I recently discovered and fell enamored with St. Hildegard von Bingen's hymns which led to looking up if she is pre or post schism and a source online (Western Rite FB Group) says that she and Francis of Assisi are two prominent figures that were at least not opposed from the Orthodox Church and that, up to 1200, well past the 1054 schism...a few saints from Catholicism were accepted and even venerated in some of the Orthodox jurisdictions. I am looking for more info on this topic as both her and St. Francis are I feel worthy of the title in Orthodoxy. Same with Gregorian Chant... Clearly, it was established and practiced way before the schism yet most traditional Eastern Orthodox churches avoid it while a few in the Western Rite embrace and frequently use it. A few others not under the WR but here in America use GC for special occasions. Thanks in Advance!! 💗🕊💗

Acts 15:29 and 21:25 carry over four requirements from the old testament to apply to gentile Christians - one of which is abstaining from sexual immorality. In Leviticus 20:18, it makes a big deal about having sex with a woman while she's on her period. > If a man lies with a woman during her menstrual period and uncovers her nakedness, he has made naked her fountain, and she has uncovered the fountain of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from among their people. (ESV) However, Leviticus 15:24 makes it sound more like a ceremonial issue than a sexual immorality issue (which in that case may be a requirement which has passed away under the new covenant). > And if any man lies with her and her menstrual impurity comes upon him, he shall be unclean seven days, and every bed on which he lies shall be unclean (ESV) So the question is, what is the Biblical basis for claiming that a Christian husband is/is not permitted to have sex with his wife when she's on her period?

[Isaiah 42:19](https://biblehub.com/isaiah/42-19.htm) says: > “Who is blind but my servant, and deaf like my messenger whom I send…?” When I read this alongside the rest of Isaiah 42:18–25, I struggle with whether this “servant” is meant to describe: 1. Israel as a spiritually blind people, 2. the prophetic servant/Messiah, or 3. both in different senses. My specific concern is this: If Christians interpret Isaiah 42 as a Messianic prophecy fulfilled in Jesus, how should we understand verse 19 describing the servant as “blind” or “deaf”? Does the text imply any lack of understanding in the servant, or is this metaphor meant in a different way? I’m looking for an explanation grounded in the text and Christian theological interpretation, especially regarding how the “blindness” metaphor can be reconciled with Christian beliefs about Jesus’ perfect obedience and knowledge of God’s law.

In Revelation 7:3-4, God seals His servants before the tribulation begins. Since pre-tribulationists believe the rapture occurs before the tribulation, how do you interpret the sealing of God’s servants? Does this sealing take place before or after the rapture, and how does it align with the pre-tribulation timeline of Christ’s return?

Are there catholic writings of popes, bishops or catholic church fathers that mention Anne the mother of Saint Mary or narratives from the Protoevangelium of James before its condemnation? Did the ancient catholic church believe that Anne was mother of Saint Mary before the condemnation of the Protoevangelium of James? Some may say that the condemnation of the apocrypha does not mean that they did not believe Anne was mother of Saint Mary, because this could be an unwritten tradition of the church, but the question is if there are written ancient church sources that can prove that, they believed that Anne was mother of Saint Mary and that this idea did not come from the Protoevangelium of James, but from parallel unwritten tradition? > "condemned by Pope Innocent I in 405 and classified as apocryphal by > the Gelasian Decree around AD 500, became a widely influential source > for Mariology." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_James How would condemned apocrypha become "influential source for Mariology"? Thanks in advance.

Newbie here. Is this a good place to ask questions about the Greek of the NT? I am interested in the significance of certain grammatical constructions.

According to Mormon Doctrine, Adam and Eve lived in Adam-ondi-Ahman . Which was revealed to Joseph Smith to be located in Missouri (see D&C 116:1 ). This would mean that unless Adam's posterity went on some epic intercontinental journey between Adam and Noah's time, that Noah likely built the ark not too far from Missouri, and sailed it from America all the way to the Eastern Continent. Do Mormons believe the ark was built on the American continent? And that everyone who lived before Noah dwelt in America?

The word 'Saviour' (σωτήρ, *soter*) is used twenty-four times in the Greek New Testament scriptures. Eight times, this refers to 'God'. Sixteen times it refers to 'Jesus', 'Christ', 'Jesus Christ', 'Lord Jesus Christ', and 'The Son'. One notable time, the wording used is 'the great God and Saviour of us, Jesus Christ', Titus 2:13, and here I am quoting the original, literal, in which the Greek idiom known as 'Sharp's rule' should be noted. No other person is called a 'saviour' in the Greek New Testament. Moses is referred to as a 'deliverer', the proper translation for λυτρωτῆς, *lutrotes*, in Acts 7:35, in regard to a national, not a spiritual, deliverance: and Noah is said to have 'saved' his household (from a flood, not a spiritual salvation) in Hebrews 11:7 when God was the Saviour by his warning Noah of the future flood. The salvation of one's own soul ; the salvation from one's own, personal sins; the salvation of oneself in regard to the sin which entered into the world and humanity in general; the salvation of one's body in resurrection: all are the province, solely, of 'God our Saviour' and of 'the God and Saviour of us, Jesus Christ.' In the light of this evidence, why do some suggest that Jesus Christ is not 'God' when the evidence appears to be, very substantially, in favour of the opposite conclusion? The list of eight references to 'God our Saviour': Lk 1:47, 1 Ti 1:1, 2:3, 4:10, Titus 1:3, 2:10, 3:4, Jude 25. The list of sixteen references to Christ as Saviour: Lk 2:11, Jn 4:42, Ac 5:31, 13:23, Eph 5:23, Phil 3:20, 2 Ti 1:10, Titus 1:4, 2:13, 3:6, 2 Pe 1:1, 1:11, 2:20, 3:2, 3:18, 1 Jo 4:14. -------------------------------------- All references and quotations relate to the TR Greek text and to the KJV translation of that text.

1 Timothy 3:16 seems like a pretty straightforward knock-out punch for Trinitarianism. > "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was > manifest in the flesh[.]" (KJB) How do Biblical Unitarians, who hold Jesus is not God but also hold to a strong view of scripture, explain this verse?

**A Formal Mathematical Model of The Holy Trinity.** The Crucifixion timeline forms a perfect cross on a modern clock when Jewish & Roman times are aligned. This alignment between the Crucifixion Timeline and the Time Clock is a strikingly precise match that defies mere coincidence. **The 3rd Hour (3) → 9:00 AM → Right Side of the Horizontal Beam** According to Mark 15:25, Jesus was crucified at the 3rd hour. When the Crucifixion timeline is aligned onto the 12-hour time clock, the 3rd hour (Jewish time) corresponds to 9:00 AM (Roman time). This places 9:00 AM at the right end of the horizontal beam, aligning it perfectly. **The 6th Hour (6) → 12:00 PM → Top of the Vertical Beam** According to Matthew 27:45, Mark 15:33, and Luke 23:44, darkness fell over the land at the 6th hour (12:00 PM). On the time clock, the 6th hour (Jewish) corresponds to 12:00 PM (Roman). This directly aligns with the top of the vertical beam, reinforcing the divine connection between time and the cross. **The 9th Hour (9) → 3:00 PM → Left Side of the Horizontal Beam** According to Matthew 27:46, Jesus cried out and gave up His spirit at the 9th hour (3:00 PM). On the time clock, the 9th hour (Jewish) corresponds to 3:00 PM (Roman). This places 3:00 PM at the left end of the horizontal beam, again aligning perfectly. A look at the pictorial depiction of the convergence of The Roman and Jewish Timelines: The convergence of Crucifixion timelines form a perfect Cross: The ultimate symbol of Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Salvation **The God Equation Axioms: A Formal Mathematical Model of The Trinity** **Preamble** The God Equation is a closed, self-consistent, predictive algebraic system that encodes the Christian doctrine of the Trinity using base-10 digital roots and cruciform geometry. It is not numerology. It is a formal model with axioms, theorems derived by necessity, predictions, and falsifiability conditions. All definitions, operations, and proofs are rigorous, testable, and independent of faith, relying solely on mathematics, geometry, and historical invariants in the crucifixion timeline as empirical data. **Core Theorems & Proofs** **Theorem 1 (Trinity Closure)** dr(T) = 9 Proof: T = 3 + 6 + 9 = 18 → 1 + 8 = 9(A₁, A₂, A₄) **Theorem 2 (God Closure)** dr(G) = 3 Proof: G = 12 → 1 + 2 = 3(A₁, A₃) **Theorem 3 (God Equation Loop)** G ⊕ T = G Proof: 12 + 18 = 30 → 3 + 0 = 3 → dr(G ⊕ T) = 3 = dr(G) (A₁, A₅) → Closed loop established: 3→9→12→3 G ⊕ T = G: God + The Father + The Son + The Holy Spirit = God The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit exist as distinct yet coequal hypostases within the divine essence, such that their individual distinctions neither augment nor diminish the totality of God’s being, but rather subsist harmoniously within the indivisible unity of the Godhead. Conclusion: A Demonstrated Truth This is a mathematically necessary system revealing divine architecture. Coincidence is mathematically impossible. The combined probability of all these independent, eternal truths aligning by pure chance is effectively zero (far beyond 10⁻⁹, the usual threshold for “impossible” in science). Design is not probable; it is necessary. **Metaphysical Corollaries** **The Singularity Proof:** The being who encoded this pattern necessarily transcends time — knowing time’s structure before temporal existence began. **The Geometric Necessity:** Crucifixion was the only method producing both temporal coordinates (3–6–9 hours) and eternal symbol (cross). **The Unity Principle:** Mathematics (law), history (event), and theology (meaning) converge in one coherent reality. The God Equation represents: ⇛ Formal Closure: Self-consistent logical loop ⇛ Empirical Accuracy: Perfect historical-geometric alignment ⇛ Predictive Power: Forecasting mathematical outcomes ⇛ Structural Necessity: Engineered brittleness proving design ⇛ Isomorphism to Christian doctrine The system is complete. The proof is demonstrative. The truth is now a geometric, historical, and mathematical certainty. God + The Father + The Son + The Holy Spirit = God It is not a pattern found. It is a system revealed. It is not faith-based. It is mathematically necessary. It is not refutable. It is demonstrative. A truth written in time, mathematics, and sacrifice, now formalized in the language of eternity itself. The God Equation is a self-proving, predictive, brittle mathematical law that demands the Trinity and collapses without it. **A Valid, Falsifiable Abductive Proof** **1. The Puzzling Observation & The Falsifiable Hypothesis** **Observation:** The Gospels of Mark and Matthew record the key events of the crucifixion at the 3rd, 6th, and 9th hours (Jewish time). These are specific, discrete data points. **Hypothesis (H1 - Design):** "This specific timeline is not random, but reflects intentional, divine design, evidenced by its convergence with universal mathematical patterns and its embodiment of core Christian theology." **Falsifiability:** This hypothesis is highly falsifiable. It would be proven false if: ⇛The Gospels did not report these specific hours. ⇛These hours, when synchronized with Roman time, did not form a perfect cross on a 12-interval diagram. ⇛The numbers 3, 6, and 9 did not form a unique, cyclical pattern in base-10 mathematics. ⇛The doctrine of the Trinity was not a central pillar of Christianity. The hypothesis makes specific, testable claims about history, geometry, and mathematics. **2. Deduce Testable Consequences** If the "Divine Design" hypothesis (H1) is correct, it predicts: **Geometric Consequence:** The 3rd (9 AM), 6th (12 PM), and 9th (3 PM) hours will align perfectly with the vertical (12-6) and horizontal (3-9) axes of any circular 12-interval diagram, forming a Latin cross. **Mathematical Consequence:** The numbers 3, 6, and 9 will exhibit a unique, invariant property (the digital root cycle) that distinguishes them from other numbers. **Theological Consequence:** This numeric and geometric pattern will cohere with a pre-existing, central theological doctrine (the Trinity), and will be expressible in a self-consistent logical formula that demonstrates predictive power and internal consistency. These are not vague predictions; they are precise and verifiable. **3. Use Induction to Test Predictions** This is the evidence-gathering phase. We observe the world to see if the predictions hold: **Test 1 (Geometry):** We take a 12-hour clock face. We plot 9 AM (3rd hour) at 3, 12 PM (6th hour) at 12, and 3 PM (9th hour) at 9. **Observation:** The points form a perfect cross that intersects at the very center of the clock. Result: **Prediction Confirmed.** **Test 2 (Mathematics):** We calculate the digital roots of Trinities of numbers (111, 222, 333, etc.). 