The Church Fathers- Mary: Ever Virgin

“And behold, an angel of the Lord stood by [St. Anne], saying, ‘Anne! Anne! The Lord has heard your prayer, and you shall conceive and shall bring forth, and your seed shall be spoken of in all the world.’ And Anne said, ‘As the Lord my God lives, if I beget either male or female, I will bring it as a gift to the Lord my God, and it shall minister to him in the holy things all the days of its life.’ . . . And [from the time she was three] Mary was in the temple of the Lord as if she were a dove that dwelt there” (Protoevangelium of James 4, 7 [A.D. 120]).

“And when she was twelve years old there was held a council of priests, saying, ‘Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, lest perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord?’ And they said to the high priest, ‘You stand by the altar of the Lord; go in and pray concerning her, and whatever the Lord shall manifest to you, that also will we do.’ . . . [A]nd he prayed concerning her, and behold, an angel of the Lord stood by him saying, ‘Zechariah! Zechariah! Go out and assemble the widowers of the people and let them bring each his rod, and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. . . . And Joseph [was chosen]. . . . And the priest said to Joseph, ‘You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the Virgin of the Lord.’ But Joseph refused, saying, ‘I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl’” (ibid., 8–9).

“And Annas the scribe came to him [Joseph] . . . and saw that Mary was with child. And he ran away to the priest and said to him, ‘Joseph, whom you did vouch for, has committed a grievous crime.’ And the priest said, ‘How so?’ And he said, ‘He has defiled the virgin whom he received out of the temple of the Lord and has married her by stealth’” (ibid., 15).

“And the priest said, ‘Mary, why have you done this? And why have you brought your soul low and forgotten the Lord your God?’ . . . And she wept bitterly saying, ‘As the Lord my God lives, I am pure before him, and know not man’” (ibid.).

“The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren 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 body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . 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 in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the firstfruit of virginity” (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).

“If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, ‘Woman, behold your son,’ and to John, ‘Behold your mother’ [John 19:26–27), as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate" (Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354]).

“Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary” (Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).

“We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit” (The Man Well-Anchored 120 [A.D. 374]).

“And to holy Mary, [the title] ‘Virgin’ is invariably added, for that holy woman remains undefiled” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 78:6 [A.D. 375]).

“[Helvidius] produces Tertullian as a witness [to his view] and quotes 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 proven from the gospel—that he [Victorinus] spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship, not by nature. [By discussing such things we] are . . . following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against [the heretics] Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man” (Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 19 [A.D. 383]).

“We believe that God was born of a virgin, because we read it. We do not believe that Mary was married after she brought forth her Son, because we do not read it. . . . You [Helvidius] say that Mary did not remain a virgin. As for myself, I claim that Joseph himself was a virgin, through Mary, so that a virgin Son might be born of a virginal wedlock” (ibid., 21).

“It helps us to understand the terms ‘first-born’ and ‘only-begotten’ when the Evangelist tells that Mary remained a virgin ‘until she brought forth her first-born son’ [Matt. 1:25]; for neither did Mary, who is to be honored and praised above all others, marry anyone else, nor did she ever become the Mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin” (The Trinity 3:4 [A.D. 386]).

“Imitate her [Mary], holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of material virtue; for neither have you sweeter children [than Jesus], nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son” (Letters 63:111 [A.D. 388]).

“You had good reason to be horrified at the thought that another birth might issue from the same virginal womb from which Christ was born according to the flesh. For the Lord Jesus would never have chosen to be born of a virgin if he had ever judged that she would be so incontinent as to contaminate with the seed of human intercourse the birthplace of the Lord’s body, that court of the eternal king” (Letter to Bishop Anysius [A.D. 392]).

“In being born of a Virgin who chose to remain a Virgin even before she knew who was to be born of her, Christ wanted to approve virginity rather than to impose it. And he wanted virginity to be of free choice even in that woman in whom he took upon himself the form of a slave” (Holy Virginity 4:4 [A.D. 401]).

“It was not the visible sun, but its invisible Creator who consecrated this day for us, when the Virgin Mother, fertile of womb and integral in her virginity, brought him forth, made visible for us, by whom, when he was invisible, she too was created. A Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth, a Virgin perpetual. Why do you wonder at this, O man?” (Sermons 186:1 [A.D. 411]).

“Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband” (Heresies 56 [A.D. 428]).

“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]).

“[T]he Word himself, coming into the Blessed Virgin herself, assumed for himself his own temple from the substance of the Virgin and came forth from her a man in all that could be externally discerned, while interiorly he was true God. Therefore he kept his Mother a virgin even after her childbearing” (Against Those Who Do Not Wish to Confess That the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God 4 [A.D. 430]).

“His [Christ’s] origin is different, but his [human] nature is the same. Human usage and custom were lacking, but by divine power a Virgin conceived, a Virgin bore, and Virgin she remained” (Sermons 22:2 [A.D. 450]).

I don’t have much trouble subscribing to that description—except for the “God-bearer” part. I’d say “Jesus-The Christ-God’s Son-Creator-God bearer,” if I had to put similar words to it.

The slick and not so subtle insinuation that Mary mothered God the Father is intolerable to most of us Proddys and requires an emphatic distinction otherwise.

In my earlier that I guess your post is responding to . . .

I’m merely articulating that

1. Christ CREATOR GOD would not logically FIT within His mortal human frame absolutely 100% of all of His . . .

and there words fail . . .

. . . all of His . . . being . . . fullness . . . completeness . . . Majesty . . . Glory . . . etc. etc. etc.

Any notion otherwise is absurd, to me.

To me, that understanding does NOT take away from Christ being fully God and fully man apart from sin.

It merely notes that the fully God part cannot fully fit in the fully man part.

It would be like pouring—trying to contain the Pacific into a thimble. Only worse.

Does that mean that I think that Jesus Creator God sent his little toenail to die on the Cross?

NOT AT ALL.

I just think we have to humbly realize that we finite minded ones CANNOT GRASP 100% OF ALL ASPECTS OF THE INCARNATION. And that certainly we do not have words to articulate 100% of all aspects of the INCARNATION.

I certainly believe that in all respects that relate to our Redemption, operant and necessary understanding; our RELATIONSHIP with the INCARNATE CHRIST . . . it is quite functional and fitting to . . .

kind of pretend that all of Jesus The Christ was running around loose in sandles in a mortal body 2000 years ago in Israel.

I’m just convinced that there was far too much of Him that didn’t fit that thimble sized God-container of His mortal body.

It is interesting . . . a number of Heavenly Visit experiencers have begun to intimate if not fairly straightforwardly say that they know that The physical Christ they are relating to at a given time in Heaven is or may well be but one manifestation of the Risen Christ. That other individuals in other parts of Heaven are also having some ONE ON ONE time with The Incarnate Christ—in Person.

That should not surprise us—God being Omnipresent.

And, there is some intimation that on occasion—maybe for some grand Heavenly worship time or other ceremony—there’s only one manifestation of THE INCARNATE RISEN CHRIST.

God being God does have HIS OPTIONS, after all!

My main point was that . . . Whatever portion of JESUS THE CHRIST’S WHOLENESS comprised His humanness—before or after His Incarnation . . . that after His Ascension—for certain—His humanness HAD to comprise a rather infitesimal PORTION of His Wholeness.

It is almost like the Star Trek Movie with V-Ger where the galactic sized computer created a female human (seemingly) INTERFACE UNIT to relate to the “carbon units.”

Christ’s human form was MORE than a human interface unit.

There was clearly some encompassing mystery with CREATOR GOD LITERALLY DYING ON THE CRUEL CROSS.

THAT fulcrum of all reality is still beyond our finite mortal mental grasp, imho.

Did Father God with Christ in concert somehow condense major portions of Christ’s GODLINESS into the human form on the Cross like a bit of coal on a super technological anvil being turned into a diamond? Who can say.

Certainly in key respects—all the key respects—Jesus Creator God died on The Cross.

Nevertheless, I still contend that even at that moment—there were still infinite portions, proportions of JESUS THE CHRIST CREATOR GOD that just did not FIT within that mortal body on The Cross. There was just too much “left over” to fit.

All this relates to Mary, imho, in these respects:

1. Christ as RISEN MESSIAH, CREATOR GOD is not at all beholden to;
per se concerned with;
subject to;
preoccupied with (more than any other individual);
fawning over;
brow-beaten by;
manipulated by;
etc. etc. etc.

MARY.

Certainly NOT more than John the Baptist who HE CALLED GREATER THAN ALL BORN OF WOMEN . . . AND YET THE LEAST OF THOSE OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN.

In the Heavenly context—Mary

is MERELY

AN ALSO RAN, AN ALSO OBEYED.

The human/mortal/mother-son aspect has faded to a microscopic/sub-atomic aspect of Christ’s Heavenly Being and functioning.

Mary may make more of it than Christ—because she’s a much huger percentage human—even as a partially glorified human. But even for her—her historic role cannot be of great focus in her current Heavenly life. SHE HAS MOVED ON.

It’s like

ON THE CROSS—THE FULCRUM OF ALL REALITY PAST PRESENT FUTURE—THE FOCUS OF ALL CREATION—YEARNING FOR REDEMPTION—

CHRIST WAS EVERYTHING OF ANY SIGNIFICANCE. PERIOD.

Yeah, Mummy was at the foot of the cross grief stricken. And, The Compassionate One took care of her with John The Beloved’s concurrence.

But there were infinitely larger things going on.

The same with the Ascended Lord of all.

In a sense, He did His human sabbatical ultimate Sacrifice thing and it’s now, back to work.

He slipped back into HIS FULL AND EVEN MORE FULL MAJESTY AND ROLE at the right hand of The Father and the REDEMPTION PROCESS has been progressing apace ever since.

And Mary has taken up her role teaching aborted babies etc.

All is well, fitting, in proper place and Heavenly.

But His mortal humanness does NOT jerk Him around by Mummy’s apron strings to the faintest degree.

His humanness facilitates infinitely His relating to glorified mortals that He died for. It does NOT SUBTRACT FROM NOR MANIPULATE AT ALL HIS INFINITE MAJESTY GOD-NESS.

Words fail but that’s probably as close as I can come to articulating what I feel and think about such.

Seems to me the image that mlizzy posted at 2098 is telling a Gospel story, more specifically:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. - John 1:1-5

By contrast, the eight year old's painting is focused on the face of Jesus, i.e. on His person. An adoration. It is an impression of that childlike faith we must all have.

And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. - Matthew 18:3

The face is very similar between the two images.

It should be noted that art (including photography) is merely impression.

A picture of a thing is not the thing. Indeed, accuracy in artistic description often requires much more than technically precise geometric form and color.

And with some subjects it would impossible to achieve accuracy, e.g. God is Love - how can that truth be depicted or conveyed any way other than to actually know Him?

I also wanted to note that as she matures, the girl's art also begins telling a story, e.g. second painting age 16 the "Open Door."

Quix: what little I’ve watched of Jesse has been edifying. He is exceedingly Biblical—way above average, imho.

You mean biblical stuff like

God has the power to take life, but He can’t.
He’s got the power to do it, but He won’t. He’s bound; He can’t.
You choose when you live; you choose when you die. Death and life is in the power of your tongue, not God’s.?
Adam (not God) breathed life into animals at creation
Or Jesse ORDERING God "With fierce prayers and determination to see my mother healed, I started talking to God. "What is going on here?! I'm praying! Dad's praying! Why isn't she healed? You cannot allow death to defeat me, God. You made a covenant with me through Jesus' blood! And that covenant says by His stripes we were healed! Where is that healing? If you break this covenant with me, you'll have to cease to be God! You must keep covenant with me. You must obey your Word!"
OR Jesse's preaching that God begs Jesse for a decision: You have Me in a hard place, Jesse. Someone has got to give in. Get yourselves together and tell Me what I am to do! -- Jesse gives God the solution! Huzzah for Jesse-the-demon!

and this is what "evangelical Pentecostal Christianity" believes according to your statement Jesse believes in the basic Biblical doctrines of evangelical Pentecostal Christianity?

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.