Jesus' brethren and Mary's Virginity

[Milliardo]

Chris LaRock:

I take it you are an athiest? They often attack the bible as being the word of man, rather than God.

No, I am not an atheist (I assume you’re referring to my post; if not, my apologies).

The bible is filled with accurate prophecies. Almost every aspect of the life of Jesus Christ was predicted in the Old Testament.

There is no disagreement in that one.

There are several scientific facts in scripture that prove it to be not of man. The Koran has historic inaccuracies and contradicts itself. Do your own research about this.

Like–which “sceintific” facts? And Muslims do acknowledge the Quran to have scientific facts as well. But we wander–how would you know the Bible to be the inspired Word of God? After all, early Christianity questioned some new Testament books to be inspired, and accepted books not found in the canon to be inspired. So, what’s your basis for this?

 

[Chris_LaRock]

LittleDeb:

No offense taken but I hesitate to remind you that if you are not Catholic you are reading a shortened Bible.

The Catholic Bible I read has a very definitive statement on Mary’s perpetual virginity. It is in the gospel of John. “Behold your mother, Woman behold your son.” Oh and I know someone is going to make me go look that up for its chapter and verse. I probably should but it is late. Someone with scripture at hand please help me.

Anyway, that was the phrase that helped a friend of mine struggling during RCIA come all the way home. She realized that there would have been no need to give Mary to John if she had other children. After realizing this one simple truth she studied the ECF in depth and learned about the Jewish laws of the time period and why Mary was a perpetual virgin.

Every Tradition a Catholic practices is in full union with Scripture. I guess it just depends on who is interpreting said Scripture.

None of that proves that she remaimed a virgin her whole life. Whether she had other children is doubtful, and doesn’t alone prove she remained a virgin if she didn’t. Women don’t always conceive after the marital act. Go back to the book of Matthew. Matthew 1:25 clearly indicates that Joseph only kept her a virgin long enough to give birth to the Lord. There’s nothing in scripture where Joseph was told never to know his wife at all. Just until Christ was born.

The fact that Protestant bibles are shorter has no bearing on this issue, since the only thing missing from the protestant bible is the apocrypha books of the Old Testament - which mention nothing of the issue of Mary’s virginity.

 

[Milliardo]

Chris LaRock:

None of that proves that she remaimed a virgin her whole life. Whether she had other children is doubtful, and doesn’t alone prove she remained a virgin if she didn’t.

You make two contradictory claims here–first you say that it does not prove Mary being virgin her whole life, then in the next instance say that it’s doubtful she had children. Wouldn’t if be fair then to say that by saying that it’s doubtful for her to have had children, then it would be more reasonable for her to have remained a virgin?

Matthew 1:25 clearly indicates that Joseph only kept her a virgin long enough to give birth to the Lord.

If we follow the Biblical use of the word “until”, it is clear that the passage is not proof at all that Joseph kept her a virgin only until Jesus’ birth. in short, the Biblical usage of that word then would dovetail perfectly with Catholic understanding of Mary aa ever-virgin.

 

[Chris_LaRock]

Milliardo:

You make two contradictory claims here–first you say that it does not prove Mary being virgin her whole life, then in the next instance say that it’s doubtful she had children. Wouldn’t if be fair then to say that by saying that it’s doubtful for her to have had children, then it would be more reasonable for her to have remained a virgin?

If we follow the Biblical use of the word “until”, it is clear that the passage is not proof at all that Joseph kept her a virgin only until Jesus’ birth. in short, the Biblical usage of that word then would dovetail perfectly with Catholic understanding of Mary aa ever-virgin.

You can’t say a woman is a virgin simply because she has no children. Females can engage in the sex act without having children, right? It’s not a contradiction.

The verse doesn’t forbid Joseph from knowing his wife indefinately. Only until she had her son.

 

[Milliardo]

Chris LaRock:

You can’t say a woman is a virgin simply because she has no children. Females can engage in the sex act without having children, right? It’s not a contradiction.

That may be true, but then in the context of those days, it would be highly unusual for a couple to go into the marital act without having children. The norm was to have children, and lots of it. So again, this really proves nothing other than speculation–you are trying to fit in a modern view into those times. It is highly inconcievable, for the modern mind, for a woman to be married and not engage in the act

The verse doesn’t forbid Joseph from knowing his wife indefinately. Only until she had her son.

No, but does that verse give permission as well for Joseph to engage in the act? Again, there is no indication at all that Joseph went through with it wih Mary. Another thing one has to contend with is the testimony of the early Church: did the early Church believe that Mary had relations with Joseph after Jesus was born? No indication that there is, so again the notion she did not remain a virgin after Jesus is highly suspect.

 

[LittleDeb]

*The Catholic Bible I read has a very definitive statement on Mary’s perpetual virginity. It is in the gospel of John. “Behold your mother, Woman behold your son.” *

John 19:26-27 (NAB)
*When Jesus saw his mother 11 and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son.” *
*27 *
*Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother.” And from that hour the disciple took her into his home. *

Anyway, that was the phrase that helped a friend of mine struggling during RCIA come all the way home. She realized that there would have been no need to give Mary to John if she had other children.

*I am coming to the realization that this may be true. She didn’t have any other children. Just a thought here that I have been mulling over. *
After realizing this one simple truth she studied the ECF in depth and learned about the Jewish laws of the time period and why Mary was a perpetual virgin.

Would you be able to provide some information on the Jewish laws that she studied? Anyone else can provide the information too. I am interested in her findings.

It has been quite a few years and I don’t remember the exact ones she studied but these have been helpful to me recently: scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html#tradition-III
Since they are written before Scripture was canonized they give me a good idea of what the Early Church taught and believed. My friend was coming from an Evangelical background and so she had only held to Sola Scriptura. She had been taught that Mary had other children as a fact. For her it was hearing one Biblical phrase that contradicted that “fact” that caused her to want to explore the idea that Scripture was never intended to be the sole rule of faith.

As to the Jewish laws themselves I will have to research and get back to you. Please PM me and remind me to try to find an online source. If I can’t I will connect with my dad in the next weeks and find out which books best tell the laws (both Roman and Jewish) of the time period.

Best of luck in your search! Please let me know if I can help in other ways. This one was a hurdle for me as a cradle Catholic since I was told by Protestant friends that I only believed in her perpetual virginity because I had been “trained” that way.

 

[LittleDeb]

Chris LaRock:

None of that proves that she remaimed a virgin her whole life. Whether she had other children is doubtful, and doesn’t alone prove she remained a virgin if she didn’t. Women don’t always conceive after the marital act. Go back to the book of Matthew. Matthew 1:25 clearly indicates that Joseph only kept her a virgin long enough to give birth to the Lord. There’s nothing in scripture where Joseph was told never to know his wife at all. Just until Christ was born.

This same site might be helpful to you as well. The author specifically addresses Matthew 1:25 here scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html#the_bvm-VIII

That he quotes the same gospel author Matthew 28:29 saying “until” means before and after in reference to “until the end of the world.” It would hold that one Gospel does not contradict itself on the usage of “until.”

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Another annotation on “until”. . .

Think about it, Chris. Here is a woman who is “betrothed” to Joseph but not yeat married to him, who finds herself “with child” in a small town (Nazareth). Every single person in that town is going to KNOW (counting out the dates) that Mary’s son Jesus was conceived BEFORE THE MARRIAGE, right? While Joseph DID marry Mary, the “father” of the child would be truly “unknown”.

Mary claimed the child was Son of God.
The angel told Joseph the child was the Son of God.

Now, IF Joseph had gone ahead and had relations with Mary BEFORE the birth of Jesus–and this would have been quite common as it is today–what would that have said about the child?

Don’t you think that people would have certainly believed more that JOSEPH was the father of the baby, if he had had relations with Mary during her pregnancy? THAT is a very good reason for the “until”–it protects Mary and Jesus.

And it ALSO does not outright say, “afterward, your choice”. If that baby was NOT Joseph’s, was indeed the Son of God, certainly it would not be right to have relations with the child’s mother during that pregnancy–equally certainly it would be wrong to have relations afterward. BUT. . .if that had been spelled out by the writers of the gospels, don’t you see that it would sparked and fueled just the sort of writings and speculations we are seeing? You may THINK that if you saw “and Joseph did not know his wife then or ever” that you would have no trouble believing in the Virgin Birth. . .but instead you would be having people complaining that since THE BIBLE SAYS that Joseph and Mary were married but they never had relations, that MARRIAGE can be allowed WITHOUT RELATIONS. . .thereby opening up the gates for gay marriages, for example!

Think about it. The average logical reasonable person had no trouble whatsoever with the concept of Mary’s Virginity–EVEN MARTIN LUTHER BELIEVED!–for hundreds and hundreds of years. Only when people elevated the WRITTEN aspect of the Word of God without adhering to the ORAL (sacred tradition), thus cutting off the COMPLETENESS of the Word, has this legalistic contortionism come about.

 

[Chris_LaRock]

Milliardo:

No, I am not an atheist (I assume you’re referring to my post; if not, my apologies).

There is no disagreement in that one.

Like–which “sceintific” facts? And Muslims do acknowledge the Quran to have scientific facts as well. But we wander–how would you know the Bible to be the inspired Word of God? After all, early Christianity questioned some new Testament books to be inspired, and accepted books not found in the canon to be inspired. So, what’s your basis for this?

The earth is a sphere - Isaiah 40:22. When dealing with disease, hands should be washed under running water - Leviticus 15:13. Air has weight to it - Job 28:25. The wind blows in cyclones - Ecclesiastes 1:6.

These are only a few scientific facts found in scripture. The Koran has some accurate and inaccurate science recorded in it, while the bible is all accurate science. I think the most compelling science is the medical and sanitation information in Leviticus. Bear in mind, nobody knew that germs existed in the days of Moses. The fact that Leviticus gives such specific advice about sanitation and cleanliness in a time when nobody knew of germs proves that the writings had to have come from a divine source - GOD.

Some believe that Mohammud had some knowledge of the Jewish scriptures before he penned the Koran. What truth that lies in the Koran were - let’s say - Borrowed from the true word of God.

 

[Chris_LaRock]

Tantum ergo:

Another annotation on “until”. . .

Think about it, Chris. Here is a woman who is “betrothed” to Joseph but not yeat married to him, who finds herself “with child” in a small town (Nazareth). Every single person in that town is going to KNOW (counting out the dates) that Mary’s son Jesus was conceived BEFORE THE MARRIAGE, right? While Joseph DID marry Mary, the “father” of the child would be truly “unknown”.

Mary claimed the child was Son of God.
The angel told Joseph the child was the Son of God.

Now, IF Joseph had gone ahead and had relations with Mary BEFORE the birth of Jesus–and this would have been quite common as it is today–what would that have said about the child?

Don’t you think that people would have certainly believed more that JOSEPH was the father of the baby, if he had had relations with Mary during her pregnancy? THAT is a very good reason for the “until”–it protects Mary and Jesus.

And it ALSO does not outright say, “afterward, your choice”. If that baby was NOT Joseph’s, was indeed the Son of God, certainly it would not be right to have relations with the child’s mother during that pregnancy–equally certainly it would be wrong to have relations afterward. BUT. . .if that had been spelled out by the writers of the gospels, don’t you see that it would sparked and fueled just the sort of writings and speculations we are seeing? You may THINK that if you saw “and Joseph did not know his wife then or ever” that you would have no trouble believing in the Virgin Birth. . .but instead you would be having people complaining that since THE BIBLE SAYS that Joseph and Mary were married but they never had relations, that MARRIAGE can be allowed WITHOUT RELATIONS. . .thereby opening up the gates for gay marriages, for example!

Think about it. The average logical reasonable person had no trouble whatsoever with the concept of Mary’s Virginity–EVEN MARTIN LUTHER BELIEVED!–for hundreds and hundreds of years. Only when people elevated the WRITTEN aspect of the Word of God without adhering to the ORAL (sacred tradition), thus cutting off the COMPLETENESS of the Word, has this legalistic contortionism come about.

I believe in the virgin birth. That is fundamental Christian truth. My disagreement is with the assertion that she didn’t carry on normal marital relations with Joseph after Christ was born. You still have not demonstrated to me where Joseph was instructed never to have relations with Mary - even after the birth of Christ. I don’t see why her virginity AFTER the birth of Christ would be warrented. It’s not like Jesus would have stopped being God in the flesh if Joseph and Mary carried out normal husband/wife relations after Jesus was born.

 

[Milliardo]

Chris LaRock:

The earth is a sphere - Isaiah 40:22

He sits enthroned above the vault of the earth–how can one even get from that verse that the Earth is a sphere? Old Testament understanding of how the Earth is do not jive with this forced interpretation of the verse.

When dealing with disease, hands should be washed under running water - Leviticus 15:13

I read that verse–doesn’t prove anything. It’s practical advice, which other cultures practice as well.

Air has weight to it - Job 28:25

Again, interesting, forced interpretation to the verse. If you go back to verse 24, it talks about God’s glory. Now, we are not belittling God’s wisdom; far from it, but to say that this means air has weight is simply silly.

[quoe]The wind blows in cyclones - Ecclesiastes 1:6.

Again, sorry. Doesn’t imply in that verse. It simply means the wind blows here, and now there. Again, you’re forcing an interpretation that’s simply not there.

Now, again, I am not saying the Bible is not true–it is, and as Christians we must profess it. But we must not mislead people into thinking that, “Hey, there are great scientific truths in there!” It becomes a source of embarrassment when one tries to make the Bible into some science book, forcing interpretations upon verses to justify this claim.

 

[Chris_LaRock]

What translation are you quoting from? That isn’t what the King James says.

 

[Milliardo]

Chris LaRock:

I believe in the virgin birth. That is fundamental Christian truth. My disagreement is with the assertion that she didn’t carry on normal marital relations with Joseph after Christ was born. You still have not demonstrated to me where Joseph was instructed never to have relations with Mary - even after the birth of Christ. I don’t see why her virginity AFTER the birth of Christ would be warrented. It’s not like Jesus would have stopped being God in the flesh if Joseph and Mary carried out normal husband/wife relations after Jesus was born.

For obvious reasons, would one defile a vessel that carried something sacred? Of course not. Mary was the vessel in which Jesus was carried. Would Joseph dare defile that vessel? We’re not saying sex is bad (it is, in fact, sacred as well), but then it is true as well that to dedicate one’s body to God is the higher calling, and even Paul affirms this. True to this thought, then, Mary and Joseph offered themselves as a sacrifice to God, that their bodies are His and His alone. Again, the modern mind simply cannot grasp this concept, since we cannot imagine something like that, but does that again necessarily mean that they didn’t offer themselves as a living sacrifice for God?

 

[Milliardo]

Chris LaRock:

What translation are you quoting from? That isn’t what the King James says.

Why should it matter if it’s the KJV or not? Is the KJV the only Bible? Of course not. But for clarity, I cited it from the New American Bible.

 

[Chris_LaRock]

Milliardo:

For obvious reasons, would one defile a vessel that carried something sacred? Of course not. Mary was the vessel in which Jesus was carried. Would Joseph dare defile that vessel? We’re not saying sex is bad (it is, in fact, sacred as well), but then it is true as well that to dedicate one’s body to God is the higher calling, and even Paul affirms this. True to this thought, then, Mary and Joseph offered themselves as a sacrifice to God, that their bodies are His and His alone. Again, the modern mind simply cannot grasp this concept, since we cannot imagine something like that, but does that again necessarily mean that they didn’t offer themselves as a living sacrifice for God?

Would any of that matter AFTER Christ was born? The only way to defile the vessel that is Mary would be if the sexual relations happened when she was with child, and I already agreed she was a virgin when she gave birth.

 

[Chris_LaRock]

Milliardo:

Why should it matter if it’s the KJV or not? Is the KJV the only Bible? Of course not. But for clarity, I cited it from the New American Bible.

The KJV is the most accurate rendering. Take Isaiah 40:22;

“It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth…”

 

[Milliardo]

Chris LaRock:

The KJV is the most accurate rendering. Take Isaiah 40:22;

“It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth…”

Actually, I would disagree on that one. The NAB would make much more sense, as it speaks of God sitting above the heavens, which is consistent with the Christian understanding of where God’s throne is. Of course, the vault of the earth is the heavenly firmament itself, as our Jewish brethren know.

 

[Milliardo]

Chris LaRock:

Would any of that matter AFTER Christ was born?

Yes, it would. Would it cross the mind of any faithful Jew to defile the Ark of the Covenant? Of course not. Even if the Sacred Tablets were taken out of it, the Ark itself is still sacred. The same is true then of Mary.

 

[Chris_LaRock]

Newer translations are not a word for word rendering, but rather a more modern rendition. The problem with this is that certain words are dropped from scripture and it makes it harder to use. The vers I showed you in Isaiah speaks of the earth as a circle. Man thought the earth was flat at that time, so it’s significant in proving that man didn’t write this on his own - but by the inspiration of God. How else would he be writing of thing so far ahead of his time?

 

[Chris_LaRock]

Milliardo:

Yes, it would. Would it cross the mind of any faithful Jew to defile the Ark of the Covenant? Of course not. Even if the Sacred Tablets were taken out of it, the Ark itself is still sacred. The same is true then of Mary.

It wasn’t the Ark itself that made the stone tablets holy. The fact that the ten commandments were engraved on them did. It wasn’t the womb of Mary that made Jesus holy. The fact that he is God does. All the emphasis on sacred vessels sounds slightly superstitious to me, no offense. Remember how the people started worshipping the brass serpent in the wilderness, when that obviously wasn’t it’s intended use? Same principal. Man exalts things he shouldn’t be exalting.