Mary was betrothed to Joseph. She was told she was going to have a baby. If she expected to be having relations with Joseph, she would NOT have wondered HOW she was going to have a baby.
Yet, she asked: “How can this be, since I know not man?”
It is not speculation that Mary was committed to virginity. It is a logical implication right there in her question to the angel.
As for Mary’s perpetual virginity: It was the universal belief of the Church from the beginning. That is proof that it is true, because Christ promised that the Church would be preserved in the truth.
There is NO assertion anywhere in the NT that Mary ever had relations with Joseph, or that she ever bore any child but Jesus.
Fewer courses in mariology and more in Greek would be recommended for catholic priests based on your reply.
Just as easily it could have been revealed to her that she would conceive forthwith of the Annunciation -- which apparently she did? And that an eventual marriage to Joseph, that seeming have, according to Luke was in the offing -- could have been scheduled for sometime yet months distant.
Not really, for as Origin noted -- talk of Mary being not simply the Virgin, but even ever Virgin did not enter into patristic thought & expression until after the psuedographical Protoevangelium of James (which Origin identified by yet another name, I do not recall precisely which). I do not recall at this moment what (secular) ancient writing speaks of James being either summoned to or having gone to and been entertained as witness to one of the Roman Emporers -- and that Roman being highly impressed with James, but there is yet more other ancient historical account which expresses the opinion that one of the reasons the Romans eventually overthrew the Temple in Jerusalem is that the Jews there, in rejection of Christ and this "new" religious sect, had among other things put James to death.
That was kind-of the last straw in a way...according to some historical write-ups dating back to near that era, and a bit afterwards.
Re-read Luke 1:28-37 again. Keep events in context and don't read into the text what's not there. Drop any preconceived understandings of the account.
The plain meaning of the text is clear.
Bogus! the ECFs were all over the board on this as they are on all the other topics the rcc clings to.
It's already been shown time and time again through Scripture that Joseph and Mary had other children.
Catholicism has had to twist the plain meaning of scripture(which they are very good at) to say otherwise.
Matthew 1:18-25 - Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together..."knew her not till" clearly discloses that Joseph DID know her after Jesus was born.Matthew 1:25 - And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
Matthew 1:20 - But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife...
Matthew 1:18 - Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
God gave His blessing upon the marriage of Joseph and Mary. If he wanted them married, would He deny them the joys of marital bliss, ie "knowing" each other in the Biblical sense?
No, He is a loving God and Mary and Joseph were believers whom God used in a mighty way, but at the same time were able to enjoy a human life and all that implies for married couples.
Now here is a disclaimer which I post occasionally.
I have no problem if you wish to believe what you believe, but please don't try to foist it upon born again non Catholic Christians.
Of course she did not "know" a man, she was a good follower of God and not married.
It is not speculation that Mary was committed to virginity. It is a logical implication right there in her question to the angel.
Not logical at all.
I explained the logic behind her question up above a few lines.
As for Mary’s perpetual virginity: It was the universal belief of the Church from the beginning. That is proof [???] that it is true, because Christ promised that the Church would be preserved in the truth.First of all, by Chruch you mean the Catholic denomination, right?
Id didn't start until about the 3rd or 4th century.
The only "church" that was around was the Body of Christ made up of every true follower of Jesus. Same yesterday, tomorrow and forever.
Is some one states something like above, "It was the universal belief of the Church from the beginning. That is proof..." it is the opinion of the person saying it, nothing more.
Although, yes I guess I can accept that it was the universal belief of Catholicicm from the beginning of that belief system, centuries after Jesus walked the earth.
It was NOT "the universal belief of the Cchurch from the beginning"