Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Did Mary retain her virginal integrity while giving birth to Jesus?
Catholic Bridge ^ | David MacDonald

Posted on 10/06/2010 7:56:37 AM PDT by Alex Murphy

Overall, Catholics liked the movie "The Nativity" but had several problems with it. For one thing they changed Scripture during the closing of the movie. On the screen they flashed the Bible passage from Luke 1:46-54. But they left out the words "for me" from middle of the sentence "The Lord has done great things for me, and Holy is his name." I don't think they should have taken that out of the Word of God, without using any elypses to show they skipped it. Another issue with the movie is they showed Mary screaming and pushing in pain as she gave birth to Jesus.

The Early Church Fathers are almost unanimous in the assertion that the birth was painless and had no loss of Mary's virginal integrity during the birth. In other words, her Hymen didn't break. St. Augustine said "Jesus passed through the womb of Mary as a ray of sun passes through glass." Pope Martin in 649 AD defined the doctrine that Mary:

This was confirmed by Pope Paul IV and many others before and after. If Jesus emerged from a sealed tomb, and passed through closed doors, surely he could pass through Mary's womb without breaking her hymen and causing her pain. If pain is the punishment of original sin and birth pangs the first punishment at the fall (Gen 3) for Eve's disobedience. It follows that Mary as the new Eve, who was obedient to God (Lk 1:38), would not have suffered giving birth to the "new Adam". If Eve came out of Adam's rib with no pain while he slept, it follows that Jesus (the new Adam) came out of Mary (the new Eve) without pain.


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; History; Theology
KEYWORDS: catholic; staugustine; virginbirth; virginmary
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 341-355 next last
To: Iscool

To claim Mary remained a virgin is to assume God can’t control His own Word. Apparently, when God breathed the scriptures about brothers, or Joseph “kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son”, He either wanted to confuse the issue so people wouldn’t know she remained a virgin, or he lacked the power to have His Word state the truth.

All of the passages about his brothers and sisters could have said cousins, or friends, or associates. Since it didn’t, God either wanted to confuse the issue, didn’t know what words to use, or lacked the power to have the accurate words used. OR she didn’t remain a virgin.

Frankly, the idea that a woman who is mentioned once in Acts and never again in scripture is the Queen of Heaven & wife of the Holy Spirit is just nauseating.


201 posted on 10/08/2010 2:12:32 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (When the ass brays, don't reply...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
I have always wondered why all the super-human
attributes assigned to a created human being ?

Miriam states that she is a sinner requiring a savior. (Luke 1:47)

Why magical titles like "mother of god" ?

There do not seem to be any reason for these.

Their absence do not detract nor diminish our relationship with YHvH.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach

202 posted on 10/08/2010 3:10:52 PM PDT by Uri’el-2012 (Psalm 119:174 I long for Your salvation, YHvH, Your law is my delight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
I have decided not to dispute with you, because we do not share the basic assumptions necessary for constructive discussion. Peace and, for now, goodbye.

Okie doke then. Each person has to decide accordingly. I always have enjoyed my dialogues with Christians and have had some really interesting ones. For the record, I dont say anything with malice and such but recognize that my bluntness can be percieved that way, until people get to know me anyway. I have a lot of Christian FReepers friends that I have had a polemical discussion with. So, as you say, shalom and l'hitraot!

203 posted on 10/08/2010 3:44:14 PM PDT by blasater1960 (Deut 30, Psalm 111...the Torah and the Law, is attainable past, present and forever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: blasater1960

OK! I’ll see ya on other threads.


204 posted on 10/08/2010 3:51:38 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("Feeling good about government, is like looking on the bright side of a catastrophe." P.J. O'Rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: blasater1960

Perhaps your Christian friends have not seen you toss out the slur that ‘Jesus is not necessary’. You might as well spit on His crucifixion as well because you’re serving the spirit of anti-Christ which your Christian friends ought to be leary of. I am not your friend. I will call it like you post it. You will not hide behind selected Old Testament scriptures while spitting on Paul who was a Pharisee among Pharisees and Jesus The Christ and have me call you friend or say go in peace. You are working for the enemy of Christ.


205 posted on 10/08/2010 3:52:00 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Morg, believing they cannot be deceived, it's nye impossible to convince them when they're deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN; blasater1960

Interesting - witnessing by spitting in someone’s face. By definition, ALL non-Christians think Christ is not needed. That is what makes them non-Christian.

Hate them to Christ! A unique witnessing strategy. Maybe you could change your tag line to read “I’m bitter and angry because of Jesus!” < / sarcasm >


206 posted on 10/08/2010 3:57:59 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (When the ass brays, don't reply...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: johngrace

The brothers were not believers at the time of Jesus’ death. In fact, they were bitterly opposed to Jesus, which may be somewhat understandable...I probably wouldn’t like a perfect brother either. Giving Mary to John’s care makes sense if the spiritual is more important than physical - which is obviously IAW the teaching of Jesus.


207 posted on 10/08/2010 4:05:49 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (When the ass brays, don't reply...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: johngrace
It's a belief not deception! Also notice Psalms with hidden meanings until explained later.

That is the entire scripture...You guys seem to think you can read the bible like it's a novel and you have it all figured out...There are hidden things in the scripture that can only be revealed with other scripture...Scripture with scripture...

There are double meaning words in scripture. Just say you do not get it, Or to you does not make sense.

I would if it had been written by you but as we can see, it is more cut and paste of your religion's talking points...Your religion has written millions of words trying to make Mary into something she is not...

There is no misunderstanding...Your religion deletes scripture, adds words to scripture, changes words in scripture to fit it's invented religion...

Sorry I hurt your feelings but I am only interested in the truth of God's word, especially when it goes out into the world to be read by people searching for God and salvation...

208 posted on 10/08/2010 4:06:17 PM PDT by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Yaknow, I was going to ignore your slithering into this thread to 'correct' IScool, but you made yourself the object of derision now.

If you had actually read the Bible, you would not, perhaps, make such a foolish statement as "Frankly, the idea that a woman who is mentioned once in Acts and never again in scripture ..." When you actually know something about the New Testament perhaps, PERHAPS, you can regain some credibility. You remain the fraud you show on other threads pretending on other topics.

209 posted on 10/08/2010 4:07:41 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Morg, believing they cannot be deceived, it's nye impossible to convince them when they're deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
Frankly, the idea that a woman who is mentioned once in Acts and never again in scripture is the Queen of Heaven & wife of the Holy Spirit is just nauseating.

Exactly...

210 posted on 10/08/2010 4:08:10 PM PDT by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

BTW, fraud, I had no intention of witnessing to a servant of the most low. I’ll leave paling with such to the likes of you, fraud.


211 posted on 10/08/2010 4:09:33 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Morg, believing they cannot be deceived, it's nye impossible to convince them when they're deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

Whether Mary the Mother of Jesus is the ‘Queen of Heaven’ or ‘wfie of the Holy Spirit is not my debate. BUT to say she only shows up once in Acts is to ignore all the other references to the Mother of Jesus. And the biological facts coming to light regarding the relationship between a gestating child and the Mother are settling on the side of Mary’s very unique place in Human History ... for those who believe Jesus is Lord and that God placed Jesus in Mary’s womb as an already embryonic being rather than through union of gametes. But I wouldn’t want to get over your head.


212 posted on 10/08/2010 4:13:07 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Morg, believing they cannot be deceived, it's nye impossible to convince them when they're deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

The final mention of Mary is in Acts 1:14. She then disappears.


213 posted on 10/08/2010 4:14:29 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (When the ass brays, don't reply...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
“I’m bitter and angry because of Jesus!”

Where are you getting that? I havent posted anything angry or bitter at all. So unless you want to dialogue verse by verse, you can just leave me alone, thanks. I am a happy FReeper who enjoys a good dialogue or polemic, if you will. If you guys arent up for it....fine....dont...but I see no cause for going ad hominem for no reason...

214 posted on 10/08/2010 4:16:38 PM PDT by blasater1960 (Deut 30, Psalm 111...the Torah and the Law, is attainable past, present and forever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

So...you don’t believe in the Great Commission? I’m glad the folks who witnessed to me didn’t wait until I was a servant of Christ before they told me about Jesus...


215 posted on 10/08/2010 4:18:38 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (When the ass brays, don't reply...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
But that is not what you intiially spittle is it, fraud! You said she appears once in Acts then nothing. Of course you denigrate the other references in the four Gospels in your little exercise meant to spit at her and the Catholic Chruch.

I see why these Catholic v the rest of the world threads are avoided by so many. Irrational crap seems to be the fluid of record int he spittle from frauds like you. Did you know that Mary likely carried blood cells and derivatives of same in her body for the rest of her life, after carrying The Christ in her body for nearly forty weeks? Probably not. Do you actually believe Jesus is The Christ, or is that another pretend point around which you inveigle at FR?

216 posted on 10/08/2010 4:19:30 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Morg, believing they cannot be deceived, it's nye impossible to convince them when they're deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: blasater1960

You were the second person listed in the “TO” section. There isn’t a cc section, so that is the only way to cc someone who might be interested.


217 posted on 10/08/2010 4:20:11 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (When the ass brays, don't reply...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

I believe in opposing the spirit of anti-Christ. But your effort to twist what I wrote into some strawman you can flog is duly noted, fraud.


218 posted on 10/08/2010 4:21:57 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Morg, believing they cannot be deceived, it's nye impossible to convince them when they're deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
"Sorry I hurt your feelings"

You did not hurt my feelings. When you write "Catholic deception "

Your not suggesting. Your fully accusing an out right deception from me. Like malice, deceit.

That's Hogwash.

Thats why a belief is pointed out.

That's all.

219 posted on 10/08/2010 4:22:56 PM PDT by johngrace (God so loved the world so he gave his only son! Praise Jesus and Hail Mary!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN; Iscool

“Of course you denigrate the other references in the four Gospels in your little exercise meant to spit at her and the Catholic Chruch.”

I think everyone on this thread, and certainly Iscool, is well familiar with the fact that Mary is mentioned in the Gospels. Until I did some study, I didn’t realize that her last mention is in Acts.

If she were all the things taught by the Catholic Church, one would expect some mention of her in Acts, the writings of Paul or Peter or John...but nope. Acts 1 is the last time.

I have no doubt that Jesus is the Christ. I do suspect someone so full of vitriol needs to meet Him. Not an earthly organization, but Jesus. It is the Living Christ we need to concern ourselves, not with the state of Mary’s vagina.


220 posted on 10/08/2010 4:25:36 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (When the ass brays, don't reply...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 341-355 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson