How do I argue that Mary did not have other children?

[nguyencongbinh]

Mt 1:18 gave us the following facts:
tou de iesou christou hê genesis houtôs ên
mnêsteutheisês tês mêtros autou marias tô Iôsêph prin
ê sunelthein autous
heurethê en gastri echousa ek pneumatos hagiou.

1. The Lord Jesus Christ’s birth in deed occurred as follows:

• His coming - in that Mary (in time#1A) in her womb having a Child from God The Holy Spirit,  was fully made known (heurethe) to Joseph ( in time#1B)

before (prin) Mary, His Mother, get engaged to Joseph, (in time#2) as well as before (e) the day ( time#3) they lived together,

See my post #33: The Birth of Jesus was clearly made known (heurethe) to Joseph.
Joseph was requested to adopt Jesus The Holy Child as his son and to become Mary’s husband. Joseph immediately obeyed God’s Will. Mary was espoused to him (this ritual1 was called aras or Kiddushin),
Joseph’s holiness however caused him to think over and over of his role. The holy man disqualified himself. He fell into a big terrifying fear. He thought of withdrawing. The angel came to him. The Word Of The Lord raised him up.
He obeyed and celebrated the ritual2 called onah, or Nisuin taking Mary and the Divine Child into his home to finalize the marriage and they lived together .
These were the facts given by Matthew in Mt1:19 and 20.
**Iôsêph de ho anêr autês, dikaios ôn
kai mê thelôn autên deigmatisai,
eboulêthê lathra apolusai autên-
tauta de autou enthumêthentos **

Word by word: Joseph in deed the husband of her - holy (man) being
and he not choosing her grossly-and-wrongfully defamed/disgraced
he wished in his deep heart/secretly run away/dismiss her
Those things in deed he well-having-thought of-

Nova Vulgata from Our Mother The Church:
**
19 Ioseph autem vir eius cum esset iustus
et nollet eam traducere,
voluit occulte dimit¬tere eam.
20 Haec autem eo cogitante
**
Word by word: Joseph in deed the husband - As he was holy
And he did not want her shamefully disgraced/vilified
He wished in his own heart dismiss her
Those things to him he was thinking of.
(A paraphrased rough draft)
**19. A holy man Joseph her husband was.
To grossly and wrongfully humiliate (deigmatisai, traducere ) her and the HOLY CHILD, he did not want.
And in his deep heart he desired to withdraw (apolusai dimittere) from her and the HOLY CHILD.
20. Deeply thinking over these issues he was
(to continue or not to continue acting as Jesus’ legal and stepfather and Mary‘s husband)….
Look- the angel of YHWH The Lord…
**
Mt 1:18 and 1:19 explained to me The Salvation Program had been well planned. Matthew evaluated the deep respect Joseph had paid toward Jesus and Mary before the Holy Family was built. Knowing Who Jesus was, who Mary was, He suffered because his own holiness disqualified him from his chosen role. I am not a theologian. only read what was written as an ancient text with grammar the same way I read Cicero or Caesar. .
Yet, until recently before Nova Vulgata was published by John Paul II, I had mistakenly read and believed in the weird stories telling me Joseph did not know anything until he saw Mary pregnant. Angry, and as a just man, he thought of stoning Her to death. He was however compassionate but determined anyway to divorce her. The poor Mary and Her Son fortunately escaped death until the angel arrived. Joseph thus became the patron saint of divorced people. I was deadly wrong and I am very shameful that I had so believed. .
May I request all of you to ascertain the facts in Mt 1:18 and Mt 1:19. Can we avoid to wrongfully defame Joseph, Mary and Jesus with our imagination of nonsense and untrue facts we created to ourselves?
NguyenCongBinh50@yahoo.com

 

[unacanta]

I would disagree with your last point because of the Following
If Mary had other children then the divinity of Christ is in serious question. If Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit then no way would Joseph be intimate with Mary. That would be an abomination. We Catholic’s from the ECF’s understood this
and have defended this point.
There was never a shortage of people who wanted to disprove Chirst’s Dininity.

Who ever would say that a woman is not pure by having children? Her moral fabric or righteousness should never be questioned because of an act of bearing children but rather quite the opposite. Christ devinity should and never is questioned by the action of man or woman. Mary would not have to lead a sinless life in order for Christ to be whom He is. Surely we don’t mean to say actions of mankind determine if Christ is God or not?

The 1st century Jewish woman was only validated and of worth if she were able to bear children. She was not able to own property, participate in politics, hold any office within the Temple nor teach men in any manner. Where is it an immoral act to have children? Was she not married? We can of course explore scripture which proves she was, however considering the audience here, I don’t think it necessary

It would never be an abomination for Joseph to be intimate with Mary but quite the opposite. It would be a very natural and humanistic act. I suppose if one believes Mary to be something more than mortal, that she too is in the realm of godhood, then I could understand.

I am not making slight of Mary but rather the very elevated position RCC teaching has placed her. The Teaching Magisterium has lead the Church into an almost idol worship of Mary.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

I was speaking with a person of another religion who told me that the blessed mother had other children and that the Catholic Church covers that up.

He quoted a vs. in Matthew. I am sure this is a typical case of people that misinterpret scripture. How do I argue that she did not?

He also argued that praying to Mary was wrong. I said, "Can I not ask my mother to pray for me? People misinterpret our religion all the time which is why I love learning ways to clear up their confusions.

I tend to shy away from ever starting “in the middle” of debate or discussion on such topics with non-Catholics for the plain and simple fact that before I can make a decent case (and I feel I can, when I speak in unison with the Church’s thinking) about such issues as the Immaculate Conception, perpetual virginity, confession, indulgences, and the whole laundry list of concearns laid at my feet by non-Catholics when I self-identify as a “Catholic without qualification”. Yes, I am, I readily offer, one of those “Catholics who believes it all.”

Before being dragged into the quagmire of quote-hurling and being put squarely into the turf of folks whose ecclesiology and approach to scripture is so radically different than that of the Catholic faith, it is good to start out by establishing where you are coming from. My approach to scripture as a Catholic is NOT “The bible is the mother of the church” but rather “The Church is the mother of the Bible.” Before being dragged into a debate by someone demanding “Where does it say that in the Bible?!?!” I need to make certain we are on the same ground and ask “Where in the Bible does it say it has to say that in the Bible?” “Where does authority come from to interpet these things?”

I grant that some Evangelicals and the like are going to first need to hear that the Catholic Church even offers answers to these questions, and so offering them to prove we are not confounded by them is good and reasonable. That is not to say that they will be “won over” by them, they just need to know we CAN answer the questions…

Really before becoming engrossed in such a debate, it needs to be determined where you both stand on the value and weight that is to be offered from the Bible/patristics/academic sources/church traditions, etc.

Otherwise a viscous cycle of ***“The Bible says the Pope is a heretic!” ***versus "The Pope says you are a heretic!" starts to play out, to no edifying end.

OK, just my 2¢ - likely obvious to all others, but it took this simpleton YEARS to figure it out.

 

[jimmy85]

I really like this work fo St Jerome (the church father that translated the bible into latin)
he gives a well detailed explanation on this subject due to an heresy that was taking place that was trying to debunk Mary’s perpetual virginity.

The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary

 

[Timmy_Z]

If Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit then no way would Joseph be intimate with Mary. That would be an abomination. We Catholic’s from the ECF’s understood this
and have defended this point.

How is a man starting a family with his wife an abomination?

Scenerio: My wife gives birth to the Second person of the Blessed Trinity. The Holy Spirit overshadows her and she conceives the eternal Word giving Him flesh so that He might dwell (pitch His tent) among us. Given all of biblical typology whereby anything occurring in the Old Testament is fulfilled in Christ and is brought to glorification in Christ and is elevated in Christ then here’s the following:

1. I can have sexual intercourse in the same canal that God passed through and hope for children that are infinitely lesser than the child that my wife previously gave birth to.

1. I can perhaps realize that something HIGHLY unusual took place and that we are no ordinary parents and my wife is no ordinary person. (No ordinary person carries God in her womb for nine months) So I resovle to treat her as Highly and as favorable as God does and love her for who she was eternally chosen to be. In my Jewish knowledge of Scripture I would know what happened to Uzzah when he merely touched the Ark of the Covenant (which carried the written Word of God) and what might happen to me should I “touch” (have intercourse with) the Ark of the New Covenant. (Who carried the Living Word of God)

But Mary isn’t a wooden box. She was human with a husband. How would the intercourse of a husband and wife be sinful?

Marital sex isn’t wrong.

-Tim

 

[nguyencongbinh]

I really like this work fo St Jerome (the church father that translated the bible into latin)
he gives a well detailed explanation on this subject due to an heresy that was taking place that was trying to debunk Mary’s perpetual virginity.

The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary

Thanks Jimmy85. The Old Vulgata of St Jerome was very good but it was written when the punctuating rule had not been in use. It was copied down and some words, some lines including punctuation marks were added or omitted. Our Mother The Church then reviewed it and we had the Clementina Vulgata. Again, there were many issues to be settled and pope St Pius X as well as his successors as pope Pius XII wished a better version be produced. Thanks to Vatican II, Nova Vulgata came to us by Paul VI and John Paul II. Nova is now the official text of the Church and is declared editio typica (the mother text). It’s in Latin so probably not many people may find pleasure in reading it. It’s however a treasure. All versions of Vulgata were the product of individual. Nova is from the popes themselves with the help of a group of bishops.

It’s interesting that Matthew 1: 1-25 of St Jerome Old Vulgata is reproduced in Nova Vulgata - with one addition: **a new set of punctuation marks. ** In order to avoid confusion, I only mentioned Nova in my posts.

 

[zografou]

The following thread also *addresses *this subject…
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=200527

I hesitate to say argue, in that it is enough to speak the Truth without strife, but with care, compassion and concern, leaving the rest it in the Hands of The Lord…a sower went out to sow his seed…

“Arguing”, tends to end far from the mark and goal of its intention… and in their zeal, the parties involved may even forget Who else is present and witnessing each word, thought and action…said or unsaid…done or undone…