Did Mary retain her virginal integrity while giving birth to Jesus?

Catholic Bridge ^ | David MacDonald

[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:

• Conceived without seed, of the Holy Ghost
• Generated without injury (to her virginity)
• And her virginity continued unimpaired after the birth

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.

[MortMan]

I pray we all have the chance to find out when we meet in heaven.

[Tennessee Nana]

There seem to me to be parts of labor which are not painful but are still ‘work’ (= travail).
________________________________________

Really ???

and how many babies did you have 2,000 years ago that would make you such an expert on childbirth in those days ???

[johngrace]

There would not be any real faithful witness within nephews and nieces. No not one famous one to lead a small church of note with epistles. If Mary and Joseph were as fruitful as Jews were at the time within a hundred years there would not be one out of several dozen brood. Especially to be a Faithful witness to recorded history. Well James is in the book. A kin ( a brother ? or cousin?) He would not of brought up a faithful child to take over by humble faithful witness? Also not one but loads of children from this "brother". They were old fashion ( No birth control). It does not make sense.

What about that crazy Catholic relic tradition with saving believers bones,items and tombs. No! Not one tradition or written document talking about a famous saint nephew or niece of Jesus?You know those Catholics there is usaully at least several paragraphs on a Saint. No original object from history. I think It does not make sense. You could figure things out too when something is absent from history.

Look I am not smarter than anyone per say on these threads. But one thing I do have is a certain common sense. When I pull up to my House when the other's car is absent that means nobody is home usually. Almost always not there. How can there be no eyewitness of history from a nephew or niece from Jesus of all people. Just saying.

[Quix]

....They would have been priests and bishops(elders) according to them being married believers with even more famous offspring. A huge Holy Brood.

---

It seems like . . .

There’s this compulsive obsession with fantasizing . . .

—when in doubt . . . fantasize all manner of dogma & supernatural goings on . . .

—when not in doubt . . . fantasize all manner of new dogma & supernatural goings on out of whole cloth . . .

—when there’s NO Biblical evidence . . . fantasize all manner of new dogma & supernatural goings on . . .

—when there’s NO remotely reliable unrubberized historical evidence . . . fantasize all manner of new dogma & supernatural goings on . . .

—when there’s a Proddy perspective, then the faithful sheeple will be grandly led ‘of necessity’ to fantasize a list of opposite ‘realities.’

Incredible.

[Earthdweller]

"The common metaphor is that we have been pulled out of the bog by Jesus, while Mary was caught just as she was about to fall into it."

There is no "about to fall into it". We are all born sinners and we will all die sinners. Besides, I prefer my Mary to be human and not made into a God..I like her better that way, I can relate to her. Only those who have a need to see themselves as Gods need to create Gods of those they adore.

[Quix]

There is no “about to fall into it”. We are all born sinners and we will all die sinners. Besides, I prefer my Mary to be human and not made into a God..I like her better that way, I can relate to her. Only those who have a need to see themselves as Gods need to create Gods of those they adore.

---

EXCELLENT. VERY WELL PUT.

THX.

[presently no screen name]

WHY is it so important to Catholic to teach and believe that Mary was always virgin?

to draw the masses ever more tightly under the control of the magicsterical bureaucratic power-mongers and their dogma generating monopoloy on the souls, hearts and minds of the sheeple.

EXACTLY!

They need to make Mary more than she was - a faithful servant. As we know, satan wanted to be like God. And, as we know satan hates us praising/worshiping God. So lifting up 'man' for any kind of praise, veneration is from the pit. We are told ALL praise and honor belongs to God alone. Satan (kills/robs/destroys) - says I'll rob You of praise, I'll have them worship another and make them pray to another instead of You. God is Truth and satan deceives.

These Scriptures below are in HIS Word for GOOD reason. God knows the beginning from the end - and knew how Mary would be lifted up. So whoever doesn't heed these words of Jesus - truly has another master.

Luke 11:27-28
As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, "Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you."

But he said, Yes rather, blessed are they that HEAR the word of God, and OBEY it.

Matt 12:49,50
Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."

Any one who believes or teaches otherwise is CLUELESS about the Kingdom of God. Because their belief is from a 'worldly' perception - who a mother is. Our ways (earthly) are not His Ways (supernatural).

1 Cor 2:14
The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

That's why Jesus' Church, HIS Church does NOT lift up any man. Anyone who does, is not a part of HIS CHURCH. Needless to say, they are WITHOUT the Spirit. HIS Church, His Ways, His Word. It's not rocket science to see/know the RCC is in total violation to God's Word. Some are hell bent to find out the hard way - I say, let them have it. Deception is ugly as it's from the pit.

[Mad Dawg]

I don’t argue here any more. If that’s how you want to think of it, I won’t get in your way.

[Mad Dawg]

I was not defending the proposition, I was trying to explain it.

[antceecee]

Thank you for that post.... pretty much sums it up for me.

[presently no screen name]

This does not really wash. How could all these offspring be lost to history.

It doesn't wash because things aren't the way you want them to be? God put in His Word what HE wanted us to know. Do you only believe when you have 'all the facts' - you need some backup if you are to believe God's Word when it clearly states Jesus had brothers and sister?

What Jesus says isn't good enough because you were led to believe He had no brothers and sisters before you read it for yourself - in God's Word - that HE did have brothers and sisters?

Who are you going to believe - man or God? Remember, we are to conform to God's Word - renew our mind to what His Word says - not have God's Word conform to what we were told by 'man'.

[Mad Dawg]

You had lots of babies 2000 years ago?

What an absurd and needlessly hostile response!

I have observed only one human labour (hundreds of ovine labours) but the word travail means work or labor. Further several mothers (none of them from 2000 years ago) have said that there were parts of their labor which were not painful. That’s all.

[Earthdweller]

I adore people who try to explain things. We sure do have a lot to figure out. :)

[Mad Dawg]

I guess I think it COULD be, but I’m not betting the farm.

[Legatus]

I’d be happy if you just responded to my post about the ossaury of James, the blood brother of Jesus.

I don't really want to be anywhere near this thread when God Himself splits open the skies to "ask" why we're talking about His mother like this.

Let me put it this way: If your mom and the word vagina ever enter the same sentence (as they just did here...) will YOU be pleased?

Anyhoooo... As to the article I noticed a couple of things, there seemed to be much discussion of how St. James was known to all Jerusalem as "James the Just" to distinguish him from all the other Jameseses running around (at least the pdf the other day did... this one does not)... so why wasn't the bone box labeled "James the Just son of..."

The article quickly dismisses the question as to why the inscription was "the brother of Jesus" and not "the brother of the Lord" by referring to Josephus' use of the term "the brother of Jesus, who is called the Messiah"... well who put the bones in the box exactly, smurfs? James was the leader of the Church in Jerusalem if Christians inscribed the box one would expect the reference to Jesus to indicate "THE Jesus", if non-Christians did the inscribing why would they make a reference to Jesus at all since apparently James had eclipsed Jesus in the eyes of the Jews.

Oh, the article mentions a Greek word for cousin... but wasn't the ossuary inscribed in Aramaic? I'm told there's no word for cousin in Aramaic, so that almost looks like sleight of hand.

I will say this, if someone was going to forge that thing I think "James son of Joseph brother of Jesus" was a stupid thing to write on it. If you're gonna forge something like that "James the Just, son of Joseph the Carpenter, brother of Jesus the Christ (aka God Incarnate just so there's no confusion)" would have made a great deal more sense.

Lastly, in explaining why you pinged me to this mess you called me "bro". In 2000 years when the historians are going through the early freep archives will there be debate on whether Quix and Legatus were blood brothers? Will someone write a thesis defending the proposition "Quix would not have referred to Legatus as Bro if he didn't mean blood brother because there were plenty of other words available"? I don't know about you but lots of people call me brother and I'm an only child. My father and his colleagues all called each other Doc and none of them were doctors as far as I know.

It's a box with some words on, it may be evidence but it's not proof of anything other than that it's a box with words on.

[Iscool]

I have observed only one human labour (hundreds of ovine labours) but the word travail means work or labor.

Bible pretty much interprets itself...

Mic 4:10 Be in pain, and labour to bring forth, O daughter of Zion, like a woman in travail: for now shalt thou go forth out of the city, and thou shalt dwell in the field, and thou shalt go even to Babylon; there shalt thou be delivered; there the LORD shall redeem thee from the hand of thine enemies.

Many Hebrew and Greeks words are translated as travail...In this context, travail refers to the child bearing process which is associated with the pain of childbirth...

1Th 5:3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.

Here, travail means pain...

ὠδίν
ōdin
o-deen'
Akin to G3601; a pang or throe, especially of childbirth: - pain, sorrow, travail.

Sometimes travail mean toil but not when used in the process of child birth...

[Iscool]

I don’t argue here any more.

So you mean you will continue to post your Catholic beliefs but will no longer attempt to defend your position???

[Earthdweller]

"Sometimes travail mean toil but not when used in the process of child birth..."

Some would consider toil to be a pain. We are just talking about degrees of pain and each individuals level of tolerance here, all for the purposes of analogy..or getting people to understand the authors point from a common, human, gut-level understanding (recognition).

Pain is anything that causes the body stress or takes from it..childbirth is one level, one horrendous but fleeting level, yet not the worst ( I'm sure this is totally subjective and purely debatable).

[Tax-chick]

If the pain of childbirth is part of the curse on Adam and Eve, then might not Mary be spared the pain?

That's the reasoning, as I understand it. And strictly from a human standpoint, it's possible even for the non-sinless. I had my 6th one without feeling a thing, until they told me he was a posterior breech presentation and I'd have to deliver without anesthesia. That was not a happy half-hour!

[metmom]

And it makes no sense that Jesus came to earth in a human body, was tempted in every way just as we are, and was spared the fullness of the human experience.

This nonsense about how Mary gave birth is RIDICULOUS.

Mary was a normal human woman, a virgin at the time of conception and birth as necessitated by prophecy, and that was all.

The rest is all fairy tales. There is no scriptural support for all the speculations and Catholic church teachings about Mary.

If it’s not clearly defined in Scripture, there’s simply no justification for making things up about her and teaching them as fact and then saying, *Well, the Bible didn’t say it didn’t happen, so we can assume it did because we have out *tradition*.

Hogwash.

Tradition is NOT infallible. Word of mouth is NOT reliable. Never has been, never will be.