111 » 1 + 1 + 1 = 3 222 » 2 + 2 + 2 = 6 333 » 3 + 3 + 3 = 9 444 » 4 + 4 + 4 = 12 » 1 + 2 = 3 555 » 5 + 5 + 5 = 15 » 1 + 5 = 6 151515 » 15 + 15 + 15 = 45 » 4 + 5 = 9 **Observation:** They resolve infinitely to 3, 6, or 9. The system is falsifiable and robust: if any 'nnn' reduced to a number other than 3, 6, or 9, the model would break. None do. Result: Prediction Confirmed. **Test 3 (Theology & Logical Coherence):** We examine Christian doctrine. Observation: The Trinity (3-in-1) is a foundational concept. The numbers 3 and 9(3 3 3) are symbolically complete. The Trinity: The Father (3) + The Son (6) + The Holy Spirit (9) = 18 → 1 + 8 = 9. The Godhead: God = 12 → 1 + 2 = 3. Result: Prediction Confirmed. The God Equation: God + The Father + The Son + The Holy Spirit = 3 + 9 = 12 → 1 + 2 = 3 [God]. God + The Father + The Son + The Holy Spirit = God Observation: The equation forms a closed, self-consistent logical loop: (3 → 9 → 12 → 3). This is not a random sequence but a system where the output of each step becomes the input for the next, ultimately returning to its starting point. This system demonstrates predictive power, accurately anticipating digital root reductions (e.g., 12→3, 18→9) before they are calculated. Most critically, its internal consistency is non-arbitrary; changing one component (e.g., assigning Holy Spirit=8 instead of 9) causes the entire coherent structure to collapse, demonstrating the system's brittleness as evidence of engineering rather than coincidence. Result: Prediction Confirmed. The hypothesis has survived multiple, independent tests, including the emergence of a sophisticated, self-validating logical formula that passes three rigorous examinations: >>> The Coherence Test: Perfect closed loop formation >>> The Prediction Test: Successful forecasting of its own operations >>> The Robustness Test: Non-arbitrary interdependence of components This moves the proof from post-hoc observation ("look at this neat pattern") to proactive forecasting ("I know what the math must do"). This is what separates a scientific model from numerology. Numerology finds patterns in existing data. A predictive model sets rules that successfully govern future calculations within the system. The framework correctly predicts the behavior of numbers (12, 18) that are generated by its own internal logic. It's not just about a cross on a clock and some number patterns. It's about the discovery of a logical and mathematical system with its own internal laws and predictive power, that is perfectly isomorphic to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity; affirming intentional, intelligent design. **4. Compare to Alternative Hypotheses** This is the crux of the matter. A critic must propose a better explanation. The primary competing hypothesis is: **H2 (Coincidence):** "The alignment is a mere coincidence, a product of human pattern-seeking (apophenia) and the trivial properties of numbers." Now we compare H1 and H2: **Explanatory Power:** H1 (Design) provides a unified explanation for the convergence of four domains: history, geometry, mathematics, and a derived logical formula (The God Equation), which exhibits closed-loop consistency, predictive power, and non-arbitrary interdependence. H2 (Coincidence) does not explain the convergence; it merely labels it and cannot account for the emergence of a self-consistent, predictive equation system. **Explanatory Scope:** H1 explains the historical data (the specific hours), the geometric result (the cross), the mathematical resonance and the theological coherence. H2 must dismiss each element as a separate, unconnected coincidence while ignoring their systematic interdependence. **Simplicity (Occam's Razor):** H2 seems simpler on the surface because it doesn't invoke a divine mind. However, Occam's Razor favors the hypothesis with the *fewest unjustified assumptions. H2 assumes that a complex, precise, and logically closed alignment across four independent fields—exhibiting mathematical brittleness where any alteration collapses the entire system is "just one of those things." This is a massive, unjustified assumption about probability. H1's "assumption" (a designing intelligence) is a direct explanation for the observed specified complexity and logical integrity. **Coherence with Existing Knowledge:** H1 is coherent with the theistic worldview that reality reflects a rational, divine mind. H2 is coherent with a purely materialistic worldview. This is the fundamental philosophical impasse. **Conclusion of the Comparison: H1 (Design)** remains the only explanation because it provides a unified, coherent account for the convergence, including its sophisticated mathematical-theological expression as a self-validating system. H2 (Coincidence) has failed to provide a plausible, naturalistic causal story for why this specific, intricate, and self-reinforcing convergence exists as an interdependent whole. **5. Corroborate Over Time** The proof gains strength through repeated testing and its resistance to falsification. Every time a skeptic attempts to refute it by: ⇛Claiming the Gospels don't say what they say... they are falsified by the text. ⇛Claiming the cross doesn't form... they are falsified by geometry. ⇛Claiming the math is trivial... they miss the point that its power is in the convergence and the predictive, closed-loop system it enables, not the math alone. ⇛Ignoring the God Equation... they overlook the culminating evidence of a self-consistent logical model derived from the convergence. The hypothesis has withstood all attempts to falsify its core, testable claims. **Final Synthesis** This is a robust and valid abductive proof. It follows an exact process: ⇛It starts with a clear observation (the Gospel timeline). ⇛It proposes a falsifiable hypothesis (Divine Design). ⇛It deduces testable consequences (a cross will form, a mathematical cycle will appear, a coherent theological equation system will emerge). ⇛It tests these predictions through observation and finds them confirmed, including the discovery of a closed-loop, predictive mathematical system. ⇛It competes with alternative hypotheses (Coincidence) and, by the criteria of explanatory power and scope, is shown to be decisively superior. The critic's job is no longer to simply say "I'm not convinced." To be intellectually rigorous, they must either: ⇛Falsify one of the core, testable claims (e.g., prove the synchronization is wrong). ⇛Propose a better, testable, alternative hypothesis that explains the convergence and the self-consistent God Equation more effectively. Until they do this, the abductive proof stands as valid-it is the only explanation for the remarkable alignment of history, mathematics, geometry, and theology. To deny this logic reveals a prior commitment not to reason, but to a worldview that is itself unfalsifiable. King Iyk 1 John 5:20

