Jesus' brethren and Mary's Virginity

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catilieth
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Catilieth

Guest
The Protestant belief that Joseph did not not honor Mary’s perpetual viginity has always bothered me. If the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary, and she conceived of the Holy Spirit, that is, in a very real sense, the “marital act”…the Holy Spirit impregnated her. Mary is a Virgin bride, chosen from all eternity to be the spouse of the Holy Spirit, to be the Mother of God. What could be more beautiful?
Since God is eternal and immortal, and the Holy Spirit was not the person who died on the cross (and besides, the Protestant belief is that Jesus had sibling before he started his ministry)…if Mary had “relations” with Joseph, would that not make her a bigamist? Or was she fornicating when she conceived Jesus? I do not mean this in any disrespectful sense, but that is where the logic takes me. It’s just that she can’t have 2 spouses (in the sense of “knowing”), and she can’t take a second if the first is still living.
I understand and fully agree with the Churches perpetual teaching on Mary’s Virginity.
My question is with modern day Protestants that say that Mary had other children by Joseph. How do they rationalize 2 spouses…
Do they deny that Mary was ever the Spouse of the Holy Spirit? She would have had children by 2 different persons, the Holy Spirit and then Joseph. How do they get around the fact that that would require either “fornication” (albeit in a spiritual sense with the Holy Spirit in that they did not “have sex”…that’s the Ever Virgin part, but she was impregnated in a very physical sense) or bigamy (2 spouses).
 
This is such an interesting question. I don’t know that the question would come up for a Protestant, although I wish it would.

Since the understanding Protestants have of terms like “overshadowed, impregnated, knowing and relations” are all limited by their personal understanding of Scripture, I don’t know that they would even understand the question. I would love to explore the question broken down into very simple terms. I just don’t know what those simple terms might be.

I agree that if she was overshadowed by The Spirit that this somehow connotates a relationship of some kind. Women Religious for centuries were referred to as a “Bride of Heaven.” Since Mary is their original role model it would hold that Mary was indeed also a Bride of Heaven. This would then follow that sexual relations with Joseph would constitute a second husband.

I never liked it when Joseph was referred to as Jesus’ step-father. I preferred the term that Joseph fostered Jesus and was therefore a foster father. Step-father sounds like the first relationship failed or that the first Father was deceased. I wonder if that might help the approach without leading to some sort of misunderstand of Mary’s sinless behavior.

Your point definitely says that it is the Catholic perspective that holds Mary free from sin, while the Protestant perspective somehow implies that Mary had two “spouses.”

I don’t know. It would be interesting to hear from some converts who now have a devotion to Mary for their perspectives.
 
40.png
Catilieth:
Mary is a Virgin bride, chosen from all eternity to be the spouse of the Holy Spirit, to be the Mother of God.
Click to expand...
Protestantism is much more of a textually-based belief system than is Catholicism. The Bible is taken as the only authoritative text. It does not describe Mary as the Spouse of the Holy Spirit, and so Protestants are given no reason to believe that she was.

Also it should be noted that, first, Jesus was not conceived through coitus per se (as is implicitly acknowledged by the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity), and so the ‘marriage’ was never consummated, and that, second, were Mary actually ‘married to’ the Holy Spirit, should would have been committing bigamy by marrying Joseph, whether or not they had sexual relations :bigyikes: :
Can. 1085 §1. A person bound by the bond of a prior marriage, even if it was not consummated, invalidly attempts marriage.

§2. Even if the prior marriage is invalid or dissolved for any reason, it is not on that account permitted to contract another before the nullity or dissolution of the prior marriage is established legitimately and certainly. (Canon Law)
 
I agree that there was no marriage ceremony therefore no “legal marriage”. But the act of impregnating is most definitely that of the spouse. If there had been coitus in conceiving Jesus, she would not have been ever Virgin, but none the less, she had consecrated herself to God in the same sense that a bride consecrates herself to her husband.Consecrated so fully that it was fertile. Jews understood that sort of consecration, and consecrated virgins were often “married” in order for them to have a guardian. It was understood to be a guardianship giving the husband legal rights to provide and protect the consecrated virgin. It was expected that he respect the sacred vows she was under.

That was in a large part the source of the great scandal that arose from Mary becoming pregnant.
 
I have asked a question similar to yours. What I ask is, when is it proper for a woman to bear the children of two different fathers? It is proper if the first father dies, and it may be proper if the first father abandons the woman and her children. Now, the real question is, did God die? Did He abandon Mary and Jesus?
 
Exactly my point. Although it was also pointed out that perhaps the protestant view is that her relationship with the Holy Spirit was not a spousal one. I contend that impregnating is spousal, and that since the first spouse had not died, the second was not allowed except in the role as guardian.
I also point out that husband has more than just a marital meaning, it also means to provide and care for, such as animal husbandry or to husband resources. Spouse has more of a marital definition in the sense of union.
 
40.png
Catilieth:
she had consecrated herself to God in the same sense that a bride consecrates herself to her husband.Consecrated so fully that it was fertile. Jews understood that sort of consecration, and consecrated virgins were often “married” in order for them to have a guardian. It was understood to be a guardianship giving the husband legal rights to provide and protect the consecrated virgin. It was expected that he respect the sacred vows she was under.
Click to expand...
As is clear particularly in Matthew, but also in Luke, these were the conditions which existed between Mary and Joseph.

As mentioned, had Mary married anyone else, including the Holy Spirit, she would have been committing bigamy when she married Joseph. We have the assurance of the Gospel writers that she married Joseph, but nothing so sure regarding any wedding to anyone else.

I would suggest that the term “Spouse of the Holy Spirit” is a purely metaphorical one.
 
Then, if Joseph was her only spouse(and never the Holy Spirit), we have a different problem. If a woman conceives a child by anyone other than her spouse, then by definition the child is a bastard. If Mary’s relation to the Holy Spirit was not spousal, then her first born would be a bastard.
How do you get around that one?
 
40.png
Catilieth:
Then, if Joseph was her only spouse(and never the Holy Spirit), we have a different problem. If a woman conceives a child by anyone other than her spouse, then by definition the child is a bastard. If Mary’s relation to the Holy Spirit was not spousal, then her first born would be a bastard.
How do you get around that one?
Click to expand...
I do not, nor should I wish to.

I am quite certain that the family’s neighbours knew when Mary and Joseph had married, and also knew how old the child was. I am also certain that they could count to nine. It is commonly held that the Pharisees’ question “Where is your father?” in John 8:19 is a reference to this.

God loves us all, regardless of the conditions of our birth.
 
The Catholic Church does not have “to get around” it because it holds that the relationship between Mary and the Holy Spirit is spousal and therefore Jesus is the legitimate son.
But several posts have said that the relationship was not spousal…so in that case, how do they explain away illegitimacy? We must take into account that always God had been careful in observing rightly the laws of His people, which is why Jesus was circumcised and why He was baptized, etc. (They were, afterall, his own laws).
That the people of Nazareth had counted to nine was obvious, both in Joseph’s need to take a young woman in her ninth month on a journey ( only the head of household was **required ** to go to register) and in the people’s statement when Jesus returned home to preach and they said “Is this not Mary’s son?”. In the Eastern cultures, not to mention the father’s name was tantamount to calling him a bastard.
Still, I return to my position that if the relationship between Mary and the Holy Spirit was not spousal, you must admit to saying that her son was born a bastard.
 
40.png
Catilieth:
Still, I return to my position that if the relationship between Mary and the Holy Spirit was not spousal, you must admit to saying that her son was born a bastard.
Click to expand...
Jesus was born out of wedlock. While I prefer the less-offensive term “illegitimate”, the situation remains the same.

Were the relationship between Mary and the Holy Spirit spousal, either God divorced her, or she committed bigamy when she married Joseph. Which do you prefer?
 
What do you mean by spousal? That the Holy Spirit was married to Mary? This is blasphemous. Mary was the unwedded bride.
 
since this thread has to do with Mary’s virginity, I have a question.
Mary gave birth to Jesus as a virgin, but why did she have to stay a virgin afterwards. Jesus was concieved of a virgin birth, i believe this with all my heart, but I do not understand why it is said that she had to be a virgin here whole life. Could you please explain this to me… I am curious… 😃
Yours in Christ Warrior4Truth.
 
WHy did she remain virgin?

Well, first of all, if she gave birth to Jesus, the Son of God, then she is fully His mother, right? And Jesus is the Son of God.

Now. . .the next child comes along. Son of Mary and, one presumes, Joseph. So. . .what happened with God, then? Was Mary just some “vessel” to be used and then dropped, “ok, go on with your REAL life now”?

I do not think so.

Aside from the problems involved, as one poster says, with having Jesus the legitimate son of Mary and of God (and BTW He was NOT BORN OUT OF WEDLOCK. . .Mary and Joseph were betrothed and were wed by the time of the Nativity). . .and then, whoop-la, well, next come sons and daughters who are Mary and Joseph’s, with no “God” in the picture. . .

If you gave birth to the son of God, wouldn’t you feel that your life should be spent in the service of God? Would you ADD ON an “extra” in the form of sexual relations with a spouse that you had, in the first place, been betrothed to AS A CONSECRATED VIRGIN? They weren’t supposed to have relations in the first place.

Do you remember where Gabriel approaches Mary and tells her she will bear a child? If Mary has been betrothed to Joseph with the idea that they will have sexual relations, wouldn’t her obvious annswer be, “Oh, so Joe and I are gonna have a boy?” INSTEAD she answers, “But HOW can this be since I HAVE NO RELATIONS with a MAN?” She KNOWS she is virgin, she knows she has vowed to be a virgin. . .

She is a virgin, she planned to stay a virgin, and she DID stay a virgin.
 
Tantum ergo:
WHy did she remain virgin?

Well, first of all, if she gave birth to Jesus, the Son of God, then she is fully His mother, right? And Jesus is the Son of God.

Now. . .the next child comes along. Son of Mary and, one presumes, Joseph. So. . .what happened with God, then? Was Mary just some “vessel” to be used and then dropped, “ok, go on with your REAL life now”?

I do not think so.

Aside from the problems involved, as one poster says, with having Jesus the legitimate son of Mary and of God (and BTW He was NOT BORN OUT OF WEDLOCK. . .Mary and Joseph were betrothed and were wed by the time of the Nativity). . .and then, whoop-la, well, next come sons and daughters who are Mary and Joseph’s, with no “God” in the picture. . .

If you gave birth to the son of God, wouldn’t you feel that your life should be spent in the service of God? Would you ADD ON an “extra” in the form of sexual relations with a spouse that you had, in the first place, been betrothed to AS A CONSECRATED VIRGIN? They weren’t supposed to have relations in the first place.

Do you remember where Gabriel approaches Mary and tells her she will bear a child? If Mary has been betrothed to Joseph with the idea that they will have sexual relations, wouldn’t her obvious annswer be, “Oh, so Joe and I are gonna have a boy?” INSTEAD she answers, “But HOW can this be since I HAVE NO RELATIONS with a MAN?” She KNOWS she is virgin, she knows she has vowed to be a virgin. . .

She is a virgin, she planned to stay a virgin, and she DID stay a virgin.
Click to expand...
Does it not say in the bible that Jesus had brothers?
 
In some translations yes, just in the same way I can call you brother, or just meaning cousin. It has been understood by Christianity until fairly recently to mean it this way. Once in a while there would be people coming up with their own ideas such as Helvidius.

Catholics look at the Bible with the understanding of the faith handed on by the apostles, that is where we get the belief that Mary was ever virgin.

There is a good refutation of one of the first people to try and assert that bretheren meant actually Mary’s other kids. This is written by Jerome who translated the Bible into the Vulgate.

ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-06/Npnf2-06-08.htm
Enjoy the read it, is fairly short about 12 or 13 pages. 🙂

God Bless
Scylla
 
40.png
Warrior4Truth:
Does it not say in the bible that Jesus had brothers?
Click to expand...
The word used to denote Jesus’ “brothers” in Hebrew could also mean somebody’s step-brothers, half-brothers, male cousins, nephews, uncles, or other males who lived in your same household, as well as very close male friends I think. This is why the word “brother” here has too broad a meaning to say it would have to be referring only to male siblings. Also, there was no Hebrew word for “cousin” that they could have used. Even though there is a Greek word for “cousin”, the NT writers didn’t use it here because they were using the Jewish vernacular of the time, in which the Greek word for cousin would not have been used by a Jew in referring to his or her own cousins anyway - instead, they would have still used the word for “brother”.
 
Three more reasons Jesus could not have had brothers that were children of Mary and Joseph:
  1. Obviously, if Jesus was the first born of Mary and Joseph’s children, His brothers would have been younger. The position of the first born son in Jewish society was quite high; the oldest son ALWAYS took precedence. Yet in the Bible it says quite specifically that Jesus’s “brethren” were trying to, in a word, “muzzle him”. That would have been UNSPEAKABLE, for a younger brother to “discipline” or attempt to “pull rank” on an older brother. . .and it CERTAINLY would have brought comment from the townspeople, who would have KNOWN these “brothers” were YOUNGER.
  2. In the gospels, the townspeople ask, “Is this not the son of MARY. . .are not His brethren with us?” Now, if there were MORE than one SON OF MARY, why did the people say “THE son”, not “THE OLDEST SON”?
  3. When Jesus was being crucified, He told Mary, “Behold your son”–speaking of St. John the apostle, and He told John, “Behold your mother” and, right there in the bible, it says, “And the disciple took her into his home from that hour.” IF JESUS HAD BROTHERS, it would have been THEIR responsibility to care for THEIR MOTHER, and it would CERTAINLY have raised comment and needed EXPLANATION to the hundreds and thousands of people who supposedly would have KNOWN that Jesus’s “brothers”, sons of Mary and Joseph, existed.
With such compelling evidence that Jesus was the ONLY Son of Mary, why would anyone think that Mary had other children? The gospels do NOT mention any children of HERS save Jesus, nor do they mention any other children of JOSEPH.

Again, you failed to address my earlier point: Mary was a consecrated virgin who had VOWED virginity.

WHY when she was approached by the angel and told she was to bear a son did she say, “How can this be when I do not know man?” She was BETROTHED to JOSEPH and was going to MARRY him. IF she had planned on consumating the marriage, shhe would NOT have asked the angel HOW she was going to have a baby, she would have said, “So, we’re going to have a boy?” She was not an ignoramus, she KNEW how children were “made”. . .but SHE was a vowed virgin and was not going to be having children in the normal course of events.

She was a virgin, she remained a virgin. Why do you think God used her? All the verses point to “A virgin shall conceive and bear a son”. Why “a virgin”? Is God some sort of cosmic player who says, “Well, yes, I know she is betrothed to old Joe, but she is a virgin NOW, so I’ll use her and then, ah, let her and Joe just carry on?” Is that the action of a loving God? To “use” a woman and then toss her aside? I think not. And scripturally speaking, it isn’t just what I “think”. . .it is supported by scripture that Mary was and remained a virgin.
 
Again, you failed to address my earlier point: Mary was a consecrated virgin who had VOWED virginity.
Before I say anything I would like to apologize. I did not understand that you wanted me to reply to this. I understood it to be you using it to make a point. So I am sorry that I did not respond to your post.
Also, before I post a reply to your posts I ask that you give me some time to look over the things that you and others have posted so that I can have a better understanding of it, and to see what conclusions I can come up with. Then I would be glad to further discuss this topic. I do not know everything…yet… 😃 .
Any way though, I ask that you be patient with me and allow me to study the subject and the posts before I make a reply.
Yours in Christ, Warrior4Truth.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top