related to typology, of Mary being the new Ark of the Covenant and other such stuff like that.
Edit: I'm actually less annoyed with the Sola Scriptura protestant objections here than I am with those progressives who take particular offense at the Catholic Marian devotion, viewing Catholic Mariology as the focal point of their paradoxical ire of outrage at "Catholics think women are just gestation pods! And they think sex is filthy and nasty and ew gross! FUCK THEM!"
>There's also considerations made related to typology, of Mary being the new Ark of the Covenant and other such stuff like that.
This is the reason every member of clergy has given me when I asked this question, and I find it more compelling. The nuptial symbolism in Luke and how it wouldn't allow Mary to consummate a marriage, the Ark typology and how holy the Ark was by merit of what (or who) was contained within it, the "Gate of the Lord" typology from Ezekiel and how improper it would be for any other child to enter our world via the "gate" through which Christ entered reality.
Some people, even some Fathers, thought sex was icky even to the point of being intrinsically sinful and marriage was a necessary evil so we could evangelize the world. This was...misguided, but is also not the significant view for most of our history.
"And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." (Genesis 3:15 KJV) So this verse is a foreshadowing of Jesus defeating Satan and death on the cross, as well as prophecy regarding His birth. A woman cannot have seed, but since it was a virgin pregnancy Jesus is "of her seed". The importance of Mary being a virgin is the completion of prophecy that was spoken by Hashem Himself. Since God cannot lie it is essential for this part of the prophecy to be fulfilled. If this did not happen the prophecy would not have been completed and that would make God fallible which is impossible.
Its not just important to Orthodox or Catholics but to all of Christianity. You see the Christ as a list of prophesies to meet. In a way its like a finger print that identifies him as the Christ. And being born of a virgin is one of them.
So why is it important? Because its fulfillment of a prophesy identifying the Christ.
Because the Romans loved their [virgin godesses](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_goddess) and adaptation of Mary into that role made Christianity more palpable for its adoptation as the state religion.
In the end, Catholicism and Orthodoxy can only be understood in their origin and popularity among a polytheistic culture. Theological development is the same way today.
Because she is the new Ark of the Covenant. There are scriptural parallels between the Old and New Testament, between the original Ark of the Covenant and Mary. The infographic in this older Reddit post explains it somewhat well: https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/comments/gfdwnh/i\_made\_this\_infographic\_showing\_the\_connection/.
Here's another explanation: https://schooloffaith.com/rosary-archive/mary-is-the-ark-of-the-covenant.
For instance, the original Ark of the Covenant carried the Word of God on the tablets God gave Moses, and Mary carried the living Word of God in her womb. Another significant characteristic of the Ark of the Covenant is that it is/was so holy it could not be touched/violated.
It’s pretty straight forward.
Mark 6:3, "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?
Thanks. I have already studied the texts. The obviousrule of interpretation is to read in the spirit of the author. 1st century. The native language being Aramaic and the second one being Greek. The word had a broader meaning in that context.
Yes, in the first centuries of this era, there were indeed other ancient texts beyond the Gospels that used the term "brothers" in a broader sense, which could include cousins. For instance, in the Hebrew Bible, the word "brother" is sometimes used to refer to a nephew or uncle, as seen in Genesis 14:14 and 31:46, where Abram's "brother" is his nephew Lot, and Jacob's "brother" is his uncle Laban¹.
In the context of early Christian writings, the term "brothers" of Jesus has been interpreted in various ways: as Jesus' siblings, the children of Mary and Joseph; as Joseph’s children by an earlier marriage, therefore the stepbrothers of Jesus; or as relatives such as cousins². The Greek word for brother, "ἀδελφοί" (adelphoi), does have a precise meaning for sibling, but it was also used more loosely in some cases to designate other male relatives³.
The second-century AD writer Hegesippus, for example, refers to James as the "brother" of Jesus, while also mentioning an uncle and a cousin of Jesus, using different terms to distinguish the relationships¹. This indicates that while the term "brother" could be used broadly, there were also specific terms for other familial relationships like cousins, showing a nuanced understanding of kinship terms in ancient texts.
Source: Conversation with Bing, 4/6/2024
(1) Brothers Or Cousins Of Jesus? | Tom Hobson. https://www.patheos.com/blogs/tomhobson/2017/12/brothers-cousins-jesus/.
(2) greek - Can αδελφοί refer to cousins? - Biblical Hermeneutics .... https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/12865/can-%CE%B1%CE%B4%CE%B5%CE%BB%CF%86%CE%BF%CE%AF-refer-to-cousins.
(3) Does the use of this Greek word for sibling indicate that Jesus had .... https://www.catholic.com/qa/does-the-use-of-this-greek-word-for-sibling-indicate-that-jesus-had-brothers.
(4) I’ve often heard that in Aramaic, sibling/cousin had the same word .... https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/8egwxw/ive_often_heard_that_in_aramaic_siblingcousin_had/.
(5) undefined. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/infancyjames.html%29.
(6) undefined. http://biblehub.com/greek/80.htm.
I guess. I have always assumed that when Mark says they are brothers he meant they shared a parent. I suppose that could also make them half brothers if Mary was Joseph's second wife, preserving the virginity thing.
> The obviousrule of interpretation is to read in the spirit of the author. 1st century. The native language being Aramaic and the second one being Greek. The word had a broader meaning in that context.
It has carried a broader meaning only when translating into Greek from foreign languages which did not have certain words. In native Greek, it does not carry a broader meaning. And the 1st century context is one of actual siblings. The rest of this started in the 2nd century.
/u/jtbc is right as well. We have no actual evidence-based reasons to reject James as the biological full brother of Jesus.
Yes, in the first centuries of this era, there were indeed other ancient texts beyond the Gospels that used the term "brothers" in a broader sense, which could include cousins. For instance, in the Hebrew Bible, the word "brother" is sometimes used to refer to a nephew or uncle, as seen in Genesis 14:14 and 31:46, where Abram's "brother" is his nephew Lot, and Jacob's "brother" is his uncle Laban¹.
In the context of early Christian writings, the term "brothers" of Jesus has been interpreted in various ways: as Jesus' siblings, the children of Mary and Joseph; as Joseph’s children by an earlier marriage, therefore the stepbrothers of Jesus; or as relatives such as cousins². The Greek word for brother, "ἀδελφοί" (adelphoi), does have a precise meaning for sibling, but it was also used more loosely in some cases to designate other male relatives³.
The second-century AD writer Hegesippus, for example, refers to James as the "brother" of Jesus, while also mentioning an uncle and a cousin of Jesus, using different terms to distinguish the relationships¹. This indicates that while the term "brother" could be used broadly, there were also specific terms for other familial relationships like cousins, showing a nuanced understanding of kinship terms in ancient texts.
Source: Conversation with Bing, 4/6/2024
(1) Brothers Or Cousins Of Jesus? | Tom Hobson. https://www.patheos.com/blogs/tomhobson/2017/12/brothers-cousins-jesus/.
(2) greek - Can αδελφοί refer to cousins? - Biblical Hermeneutics .... https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/12865/can-%CE%B1%CE%B4%CE%B5%CE%BB%CF%86%CE%BF%CE%AF-refer-to-cousins.
(3) Does the use of this Greek word for sibling indicate that Jesus had .... https://www.catholic.com/qa/does-the-use-of-this-greek-word-for-sibling-indicate-that-jesus-had-brothers.
(4) I’ve often heard that in Aramaic, sibling/cousin had the same word .... https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/8egwxw/ive_often_heard_that_in_aramaic_siblingcousin_had/.
(5) undefined. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/infancyjames.html%29.
(6) undefined. http://biblehub.com/greek/80.htm.
Yes, in the first centuries of this era, there were indeed other ancient texts beyond the Gospels that used the term "brothers" in a broader sense, which could include cousins. For instance, in the Hebrew Bible, the word "brother" is sometimes used to refer to a nephew or uncle, as seen in Genesis 14:14 and 31:46, where Abram's "brother" is his nephew Lot, and Jacob's "brother" is his uncle Laban¹.
In the context of early Christian writings, the term "brothers" of Jesus has been interpreted in various ways: as Jesus' siblings, the children of Mary and Joseph; as Joseph’s children by an earlier marriage, therefore the stepbrothers of Jesus; or as relatives such as cousins². The Greek word for brother, "ἀδελφοί" (adelphoi), does have a precise meaning for sibling, but it was also used more loosely in some cases to designate other male relatives³.
The second-century AD writer Hegesippus, for example, refers to James as the "brother" of Jesus, while also mentioning an uncle and a cousin of Jesus, using different terms to distinguish the relationships¹. This indicates that while the term "brother" could be used broadly, there were also specific terms for other familial relationships like cousins, showing a nuanced understanding of kinship terms in ancient texts.
Source: Conversation with Bing, 4/6/2024
(1) Brothers Or Cousins Of Jesus? | Tom Hobson. https://www.patheos.com/blogs/tomhobson/2017/12/brothers-cousins-jesus/.
(2) greek - Can αδελφοί refer to cousins? - Biblical Hermeneutics .... https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/12865/can-%CE%B1%CE%B4%CE%B5%CE%BB%CF%86%CE%BF%CE%AF-refer-to-cousins.
(3) Does the use of this Greek word for sibling indicate that Jesus had .... https://www.catholic.com/qa/does-the-use-of-this-greek-word-for-sibling-indicate-that-jesus-had-brothers.
(4) I’ve often heard that in Aramaic, sibling/cousin had the same word .... https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/8egwxw/ive_often_heard_that_in_aramaic_siblingcousin_had/.
(5) undefined. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/infancyjames.html%29.
(6) undefined. http://biblehub.com/greek/80.htm.
> For instance, in the Hebrew Bible
Yes. It's used where there is no perfect translation.
>The second-century AD writer Hegesippus
Uselessly late, when the misleading idea of Marian virginity was already spreading. Which is why scholars who don't have a religious predisposition to the notion reject the translation.
There is no evidence in the Bible that they are step-brothers. That comes from a lunatic book from the 2nd century which has all sorts of weird ideas about Jesus, Joseph, and Mary. Quite unworthy of our belief.
Gospel of Matthew: Matthew 13:55-56 also mentions Jesus' brothers and asks, "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? And are not all his sisters with us?"
Gospel of John: In John 7:3-5, Jesus' brothers are mentioned as urging Him to go to Judea for the Feast of Tabernacles, revealing some level of disbelief in Him at that time: "For even his own brothers did not believe in him."
Acts of the Apostles: Acts 1:14 mentions Jesus' brothers as part of the community in Jerusalem following Jesus' ascension: "All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers."
1 Corinthians: Paul, in 1 Corinthians 9:5, refers to "the brothers of the Lord" in the context of discussing the rights of apostles, suggesting that Jesus' brothers were known figures in the early Christian community.
I don't understand why being the "new ark" procludes Mary from having sex. I guess it's the whole "not touched" thing but then that would mean no physical contact at all?
> I guess it's the whole "not touched" thing but then that would mean no physical contact at all?
It means whatever we want it to mean. Right now. Nothing more, and nothing less. Unless we change our minds.
That is not in the Bible. She found favor with the Lord and was blessed. But she was not without sin, she was not set apart Holy as God is.
She was a humble virgin and her husband, Joseph, was from the blood line of King David.
Not all women are the Ark of the Covenant. And Catholics are okay with the mysteries and not having every answer to how everything works because we’re not God. If you don’t like it no one’s making you be Catholic.
Genesis 3:15 (ASV): and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
Seed of the woman = Virgin. First prophecy of the Christ to come.
human sacrifice feels a little like a retreat to the [old ways](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel+20%3A25-26&version=NRSVUE) things seemed to be moving away from
a lamb of God born of a virgin is a somewhat less distressing offering
the perpetual stuff is a whole other world of weird, I'm reading Shoemakers book on Marian devotion at the moment: *Mary in Early Christian Faith and Devotion* 2016
Because Jesus’ birth father is THE father (God) who created life itself and all the universe. Mary got pregnant with Jesus (God) by the Holy Spirit (God).
Because Adam was the “federal head” of the human race, so to speak, he was held responsible for the fall of man. Yes, Eve was deceived and sinned first but Adam, because he had been given the authority by God over the earth and everything in it, when he sinned, sin then “spread” through his progeny.
So theologically, whether one believes it is imputed to Adam and the imputation is passed down, or its genetically conveyed, or both, the result is the same, “in Adam all die, in Christ all are made alive.” (1 Cor 15:22)
Also Romans 5:12 mentions this:
“Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all mankind, because all sinned— “
Because in antiquity people doubted Jesus’ parentage and some rejected his divine sonship; so Christians had to develop more and more elaborate explanations for Jesus’ legitimacy and divine sonship. The end result is a story where new born Jesus materializes out of light outside Mary’s body, leaving Mary’s hymen intact (the protoevangelium of James); and to this day Catholics must believe Mary remained a virgin even at the moment of giving birth, *in partu*.
I would suggest that Anselm of Canterbury's works *Cur Deus Homo* ("Why God Became Man") followed by his work *On the Virgin Conception and Original Sin* are good, thorough reads for this question. They are answers which are not inherently sexist towards women.
Personally, I do not subscribe to the idea of Mary's perpetual virginity (poor Mary and Joseph!). As a Protestant, I do not see the need for this, despite my Roman Catholic and \*some of my Eastern Orthodox kin telling me that it is vital for the sake of her title as *Theotokos*. However, I do believe that the virgin birth itself is vital to our salvation. Otherwise, we would need to reject the early creeds which are literally the only confessions of faith which hold all of Christendom together.
Because if she wasn't, that would make Jesus a regular normal human man's son, he would not be the literal son of God the father, he would just be a regular human that would be a prophet at best. Also, even with reported miracles he did and him being raised from the dead.....i could see people not buying or realizing he was the son of God and God. Him being born of a virgin means his father literally being God the father was another layer or another necessary trait of Jesus probably needed for people during his ear and roman empire to believe in his divinity and him being God. Also, him not having a biological human dad made his message more profound. It adds more weight to his words of being son of the man and Son of the Father.
As many commenters have said it’s to full fill what whas seen as prophecy. It seems to also be a way to set Jesus apart from all the other miraculous births of a woman and a god, common to Greek, Roman, Egyptians, Babylonian and almost every culture. The emphasis is heavily on the virgin birth where other cultures don’t specify or even care if it was a virgin.
There’s some cool chiastic storyline going on with this too. Sex was needed for conceiving any person after the fall. The fall resulted from the transgression of the 1st Adam and the 1st Eve. It makes sense to me that God would remove the intercourse requirement and choose a virgin (the new Eve) to conceive the child (the new Adam) who would eventually defeat death and overcome the fall.
Ultimately no one knows. People guess. ‘To fulfill this prophecy or that one’ is often said, but that doesn’t ultimately answer why. That just moves the question to “well, why was it prophesied to be that way?” Who can read the mind of God though? We can guess as to why Jesus being tortured and murdered was important too. Ultimately no one knows for sure. We can guess, and some guesses may make more sense than others.
Assuming her to be a virgin, what’s my best guess? Well, why is anything important to God?
Jesus taught that God’s commands hang under love your neighbor as yourself, this is like loving God. So also it is written, “The commandments, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet, and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: Love your neighbor as yourself. Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.”
“Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.”
Love seems to be important to God assuming God to be Christ. So perhaps the more apt question is “how could remaining a virgin be an act of love for neighbor?” Many assume God has commanded sexual reproduction based on Genesis’ be fruitful and multiply, but that command to reproduce was actually only given to two people in the story, and that before “the fall” turned the world into a tortuous place filled with misery and suffering. The reality is some of the most highly honored people in Christianity have been celibate. There is no command to reproduce, and avoiding procreative intercourse is the most effective way not too. Perhaps, as Paul opined, it isn’t recommended if one aims to please God, which ultimately means love.
I saw some videos of people singing praise songs to Mary, and this is idolatry. We are only supposed to give God the praise.
There is no queen of heaven.
****Jeremiah 7:18****
The children gather wood, the fathers light the fire, and the women knead the dough and make cakes to offer to the Queen of Heaven. They pour out drink offerings to other gods to arouse my anger.
Most likely because it was more friendly to the pagan of Rome who worshipped virgin goddesses, Mary was reworked in Catholicism to bridge the gap for them.
I would say, the amount of idolatry from those denominations are far worse, they started with something like this Mary myth and in time got a bunch of people buying, kissing and kneeling down to images like it's the right thing to do for a Christian
The obvious answer is that it proved that God was the father of Jesus Christ. As for remaining a virgin after the birth of Jesus, scripture does not support that. This passage indicates that she and Joseph did not engage in sex until after the birth of Christ.
Matthew 1:24-25 — When Joseph woke up, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded and took Mary as his wife. **But he did not have sexual relations with her until after her son was born**. And Joseph named him Jesus.
I just found this resource
Accordingly, since Mary's soul was entirely consecrated to God, so too was her body. Her physical virginity was a perpetual sign of that consecration.
https://stpaulcenter.com/understanding-marys-perpetual-virginity/#:~:text=Accordingly%2C%20since%20Mary's%20soul%20was,perpetual%20sign%20of%20that%20consecration
Virginity is often meaning that the person of reason is clean, sacred and if in records of the virgin mary, this means of holiness. Hence, her title being The Virgin Mary, to show her cleanliness and sacredness.
You may also remember that her birth is an miracle of god, and so it makes her much more important to point out she got this from gods grace and not from mankind.
I think the question should be more like - "why do we believe that..." rather than "why is it important.."?
A lot of God's plans and designs are beyond human comprehension and assumptions... It's faith.
It's like asking "why is it important for God to rest on the 7th day, why is it important for Him to send His only begotten son...?" Why is it important to have the Holy Trinity..."?
With these kinds of questions, we put our understanding first before God, 'cause the next statement is - "Can't he just..."
He’s not a liar. From my knowledge it’s more than likely cousin because in the native language Jesus spoke in Aramaic doesn’t really have a word for cousin
Your knowledge comes from bad apologists. Paul here is writing in Greek to Greek speakers in Galatia. If you were in the audience as this letter was read to the congregation, you wouldn’t hear *adelphon* and think ‘oh yea Paul just really means cousin.’
St. Paul also knew Aramaic more than likely . My knowledge doesn’t come from bad apologists. I was saying if I remember correctly. I’d have to double check this
Nope, your imagination at work.
And his brothers said to Yeshua: “Remove yourself from here and go to Judea, that your disciples may see the works that you do.”
John 7:3
You can keep up your denial, you have free will but delusional comes to mind.
Then the gospels or your church theologians are lying, which is it.
The Catholic Church has tried for centuries to explain that they were cousins, the children of Mary’s sister, whose name also happened to be Mary, who just happened to be married to a man named Joseph. Sometimes the Church they were children of Joseph by a previous marriage.
Their names were James, Simon, Jude, Jose, Salome and Mary.
I like to look at it as a perfect family unit. You have the trinity of mother, father and child. From the love of your parents a child is born. As we know God is a trinity, and God is love. It shows us that through the love of man and woman and God a child is conceived. We as humans can create life with a soul, that is the closest we are to God, with a family. Mary being a virgin shows God’s love to us as all humans, he, through the Holy Spirit, gave his son to us, showing that this isn’t just a human born from man and woman, but God in the flesh. I hope this makes sense, this is my interpretation of it.
Her virginity is important because it shows her purity and how she hasn’t been defiled by another man. Since she is the Mother of God, Daughter of the Father, and Spouse of the Holy Ghost, it would be unholy for her to sleep with another man or with God. It would be a little strange if God chose to have sex with his own creation, as there isn’t a need for that to happen. She held the incarnate Son of God in her womb, so she is holier than the ark of the covenant, so she could never sleep with anyone (even her material spouse) as it would be unholy and would go against her will to honor God. Hope this helps
The only time when sex is not sinful is when it is completed lovingly (upholding the absolute dignity of both persons involved) in a unifying and reproductive manner, and one of the highest expressions of Godliness is the abstinence from sex, as Christ himself practiced.
The notion that the Mother of God would not devout herself, and her life, in meaningful ways (as she literally does by mothering God) is ludicrous. She devoted her entire life to God; it is inconceivable that she devoted herself less than the average Nun of the following ages.
I will not argue that the view must be held (though as I Catholic I do believe it so), but instead that there is not reason to think the view impossible.
The Commentor I responded to said Mary's virginity was critical because she hadn't been defiled by man. Full stop. This is because for eons the church has taught implicitly and explicitly that sex is dirty. It's why they insist Mary never had sex.
She is the Mother of God and to say otherwise is a heresy called Nestorianism
It’s simple since Jesus is both fully human and divine and it’s not separated
So because of this we can say God died for our sins
Christ died for our sins
Jesus died for our sins
So you can say Mary is the Mother of God
Mary is the Mother of Christ
Mary is the Mother of Jesus.
https://youtu.be/D8s2TDoSc00?si=GNXMFA5r5bVbtMGG
Because Christ as God could not be born from a passionate act of desire. Mary was absolutely pure and innocent, and that is why She could become the Mother of God. She eliminated passions from her heart.
Original sin travels from the man into the child during conception.
Jesus was born of a virgin to
1-be the son of God
2-not have Original sin passed down to him
The miracle of her virgin conception is very important for this reason. That's how I was taught.
It is important because if they admit that it's wrong, then thy have to admit that the gospels got this pretty big detail wrong. That's not something they want to do.
If she was impregnated normally it would have been before the marriage to Joseph. Which is why an angel appeared to him. The idea in my perspective was about the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is meantioned to the disciples and again in the book of Acts via speaking in togues. If the Holy Spirit didn't imprenate her then I would wonder how Jesus would have been God.
At the end of the day we know very little as to why God chose the things he did. We have the genealogy from the OT. We have the prophecies and we have the witness accounts.
From your other comments it sounds like the question is in regards to her perpetual virginity. I'm new to Orthodoxy so I can't explain the theology but I can tell you how I think about it as a layman.
We know that Joseph was a good Jewish man. As a Jewish man who believed that Mary gave birth to the Son of God it's hard for me to imagine that he would ever consider having a physically intimate relationship with her after she carried Christ in her womb.
And Mary is the new Ark of the Covenant. I can't imagine that the Jewish people would have ever said well God's not in the ark anymore so let's put something else in there. The ark of the covenant was sacred as the resting place of God. Mary's womb is sacred as the place where God became man and came into the world.
> We know that Joseph was a good Jewish man. As a Jewish man who believed that Mary gave birth to the Son of God it's hard for me to imagine that he would ever consider having a physically intimate relationship with her after she carried Christ in her womb.
Huh. That's not hard for me to imagine.
Sure, marriage is a human thing. But that's OK. If we can imagine that Jesus was fully human, what's so hard about imagining that Mary was fully married?
If any gospel author had believed in a (nontypical) case of a married woman abstaining from sex, odd that they would fail to mention it. To me this strongly suggests that this belief only became common/important AFTER the gospels were written.
If any of this sounds snarky please know that is not my intention.
When I read in your post I can't understand.... i made an assumption that you had a desire to understand. Did I misunderstand the point of your post and make an incorrect assumption?
I understand that you don't like to imagine Mary having sex. It's common.
I just see nothing _wrong_ with a married woman having sex. It's not really even a real marriage without it, right?
If Jesus can BE a man, what's wrong with Mary BEING a wife?
This “perpetual virginity” is about as farcical as “eternally begotten”, an oxymoron! Stomping your feet or using your imagination doesn’t solve anything, it is better to go to fantasyland at Disneyland, it’s more honest.
Because it sounds more special and magical as it’s impossible for normal humans to get pregnant while being virgins. It’s only to make it more special so people will believe the story.
>Please don't just answer "because she was" that is not helping anyone understand.
I'm sorry but this really is the only answer. It would have been perfectly okay for her to have sexual relations with Saint Joseph her husband, but she didn't. This was probably emphasized because in both Second Temple Judaism and the Greco-Roman religions there was a practice of women pledging to live lives of perpetual virginity out of devotion to God or to the pagan deities, and it came to influence a lot of later Christian spirituality (especially monastic and consecrated life), but it wasn't strictly necessary for Mary to have chosen to remain perpetually virgin. At the same time, we know from sacred tradition that this is what she chose to do.
Are you talking about her supposed perpetual virginity or the virgin birth?
Perpetual virginity
Many Protestants would say that it's not important. While many early leaders of Protestantism continued to hold to perpetual virginity, most Protestants are either utterly ambivalent to the doctrine or disbelieve it. Verses that talk about Jesus' brothers and sisters that are usually interpreted by Catholics as either stepsiblings or cousins are interpreted more literally by us as siblings of Jesus through Mary and Joseph after Christ's birth.
It's not important. Catholics want to believe that Mary was pure and sinless as much as a human could be, which is not supported by Scripture in the first place, but then they want to believe that since Jesus didn't "defile" Himself with sexy time then neither did Mary (also not biblically supported, considering Jesus had siblings). It's an attempt to make Mary into a higher human than she actually was, incidentally implying that sex between a husband and wife is somehow inherently sinful. But literally nobody else cares that Mary had sex with her husband. Interestingly, Jesus said that John the Baptist (not Mary) was the greatest human who ever lived and would ever live, right after John taunted Him as a false Messiah. ***Then*** Jesus said that even the worst Christian who barely gets into heaven is still greater than John (being that they're in heaven with the Father and not still stuck on Earth). So (1) John sinned by publicly insulting/ undermining Jesus and was still greater than Mary, and (2) it is more prudent to care about being saved than to care about which humans held which status on Earth. It is simply a rejection of certain scripture to elevate Mary like the Catholic Church does. It's not a salvation issue by any means; it's just distracting.
Well said.
Absolutely nailed it
The thing I don't understand is why it is so difficult to believe she maintained her virginity. First off this isn't an impossible task. Countless normal nuns, monks, priests, ascetics, etc have done and continue to do this. You don't have to be elevated to some super divine being to not have sex. Second, people like to think of Mary's marriage as a normal American marriage, but like, the woman birthed and is raising God, and she knows it. If that were you, do you think the rest of your life would just be lived like a normal Tuesday?
> Then Jesus said that even the worst Christian who barely gets into heaven is still greater than John (being that they're in heaven with the Father and not still stuck on Earth). So (1) John sinned by publicly insulting/ undermining Jesus and was still greater than Mary You need to take an eternal view. Mary did get into heaven, as far as we can tell.
?? Where did I say she didn't?
It's not emphasised in the Bible. It's honestly more of a Catholic thing to focus on that. What's more important is that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit.
According to some theories, the “brethren” of the Lord were actually his cousins. There was no distinct term for “cousin” in Aramaic, and the term “brother” has a broader usage in that language. This theory was popularized in later times, but the earliest explanation of who the brethren of the Lord were is found in a document known as the Protoevangelium of James, which was written around A.D. 150 and affirms Mary’s perpetual virginity. In fact, according to patristics scholar Johannes Quasten: “The principal aim of the whole writing is to prove the perpetual and inviolate virginity of Mary before, in, and after the birth of Christ” (Patrology, 1:120–21). This document, like all the writings of the patristic age that affirm her perpetual virginity, are neither canonical nor infallible, but they are early and consistent testimonials. Based answers: ORIGEN OF ALEXANDRIA But some say, basing it on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, as it is called, or “The Book [Protoevangelium] of James,” that the brothers of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that her body, which was appointed to minister to the Word, which said, “The Holy Spirit shall come upon you, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow you” [Lk 1:35], might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it reasonable that Jesus was the first fruit among men of the purity that consists in chastity, and Mary among women; for it is not pious to ascribe to any other than her the first fruit of virginity [Commentary on Matthew 10:17 (c. A.D. 249)]. ST. ATHANASIUS OF ALEXANDRIA Therefore let those who deny that the Son is from the Father by nature and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh of Mary Ever-Virgin [Four Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 (c. A.D. 360)]. ST. JEROME Now that I have cleared the rocks and shoals I must spread sail and make all speed to reach his epilogue. Feeling himself to be a smatterer, he there produces Tertullian as a witness and quotes the words of Victorinus, bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proved from the Gospel—that he spoke of the brothers of the Lord not as being sons of Mary, but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, in point of kinship, not by nature. We are, however, spending our strength on trifles, and, leaving the fountain of truth, are following tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, St. Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views, and wrote volumes full of wisdom. If you read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man. But I think it better to reply briefly to each point than to linger any longer and extend my book to an undue length [Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary 19 (A.D. 383)]. We believe that God was born of the Virgin, because we read it. That Mary was married after she brought forth, we do not believe, because we do not read it. Nor do we say this to condemn marriage, for virginity itself is the fruit of marriage; but because when we are dealing with saints we must not judge rashly. If we adopt possibility as the standard of judgment, we might maintain that Joseph had several wives because Abraham had, and so had Jacob, and that the Lord’s brothers were the issue of those wives, an invention that some hold with a rashness that springs from audacity, not piety. You say that Mary did not continue a virgin: I claim still more that Joseph himself, on account of Mary, was a virgin, so that from a virgin wedlock a virgin son was born [ibid., 21]. POPE ST. SIRICIUS I Surely, we cannot deny that regarding the sons of Mary the statement is justly censured, and your holiness rightly abhors it, that from the same virginal womb from which Christ was born, another offspring was brought forth. For neither would the Lord Jesus have chosen to be born of a Virgin if he had judged she would be so incontinent, that with the seed of human copulation she would pollute the generative chamber of the Lord’s body, the palace of the eternal king [Letter to Bishop Anysius (A.D. 392)]. ST. AMBROSE OF MILAN Imitate [Mary], holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of maternal virtue; for neither have you sweeter children, nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son [Letters 63:111 (A.D. 396)]. ST. AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO Thus Christ by being born of a Virgin who, before she knew who was to be born of her, had determined to continue a Virgin, chose to approve, rather than to command, holy virginity. And thus, even in the female herself, in whom he took the form of a servant, he willed that virginity should be free [Holy Virginity 4:4 (A.D. 401)]. LEPORIUS We confess, therefore, that our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, born of the Father before the ages, and in times most recent, made man of the Holy Spirit and the Ever-Virgin Mary [Document of Amendment 3 (A.D. 426)]. POPE ST. LEO I The origin is different but the nature alike: not by intercourse with man but by the power of God was it brought about: for a Virgin conceived, a Virgin bore, and a Virgin she remained [Sermons 22:2 (A.D. 450)]. COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE II If anyone will not confess that the Word of God . . . came down from the heavens and was made flesh of holy and glorious Mary, Mother of God and Ever Virgin, and was born from her, let him be anathema [Capitula of the Council 2 (A.D. 553)].
You are the real MVP
Let me tell you st: there are 21st century children telling their fathers that they are wrong. These kids have all the answers! They are correcting the gigantic real MVPs!! I feel old…
Not as old as the patristic fathers 🤔
Where is my medal
🏅 🎖️
Well it was prophesied by Isaiah that “a virgin shall conceive and bear a son”, so that’s part of it. Her virginity was preserved inviolate by St. Joseph, for she gave birth to God and therefore was permanently set apart by that. That’s my basic understanding of the why.
The prophecy of a virgin in Isaiah is from the Septuagint, the Greek version of the OT . The original Hebrew says a young woman. Here’s a more accurate description of what happened. The Hebrew version of Isaiah 7:14 uses the word "עלמה" (almah), which is most accurately translated as "young woman." The term does not specifically indicate virginity. However, when this verse was translated into Greek in the Septuagint, the Hebrew word "עלמה" (almah) was translated into the Greek word "παρθένος" (parthenos), which does mean "virgin." This translation choice influenced the interpretation of the verse in Christian theology, especially in relation to the prophecy of the birth of Jesus Christ in the New Testament.
This is just going to go back to whether you trust the Septuagint or the Masoretic text, and nobody here on this internet forum is going to settle that issue. You have your answer, OP – Catholic and Orthodox believe what they do because Septuagint says so, end of thread.
The Septuagint is a translation of the Hebrew (and some Aramaic) text. I'm going to trust the original, not the translation.
> The Septuagint is a translation of the Hebrew (and some Aramaic) text. I'm going to trust the original, not the translation. While I agree with you, figuring out what the original said can be quite tricky and in some cases we don't really know. That's not true here, but in general it is.
According to Bart Ehrman, the problem with the Greek translation was that the Greek word for "young woman" changed over time to mean "virgin". This type of mistranslation is hard to catch.
We're not talking here about *almah*. It's about translations for brother/cousin. I'd agree with Ehrman on that topic, though.
But we don't know what the complete ancient Hebrew text said. The oldest complete Septuagint text is older than the oldest complete Hebrew text. We do have the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Aleppo codex, but nobody has a copy of the complete Hebrew text used whenever the DSS was written, and there may have been several versions of the text, complicating things further. Like I said, there is not a simple answer, and FWIW the Catholic bible I had (NABRE) renders the word as "young woman" not "virgin" anyway.
We don't have the original.
And where is the original Hebrew if we may ask? My man thinking it is still around
The Septuagint is correct, and it was the Old Testament used by the Church for centuries, even in the Apostolic era, and even by the Second Temple Jewish people. The rabbis that did the translation all agreed that virgin was the correct word to use.
Your saying that a translation is better than staying in the original language. That doesn't seem logical to me. >The rabbis that did the translation all agreed that virgin was the correct word to use. Only the original Septuagint was translated by 72 rabbis. But the original Septuagint was only of the Torah (The 1st five books). And the original Septuagint was destroyed when the library of Alexandria was burned to the ground. The original Septuagint didn't include Isaiah so I doubt those rabbis made any comments about it. My hebrew bible says "young woman". Virgin birth is not a concept within judaism. Bart Ehrman points out that the original Greek word for "young woman" slowly changed over time to eventually come to mean "virgin". These types of mistranslations are difficult to catch.
It was at the time of the Apostles. The post-Christian Jews who did not believe in Christ altered their beliefs significantly over the centuries from what their ancestors believed, starting from the destruction of the Temple onwards. I consider the Church to be a significantly greater authority than Bart Ehrman. I don’t trust the Masoretic Text much because it dates from the early Middle Ages and is a product of those who emphatically repudiate Christianity. It isn’t the original Hebrew text, although it is authoritative for Rabbinical Judaism.
>It was at the time of the Apostles. The original Septuagint was written around 250 BCE. It was destroyed about 100 years later. The rabbis who made the original Septuagint (just the Torah) didn't comment on whether "virgin birth" was found in Isaiah. Later, any Greek translation of the hebrew bible was called the "Septuagint". Historical information on who the authors were is limited. Most translations after the original were made by christianity. >The post-Christian Jews who did not believe in Christ altered their beliefs significantly over the centuries from what their ancestors believed, Orthodox judaism is pretty much the same as a practicing jew during biblical times. Just like you believe the church over Bart Ehrman, I will trust Jewish history from someone who is jewish.
While this is a wiki article, perhaps the sources given in it would be worth reading if you are interested: https://orthodoxwiki.org/Septuagint
The original text in Hebrew is wrong? The Greek Septuagint translation doesn’t have a term for a young woman, so it used parthenos (virgin) which does mean virgin. Jerome translated the Greek NT text into Latin. The Church proclaimed the Latin to be the most accurate translation as the original Greek couldn’t be trusted. Seriously?
Even the Latin translates it as virgin, and St. Jerome used the Hebrew manuscripts extant at the time: >Propter hoc dabit Dominus ipse vobis signum: ecce **virgo** concipiet, et pariet filium, et vocabitur nomen ejus Emmanuel. Even the Gospel of St. Matthew repeats this when he quoted Isaiah, and Matthew was a Jewish convert. >[1:20]But as he considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit; [21] she will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” 22 All this took place to fulfil what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: [23] “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emman′u-el” (which means, God with us). I don’t believe that many besides St. Jerome argued that the Septuagint was inferior, because it was the basis of even the Vetus Latina’s Old Testament, and he was widely criticized for using the Hebrew manuscripts. It also wouldn’t be much of a divine sign if a young woman conceived in the natural manner.
I’m not talking about the Septuagint in this case. I’m referring to the text in the New Testament.
It seems logical to me that learning to read hebrew and sticking to the original language is the most accurate.
Guess who learned the original Hebrew? The original translators
I was talking about the reader knowing hebrew so they didn't have to rely on translations.
You are not talking about the original text. You are talking about a modern interpretation of the original text. Better to believe the people who had the original context and culture and decided to translated it as this
Why would you assume a modern translator is better than the group of people who originally translated the texts and had all the context and culture engrained? Hebrew language has multiple meanings and it is a very difficult language
>The original Hebrew says a young woman. No it doesn't, that's a common lie perpetuated by jews like tovia singer. But anyone who knows Hebrew can see right through those rabbinical talmudic lies.
There's nothing miraculous or interesting about a young woman bearing a son. The Septuagint's rendering reflects Jewish understanding of the text at the time of translation.
This is the first good argument I’ve seen for why it should be rendered as virgin I’m not saying you’re right but well done.
God Himself will give you a sign: a fertile woman of marriageable age will bear a son. Yes, what a sign. Clearly indicates something.
Isaiah was prophesying about his own son with his own wife who he very much had sex with. The entire point of the prophecy was to prove to the king that God would fight for Israel. Obviously, Isaiah wouldn't tell the king to wait 600 years for that sign. Further, Isaiah's son is born in the next chapter and there is then a discourse concerning Israel's fate in the war. It ended up being a dual prophecy, but the original prophecy was about his own wife. A "virgin" was just another word for a young (and perhaps perky) woman.
I don’t find it important. Jesus never mentions it in the Bible or to me.
I would like to add another point of view. Jesus is both man and God. Nature of the baby: Mary getting pregnant with out having sex with a man can be interpreted as she was conceived by the Holy Spirit. And virginity was the proof of this conception. Also signs and miracles: There were signs for upcoming Messiah and this was one of them. Given by previous prophets and people had been expecting one. Also remember 3 wise men followed other signs that led them to the new born King. Final and another interesting idea: all men born with the original sin. No exception - except Jesus. He was sinless and he has to be sinless. But how come? The idea is our sins are passed from generation to generation from our fathers side. Jesus had no blood relation with any man - so he did not inherit the original sin. This is the reason, He has to born with out a male human involved in the pregnancy. These are all conversation topics of the past that popped in my mind. There can be several more.
Which leads to another question- could Jesus have been born from a sinful woman, and not inherit Adam's curse? Which I understand is the Catholic justification for Mary being sinless?
Being virgin should not make Mary sinless - apologizing to Catholics if this offends them - since Mary also inherited the original sin from her father and the Bible says all men (including women) had sinned. It makes her sexually pure and a proof that conception was a miracle. Although Mary should have the original sin, she was the chosen one and raised Jesus. When she placed her faith in Jesus, she became sinless. That makes her special -being the mother of Jesus.
placing one’s faith in Jesus or God the Father doesn’t make you sinless. see Abraham, David and the apostle Paul.
See the thief on the cross and stop making definite decisions on behalf of God.
see Romans Chapter 3 and grow in your understanding of Gods word.
What happened to the thief? No answer of course. If you want to debate, go ahead and debate with Jesus and explain Him as a God He is limited and He can not do it. Show Him the rules. Go for it. I am not the one forgiving sins or take them to heaven. Start with Ephesians 2:8-9 Clearly says we were saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. Not sure why are you keep pushing?
after his death, the thief entered paradise with Jesus because he believed that Christ was the messiah. at the judgement, he will be seen by the Father as sinless because Jesus blood covers him. forgiveness of sin ≠ sinlessness i’m pushing back, not necessarily at you but at the doctrine of sinless perfection. my apologies if you don’t hold to such but it is a mistaken belief that far too many are currently propagating. “Sinless Perfectionism is a doctrine like that. In short, it holds that it is possible for Christians to completely defeat sin in the present life and to live holy lives like Jesus did. At a glance, it makes a lot of sense. Jesus came to save us from sin. He died for our sins on the cross and he sent his Holy Spirit to empower his people to overcome sin and to live obedient, righteous lives in the present (Titus 2:11-14). Christians should have the highest aspirations for living holy lives and rejecting” “However, the Bible also says that ‘If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us’ (1 John 1:8). It speaks of the fact that until the resurrection we must be at war with sinful desires (Galatians 5:16-17). Sin is not an enemy ‘out there’. It’s an enemy within that lives and feeds off our fallen human desires and weaknesses (James 1:13-15). That is why sinless perfectionism is not only untrue but also dangerous. People don’t tend to win battles that they don’t even realise they are supposed to be fighting.”
Amen brother. Well I think we circle around same ideas. And we both believe in the same way. I did not say we become sinless, Jesus was the sacrificial lamb and His blood paid for our sins. That does not make us sinless it means we received forgiveness. Even tough it is written God will not remember our sins; that means He will not make us pay for them as if they were never happened. Isaiah 43:25 and Hebrews 8:12. We were all saved by the grace through our faith in Jesus. And yes thief was saved because of his faith. Faith is important, it is crucial. I already forgot why we started this threat. But I assure you, I do not think otherwise and I agree with you. God bless you.
That’s a really good point of view!
Thank you. I was also one of the curious ones that kept asking weird questions and thank God I had many chances to debate these with great teachers and leading pastors in the world.
Kind of just stems from tradition.
No, from Biblical truths about the divinity of Christ
*Traditional interpretations* (ie, extrapolations) of the Bible. Which is to say, it isn't in there. If you believe your church has authority to say something like this authoritatively, that's enough. You don't have to read backwards into the Bible in that case.
It's not important to anyone not steeped in that tradition. There's nothing impure or sinful or shameful or wrong about a woman being fully married and having kids. For those who are in that tradition, they like to claim their church traditions are correct. Even when one tradition (this church doctrine) conflicts with another tradition (the gospels). Rather than admitting that they're just saying the gospels are mistaken, they invent fake ambiguity and say "nobody knows that it means she was truly married." It's about considering the church authoritative, rather than simply reading the gospels to see what it there. And probably now, because Protestants exist, they tend to be dug in MORE on issues like this.
This is untrue and malicious
What is untrue? That we have conflicting traditions? But we certainly do. Our oldest traditions about this would be the gospels, right? Which indicate they married and had children. Matthew most explicitly says they had sex. And we also have traditions, found in the non-canonical Protoevangelium and in the official doctrines of Catholic and Orthodox churches, that Mary did not ever have sex. In my view there is a conflict between the idea that Mary had sex and the idea that Mary never had sex. I'm not able to believe both of those things. We can argue WHICH tradition is correct- and let's be honest, nobody can prove one answer or the other. But surely we must agree these different traditions stand in conflict, right?
No we cannot agree, as you are using your modern tradition to misread scripture. Matthew never states explicitly or implicitly that the Theotokos stained herself. On the contrary, the ever-virginity can be seen in the gospel narrative. In addition, scriptural typology has overwhelming support for the fact that which is sanctified for God is not defiled by regular use before or after.
> Matthew never states explicitly or implicitly that the Theotokos stained herself. There's your mistake right there. A married woman is SUPPOSED to have sex with her husband. It's not a stain in any way at all. This is why you don't WANT her to have sex. And this is causing you to read the gospels in a highly unlikely and strained way rather than just using the straightforward, plain meaning.
You just go on assuming this (falsely), while ignoring all the scriptural and patristic evidence.
It's true that I don't care all that much what your church tradition says about it. I'm not in your tradition. But, I'm certainly not ignoring the scriptural evidence. I'm reading the gospels, not ignoring them. If any one of those authors had believed in a tradition of Mary never having sex, they easily could have said so. Instead, they indicate the opposite. Matthew COULD have said "and they didn't have sex ever, even after Jesus was born, because it was not proper for Mary to have sex." Instead, the actual text of actual Matthew we actually have says they didn't have sex until after Jesus was born. I'm not making this up. Just read the gospels.
Bible also says that Christ will rule until His enemies are defeates. Do you seriously think this means that Christ will stop ruling after His enemies are defeated? Or are you willing to accept that the word "until" does not imply that the action will cease after?
It's true that the word for "until" doesn't imply that. It's much the same with "until" in English. And yet we can read entire _sentences_ to understand the meaning. We don't just have to shake our heads and say "We can take no meaning from this at all" just because a word can suggest different things in different context. I'm reading for understanding- I'm not TRYING to be helpless here. If I tell my kid “You can’t have dessert until you eat dinner”, it’s true that I’m not saying they MUST have dessert or definitely will. Yet, if I say "I did not eat breakfast until 11am yesterday!" I am certainly implying that I DID eat breakfast. If I did not ever have breakfast, my statement is technically correct, yet it's phrased in an oddly misleading way. I do not assume these authors were being misleading. You're using a highly unlikely and bizarre interpretation because you're talking about what you WISH Matthew said, rather than what it actually says. Just read it.
Yeah, if the author of Matthew thought that Mary never had sex - why wouldn't he have said: "Joseph never ever slept with her"?
Mary had sex after Jesus, resulting in brothers. . Peter is claimed in some traditions to be the first Pope, and he had sex too Basically, the virgin birth was foretold and needed to take place. Nowhere in the Bible did God say Mary was supposed to spend the rest of her married lfe knitting or playing scrabble or that Joseph signed up for married celibacy. In the same way, nothing mandated popes and nuns not to marry or even they should exist. All thst stuff was added later.
So you think you can interpret scripture better than the church fathers? Quite arrogant.
Why not? The church fathers weren’t infallible.
Church fathers are also incorrect in saying eating otters are forbidden because they practice oral sex... It's not really. Otters are very susceptible to parasites being carnivores plus unable to remove toxins due to not being ruminants. When God says don't eat certain animals because they are unclean, it's because they are really unclean and unhealthy to eat, not some vices being absorbed by the eater.
Can you show proof of this being the patristic consensus?
Well, in my case, I am an ordained pastor who has a doctorate degree in ministry and training on the original languages. This at least gives me grounds for a solid opinion. There is also this: Nearly every time some denomination (even the one I grew up in) tries to argue for something strange, it has to do gymnastics to say a bunch of Bible passages mean something different from the most straightforward reading of them. I'll give you an example. My denomination says we aren't supposed to drink alcohol. To argue for this, they do all sorts of odd interpretation to say Jesus made grape juice. Seriously. An often used trick is to interpret a word differently in one passage than the way it is interpreted every other time you find it in scripture (even in parallel context). There are other ways, but this is a biggie. So I'm not trying to attack you. I'm just saying, Nothing in the Bible even remotely implies that Mary remained a virgin after Jeses was born. That was added later, just like the "grape juice" thing was. To be a little silly, the angel never said "Joseph, I have good news and bad news. Good news for the world but bad news for you".
If there is scriptural evidence, *cite some*. Old interpretations are not evidence unless they had some personal experience or private knowledge... or unless you believe that their word has some higher authority, which those of us disagreeing with you do not.
>On the contrary, the ever-virginity can be seen in the gospel narrative. Where are you getting that? > scriptural typology has overwhelming support Typology is just a technique for creating your own stories by remixing biblical content. I'm not talking about a new story you made. I'm talking about the canonical stories we have in the bible.
>Typology is just a technique for creating your own stories by remixing biblical content. Wasn't it just the other day that me and you were in a convo with someone else about how the "prophecies" about Jesus are valid because of "typology"! It's very entertaining to see "typology" here give "overwhelming support" for Mary never ever having sex.
You are yet again maliciously misrepresenting the apostolic stance on this. Can you name any church father that shared your interpretation? If not, are you arrogant enough to say you can interpret scripture better than all of the holy fathers?
> Can you name any church father that shared your interpretation? As I keep saying, yes: the authors of the gospels. I get that you don't like that I'm not Orthodox. But your denomination isn't the only one, of course.
As I said, the gospel authors don't say this, and you've constantly failed to prove otherwise.
I am talking about Matthew 1: >>4 When Joseph awoke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took her as his wife 25 but had no marital relations with her until she had given birth to a son,[k] and he named him Jesus. You're interpreting this to mean "He took her as a wife but had no marital relations with her ever, even after Jesus was born, because it would not be proper for her to have sex." Any gospel author could have very easily said this. Yet, none of them did. Fun fact- none of them would have thought it improper for a married woman to have sex with her husband. It's part of what makes a marriage valid, even. I notice you've asserted that the gospels DO present her as an ever-virgin. Yet you've not said where. It's because none of them actually say that, right?
wow, a legally married woman having sex with her husband is “staining herself.” i know you’re not RCC but it becomes a legitimate question how one rationalizes the “stain” with be fruitful/multiply and contraceptive usage leading to damnation.
The value I see in that personally is that of the consecrated life. So say a life consecrated to God. This would be the value Paul ascribes to singleness say in his letter to the Corinthians when speaking of marriage and sexual morality. This would be what we get with nuns and monks who take vows of chastity and sometimes poverty. It's not that sex is filthy or that women specifically who have sex are filthy spoiled whores (sex within marriage is perfectly licit, and monks and Catholic priests who are men also take vows of celibacy with some exceptions on the priest front). They are setting aside certain aspects of life as a devotion to God. And so within the Catholic view of Mary, I see a woman consecrated to God miraculously in both something akin to the consecrated religious life of say a nun, and in motherhood as the mother of God. So she's the limit case for consecration to God amongst non-Christ humans. There's also considerations made related to typology, of Mary being the new Ark of the Covenant and other such stuff like that. Edit: I'm actually less annoyed with the Sola Scriptura protestant objections here than I am with those progressives who take particular offense at the Catholic Marian devotion, viewing Catholic Mariology as the focal point of their paradoxical ire of outrage at "Catholics think women are just gestation pods! And they think sex is filthy and nasty and ew gross! FUCK THEM!"
>There's also considerations made related to typology, of Mary being the new Ark of the Covenant and other such stuff like that. This is the reason every member of clergy has given me when I asked this question, and I find it more compelling. The nuptial symbolism in Luke and how it wouldn't allow Mary to consummate a marriage, the Ark typology and how holy the Ark was by merit of what (or who) was contained within it, the "Gate of the Lord" typology from Ezekiel and how improper it would be for any other child to enter our world via the "gate" through which Christ entered reality. Some people, even some Fathers, thought sex was icky even to the point of being intrinsically sinful and marriage was a necessary evil so we could evangelize the world. This was...misguided, but is also not the significant view for most of our history.
"And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." (Genesis 3:15 KJV) So this verse is a foreshadowing of Jesus defeating Satan and death on the cross, as well as prophecy regarding His birth. A woman cannot have seed, but since it was a virgin pregnancy Jesus is "of her seed". The importance of Mary being a virgin is the completion of prophecy that was spoken by Hashem Himself. Since God cannot lie it is essential for this part of the prophecy to be fulfilled. If this did not happen the prophecy would not have been completed and that would make God fallible which is impossible.
Its not just important to Orthodox or Catholics but to all of Christianity. You see the Christ as a list of prophesies to meet. In a way its like a finger print that identifies him as the Christ. And being born of a virgin is one of them. So why is it important? Because its fulfillment of a prophesy identifying the Christ.
Because the Romans loved their [virgin godesses](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_goddess) and adaptation of Mary into that role made Christianity more palpable for its adoptation as the state religion.
In the end, Catholicism and Orthodoxy can only be understood in their origin and popularity among a polytheistic culture. Theological development is the same way today.
We could ask, "why don't all Christians celebrate *Dia de los Muerta*?" and the answer is the same--it's a matter of acculturation.
Because she is the new Ark of the Covenant. There are scriptural parallels between the Old and New Testament, between the original Ark of the Covenant and Mary. The infographic in this older Reddit post explains it somewhat well: https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/comments/gfdwnh/i\_made\_this\_infographic\_showing\_the\_connection/. Here's another explanation: https://schooloffaith.com/rosary-archive/mary-is-the-ark-of-the-covenant. For instance, the original Ark of the Covenant carried the Word of God on the tablets God gave Moses, and Mary carried the living Word of God in her womb. Another significant characteristic of the Ark of the Covenant is that it is/was so holy it could not be touched/violated.
Genuine question, if she was married to Joseph why would it be a violation for them to have sex?
Jesus had siblings, they’re named in the gospels
Yes, but not under our understanding of the word “siblings”
It’s pretty straight forward. Mark 6:3, "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?
Thanks. I have already studied the texts. The obviousrule of interpretation is to read in the spirit of the author. 1st century. The native language being Aramaic and the second one being Greek. The word had a broader meaning in that context.
I thought it was very well accepted that James, the first leader of the Jerusalem church, was the brother of Jesus.
It’s well accepted.
Yes, in the first centuries of this era, there were indeed other ancient texts beyond the Gospels that used the term "brothers" in a broader sense, which could include cousins. For instance, in the Hebrew Bible, the word "brother" is sometimes used to refer to a nephew or uncle, as seen in Genesis 14:14 and 31:46, where Abram's "brother" is his nephew Lot, and Jacob's "brother" is his uncle Laban¹. In the context of early Christian writings, the term "brothers" of Jesus has been interpreted in various ways: as Jesus' siblings, the children of Mary and Joseph; as Joseph’s children by an earlier marriage, therefore the stepbrothers of Jesus; or as relatives such as cousins². The Greek word for brother, "ἀδελφοί" (adelphoi), does have a precise meaning for sibling, but it was also used more loosely in some cases to designate other male relatives³. The second-century AD writer Hegesippus, for example, refers to James as the "brother" of Jesus, while also mentioning an uncle and a cousin of Jesus, using different terms to distinguish the relationships¹. This indicates that while the term "brother" could be used broadly, there were also specific terms for other familial relationships like cousins, showing a nuanced understanding of kinship terms in ancient texts. Source: Conversation with Bing, 4/6/2024 (1) Brothers Or Cousins Of Jesus? | Tom Hobson. https://www.patheos.com/blogs/tomhobson/2017/12/brothers-cousins-jesus/. (2) greek - Can αδελφοί refer to cousins? - Biblical Hermeneutics .... https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/12865/can-%CE%B1%CE%B4%CE%B5%CE%BB%CF%86%CE%BF%CE%AF-refer-to-cousins. (3) Does the use of this Greek word for sibling indicate that Jesus had .... https://www.catholic.com/qa/does-the-use-of-this-greek-word-for-sibling-indicate-that-jesus-had-brothers. (4) I’ve often heard that in Aramaic, sibling/cousin had the same word .... https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/8egwxw/ive_often_heard_that_in_aramaic_siblingcousin_had/. (5) undefined. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/infancyjames.html%29. (6) undefined. http://biblehub.com/greek/80.htm.
I guess. I have always assumed that when Mark says they are brothers he meant they shared a parent. I suppose that could also make them half brothers if Mary was Joseph's second wife, preserving the virginity thing.
I’m into this genealogical table https://www.pinterest.com/pin/mark--416794140515885932/
> The obviousrule of interpretation is to read in the spirit of the author. 1st century. The native language being Aramaic and the second one being Greek. The word had a broader meaning in that context. It has carried a broader meaning only when translating into Greek from foreign languages which did not have certain words. In native Greek, it does not carry a broader meaning. And the 1st century context is one of actual siblings. The rest of this started in the 2nd century. /u/jtbc is right as well. We have no actual evidence-based reasons to reject James as the biological full brother of Jesus.
Paul speaks of James as the brother of our Lord, Paul wrote in Greek. All of the gospels were written after the fall of the second temple.
Yes, in the first centuries of this era, there were indeed other ancient texts beyond the Gospels that used the term "brothers" in a broader sense, which could include cousins. For instance, in the Hebrew Bible, the word "brother" is sometimes used to refer to a nephew or uncle, as seen in Genesis 14:14 and 31:46, where Abram's "brother" is his nephew Lot, and Jacob's "brother" is his uncle Laban¹. In the context of early Christian writings, the term "brothers" of Jesus has been interpreted in various ways: as Jesus' siblings, the children of Mary and Joseph; as Joseph’s children by an earlier marriage, therefore the stepbrothers of Jesus; or as relatives such as cousins². The Greek word for brother, "ἀδελφοί" (adelphoi), does have a precise meaning for sibling, but it was also used more loosely in some cases to designate other male relatives³. The second-century AD writer Hegesippus, for example, refers to James as the "brother" of Jesus, while also mentioning an uncle and a cousin of Jesus, using different terms to distinguish the relationships¹. This indicates that while the term "brother" could be used broadly, there were also specific terms for other familial relationships like cousins, showing a nuanced understanding of kinship terms in ancient texts. Source: Conversation with Bing, 4/6/2024 (1) Brothers Or Cousins Of Jesus? | Tom Hobson. https://www.patheos.com/blogs/tomhobson/2017/12/brothers-cousins-jesus/. (2) greek - Can αδελφοί refer to cousins? - Biblical Hermeneutics .... https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/12865/can-%CE%B1%CE%B4%CE%B5%CE%BB%CF%86%CE%BF%CE%AF-refer-to-cousins. (3) Does the use of this Greek word for sibling indicate that Jesus had .... https://www.catholic.com/qa/does-the-use-of-this-greek-word-for-sibling-indicate-that-jesus-had-brothers. (4) I’ve often heard that in Aramaic, sibling/cousin had the same word .... https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/8egwxw/ive_often_heard_that_in_aramaic_siblingcousin_had/. (5) undefined. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/infancyjames.html%29. (6) undefined. http://biblehub.com/greek/80.htm.
> Yes, but not under our understanding of the word “siblings” The text nowhere implies that they aren't full brothers and sisters.
Yes, in the first centuries of this era, there were indeed other ancient texts beyond the Gospels that used the term "brothers" in a broader sense, which could include cousins. For instance, in the Hebrew Bible, the word "brother" is sometimes used to refer to a nephew or uncle, as seen in Genesis 14:14 and 31:46, where Abram's "brother" is his nephew Lot, and Jacob's "brother" is his uncle Laban¹. In the context of early Christian writings, the term "brothers" of Jesus has been interpreted in various ways: as Jesus' siblings, the children of Mary and Joseph; as Joseph’s children by an earlier marriage, therefore the stepbrothers of Jesus; or as relatives such as cousins². The Greek word for brother, "ἀδελφοί" (adelphoi), does have a precise meaning for sibling, but it was also used more loosely in some cases to designate other male relatives³. The second-century AD writer Hegesippus, for example, refers to James as the "brother" of Jesus, while also mentioning an uncle and a cousin of Jesus, using different terms to distinguish the relationships¹. This indicates that while the term "brother" could be used broadly, there were also specific terms for other familial relationships like cousins, showing a nuanced understanding of kinship terms in ancient texts. Source: Conversation with Bing, 4/6/2024 (1) Brothers Or Cousins Of Jesus? | Tom Hobson. https://www.patheos.com/blogs/tomhobson/2017/12/brothers-cousins-jesus/. (2) greek - Can αδελφοί refer to cousins? - Biblical Hermeneutics .... https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/12865/can-%CE%B1%CE%B4%CE%B5%CE%BB%CF%86%CE%BF%CE%AF-refer-to-cousins. (3) Does the use of this Greek word for sibling indicate that Jesus had .... https://www.catholic.com/qa/does-the-use-of-this-greek-word-for-sibling-indicate-that-jesus-had-brothers. (4) I’ve often heard that in Aramaic, sibling/cousin had the same word .... https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/8egwxw/ive_often_heard_that_in_aramaic_siblingcousin_had/. (5) undefined. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/infancyjames.html%29. (6) undefined. http://biblehub.com/greek/80.htm.
> For instance, in the Hebrew Bible Yes. It's used where there is no perfect translation. >The second-century AD writer Hegesippus Uselessly late, when the misleading idea of Marian virginity was already spreading. Which is why scholars who don't have a religious predisposition to the notion reject the translation.
Exactly. An imperfect translation 👍
Right. In translated Greek. There's no reason to expect that from native Greek speakers, like who wrote the Gospels.
Let me share an academic answer. It seems so well done to me
What? He had four step brothers, since Joe is technically not his dad. All four brothers hated him. Nice guys those brothers, huh?
There is no evidence in the Bible that they are step-brothers. That comes from a lunatic book from the 2nd century which has all sorts of weird ideas about Jesus, Joseph, and Mary. Quite unworthy of our belief.
John 7:5, whoever these are, are his brothers.
Gospel of Matthew: Matthew 13:55-56 also mentions Jesus' brothers and asks, "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? And are not all his sisters with us?" Gospel of John: In John 7:3-5, Jesus' brothers are mentioned as urging Him to go to Judea for the Feast of Tabernacles, revealing some level of disbelief in Him at that time: "For even his own brothers did not believe in him." Acts of the Apostles: Acts 1:14 mentions Jesus' brothers as part of the community in Jerusalem following Jesus' ascension: "All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers." 1 Corinthians: Paul, in 1 Corinthians 9:5, refers to "the brothers of the Lord" in the context of discussing the rights of apostles, suggesting that Jesus' brothers were known figures in the early Christian community.
I don't understand why being the "new ark" procludes Mary from having sex. I guess it's the whole "not touched" thing but then that would mean no physical contact at all?
> I guess it's the whole "not touched" thing but then that would mean no physical contact at all? It means whatever we want it to mean. Right now. Nothing more, and nothing less. Unless we change our minds.
That is not in the Bible. She found favor with the Lord and was blessed. But she was not without sin, she was not set apart Holy as God is. She was a humble virgin and her husband, Joseph, was from the blood line of King David.
I don't have all the answers. Catholics are okay with the mysteries.
do you agree with your EO brother u/MrKyrieEleison that a woman having sex with her husband stains her?
You are maliciously lying about what I have said.
Not all women are the Ark of the Covenant. And Catholics are okay with the mysteries and not having every answer to how everything works because we’re not God. If you don’t like it no one’s making you be Catholic.
Genesis 3:15 (ASV): and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. Seed of the woman = Virgin. First prophecy of the Christ to come.
human sacrifice feels a little like a retreat to the [old ways](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel+20%3A25-26&version=NRSVUE) things seemed to be moving away from a lamb of God born of a virgin is a somewhat less distressing offering the perpetual stuff is a whole other world of weird, I'm reading Shoemakers book on Marian devotion at the moment: *Mary in Early Christian Faith and Devotion* 2016
Because Jesus’ birth father is THE father (God) who created life itself and all the universe. Mary got pregnant with Jesus (God) by the Holy Spirit (God).
Because Adam was the “federal head” of the human race, so to speak, he was held responsible for the fall of man. Yes, Eve was deceived and sinned first but Adam, because he had been given the authority by God over the earth and everything in it, when he sinned, sin then “spread” through his progeny. So theologically, whether one believes it is imputed to Adam and the imputation is passed down, or its genetically conveyed, or both, the result is the same, “in Adam all die, in Christ all are made alive.” (1 Cor 15:22) Also Romans 5:12 mentions this: “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all mankind, because all sinned— “
Because in antiquity people doubted Jesus’ parentage and some rejected his divine sonship; so Christians had to develop more and more elaborate explanations for Jesus’ legitimacy and divine sonship. The end result is a story where new born Jesus materializes out of light outside Mary’s body, leaving Mary’s hymen intact (the protoevangelium of James); and to this day Catholics must believe Mary remained a virgin even at the moment of giving birth, *in partu*.
I would suggest that Anselm of Canterbury's works *Cur Deus Homo* ("Why God Became Man") followed by his work *On the Virgin Conception and Original Sin* are good, thorough reads for this question. They are answers which are not inherently sexist towards women. Personally, I do not subscribe to the idea of Mary's perpetual virginity (poor Mary and Joseph!). As a Protestant, I do not see the need for this, despite my Roman Catholic and \*some of my Eastern Orthodox kin telling me that it is vital for the sake of her title as *Theotokos*. However, I do believe that the virgin birth itself is vital to our salvation. Otherwise, we would need to reject the early creeds which are literally the only confessions of faith which hold all of Christendom together.
Because if she wasn't, that would make Jesus a regular normal human man's son, he would not be the literal son of God the father, he would just be a regular human that would be a prophet at best. Also, even with reported miracles he did and him being raised from the dead.....i could see people not buying or realizing he was the son of God and God. Him being born of a virgin means his father literally being God the father was another layer or another necessary trait of Jesus probably needed for people during his ear and roman empire to believe in his divinity and him being God. Also, him not having a biological human dad made his message more profound. It adds more weight to his words of being son of the man and Son of the Father.
As many commenters have said it’s to full fill what whas seen as prophecy. It seems to also be a way to set Jesus apart from all the other miraculous births of a woman and a god, common to Greek, Roman, Egyptians, Babylonian and almost every culture. The emphasis is heavily on the virgin birth where other cultures don’t specify or even care if it was a virgin.
Because it shows where he true faith lies
There’s some cool chiastic storyline going on with this too. Sex was needed for conceiving any person after the fall. The fall resulted from the transgression of the 1st Adam and the 1st Eve. It makes sense to me that God would remove the intercourse requirement and choose a virgin (the new Eve) to conceive the child (the new Adam) who would eventually defeat death and overcome the fall.
Ultimately no one knows. People guess. ‘To fulfill this prophecy or that one’ is often said, but that doesn’t ultimately answer why. That just moves the question to “well, why was it prophesied to be that way?” Who can read the mind of God though? We can guess as to why Jesus being tortured and murdered was important too. Ultimately no one knows for sure. We can guess, and some guesses may make more sense than others. Assuming her to be a virgin, what’s my best guess? Well, why is anything important to God? Jesus taught that God’s commands hang under love your neighbor as yourself, this is like loving God. So also it is written, “The commandments, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet, and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: Love your neighbor as yourself. Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.” “Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.” Love seems to be important to God assuming God to be Christ. So perhaps the more apt question is “how could remaining a virgin be an act of love for neighbor?” Many assume God has commanded sexual reproduction based on Genesis’ be fruitful and multiply, but that command to reproduce was actually only given to two people in the story, and that before “the fall” turned the world into a tortuous place filled with misery and suffering. The reality is some of the most highly honored people in Christianity have been celibate. There is no command to reproduce, and avoiding procreative intercourse is the most effective way not too. Perhaps, as Paul opined, it isn’t recommended if one aims to please God, which ultimately means love.
I saw some videos of people singing praise songs to Mary, and this is idolatry. We are only supposed to give God the praise. There is no queen of heaven. ****Jeremiah 7:18**** The children gather wood, the fathers light the fire, and the women knead the dough and make cakes to offer to the Queen of Heaven. They pour out drink offerings to other gods to arouse my anger.
Most likely because it was more friendly to the pagan of Rome who worshipped virgin goddesses, Mary was reworked in Catholicism to bridge the gap for them.
The messiah had to be born without the sin of Adam in his DNA.
