perpetual virginity of Mary..T or F?

Well, even though babies form their “own” blood, the two blood systems do pass oxygen, glucose, CO2, etc. between them.

From WebMD


The sperm and egg unite in one of your fallopian tubes to form a one-celled entity called a zygote. If more than one egg is released and fertilized, you may have multiple zygotes.
The zygote has 46 chromosomes — 23 from you and 23 from the father.

Let’s stop here! Where did these chromosomes come from? Maybe I am overly exited over this miracle, but I just can’t get my mind around how magnificent this is!

I don’t care of PeterJ wants to have a little fun with me over this subject and how I am partially scandalized with the casual tone in your posts over this miracle. But I find this truly fascinating. I’d rather be mocked because I am excited by the conception and incarnation of our Lord than by being skeptic about it, **all **of it. I just can’t get around how special it is for Blessed Virgin Mary to have been impregnated by the Holy Spirit, I mean WOW :angel1:

These chromosomes will help determine your baby’s sex, traits such as eye and hair color, and, to some extent, personality and intelligence.
Soon after fertilization, the zygote travels down the fallopian tube toward the uterus. At the same time, it will begin dividing rapidly to form a cluster of cells resembling a tiny raspberry. The inner group of cells will become the embryo. The outer group of cells will become the membranes that nourish and protect it.

However, during birth, the placenta detaches from the womb and some bleeding occurs. Only at this time can blood from the BABY get into the mother’s blood stream. If the baby has a different blood type than the mother, she will make antibodies to the baby’s blood. So there is usually no problem during the first pregnancy. NEXT time she gets pregnant, if the baby is a different blood type than the mother, the antibodies that she made during the first birth can cross the umbilical cord into the baby (because they are small enough) and hurt the baby. But there are shots that can be given during the first birth that can “suck up” all the baby’s blood cells so that the mother does not make antibodies to them. The only time something could happen to the first baby is if the placenta detaches partially and some bleeding is going on, but not enough to cause miscarriage. This is rare.

At this point, I doubt I can bring anything else for your consideration without you having a counter argument.

I shall go my merry way. Amazed by Christ.

Hail Mary,
Full of Grace,
The Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou among women,
and blessed is the fruit
of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary,
Mother of God,
pray for us sinners now,
and at the hour of death. Amen.

Understand. Have seen that before. Thank you for saying 1000 years and not two thousand. I thought there was earlier debate about just what is original sin, and was she purified at birth or just before the Annunciation. …I still hold it is partly devoid of even earlier Jewish understanding of purification, sanctification doctrine. That is she was full of grace in Jewsih terms without any further theology, especially formulated centuries later, when we were further separated from Jewish understanding.

I think this puts it into perspective. It really needs to be read carefully.

Taken from the Haydocks Catholic Bible Commentary: emphasis is mine
Ver. 15. She shall crush. Ipsa, the woman: so divers of the fathers read this place, conformably to the Latin: others read it ipsum, viz. the seed. The sense is the same: for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent’s head. (Challoner) — The Hebrew text, as Bellarmine observes, is ambiguous: He mentions one copy which had ipsa instead of ipsum; and so it is even printed in the Hebrew interlineary edition, 1572, by Plantin, under the inspection of Boderianus. Whether the Jewish editions ought to have more weight with Christians, or whether all the other manuscripts conspire against this reading, let others inquire. The fathers who have cited the old Italic version, taken from the Septuagint agree with the Vulgate, which is followed by almost all the Latins; and hence we may argue with probability, that the Septuagint and the Hebrew formerly acknowledged ipsa, which now moves the indignation of Protestants so much, as if we intended by it to give any divine honour to the blessed Virgin Mary. We believe, however, with St. Epiphanius, that “it is no less criminal to vilify the holy Virgin, than to glorify her above measure.” We know that all the power of the mother of God is derived from the merits of her Son. We are no otherwise concerned about the retaining of ipsa, she, in this place, than in as much as we have yet no certain reason to suspect its being genuine. As some words have been corrected in the Vulgate since the Council of Trent by Pope Sixtus V. and others, by Pope Clement VIII. so, if, upon stricter search, it be found that it, and not she, is the true reading, we shall not hesitate to admit the correction: but we must wait in the mean time respectfully, till our superiors determine. (Haydock) Kemnitzius certainly advanced a step too far, when he said that all the ancient fathers read ipsum. Victor, Avitus, St. Augustine, St. Gregory, &c. mentioned in the Douay Bible, will convict him of falsehood. Christ crushed the serpent’s head by his death, suffering himself to be wounded in the heel. ***His blessed mother crushed him likewise, by her co-operation in the mystery of the Incarnation; and by rejecting, with horror, the very first suggestions of the enemy, to commit even the smallest sin. ***(St. Bernard, ser. 2, on Missus est.) “We crush,” says St. Gregory, Mor. 1. 38, “the serpent’s head, when we extirpate from our heart the beginnings of temptation, and then he lays snares for our heel, because he opposes the end of a good action with greater craft and power.” The serpent may hiss and threaten; he cannot hurt, if we resist him. (Haydock)

Just curious, why would you hold to Jewish theology regarding Christ when they rejected him as the Messiah in the first place?

Is this a joke? You claimed that pocohombre “appeared to be dismissive or lacking the importance of that fact” and that “he partially agreed with me in his reply” … then when I ask you about the latter assertion I get nothing but sarcasm and flippancy? :shrug: :mad:


It is pretentious of you, after admitting that you have not read all of poco’s posts, to expect me to give you a synopsis of his posts. They are there for you to read. I read them, you should do the same…

It is very clear, something that has been consecrated for a holy purpose can never be used for a common purpose. (and NOTHING is more holy than bearing and giving birth to God)

Well, I can set your mind at ease on that score: I’m not saying that you need to give me a synopsis of his posts. I’m sorry if you got that impression. And yes, I freely admit that I haven’t read all of his posts on this thread.

I’ve been reading your posts for some time (in general, I mean, not just on this particular thread) and had it in the back of my mind to get to know you a little better, because I liked many of the things you’ve said; but I think this encounter has saved me the trouble of doing so … After your last two posts, I now feel like I know you as well as I would want to.

To pocohombre: Could you clarify what you’ve been saying here? Are you dismissive/lacking the importance of Mary carrying Jesus in her womb?

I’ve been surprised by a few longtime CAF members the past couple of weeks. Posters who usually seem considerate and pretty mellow have made some posts that feel uncharacteristic of them, in my opinion. Isaiah, I’m not sure if I missed something, but I’m puzzled by your exchanges with Peter here.

I did get that impression.

That’s up to you.

Since we are on this subject, if my memory serves me right - most of our exchanges have come in some sort of admonishment from you - or in the form of asking me to clarify my position in regards to my responses to other non-catholic posters. If your intentions are what you have expressed here, I would have been able to experience a different approach from you.

Further, you express this interest of getting to know each other better and yet, not once have I talked to you outside threads. I am, then, forced to interpret that your approach is shallow and not really demonstrating this interest you have expressed here. I have received and sent several personal messages with posters with whom I agree and with whom I disagree on various subjects. With others, I have also emailed. This type of effort, in my opinion, shows a more significant interest in developing a friendly relationship.

Sadly, the feeling is mutual.

Abide, I have been rather annoyed by Peter’s approach to some of my posts for some time now. I reacted to them. My tone might not have been the best, but I am sure I was not disrespectful - nor did I intend to. I drew a line.

I think post #830 explains better where I am coming from in regards to my exchange with poco.

This is very basic stuff. Eve (and then Adam) succumbed to sin and brought death into the world. Read Genesis and then we can discuss.

I agree with most of what you’re saying here, but it’s very important to get the first part of Genesis 3:15 right in order to make sense of the second part.

Part 1: “I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your seed and hers;”
Part 2: “He will crush your head while you strike at his heel.”

Part 2 makes sense as messianic prophecy only if Part 1 is understood to mean that God will put enmity between Satan and Mary ("her seed’ is Jesus). Eve (and Adam) brought death into the world through her (their) disobedience – eating the forbidden fruit. But Mary, the New Eve who is highly favored and blessed among women (see Luke 1:28), will respond in obedience and bear the fruit of life (Jesus, the New Adam).

Here’s a simple illustration:

Old Testament: Tree -> Fruit -> Eve -> Adam = Man’s Fall
New Testament: Mary -> Fruit -> Jesus -> Tree (cross) = Man’s Redemption

I would HIGHLY suggest posters put aside the personal attacks and concentrate on the topic, not each other.

You are really breaking my heart man. I thought you read everything I say think about what I was saying and comment back with what you think. It seems right now more like you are just skimming what I write for things that you disagree with.
What I eventually said was that Jesus was talking about the prophets of the old testament luke 11:51 . Jesus didn’t say that these were good to go. Jesus did reference the established cannon of the time though. This is not to say that there are not other book that were cannon but it is an indication of what Jesus accepted. Also Luke 24:44 Jesus references the The OT and how it had to be fulfilled The law of moses the prophets and the psalms Jesus references the OT that he had to fulfill. Hence he is stating that those books are inspired. I know that this is just a implied meaning. Jesus does not give us our first canon listing all the books of the OT.
Are you saying that because what Jesus says is in scripture I cannot uses it to find out what is scripture? In reply, I think it does matter that these are different sets of books.

There is a difference between saying that you do not understand something, like the resurrection, and something that is a blatant contradiction. Unless you have an explanation that can explain away a contradiction I think I am right on this one. This is not a problem of disagreement with personal beliefs. This is not a problem with it not being found anywhere in the bible. I said hope I said neither of these thing or that you could not imply from what I said either of those things. I think I said that the epistle of bananas clearly contradicts the account in exodus. You have two or three options. One that God said he was going to give Moses the covenant but gave him a fake one. Two that Moses never received a covenant but claimed he did. Three that Barnabas was mistaken and claimed something he should not have to try and convince a people that they needed to follow Jesus.

I do not think I said this “Again, Protestor, you cannot say, “It says something that’s not found in Scripture, therefore it cannot be Scripture”” please show me how I have. I am confused about the “again” part of this.

I read everything. :slight_smile:

I do not necessarily address everything that you write though.

There is a difference between saying that you do not understand something, like the resurrection, and something that is a blatant contradiction.

Think about what you are saying. “…and something that is a blatant contradiction”…to what?

How can something be a contradiction, when you haven’t heard the message yet?

Your position is that you get the message from Scripture, right?


Whatever, dude. Same old song I’ve heard a million times. :shrug:

Exodus 32 Moses destroys the tablets which God wrote his commandments. Then God tells Moses the covenant again in Ex34.
Exodus 34 “11“Observe what I command you this day. Behold, I will drive out before you the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites.”

“27And the LORD said to Moses, “Write these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.” 28So he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights. He neither ate bread nor drank water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.”

Barnabas 14 "Yea verily, but as regards the covenant which He swear to the fathers to give it to the people let us see whether He hath actually given it. He hath given it, but they themselves were not found worthy to receive it by reason of their sins.

Barnabas asks whether the Jews had actually been given the covenant. He says they had been given it, but they did not receive it because of there sins. I would normally just say if you are given something you also receive it, but in all fairness that might be a problem with translating words from their original language and not a contradiction.

Since in Exodus God also tells them that he will drive out the 6 peoples if they follow his commandments and those people were driven out it is a sign of the covenant. I think it is fair to conclude that the covenant was actually given to them and they actually not only received it but followed it(imperfectly of course).

The second is that the Jews did and do not follow the sabbath correctly. In Barnabas 15 he claims that the sabbath is a for a thousand years and starts 6000 years the beginning of the world. Basically he is saying Moses was wrong or lying. Please tell me how this does not contradict scripture?

Exodus 35 "1Moses assembled all the congregation of the people of Israel and said to them, “These are the things that the LORD has commanded you to do. 2Six days work shall be done, but on the seventh day you shall have a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it shall be put to death. 3You shall kindle no fire in all your dwelling places on the Sabbath day.” "

How can something be a contradiction, when you haven’t heard the message yet?Your position is that you get the message from Scripture, right?

Barnabas clearly contradicts OT scripture. If something is to be added to canon it at the very least needs to not contradict established scripture. It can be paradoxical but not contradictory. This is not a paradox if it was I could not say about it that it is not found in scripture. Scripture actually claims that something else is true(mosaic covenant and sabbath being on sat). He says it is false. So one has to be correct and hence the other cannot be inspired. Hence the epistle of Barnabas is not inspired.

PS please pray for LiberalAteoJes I was PMing him when he was banned. I hope he comes back with another name or God reaches him through something else. I enjoyed my discussions with him

This feels anti semitic, but i understand your question. St Paul might object also. We have been grafted in to the Jewish root/branch. As you see Orthodox and Protestants as of or from CC, so CC is from Jewish roots . Our Jewish savoir said, “salvation is of the Jews”, I think. It is not all or nothing with Judaism (as i have said it is not all or nothing with CC, or any church). That is you can be wrong on some things but it does not wipe away the right (and I mean extremely wrong, as you suggest, crucifying THEIR-and the world’s- Christ). Our context began or was primarily carried and comes from Judaism.“Primarily” is important for it really began before Judaism, with Eve, and the Promise. The One, True, Holy, Apostolic church comes out of the One, True, Holy, Patriarchal Israel (Judaism).

Umm, their sin was covered, and by faith they apparently repented and carried the promise that led to the incarnation. As we look backwards to Calvary for salvation, Adam and Eve looked forward to Calvary for salvation also. Whom do you think taught Abel the way to please God ? Enoch ? The oral gospel.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit