The Nature of Mary: the Virgin Birth

[weepingforloman]

This topic was raised in another thread that was closed (I believe) for lack of a specific text. Very well, here goes: 26In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin's name was Mary. 28The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you."

29Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. 31You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. 32He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end."

34"How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?"

35The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[c] the Son of God. 36Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month. 37For nothing is impossible with God."

38"I am the Lord's servant," Mary answered. "May it be to me as you have said." Then the angel left her. (Luke 1:26-38).

We have here the basics of the issue: Mary is a virgin. She is caused by the Spirit of God to have a child. There is nothing specifically said about her particular character, nor her "holiness" as ordinarily defined. Of course, she is holy in the proper sense: she is set apart by God. Mary is not so very different from any of the other women granted children by the miraculous power of God. I find it interesting that the Catholics do not declare Sarah or Elizabeth to be sinless, but leap upon the chance to do so with Mary. There is no evidence for the "Immaculate Conception" (which is different from the Virgin Birth, this is not always known) of Mary, but there is evidence that she was much the same as everyone else. She is "troubled" by the message given to her, later on she and Joseph rebuke Jesus for His teaching at the temple, later still she and his brothers and sisters (yes, Christ had brothers and sisters, Mary was NOT a perpetual virgin, she quite naturally had intercourse with her husband- she was a virgin until AFTER the Virgin Birth) tried to have Jesus "put away"- most likely into what served for mental institutions in those days: a cave in the desert. Mary was a woman who did good things, but she was sinful as any ordinary human.

[papayahed]

The Immaculate Conception only says that Mary was born without original sin, which in effect differentiates her from Elizabeth and Sarah. I've heard claims that she also lived without sin but that seems a stretch if you ask me.

[Whifflingpin]

"tried to have Jesus "put away"- most likely into what served for mental institutions in those days: a cave in the desert."

Huh? what gibberish is this?

[Pendragon]

Yes, I agree, Wiff. Scripture reference please on this? And something besides the Pope's proclaimation that indicatates Mary was born of an Immaculate Conception, i.e., without sin.

In the Bible, Jesus never calls her "Mother" but "woman". Jude is listed as a brother of Jesus, and at one point we find this:

Matt.12

[46] While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.
[47] Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
[48] But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
[49] And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!

Repeated in Luke 8:19-21

Mary a perpetual virgin? No.

[Whifflingpin]

"Mary is not so very different from any of the other women granted children by the miraculous power of God. I find it interesting that the Catholics do not declare Sarah or Elizabeth to be sinless, but leap upon the chance to do so with Mary. There is no evidence for the "Immaculate Conception" "

I am not a Roman Catholic, or even a Christian, for that matter, but the difference between Mary and any other woman is obvious enough. It is only Mary who, in Christian terms, can be described as "Mother of God," or even "Mother of the Son of the Most High" to quote from your passage above. That makes her unique among women.

The idea of the Immaculate Conception of Mary does not have to be biblical to be believed. It is a logical extension of the belief that Mary was the chosen vessel of God Incarnate. It is hard to see how any sinful person could be chosen to give birth to God, and for Mary to be sinless it would be necessary for her either to have been purged of sin at the moment Jesus was conceived or for her to have escaped the sinful nature that mankind in general is born to. (I've never quite worked out why that does not imply a series of immaculate conceptions going back from Mary to Eve, but no doubt Richard Hresko has an explanation.)

"She is "troubled" by the message given to her, later on she and Joseph rebuke Jesus for His teaching at the temple"
Two more cynical perversions of the texts.
Any modest maid would be "troubled" on being addressed by an angel, but the passage that you quote [38] shows Mary's instant obedience to God's will, in spite of being fully aware [34] of the difficulties that this will bring her.
Mary's "rebuke" of Jesus for his teaching in the temple (Luke 2 vv42-51) was nothing more (or less) than the worried concern of a mother whose 12 year old son had disappeared for 4 days in a strange city.

But, I am probably foolish in answering. Your post, Weepingforloman, is obviously not prompted by an interest in the nature and character of Mary. It is an undisguised bit of Catholic bashing, for which, and I repeat that I am not a Catholic, I would ask the mods to close this thread.

[bazarov]

This thread is very offending and your ideas are simply ridiculous.

[mazHur]

Queen Mary was a sinless woman. This fact is verified by other religious texts as well.

As for Jesus being the son of god, I have my own reasons to differ. He was not a God or a God's son nor Mary was Mother of God. We humans don't need such a ''comical God'' who indulges in inter-promiscuity with humans. Well, this is my personal opinion based on common sense.

As regards Immaculate Conception , I believe in it as God is omnipotent ,,,,,

I also believe Jesus to be a great Prophet of God and that he will have a come back earth as Messiah.

I am not a religious man but as every man has commonsense I too have a bit of it.

this is not to be construed as personal under any circumstances , whatsoever.

[packersfan]

I am unable to dind how this thread is offending. I am Catholic and find your questions cool because i have asked them ago to various people.

I am not quite sure whether or not believe that the virgin mary was sinless or a virgin. It is quite inpossible scientifically, but God can do anything, according the views of Christians. So therefore it just depends on your beliefs, if you base your beliefs scrictly science or not.

I'm kind of confused about the cave part.
Will somebody please explain that to me?

[Granny5]

It is possible to be a virgin and have a baby if the sperm is introduced into the womb be means other than intercourse. It happens.
I too am confused by the cave reference. I'm guess I'm just not familiar with it. Anyone know?

[mazHur]

Like all prophets, Jesus too had many enemies who did not understand his message and wanted to banish him. Cave seems to have been their choicest place for him.

[packersfan]

What's wrong with that?
I still am not sure of why Mary was so sinful in doing that...

I'm not quite sure of that metaphor either, it was like putting people in a mental institution. What's wrong with putting people in a mental institution? It could save their life or others' lives.

[mazHur]

the ppl had misunderstood Jesus,,,,,and they wanted to punish him

Mary was sinless

[packersfan]

Sorry-I'm still confused...

Mary wanted to Jesus to be put in a cave to banish him?
Or did she put him in a cave to protect him?
Or did she not want him put in a cave at all?

[mazHur]

mary wanted to protect him,,,,obviously, caves are hiding places

[packersfan]

Okay. I got that.

So then, why did up above (first post, last 2 lines-i could quote it but i dont much feel like it, sorry), someone say that she and Jesus' brothers and sisters put Jesus in a mental home, aka, cave. I'm still confused on that metaphor. :(

And with Jesus' brothers and sisters,
where do you get the idea that Jesus has brothers and sisters?
I'm interested, and had no idea...

[mazHur]

I have no idea about Jesus having siblings,,,,ask the one who started the thread.

Kai fa ha luka?

[packersfan]

But why did Mary put Jesus in a mental home, aka, cave. I'm still confused on that metaphor. What does a mental home have anything to do with this????

[mazHur]

that was not a mental home , just a cave,,,,and nobody put him there,,,he went there to hide and meditate ,,,or perhaps have a discourse with God about granting him more powers (miracles) to convince his folk

[papayahed]

that was not a mental home , just a cave,,,,and nobody put him there,,,he went there to hide and meditate ,,,or perhaps have a discourse with God about granting him more powers (miracles) to convince his folk

That's understandable but the first poster said that Mary tried to put Jesus in a mental institution, that is what everybody is questioning.

[mazHur]

that was not a mental home , just a cave,,,,and nobody put him there,,,he went there to hide and meditate ,,,or perhaps have a discourse with God about granting him more powers (miracles) to convince his folk

Ask him,
You don't have to agree with whatever he says.
:D

[dzebra]

packersfan, you asked where the idea came from the Jesus had brothers and sisters.

Matthew 13:54-56 says:
Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. “Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?” they asked. “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?”

There's another reference in the gospels too, Matthew 12:46, Luke 8:19, and Mark 3:31.

[Pendragon]

packersfan, you asked where the idea came from the Jesus had brothers and sisters.

Matthew 13:54-56 says:
Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. “Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?” they asked. “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?”

There's another reference in the gospels too, Matthew 12:46, Luke 8:19, and Mark 3:31.
Thank you, Dzebra. I quoted Matthew 12 here: http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showpost.php?p=472245&postcount=4 and referenced it to Luke 8. Granny Sandy, I would agree that one could give a Virgin Birth if somehow sperm were introduced other than by intercourse. To the people of Bible days, broken hymen meant the woman wasn't a virgin. We now know that this can and does happen by other methods than sexual ones, but to them there was one reason, the girl had committed sexual sin. The Bible specifically states that Joseph Mary's husband had no relations with her until AFTER Jesus was born.
Matthew 1:
[25] And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Thus comes in the children of Mary and Joseph, considered the brothers of Jesus.

