Catholics and Non-Catholics: Do you believe in the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mother?

[elvisman]

I’m sure you do. Sorry, that’s what I’ve got. If it’s not good enough for you, then I suggest that you remain Catholic—but heres something for you to think about:

It’s good enough for me, just as the evidence you accept for Mary’s perpetual virginity and Assumption is good enough for you.

Please notice that I have never gotten snippy/nasty with you about that, or insisted that you agree with me. All I have done here is to explain why I believe as I do.

…though the irony of your demand is interesting.

I don’t see any irony. I have presented you with many proof texts yet you cannot provide the same when it comes to proving that the Church ever apostasized. All you have is a “burning in the bosom” that you are right. In short - if you’re going to go around claiming that the Church apostasized at some point - you had better be prepared to prove it (1 Pet. 3:15).**

As human beings, there are many times we may have a burning in the bosom about things that are totally bogus. Ask anybody who ever joined a cult or escaped Jim Jones’ ill-fated encampment in 1979. Ask anybody who has fallen prey to some counterfeit televangelist.
The Gospel isn’t about a burning in the bosom. It’s about evidence and fulfillment. It’s about salvation.**

No, my friend. All it does is show that people did what they were doing even during NT times, when all those epistles were written to people who were already misunderstanding what Christ taught, and had to be pulled back, or taught again…

Here’s what I think: Christ did not abandon us. We abandoned Him–just as God’s people have done over and over again from day one. Our choices; free will.

There is, after all, only one way that God could keep the church on track WITHOUT the very public revelation (that is, specific revelation to authoritative church leaders for the specific purpose of guiding the church, the writing down of which is scripture by definition) is to take our free will from us.

It is that which convinces me. I do understand that you disagree.

**Sorry - but you’re still claiming that Jesus is a liar when he gave his guarantee that the Church would not apostasize in Matt. 16:18.

**The Church stayed on track because Jesus GUARANTEED it would under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (John 16:12-15). The Church was in need of no further “Reveleation” after the Apostles because all of the truths were passed down by them. **

Whenever the Church has declared a truth or decreed a dogmatic statement from the 1st century forward - these were not NEW truths but what was passed down and now was being officially declared because or some dissention or heresy.

 

[elvisman]

Agreed on the need or usefulness of Greek etc. Yes Luther said He needed that word to get the right meaning in German .So ,that is one word out of a million.Yes perhaps one too many .I do not blame him ,for indeed ,he was trying to shatter the yolk of church /works salvation that controlled EVERYTHING.in Europe. Context,context.Today ,it would be unnecessary.
What books does the german bible not have .I forgot the elemnts of that debate ,but I remember it being much about nothing-that they have 27 books in N.T. Perhaps you mean his commentaries ,to some of the books .He said nothing different than what other contemporary notable said. It was O.K. to say them if you remained loyal to the pope .that is the only difference .Erasmus said the same stuff in Annotationes to his 1516 N.T.Greek and Cardinal Cajetin doubted the same books canonicity also (goes all the way back to Eusebius (380) .Because of all the confusion within the catholic church, Rome made a decision on the disputed books.with final cannonizing of scripture.(1580 ?)

You need to study your history. First of all - adding or subtracting from the Word of God is a damnable offense **(**Rev. 22:19). **Filled with spiritual pride, what Luther did – and attempted to do – was nothing short of **evil. His legacy is 600 years of the constant splintering of the Body of Christ.

**From the Old Testament, Luther removed Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch, as well as parts of *Esther *and *Daniel. ***

**He also wanted to remove Hebrews, James, Jude and *Revelation *from the NEW Testament because they didn’t meet HIS approval of what the word of God should be. However, his Protestant contemporaries ****wouldn’t **agree with him on that so he finally relented. If it wasn’t for them – your Bible would be a LOT smaller than it already is.

 

[KathleenGee]

I think people who deny Mary’s perpetual have not had the experience of knowing and having friendship wtih consecrated virgins and celibates…and you can’t find them around much except primarily, and publicly in the Catholic Church.

The other thing…we already know the problem of translations, time, phraseology, semantics, syntax, historical and cultural context.

If people are looking for more clear wording about the personal life of Mary and Joseph, then what you do is look back at the tradition of how followers always perceived them…from the beginnings.

And that means, you can’t be so book oriented, show me this in the Bible,…show me that in the Bible…you are looking at book too much.

