Attack On Mary's Virginity

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dark_Warrior
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Whoa! That is a very good point, is it yours originally? Only the most intransigent ant-Catholics would not stop to consider this point.
Yeah, just popped into my head. I sometimes teach a teens class on Mary in the Church. In it I try to get the kids to see all the events and details of her life from her perspective, in her society. There is a huge amount to consider in how her life was changed, so different in every way from what we’d call ‘normal’ .
But I never thought about her going to search for Jesus…from the “other children” perspective. Guess I need to add that thought ! Just goes to show, God can use everything for good !

But, like I said, nothing compares to the argument from our friend “James” i put in post#3.
 
That’s hysterical! 😃
Clopas would be an uncle in the true sense of the word with James, Joses, and Judas being our Lord’s cousins. Zachariah was married to Mary’s cousin Elizabeth, so that could make him a type of uncle by his patronage. I’m sure he delighted the kids with his visits when he brought bags of sweet potato latkes and carrot tzimmes. 😃

Uncles ! That’s fun to think about. But of course Mary did not have other children of her own. Not to say that she was not looking after a crowd of what we’d call cousins…as big as her heart was (and IS ! ) I’d be surprised if she wasn’t surrounded by kids, especially when that ‘Special Son’ of hers was around 😉
 
That’s hysterical! 😃
Clopas would be an uncle in the true sense of the word with James, Joses, and Judas being our Lord’s cousins. Zachariah was married to Mary’s cousin Elizabeth, so that could make him a type of uncle by his patronage. I’m sure he delighted the kids with his visits when he brought bags of sweet potato latkes and carrot tzimmes. 😃

BTW, where DID you get that beautiful image of Our Lady ? !
 
Add up all the people in the Gospels that are supposed to be Jesus’ "brothers"and “sisters” and I think it is 20 or 30 people
Actually, there are only four brethren of Jesus named in the Gospels:
**Matthew 13:55 **“Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?”

**Mark 6:2-3 **- “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?”

Let’s begin with James. There are two men named James among the disciples. One, of course, is the brother of John and the son of Zebedee. This cannot be him then. So, this is the other James, called in Scripture James the less:
Mark 15:40: “There were also women looking on afar off: among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less, and of Joseph, and Salome.” (emphasis added)

So James is indeed the son of a woman named Mary. Not only that, but Joseph is his brother. That’s two of the four, right? Then, in Matthew, reciting the names of the twelve:
Matt 10:3: “…'James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddeus.” (emphasis added)

This too is talking of James the less, as the other James, son of Zebedee, is spoken of in the previous verse. It is NOT a trick or really that hard! Alphaeus is this James’ father, not Joseph, the husband of Mary, mother of the Lord.

Now go to John also speaking of those witnessing the Crucifixion:
John 19:25: “Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother (Mary) and His mothers sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.” (emphasis added)

Look up John 19:25 at blueletterbible.org/ and click the ‘C’ icon (for the Strong’s Concordance), then click the Strong’s number for the name Cleophas. It comes up “father of James the less, the husband of Mary the sister of the mother of Jesus.”

Did you get that? That Mary, who was the mother of James the less, and of Joseph, from Mark 15:40, is the wife of Cleophas, the father of James the less, and she is called the ‘sister’ of Our Lord’s mother - Mary!

So, two of the four ‘brothers’ have been identified as the children of parents other than Joseph and the Virgin Mary. Of the brothers named, that still leaves Jude and Simon. Next, Jude:
**Acts 1:13 **"…James, the son of Alphaeus , and Simon Zelo’tes, and Jude the brother of James…" (emphasis added)
**There goes Jude out of the mix! **Matter of fact, Jude says the same in his own epistle:
**Jude 1:1 **“Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James…” (emphasis added)
Lastly, Simon. Simon, called the Zealot, is identified as coming from Cana, not Nazareth as were Joseph, Mary and the Christ!
Luke 6:15 “and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon who was called the Zealot,” (emphasis added)

Mark 3:18 “Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Cananaean…” (emphasis added)

Matt 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene. (emphasis added)
Simon is a Cananean, while Jesus is a Nazarene!

We see that Simon the Zealot being from Cana, and a ‘brethren’ or ‘brother’ of the Christ. Let’s go to John’s Gospel, chapter 2. Mary and Our Lord are invited to a wedding there! So, close business associates, maybe, of Joseph from the carpentry trade, or more likely - family, or brethren, relatives, are having this wedding! Like, maybe the Holy Family had actual kinfolk in Cana, be they cousins, in-laws, nephews, aunts, uncles, all of which are routinely called ‘brethren’!

Remember what Mary said to the servants? She told them to ‘Do as He says.’

Think about that a second? What would give this humble woman from Nazareth any position to so speak to the servants of someone else in an entirely different town, at their wedding? The simplest and most easily understood answer would be – she is a family relation to those giving the wedding feast…

So Simon is from Cana, and a ‘brother’ of the Lord! He’s not a sibling though, but very likely related. And James, Joseph and Jude all have the same father and mother, and it is not Joseph and the Virgin Mary, but their mother is named Mary and called the sister of Jesus’ mother Mary. Even here ‘sister’ may not mean blood sibling, or we have two sisters with the same name in the same family.
Mary would have had to have been “perpetually pregnant” to have all those people.
Acts1:15 - During those days Peter stood up in the midst of the brothers (there was a group of about one hundred and twenty persons in the one place)
 
I focused a long time on the meaning of things like the fact that Jesus gave Mary to John, a thing he would not have to do had he had other brother and sisters.

But then one day it hit me, and I hope I can say this as sensitively as possible and still make my point…

The only places on Earth where the Holy Spirit had previously manifestly dwelt was perhaps on Mt. Sinai, perhaps the Burning Bush, most certainly in the Holy of Holies in the ark. Now at this moment the Holy Spirit came into Union with Mary. By virtue of her union with the Holy Spirit she was now on a level with all these preceding places. She was now obviously Holy just as these other places were Holy.

Which of the other named places above would it be considered acceptable to desecrate in such a manner as with, well you know “that sort of thing”.

It would have been less of an offense to have relations in the temple court than it would have been to have relations with Mary after that.
 
I focused a long time on the meaning of things like the fact that Jesus gave Mary to John, a thing he would not have to do had he had other brother and sisters.

But then one day it hit me, and I hope I can say this as sensitively as possible and still make my point…

The only places on Earth where the Holy Spirit had previously manifestly dwelt was perhaps on Mt. Sinai, perhaps the Burning Bush, most certainly in the Holy of Holies in the ark. Now at this moment the Holy Spirit came into Union with Mary. By virtue of her union with the Holy Spirit she was now on a level with all these preceding places. She was now obviously Holy just as these other places were Holy.

Which of the other named places above would it be considered acceptable to desecrate in such a manner as with, well you know “that sort of thing”.

It would have been less of an offense to have relations in the temple court than it would have been to have relations with Mary after that.
Indeed, Mary was overshadowed by God’s glory cloud (shekinah) and became the Holy of Holies of the New Covenant. St. Luke (1:35) uses the same Greek word (episkiasei) that is used in the Old Testament to describe the overshadowing of the ark of the Covenant. At this moment the archangel Gabriel revealed to Mary that she will conceive and bear the Word of God made flesh, the holy Child who will rule with an iron rod and who is the High Priest in the order of Melchizedek, and the true Manna come down from heaven: the Bread of Life.

The Levitical priests in the Temple had to abstain from having relations with their wives while serving there.

PAX:heaven:
 
A clincher for Mary’s perpetual virginity for me is what she said to St Gabrial when told she was going to become pregnant and have a boy.

It would be very unlikely that a woman who is planning on having kids to ask “How?” when told that she is going to give birth to a boy.

The only circumstance that could make that a valid question to ask is if you are old like Sarah or a religious vow would be broken and it’s assumed the messenger would know of it.

The answer one would hear from a woman who expects to have kids is: A boy! So you say it’s gonna be a boy. Well, that’s 3 votes it’s a boy 2 a girl…
 
A clincher for Mary’s perpetual virginity for me is what she said to St Gabrial when told she was going to become pregnant and have a boy.

It would be very unlikely that a woman who is planning on having kids to ask “How?” when told that she is going to give birth to a boy.

The only circumstance that could make that a valid question to ask is if you are old like Sarah or a religious vow would be broken and it’s assumed the messenger would know of it.

The answer one would hear from a woman who expects to have kids is: A boy! So you say it’s gonna be a boy. Well, that’s 3 votes it’s a boy 2 a girl…
A noteworthy observation. We know for a fact that Mary couldn’t have broken a vow she had made to God, for the angel Gabriel assures her, before he relates the good news and she consents to conceive and bear the holy child, that she has found favour with God (Lk 1:30).

PAX :heaven:
 
I focused a long time on the meaning of things like the fact that Jesus gave Mary to John, a thing he would not have to do had he had other brother and sisters.

But then one day it hit me, and I hope I can say this as sensitively as possible and still make my point…

The only places on Earth where the Holy Spirit had previously manifestly dwelt was perhaps on Mt. Sinai, perhaps the Burning Bush, most certainly in the Holy of Holies in the ark. Now at this moment the Holy Spirit came into Union with Mary. By virtue of her union with the Holy Spirit she was now on a level with all these preceding places. She was now obviously Holy just as these other places were Holy.

Which of the other named places above would it be considered acceptable to desecrate in such a manner as with, well you know “that sort of thing”.

It would have been less of an offense to have relations in the temple court than it would have been to have relations with Mary after that.
Good for you, Vincent !
That is the clincher
To fill out your idea, go back and take a look at my post #3 in this thread…

Happy Easter, and know this-- you are always welcome in the Church. Mary is the great Mother of us all, wherever we are; but especially she is with us whenever the faithful are adoring her Son in the Eucharist at the Holy Mass.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top