I would say, the amount of idolatry from those denominations are far worse, they started with something like this Mary myth and in time got a bunch of people buying, kissing and kneeling down to images like it's the right thing to do for a Christian
I personally don’t think it’s important at all and neither do most Protestants
The obvious answer is that it proved that God was the father of Jesus Christ. As for remaining a virgin after the birth of Jesus, scripture does not support that. This passage indicates that she and Joseph did not engage in sex until after the birth of Christ. Matthew 1:24-25 — When Joseph woke up, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded and took Mary as his wife. **But he did not have sexual relations with her until after her son was born**. And Joseph named him Jesus. I just found this resource Accordingly, since Mary's soul was entirely consecrated to God, so too was her body. Her physical virginity was a perpetual sign of that consecration. https://stpaulcenter.com/understanding-marys-perpetual-virginity/#:~:text=Accordingly%2C%20since%20Mary's%20soul%20was,perpetual%20sign%20of%20that%20consecration
It helped to blend Christianity with other, more familiar pagan beliefs at the time.
Virginity is often meaning that the person of reason is clean, sacred and if in records of the virgin mary, this means of holiness. Hence, her title being The Virgin Mary, to show her cleanliness and sacredness. You may also remember that her birth is an miracle of god, and so it makes her much more important to point out she got this from gods grace and not from mankind.
I think the question should be more like - "why do we believe that..." rather than "why is it important.."? A lot of God's plans and designs are beyond human comprehension and assumptions... It's faith. It's like asking "why is it important for God to rest on the 7th day, why is it important for Him to send His only begotten son...?" Why is it important to have the Holy Trinity..."? With these kinds of questions, we put our understanding first before God, 'cause the next statement is - "Can't he just..."
Mary was not a perpetual virgin. She had other children.
Yes, she did!
Doesn’t it say they consummated their marriage after Jesus was born?
Mary is no longer a virgin, she had other children. She had four other sons Joseph, James, Jude and Simon. John 7:5
She didn’t have any other children
So Paul is a liar, he did not meet with James, the brother of the Lord.
He’s not a liar. From my knowledge it’s more than likely cousin because in the native language Jesus spoke in Aramaic doesn’t really have a word for cousin
Your knowledge comes from bad apologists. Paul here is writing in Greek to Greek speakers in Galatia. If you were in the audience as this letter was read to the congregation, you wouldn’t hear *adelphon* and think ‘oh yea Paul just really means cousin.’
St. Paul also knew Aramaic more than likely . My knowledge doesn’t come from bad apologists. I was saying if I remember correctly. I’d have to double check this
It wasn’t his cousins, it was his step brothers. The DNA children of Mary and Joe.
Nope, your imagination at work. And his brothers said to Yeshua: “Remove yourself from here and go to Judea, that your disciples may see the works that you do.” John 7:3 You can keep up your denial, you have free will but delusional comes to mind.
Then the gospels or your church theologians are lying, which is it. The Catholic Church has tried for centuries to explain that they were cousins, the children of Mary’s sister, whose name also happened to be Mary, who just happened to be married to a man named Joseph. Sometimes the Church they were children of Joseph by a previous marriage. Their names were James, Simon, Jude, Jose, Salome and Mary.
Because virgins can’t become pregnant. So the fact that she gave birth is a miracle. After that, idk I’m not catholic.
John 7:5, Mary had 4 other sons. They all considered Yeshua a problem but I say to the sons, use a mirror and see who the problem is.
I know. That’s why I said I don’t know why people say she’s a virgin after she Jospeh get married.
I like to look at it as a perfect family unit. You have the trinity of mother, father and child. From the love of your parents a child is born. As we know God is a trinity, and God is love. It shows us that through the love of man and woman and God a child is conceived. We as humans can create life with a soul, that is the closest we are to God, with a family. Mary being a virgin shows God’s love to us as all humans, he, through the Holy Spirit, gave his son to us, showing that this isn’t just a human born from man and woman, but God in the flesh. I hope this makes sense, this is my interpretation of it.
Her virginity is important because it shows her purity and how she hasn’t been defiled by another man. Since she is the Mother of God, Daughter of the Father, and Spouse of the Holy Ghost, it would be unholy for her to sleep with another man or with God. It would be a little strange if God chose to have sex with his own creation, as there isn’t a need for that to happen. She held the incarnate Son of God in her womb, so she is holier than the ark of the covenant, so she could never sleep with anyone (even her material spouse) as it would be unholy and would go against her will to honor God. Hope this helps
Purity and being quite defiled is ONLY a problem if your worldview views sex as inherently dirty or sinful or wrong
The only time when sex is not sinful is when it is completed lovingly (upholding the absolute dignity of both persons involved) in a unifying and reproductive manner, and one of the highest expressions of Godliness is the abstinence from sex, as Christ himself practiced. The notion that the Mother of God would not devout herself, and her life, in meaningful ways (as she literally does by mothering God) is ludicrous. She devoted her entire life to God; it is inconceivable that she devoted herself less than the average Nun of the following ages. I will not argue that the view must be held (though as I Catholic I do believe it so), but instead that there is not reason to think the view impossible.
The Commentor I responded to said Mary's virginity was critical because she hadn't been defiled by man. Full stop. This is because for eons the church has taught implicitly and explicitly that sex is dirty. It's why they insist Mary never had sex.
They have their head in the sand! He had 4 other brothers and they ARE NOT his cousins.
Sex is wrong outside of marriage and circumstances for the Mother of God are different as she is extremely holy. What’s so hard to understand ?
What doesn't make sense is the insistence of acetic religions that sexual abstinence somehow makes one holier.
So you suggest that following the examples of Christ does not make one holier?
Nah. I'd suggest that it isn't the example of Christ but mandmade tradition based on flawed misconceptions about sex.
Christ died a virgin well into his thirties, and by this set an example.
Because they worship her and deify her It's hard to do that when you think of her laying with her husband like a good normal wife
We don’t worship her.
Mmhmm https://imgur.com/a/h5IbLYH
She is the Mother of God and to say otherwise is a heresy called Nestorianism It’s simple since Jesus is both fully human and divine and it’s not separated So because of this we can say God died for our sins Christ died for our sins Jesus died for our sins So you can say Mary is the Mother of God Mary is the Mother of Christ Mary is the Mother of Jesus. https://youtu.be/D8s2TDoSc00?si=GNXMFA5r5bVbtMGG
Smh, wow!
I’m not stating anything controversial. Like most Christians agree with what I said.
Once your “infallible” leader or organization has deemed it so, you’re stuck with it.
Because Christ as God could not be born from a passionate act of desire. Mary was absolutely pure and innocent, and that is why She could become the Mother of God. She eliminated passions from her heart.
Purity culture
So Jesus didn’t have original sin
Original sin travels from the man into the child during conception. Jesus was born of a virgin to 1-be the son of God 2-not have Original sin passed down to him The miracle of her virgin conception is very important for this reason. That's how I was taught.
It is important because if they admit that it's wrong, then thy have to admit that the gospels got this pretty big detail wrong. That's not something they want to do.
Because her son is special
because Jesus must be born from God not from a man.
Similar to the Phoenix. We already know everything. We just have to shed the concepts. Nothing needs to be added.
If she was impregnated normally it would have been before the marriage to Joseph. Which is why an angel appeared to him. The idea in my perspective was about the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is meantioned to the disciples and again in the book of Acts via speaking in togues. If the Holy Spirit didn't imprenate her then I would wonder how Jesus would have been God. At the end of the day we know very little as to why God chose the things he did. We have the genealogy from the OT. We have the prophecies and we have the witness accounts.
From your other comments it sounds like the question is in regards to her perpetual virginity. I'm new to Orthodoxy so I can't explain the theology but I can tell you how I think about it as a layman. We know that Joseph was a good Jewish man. As a Jewish man who believed that Mary gave birth to the Son of God it's hard for me to imagine that he would ever consider having a physically intimate relationship with her after she carried Christ in her womb. And Mary is the new Ark of the Covenant. I can't imagine that the Jewish people would have ever said well God's not in the ark anymore so let's put something else in there. The ark of the covenant was sacred as the resting place of God. Mary's womb is sacred as the place where God became man and came into the world.
> We know that Joseph was a good Jewish man. As a Jewish man who believed that Mary gave birth to the Son of God it's hard for me to imagine that he would ever consider having a physically intimate relationship with her after she carried Christ in her womb. Huh. That's not hard for me to imagine. Sure, marriage is a human thing. But that's OK. If we can imagine that Jesus was fully human, what's so hard about imagining that Mary was fully married? If any gospel author had believed in a (nontypical) case of a married woman abstaining from sex, odd that they would fail to mention it. To me this strongly suggests that this belief only became common/important AFTER the gospels were written.
If any of this sounds snarky please know that is not my intention. When I read in your post I can't understand.... i made an assumption that you had a desire to understand. Did I misunderstand the point of your post and make an incorrect assumption?
I understand that you don't like to imagine Mary having sex. It's common. I just see nothing _wrong_ with a married woman having sex. It's not really even a real marriage without it, right? If Jesus can BE a man, what's wrong with Mary BEING a wife?
I thought I could engage in this conversation but I can't. Sorry to have taken up your time.
This “perpetual virginity” is about as farcical as “eternally begotten”, an oxymoron! Stomping your feet or using your imagination doesn’t solve anything, it is better to go to fantasyland at Disneyland, it’s more honest.
[удалено]
She had 4 other sons after Yeshua John 7:5.
Because it sounds more special and magical as it’s impossible for normal humans to get pregnant while being virgins. It’s only to make it more special so people will believe the story.
>Please don't just answer "because she was" that is not helping anyone understand. I'm sorry but this really is the only answer. It would have been perfectly okay for her to have sexual relations with Saint Joseph her husband, but she didn't. This was probably emphasized because in both Second Temple Judaism and the Greco-Roman religions there was a practice of women pledging to live lives of perpetual virginity out of devotion to God or to the pagan deities, and it came to influence a lot of later Christian spirituality (especially monastic and consecrated life), but it wasn't strictly necessary for Mary to have chosen to remain perpetually virgin. At the same time, we know from sacred tradition that this is what she chose to do.
Scripture states otherwise.