Your relating to God is based on literal book form. To pass out books…well should Jesus had done that at the beginning…pass out literal books and then if it is not in the print, well nothing happened…>???..or the book needs to be translated…to another language and culture…the words mean different thing…

Jesus died and rose from the dead…and broke the power of sin…and then after the book of Revelations…there is no more faith???

Just as we reflect on the history of the Jewish people – their fidelity and infidelity – the human condition is always there because conversion is a lifelong faithwalk. It is not about containing your faith holding on to a book. I don’t mean to disrespect the Bible…

But it is in Spirit and truth our faith is consecrated in Christ…and so the story continues after Revelation…and that is the Apostles establishing and administrating and founding churches to form Christ’s Bride…the Apostolic, universal, one, holy Catholic Church.

So now we believers continue on and live out the Word of the God that we hold dear and since the 1400’s…now have available through the printing press the Bible.

Jews and Catholics are based on the Oral Tradition of faith passed down generation after generation. Faith is about relationship between Christ and His followers and the passion required to remain faithful to Christ to the end of one’s life.

Mary has always been perpetual virgin. There have been prominent Catholic theologian who have not believed that, not because they think less of Mary, but because they do not want to take away from Christ.

You have the Holy Trinity…but salvation would not have come to us without Mary’s fiat. And she is blessed among all women who ever lived and will live…Mary’s mission was Jesus and the salvation of souls for all time to come…

Just raising Christ and to assist in His mission on earth, cojoined with the reality that there first born sons and daughters offered to God for service in the Temple in Christ’s time, causes me to say…

Mary had a full plate just caring for Jesus and being among Him in his ministry, death, and resurrection, and then being advisor to the apostles. If the Jewish virgins could have remained virgin, so could have Mary.

 

[dianaiad]

Let me see if I can make myself clearer. You are claiming that we don’t know how long Mary had to wait since she might have been betrothed at any time from infancy on.
Am I correct?

Correct. Emphasis upon 'we don’t know."

What I am saying is that there is no evidence that this was true that betrothal was normally a year but it might be two.

Why should the betrothal of Joseph and Mary be an exception here? We know it BECAME an exception because of her pregnancy, but Mary certainly could not have known that part.

Now you substantiate your claim from a website however the website says this

That would indicate that a infant could be betrothed.
Also the article says

Note it says this took place in the middle ages not at the time of Jesus. At the time of Jesus than the age would have been 12 for a girl. Speculating now, traditionally Mary’s age was 14, that would fit into her being betrothed for the normal period of time and close to the second part of the marriage.
We know that Mary went to see Elizabeth for three months and that when she returned Joseph took her into his home thus fulfilling the requirement of marriage.

Where do you get 'at the time of Jesus the age would have been 12 for a girl?" Good heavens…you have decided that SINCE tradition makes Mary 14 at the time, THEN she must have been betrothed when she was twelve, so THEN she was close to the time when Joseph would ‘come for her,’ therefore her comment to the angel meant that she was going to be a virgin forever?

Great googly moogly.

Please show me any evidence whatsoever that Mary was betrothed to Joseph when she was twelve. Please show me any evidence of the date that Mary entered puberty (that varies–and did so even 2000 years ago. Please show me any evidence, from any source whatsoever, that Joseph was to ‘come for’ Mary ‘very soon.’

In fact, being solidly practical about this, if Joseph WERE supposed to ‘come for’ Mary "very soon,’ then the whole ‘don’t be afraid to take Mary for your wife’ conversation wouldn’t have had to occur. If he were supposed to come for her ‘very soon,’ what was she DOING, going to live with her cousin Elizabeth for three months?

To be coldly practical, one of the ‘proofs’ to other people, if you will, that Jesus was not Joseph’s son is that he did NOT come for her, or intend to ‘come for’ her, any time soon. Otherwise all the historians and the critics would have simply dismissed her (and His) claims of being begotten of God.

The OP asks both Catholics and non-Catholics alike if we believe. I assume that means that those of use who do not believe that Mary was/is a Perpetual Virgin can explain why. My position for why I think she probably wasn’t is this: there is no evidence for it.

All evidence FOR it is speculation of the 'well she was the pinnacle of womanly perfection (no argument; she was) and THEREFORE she must have been a virgin because perfect people don’t have sex, even with their spouses. Everything used to prove her virginity is backwards reasoned from that idea; not that everything points to her being a virgin, therefore she was, but…she was a perfect person, a perfect model of womanhood and divine motherhood, therefore she could not possibly have had sex…so let’s go back and see if we can see how that could have happened.

Please note that I haven’t thrown the idea completely away, but it’s still, given everything, a pretty dim possibility, besides, I also believe, completely unnecessary to her life, her virtue, her role as His mother or His role as Savior.

…and that’s what the whole thing comes down to, at least to me.

 

[dianaiad]

It is an LDS belief so what does it matter if we believe it?

Because it is your claim that public revelation (i.e., scripture) ceased after the last apostle died. WE simply agree with you. John’s role was not to write scripture after that. At least, any scripture he did write is…not here.

 

[elvisman]

Sorry ,I thought we talking about “until” ,not ,“I am a virgin”. …Where does scripture assign assign Judas and Simon and sisters to Mary of Clopas ? Only see James Joses and Salome. Could not cousins have the same names ,after all, you had two Mary’s as sisters (well Miriam),why not two James ? There is a word for cousins (remember cousin Elizabeth). It is not used .Brethren means siblings .Only metaphorically can it take a secondary meaning (kinsmen), but when it is mentioned with a mother ,i t is siblings (context ,context). If Joseph were not proclaimed to be ever-virgin by the church also ,there could be another explanation but…Mark 6:3, Is not this the carpenter,the son of Mary,the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon and are not his sisters here with us.and they were offended at him" .He was too plain, from normal ,typical Nazarite family.They did not say, "Is not this is the son of Mary and Joseph ,who vowed chastity to raise up someone “special “(as they snickered). Jesus said a prophet is without honor in his own country, amongst his own kin, and in his own house-Mark 6:4.” For neither did his brethren believe in him” -John7:5 and my favorite “I am become an alien unto my mother’s children”-Psalm 69 "8

First of all - the 2 Mary’s wweren’t actual sisters. John 19:25 calls her Mary’s “Adelphe”, which is the feminine for "Adelphos". This is where many Protestants get confused because Adelphe means sister and Adelphos means brother. However, it has already been proven on this thread that Adelphe(os) carries with it the following definitions: Sister/brother, aunt/uncle, cousin or other kinsfolk, neighbor, fellow countryman, fellow believer, etc.

Now the only person I know who gives their children the same name is George Foreman. Besides, it is against Jewish custom - as well as most other customs - to give your children the same name. Your appeal to Mark 6:3 only serves to bolster the Catholic position because some of those “brothers” (Adelphos) were named at the foot of the cross as being children of the OTHER Mary.

As for Elizabeth, the Greek word used in Luke 1:36 was Suggenes, which means, “of the same kin, akin to, related by blood. In a wider sense, of the same nation, a fellow countryman. It is not necessarily mean cousin as many people think.

---

**The reason Adelphos was used to describe Jesus relatives is probably due to the fact that they were very close, lived close by, were first cousins or some ****other **reason. The one thing that it cannot be prove is that these are children of Mary, mother of Jesus.

Your relentless use of Psalm 69 has been amply dicredited as well - as this speaks of the nation of Israel. I already explained to you about polyvalent symbolism - more than one meaning in a prophecy. Part of this prophecy points to Jesus - and part points to Israel. As I illustrated in another post - the same is true about the Woman in Rev. 12.

 

[dianaiad]

B]If any Catholic - or anybody else, for that matter - told you that the Bible is I]COLOR=red]not /COLOR]/I]the inerrant word of God - they are COLOR=blue]U]WRONG/U]/COLOR]. That being said, /B]B]saying that different translations COLOR=red]don’t /COLOR]have mistakes would be wrong, too./B]

Make up your mind, elvisman. Which is it? If it is inerrant only in the original (a position I agree with, by the way) then you absolutely can not give anybody grief for questioning the precise wording of a translation. because of your stand that the bible is inerrant.

B]The Bible is the inerrant U]written/U] word of God and was written I](the NT at least /I], compiled and declared canon by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (COLOR=blue]John 16:12-15/COLOR]). She is the COLOR=red] custodian/COLOR] of the Holy Deposit of Faith (COLOR=blue]1 Tim, 3:15, 6:20,

B]FONT=Arial]COLOR=blue]2 Tim. 2:2, 2:15, 3:6, 2 Tim. 12:14, 1 Cor. 11:2/COLOR]B]). This means that U]I]any other entity/I]/U] who interprets the scriptures differently from the Church is COLOR=red]U]wrong

Unless, of course, the claim is that the church is incorrect about this.

Which, considering that I am not a Catholic, you might want to consider as a possibility. That is, declaring to a non-Catholic that we have to believe this thing or that thing BECAUSE the church said so might not be the most effective argument.

elvisman:
. /B]/FONT]/COLOR]/B]
B]B]COLOR=black]FONT=Arial] B]/B]/FONT]/COLOR]
B]B]COLOR=black]B]The guarantee that the Holy Spirit would guide her to all truth was given only to her - COLOR=red]NOBODY/COLOR] else (COLOR=blue]John 16:12-15). The Holy Spirit doesn’t reveal I]“differing truths”. There is only U]ONE truth - and COLOR=red]ALL differing I]“versions” of that truth are wrong.

I see. So…does that mean all of the varied translations of the bible are also inerrant?

 

[adrift]

Correct. Emphasis upon 'we don’t know."

Why should the betrothal of Joseph and Mary be an exception here? We know it BECAME an exception because of her pregnancy, but Mary certainly could not have known that part.

I am not claiming it was a exception. So we do not know that it was.

Where do you get 'at the time of Jesus the age would have been 12 for a girl?"

ummmmm from the source you quoted.

Good heavens…you have decided that SINCE tradition makes Mary 14 at the time, THEN she must have been betrothed when she was twelve, so THEN she was close to the time when Joseph would ‘come for her,’ therefore her comment to the angel meant that she was going to be a virgin forever?

I can’t see any other meaning.

Please show me any evidence whatsoever that Mary was betrothed to Joseph when she was twelve. Please show me any evidence of the date that Mary entered puberty (that varies–and did so even 2000 years ago. Please show me any evidence, from any source whatsoever, that Joseph was to ‘come for’ Mary ‘very soon.’

You know that there is no evidence other than speculation which I stated.

In fact, being solidly practical about this, if Joseph WERE supposed to ‘come for’ Mary "very soon,’ then the whole ‘don’t be afraid to take Mary for your wife’ conversation wouldn’t have had to occur. If he were supposed to come for her ‘very soon,’ what was she DOING, going to live with her cousin Elizabeth for three months?

You have got it backwards. It is because he was suppose to be taking her into his home that the conversation takes place. I consider three months soon.

To be coldly practical, one of the ‘proofs’ to other people, if you will, that Jesus was not Joseph’s son is that he did NOT come for her, or intend to ‘come for’ her, any time soon. Otherwise all the historians and the critics would have simply dismissed her (and His) claims of being begotten of God

.
Not at all. As far as contempary people of Joseph and Mary would be concerned, Jesus was Joseph’s son.

 

[elvisman]

Make up your mind, elvisman. Which is it? If it is inerrant only in the original (a position I agree with, by the way) then you absolutely can not give anybody grief for questioning the precise wording of a translation. because of your stand that the bible is inerrant.

Unless, of course, the claim is that the church is incorrect about this.

Which, considering that I am not a Catholic, you might want to consider as a possibility. That is, declaring to a non-Catholic that we have to believe this thing or that thing BECAUSE the church said so might not be the most effective argument.

I see. So…does that mean all of the varied translations of the bible are also inerrant?

First of all - my mind IS and always WAS made up. The Bible is the inerrant written word of God.

Secondly - every translation may have suffered in the process over the centuries because of the handwritten copies that were made by Catholic monks. Again - had it not been for the dedication of these monks of the Catholic Church - we might not have ANY reliable versions.

Lastly - you can continue to say that this is all moot because you reject the Authority of the Catholic Church. But, in doing so - you reject the Gospel of Jesus himself (Luke 10:16).

 

[elvisman]

Not at all. As far as contempary people of Joseph and Mary would be concerned, Jesus was Joseph’s son.

Exactly.
This is what were are told in Luke 4:22 and John 6:42.

 

[dianaiad]

I am not claiming it was a exception. So we do not know that it was.

Exactly. We don’t know. Therefore we can’t make conclusions regarding information that simply isn’t there. Remember; I’m not the one MAKING such a conclusion. It is those who claim that Mary remained virgin all her life who are.

ummmmm from the source you quoted.

I can’t see any other meaning.

Perhaps you can’t; I am suggesting that you are bringing things with you to see, though; the information we have simply does not support this claim.

You know that there is no evidence other than speculation which I stated.

Precisely right.

You have got it backwards. It is because he was suppose to be taking her into his home that the conversation takes place. I consider three months soon.

No, the conversation took place because it was discovered that Mary was pregnant, and Joseph had a choice to make; whether to have her stoned (which he could have done) or to ‘put her away privily.’ HE didn’t think that one of the options was to accept her as his wife at all, until the angel told him to. The timing of the final part of the wedding was all about her being pregnant; had she been pregnant by HIM, the final date would have been moved up for that reason; there is no information at all regarding the intended date.

Therefore, no speculation regarding when Joseph was due to come for Mary helps, here. All we have is: Joseph had not come for Mary. There was no intent to come for her for AT LEAST three months after the annunciation, or for however much longer it took for Mary’s state to become a problem…and Joseph was not prepared to come for her at all, until an angel told him to do so. That’s it. That’s what we have.

We also have the matter of Jewish marriage customs, which indicate at least a year’s betrothal…and absolutely no information about when she became betrothed to Joseph…or how old Joseph was, or what the situation was. Zip. Zero. Nada.

All speculation regarding these issues seems to have come about because it was decided that SINCE Mary was a Perpetual Virgin, THEN all these writings means–that she was a perpetual virgin. It’s working backwards from the conclusion.
.

Not at all. As far as contempary people of Joseph and Mary would be concerned, Jesus was Joseph’s son.

Evidently not…her state was brought to Joseph’s notice by those very ‘contemporary people,’ after all.

 

[dianaiad]

First of all - my mind IS and always WAS made up. The Bible is the inerrant written word of God.

**Secondly - every **translation may have suffered in the process over the centuries because of the handwritten copies that were made by Catholic monks. Again - had it not been for the dedication of these monks of the Catholic Church - we might not have ANY reliable versions.

Lastly - you can continue to say that this is all moot because you reject the Authority of the Catholic Church. But, in doing so - you reject the Gospel of Jesus himself (Luke 10:16).

elvisman, your method of posting is very much in the tradition of the grandest of pulpet pounders. It is a long respected and used tradition–successful, too, obviously, or it wouldn’t still be used.

However, I don’t have to put up with it, so…

ta ta…

 

[adrift]

Exactly. We don’t know. Therefore we can’t make conclusions regarding information that simply isn’t there. Remember; I’m not the one MAKING such a conclusion. It is those who claim that Mary remained virgin all her life who are. .

Yet you make conclusion that just isn’t there. You conclude she was not a virgin all her life. It seems its ok for you to look at what is there and make a conclusion but you don’t look at all that is there only a part.

Perhaps you can’t; I am suggesting that you are bringing things with you to see, though; the information we have simply does not support this claim.

To repeat myself. You cannot know or conclude conclusively, in fact the evidence is to the contrary, that Mary had other children. But even if she did not have other children that would not be conclusive evidence of virginity. All we have is Mary and her claim that she does not have sex. In fact, the only thing we have that Mary conceived of the Holy Spirit is her word.
.

No, the conversation took place because it was discovered that Mary was pregnant, and Joseph had a choice to make; whether to have her stoned (which he could have done) or to ‘put her away privily.’ HE didn’t think that one of the options was to accept her as his wife at all, until the angel told him to. The timing of the final part of the wedding was all about her being pregnant; had she been pregnant by HIM, the final date would have been moved up for that reason; there is no information at all regarding the intended date.

This is just your speculation.
He became aware of Mary’s preganancy. There is no evidence that their peers thought it was anyones baby but Joseph’s. That would have been the normal assumption since they were married.

Therefore, no speculation regarding when Joseph was due to come for Mary helps, here. All we have is: Joseph had not come for Mary. There was no intent to come for her for AT LEAST three months after the annunciation, or for however much longer it took for Mary’s state to become a problem…and Joseph was not prepared to come for her at all, until an angel told him to do so. That’s it. That’s what we have.

We have that the the Angel said not to be afraid to take Mary his wife into his house. It is more likely than not that it was the normal conclusion of the marriage. There is after all no statement that he concluded the second part of the marriage early. It is not there. The indication is the oppisite.

We also have the matter of Jewish marriage customs, which indicate at least a year’s betrothal…and absolutely no information about when she became betrothed to Joseph…or how old Joseph was, or what the situation was. Zip. Zero. Nada.

A years betrothal. Yes. Joseph took her into his home which would indicate that the betrothal was over. Unless you have some information that preganancy would cause that time to be shortened, we must assume that the year was over.

All speculation regarding these issues seems to have come about because it was decided that SINCE Mary was a Perpetual Virgin, THEN all these writings means–that she was a perpetual virgin. It’s working backwards from the conclusion.
.

This is your conclusion and speculation working backwards from the conclusion.

[Evidently not…her state was brought to Joseph’s notice by those very ‘contemporary people,’ after all.

And your proof? The only thing they would have concluded was that Joseph was the father. There is no evidence that their peers thought it was anyones baby but Joseph’s. That would have been the normal assumption since they were married. If not, they would have stoned her.
Elvis posted scripture Luke 4:22 and John 6:42. of what the people thought.
[/quote]

 

[Dokimas]

Admonishing the unruly is a Chief Work of Mercy (1 Thess. 5:14) friend.

I have yet to see you respond positively to being admonished.

 

[david_ruiz]

david ruiz;7073968:

:nope::nope::nope::nope::nope::nope::nope:
1: innocent of unlawful

sexual intercourse
We are all called to be chaste. Those who honor their marriage vows and only have relaitons with their spouses are chaste. Your definition is not correct.

Why would they leave Jesus behind?
They would travel in caravans. The men were seperated from the women. The children depending on there age would either go with the men or the women. If they were underage, they would be with the women.
Jesus we are told was 12. This age was considered the breakpoint of manhood. A ceremony would have occured while in Jeruselm to honor this mile stone in Jesus’ life. More than likely the trip up to Jersulem He would have been expected to go with Mary. The trip home Joseph would not have been use to Him being with him and assumed He was with His mother as was customery. Mary on the other had would have assumed He was with His foster father to mark the change in His life. It was not until the caravan stopped for the night that this error was discovered.

Thank-you -maybe misread definiton .yours is #1 ,but had celibate (obstaining from sex) and remaining virgin as #2 meanings.Thanks for info on the left behind story .Makes sense,but ,if you add the many children scenario to it ,it is even more plausible.Thanks

 

[dianaiad]

Yet you make conclusion that just isn’t there. You conclude she was not a virgin all her life. It seems its ok for you to look at what is there and make a conclusion but you don’t look at all that is there only a part.

Actually, no, I don’t. In NO post have I ever made a catagorical declaration that she was not. The most I have said is that the probabilities are that she was not–that there isn’t any evidence to prove that she was. I think it unlikely, given that she was married and all–and that I see absolutely no evidence to prove that she remained a virgin, but I make no absolute claim in the matter. IT’s barely possible…but I see absolutely no evidence for it, nor any reason why it would have been desirable for her to be so.

To repeat myself. You cannot know or conclude conclusively, in fact the evidence is to the contrary, that Mary had other children.

I see as much evidence for as against, adrift; the plain language used seems to indicate other children; in fact, to make it seem that these plain words don’t mean that…indeed, that ‘brethren’ actually means ‘cousins,’ and all the other fiddling around to make it look like those verses say something other than what it looks like they say, seems like ‘backwards engineering,’ to me.

But even if she did not have other children that would not be conclusive evidence of virginity. All we have is Mary and her claim that she does not have sex. In fact, the only thing we have that Mary conceived of the Holy Spirit is her word.

First, what we have is a claim from Mary that she does not have sex (and had not had any) at the specific time the angel is talking to her. It really does look to me as if any claim that Mary MEANT that she was permanently a virgin is forcing the meaning past reality…but we do indeed have her word that she concieved by the aid of the Holy Ghost. This is rather plainly written in scripture, and accepted as such. As you say, we don’t have anything else about Mary and her future marriage and possible children in that scripture. We have…zip.

So we can’t draw any conclusions, but only figure probabilities according to standard practices.

This is just your speculation.
He became aware of Mary’s preganancy. There is no evidence that their peers thought it was anyones baby but Joseph’s. That would have been the normal assumption since they were married.

Matthew said that 'she was found with the child of the Holy Ghost" 'before they came together." (speaking of Joseph.) The next verse reads that Joseph, 'being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily." Certainly there is no hint that he considered completing the marriage with her.

Mary 'was found with." Not ‘Joseph discovered that—" She was "found with,’ at which time Joseph had a decision to make. According to the laws of the time, they were :have her stoned, have her ‘put away,’ or claim the baby as his own and ‘come for’ her. Mary didn’t tell him. She was ‘found with.’

According to Matthew, before the angel gave him his marching orders, the only thing he was considering was putting her ‘away,’ or (because of the language used, regarding his being a just man) the other one, stoning; the option of completing the marriage was not even in his head.

This isn’t speculation, adrift…it’s right THERE. I don’t quite know what Mary was thinking (if she was…she was in quite a state and certainly could be pardoned for figuring that if God got her into this mess, He could get her out of it…which, of course, He did). Perhaps she figured that telling Joseph wasn’t her problem.

to be cont…

 

[dianaiad]

cont…

We have that the the Angel said not to be afraid to take Mary his wife into his house. It is more likely than not that it was the normal conclusion of the marriage. There is after all no statement that he concluded the second part of the marriage early. It is not there. The indication is the oppisite.

There’s no indication of this either way, except that the child born to a woman who was merely ‘espoused’ rather than ‘come for,’ was not viewed well. It was considered to be a declaration by the man that the child wasn’t his. Women in this situation generally got stoned; the Judaic rules on this matter were somewhat similar to Islamic rules regarding this stuff today.

A years betrothal. Yes. Joseph took her into his home which would indicate that the betrothal was over.

Obviously. It means the betrothal was over, It says nothing at all about the period of time it was supposed to last, or DID last.

Unless you have some information that preganancy would cause that time to be shortened, we must assume that the year was over.

No, you cannot make that assumption. There is nothing in Jewish history or law that states that a year MUST pass. In fact, the period of time is always expressed in terms of 'about…" the purpose of the time being for the Groom to get his act together, or for the woman to grow up enough, or for the wedding celebrations to be organized…there is no exact time requirement.

However, there is quite a problem with a woman giving birth during that period of time, and not having the groom ‘come for’ her before the birth. So…

nope, we can’t use this as any indication that the 'year was up." Shotgun wedding, adrift…or in this case, a ‘sword point’ wedding–one that Joseph had to have a visit from a Heavenly Angel to contemplate at all.

And your proof? The only thing they would have concluded was that Joseph was the father. There is no evidence that their peers thought it was anyones baby but Joseph’s. That would have been the normal assumption since they were married. If not, they would have stoned her.

That was utterly up to Joseph. They WOULD have, if he had decided to deny paternity and not spirit her out of there to prevent it. The decision was utterly his to make.

Elvis posted scripture Luke 4:22 and John 6:42. of what the people thought.

That was 33 years later, adrift–and of course, Joseph claimed paternity. That’s the only way he could save Mary’s life.

 

[david_ruiz]

Hi david ruiz - I really appreciate your commentary on this topic. You have provided some interesting points to discuss.
As far as Numbers 30, I will provide the following link as I feel it provides a good explanation: thesacredpage.com/2008/03/biblical-basis-for-marys-perpetual.html

Also, I found it interesting in the book St. Patrick of Ireland by Philip Freeman that the author explains the role of virgins in the early Church in Ireland (sometime around the late fourth century or after):
"When Patrick began to convert the daughters of Ireland, especially those of the nobility, to Christianity, he ran headlong into Irish customs and tradition. An Irish maiden- and she had to be virgin for a proper marriage-was a most valuable asset to any father wishing to improve his lot in life. The strategic marriage of a king’s daughter could even settle border disputes, increase a tribe’s land, or end years of bloody hostility.
One of the most engaging passages in Patrick’s letters tells of such a daughter:

*One of these Irish women was of noble birth-full grown and quite beautiful really-whom I had baptized. A few days after this, she came to me with something important on her mind. She said that an angel from God had appeared to her and told her she should become a virgin of Christ if she wanted to be closer to God. Thanks be to God-six days later she joyfully and wholehearedly chose that path which all virgins of God take. *

This is interesting because it was considered a normal decision for a religious woman to take a vow of celibacy. Obviously in the case of Mary she was married, however, it appears women were consecrating themselves to God as requested by Him.

I feel that the ECF make a good case for the perpetual virginity of Mary and that they were offended by those who taught otherwise.

As far as apparitions go - I know they can seem pretty hard to believe. I am currently reading about the Blessed Mother’s apparitions in Kibeho in Africa. It is hard to imagine the events as they are being described! However, one must wonder how the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe was made and how it has survived this long. Also, the pictures and the testimony of the hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, who saw Mary in Zeitoun, Egypt (and in other locations as well). How can this be? We cannot discount the many, many people of all religions who have seen her!

Thanks.did read a lot from that sight.One catholic had same concern as mine, that there are no examples in bible to show Numbers as being for sexual abstinence.There is also such a thing as a temporary vow…The Saint Patrick example to me may be a tainted example ,in that it is at a time when , I believe, celibacy and monastacism started to pickup .However, there are some strong statements in the new testament for devoting yourself wholly to the Lord (Corinthians). Normally the Spirit must lead in that direction ,so the angel visitation (Ireland) takes the whole thing off the board for me Again,this is way after the Virgin Mary,so it may not pertain to shedding light.on Mary’s spiritual culture .In fact ,I think Mary’s culture taught her that child-rearing was esteemed just as high ,or even higher than say serving at the temple. …Again .the aparitions I believe ARE real ,and the things seen by people are real .I just do not think they are the real Mary.There are other sites that discuss this .Sorry i can not be more charitable with it.

 

[adrift]

adrift;7074196:

Thank-you -maybe misread definiton .yours is #1 ,but had celibate (obstaining from sex) and remaining virgin as #2 meanings.Thanks for info on the left behind story .Makes sense,but ,if you add the many children scenario to it ,it is even more plausible.Thanks

I have problems with the many children scenario. The women and men did not travel together. It wouldn’t have taken a day to realize that a child wasn’t with you unless you thought that child was with someone else. It was a whole day before Jesus was discovered missing. It really isn’t more plausible at all. My opinion is that it is a less viable option especially since there are no children mentioned. That in itself is oddity if the reason He was left were other children.

 

[adrift]

Exactly. We don’t know. Therefore we can’t make conclusions regarding information that simply isn’t there. Remember; I’m not the one MAKING such a conclusion. It is those who claim that Mary remained virgin all her life who are.

You are making the conclusion that she isn’t despite your protest. Her question remains strange for a woman who is married. Even if she were in the betrothal stage. That Joseph was told by the angel to take her into his home is telling him to complete the marriage is undisputed. It doesn’t alter that what Mary asked of the angel was strange. It is my opinion that unless you were trying to deny her pv that it would be obvious what her question meant only going backward from a conclusion gives us the crooked answers seen here.

That was 33 years later, adrift–and of course, Joseph claimed paternity. That’s the only way he could save Mary’s life.

So it wouldn’t be seen as proof that he wasn’t the father.

Matthew said that 'she was found with the child of the Holy Ghost" 'before they came together." (speaking of Joseph.) The next verse reads that Joseph, 'being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily." Certainly there is no hint that he considered completing the marriage with her.

Mary 'was found with." Not ‘Joseph discovered that—" She was "found with,’ at which time Joseph had a decision to make. According to the laws of the time, they were :have her stoned, have her ‘put away,’ or claim the baby as his own and ‘come for’ her. Mary didn’t tell him. She was ‘found with.’

According to Matthew, before the angel gave him his marching orders, the only thing he was considering was putting her ‘away,’ or (because of the language used, regarding his being a just man) the other one, stoning; the option of completing the marriage was not even in his head.

This isn’t speculation, adrift…it’s right THERE. I don’t quite know what Mary was thinking (if she was…she was in quite a state and certainly could be pardoned for figuring that if God got her into this mess, He could get her out of it…which, of course, He did). Perhaps she figured that telling Joseph wasn’t her problem.

I am confuse why you wrote this. What point were you making? I said

There is no evidence that their peers thought it was anyones baby but Joseph’s. That would have been the normal assumption since they were married.

What you wrote doesn’t dispute my post. The neighbors were not going to Joseph and saying Mary is pregnant by another man. In fact, there is no description of how Joseph found out about Mary’s pregnancy other than the found with. Which the greek word means to discover. " I don’t understand why you made that point. I didn’t say that he discovered, I said he became aware of. Why you find a big difference I am curious to know.