This heretical teaching is disproven.

[tango]

Again, I offered Lk. 1:34 for why Mary is a perpetual virgin, and we're currently debating it. Remember? And, whether or not you accept the scriptural evidence the Church has for the perpetual virginity of Mary, is it not true that anyone who teaches/believes Mary had sexual intercourse must have, or should have, scriptural evidence for this, especially if they adhere to the Sola Scriptura?

Except that Luke 1:34 doesn't indicate that Mary was a perpetual virgin, it indicates she was a virgin at the time she spoke with the angel. In the days before modern technologies like IVF being a virgin pretty much guaranteed not being pregnant, so it's easy to see why Mary didn't expect to be pregnant. The statement "I am a virgin" is very different to the statement "I am, and will always be, a virgin".

Besides which, Matthew paints a rather different picture (emphasis is mine):

Matthew 1:24-25 Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name Jesus.

Joseph did not know his wife until she had brought forth the child. The implication is that Joseph knew his wife after she had given birth, or the text would have said something more like "Joseph did not know his wife, because she had taken a vow of chastity" or similar, no?

 

[Soulx3]

Except that Luke 1:34 doesn't indicate that Mary was a perpetual virgin, it indicates she was a virgin at the time she spoke with the angel. In the days before modern technologies like IVF being a virgin pretty much guaranteed not being pregnant, so it's easy to see why Mary didn't expect to be pregnant. The statement "I am a virgin" is very different to the statement "I am, and will always be, a virgin".

Besides which, Matthew paints a rather different picture (emphasis is mine):

Matthew 1:24-25 Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name Jesus.

Joseph did not know his wife until she had brought forth the child. The implication is that Joseph knew his wife after she had given birth, or the text would have said something more like "Joseph did not know his wife, because she had taken a vow of chastity" or similar, no?

Mary's question to Gabriel followed being told She would conceive a Son, the Messiah, and preceded being told it'd be by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, at the time She asked, "How can this be, seeing as I am a virgin?," or in other words, "How can I conceive, seeing as I am a virgin?," She had no reason to think that Her conception wouldn't happen by sexual intercourse with a man at some point. Therefore, if She had already planned on having sexual intercourse with a man, at any point, the same as other women who give birth, it doesn't make sense to have asked how the conception would happen. What's your explanation for why Mary asked the rhetorical question,"How can this be, seeing I am a virgin?, or in other words, "How can I conceive with a man when I am a virgin?" when, at that moment, She thought it would happen through sexual intercourse with a man at some point?

 

[tango]

At the time Mary asked the following question, She only knew that She was chosen to conceive the Messiah, and thus had no reason to think that this conception wouldn't happen by a man. Therefore, if She had any intention, at any point, of having sexual intercourse with Joseph, or any man, why did She respond to Gabriel's announcement asking the rhetorical question,"How can this be, seeing I am a virgin?"

First of all you're continuing with the speculation. It is recorded that she was a virgin, she said so herself. You are speculating that she must have remained a virgin for life, having taken a vow of chastity that apparently isn't documented or evidenced by anything except whatever random things you insist we must conclude from silence. Even if Mary had taken a vow of permanent chastity there was no way she could possibly know that she would never be violated - loss of virginity doesn't require consent so there would still be no guarantee that she could not become pregnant that way.

Secondly I noticed you didn't even address the matter of "Joseph did not know his wife until she had birthed the child". It rather implies that Joseph knew his wife (i.e. had normal marital sexual relations with her) at some point after the child was born. If he had not had such normal marital relations one might expect the text to say something more like "Joseph did not know his wife, for she had taken a vow of chastity". But hey, let's stick with the speculation - the text doesn't state that Mary didn't run away with the circus to avoid performing her normal wifely duties so maybe she did just that.

 

[Soulx3]

First of all you're continuing with the speculation. It is recorded that she was a virgin, she said so herself. You are speculating that she must have remained a virgin for life, having taken a vow of chastity that apparently isn't documented or evidenced by anything except whatever random things you insist we must conclude from silence. Even if Mary had taken a vow of permanent chastity there was no way she could possibly know that she would never be violated - loss of virginity doesn't require consent so there would still be no guarantee that she could not become pregnant that way.

Secondly I noticed you didn't even address the matter of "Joseph did not know his wife until she had birthed the child". It rather implies that Joseph knew his wife (i.e. had normal marital sexual relations with her) at some point after the child was born. If he had not had such normal marital relations one might expect the text to say something more like "Joseph did not know his wife, for she had taken a vow of chastity". But hey, let's stick with the speculation - the text doesn't state that Mary didn't run away with the circus to avoid performing her normal wifely duties so maybe she did just that.

Mary had no guarantee that She would conceive? Gabriel told Her She would conceive! And, again, Mary's question to Gabriel followed being told She would conceive a Son, the Messiah, and preceded being told it'd be by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, at the time She asked, "How can this be, seeing as I am a virgin?," or in other words, "How can I conceive, seeing as I am a virgin?," She had no reason to think that Her conception wouldn't happen by sexual intercourse with a man at some point. Therefore, if She had already planned on having sexual intercourse with a man, at any point, the same as other women who give birth, it doesn't make sense to have asked how the conception would happen. What's your explanation for why Mary asked the rhetorical question,"How can this be, seeing I am a virgin?, or in other words, "How can I conceive with a man when I am a virgin?" when, at that moment, She thought it would happen through sexual intercourse with a man at some point? Maybe his time you'll answer it? I also addressed Matt. 1:25 from another angle back in post #2.

 

[tango]

I did address Matt. 1:25 by asking you the following question which you didn't answer by not giving an explanation for why Mary asked the following question: "At the time Mary asked the following question, She only knew that She was chosen to conceive the Messiah, and thus had no reason to think that this conception wouldn't happen by a man. Therefore, if She had any intention, at any point, of having sexual intercourse with Joseph, or any man, why did She respond to Gabriel's announcement asking the rhetorical question, 'How can this be, seeing I am a virgin?'" Maybe his time you'll answer it? I also addressed Matt. 1:25 from another angle back in post #2.

You didn't address it at all, you simply repeated the same argument you keep making that still has no basis in, well, anything except presumption.

You also didn't address how, even if Mary had taken a vow of perpetual chastity, she could possibly know that her pregnancy couldn't result from being violated.

I won't hold my breath waiting for a useful answer, since we're dozens of posts in and all you're doing is endlessly repeating speculations while complaining that other people are speculating.

 

[Soulx3]

You didn't address it at all, you simply repeated the same argument you keep making that still has no basis in, well, anything except presumption.

You also didn't address how, even if Mary had taken a vow of perpetual chastity, she couldnt possibly know that her pregnancy couldn't result from being violated.

Again, I did address Matt. 1:25, as well as from a different angle back on page 1 in post #2. And, again, Mary's question to Gabriel followed being told She would conceive a Son, the Messiah, and preceded being told it'd be by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, at the time She asked, "How can this be, seeing as I am a virgin?," or in other words, "How can I conceive, seeing as I am a virgin?," She had no reason to think that Her conception wouldn't happen by sexual intercourse with a man at some point. Therefore, if She had already planned on having sexual intercourse with a man, at any point, the same as other women who give birth, it doesn't make sense to have asked how the conception would happen. What's your explanation for why Mary asked the rhetorical question,"How can this be, seeing I am a virgin?, or in other words, "How can I conceive with a man when I am a virgin?" when, at that moment, She thought it would happen through sexual intercourse with a man at some point?

 

[Josiah]

Again, I haven't changed nor assumed anything.

@Soulx3


Then you're stuck with clearly, obviously, undeniably having no biblical support for your church's formal, official, de fide DOGMA. Because, sister, as you keep proving, the text does NOT say "always a virgin" or "forever a virgin" or "perpetual virgin." The tense of the verb is present and implies nothing - nothing whatsoever - about the future.

Look, all of us can read. And what your church teaches - as formal, official, de fide dogma - is NOT stated in the text. We all know it. You keep proving it.

Mary having already taken a vow of perpetual chastityc

You are just INSERTING your ASSUMPTION into the text (just as the "evangelicals" you ridicule and rebuke do, exactly the same). You insert your ASSUMPTION about a vow the Bible NEVER mentions (it's NOT there) just as they insert their ASSUMPTION that married couples usually have sex. Which the Bible also never says.

"I am a virgin?"

It might someday dawn on you that what She said is in the PRESENT tense. Your dogma mandates She uses the future or perfect tense. She doesn't.


No, all who can read know that the Bible does NOT say Mary never had sex. And that the Bible does NOT say that She ever did. BOTH your church and those few, modern "Evangelicals" state what the Bible never does. It's unavoidable. It's obvious. You keep proving it.

Sure, you and they can CHANGE what She said but then you're not going by what the text says. Sure, you and they can INSERT some ASSUMPTION into the text by some invisible words not actually there but then you are not going by what the text says. You are BOTH equally wrong, BOTH doing the identical same thing. You rebuke and ridicule it when a few modern "evangelicals" do it but defend it when your church and you do the exact same thing. Everyone clearly sees this but you.

Pot calling kettle black.




.








.

 

[Josiah]

You didn't address it at all, you simply repeated the same argument you keep making that still has no basis in, well, anything except presumption.

You also didn't address how, even if Mary had taken a vow of perpetual chastity, she could possibly know that her pregnancy couldn't result from being violated.

I won't hold my breath waiting for a useful answer, since we're dozens of posts in and all you're doing is endlessly repeating speculations while complaining that other people are speculating.

Yup.

CHANGING words while rebuking others for doing the identical same thing....

Inserting her presumptions, assumptions, theories, opinions into the text and then claiming the text states those things as she proves it doesn't... while rebuking others for doing the identical same thing.


.

 

[Soulx3]

You are just INSERTING your ASSUMPTION into the text (just as the "evangelicals" you ridicule and rebuke do, exactly the same). You insert your ASSUMPTION about a vow the Bible NEVER mentions (it's NOT there) just as they insert their ASSUMPTION that married couples usually have sex. Which the Bible also never says.

Way to deliberately misquote what I said so as to accuse me of assuming/changing.

Here's what you quoted: "Mary having already taken a vow of perpetual chastity"

Here's what I actually said: "The scriptural evidence for Mary having already taken a vow of perpetual chastity is this: Mary's question to Gabriel followed being told She would conceive a Son, the Messiah, and preceded being told it'd be by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, at the time She asked, "How can this be, seeing as I am a virgin?," or in other words, "How can I conceive, seeing as I am a virgin?," She had no reason to think that Her conception wouldn't happen by sexual intercourse with a man at some point, but if She had already planned on having sexual intercourse with a man, at any point, the same as other women who give birth, it doesn't make sense to have asked how the conception would happen. What's your explanation for why Mary asked the rhetorical question,"How can this be, seeing I am a virgin?, or in other words, "How can I conceive with a man when I am a virgin?" when, at that moment, She thought it would happen through sexual intercourse with a man at some point?" Care to answer this time?

 

[Albion]

Here's what you quoted: "Mary having already taken a vow of perpetual chastity"

Here's what I actually said: "Mary having already taken a vow of perpetual chastity...."

There's no conflict there.

You went on to suggest a reason why, in your personal opinion, Mary had "already taken a vow of perpetual chastity. That, however, doesn't negate your claim that she had taken such a vow (for which there is no evidence from Scripture).

If She had any intention, at any point, of having sexual intercourse with Joseph, or any man, why did She respond to Gabriel's announcement asking the rhetorical question,"How can this be, seeing I am a virgin?" Care to answer that this time?

It's already been answered, but the most likely reason, and a very logical one, is that she naturally thought such a blunt, point-blank announcement as this special messenger brought to her concerned something that was to happen soon rather than at some unspecified time years or decades later.

 

[Josiah]

"Mary having already taken a vow of perpetual chastity is the reason why....

Exactly, as noted.

But as you prove, the Bible NEVER states She ever made any such vow. So your point is just to INSERT an UNBIBLICAL assumption, presumption, theory, guess into your apologetic, to apply something that the Bible never states. You rebuke, ridicule and condemn when a few modern Evangelicals do this.... then you do the exact same thing.

" I am a virgin?"

Yup. As you keep proving, shooting yourself in the foot and doing the very thing you condemn, rebuke and ridicule some Evangelicals for doing.

She said, the text says, "AM." Present tense. For the Bible to state what your church does (as formal, official, de fide DOGMA) She needs to state something about the FUTURE of this. She doesn't. Nowhere in the Bible does that. The DOGMA of your church is not stated in Scripture. You are simply doing the identical thing some few evangelicals do.... you are condemning them for the exact, same thing you do. Obviously.

Pot calling kettle back.



.

 

[tango]

Again, I did address Matt. 1:25, as well as from a different angle back on page 1 in post #2.

At the time Mary asked the following question, She only knew that She was chosen to conceive the Messiah, and thus had no reason to think that this conception wouldn't happen by a man. Therefore, if She had any intention, at any point, of having sexual intercourse with Joseph, or any man, why did She respond to Gabriel's announcement asking the rhetorical question, "How can this be, seeing I am a virgin?" Maybe you'll answer with an explanation this time?

You didn't actually address this at all. You simply made an assertion which, much like your other assertions here, you backed with precisely nothing. That which is asserted without evidence can just as easily be dismissed without evidence so your speculation is worthless.

When something says "A did not happen until after B happened" then on the balance of what is known it is more likely that A actually took place simply because if A never happened it would make more sense to say "A did not happen". So the most likely explanation for the words is simply that Mary and Joseph refrained from sex until Jesus was born - you noted that this would demonstrate that Joseph could not be the biological father of Jesus, which would seem like an entirely reasonable explanation for why they refrained. But from there you fall back into speculation that spins itself into circles.

So what you have to support your insistence is basically nothing. You draw the least likely conclusion from what the text says without offering any support whatsoever, while complaining that people drawing more likely conclusions are out of line for not providing support for their positions.

No soup for you.

 

[Josiah]

So what you have to support your insistence is basically nothing.

It's worse than that.....

She strongly rebukes some modern "Evangelicals" for changing what the text states and for inserting speculations/assumptions into the text. Then she does that very thing - FAR WORSE.

Her apologetic here is THE most blatant, extreme, example of "Pot calling kettle back" I've ever seen.


.

 

[tango]

It's worse than that.....

She strongly rebukes some modern "Evangelicals" for changing what the text states and for inserting speculations/assumptions into the text. Then she does that very thing - FAR WORSE.

Her apologetic here is THE most blatant, extreme, example of "Pot calling kettle back" I've ever seen.

Honestly, I found the apologetic here to be sufficiently comical I wasn't even thinking about pots and kettles.

I must admit I'm puzzled why people even care whether Mary and Joseph had sex after they were married and after Jesus was born. But apparently the OP here does, even if it takes all sorts of logical gymnastics to spectacularly fail to make their point.

 

[Castle Church]

I must admit I'm puzzled why people even care whether Mary and Joseph had sex after they were married and after Jesus was born. But apparently the OP here does, even if it takes all sorts of logical gymnastics to spectacularly fail to make their point.

Agree, I also find it comical that Catholics think that we care if they call us heretics.

Yeah, I know I left the church - quite on purpose and with full knowledge - and I don't think they have all the dogma and doctrines right or have any ability to declare me a heretic when I hold to the historical faith.

 

[Albion]

I must admit I'm puzzled why people even care whether Mary and Joseph had sex after they were married and after Jesus was born. But apparently the OP here does, even if it takes all sorts of logical gymnastics to spectacularly fail to make their point.

It's an historical and devotional thing. As we know, that aspect of the Ancient and (especially) the Medieval church started with respect and progressed into all manner of misuse.

Because virginity was associated with purity, the mother of Our Lord came to be lauded above all women, and perpetual virginity for her seemed appropriate. Explaining how that could happen required some real gymnastics, however, which is something most Roman Catholics know nothing about.

Then came the idea of her "Immaculate Conception," and the "Assumption" (her physical body being taken directly to Heaven), rosaries, and the belief that the "Queen of Heaven" is the ultimate intercessor with God on our behalf when we call upon her.

Of course, we are all aware that there are the apparitions and Innumerable ceremonies and festival days that have been established in her honor.

 

[Josiah]

I must admit I'm puzzled why people even care whether Mary and Joseph had sex after they were married and after Jesus was born. But apparently the OP here does, even if it takes all sorts of logical gymnastics to spectacularly fail to make their point.

@tango
@Soulx3

Concerning the PVM...

Tango, I could not agree more. I think most Protestants (and more than a few Catholics) respond exactly like you: Why does this matter (especially as de fide DOGMA)? How does it impact salvation? Why is it any of our business (seems downright disrespectful to some)? Shouldn't we respect Scripture which obviously stays out of this whole thing? Yeah. In my early post-Catholic years, I raised that, too.

I've studied this, and while the opinion is ancient, widespread and strong, the genesis of it is unknown, controversial and highly debated. I could share some of these but it would not help and in some ways just "throw gasoline" on something I do NOT want to inflame.

On the one hand, I'm 100% certain that for the Catholic Church and for the Catholics who agree with this view, they are sincere, not in anyway "weird" and have a deep love and devotion for Mary. On the other hand, SCRIPTURALLY, it clearly and obviously is baseless - as anyone who can read knows. And oddly (and as a Catholic WRONGLY), our Catholic sister insists on making it about that - "is it SCRIPTURAL?" It's a Protestant question.


And there's the issue...

In Catholicism, apologetics (while welcomed) isn't necessary. Doctrine is True BECAUSE the Catholic Church officially and formally teaches it. The Catholic Catechism #87 says this, "Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles, 'He who hears you hears me," the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their [Catholic] pastors give them in different forms." As I was taught as a nice Catholic boy, "Would you ask Jesus if something He said was true? So why ask if something the Church says is true?" This epistemology is DRILLED into Catholics from birth. See CCC 85, 95... this is the cornerstone of the epistemology of that denomination. In part, I think this is simply a mindset of the middle ages (I have a whole thread here at CH about this very point). Catholics speak endlessly of Authority, Protestants of accountability. Yes, a Catholic my ask QUESTIONS but not hold the church accountable. This very revealing quote is from the "Handbook of the Catholic Church" page 137, "When someone asks where the Catholic finds the substance of his belief, the answer is this: From the living teaching Authority. This Authority consists of the Pope and the bishops under him at the time." Nothing about Jesus or God or Scripture or even Tradition.... and lest one confuse this with the Church Universal, nope - this is a denomination; it's about the Catholic Pope and the Bishops in absolute obedience to him. Again, it's NOT a case of "it's True because GOD said so" or "Because Ecumencial Tradition says so" it's completely and absolutely circular, the RCC: "Because I said so." Protestants and Catholics often talk right past each other because they work with very different epistologies. For Protestants, it's what does God state in Scripture (in those black-and-white words on the page), for Catholics it's what does the Church (the Roman Catholic Church) state?

