Jesus' brethren and Mary's Virginity

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catilieth
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Why would you trust anything other than the bible
Click to expand...
If we trusted only the Bible, what were Christians prior to the 4th century trusting in? There was no Bible, per se, until then, or at least no new testement.
By your belief, that would mean there were no practicing Christians until 300 + years after The Resurrection.
Doesn’t make sense does it?
 
In excercising faith in Jesus Christ, what matters the most is that we believe that Jesus was born of the “Virgin Mary”. His seed came from the Holy Spirit, thus creating the perfect human. Therefore his actions would mirror the actions of God.

After his birth we do not really no alot that wasn’t recorded until he began his ministry at age 29. Therefore, all we can assume is that he lived somewhat a normal life in terms of what is was like for a young child to play with other children, learn and develop.

I’m sure that his childhood was not all normal that his parents knew that he was the Son of God, from when the Angel Gabriel appeared before Mary. Must have been awsome!

My point is what happened later had no effect on Jesus’ seed coming from the Holy Spirit. In fact, we know his half brother Jude was not perfect because he didn’t believe that Jesus was the Christ until he rose from the dead.

We are given this quote in Matthew 13:55-56 that would lead one to believe that Jesus was not an only child and did have brothers and sisters.

"Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Where, then, did this man get all these things?” your brother, tommy
 
I don’t mean to be rude, but I’m looking for biblical proof that Mary remained a virgin. This saint you speak of is a source outside of the scriptures. Why do Catholics rely on sources other than the bible itself to explain the teachings of the Church? Are we to assume God left out these vital facts from the scriptures and waited until later to reveal them to the Church through saints? From what I have read, Joseph was instructed by the angel to only keep her a virgin ‘till the birth of her firstborn son’, which leaves her free to carry on relations with Joseph after having the Christ child. There’s no biblical basis for saying they made a vow of chastity out of alledgence to God. I’m sorry, but I don’t see the basis for this belief. You would have to believe that God left out key information from scripture in order to accept a lot of what’s taught in the Church. I can’t see him doing that.

Don’t my arguments make some sense? I’m honestly not trying to insult catholics. I actually agree with more of the teachings than what I disagree with. A lot of good has come from the Church, and I’m simply trying to understand why it teaches certain things.
 
40.png
catsrus:
If we trusted only the Bible, what were Christians prior to the 4th century trusting in? There was no Bible, per se, until then, or at least no new testement.
By your belief, that would mean there were no practicing Christians until 300 + years after The Resurrection.
Doesn’t make sense does it?
Click to expand...
See what you’re doing? You are attacking the bible for the sake of defending your traditions. Doesn’t that seem wrong at all to you? The gospels themselves were widely distributed. As seperate books, that is. The history channel had a good show about which of the four gospels were more widely circulated until they all were assembled into the New Testament we know of today.
 
Chris LaRock:
I don’t mean to be rude, but I’m looking for biblical proof that Mary remained a virgin. This saint you speak of is a source outside of the scriptures. Why do Catholics rely on sources other than the bible itself to explain the teachings of the Church? Are we to assume God left out these vital facts from the scriptures and waited until later to reveal them to the Church through saints? From what I have read, Joseph was instructed by the angel to only keep her a virgin ‘till the birth of her firstborn son’, which leaves her free to carry on relations with Joseph after having the Christ child. There’s no biblical basis for saying they made a vow of chastity out of alledgence to God. I’m sorry, but I don’t see the basis for this belief. You would have to believe that God left out key information from scripture in order to accept a lot of what’s taught in the Church. I can’t see him doing that.
Click to expand...
I respond to the bolded statements.

We rely on sources other than the Bible, partly because the Bible itself tells us that the Church will be “guided into all the truth” when Jesus sends the Holy Spirit and partly because tools other than Scripture, such as history and philosophy, may be required to penetrate what is not explicitly stated in Scripture. While Catholics might aver that Scripture is materially sufficient for any doctrinal definition, it is certainly not formally sufficient.

Waited until later: Not everything necessary for the formulation of certain doctrines is explicitly laid out on the surface of the text: e.g., the divinity of the Holy Spirit and the hypostatic union. These fundamental doctrines were hewn out of the struggles of the early Church against non-Apostolic threats to the teaching. So yes, the Holy Spirit waited until the Church needed to know . . . The best handling of this subject is John Henry Newman’s Essay on the Development of Doctrine.

While there may be no biblical basis for a vow of chastity, one of the early sources attesting to the continence of Mary’s and Joseph’s marriage was The Protoevangelion of James. Now, this widely circulated book did not make it into the canon of Scripture. those “fallible men” whom God saw fit to entrust with defining the canon of Scripture chose to leave it out. Nevertheless, it carries a certain weight. Still, without prejudice to such resources, I personally prefer to base the case on the typological evidence embedded in Scripture itself. Perhaps some residual Protestantism popping up.
 
I wrote:
If we trusted only the Bible, what were Christians prior to the 4th century trusting in? There was no Bible, per se, until then, or at least no new testement.
Click to expand...
Chris LaRock wrote:
You are attacking the bible for the sake of defending your traditions.
Click to expand...
How in the world did you get a Bible “attack” from my observation that there was no Bible to “attack” prior to the 4th century?!?

If there was no oral Tradition, there would be no new testement! Period. History and common sense have spoken.
 
40.png
catsrus:
I wrote:

Chris LaRock wrote:

How in the world did you get a Bible “attack” from my observation that there was no Bible to “attack” prior to the 4th century?!?

If there was no oral Tradition, there would be no new testement! Period. History and common sense have spoken.
Click to expand...
You’re still not making any convincing arguments to prove your point. You’re just attacking my positions. My question was; Why would God inspire the gospel writers to leave out such important details about Mary when they wrote the gospels, only to reveal this stuff through other means later? It’s not in the scriptures, so I’m thinking God had to have with held this info till later in order for it to be true. Why would he?
 
40.png
mercygate:
I respond to the bolded statements.

We rely on sources other than the Bible, partly because the Bible itself tells us that the Church will be “guided into all the truth” when Jesus sends the Holy Spirit and partly because tools other than Scripture, such as history and philosophy, may be required to penetrate what is not explicitly stated in Scripture. While Catholics might aver that Scripture is materially sufficient for any doctrinal definition, it is certainly not formally sufficient.

Waited until later: Not everything necessary for the formulation of certain doctrines is explicitly laid out on the surface of the text: e.g., the divinity of the Holy Spirit and the hypostatic union. These fundamental doctrines were hewn out of the struggles of the early Church against non-Apostolic threats to the teaching. So yes, the Holy Spirit waited until the Church needed to know . . . The best handling of this subject is John Henry Newman’s Essay on the Development of Doctrine.

While there may be no biblical basis for a vow of chastity, one of the early sources attesting to the continence of Mary’s and Joseph’s marriage was The Protoevangelion of James. Now, this widely circulated book did not make it into the canon of Scripture. those “fallible men” whom God saw fit to entrust with defining the canon of Scripture chose to leave it out. Nevertheless, it carries a certain weight. Still, without prejudice to such resources, I personally prefer to base the case on the typological evidence embedded in Scripture itself. Perhaps some residual Protestantism popping up.
Click to expand...
You can understand why I’m having trouble with this, right?

What other books do Catholics derive doctrine from? I have a book entitled ‘lost books of the bible’. What books from that do you follow?
 
Chris LaRock:
See what you’re doing? You are attacking the bible for the sake of defending your traditions. Doesn’t that seem wrong at all to you? The gospels themselves were widely distributed. As seperate books, that is. The history channel had a good show about which of the four gospels were more widely circulated until they all were assembled into the New Testament we know of today.
Click to expand...
Yes, the books we now call the New Testament were known and widely circulated – along with hundreds of other “gospels” and epistles. It took nearly 400 years for the Church to put the smackdown on questionable texts – but somehow, Hebrews and Revelation made it into the canon anyway, despite the fact that their authorship was questionable, even then.

Our traditions? Right. Our tradition is holds that the table of contents of the Bible – first authorized by the Church at Hippo and Carthage in the late 4th century – is authentic and that Scripture is the inspired, inerrant word of God.
 
40.png
mercygate:
Yes, the books we now call the New Testament were known and widely circulated – along with hundreds of other “gospels” and epistles. It took nearly 400 years for the Church to put the smackdown on questionable texts – but somehow, Hebrews and Revelation made it into the canon anyway, despite the fact that their authorship was questionable, even then.

Our traditions? Right. Our tradition is holds that the table of contents of the Bible – first authorized by the Church at Hippo and Carthage in the late 4th century – is authentic and that Scripture is the inspired, inerrant word of God.
Click to expand...
What other books do you trust as scripture? I’ve read some of the other gospels and epistles myself.
 
Chris, please tell me how you interpret this passage from the Bible: The angel Gabriel has announced to Mary, "Hail, full of grace. The Lord is with you. But she was much perplexed by his words and pondered what sort of greeting this might be. The angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And now you shall conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will name him Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his ancestor David. He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.” Mary said to the angel, “How can this be since I have no relations with a man?”

Now remember, Mary is a good Jewish girl. She KNOWS the prophecies of the Messiah. Now, IF Mary (who is betrothed to Joseph) is planning on an ORDINARY marriage, WHY DOES SHE ASK THE QUESTION SHE DOES?

Look at the words. The ancestor David–well, Joseph is of the house of David. This kid looks like he will be the messiah, right?

Now why in the name of all things holy does Mary ask the angel, “how can this be since I have no relations with a man?”

IF Mary is planning to marry Joseph, a descendent of the house of David, SURELY, SURELY the logical thing for her to say is ,“OH, so we’re gonna have a boy.”

She does not.

She is not stupid or ignorant of the process of birth. She isn’t wondering how babies are made. She knows. And she KNOWS that SHE is a consecrated virgin, dedicated to God. Since she not only has THEN, but never WILL have RELATIONS WITH A MAN, and the angel is telling her she will conceive in her womb, she is GREATLY PERPLEXED because this marriage never was MEANT to be consummated. THUS we have the angel going on to tell her, NOT THAT" Well, Joe is gonna wait a bit, first God is going to use your womb for nine months and then drop you like a hot potato". . .but instead, "The power of the Holy Spirit will come upon you and the Most High will overshadow you. THEREFORE THE HOLY OFFSPRING TO BE BORN WILL BE CALLED THE SON OF GOD.

Okay now. Yep, she will STILL be a virgin AND she will be mother of God and spouse of the spirit. Oh yeah, after THAT she will SURELY say, "To heck with being a consecrated virgin, after this I’ll assume marital relations with ANOTHER MAN–NOT the father of my child.

Don’t you see that it really IS in the Bible–first, that Mary was a consecrated virgin, second that she is the mother of Jesus and SPOUSE of the Spirit, and finally that given one and two, that her REMAINING a virgin is a SCRIPTURAL GIVEN???
 
Chris LaRock:
What other books do you trust as scripture? I’ve read some of the other gospels and epistles myself.
Click to expand...
I am starting to see where some of your struggles are. I appreciate how dedicated you have been to really figuring this out. I also thank you for your compliment to Catholics in our Christianity. It is nice in situations like these to know we are dealing with a person who respects us as Christians and is not here to “save us.”

So, yes we believe that all of Scripture is divinely inspired. We hold that the canon including all the books in the Catholic Bible are Scripture.

What we Catholics are trying to say is that Mary’s ever-virginity IS spelled out in Scripture. The Old Testament refers to it when they talk about WHO will bear the savior. The New Testament talks about it often enough to show its importance.

I guess my point is that it IS in Scripture yet YOU have been taught to ignore it. WHY was Mary given to John at the foot of the cross? Why is that important?

Other posters have asked, “WHY would she say ‘but I have not had relations with man,’ if she knew she was a virgin?” She wasn’t stupid and stating the obvious. She was saying “but I am a consecrated virgin and I am not going to have children.”

I have pointed out TWICE the BIBLICAL definition of “until,” in context of the gospel it appears in!

The main question for me boils down to, “Since it is so simply spelled out in Scripture why do Protestants deny Mary’s ever-virginity.” The answer? Because they have been taught that way by people before them who do not know how to interpret Scripture.

While the outside sources confirm it as Truth, it is still spelled out in Scripture.
 
Chris LaRock:
What other books do you trust as scripture? I’ve read some of the other gospels and epistles myself.
Click to expand...
We do not trust them “as Scripture.” Some of them are downright looney. Others appear to be of a very high order.

For example, Ignatius of Antioch is highly esteemed because he was evangelized by St. John the Evangelist and died a martyr’s death for Christ. So his credentials are unchallenged. But The Gospel of Thomas? Just plain strange. *The Gospel of Mary Magdalene? *You wouldn’t believe how bizarre it is!
 
I was asking because they are the only books I’ve seen to hint at Mary remaining a virgin for life. I was wondering if one of those books may be the source of the doctrine. It would make sense to me if that were the case.

The Gospel of Nicodemus talks about Christ descending into hell to deliver the captives. Very COOL! :eek: It says that satan actually tried to lock the gates of hell to prevent Jesus from entering. LOL
 
I’ve been reading along this thread and was interested in it… Because i was raised a Protestant and sort of knew about the Holy Family and also aware of some ideas about it…

You certainly don’t hear much about Joseph after Jesus youth:

We know in Matthew 2:21- 23 “So Joseph got up and taking the child and HIs mother with him went back to the land of Israel… he was afraid to go there (Judea, after being warned in a dream) he left for Galilee. There he settled in a town called Nazareth…”

You hear about him in Luke 2:41-50 when He at twelve years old was found in the Temple “sitting among the doctors listening to them and asking them questions …Tehy were overcome when they saw Him…” His Mother says: “See how worried your father and I have been looking for you?”

Scripture says nothing about any brothers or sisters in these early years.

It is only later during His ministry in Matthew 12:46 that “He was still speaking to the crowds when His Mother and His brotehrs appeared…anxious to have a word with Him…”

Mark 3:20-21 has

“He went home again and once more such a crowd collected that they could not even have a meal. When His relatives heard of this they set out to take charge of Him, convinced He was out of His mind.”

How I see it:

So Joseph disappears quite early in His youth after He was twelve and doesn’t figure in at all and there are no mention of “brothers” until His ministry quite later.

Joseph apparently died leaving Mary and Jesus… The “brothers” were older members of His family perhaps cousins.

Having experienced powerful dreams and visitations from the angel of the Lord I doubt Joseph could ever look on Mary in a carnal way.
  • Art
 
Tantum ergo:
Chris, please tell me how you interpret this passage from the Bible: The angel Gabriel has announced to Mary, "Hail, full of grace. The Lord is with you. But she was much perplexed by his words and pondered what sort of greeting this might be. The angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And now you shall conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will name him Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his ancestor David. He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.” Mary said to the angel, “How can this be since I have no relations with a man?”

Now remember, Mary is a good Jewish girl. She KNOWS the prophecies of the Messiah. Now, IF Mary (who is betrothed to Joseph) is planning on an ORDINARY marriage, WHY DOES SHE ASK THE QUESTION SHE DOES?

Look at the words. The ancestor David–well, Joseph is of the house of David. This kid looks like he will be the messiah, right?

Now why in the name of all things holy does Mary ask the angel, “how can this be since I have no relations with a man?”

IF Mary is planning to marry Joseph, a descendent of the house of David, SURELY, SURELY the logical thing for her to say is ,“OH, so we’re gonna have a boy.”

She does not.

She is not stupid or ignorant of the process of birth. She isn’t wondering how babies are made. She knows. And she KNOWS that SHE is a consecrated virgin, dedicated to God. Since she not only has THEN, but never WILL have RELATIONS WITH A MAN, and the angel is telling her she will conceive in her womb, she is GREATLY PERPLEXED because this marriage never was MEANT to be consummated. THUS we have the angel going on to tell her, NOT THAT" Well, Joe is gonna wait a bit, first God is going to use your womb for nine months and then drop you like a hot potato". . .but instead, "The power of the Holy Spirit will come upon you and the Most High will overshadow you. THEREFORE THE HOLY OFFSPRING TO BE BORN WILL BE CALLED THE SON OF GOD.

Okay now. Yep, she will STILL be a virgin AND she will be mother of God and spouse of the spirit. Oh yeah, after THAT she will SURELY say, "To heck with being a consecrated virgin, after this I’ll assume marital relations with ANOTHER MAN–NOT the father of my child.

Don’t you see that it really IS in the Bible–first, that Mary was a consecrated virgin, second that she is the mother of Jesus and SPOUSE of the Spirit, and finally that given one and two, that her REMAINING a virgin is a SCRIPTURAL GIVEN???
Click to expand...
The teason why she asked the question was because, being a virgin, she was confused about hearing that she was with child. It was at this time that the angel explained to her how it was possible.

Show me where in scripture Mary is called the spouse of the Holy Spirit. Tell me your intrepretation of Matthew 1:25, where the angel tells Joseph he isn’t to know Mary “till she brought forth her firstborn son.” As I’ve tried to point out again and again, this passage speaks nothing of keeping her a virgin indefinately - just till she gave birth. That’s how scripture reads. My next question was: was there a source for this doctrine outside the bible? Maybe, a piece of scripture that was left out of the bible? There is a book of ‘Jasher’ mentioned twice in the New Testament - apparently omitted.

Try not to take my objections personally. I’m just going by what is written in the bible.
 
Try the Protevangelion of St. James…the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew or the Gospel of the Birth of Mary (which is attributed to St. Matthew).

Oh, and by the way, I don’t know if anyone mentioned it earlier in this thread, but Mary was also of the House of David 👍
 
I was just wondering.
As a non-catholic I am ignorant of your beliefs,but as I am in the process of trying to find out what they are, I wish to ask a question:
Is it in the protestant bible that I have (New American Standard) That Mary was called the Spouse of the Holy spirit?
I was always taught that she was a young girl, that she was devout, that she was a virgin and that the Lord told her she was to bare a child.
Then Joseph found out and was going to quietly "break up with "(forgive my parphrase)her and that an angel came to him and told him to stay with her. So he married her.

Another thing I am confused about is,
If she gave birth, her viginity, in the physical sense anyway, was lost throught the very act of birthing.

One more please?
I get why you pray to saints.
Why is Mary so beloved?
Why are there Catholic churches named after her with statues of her in the front of the building?
As a non-catholic it looks like that is a church of Mary not Christ.KWIM?
I hope this is not taken offensivly.
:confused:
 
Hi alisonP! 👋

I have a question of you - do you have a mother? Do you respect her? Did you obey her when you were little? Did you cry out for her when you had bad dreams?

Mary is the Universal Mother. She is JESUS’ mom. We honor her as the Ultimate Mom, just as we should give respect to our earthly mothers.

I hope that sort of answers your question. 🙂
 
40.png
allisonP:
I was just wondering.
As a non-catholic I am ignorant of your beliefs,but as I am in the process of trying to find out what they are, I wish to ask a question:
Is it in the protestant bible that I have (New American Standard) That Mary was called the Spouse of the Holy spirit?
I was always taught that she was a young girl, that she was devout, that she was a virgin and that the Lord told her she was to bare a child.
Then Joseph found out and was going to quietly "break up with "(forgive my parphrase)her and that an angel came to him and told him to stay with her. So he married her.

Another thing I am confused about is,
If she gave birth, her viginity, in the physical sense anyway, was lost throught the very act of birthing.

One more please?
I get why you pray to saints.
Why is Mary so beloved?
Why are there Catholic churches named after her with statues of her in the front of the building?
As a non-catholic it looks like that is a church of Mary not Christ.KWIM?
I hope this is not taken offensivly.
:confused:
Click to expand...
No offense at all. It sounds like you are on a search for Truth. This is a good place to get it.

In answer to your question on churches, there are more than you realize that are “dedicated” to saints. My parents’ parish is called St. Mark’s. The statue in front of it is of him, St. Mark. It is probably more obvious to a non-Catholic when it is a woman so it looks like it is about her. The parish in the next city is called “Holy Apostles.” They are represented in stained glass by their common forms in art. In other words, they don’t even look like men. One of the apostles is represented by a figure I referred to as a child as “the big chicken.”

That so many churches are in honor of Mary just that she is such an important saint to so many of us. There are some called Immaculate Conception. Since many non-Catholics think this refers to Jesus, they don’t ask about it. It actually refers to when Mary was conceived by her parents. It is what made her “conceived without sin.” Now that I think of it, there is only one parish in my area with Jesus in the title. It’s called “Risen Christ.”

About your other question, on giving birth. No, the process of giving birth does not render her not a virgin. There are many women who have not given birth and are not virgins. Jesus’ birth is the one that “opened the womb.” That is why he is called the “first-born son.” We call our son “our first-born son.” He is the first I gave birth to. If I never have any more children he remains my first-born son. Technically though, since my husband has a son from his previous (invalid) marriage, he is NOT my husband’s first-born son.

So in Scripture when Jesus is sited as being “the first-born son of Mary and Joseph,” it means Joseph might have had previous children. He is sited as being the “first-born son of Mary” independently. First-born means to open the womb it means nothing applied to virginity. Virginity means “untouched.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top