Posted on 05/31/2011 11:34:50 AM PDT by sigzero
Mary was a virgin who was to conceive by being overshadowed by the Holy Spirit and give birth to the Son of God. Few in Christian realms would deny Mary was a virgin and remained a virgin through pregnancy and the birth of Christ. This was the ultimate fulfillment of a prophecy from Isaiah:
Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel. (Isaiah 7:14, emphasis added)
However, Mary’s virginity after the birth of Christ can become a heated debate in some circles. Though some may think this is a Roman Catholic versus Protestant view, it is not. Many Protestants, including people like Martin Luther and John Calvin, have held to Mary remaining a virgin for the duration of her life. Let’s look at the issues in a little more detail.
(Excerpt) Read more at answersingenesis.org ...
>>You are interpreting the text with a number of assumptions about grammatical time that are simply not there in the text.<<
I dunno. Mary did say “I *AM* a virgin.” She did not say “will continue to be”.
Too much, regarding her future virginity, is being read into this. Suffice it to say that we agree she was a virgin until Jesus was born, then the argument fun begins. And I honestly don’t see where this scripture covers that. My human response is that she will do what humans do after that since the prophesied event and instructions are completed.
>>If an angel came to you during your engagement with your husband and told you you would conceive, would you be confused?<<
An angel? “Confused” doesn’t begin to describe the various emotions one would feel!
The funny thing is that I was just giving my opinion. I wasn’t interpreting any of the scriptural texts and I certainly didn’t make it a dogma of my religion and worship. Yet I am accused of coming up with new doctrine , twisting the scripture, claiming that Mary has foreknowledge.
There are people twisting scripture on this thread and twisting others words. It isn’t me though.
But she was not told this in the present tense.
Mary was told "the Holy Ghost IS ABOUT to come upon you, you WILL become pregnant and you WILL have a baby"
She was not told "the Holy Ghost is about to come upon you", but "the Holy Ghost will come upon you."
There is no "about to" in the text.
Interesting observation. Can one be a literalist and a form critic simultaneously?
Yeah, and this is my brother Daryl and my other brother Daryl.
Yeah, and this is my son George, my other son George, my other son George, my other son George, and my other son George.
I can find problems or explanations for almost everything you quote. It's not adding up to proof to me. I don't really care whether Mary was a virgin for life or not. I think it's a silly idea not backed up by the bible.
BUT.. It doesn't matter to me, other than I always prefer the “TRUTH”. I can see where if you “worshiped” the virgin Mary (as deity), you would want this myth to be true.
The bible says, in several places, that Jesus had actual brothers and sisters. That is enough for me. I'm not concerned with what it “doesn't” say.
Does “profitable” mean “complete” or “sufficient” in any English language dictionary?
No, merely that saying one is going to have a baby while one is still a virgin would be a reason for confusion or at least a question. If she was taking a vow to be a perpetual virgin, then why was she marrying anyone in the first place? Luke said she was engaged to a man named Joseph.
>>The funny thing is that I was just giving my opinion. I wasn’t interpreting any of the scriptural texts and I certainly didn’t make it a dogma of my religion and worship. Yet I am accused of coming up with new doctrine , twisting the scripture, claiming that Mary has foreknowledge.<<
Yes, that is what I am seeing here too. One of the challenges of debating is being careful not to pepper your strong points with “questionable” ones. We all do it from time to time. But the problem is that you can have an ironclad case with 100 solid points and throw in one more “and not only that, but” point that is not very solid and the other side will pounce on that one thing relentlessly and ignore the rest.
Especially if it is all they have. ;)
This argument with Dave is pointless.
He can’t see that she was suprised about the angels announcement because she was not yet married. He thinks she was suprised because she planned on remaining a virgin forever.
It really wasn’t a questionable point. Why was Mary suprised by the angels announcement? Because she was a virgin and she knew virgins dont conceive. The only reason it gained any legs is because I used the term “current events”. I should have said short term future or something. When I clarified my comment the argument became, “where does the Bible say it was supposed to happen soon?”. Well the Bible doesn’t SAY it was supposed to happen soon it just RECORDS it happening shortly after. Lol!
My only question for you is, what do you have against pants? ;)
Many of the arguments made by the “ever virgin” crowd are being made from the position of a defendent at a criminal trial, where burden of proof is on the prosecution. That is, they are not offering proof of their position so much as trying to poke holes in the proof offered by the other side. Sort of a “that don’t prove nothin’” defense.
Problem is, the burden of proof is on them. They need to show scripture that, within the context of the rest of the Word, a reasonable person would interpret to mean Mary was ever virgin. The reason the burden of proof is on them is that what they are claiming goes against scripture and against the Jewish law under which Joseph and Mary lived, not to mention the rules of marriage according to the bible and God’s instruction to all mankind regarding reproduction.
Sure, there is the specific instruction about sex before Jesus is born, but that is something nobody here disagrees on and is quite clearly time defined.
>>He can’t see that she was suprised about the angels announcement because she was not yet married. He thinks she was suprised because she planned on remaining a virgin forever.<<
Then again, maybe she was “surprized” because she was being visited by an angel. No pun intended, but that is the 800 lb gorilla in the room here. It would cause some to have a heart attack, and we are mincing her words? HAHAHAHA!
Always a popular subject. :)
She may have been suprised by the angel but she did have enough sense to realize that virgins don’t normally have babies. Lol!
Isn’t it amazing that these Catholic baiting threads always appear on a Feast or Solemnity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
There’s a pattern here.
Tells you a lot about the people who might post such untruths.
Every Catholic Church titled after our Blessed Mother intones that understanding. There are million s.
Why is this a Catholic baiting thread because it disagrees with your doctrine? There are plenty of things posted on FR that disagree with my doctrine but I have never accused anyone of baiting me with it. If you don’t want to discuss it don’t click on the thread.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.