Now for anyone still reading this (LOL), it gets complicated. Catholicism is not quite that simplistic.

In Protestantism, epistemology looks to ONE, objective Source ("norma normans" as it's called in epistology - the norm that norms). Pretty simple. And that's Scripture, which is accepted as God's Words, objectively on the page (NOT our opinion or interpretation of it but the words themselves - in the orginal Hebrew or Greek). It's the source above all else, all else is trumped by Scripture (again, objective words there). But other things can be used - history, common uses of those Hebrew or Greek words, grammar, reason, context (large and small), even for some (Anglicans and Lutherans) ecumenical Tradition. But these are under Scripture and subject to it, not authoritative and not equal.

In Catholicism, epistemology is "a three-legged-stool" All equally Authoritative, all completely interlocked and interdependent and together essential in supporting the Catholic Church. They are...

1. Scripture. But it's NOT primarily the literal words on the page but rather AS INTERPRETED BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. Not the words themselves but what the words MEAN (according to The Catholic Church), the meaning, not the literal words. We see our Catholic sister in this thread apply this aspect of Catholic epistemology.

2. Catholic Church Tradition. This is the history (especially formal, official history) of the faith and teachings of the Catholic Church (including unique ones).

3. Catholic Church Magisterium (the Pope and living Bishops in submission to him). What they believe, what they teach.

Understand this: These three things are EQUAL in Authority, equal as normative, all equally true and divine and the leading of the Holy Spirit. What Scripture says (not necessarily the stuff on the page but as interpreted by the Catholic Church alone) is TRUE and thus MUST agree with what Catholic Tradition says (because it's equally true and divine) even if only by implication which MUST agree with Church Leadership (which is equally divine and true) if only by implication. Truth can't contradict itself, God cannot contradict Himself, Authority must agree with itself. So. if "X" is said by Catholic Leadership, it MUST be taught by Scripture and Tradition. Mix up the 3 anyway you want, it's the same result. Yes, it is PROFOUNDLY circular but it's how the Catholic Church operates. Good teachers will show you HOW Scripture, Tradition and Catholic Leadership agree (usually by implication rather than objectively) and that's typically how Catholic Apologetics works. The issue is never "is it true?" The issue is "Is it what Catholic Scripture, Tradition and Leadership says?"


Soooo...... concerning Soul2x's apologetic here.....

As a docilic, faithful Catholic, our sister here SHOULD say, "I believe Mary always remained a virgin because the Catholic Church has formally taught this from ancient days - and it is in full agreement with the Catholic Church's understanding and interpretation of Her Scriptures, Tradition and Magisterium." Yup. That's Catholicism.

INSTEAD, she begins with the Protestant epistemology and notes (correctly, I believe) that the rare, new view of some American Evangelicals that Mary Had Lotza Sex is actually NOT stated in Scripture - but is the result of some assumptions and speculations feed into the text, and perhaps requires some changes to the actual words. She's got a valid point. The reality is: the words of Scripture are SILENT on Her sex life after Jesus was born (perhaps out of respect for marriage, perhaps because it doesn't matter - who knows, but obviously SILENT. Her point: It ain't true if the words of Scripture don't state it! Okay. A good (if a bit radical) Protestant position. BUT then she goes on the defend the Catholic DOGMA by doing the very thing she just ridiculed, rejected and condemned! She imposes a lot of speculation and assumptions, a lot of personal feelings, and changes what the text says (by her interpretation of it). Classic, extreme example of "Pot calling kettle black." This happens A LOT with some Catholics, and yeah at some Catholic apologetic websites. Really bad. Really sloppy. Only hurts their position and destroys their credibility. Catholics should stick to Catholic epistemology and not pretend to be Protestants while blasting Protestants for doing what they are doing.



.

 

[tango]

It's an historical and devotional thing. As we know, that aspect of the Ancient and (especially) the Medieval church started with respect and progressed into all manner of misuse.

Because virginity was associated with purity, the mother of Our Lord came to be lauded above all women, and perpetual virginity for her seemed appropriate. Explaining how that could happen required some real gymnastics, however, which is something most Roman Catholics know nothing about.

Then came the idea of her "Immaculate Conception," and the "Assumption" (her physical body being taken directly to Heaven), rosaries, and the belief that the "Queen of Heaven" is the ultimate intercessor with God on our behalf when we call upon her.

Of course, we are all aware that there are the apparitions and Innumerable ceremonies and festival days that have been established in her honor.

I guess the idea that virginity = purity is a bit of an odd one, given God explicitly commanded Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply. Hard to do that without shedding virginity along the way somewhere.

It's one thing to avoid talking about the details of it - I don't share details of what happens in my bedroom and I don't particularly want to hear details of what goes on in other peoples' bedrooms - but to assume that because it's not mentioned it doesn't happen seems naive at best.

I must admit I struggle with the idea that Mary must have been conceived immaculately, simply because if she was so pure she couldn't have been the result of the conventional union of husband and wife her mother would surely need to be similarly pure, which would then require her maternal grandmother be pure, and so on.

 

[Soulx3]

There's no conflict there.

You went on to suggest a reason why, in your personal opinion, Mary had "already taken a vow of perpetual chastity. That, however, doesn't negate your claim that she had taken such a vow (for which there is no evidence from Scripture).

Josiah deliberately misquoted me in such a way as to make it appear as though I made a claim without having any scriptural evidence for it. And, you deliberately misquoted a question of mine earlier. The fact that you two have had to resort to that says a lot.

It's already been answered, but the most likely reason, and a very logical one, is that she naturally thought such a blunt, point-blank announcement as this special messenger brought to her concerned something that was to happen soon rather than at some unspecified time years or decades later.

It hasn't already been answered. This is you for the first time giving your explanation to the question I asked you without changing what I asked. Regarding your answer, so you're saying the most likely reason Mary asked Gabriel, "How can this be, seeing as I am a virgin?" was because Her conceiving the Messiah was to happen soon?

Here are the problems with that reason:

I. Gabriel gave no indication of when the conception would occur.

II. Mary knowing or not knowing when She would conceive is irrelevant, because Her question to Gabriel has to do with the idea of conceiving with a man (See III).

III. Mary's question to Gabriel followed being told She would conceive a Son, the Messiah, and preceded being told it'd be by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, at the time She asked, "How can this be, seeing as I am a virgin?," or in other words, "How can I conceive, seeing as I am a virgin?," She had no reason to think that Her conception wouldn't happen by sexual intercourse with a man at some point, but if She had already planned on having sexual intercourse with a man, at any point, the same as other women who give birth, it doesn't make sense to have asked how the conception would happen. And again, Her question couldn't have been about when it would happen for two reasons: (I) Gabriel gave no indication of when conception would occur, and (II) She didn't ask, "When will this happen, seeing as I am virgin?"

Exactly, as noted.

But as you prove, the Bible NEVER states She ever made any such vow. So your point is just to INSERT an UNBIBLICAL assumption, presumption, theory, guess into your apologetic, to apply something that the Bible never states. You rebuke, ridicule and condemn when a few modern Evangelicals do this.... then you do the exact same thing.

She said is "I AM a virgin." Not "I will always be a virgin." To affirm simply what Scripture states (which is what you require of those few modern American Evangelicals) you either need to delete the word the Holy Spirit put in the text (declaring the HS isn't being truthful) to say "I will be a virgin forever" or insert a word the Holy Spirit never did, the word "perpetual."

I. Again, you deliberately misquoted me in such a way as to make it appear as though I made a claim without having any scriptural evidence for it.

II. I never said that Mary's words, "I am a virgin" is what proves She took a vow of perpetual chastity. Of course She was speaking in the present tense when She said that to Gabriel. How do you tell someone what your current state/condition is without using the present-tense? Using the present-tense doesn't refer to any other time in the future, much less any time that will happen soon. She was just naturally speaking about Herself at the time. See III. for an example of proof for why Mary had taken a vow of perpetual chastity.

III. An example of proof that Mary had taken a vow of perpetual chastity is the following: Mary's question to Gabriel followed being told She would conceive a Son, the Messiah, and preceded being told it'd be by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, at the time She asked, "How can this be, seeing as I am a virgin?," or in other words, "How can I conceive, seeing as I am a virgin?," She had no reason to think that Her conception wouldn't happen by sexual intercourse with a man at some point, but if She had already planned on having sexual intercourse with a man, at any point, the same as other women who give birth, it doesn't make sense to have asked how the conception would happen. And again, Her question couldn't have been about when it would happen for two reasons: (I) Gabriel gave no indication of when conception would occur, and (II) She didn't ask, "When will this happen, seeing as I am virgin?" What's your explanation for why Mary asked the rhetorical question,"How can this be, seeing I am a virgin?, or in other words, "How can I conceive with a man when I am a virgin?" when, at that moment, She thought it would happen through sexual intercourse with a man?

You didn't actually address this at all. You simply made an assertion which, much like your other assertions here, you backed with precisely nothing. That which is asserted without evidence can just as easily be dismissed without evidence so your speculation is worthless. When something says "A did not happen until after B happened" then on the balance of what is known it is more likely that A actually took place simply because if A never happened it would make more sense to say "A did not happen". So the most likely explanation for the words is simply that Mary and Joseph refrained from sex until Jesus was born

I actually did address Matt. 1:25. And, regarding the preceding verses 20-24, Matthew speaks about the ways in which the long-awaited messianic prophecy has come to fruition, such as Joseph accepting as his Spouse the Virgin Who will conceive and give birth to a Son. In verse 25, he reiterates and reinforces this by referring to a specific period: pre-birth of the Messiah, a period of known chastity between Joseph and Mary that would dispel any belief that He was not begotten by the Holy Spirit, nor born of a virgin. [Note: This in and of itself does not indicate whether Joseph and Mary had or didn't have sexual intercourse after that period ended, and thus can't be used as proof that they had or didn't have a carnal married life, or children.]

You negligently don't consider the context of the entire passage, but rather focus on the word "until" in verse 25: "and Joseph didn’t know her until she had given birth to her firstborn son," as well as add a word that isn't in the verse: "after," and conclude, "When something says 'A did not happen until after B happened' then on the balance of what is known it is more likely that A actually took place simply because if A never happened it would make more sense to say 'A did not happen. So the most likely explanation for the words is simply that Mary and Joseph refrained from sex until Jesus was born." According to that logic, Michal didn't have children until after she died: "Michal the daughter of Saul had no children until the day of her death” (2 Sam. 6:23).

Next, what's your explanation for why Mary asked the rhetorical question,"How can this be, seeing I am a virgin?, or in other words, "How can I conceive with a man when I am a virgin?" when, at that moment, She thought it would happen through sexual intercourse with a man?

 

[Josiah]

Josiah deliberately misquoted me in such a way as to make it appear as though I made a claim without having any scriptural evidence for it.

@Soulx3

1. I did not misquote you - deliberately or otherwise.

2. You rebuke and ridicule a tiny few modern American "Evangelicals" for insisting that Scripture states that Mary had lots of children (and thus lotsa sex) by noting Scripture states no such thing - they are infusing their assumptions, speculations and theories into the text and changing what the text literally states. Okay. I agree with you. But then you insist that Scripture substantiates that Mary had no sex ever while PROVING that Scripture says no such thing - you are infusing your assumptions, speculations and theories into the text and changing what the text literally says. You do exactly what you condemn. Pot calling kettle black.

you're saying the most likely reason Mary asked Gabriel, "How can this be, seeing as I am a virgin?" was because Her conceiving the Messiah was to happen soon?"

No.

I did not say that's why She said "I AM a virgin" and "I KNOW not a man." I simply noted that's what She said, that's what the Bible says. Both in the PRESENT tense, applying to that MOMENT, that DAY, with no implication about the future. My point is the text states that at that moment, on that day, She was a virgin. The verses you keep bring up state NOTHING about Her future in this regard. Nothing (as you keep proving). This is a reality you just keep evading because your view requires a change in the text, so that She says, "I will always be a virgin" "I will never know a man" "I am a perpetual virgin." But you keep proving She did not say that.

I did point out that you, as a Catholic who is to be in docilic submission to what the Catholic Church teaches, the Catholic Church has always taught that the Annunciation and Incarnation happened AT THE SAME TIME, ON THE SAME DAY. Both celebrated on March 25. So YOU, as a Catholic, should hold that the PRESENT TENSE of what She said was correct, it seems She understood that it was Her CURRENT situation that was relevant, not Her situation 18 years in the future. As a Protestant, I find NOTHING in the text that indicates that they happened on the same day and I don't speculate, but you (as a Catholic) need to hold they both happened together... that Mary was right to so think. But the Catholic teaching DOES explain why She stated all this in the PRESENT tense, not future, not perfect.

She took a vow of perpetual chastity.

We're still waiting for you to quote the verse in the Bible that states "Mary took a vow of perpetual virginity." You are just doing exactly what you ridicule, condemn and rebuke those few Evangelicals for doing: Imposing their theories and speculations into the text. They ASSUME Mary and Joseph would be like 99% of wedded couples and have sex but as you how, the Bible never says that. You ASSUME She made some remarkable, extremely rare vow, but as you also prove, the Bible never states that. Pot calling kettle black.

IF you could quote the verse in the Bible that states, "Mary took a vow of perpetual virginity" (and we hold She kept it) THEN your claim would be valid - Scripture teaches She was a perpetual virgin. BUT as we all know, the Bible NEVER says that And IF those evangelicals could quote a verse that says "Mary and Joseph had lotsa sex after Jesus was born" or "These men are children of Mary" then their view would be substantiated. But you are both equally wrong, as you prove, the Bible doesn't state your view any more than it states that view of a few Evangelicals You ridicule yourself as you ridicule those Evangelicals because you do the EXACT SAME THING (only worse). Pot calling kettle black.

You are evidently unaware that the Catholic Church does quote a verse in a (sort of) support of this vow. It's from the Protoevangelium of James. A book the Catholic Church REJECTS as biblical and canonical - NOT the Bible. And those Evangelicals also quote from some ECF and doucments that reject the PVM, as you'd point out, they are not part of the Bible.. You are rebuking those Evangelicals for an opinion NOT stated IN THE BIBLE while you do the exact same thing, you just do it worse. Pot calling kettle black.

Of course She was speaking in the present tense when She said that to Gabriel. How do you tell someone what your current state/condition is without using the present-tense?

You keep evading the obvious - because you must. She says NOTHING about the future. Nowhere in Scripture in this regard. You keep proving this. NOTHING that states She is a perpetual virgin, She'll always be a virgin, She'll die (or not) as a virgin. That would require a verb tense she did NOT use. IF She meant what She said.... IF the Holy Spirit is quoting Her accurately... then She ONLY spoke of Her situaion ON THAT DAY, AT THAT MOMENT. It would be extremely easy for Her to speak of Her future state in this regard, but She did not. That's the reality you keep proving yet evading.

You ridicule and rebuke Protestants for assuming She MEANT to say "I'm a virgin now but hey, who knows about the future?" But then you say that Mary MEANT to say "I'm a virgin today and thus will be forever." In truth, she said "I'm a virgin now." Nothing more. Here again, "Pot calling kettle black."

proof for why Mary had taken a vow of perpetual chastity.

We're still waiting for you to quote the verse in the Bible that states "Mary took a vow of perpetual virginity." You are just doing exactly what you ridicule, condemn and rebuke those few Evangelicals for doing: Imposing their theories and speculations into the text. They ASSUME Mary and Joseph would be like 99% of wedded couples and have sex but as you how, the Bible never says that. You ASSUME She made some remarkable, extremely rare vow, but as you also prove, the Bible never states that. Pot calling kettle black.

What's your explanation for why Mary asked the rhetorical question,"How can this be, seeing I am a virgin?, or in other words, "How can I conceive with a man when I am a virgin?" when, at that moment, She thought it would happen through sexual intercourse with a man?

I don't need to speculate. That's what you condemn those Evangelicals for doing.

Why do you think it was a "rhetorical question?"

I'd note that She chose to convey Her state IN THE PRESENT TENSE - with no implication whatsoever about the future. While mind reading is impossible and irrelevant since your point is that those evangelicals are saying something the Bible does not. So my attempt to speculate and mind read would simply be doing what you ridicule and condemn. But it does seem possible that IF She thought this might happen sometime in the future (say after She married) then it would be proper for Her to ask this in the future or perfect tense. She did not. As you keep proving.

You negligently don't consider the context of the entire passage, but rather focus on the word "until" in verse 25: "and Joseph didn’t know her until she had given birth to her firstborn son," as well as add a word that isn't in the verse: "after," and conclude, "When something says 'A did not happen until after B happened' then on the balance of what is known it is more likely that A actually took place simply because if A never happened it would make more sense to say 'A did not happen. So the most likely explanation for the words is simply that Mary and Joseph refrained from sex until Jesus was born." According to that logic, Michal didn't have children until after she died: "Michal the daughter of Saul had no children until the day of her death” (2 Sam. 6:23).

I never mentioned the word "until." The koine Greek word ONLY speaks of the past, the word translating into English as "until" unfortunately in English carries the connotation that AFTER that, they did "know" each other. But the Greek word in the text does NOT have that implication. I reject that argument. "Until" doesn't show they DID have sex any more than "AM" indicates "will always be." Here you AGAIN play "pot calling kettle back." You rebuke a few Evangelicals for imposing stuff into the word "until" while you do exactly the same thing with the word "AM." You are just doing it a lot worse, a lot more radically.



.