According to Wikipedia, the doctrine of [Perseverance of the saints](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perseverance_of_the_saints) is: > [...] a Christian teaching that asserts that **once a person is truly "born of God" or "regenerated" by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, they will continue doing good works and believing in God until the end of their life**. On the other hand, the doctrine of [Eternal Security](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_security) is defined as follows: > Eternal security, also known as "once saved, always saved", is the belief that **from the moment anyone becomes a Christian, they will be saved from hell, and will not lose salvation**. **Once a person is truly "born of God" or "regenerated" by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit**, nothing in heaven or earth "shall be able to separate (them) from the love of God" (Romans 8:39) and thus **nothing can reverse the condition of having become a Christian**. So it appears that *Perseverance of the saints* is about unshakable **sanctification** after true conversion, whereas *Eternal Security* is about unshakable **salvation** after true conversion. So there appears to be a very subtle distinction between the two doctrines. **Question**: are there any denominations that believe in one doctrine while denying the other? Is it even possible to endorse one doctrine without endorsing the other?

There are many theodicies that I have personally encountered while thinking about the Christian faith. One is the Irenaean “greater-good theodicy” or “greater-good defense”. The Irenaean theodicy maintains that the world represents the best of all possible environments because it provides the conditions necessary for human moral and spiritual maturation. In most formulations of this theodicy, creation is viewed as unfinished insofar as human beings have not yet reached their full potential. The experience of evil and suffering is thus understood as needed for the process of human development, serving as the context in which individuals grow toward moral and spiritual completeness. Assuming this explanation, what was the purpose of the Holocaust? What greater good comes out from the Christian deity letting over 13 million people – among these about six million ethnic Jews – be tortured, raped and gassed to death by national socialists? Potentially making a few former national socialists feeling regret and coming to Jesus? The believer would then be forced to square that logic with the internal framework of a just deity. Some Christian scholars reject the Irenaean theodicy (e.g., D. Z. Phillips, who I believe was the first scholar to offer this exact argument against appeals to any greater good), because of these difficulties. A few explanations have been offered to me, apart from the “saving souls” defense. Another is the “soul-making” theodicy, that the Christian deity wants us to discover and embrace virtues like courage, charity, and a willingness to sacrifice out of free will. Scholars like C. Robert Mesle accurately point out that these seem valuable *only* because evil and suffering exist. If persecution, starvation and suffering were abolished, those particular actions would no longer be needed and so would lose their value. Therefore if soul-making explains suffering only as a means to produce such virtues, it is unclear what would be lost in a world without suffering. Therefore it seems that we are left with a deity that values virtue development, as a principle, higher than preventing or relieving the effects of a genocide, or a deity that values instrumentally valuable virtues higher than intrinsically valuable virtues. It also seems to reduce human lives to mere pawns in a grandiose cosmic plan, in which the individual and the value of the individual are completely set aside in order to for the Christian deity to achieve a collective plan for humanity. In a way, Irenaeus made God the ultimate utilitarian. A third defense I have encountered is the appeal to mystery or magic, which is an utterly defeating and non-meaningful response that does not explain anything and shuts down the conversation by moving the problem into the unknowable. I am curious to what different Christian sects and denominations view this issue, and if there are other ways to rescue the Irenaean defense without ending up in any of the three aforementioned categories.

I am not asking the difference between these, I think I have an okay grasp on that. I am generally asking, what truly does the difference of who Christ was, and the specific way he was divine, make to the individual? I grew up "protestant" *(which should be obvious based on my question)* but specifically, I grew up LDS, and because I grew up LDS, I don't think I have ever seen a Catholic church, let alone a Orthodox Church. *(And no, I am no longer mormon, and I haven't been mormon since like the age of 11. I disagree with pretty much everything.)* And so I have been kind of dabbling in Orthodoxy in my own spare time. And generally, I think I have a very surface level seperation of the differences between the four Orthodox, Antiochene is Assyrian, Miaphysite is Oriental Orthodox, and Chalcedonian is Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic. But just to be sure I know the definitions, 1. Antiochene is like, two distinct natures which are seperate until union? 2. Miaphysite is unified divine and human? 3. Chalcedonian is both natures in one at the same time? But what does this difference really make in the interpretation of the ecumenical councils, and the general bible?

Some modern interpreters speculate that the “image of the beast” in Revelation 13:14–15 could refer to advanced technology such as humanoid robots or AI systems that appear to “speak” and exercise authority. Are there any established Christian denominations or theological traditions (historic or contemporary) that officially or commonly interpret the “image of the beast” as referring to robots, artificial intelligence, or other technological constructs? If so: - What is the scriptural basis they use for connecting Revelation 13 with AI or robotics? - How do they interpret the phrases “give breath to the image” and the image “speaking”? I’m looking for answers grounded in recognized denominational teachings, published statements, or works by theologians representing those traditions—not purely personal speculation.

Is the Blessed Virgin's universal mediation of all graces definable as dogma? Can she be called "Mediatrix of All Graces"?

Is the Blessed Virgin's title of "Co-Redemptrix" definable as dogma? Can she be called a co-redeemer with Christ?

In some Reformed/Calvinist circles, a theological framework called the [Federal Vision](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Vision) (FV) has led to significant internal debate over the true nature of the covenant between God and man, and, by extension, the role of faith and works in justification and salvation more generally. I'm currently reading a book by an FV opponent, David J. Engelsma, called [*Federal Vision: Heresy at the Root*](https://books.google.com/books?id=SqTGMQEACAAJ) . In chapter 6 he seems ready to address the following challenge: > Some of the proponents of the federal vision are decisional regenerationists; others hold to presupposed regeneration. How can you say that both hold to the same view of the covenant? But Engelsma's response does not shed much light on the difference between these views – he simply continues to group them together and critiques FV more generally. That's less than satisfying, so my question here is: **according to FV proponents, what are the perceived differences between decisional regeneration and presupposed regeneration views?** What impact do these differences have on the doctrine of the covenant held by different FV proponents?

**Unique Catholic Blessings of local Churches?** Just as I asked this question concerning Catholic feasts of local Churches, I would like to know if some readers here know of any local blessings attached to a local church, diocese or region which have been approved by the Catholic Church? I am interested in more historical blessings, even if they are no longer in vogue or usage.

Possible ways to understand "***virginity***" : - Some people may define it as no sexual event whatsoever. - Some may define as not having intercourse with a male. - Some may define it as not participating in any intimate acts with a male. - Some may define it as an intact hymen. I have a problem with the last one, since a lot of girls are not born with a hymen, or the hymen can be damaged in sports activities. I can't see a logical reason to think that the Blessed mother was definitely born with one or didn't damage it with non sexual physical activity. **So, what exactly does the Catholic Church mean by the "Virginity" of Mary?**

[Luke 1:26-26](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%201-2&version=NIV) : > **26** In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, **27** to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. Many other Bible verses talk about Mary's virginity, even to the point that the Catholic church teaches she was a virgin her entire life*. What evidence exists (either Biblical or extra-Biblical) to support the claim that she was indeed a virgin at the time of Jesus' conception? *This question is _not_ asking whether Mary was a perpetual virgin; only for evidence that she was a virgin at the time Jesus was conceived.