Matthew 1:23 uses the word [G3933 - parthenos](https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g3933/kjv/tr/0-1/) . Thayer's Greek Lexicon says it can mean: - a virgin. - a marriageable maiden, or a young (married) woman. He is quoting Isaiah 7:14, which uses the word [H5959 - ʿalmâ](https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h5959/kjv/wlc/0-1/) . This Hebrew word is defined as: - young woman (ripe sexually; maid or newly married). Almost all English translations render it as "virgin". Whether it's "virgin", "maid", "marriageable maiden", "newly married", or whatever, it really doesn't make much difference, as Matthew clearly provides the detail that *is* significant: - 1:18 "*with child of the Holy Ghost*". - 1:20 "*that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost*". It's obvious why the Catholic Church (Roman or Orthodox) would want "virgin" to be the translation, but why do any other Christian denominations care about it? --- # Note that this is not asking about the Roman/Orthodox position, nor is it asking for what the "correct" translation is. (Yes, I know it's bad form to shout like that, but too many people don't seem to notice it otherwise.) It is asking why *non-Catholic* denominations also seem to believe the "virgin" translation is important and significant. It is similar to, but not a duplicate of [*Why was it necessary for Mary to be a virgin?*](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2414/why-was-it-necessary-for-mary-to-be-a-virgin) , as that was too broadly scoped, and was doctrinal rather than about translation.

The Catholic Church has four Marian Dogmas and claims that the Church was guided and its teaching was inspired by the Holy Spirit. CCC95 says, > It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls. *Pastor aeternus* teaches that the Pope is guided by the charism of the Holy Spirit and upheld infallibility in proclaiming Church Dogma. > We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, irreformable. — [Pastor aeternus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastor_aeternus) How come the Protestant and Christian denominations or Bible alone believers who oppose these Dogmas claim that they are also guided by the same Holy Spirit? Is the Holy Spirit that guided the Catholic Church in proclaiming the Marian Dogmass the same Holy Spirit that were inspiring Protestant and Christian denominations to oppose it? How can the Protestant defend themselves on this obvious contradiction, knowing fully that there are no Protestant pastors and believers who can claim infallibility in their scripture interpretations?

What does virginity really mean? It appears to me either not to be a categorical variable, or an arbitrary state. My commonplace understanding of virginity would mean that someone had no sex so far; that would lead to virginity being a continuous variable instead of a categorical one, as sex can mean anything between fingering, licking, masturbation, penetration and so on. In the reception history, virginity seems to be a testable claim (see e.g. Jeanne d'Arc). We know now that there is no test for virginity. We could also assume that virginity is a state of mind, but that would make it kind of arbitrary if we do not assume asexuality. There could be another definition, but I doubt that that is how it could be interpreted in our times, and that would be based on the value of a woman for marriage, which would boil down either to the possibility of pregnancy outside of wedlock or sexual experience of any sort, depending on why virginity has such a high value in certain cultures regarding marriage. I am sure I missed something. How do different denominations teach this? What errors did I make in my naive pre-assessment?

Is there anyone who can answer Yes, to the question, ***who is like God***? **Archangel Michael**: *Who is like God*? **Lucifer**: No, I can't be, because I am not created in the image of God. **Jesus Christ**: Yes, I am!, I am the visible image of the invisible God. > 15**The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.** 16For in Him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things were created through Him and for Him. - Collosians1:15-16 Is there anyone else, who can claim the ***"I am"***? > "God became man so that man shall became gods." - Athanasius Jesus said, you can do greater things that I am... > 11Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me—or at least believe on account of the works themselves. ***12Truly, truly, I tell you, whoever believes in Me will also do the works that I am doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.*** 13And I will do whatever you ask in My name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. - John14:11-13 We know that God like Jesus as His visible image, also God created mankind, male and female in His image and likeness. >27So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. - Genesis1:27 But we know, God is a Spirit, how then can a man claimed the **"I am"?** One Great Marian Saint named, St. Maximillian Kolbe was puzzled at the answer of the Lady saw by Bernadette in the known Lourdes apparition in the 19th century. The young Bernadette asked the Lady in her vision, *who are you?* The Lady answered, **"I am the Immaculate Conception"** St. Kolbe was puzzled by the answer because the word **"I am"** is divine in nature and in no way can be attributed to Our Lady. And so, if St. Michael asked again, ***who is like God?*** Can the Our Lady answered using the word ***"I am"***, can be seen, that She perfected the image and likeness of God in Her whole being, body mind and soul? Remember, the soul can be transform into a spirit, and since God is a Spirit, and anyone who can worship the Father in spirit and truth, had reached theosis or full divinization. *Here is the question:* **The question is: Can Our Lady, looking at Her holiness, righteousness and transformation as written in the bible, and extra-bibilical sources, can answer YES! to the question of St. Michael?** ***"I am"* the Immaculate Conception!** somehow can be seen, as high degree of holiness, as if Mary is seen here, as quasi-incarnating the Holy Spirit, as contemplated upon by St. Kolbe. And, the RCC is being attacked and criticized for over 500 years since the Reformation, as if the Catholic Church is elevating the holiness of Mary as the fourth member of the Holy Trinity. In closing, If Our Lady, the Blessed Virgin Mary, said the **"I am"**, is that somehow connected to why St. Gabriel bowed down to Her, and more events in Her life, leading to Her life, that can answer YES! to the question of *"Who is like God"?* Also, the question, by Protestant esp. the Bible Alone Believers, how can Mary hear all the prayer address to Her, is She a God, to hear all those supplications?

Both Orthodox and Catholic Christians believe and affirm that the Blessed Virgin Mary is the ***ark of the new covenant***, but is there a scriptural basis for this and if so where do we see this in the Old or the New Testament?

In the Book of Acts chapter 1, the name of Mary is only mention in one verse. >All these devoted themselves with one accord to prayer, together with some women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.-Acts1:14 Is there any Early Church Fathers, Church Fathers, Theologians, Saints or Catholic Church teachings describing the role of the Blessed Virgin Mary at the Upper Room? We know that the Catholic Church proclaimed Mary as the "Mother of the Church". Mary plays an important role in giving birth to Jesus Christ, the Head of the Church. The Church is the Body of Christ. It follows that, if Mary gave birth to the Head of the Church, and to become the Mother of the Church, She must also give birth to the Church, the Body of Christ. We can also see, that in Mary's presence, in Her visitation to Elizabeth, at Her "greetings", John leaped and Elizabeth were filled with the Holy Spirit. **Is there any Catholic Church writings or doctrines describing the important role of the Blessed Virgin Mary at the Upper Room?**

**IMPORTANT NOTE:** The OP is not looking to justify the Immaculate Conception of Mary, rather, the OP is looking for passages, significant bible passages that explicitly prove that "Mary is a sinner", meaning Mary had committed sins. This is in no way a duplicate question as commented. If Luther, Zwingli and Calvin who uphold the dignity of the Blessed Virgin Mary were still alive, during the proclamation of the Dogma of Immaculate Conception, I'm pretty sure, the three of them will also embraced this Truth even the Assumption of Mary into Heaven, like what they did to the Dogma of Theotokos and Perpetual Virginity. Sad to say, the Modern Day Protestant and the Bible Alone Believers that I normally encounter in the social media, are simply drinking the shallow arguments, citing this two shallow passages. >"All have sinned." - Romans 3:23 and > "“None is righteous, no, not one; 11 no one understands; no one seeks for God. 12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” - Romans 3:10-12 In CSE, I've seen a lot of good exegesis, but when it comes to this two passages, they seem to become an elementary student or even a kindergarten in giving a thorough exegesis on this particular verse. Romans 3:10-12 can easily be refuted by God Himself in Job 1:1 >There was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job. And this man was blameless and upright, fearing God and shunning evil. -Job 1:1 The "All have sinned", can easily be debunk by the Doctrine of Original Sin, as the word "sinned" here pointed to "actual sin", on which no Protestant, Modern Day Protestant and all Bible Alone Believers can justify against the Blessed Virgin Mary. Proof? Lets simply ask them a direct question. *What is the nature of sin committed by Mary and when? Please cite bible passages, and you wil see that none of them can cite a single verse, and they will simple go back to Romans 3:23 and Romans 3:10-12.* **In view of the above, I am looking for any wise Protestant and Bible Alone Believers here in CSE to cite significant verses aside from Romans 3:23 and Romans 3:1-12, to support their stance that Mary is a sinner.** Of course, I forgot the Magnificat... >My spirit rejoices in God my savior.." Careful to cite this passage, as Mary claimed to be saved already in this particular passage even before Jesus offered His life on the Cross. So, in this particular passage, the Savior of Mary is God the Father and not Jesus per se, and God the Father is outside of time, and can apply the merit of Christ in whatever ways He deemed appropriate according to His Divine Plan.

> **“Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God."** - Matthew5:8 **IMPORTANT NOTE:** We cannot add nor subtract any word from the bible. When Jesus said this beatitude, He said this promised to all the living not dead nor this promise can only be gain after death. Jesus did not said, *"Blessed are the pure of heart, for they will see God,* ***after death***." Archangel Gabriel have faculties to see the state of soul of every human being. Archangel Gabriel saw the majestic soul of Mary, and proclaimed that it was *"full of grace"*. Mary was seen having the most pure heart. > [**Mary: Woman of Most Pure Heart**](https://carmelite.org/spirituality/mary-woman-most-pure-heart/) > > As well as regarding Our Lady, the Blessed Virgin Mary, as patron of our Order, we Carmelites revere her under a number of special titles such as ‘Beauty of Carmel’, ‘Sister’, and ‘Woman of Most Pure Heart’. > > Purity of Heart (Puritas Cordis in Latin) is an important concept in Carmelite spirituality, and Mary is seen as its greatest exemplar and embodiment. For this reason medieval Carmelites were among the most fervent promoters of the doctrine of Mary’s ‘Immaculate Conception’, which was not formally proclaimed a dogma of the Catholic Church until 1854. > > Carmelites have always sought to imitate Mary in her purity of heart. The medieval Carmelite writer Felip Ribot said that the goal of the Carmelite life is to offer to God a holy heart purified from all stain of sin. The purpose of this is to achieve, by God’s grace, union with God. Mary, the Most Pure Virgin, is seen as the perfect model of one who was totally available for union with God. > > To explain the significance of purity from a Carmelite perspective, the Irish theologian Chris O’Donnell, O.Carm., uses the image of a milk jug. The purpose of a milk jug is to dispense milk. In order to do so properly, it must be clean; if the milk jug is dirty, then the milk will become infected. However, there is no point in the milk jug being clean simply for the sake of it; if the purpose of a milk jug is to dispense milk, then it can be as clean as you like but if it’s empty then it isn’t useful. This is an analogy of the human heart. Its purpose is to pour out love for others. If our hearts are impure, then what we ‘pour our’ to others will be infected. But there is no point is having a pure heart simply to leave it empty; the point of purity is not an end in itself but a means to be useful for others. > > This is what Carmelites mean by purity: having a heart undivided for God, free from our own motives and desires so that God’s will be done in us. Today’s society often associates ‘purity’ with puerile notions of sex. Carmel teaches us that purity is more a matter of the heart than the rest of the body. > > *Maria Purissima*, Mary Most Pure, is the great example of purity, in that her heart is totally given over to God and pours out love towards those around her. **Looking for Protestant Founders like Luther,Calvin, Zwingli, etc. also theologians and biblical scholars outside of Catholic Church, before reformation and early reformation era, who look upon the Blessed Virgin Mary as having a pure heart**." A citation from Protestant Founders and Theologians in harmony with Early Church and Church Fathers would be a perfect answer.