[mazHur]

A broken hymen is still considered a symbol of disgrace in many cultures including the Subcontinent of India-Pakistan. It's amazing that Joseph didn't already know that Mary's hymen couldn't be intact after she had given birth to Jesus. It is also strange that a woman who is held by ppl as Mother of God or Mother God and a part of the trinity could have her chastity fouled by a man!

my belief is that Mary was a Virgin and gave birth to Jesus. Rest is just story

[Whifflingpin]

"It is also strange that a woman who is held by ppl as Mother of God or Mother God and a part of the trinity could have her chastity fouled by a man!"

First, Mary is not part of the Trinity.
Second, within Jewish and Christian thought, for a woman to bear and nurture children is not foulness but fulfilment.

There is no reason to suppose that Joseph didn't know "that Mary's hymen couldn't be intact after she had given birth to Jesus." Wherever Joseph is portrayed In the Gospel accounts, it is as a considerate and loving husband, and it is entirely right that he and Mary should have had other children together and brought up their family, like any other good couple.

[mazHur]

I take your point on Mary not being a part of the trinity.

Regarding God's wife marrying or remarrying a human doesn't sound a universally acceptable phenomena and is thus questionable.

for a woman to bear and nurture children is not foulness but fulfilment.


This is a universally acceptable rule not only among Jews, Christians but also among all religions of the world. The point is, do religions (of Jews and Christians) allow bearing and nurturing children without marriage? The Bible doesnt support this idea nor any other religion,,,,

How could Mary have married a Man without first obtaining divorce from her husband, God?? And why would have God divorced her in the first place??

[Whifflingpin]

"How could Mary have married a Man without first obtaining divorce from her husband, God?? And why would have God divorced her in the first place??"

I do not mean to be rude, but I think that those questions are meaningless. Marriage is a state that relates humans together, while living on Earth. It does not even relate humans together beyond life on Earth, Matt 22 v30, and it certainly does not describe a relationship between any human and God. So God and Mary are in no sense husband and wife.

If one accepts the Gospel version, (and there is no other source, so the choice is to accept the miraculous part of the story as a whole or not at all,) then Joseph was encouraged by God's messenger to take Mary as his wife - Matt. 1 v20 "the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream saying, "... fear not to take Mary to be your wife." In taking Mary fully as wife, including parenting other children, providing a full family of parents and brothers and sisters for Jesus to grow up in, Joseph was obeying God's will. He was acknowledging the essential goodness of his wife, and the rightness of her pregnancy prior to his marriage with her.

[mazHur]

the story is incredible and hard to digest.
It has also been given by it's editors or compilers a fine twist in the sequel!

[Pendragon]

the story is incredible and hard to digest.
It has also been given by it's editors or compilers a fine twist in the sequel!Let me see if I read you correctly: A Virgin Birth is not hard to digest, but that she had other children afterwards is. I would submit that logic dictates that the first one would be the one that would be very difficult to swallow. My faith gets me past that. The rest is easy. Wiff simply quoted the scriptures as did I.

The Immaculate Conception of Mary was not even a doctrine among the Catholic Church until Pope Pius IX pronounced it as doctrine on December 8, 1854. 150 years or so. Short time for a doctrine that people stumble over like a lead weight. Do you not think it would have been so glorious that it would have been mentioned in the Bible?

God Bless

Pen

[Granny5]

I guess it's just me, but whether Mary gave birth to Jesus as a virgin or not, I don't believe it matters in his teachings or his divinity. I think we could nit pick the whole story apart but it is a matter of faith, not fact.

[Virgil]

I'm with Granny, it doesn't matter either way for me. In fact it is somewhat more miraculous for me if Jesus was concieved the normal way. It says to me that the spark of spirituality is within each little aspect of all our lives and it is there, present before us all, in every thing we do. [Side note, that's a recurring theme that I put to use in many of my poems.]

There is an interesting discussion of both sides of this issue on Wkiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Birth. I know Wiki has its flaws, but I find it to be at least 95% accurate if not more so.

[mazHur]

Pen

I do agree with you on Jesus being borne out of Virgin Mary but I don't agree with Mary giving births to others later on once monopolized by God.

I believe in Jesus being a great prophet of God, and have all the respect for the sacred Virgin Mary but I don't believe rest of the story...all that is editor's fantasy

[Pendragon]

Pen

I do agree with you on Jesus being borne out of Virgin Mary but I don't agree with Mary giving births to others later on once monopolized by God.

I believe in Jesus being a great prophet of God, and have all the respect for the sacred Virgin Mary but I don't believe rest of the story...all that is editor's fantasymazHur, I think then, that we should focus on what we agree upon, that Jesus was Virgin Born, and I believe you said you believe he will return as Messiah. I agree that he is Messiah. If people focused more on what they agreed upon rather than the things they disagreed upon, there would be less fighting in the world and more fellowship. There is only one God, men have called Him many names. They have followed His rules and they have broken them. They are human. To be human is to be imperfect, capable of doing anything in all reality, sinful or not. Were we unable to sin, we would need no God for our salvation.

God Bless and Shalom.

Pen

[mazHur]

Pen, I agree with the way you put things up,......and In Jesus and Virgin Mary and in humans as they are.

If humans were sinless they would be angels- without heart or love - but we do not want to be angels, atleast I don't. Neither we can afford to have more than One God!

[weepingforloman]

"Mary is not so very different from any of the other women granted children by the miraculous power of God. I find it interesting that the Catholics do not declare Sarah or Elizabeth to be sinless, but leap upon the chance to do so with Mary. There is no evidence for the "Immaculate Conception" "

I am not a Roman Catholic, or even a Christian, for that matter, but the difference between Mary and any other woman is obvious enough. It is only Mary who, in Christian terms, can be described as "Mother of God," or even "Mother of the Son of the Most High" to quote from your passage above. That makes her unique among women.

The idea of the Immaculate Conception of Mary does not have to be biblical to be believed. It is a logical extension of the belief that Mary was the chosen vessel of God Incarnate. It is hard to see how any sinful person could be chosen to give birth to God, and for Mary to be sinless it would be necessary for her either to have been purged of sin at the moment Jesus was conceived or for her to have escaped the sinful nature that mankind in general is born to. (I've never quite worked out why that does not imply a series of immaculate conceptions going back from Mary to Eve, but no doubt Richard Hresko has an explanation.)

"She is "troubled" by the message given to her, later on she and Joseph rebuke Jesus for His teaching at the temple"
Two more cynical perversions of the texts.
Any modest maid would be "troubled" on being addressed by an angel, but the passage that you quote [38] shows Mary's instant obedience to God's will, in spite of being fully aware [34] of the difficulties that this will bring her.
Mary's "rebuke" of Jesus for his teaching in the temple (Luke 2 vv42-51) was nothing more (or less) than the worried concern of a mother whose 12 year old son had disappeared for 4 days in a strange city.

But, I am probably foolish in answering. Your post, Weepingforloman, is obviously not prompted by an interest in the nature and character of Mary. It is an undisguised bit of Catholic bashing, for which, and I repeat that I am not a Catholic, I would ask the mods to close this thread.
I am not trying to "Catholic bash." Obviously I disagree with them, they disagree with my theological beliefs as well. However, to address your points: first and most importantly, Mary would not need to be sinless to carry Christ. In fact, if she was sinless, that is, if God was willing to create a sinless human, what is the purpose of the Incarnation and the passion? Why go to such great lengths if you find the creation of a sinless being to be acceptable? Furthermore, no, she would not need to be sinless for Christ to be sinless: He was God. His divinity draws His humanity up into it, perfecting it and, as you put it, "purging" it. Remember that Christ was, as Paul (I believe) puts it "He was tempted in every way." His human nature did not flee, rather it was subdued and sanctified by His divinity. As for the others, well, I have my opinion of what those verses mean, and I will not challenge yours.


mary wanted to protect him,,,,obviously, caves are hiding places

I'm sorry about letting this go without answering, I've been a little busy. If I can find the specific verse, I will post it. However, what happened is this: Mary, and Jesus's other family members, heard about some of the things He was preaching (His own divinity, the "living water", etc.). They assumed He was insane. They decided to take Him into the wilderness and leave Him there, which was commonly done with the insane in Israel.

[mazHur]

but Jesus was NOT insane, only his foolish persecutors thought so.

There is mention of Jesus and Mary in other scriptures and religions and it would be too self-centred and self-possessive and irrational to conclude without giving relevance to other evidence on record

God hates sin (not the sinners, in a way) how on earth and why would he conduct the Immaculate Conception in the wombs of a sinful woman? I dont' believe this nor billions around, including Muslims and Jews.
The Immaculate Birth of Jesus is yet another miracle of God bestowed on Jesus and Mary and we ought to see and respect it in that context.
Also, it is imperative that we all follow the teachings of Jesus and forget about unnecessary discussion about trivial matters which do not harm anyone.

[weepingforloman]

"Jesus was NOT insane"- that is my point. Mary and His family thought He was, though. I'm sorry, but if there are any (or even one) sinless people, what is the point of the crucifixion? And again, I'm sorry, but I do not believe in the validity of other scriptures. You may think me arrogant if you wish, but I do not believe that other scriptures (I believe you are referring specifically to the Qoran?) are divinely inspired. And the Immaculate Conception actually refers to Mary's birth, not Christ's. The birth of Jesus is only called the Virgin Birth. As to Mary's being sinful- of course she was, in that ALL of us are. She may have (and I believe she was) a better person than most, but that is due to the grace of God, not inherent worth in Mary herself.

[mazHur]

I don't believe (commonsense) that a mighty Almighty would choose a bad apple for his pie.

There is a pinch of salt in the sayings of other scriptures but it is upto you to believe what you want or dont. I will even take into consideration the Bhagwat Geeta inot consideration while where religious questions are involved. As for Quran I have to consider it because it has not changed at all
either in letter or spirit for more than 14 centuries,,,,whereas other books are.
In any case Mary and Jesus are both sacred to me

and, yes, I don't believe Jesus had died. He is still alive and will return to earth as Messiah any time before doomsday !

[Pendragon]

and, yes, I don't believe Jesus had died. He is still alive and will return to earth as Messiah any time before doomsday !And here we must agree to disagree. Jesus manifestly was crucified, and rosed from the dead, according to Biblical scripture. He is not returning as Messiah, for He told the Woman at the Well He was the Messiah then. He is returning as the coming King. I will not quarrel, my friend. I simply state the scripture.

God Bless

Pen

[mazHur]

Ok, call him by any name , Messiah or King, Jesus will return to earth with a new mission......

Yes, some people ( Ahmadi's as they are called -- not muslims) think that Jesus died on the cross and is buried in Cashmere (or Kashmir). As Jesus came out of a Virgin Birth and was endowed with astounding miracles, my common sense does not allow me to accept the idea of his dying on the cross. Why, in any case, God would let his beloved Man die such an awful death?

[weepingforloman]

The entire point of Christ is that God let Him die (and He WAS God, anyway). He died to provide mankind with a means of redemption. Through His death, our sins are forgiven. As to your earlier comment about God not using "a bad apple," we are all spoiled apples. Christ makes us UNspoiled. Part of the glory of the Incarnation is that Christ was born in humble circumstances: in what is essentially a stable, to an ordinary, poor woman in a subjugated nation with a history of being conquered and exiled. If Christ was born of a perfect woman, His humiliation (a theological term) would not carry the same weight. He would have been heir to glory, when His whole mission was to take on the weakness of flesh and redeem it, to enter into and purify the depravity of man.

[mazHur]

you sound of mythology.

Why would God need a son--just one son, not to speak of a daughter---to lead the people? If God must have offsprings then he is not god but a figment of imagination, a demi-god, a mythological entity. And, where does common sense tell us that one man has to die for sins of others? Why would any god's son (except in mythology)made to face such a terrible death? Common sense says that one is fully responsible for his own crimes and sins,,,, I hate to shift blame on any one else, be it god or Jesus or Buddha or Muhammad. Astonishingly, people have advanced in science and culture but they still seem to suffer from primitive and irrational thinking,,,,(this is a genereal statement which please note)

[weepingforloman]

Son does not really mean son. "Son" as a member of the Trinity. Son, to use an image from C.S. Lewis, as that which emanates from God (and is God) as heat and light from a fire. The Son may be thought of as God's illustration (in His own being) of the proper response to God: with perfect obedience and adoration. The Son delights in the Father, the Father is well pleased with the Son.
And, yes, we are responsible for our own sins: but Christ's death was His intercession on our behalf. Because we cannot on our own earn our salvation, God interfered with the process. You may know that the Israelites used to offer sacrifices to atone for their sins: Christ is the perfect and everlasting sacrifice.

[mazHur]

So, God had to 'sacrifice' his own son for our salvation. It doesn't appeal to my mind, sorry. And, why would God have a son who would be crucified and die and who couldn't even realize why the 13th guy(the traitor) left the table during last supper?
Why would we like to make an scapegoat of god's son for our own sinful doings? And, he be held answerable to god for that?
Jesus was simply a great prophet of God and never died on the cross. He's alive and will return to earth before doomsday to rid us of unbelievers.

You analogy to fire and light is beyond my understanding . Even the flare of the sun is going down with the passage of time. Light also dies off at a certain limit.fire goes off , If our God and his son were like fire and light they have certainly lost their blitz and glare,,,and I don't think they would ever have the chance to recoup ,,,,,,,,,no, no , you are mistaken,,,I cant believe your weak explanation in present scientific times.

[Pendragon]

So, God had to 'sacrifice' his own son for our salvation. It doesn't appeal to my mind, sorry. And, why would God have a son who would be crucified and die and who couldn't even realize why the 13th guy(the traitor) left the table during last supper?

I am sorry, friend mazHur, but I cannot let this statement stand.

St. John 13:
[23] Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.
[24] Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it should be of whom he spake.
[25] He then lying on Jesus' breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it?
[26] Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon.
[27] And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly.
[28] Now no man at the table knew for what intent he spake this unto him.
[29] For some of them thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus had said unto him, Buy those things that we have need of against the feast; or, that he should give something to the poor.
[30] He then having received the sop went immediately out: and it was night.

How could Jesus not know? He told the disciple (John) that he would dip bread, and give it to the betrayer. He gave it to Judas, and told him "What you have to do, do quickly." And Judas left at once. The disciples seem a bit dull-witted, for they (including John) don't seem to catch on, but Jesus knew. And Jesus is alive, yes, I will agree, but first He tasted death, but not corruption. In 72 hours an unembalmed body begins to decay. Jesus rose early on the third day.

God Bless

Dale

[stella]

-Why Mary is different:
-Luke1:42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
-luke1:43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
-luke1:48 For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.

-Jesus didn’t have brothers &sisters and Mary did stay a virgin:
I assume the passage you are referring to is Mathew 12:46-50 , well in the time of Christ using the word brother was to show respect it was a term of endearment since they appreciated family bonds more than any other.
Besides supposing what you say is true why were they not mentioned more frequently in the bible especially in the parts where Jesus was persecuted?
Hope to hear from you!

[mazHur]

For your information here Muslim's version of Mary and Jesus:

click: http://www.masjidtucson.org/quran/noframes/ch19.html

[Pendragon]

-Why Mary is different:
-Luke1:42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
-luke1:43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
-luke1:48 For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.

-Jesus didn’t have brothers &sisters and Mary did stay a virgin:
I assume the passage you are referring to is Mathew 12:46-50 , well in the time of Christ using the word brother was to show respect it was a term of endearment since they appreciated family bonds more than any other.
Besides supposing what you say is true why were they not mentioned more frequently in the bible especially in the parts where Jesus was persecuted?
Hope to hear from you!And you have waited patiently to hear back from me. I have been ill lately. No, I will quote from Matthew chapter 1.

[18] Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
[19] Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.
[20] But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
[21] And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
[22] Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
[23] Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
[24] Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
[25] And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

I am certain you are familiar with the expression used in the 25th verse and its meaning in the Bible. She was taken as wife by Joseph by heavenly commandment, and after Jesus was born, they lived as a normal husband and wife. Such a union would produce children, and they are named, some of them, in the Bible, two brothers James and Jude as well as sisters.

I cannot change what is written in the scriptures: Revelation 22: [18] For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
[19] And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

God Bless

Pen

[Thinkerr]

I agree with Pendragon. A normal relationship would produce children. Also at one point in the Bible, Jesus is told his mother and BROTHERS are outside.

[stella]

pendragon,
Well I hope you are feeling better now …..glad to hear an answer!;)
As to the matter in hand ,Allow me to quote:
“Verse 25: Some modern commentators on Scripture state "the word till does not direct our attention to what happened afterwards; it simply points out what has happened up to that moment." (Navarre Bible Commentary). Examples of this are seen in Matt. 10:11, 12:20, 14:22, 17:9 - "And as they came down the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying: Tell the vision to no man, till the Son of man be risen from the dead."
St. Jerome answers simply that the word 'until' is to be understood in two senses in Scripture. Until often denotes a fixed period, but often also an infinite time, as in the examples below. "Understand then, those things which, if they had not been written might have been doubted, are expressly declared to us; other things are left to our own understanding. So here the evangelist informs us in this area where there might have been room for error, that she was not known by her husband until the birth, that we might infer that much less was she known afterwards."
Gen. 28:15, "And I will be thy keeper where ever you go, and will bring you back into this land: neither will I leave thee, till I shall have accomplished all that I have said."
Isaiah 46:4, God says, "I am till you grow old."
Matthew 22:44, "God said to his divine Son: Sit on my right hand till I make your enemies your footstool."
Verse 25, cont. - Only begotten son was also called firstborn, because, according to the law, Exodus 13:2, "Sanctify unto me, saith the Lord, every firstborn that opens the womb among the children of Israel." The firstborn had other privileges as well: At a certain age his brethren were to honor him by bowing down (Gen. 27:29), he received a "double portion" for an inheritance (Deut. 21:17), he was to take the role as priest in the family, and he was promised special spiritual blessings and privileges (those who blessed him were blessed, those who cursed him were cursed (Gen. 12:1, & 27:29). “
Taken from http://www.cathtruth.com/catholicbible/matt1.htm

Thinkerr I already discussed this in my earlier thread.

[Pendragon]

pendragon,
Well I hope you are feeling better now …..glad to hear an answer!;)
As to the matter in hand ,Allow me to quote:
“Verse 25: Some modern commentators on Scripture state "the word till does not direct our attention to what happened afterwards; it simply points out what has happened up to that moment." (Navarre Bible Commentary). Examples of this are seen in Matt. 10:11, 12:20, 14:22, 17:9 - "And as they came down the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying: Tell the vision to no man, till the Son of man be risen from the dead."
St. Jerome answers simply that the word 'until' is to be understood in two senses in Scripture. Until often denotes a fixed period, but often also an infinite time, as in the examples below. "Understand then, those things which, if they had not been written might have been doubted, are expressly declared to us; other things are left to our own understanding. So here the evangelist informs us in this area where there might have been room for error, that she was not known by her husband until the birth, that we might infer that much less was she known afterwards."
Gen. 28:15, "And I will be thy keeper where ever you go, and will bring you back into this land: neither will I leave thee, till I shall have accomplished all that I have said."
Isaiah 46:4, God says, "I am till you grow old."
Matthew 22:44, "God said to his divine Son: Sit on my right hand till I make your enemies your footstool."
Verse 25, cont. - Only begotten son was also called firstborn, because, according to the law, Exodus 13:2, "Sanctify unto me, saith the Lord, every firstborn that opens the womb among the children of Israel." The firstborn had other privileges as well: At a certain age his brethren were to honor him by bowing down (Gen. 27:29), he received a "double portion" for an inheritance (Deut. 21:17), he was to take the role as priest in the family, and he was promised special spiritual blessings and privileges (those who blessed him were blessed, those who cursed him were cursed (Gen. 12:1, & 27:29). “
Taken from http://www.cathtruth.com/catholicbible/matt1.htm

Thinkerr I already discussed this in my earlier thread.The word I was referring to was "knew". In Bible terms this meant in a carnal way.
Joseph did not have relations as husband and wife with Mary until after Christ was born, thus allowing a Virgin birth. Afterwards, they were a normal man and wife, had relations which produced children. The word translated as "knew" does not change when used in this context. Thank you.

God Bless

Pen

[Thinkerr]

Whops. Sorry. I read back and you did, my mistake.

[weepingforloman]

I've fallen out of sync with this thread, but I think the discussion has moved on to Mary's perpetual virginity- correct?

According to Paul, the notion that Mary would be perpetually virginal would in fact be a sin- or at least a very, very bad idea. He specifically mentions that husbands and wives should not "withhold themselves" from each other, for fear of leaving the other open to temptation. Mary would have had a certain obligation to Joseph- and he to her, of course.

[Pendragon]

I've fallen out of sync with this thread, but I think the discussion has moved on to Mary's perpetual virginity- correct?

According to Paul, the notion that Mary would be perpetually virginal would in fact be a sin- or at least a very, very bad idea. He specifically mentions that husbands and wives should not "withhold themselves" from each other, for fear of leaving the other open to temptation. Mary would have had a certain obligation to Joseph- and he to her, of course.

Perhaps not sin, but a bad idea, I believe Paul was saying:

1 Corinthians 7:[1] Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
[2] Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
[3] Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
[4] The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
[5] Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
[6] But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.
[7] For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.
[8] I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
[9] But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

Burn here, means with lustful desires.

[mazHur]

I think we are limiting the scope of our discussion to quotes from the Bible. Since Queen Mary and Jesus are not restricted to one religion, I think it would be worthy the subject to substantiate it with evidence, proof or opinions from other available sources as well. Moreso, because the topic of the thread nowhere indicates that we proved it in context with findings of the Bible only.
Let's discuss it with a wider universal approach,,,,,,,,,

[stella]

i am sorry but i have to disagree; i believe the most important word in this verse is "till"because it denies any relation before & after.
anyways i enjoyed discussing this with you,really, you can be very convincing.. but sorry not this time.
there are very few things i believe in but those i strongly hold on to.
i didn't know what your last "thank you" meant ( to be honest it scared me) ...but I'll say thank you for the discussion .
& this time I'll quote you :
God Bless.

[Pendragon]

i am sorry but i have to disagree; i believe the most important word in this verse is "till"because it denies any relation before & after.
anyways i enjoyed discussing this with you,really, you can be very convincing.. but sorry not this time.
there are very few things i believe in but those i strongly hold on to.
i didn't know what your last "thank you" meant ( to be honest it scared me) ...but I'll say thank you for the discussion .
& this time I'll quote you :
God Bless.

I hadn't revisited this tread for a while. Stella, the last thing I would want to do is frighten anyone. If I came across that way, I am sorry. You say the most important word there is "till" because you somehow think that means "neither now nor afterwards." The word in Greek is ov and doesn't change when I when through at least eight different translation. It means "until" which marks a given period of time.

I will leave you with this:
2Pet.1

[10] Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:

Do not be quickly persuaded by others, but ponder in your own heart to make your calling and election sure. However persuasive, one can be wrong. Try the spirits to see if they be of God. I try not to mislead, I can show you where to look, but You must seek and find.

As ever, God Bless. Any questions can be PMed to me.

Pen

[subterranean]

The idea of the Immaculate Conception of Mary does not have to be biblical to be believed. It is a logical extension of the belief that Mary was the chosen vessel of God Incarnate. It is hard to see how any sinful person could be chosen to give birth to God, and for Mary to be sinless it would be necessary for her either to have been purged of sin at the moment Jesus was conceived or for her to have escaped the sinful nature that mankind in general is born to. (I've never quite worked out why that does not imply a series of immaculate conceptions going back from Mary to Eve, but no doubt Richard Hresko has an explanation.)

I have this different thought about how God uses mankind to make His plans work.

Here's what written in Matthew about the genealogy of Jesus Christ


Matthew 1:5
And Salmon begat Booz of Rahab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;

And this Rahab, which was the great great great grandmother of Jesus, was believed to be the same woman who helped the spies in the book of Joshua and she was, as the scripture said, a prostitute.


Joshua 2:1
And Joshua the son of Nun sent out of ****tim two men to spy secretly, saying, Go view the land, even Jericho. And they went, and came into an harlot's house, named Rahab, and lodged there.


Yes, we can say that Rahab is not directly link to Jesus and her 'status', of course, is different with Marry. Yet I think from that story of Rahab, it's cleary shown that God can choose anyone He wants as long as the person is willing. Marry was just a 'tool' and I agree with Granny5's and Virgil's posts that Marry's situation has nothing to do with Christ divinity.


Note: that **** thing should be read as S-h-i-t-t-i-m

[weepingforloman]

Exactly correct. Mary did not need to be perfect. If God only worked through the perfect, how could He work at all?