Hank and Mary's Virginity

  • Thread starter Thread starter JackPaul
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Dadof9:
Where were these siblings when Jesus hung on the cross? Jewish tradition would have His siblings look after Mary, the Mother. Why would He tell John to take care of her, if there were other sibs? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
This has been a very powerful argument for me when I talk with people about the perpetual virginity of Mary. I’ve also used the point already presented in this thread about the word until not implying any given action after the point in question. But the Mary and John argument seems much more persuasive to people I talk to.
 
40.png
Charles:
This has been a very powerful argument for me when I talk with people about the perpetual virginity of Mary. I’ve also used the point already presented in this thread about the word until not implying any given action after the point in question. But the Mary and John argument seems much more persuasive to people I talk to.
Click to expand...
To add to this, most Protestants who poh pooh the perpetual virginity of Our Lady believe she was the mother of at least one of the James mentioned elswhere in the NT. Both of these James were pillars of the early Church. If this James who was the supposed son of Mary went on to become a great saint, why would Jesus even temporarily give her into John’s care?

A final aside, no where in the Gospels does it specifically say that Mary had other children. You hear no one except Jesus called the son of Mary.
 
This is just my silly way of thinking, but there is no way, and I mean no way, that I would fool around with the mother of the Christ who was concieved by the power of the Holy Spirit while she was a virgin. Absolutly no way. She is way too special for me. I would think that Joseph, a man that we know was upright and holy, a man who God spoke to in dreams, might have felt that way. He probably saw himself as a protector to two people much holier, important to salvation, than he was. Besides, why do we have to think that people have to have sex? Is restraint that difficult of a concept to our separated brothers (there is that brother word again).
 
40.png
JackPaul:
Hank explained that Mathew 1 clearly implies (ain’t that an oxymoron?) that Mary and Joseph had marital sex… “He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus”.
Click to expand...
Regardless of the proper understanding of the greek “eos” (until), you should ask yourself what Matthew’s intent is in this passage. Is it as Hank believes, to provide us with intimate details of the sexual relationship supposedly had by Joseph and Mary after the birth of Jesus (despite such knowledge having absolutely no bearing on the message of the Gospel), or is it simply to inform us that Jesus was not conceived by Joseph?

The answer should be plain.

John.
 
Let’s not forget that Joseph knew that Mary was with child by the Holy Spirit. As a Jewish man, there ain’t no way he would touch the Theotokos (God-bearer) carnally after what happened to the man who touched the Ark of the Covenant to keep it from falling to the ground in the OT. (He was struck dead.)

This point is thanks to Rosalind Moss when she came to our parish a few years back!

In Christ’s peace and joy,
 
Mary was under a vow of virginity that she intended to continue. The proof of this is in Lk 1 when she responds to the angel telling her she will bear a child. She obviously “knows” how this would happen since she answers, how can this be since I do not know man. She understands the physical process. The only way her answer makes any sense if she did not intend to have sexual relations. Now it makes sense, how can this be since I do not know man ( and I have vowed not to). Mt 1 tells the annunciation from the prespective of Joseph. Why? Not only to make him believe but also to show his accecptance of the vow Mary has takes. “Let it be done”. Now with this framework read Numbers chap 30. Joseph took Mary into his house as a wife while she was under a vow of virginity, he accecpted this vow.
If he had sexual relations with her afterward, he and she would have been guilty of sin under the Jewish Law. You could argue that these two very pious people, who had each been visited by God, who were chosen to be the “parents” of God in Jesus would break the Law after the birth. Not very likely.
 
If Jesus has not risen from the dead, then surely the bone / relic hunters of the early centuries would have savored His remains.

Likewise, if Mary had other children, they would have been exhalted and held in high regard. There would be stories passed on by them, etc.

So far, we have only one (fake) bone box discovered a year or two ago alleging siblings of Jesus (which was a common name, they tell us, anyway).

The peace of Christ be with you
 
Many people in this thread mentioned that Mary took a vow of virginity which, in fact, she did.

Her mother, Anne, lamented that she was barren. She prayed to God for a child and promised, that if she bore a child, she would bring the child back to God for service in the Temple. Anne kept her promise and brought Mary (around age 3) to the Temple for consecration.

When she became older and certain events of puberty transpired the elders saw fit to give her a “guardian” and Joseph - the widower - was chosen by lot. He was much older than Mary and had children from a previous marriage. When she was found with child, the eders brought Joseph in and asked him why he had committed sacrilege. Joseph knew that defyling a “temple virgin” was not keeping God’s law. Also, she had been “overshadowed” by Holy Spirit which is strict marriage language. You do not touch another man’s wife! Mary was the bride of the Holy Spirit!

Jesus, Mary and Joseph were no ordinary family so they could not be expected to act as one! Joseph was a God fearing Jew and besides - she had given birth to GOD! She was sacred - he dared not “touch” her in that way!

You can read the story of Mary by someone who knew her and her family - James - see the Protoevangelium of James. I think you can find it either at Catholic Answers or at New Advent.
 
Check out the dictionary.com definitions for brother here: dictionary.reference.com/search?r=67&q=brother. It ain’t just us Catholics with the weird definition for brother.

You can also search these forums for good info about how the reformers viewed Mary. It wasn’t just us Catholics back then either.

It’s strange how Protestants’ criticise so much the Pope’s power, as if he is on a whim, going to change his mind about the past 2000 years. They have reduced Mary, along with the rest of the saints, to insignificance.
 
Here’s a link that tears dowm the “Matthew 1” arguement or I should say demolishes it with the old ‘Apostolic Slugger’! Never again will it bother you for you will see just has plain silly this arguement is…sorry Hank!

catholic-legate.com/articles/heoshou.html
 
If you read those passages on their face it does say what the Prots thinks that it says!

I agree with all the posts showing Mary’s perpetual virginity. What I question is the Bible. The passages Protestants quote…“until she bore a son” and “the brothers of Jesus” are very misleading and very inacurate. I don’t blame the Prots for being confused.

Greek or Aramaic must be a very primitive language to not have a different word for brother or cousin. It must be very unsophisticated in the use of the word 'until". I find this linguistic argument totally unsatisfying. The Bible has the word “propitiation” but not a word for “brother”. Give me a break.

I think the manuscript(s) is wrong. St Augustine admitted faulty manuscripts and said that unclear things in the Bible are a test of Faith. I agree. But it is understandably misleading to Prots. They would have to become Catholic to believe it.
 
40.png
JackPaul:
Ok, I admit I am a new guy. I would like to be a defender of the faith and I am trying to align my ducks to do so. However, I have been repeatedly bashed by a Sister In law who insists that Mary and Joseph had other children. I know the Catholic translation argument that says that there were no direct translations for the word cousin and that James and others could have been Jesus Cousins or close friends. It is really hard to sell this to my hard headed/hearted sibling. Today, some nice gentleman called our only Christian radio station and asked Hank Hanagraph to get the straight scoop on this very issue. Hank explained that Mathew 1 clearly implies (ain’t that an oxymoron?) that Mary and Joseph had marital sex… “He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus”. Also, that Mathew 13:55 is further evidence that he had brothers and sisters. These are the same arguments that my sister in law uses on me. They must learn these passages from their Baptist apologist website. What are effective and persuading arguments for Mary’s perpetual virginity (even though they only will be heard by those willing to hear).
Click to expand...
I suggest you read a refutation to Helvidius written by Saint Jerome in the fourth century on this issue. He does a great job proving “The Perpetual Virginity of Mary”.

“The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary”
catholicfirst.com/thefaith/churchfathers/volume29/jerome2919.cfm

This is probably the best article on the issue, partly because it was written by one of the early church fathers and shows what they teach about it.
 
No disrespect intended guys but I cannot believe that I’m hearing arguement over the context of the word “brothers” in a Catholic forum!

We’ve all heard of the Christian “Brothers”, yes? or Dominican “Brothers” or Salesian “Brothers” I could go on.

Did any of you see the movie Military Intelligence, starring Danny DeVito? Remember the poem that goes “we few, we band of brothers…”?

Have any of you served in the military and spoken of your “brothers” in uniform?

The definition of the word “brother” includes that of a male sibling. However, it is not exclusively that. Brothers can be familial, social, fraternal.

Also, it was common practice of Jesus’ time to call adult men of the same familiy group “brothers”, even if they biologically were cousins, half-brothers, adopted into the clan, whatever.

The “brothers” arguement is something that our anti-Catholic brethren (word used deliberately) use to divide us, get us arguing over something unimportant.

IMHO :twocents:
 
40.png
JackPaul:
Ok, I admit I am a new guy. I would like to be a defender of the faith and I am trying to align my ducks to do so. However, I have been repeatedly bashed by a Sister In law who insists that Mary and Joseph had other children. I know the Catholic translation argument that says that there were no direct translations for the word cousin and that James and others could have been Jesus Cousins or close friends. It is really hard to sell this to my hard headed/hearted sibling. Today, some nice gentleman called our only Christian radio station and asked Hank Hanagraph to get the straight scoop on this very issue. Hank explained that Mathew 1 clearly implies (ain’t that an oxymoron?) that Mary and Joseph had marital sex… “He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus”. Also, that Mathew 13:55 is further evidence that he had brothers and sisters. These are the same arguments that my sister in law uses on me. They must learn these passages from their Baptist apologist website. What are effective and persuading arguments for Mary’s perpetual virginity (even though they only will be heard by those willing to hear).
Click to expand...
The term “Until”, was often used in the Bible. Let us take a look at some examples cited by a well known Catholic Apologist Phil Porvaznik:

Sam 6:23 – Michal “had no children TILL the day of her death.” Question: Did she have children after she died? NO!

1 Macc 5:54 – “…not one of them was slain TILL they had returned in peace.” Was Judas M and his troops killed when they returned? NO!

John 4:49 – “Sir, come down BEFORE my child dies!” Did he die? No!

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

Luke 1:80 – John the B “was in the deserts TILL the day of his manifestation to Israel.” Did John the Baptist stay in the desert? Yes ! (cf. Matt 3:1; Mark 1:3-4; Luke 3:2-4)
1 Cor 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? Yes.

Eph 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? Yes!

1 Tim 4:13 – “TILL I come, give attention to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.” When Paul arrives, no more reading, no more exhorting, no more doctrine? No!

1 Tim 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? No!

Rev 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? No!

Therefore, the phrase “He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus”, did not automatically mean they had relations after she bore Jesus!

Gerry 🙂
 
40.png
Dadof9:
Where were these siblings when Jesus hung on the cross? Jewish tradition would have His siblings look after Mary, the Mother. Why would He tell John to take care of her, if there were other sibs? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
The only ones at the feet of the cross where the only ones who had perfect love for Jesus Christ. Where were all the apostles? It was called FEAR. Perfect Love casts out all fear.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top