Consistency Error with Mary's Virginity

[stupidisasstupiddoes]

It only takes COMMON SENSE to conclude that a

vessel that bears the very Person of the Lord of Hosts

should be pure, spotless and undefiled

There’s nothing impure and defiled about people that have sex, your mother had sex you know.

 

[GLam1761]

Yes, my mother was, and is, a very clean
living woman, but that isn’t what God says
in the Bible, if you care to examine Gen 34:5,
and also the restrictions of Levites only to
marry virgins who have not been “defiled”,
you would understand what GOD considers
a clean vessel.

 

[stupidisasstupiddoes]

It’s funny when people can only support their arguements with bad interpretations of english translations of Jewish texts. Defile is clearly a negative word, i don’t think God would make it impossible for us to go forth and multiply in anything but a negative context. Are you actually a member of the Catholic church - you know the most pro-family organisation on the face of the planet.

 

[RedFan]

This strikes me as a good argument for Mary’s virginity at the time of the birth of Christ (i.e., He required a “clean vessel”), but not an argument for her later virginity. How could her later sexual relations have soiled the vessel of His birth?

 

[GLam1761]

You have a good point there, but there seems
to be a NT connection to this too!
Jesus in talking about the Kingdom of God, in
Mt. 22:30, indicating that the Spiritual value
of virginity.

 

[GLam1761]

Mary, just like Jesus, is Eternally unchanging
being the mother OF GOD, not of anyone else!!

 

[RedFan]

Mary, just like Jesus, is Eternally unchanging
being the mother OF GOD, not of anyone else!!

What possible reason do we have to posit that Mary is “eternally unchanging”? God alone is immutable. It is heresy to attribute immutability to any other Being.

I’m not disagreeing with you about Mary’s perpetual virginity. But not for the reason you posted.

 

[stupidisasstupiddoes]

I’m not denying the value of virginity, i just object to negative words used for an essential act that creates families and bonds husbands and wives

 

[GLam1761]

Okay, touche, you scored a point about attributing an
attribute of God to Mary. But how can she be a mother
to children after the flesh AND our Spiritual Mother, too?
Her role in heaven is to dispense all graces, to be the
Mediatrix from the foot of the Cross, if she had borne
physical children, then her focus is not KEEN!!

 

[Elf01]

Matthew 13:55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

James, Joses, Simon and Judas, some claim, are the other children of the Virgin Mary and therefore brothers of Christ.

They neglect the following verses:

Matthew 27:56

Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, …

We know this is not the Virgin Mary because there is another Mary who is kin to the Virgin Mary AND is frequently in the company of Mary Magdalene:

Agreed that James and Joses in Matthew 27 are not the sons of Mary the mother of Jesus, but what is the evidence that they are the same James and Joses mentioned in Mathew 13?

Whether St. Elizabeth is of the line of Levi is not mentioned. But it is doubtful since she is Mary’s cousin.

Actually it is

there was a priest named Zechari′ah,[d] of the division of Abi′jah; and he had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.

Luke 1 RSVCE - - Bible Gateway

RSVCE

 

[thistle]

Did a search. Coudn’t find a reference to a source document.

It matters whether the custom you posit was enjoined by 1st century religious authorities, or was simply a civil custom. While Jesus was not shy about deviating from either variety (which automatically makes any argument against step-brotherhood from Jesus’ admonishment to John quite weak), if this particular custom was purely civil it would make the argument that much weaker.

I will see if I have time to search for you.
In the end we will never know for sure about step siblings.The Protoevangelium of James is an interesting document but the Church does not consider it inspired.
Personally, the custom reasons make sense to me so I take the view Joseph was not a widower who had children before marrying Mary.

 

[De_Maria]

Agreed that James and Joses in Matthew 27 are not the sons of Mary the mother of Jesus, but what is the evidence that they are the same James and Joses mentioned in Mathew 13?

It seems a great deal of coincidence that those same three are mentioned over and over and would not be the same individuals.

Matthew 13:55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

Matthew 27:56 Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedees children.

Mark 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

Mark 15:40 There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome;

Whether St. Elizabeth is of the line of Levi is not mentioned. But it is doubtful since she is Mary’s cousin.

Actually it is

there was a priest named Zechari′ah,[d] of the division of Abi′jah; and he had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.

Luke 1 RSVCE - Dedication to Theophilus - Inasmuch as - Bible Gateway
RSVCE

Good one. Thanks.

So, we know that Mary is from the line of David. Thus, Elizabeth is not her cousin (sister) by blood relationship.

Interesting. Back to the drawing board, as they say.

 

[Elf01]

So, we know that Mary is from the line of David. Thus, Elizabeth is not her cousin (sister) by blood relationship.

Mary and Elizabeth could have been related on her mothers side.

I believe that she is a descendant of David but don’t think that’s stated in scripture. Do you have a reference?

 

[po18guy]

Forget conventional wisdom here. Forget a Catholic defense of Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Look to the Orthodox!
Look to Luther!
Look ti Calvin!
Look to Zwingli!
Look to each and every one of the reformers!

All believe/believed in her perpetual virginity.

What in hell (literally) has gone wrong with bible Christianity that they would attack Mary, when Satan himself cannot! From the interview:

Interviewer: Does he have more respect for Mary than for God himself?

Fr. Barrajon: Apparently. Otherwise no holds are barred, and everyone is insulted: the priests, everyone present, the bishops, the Pope, even Jesus Christ. But never the Virgin Mary. It’s an enigma.

Have they been duped by the serpent?

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

So, we know that Mary is from the line of David. Thus, Elizabeth is not her cousin (sister) by blood relationship.

Mary and Elizabeth could have been related on her mothers side.

I believe that she is a descendant of David but don’t think that’s stated in scripture. Do you have a reference?

Some say that St. Luke’s geneaology is Mary’s. Other than that, no.

 

[Benadam]

Was “the custom in those days” for the son(s) of a deceased man and his first wife to step up and take care of their stepmother? Got a cite for that?

Not just a deceased man but the wife of their father. That’s how it would have been seen legally in those days.

 

[Mintaka]

If anything or anybody has ever been consecrated for the use of God, you can’t use it for any normal use. You can’t. It’s a very standard Biblical principle. Usually, you can’t even touch them except in a sacred way, or without special consecration yourself.

David and his men were permitted to eat the Presence Bread (like the priests did) when they were starving, but first they had to assure the priest that they were in the same state as a priest performing the rites – ritually clean, and not having had sex recently. (1 Samuel 21)

Look at the story of the Temple vessels that were taken to Babylon by Judah’s conquerors. Some of them were left in the temples of false gods, which was shocking and bad to the Jews. But after King Nebuchadnezzar died, his son used them as common drinking vessels for the king of Babylon – and that was why God took his kingdom away and gave it to others. (Daniel chapter 5)

(And in fact, this sort of thing is usually considered shocking by pagan historians. Putting some other god’s stuff in your local temple to show that your gods were better than the other side’s gods – that was normal, but using god stuff for human use was either a claim to be a god, or an insult to all gods.)

Mary was more intimately involved with God than any priest. She became the Holy of Holies for nine months, and her entire body was permeated with God’s presence. She nourished Him with her blood. She gave Him breastmilk in His babyhood. She fed and clothed Him as a child and an adult. She gave Him her life, and He gave her eternal life.

So ultimately, it’s not about sex being dirty (which it’s not) or ritually unclean (which doesn’t affect Christians). It’s about Mary having given herself totally to God as His mother and the mother of His Son. For her to give herself to any other man in a bodily way, or to have any other bodily children, would be to deny the reality of those months, or the eternal life of God – as if she were a widow who could remarry! As if God were dead!

Israel sometimes cheated on God.

Mary was the faithful daughter of Zion. She did not cheat on Him.

 

[joeybaggz]

One thing that seemingly does not get mentioned (or is downplayed) in questions/discussion such as these that refer to Scripture is that of language. Jesus (and presumably his mother) spoke ancient Aramaic. The gospel writers wrote to different audiences and it is logical to assume that they wrote to those audiences in their native tongue. I.E. Luke wrote to the Greeks/gentiles, thus he wrote in Greek; Matthew on the other hand wrote to the Jews, hence, Hebrew, Mark wrote to the Romans, probably Greek with Latin references, and John wrote to everyone in the developing Church. Our scriptures are an English translation of an earlier English translation or Greek, Hebrew and ancient Aramaic languages. There are words used that are approximations of what was said and spoken earlier. That’s the problem with translation or transliteration.
Suggest we all just accept the teaching of the Magesterium and move on to more important things, such as, can the Pittsburgh Steelers beat the New England Patriots, assuming they get by the Jacksonville Jaguars?

 

[HarryStotle]

I think people tear themselves up in knots trying to reconcile erroneous statements in the bible. It contradicts itself!! It’s a bunch of things that were spoken for a long time, mainly in Aramaic, then put into Greek / Hebrew / Latin by people who never met Jesus, copied and possibly edited along the way and then translated into English. How can anyone possibly expect it to be perfect!?

I suppose it would be far better to trust the Gospel accounts than a bunch of things put into writing 2000 years after the fact by someone we are certain never met Jesus, who has no idea how things actually worked back then but still insists that he knows the fine details about how “those things” back then were actually passed on by the Apostles and their disciples. How can anyone expect YOUR version of “it” to be perfect?

I know I remain unconvinced.

Matthew and John knew Jesus, personally. Luke and Mark knew Peter who knew Jesus. A number of the early Church Fathers who quoted and wrote about the Gospels were disciples of John or several of the other Apostles, or at least knew others who were.

There is a well-established chain of custody regarding the Gospels traceable directly to three Apostles – John, Matthew and Peter – and an evangelist, Luke, who specifically tells us that he went directly to eyewitnesses to get their stories and accurately record them.

Your account is far more “imperfect” and unreliable than the Gospel accounts. :male_detective:t2: