Church of Christ teaches Jesus had siblings?

[JonNC]

Nor does anything in the NT prove that Mary did not remain ever virgin. However, history provides more detail.

Protoevangelium of James

An important historical document which supports the teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity is the Protoevangelium of James, which was written probably less than sixty years after the conclusion of Mary’s earthly life (around A.D. 120), when memories of her life were still vivid in the minds of many.

According to the world-renowned patristics scholar, Johannes Quasten: “The principal aim of the whole writing *Protoevangelium of James] *is to prove the perpetual and inviolate virginity of Mary before, in, and after the birth of Christ” (Patrology, 1:120–1).

To begin with, the Protoevangelium records that when Mary’s birth was prophesied, her mother, St. Anne, vowed that she would devote the child to the service of the Lord, as Samuel had been by his mother (1 Sam. 1:11). Mary would thus serve the Lord at the Temple, as women had for centuries (1 Sam. 2:22), and as Anna the prophetess did at the time of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:36–37). A life of continual, devoted service to the Lord at the Temple meant that Mary would not be able to live the ordinary life of a child-rearing mother. Rather, she was vowed to a life of perpetual virginity.

However, due to considerations of ceremonial cleanliness, it was eventually necessary for Mary, a consecrated “virgin of the Lord,” to have a guardian or protector who would respect her vow of virginity. Thus, according to the Protoevangelium, Joseph, an elderly widower who already had children, was chosen to be her spouse. (This would also explain why Joseph was apparently dead by the time of Jesus’ adult ministry, since he does not appear during it in the gospels, and since Mary is entrusted to John, rather than to her husband Joseph, at the crucifixion).

According to the Protoevangelium, Joseph was required to regard Mary’s vow of virginity with the utmost respect. The gravity of his responsibility as the guardian of a virgin was indicated by the fact that, when she was discovered to be with child, he had to answer to the Temple authorities, who thought him guilty of defiling a virgin of the Lord. Mary was also accused of having forsaken the Lord by breaking her vow. Keeping this in mind, it is an incredible insult to the Blessed Virgin to say that she broke her vow by bearing children other than her Lord and God, who was conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit.

Early Protestants on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

Martin Luther (1483-1546)

“Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb…This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.”

“Christ…was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him…I am inclined to agree with those who declare that ‘brothers’ really mean ‘cousins’ here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.”

“A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ…Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity.”

“Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity…When Matthew says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her…This babble…is without justification…he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.”

Luther, in his typical and sometimes hyperbolic way:

Helvidius, that fool, was also willing to credit Mary with more sons after Christ’s birth because of the words of the Evangelist: ‘And he knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born Son.’ This had to be understood, so he thought, as though she had more sons after the first-born Son. How stupid he was! He received a fitting answer from Jerome.

Its that last line that seems important as I look at the issue from a Lutheran perspective. Not simply that Luther believed it, but most throughout the history of the Church.

Jon

 

[SteveVH]

Yes, and here is why they are wrong:

Explaining the “Brothers” of Jesus

Because neither Hebrew nor Aramaic (the language spoken by Christ and his disciples) had a special word meaning “cousin,” speakers of those languages could use either the word for “brother” or a circumlocution, such as “the son of my uncle.” But circumlocutions are clumsy, so the Jews often used “brother.”

The writers of the New Testament were brought up using the Aramaic equivalent of “brothers” to mean both cousins and sons of the same father—plus other relatives and even non-relatives. When they wrote in Greek, they did the same thing the translators of the Septuagint did. (The Septuagint was the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible; it was translated by Hellenistic Jews a century or two before Christ’s birth and was the version of the Bible from which most of the Old Testament quotations found in the New Testament are taken.)

In the Septuagint the Hebrew word that includes both brothers and cousins was translated as adelphos, which in Greek usually has the narrow meaning that the English “brother” has. Unlike Hebrew or Aramaic, Greek has a separate word for cousin, anepsios, but the translators of the Septuagint used adelphos, even for true cousins.

You might say they transliterated instead of translated, importing the Jewish idiom into the Greek Bible. They took an exact equivalent of the Hebrew word for “brother” and did not use* adelphos* in one place (for sons of the same parents), and anepsios in another (for cousins). This same usage was employed by the writers of the New Testament and passed into English translations of the Bible. To determine what “brethren” or “brother” or “sister” means in any one verse, we have to look at the context. When we do that, we see that insuperable problems arise if we assume that Mary had children other than Jesus.

If you are going to quote Karl Keating then you should give him credit, even if part of it is paraphrased.

 

[LEMAITRE]

I

** as opposed to the Gospel writers, Paul, and other NT authors and ECFs from the first two centuries who fail to mention Mary’s perpetual virginity? At least opposition, absence, appearance and then apostleship establish James’ conversion…nothing in the NT establishes Mary’s alleged PV**.

Does the exclusion of the words ‘perpetual virgin’ in Sacred Scripture assume that Our Lady ISN’T a PV? Or does the exclusion assume that she IS a PV?

Fortunately, Catholics do not follow the ‘Bible alone’ method. We also follow Sacred Tradition and Tradition has always held the view that Our Lady is a PV.

From ancient times the Church has taught that Jesus, conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit, was the only son Mary had, and that she maintained her virginity all her life. Pope St. Siricius said that God the Father reserved the womb of the Blessed Mother solely for his only-begotten Son. St. Ambrose and St. Thomas Aquinas assigned a spiritual meaning to Ezekiel 44:2: “This gate is to remain closed; it is not to be opened for anyone to enter by it; since the Lord, the God of Israel, has entered by it, it shall remain closed.” Mary is the gate, and Jesus was the only one to enter it.

 

[Randy_Carson]

If you are going to quote Karl Keating then you should give him credit, even if part of it is paraphrased.

Some of my posts are heavily documented as to source material. Others are not.

It’s partly about speed and partly about how much I think the audience can handle.

Some people simply ignore posts with footnotes and quotes because they won’t read “cut and paste” material…even if it has the exact answer they are looking for.

I play it by ear.

 

[Radical]

Of course it could have, but the Saul/Paul conversion is reported. Why not an important event like James?

whether it is cousin James or brother James, his conversion isn’t mentioned…I don’t see why absence of mention pushes it to cousin James. From the NT we know James converted…from the NT we don’t know Mary remained a virgin

 

[JonNC]

whether it is cousin James or brother James, his conversion isn’t mentioned…I don’t see why absence of mention pushes it to cousin James. From the NT we know James converted…from the NT we don’t know Mary remained a virgin

And we don’t know that she didn’t. And the vast history of the Church has believed she did. again, not enough to make it de fide. Certainly enough to believe she did.
The Formula of Concord confirms it under the article on the Person of Christ. Fitting.

Jon

 

[Miriam1947]

This was posted on another site. Same discussion we are having here.

Re: the argument; There was no word for cousin

Luke 1:36
And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

Luke 1:58
And her neighbours and her cousins heard how the Lord had shewed great mercy upon her; and they rejoiced with her.

This is from Luke and I believe he was a greek so maybe that explains the cousin word?

 

[Radical]

Nor does anything in the NT prove that Mary did not remain ever virgin.

well, she was betrothed and the NT bothers to make it clear that she remained a virgin until Christ was born…the universal expectation in that culture would be for a pregnant woman to be a non-virgin…hence the NT clarification. The universal expectation in that culture would be for betrothed woman to have sex with her husband…hence the significance of the absence of any NT claim to the contrary.

However, history provides more detail.

Protoevangelium of James

An important historical document…

the Protoevangelium is an ancient work, but it isn’t accurate by any means…and that testifies to the strength of your claim…the first record of it is from a fictional account

… which supports the teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity is the Protoevangelium of James, which was written probably less than sixty years after the conclusion of Mary’s earthly life (around A.D. 120), when memories of her life were still vivid in the minds of many.

the protoevangelium isn’t that early

According to the world-renowned patristics scholar, Johannes Quasten: “The principal aim of the whole writing *Protoevangelium of James] *is to prove the perpetual and inviolate virginity of Mary before, in, and after the birth of Christ” (Patrology, 1:120–1).

 

[po18guy]

whether it is cousin James or brother James, his conversion isn’t mentioned…I don’t see why absence of mention pushes it to cousin James. From the NT we know James converted…from the NT we don’t know Mary remained a virgin

The bible is not complete and tells us so in many places. It was never intended as a complete resource or a complete record. John tell us that it cannot be, no matter its length. At the time, the Apostles were more concerned with preaching to the rapidly expanding Church. Such details as the Trinity and various others, came much later.

Big picture: Mary declared herself to be the Bond Slave of the Lord. Does that actually mean something?

 

[jrtrent]

Big picture: Mary declared herself to be the Bond Slave of the Lord. Does that actually mean something?

I believe it was part of Mary’s statement that she was willing to submit to the plan that Gabriel had told her about, to be a servant of God in the carrying out of His will.