In the Magnificat, Mary refers to God as *her* Savior. According to Roman Catholic doctrine, Mary was born sinless and remained sinless throughout her life. So, why does Mary refer to God as **her Savior** if she was sinless (and therefore would not have need of a Savior or even have one). > And Mary said: > > “My soul exalts the Lord, And my spirit has rejoiced in **God my > Savior**. For He has had regard for the humble state of His > bondslave; for behold, from this time on all generations will count me > blessed. For the Mighty One has done great things for me; and holy > is His name. And His mercy is upon generation after generation Toward > those who fear Him. He has done mighty deeds with His arm; He has > scattered those who were proud in the thoughts of their heart. He > has brought down rulers from their thrones, And has exalted those who > were humble. He has filled the hungry with good things; And sent away > the rich empty-handed. He has given help to Israel His servant, In > remembrance of His mercy, As He spoke to our fathers, To Abraham and > his descendants forever.” (Luke 1:46-55)

If Mary was born without original sin and remained sinless, even so Jesus was her savior, for she said, > “My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my > Savior..." (Luke 1:46-47) What do Catholics claim that Mary needed to be saved from? I imagine natural disasters, murderers, and Satan might be in the list, plus the grief of seeing her son executed. What does the church teach?

I have heard that the legal age of marriage was quite young in Jewish culture at the time of Christ. I believe young girls at the age of twelve could marry. However, I find it difficult to imagine Mary as young as thirteen years years old around the time of her giving birth, because of the maturity of her words that are found in the gospels. Is there any tradition that would place a more realistic age of Mary? Or is this just completely unknown even when guessing?

**NOTE :** This question is aimed at narrowing down the probability, when did Mary committed an actual and personal sin, and what is the most likely nature of sin that She would commit? Protestant and Bible Alone Believers do not accept the Dogma on Immaculate Conception for lack of biblical support, so its only fair for Catholics, that we also, cannot accept the accusation that Mary is a sinner, for the same reason that it also lacking in biblical support. And so, its now the Protestant and Bible Alone Believers turn to prove their accusation and judgement that Mary is a sinner, by providing us biblical proof? Sin of pride, lust, envy, gluttony, sloth, etc. What is the most probable nature of sin that a lowly handmaid, a human being with profound humility, who is daily praying and embracing the Will of the Father, can fall into? Let's check on Mary's age. At age 1 to 3, is the age of innocence, therefore, Mary cannot commit sin here at this age. At age 3 to 13, Mary had spent her life in the Temple as a servant of God. Most likely, Satan cannot offer any of his temptations as he did to Jesus as money, fame and power will not entice the young Mary of this non-sense. https://www.mdrevelation.org/the-presentation-of-mary-in-the-temple/ At age 13, Angel Gabriel having faculties to see the soul of human being, saw Mary's soul as "full of grace", and telling us that in Mary's soul, the Lord presence can be seen. -Dominus tecum. Before conception, during conception and after giving birth it is unlikely that Mary can commit sin, as She was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit. And so, for all the Bible Alone Believers and wizards here at CSE, we only have one choices left. Mary is possible to commit sin, after giving birth to Jesus Christ. But what is the nature of sin, that a person who is docile to the voice of God, and had shown holiness and righteousness in her life,so, the simple and direct question is... What is the nature of sin that Mary would fall into after giving birth to Jesus Christ? **Can anyone tell us according to the bible, what is the nature of sin that Mary had fallen into, after giving birth to Jesus Christ?** Catholic, Protestant and Christian can answer this question, using only bible as the source and nothing else.

I have heard the title "Mother of God" in connection with the "Hail Mary" prayer that(Ave Maria) is recited by Catholics. However, I have never heard this term used in any Protestant setting. (From the comment by Bobo, we find that the Orthodox also refer to Mary in this way; *Theotokos* in Greek literally means "Birth-giver of God", as well as *Bohoroditza* in Russian. Both of these terms are widely used in their respective Orthodox groups). Why, then, do Protestants not use this title that appears to be so common in Catholicism?

I have four closely related questions on this topic (if overall this is considered too broad, I'm happy to receive advice as to which questions—if any—would be better off in a separate post): 1. What is the earliest documented use of the term "Queen of Heaven" being applied to Mary, the mother of Jesus? (cf. Wikipedia on *the Virgin Mary as Queen of Heaven* - there seems to be a contradiction between the first and second paragraphs in this section ). 2. Given that the only Biblical references to this title are regarding a false goddess being worshipped in the nation of Judah during Jeremiah's time (cf. Wikipedia's *Queen of heaven (antiquity)* ), is there evidence of any discussion or dissent (over whether such a title was in any way appropriate) in evidence in the wider church when this title was being adopted and disseminated (prior to the Reformation)? 3. Are there any arguments from Church Fathers or other historical records of why such a title would have been adopted in the first place? 4. It seems on the surface (at least to some) that this might be an example of Syncretism , but perhaps there are convincing arguments that can exclude that possibility - if so what would be the outline of such arguments? Or otherwise, what additional evidence (ie not covered in 2. or 3.) would support the idea that this *is* an example of Syncretism? **Please note**: I'm looking for answers that are supported by quotes from Church fathers and Church historians, not doctrinal expositions from denominational perspectives. I'm only looking for a very brief outline of an argument (one way or the other) to question 4 (one or two paragraphs maximum) - if there are the seeds of a worthwhile further question to be developed from such responses, I will ask a separate question to elicit a more detailed answer."

Lk. 2:35 (Douay-Rheims, 1899): > And thy own soul a sword shall pierce, that, out of many hearts, thoughts may be revealed How does a sword piercing Mary's heart cause thoughts to be revealed out of others' hearts? cf. Hermeneutics StackExchange question: "In Luke 2:35 what is meant by 'so that thoughts from many hearts may be revealed'? "

Mainstream Christians believe that Jesus was the son of God the Father and Mary, a virgin. So my question is, have any Christian theologians discussed whether Jesus only resemble his mother Mary, or whether he also resembled his adopted father Joseph? God could easily have arranged it so that Jesus resembled Joseph, even if Joseph played no role in the conception of Jesus.

**Luke 2:34–35**: > (KJV) **34**And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against; > **35**(Yea, **a sword shall pierce through thy own soul** also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed. > > (NLT) **34**Then Simeon blessed them, and he said to Mary, the baby’s mother, “This child is destined to cause many in Israel to fall, but he will be a joy to many others. He has been sent as a sign from God, but many will oppose him. > **35**As a result, the deepest thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. And **a sword will pierce your very soul**.” Do any *non-Catholic* denominations (i.e. those that don't venerate Mary) attach any special significance to Luke 2:35, "a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also"?
(Other than of course the trivial obvious fact of having to watch one's son's being tortured and executed.)

Is there a feast in the Universal Calendar of the Catholic Church celebrating Mary's perpetual virginity?

At Luke 1: 46-55 we see Blessed Virgin Mary singing a song of praise, now known as the Magnificat, while greeting her cousin Elizabeth. I wish to know if the song of Mary was a spontaneous utterance, or was it an integration of prayers from the old Jewish scripts and the Psalms ? What do the teachings of Catholic Church say on the source(s) of the Magnificat ?

> And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn. - Mark 2:7 Swaddling clothes are narrow strips of cloth wrapped around an infant to restrict movement, and also to give it a snug feeling. Usually , the work of cleaning the new-born baby and clothing it , is done by the mid-wife , who could either be hired (Gen 35:17; Gen 38:28; Ex 1:16 ) , or be a close female relative of the expectant mother . Mary is traditionally believed to have been a teenager when Jesus was born to her. Notwithstanding the fact the Joseph and Mary were travelling, they could have taken along a close lady relative to take charge when the time would arrive. My question therefore is: Did Mary have the assistance of a midwife at the time of Jesus' birth? What do the traditions of Catholic Church say about it?