Bride and Virgin?

[VociMike]

I still don’t really know why it is so important that Mary did or did not remain a virgin. Procreation is part of being human. Jesus deigned to be part human in order to experience all of man’s feelings and emotions. Procreation is the most fundamental part of human love.

Ah, you are on very slippery ground now.

Jesus didn’t procreate. Was He therefore not fully human? Did He lack the most fundamental part of human love?

 

[dorothy_smith]

Ah, you are on very slippery ground now.

Jesus didn’t procreate. Was He therefore not fully human? Did He lack the most fundamental part of human love?

Mary Magdalene??? Can we agree that there may at least some plausible unwitting evidence?

 

[blackrobe]

I don’t know anything about Jewish law. I do know that couples can be legally married if one or both partners prefer to stay virgins or not (within Western society). I also know that unconsummated marriages can be annulled within the Catholic Church.

Tom, thanks for explaining Bible passages and Christian doctrine to me. I find it very interesting. (I still don’t really know why it is so important that Mary did or did not remain a virgin. Procreation is part of being human. Jesus deigned to be part human in order to experience all of man’s feelings and emotions. Procreation is the most fundamental part of human love).

Jesus is not “part human;” he is 100% human and 100% divine. The Word did not become human for the experience, but rather to redeem humankind. The most fundamental “part of human love” is charity which is love of God and the love of neighbor which flows therefrom.

With respect, you are in need of some fundamental catechesis.

JSA

 

[Tom]

I still don’t really know why it is so important that Mary did or did not remain a virgin.

I never said it is important, simply that it is true. Did Mary “need” to remain a virgin? Who cares? Did she remain a virgin? Yes. I don’t really care if she needed to, but, I will not deny the truth simply to make people feel good. Did Jesus “need” to die for our sins? No, God could have chosen an infinite number of ways to atone for our sin, but He chose to send His Son. Did He need to? No, but I’m not going to deny He did, nor am I going to deny Mary was a virgin. The perpetual virginity of Mary is a non-issue to me. Some however must prove the Church is wrong in order to validate their own authority. Sorry, the Church isn’t wrong. That’s why it’s important.

(Re: Your quote above: St Luke 1:31-33) I don’t understand how the lineage of Joseph can also be the lineage of Jesus when Joseph was not his biological father. How can God (Jesus) have any lineage?

Both Mary and Joseph are of the house of David. Jesus receives His human (blood or “seed”) lineage by Mary and His family lineage by Joseph.
www.drbo.org:

Isaias 7: 13 And he said: Hear ye therefore, O house of David: Is it a small thing for you to be grievous to men, that you are grievous to my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel.

Biologically, Jesus is the Son of Mary. Legally He is the Son of Mary and Joseph.

 

[VociMike]

Mary Magdalene??? Can we agree that there may at least some plausible unwitting evidence?

Now you are leaving the world of Christianity and entering the world of myth and anti-Christianity. To believe that Jesus married Mary Magdalene is to believe that the Church has lied and worse for 2000 years regarding the most fundamental truths of the faith. To believe the Dan Brown myth is to believe that the Church is really the tool of Satan, and that the true Church founded by Christ was overcome and destroyed early on in her existence.

 

[dorothy_smith]

Now you are leaving the world of Christianity and entering the world of myth and anti-Christianity. To believe that Jesus married Mary Magdalene is to believe that the Church has lied and worse for 2000 years regarding the most fundamental truths of the faith. To believe the Dan Brown myth is to believe that the Church is really the tool of Satan, and that the true Church founded by Christ was overcome and destroyed early on in her existence.

I have never read any Dan Brown. I am just using my own God given common sense. I believe wholeheartedly that Jesus is my Lord and Saviour. I also believe that Him being human (as well as God) could have fallen in love during his life time, esp. during his teenage years. If you want to try and deride me by putting a spin on what I am saying then that is up to you (and your own individual Christian ethics).

 

[VociMike]

I have never read any Dan Brown. I am just using my own God given common sense. I believe wholeheartedly that Jesus is my Lord and Saviour. I also believe that Him being human (as well as God) could have fallen in love during his life time, esp. during his teenage years. If you want to try and deride me by putting a spin on what I am saying then that is up to you (and your own individual Christian ethics).

Now wait a minute, where have I derided you? Please don’t make baseless charges and backhanded slaps at my ethics. I am simpy telling you that to believe that the Church has lied for 2000 years, and that Jesus really married and had children (the discussion was about procreation, remember? not just about teenage love) is to put the lie to all of Christianity. It is to reject the Church which Christ left us as our Sacrament of Salvation. A person simply cannot be a faithful Catholic (or even a faithful non-Catholic Christian) and at the same time believe that Jesus married and had children. You must choose one or the other, because you cannot have both.

If you wish to believe what has always been believed, everywhere and by everyone, then you must believe that Jesus was never married and never had children. And you must also believe that He was nonetheless fully and perfectly human, while also being fully and perfectly divine.

 

[dorothy_smith]

I have no idea if Jesus fathered any children. That is your interpretation of what I said. I do believe that the human Jesus may have fallen in love during His life time at one point or another. We all have. Is my reasoning wrong? He may have married Mary Magdalene (or another woman unbeknownst to us) without a resulting pregnancy. This reasoning would cover all aspects of human experience. Nowhere in the Bible are we told that Jesus was a virgin. Is the thought of a man and woman falling in love wrong? Are we not all God’s children?

 

[VociMike]

I have no idea if Jesus fathered any children. That is your interpretation of what I said. I do believe that the human Jesus may have fallen in love during His life time at one point or another. We all have. Is my reasoning wrong? He may have married Mary Magdalene (or another woman unbeknownst to us) without a resulting pregnancy. This reasoning would cover all aspects of human experience. Nowhere in the Bible are we told that Jesus was a virgin. Is the thought of a man and woman falling in love wrong? Are we not all God’s children?

You said:

I still don’t really know why it is so important that Mary did or did not remain a virgin. Procreation is part of being human. Jesus deigned to be part human in order to experience all of man’s feelings and emotions. Procreation is the most fundamental part of human love.

To which I replied:

Ah, you are on very slippery ground now.

Jesus didn’t procreate. Was He therefore not fully human? Did He lack the most fundamental part of human love?

To which you replied:

Mary Magdalene??? Can we agree that there may at least some plausible unwitting evidence?

So the entire discussion has been about procreation, not just marriage. But putting that aside, Jesus cannot have been married (with or without children) because the Church is His Bride, and His marriage will take place in heaven. This is scriptural and this is the Christian faith. Jesus is not a bigamist.

Even if you have not read Dan Brown (who made millions suggesting the very things you are suggesting), I recommend in all charity that you look up some of the Catholic and Christian responses to “The DaVinci Code” to understand why Christ cannot have been married, and cannot have had children.

 

[Mintaka]

If Jesus had fallen in love and gotten married, that would have been an important event and we would have been told about it. (Think about it. This is Israel. People are obsessed with who married who.) If nothing else, Mary Magdalene’s kinfolk would have become Jesus’ kinfolk by marriage, and that would have been something important and worth reporting.

But that’s not what happened.

Jesus is God as well as Man. Whoever He might marry or have sex with, would have been practically zapped with grace. We would have heard about it. It would have been important.

And actually, God being God, it would probably be practically impossible for any woman not to get pregnant if Jesus were having sex with her. (Fertility is God’s big thing in the Old Testament, remember?) Any woman Jesus Christ Himself was in love with and having sex with could never die, I’m pretty darned sure. (Just touching his hem healed a woman of an incurable illness. Just breathing on a girl brought her back from death. How the heck could you not be affected if you were in bed with Him every night?) Any physical child of Jesus would probably inherit His healing and other powers, and be nigh impossible to kill except if he or she willed it.

That would all be an important thing. We would have heard about it.

All or any of these things happening would have meant that God’s plan for salvation was very different than we currently know it to be. The Church would be entirely different. We would be entirely different. And instead of being God’s adopted children, we would be servants to God’s line of children. That’s a biiiiiig difference.

Fortunately for us, Jesus’ Bride is the Church, and we see Him marry her in the Book of Revelation. We the Church are one Flesh with Christ. If he had married any other woman, we would be cut out.

 

[dorothy_smith]

If Jesus had fallen in love and gotten married…(above)

Thank you Mintaka. That is the kind of answer that I was looking for, that is to say, the view from an individual perspective. I studied a three year course on the Catechism of the Catholic Church and all that we allowed to discuss was what synods of bishops had decided or altered or changed throughout 2000 years of tradition. I felt and still feel frustrated that we had to abide by the findings of synods without questioning anything.

Even if you have not read Dan Brown (who made millions suggesting the very things you are suggesting), I recommend in all charity that you look up some of the Catholic and Christian responses to “The DaVinci Code” to understand why Christ cannot have been married, and cannot have had children.

Mike, that sounds interesting. I will look it up.

 

[Marilena]

hi there dorothy,

please see this,

papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm

 

[VociMike]

Mike, that sounds interesting. I will look it up.

I did a quick search and this article has a lot of links, so it’s probably as good a starting point as any:

opusdei.org/art.php?w=32&p=7017

 

[Tom]

I have no idea if Jesus fathered any children.

What was the purpose for creating a woman from a man?
www.drbo.org:

20 And Adam called all the beasts by their names, and all the fowls of the air, and all the cattle of the field: but for Adam there was not found a helper like himself. 21 Then the Lord God cast a deep sleep upon Adam: and when he was fast asleep, he took one of his ribs, and filled up flesh for it.

So, man needed a helper “like himself”, a companion. Does God need a helper? What woman is “like Himself”?
What exactly is a marriage? The first “marriage” was of course Adam and Eve. What does Scripture say about becoming one in marriage?
www.drbo.org:

Gn2: 24 Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh.

So, how could Jesus “leave His Father”? How can God leave God? In terms of leaving your father and mother it is symbolic in that the spouse becomes more important than the parents. Could a human wife become more important than God?

 

[dorothy_smith]

What was the purpose for creating a woman from a man? So, man needed a helper “like himself”, a companion. Does God need a helper? What woman is “like Himself”?

I’m not saying that woman is like ‘Himself’’. I’m not referring to ‘Himself’’. I’m referring to Jesus the man.

Could a human wife become more important than God?

Of course not. I’ll remind you that we’re not discussing ‘Himself’ but ‘himself’’.

 

[Sixtus]

you cannot be a bride and a virgin (in theory). Without consummation marriage is an annulment.

Under exceptional circumstances, Rome has permitted marriage where it is not possible for intercourse to take place, such as a classic case in the early 1980’s when the intending bridegroom unfortunately lost his genitalia in an accident.

If the Church has permitted this, is it not likely that He from whom the Church gets her authority is also able to act with discretion due to circumstances!

 

[Sabda]

I’m not saying that woman is like ‘Himself’’. I’m not referring to ‘Himself’’. I’m referring to Jesus the man.

Of course not. I’ll remind you that we’re not discussing ‘Himself’ but ‘himself’’.

Dorothy,
It sounds like you are trying to separate the divine Jesus Christ from the human Jesus Christ. You simple can not do that. I can no more separate myself from myself than Jesus Christ can separate Himself from Himself. He is BOTH divine and human at the same time. You can not cut Him up into little pieces. No one on this earth has ever been or will ever be like Jesus Christ. He is truly the God-Man.

 

[dorothy_smith]

Dorothy,
It sounds like you are trying to separate the divine Jesus Christ from the human Jesus Christ. You simple can not do that. I can no more separate myself from myself than Jesus Christ can separate Himself from Himself. He is BOTH divine and human at the same time. You can not cut Him up into little pieces. No one on this earth has ever been or will ever be like Jesus Christ. He is truly the God-Man.

Shelie, you misunderstand. Jesus was truly God and truly man. He wasn’t the “God – Man”. He wasn’t a mixture of both. There wouldn’t have been any point in the Passion of Christ otherwise. Jesus the man suffered under surrender to the will of God. The divine Jesus couldn’t surrender unto Himself (Deity to Deity).

Jesus chose to become fully human in order to experience the weaknesses of man. Only then was He ‘qualified’ to expiate the sin of man. Shelie, the divine Jesus was separate from the human Jesus as well as being both divine and human at the same time. This is a concept that we (Man) are unable to comprehend. That is the mystery

 

[FCEGM]

Shelie, you misunderstand. Jesus was truly God and truly man. He wasn’t the “God – Man”. He wasn’t a mixture of both. There wouldn’t have been any point in the Passion of Christ otherwise. Jesus the man suffered under surrender to the will of God. The divine Jesus couldn’t surrender unto Himself (Deity to Deity).

Dorothy, referring to Jesus as the God-Man is a legitimate expression within Catholicism of the mystery of his Person; it serves as a “shorthand” of a belief in His being truly God and truly Man.

Jesus chose to become fully human in order to experience the weaknesses of man. Only then was He ‘qualified’ to expiate the sin of man. Shelie, the divine Jesus was separate from the human Jesus as well as being both divine and human at the same time. This is a concept that we (Man) are unable to comprehend. That is the mystery

It isn’t accurate to state that the “divine Jesus was separate from the human Jesus” as Jesus is One Person with two natures, divine and human. The Son, the Second Person of the Divinity, took upon Himself a human nature; joined to that human nature He is known as Jesus, but there is only one Person who is undivided in Himself while being both God and Man.

 

[FCEGM]

I’m not saying that woman is like ‘Himself’’. I’m not referring to ‘Himself’’. I’m referring to Jesus the man.

Of course not. I’ll remind you that we’re not discussing ‘Himself’ but ‘himself’’.

There is only one Person: Himself, who is God and Man.

Dorothy, I think you would find Frank Sheed’s Theology for Beginners extremely helpful in coming to a better understanding (as is humanly possible) of the Mysteries of the Most Holy Trinity and the Incarnation/Hypostatic Union.