“Behold, the bondslave of the Lord”

Notes: Mary refers to herself as a doule, which is the female form of “servant” or “slave.” The word means “female servant.” Paul often used the masculine form (doulos) to refer to himself (e.g., Rom. 1:1). Hannah had referred to herself in the same way when beseeching God to grant her a son (1 Sam. 1:11). In all humility Mary submits herself to the Lord, as an inferior to a superior. orlutheran.com/html/luk126.html

 

[Randy_Carson]

well, she was betrothed and the NT bothers to make it clear that she remained a virgin until Christ was born…the universal expectation in that culture would be for a pregnant woman to be a non-virgin…hence the NT clarification. The universal expectation in that culture would be for betrothed woman to have sex with her husband…hence the significance of the absence of any NT claim to the contrary.

Nope. This argument fails.

Matthew 1:24-25: Until she brought forth a son

Matthew 1:24-25
24When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son.

The word *until *here just says what happened up to the time of Christ’s birth. It doesn’t imply anything about what happened after that, although our modern use of the word until seems to imply that. For an example of this, look at 2 Samuel 6:23, which says, “Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death.” We’re obviously not supposed to assume that she had children after she died.

Other Examples of “Until” That Do Not Require Cessation of Action

Genesis 8:7
The raven “did not return TILL the waters were dried up…” Did the raven ever return?

Deuteronomy 34:6 (Knox)
No one knew the location of his grave “until this present day” But we know that no one has known it since that day either.

1 Maccabees 5:54
“…not one of them was slain TILL they had returned in peace.” Were Judas Maccabeus and his troops killed when they returned?

Luke 1:80
“And the child grew and became strong in spirit; and he lived in the desert until he appeared publicly to Israel.” The Greek word translated “until” in this passage is heos, the same word used in Matthew 1:25. The child spoken of is John the Baptist who, after as well as before he appeared in public, resided in the desert (cf. Matt. 3:1, Mark 1:3,4; Luke 3:2).

Romans 8:22
“…the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together UNTIL now.” Is it still groaning?

1 Corinthians 15:25
“For He must reign TILL He has put all enemies under His feet.” After all enemies are put away, will Christ be reigning?

Ephesians 4:12-13
“…for the equipping…for the work of ministry… for the edifying…TILL we all come to the unity of the faith…” Once we become unified, will equipping, ministry, and edification still be necessary?

Hebrews 1:13
To which of the angels did God ever say, ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet’”? After that time, the angels (or Jesus) could get up again?

1 Timothy 4:13
“Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching.” After I arrive you won’t need to do any of those things?

1 Timothy 6:14
“…that you keep this commandment without spot, blameless UNTIL our Lord Jesus Christ’s appearing…” When Jesus comes back, we should disobey these commandments?

Revelation 2:25-26
“But hold fast what you have TILL I come. And he who overcomes and keeps My works UNTIL the end, to him I will give power…” Should we stop holding fast and stop obeying when Jesus returns?

 

[Randy_Carson]

the Protoevangelium is an ancient work, but it isn’t accurate by any means…and that testifies to the strength of your claim…the first record of it is from a fictional account

Uh…no…it testifies to the ANTIQUITY of the belief that Mary remained ever-virgin. And isn’t it interesting to note that we have no record of objection to the idea that Mary remained ever-virgin? In other words, if EVERYONE knew that Mary had lots of kids besides Jesus, why was there no written record of anyone debunking this idea when it “first” appeared in the Protoevangelium?

Because everyone knew Mary’s perpetual virginity was a fact, that’s why. :yup:

And that’s why the Protoevangelium was preserved and held in high esteem…precisely because it was an accurate presentation of the faith of the Church - even if it was not inspired canonical scripture.

the protoevangelium isn’t that early

You have something earlier that claimes that Mary did NOT remain a virgin? :nope:

Perhaps you might consider and comment (in a meaningful way) on the following:

Jerome on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

“[Helvidius] produces Tertullian as a witness [to his view] and quotes Victorinus, bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian, I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proven from the gospel—that he [Victorinus] spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship, not by nature. [By discussing such things we] are . . . following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against [the heretics] Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man.”

This quote is taken from chapter 19 of St. Jerome’s work, “Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary—a work written in A.D. 383 in response to the teaching of Helvidius who denied that Mary had remained a virgin throughout her life.

In this passage, Jerome states that Ignatius of Antioch (d. A.D. 107), Polycarp of Smyrna (d. A.D, 155), Justin Martyr (d. A.D. 165) and Irenaeus of Lyons (d. A.D. 202) all held that Mary was ever-virgin. It is especially important to note that both Ignatius and Polycarp were disciples of the Apostles Peter and John—a fact which ties this discussion directly to the original Twelve Apostles of Jesus.

Although the works of these men with which Jerome was evidently familiar do not survive to this day, the fact that Jerome cites them in his refutation of Helvidius provides evidence that belief in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary existed from the earliest days of the Church.

It is interesting to note that Helvidius never responded to Jerome’s refutation.

I don’t expect much of a response from you, either.

 

[pablope]

well, she was betrothed and the NT bothers to make it clear that she remained a virgin until Christ was born…the universal expectation in that culture would be for a pregnant woman to be a non-virgin…hence the NT clarification. The universal expectation in that culture would be for betrothed woman to have sex with her husband…hence the significance of the absence of any NT claim to the contrary.

…

Only in your mind and interpretation…Radical. Consider the viewpoint of Joseph:

Matt 1
19 Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet[e] did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

Joseph has wanted to leave Mary.

20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus,[f] because he will save his people from their sins.”
22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”[g] (which means “God with us”).

An angel just tells Joseph otherwise.

If you were in Joseph’s shoes, after an angel tells you this…and you realize that Mary is holy and favoured of God…and she is carrying a child of the Holy Spirit…a special child…from God…would you be thinking of sex after the birth of the Child? Would you even dare to defile the woman and have carnal relations with her?

 

[po18guy]

I believe it was part of Mary’s statement that she was willing to submit to the plan that Gabriel had told her about, to be a servant of God in the carrying out of His will.

How many masters does a bond slave serve?

 

[jrtrent]

How many masters does a bond slave serve?

I’m not sure what you’re trying to imply by that question. You had asked if Mary’s referring to herself as a bondslave, or handmaiden as some translations render it, means anything. Yes, the use of that term, according to Net Bible, signifies that someone is showing humility and respectful self-depreciation in the presence of great men, prophets and kings. It was entirely appropriate as part of Mary’s showing a willingness to submit to and follow the plan Gabriel had told her about. I don’t think there’s any further import to the word.

 

[shreek]

it seems one has to be from the Middle East to understand this

yes there is no specific word for cousin in aramaic, as well as Syriac and even Arabic.

to this day, let alone 2,000 years ago, we constantly refer to cousins as brothers or sisters.

It is even applied to non-cousins.

it is a very common bonding word that not only includes cousins but friends.

 

[Radical]

Uh…no…it testifies to the ANTIQUITY of the belief that Mary remained ever-virgin. And isn’t it interesting to note that we have no record of objection to the idea that Mary remained ever-virgin?

you mean like Tertullian?

And that’s why the Protoevangelium was preserved and held in high esteem…precisely because it was an accurate presentation of the faith of the Church - even if it was not inspired canonical scripture.

high esteem? it was rejected by Aquinas, Jerome, popes Damasus, Innocent I and Gelasius (Summa Theologia, Third Part, Question 35, Article 6, Reply to Objection 3 and Perry’s Mary for Evangelicals p 128) Both Jerome and Aquinas viewed the Protoevangelium as being in conflict with scripture…hardly the type of work that should be the launch pad of a dogma.

Perhaps you might consider and comment (in a meaningful way) on the following:

Jerome on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

“[Helvidius] produces Tertullian as a witness [to his view] and quotes Victorinus, bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian, I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proven from the gospel—that he [Victorinus] spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship, not by nature. [By discussing such things we] are . . . following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against [the heretics] Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man.”

Here is what Jerome had to say about Tertullian (In On Illustrious Men):

Tertullian the presbyter, now regarded as chief of the Latin writers after Victor and Apollonius, was from the city of Carthage in the province of Africa, and was the son of a proconsul or Centurion, a man of keen and vigorous character, he flourished chiefly in the reign of the emperor Severus and Antoninus Caracalla and wrote many volumes which we pass by because they are well known to most. I myself have seen a certain Paul an old man of Concordia, a town of Italy, who, while he himself was a very young man had been secretary to the blessed Cyprian who was already advanced in age. He said that he himself had seen how Cyprian was accustomed never to pass a day without reading Tertullian, and that he frequently said to him, Give me the master, meaning by this, Tertullian. He was presbyter of the church until middle life, afterwards driven by the envy and abuse of the clergy of the Roman church, he lapsed to the doctrine of Montanus, and mentions the new prophecy in many of his books.

Further, let’s take some time to look at how Jerome argued for the PVM. In attacking how Helvidius used the scriptures Jerome took pains to be extremely thorough, however, when it comes to attacking how Helvidius utilized tradition Jerome’s thoroughness evaporates. Instead of dealing with the tradition in detail, Jerome resorts to a sweeping statement and a misrepresentation. Here is all that he had to say:
Now that I have cleared the rocks and shoals I must spread sail and make all speed to reach his epilogue. Feeling himself to be a smatterer, he there produces Tertullian as a witness and quotes the words of Victorinus bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proved from the Gospel— that he spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary, but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship not by nature. We are, however, spending our strength on trifles, and, leaving the fountain of truth, are following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenæus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views, and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man. But I think it better to reply briefly to each point than to linger any longer and extend my book to an undue length.
Notice how this dismissal of Tertullian contrasts with the assessment of Tertullian found in Jerome’s On Illustrious Men…seems a touch hypocritical…and it demonstrates how desparate Jerome was…he really had nothing with which to counter Tertullian

 

[Radical]

In this passage, Jerome states that Ignatius of Antioch (d. A.D. 107), Polycarp of Smyrna (d. A.D, 155), Justin Martyr (d. A.D. 165) and Irenaeus of Lyons (d. A.D. 202) all held that Mary was ever-virgin.

Further, in On Illustrious Men, Jerome described the works of Ignatius:
he wrote one epistle To the Ephesians, another To the Magnesians, a third To the Trallians, a fourth To the Romans, and going thence, he wrote To the Philadelphians and To the Smyrneans and especially To Polycarp, commending to him the church at Antioch.
WRT the works of Polycarp, Jerome only mentions one:
He wrote a very valuable Epistle to the Philippians which is read to the present day in the meetings in Asia.
so…it would seem that Jerome had access to the very same works from Ignatius and from Polycarp that we still possess…and yet Jerome wants to array Ignatius and Polycarp et al against Helvidius? Quite likely we can attribute Jerome’s failure to produce good tradition in support of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary and his misrepresentation concerning the support of Ignatius and Polycarp (for his position) to the terrible/absolute lack of long-standing tradition (ie 1st and 2nd century stuff) for the PVM

It is especially important to note that both Ignatius and Polycarp were disciples of the Apostles Peter and John—a fact which ties this discussion directly to the original Twelve Apostles of Jesus.

got any good source for this claim….not that it matters so much…seeing as we know that their works didn’t support the perpetual virginity of Mary as Jerome claimed…guess when one has nothing, one has to make things up

Although the works of these men with which Jerome was evidently familiar do not survive to this day,…

wrong… as shown above, we have them

… the fact that Jerome cites them in his refutation of Helvidius provides evidence that belief in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary existed from the earliest days of the Church.

the fact that Jerome had to fudge it and claim what didn’t/doesn’t exist shows he had no good tradition to fall back on.

It is interesting to note that Helvidius never responded to Jerome’s refutation.

and you know this how?

]I don’t expect much of a response from you, either.

wrong again…

 

[Radical]

Nope. This argument fails.

rather it is your understanding of the argument that fails…

The word *until *here just says what happened up to the time of Christ’s birth.

and I didn’t say otherwise

It doesn’t imply anything about what happened after that,…

actually, one can rightly infer that sexual intercourse happened thereafter…it isn’t just the use of “not until”…it is the use of the imperfect tense for “to know”….the translation should be “he was not knowing her until”….this coupled with the expectation that a man has sexual intercourse with his wife (w/o any denial of such) makes it a very solid assumption/inference…

Other Examples of “Until” That Do Not Require Cessation of Action

you need one with the verb in the imperfect tense and the expectation of society for a cessation…got any of those?

Big picture: Mary declared herself to be the Bond Slave of the Lord. Does that actually mean something?

yes, it means that she would be obedient…and given her obedient nature, she would have likely fulfilled her obligations as a wife and had sex with Joseph

Only in your mind and interpretation…Radical. Consider the viewpoint of Joseph: Joseph has wanted to leave Mary.

yes, b/c he thought that she had been unfaithful…

An angel just tells Joseph otherwise.

and?

If you were in Joseph’s shoes, after an angel tells you this…and you realize that Mary is holy and favoured of God…and she is carrying a child of the Holy Spirit…a special child…from God…would you be thinking of sex after the birth of the Child?

probably…it was something married people did

Would you even dare to defile the woman and have carnal relations with her?

this is a very odd question…I thought that sex between married partners was a wonderful thing….a very nice gift from God and not something that defiled the female participant. Do Catholic husbands think that their wives are defiled by sex?

 

[pablope]

Originally Posted by po18guy
Big picture: Mary declared herself to be the Bond Slave of the Lord. Does that actually mean something?