Jesus' brethren and Mary's Virginity

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catilieth
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I always assumed that a female can only lose her virginity if a man’s “part” was what broke the hyman. The birth would not constitute sexual relations, so Mary would not lose her virginity as a result of giving birth.
 
Chris LaRock:
I always assumed that a female can only lose her virginity if a man’s “part” was what broke the hyman. The birth would not constitute sexual relations, so Mary would not lose her virginity as a result of giving birth.
Click to expand...
A woman does not lose her virginity if the hymen has been ‘broken.’ What I mean by this is that the hymen can be broken in other ways ie… horseback riding, PAP’s and etc. The only way a woman loses her virginity is through sexual intercourse.

Mary did not know Joseph and gave birth to Jesus. Her virginity is still intact. Now whether her hymen broke or not I have no idea.

As to whether Joseph and Mary had sexual relations after the time frame required by God’s law I have no idea. The Bible is ‘silent’ except for the word till.

I know of no documents where it is stated that Jesus’ brothers and sisters proclaimed that he was their actual sibling. If indeed Jesus did have brother’s and sister’s born from Mary and Joseph where are the relatives today? Where were they 2000 years ago? What happened to them?

Those are some of the questions I am asking myself. I have no idea if you are asking those too.

🙂 Melissa
 
From what I can tell, Joseph was told to keep her a virgin till Christ was born. It doesn’t indicate that virginity was to continue afterwards. This is simply man’s traditions adding to the word of God. (sorry, guys! I just can’t buy this perpetual virginity thing - no matter how many so-called saints you qoute)
 
I do see that the Early Church Fathers insisted that Mary remained a virgin. Even Martin Luther attested to that fact. What I want to know is why they believed that? I have never heard of women being consecrated to the Temple. When thinking about the Temple I know that the high Priest is the only one who could go into the Holy of the Holies. This is where the Ark was kept. I think that you could relate this to Jesus being the High Priest. Any other person that went in there was struck dead. Do you mean that if Joseph knew Mary he would be struck dead since he was not from the Levitical priesthood?

🙂 Melissa
 
The only source I have been able to get perpetual virginity as fact from are apocrypha New Testament books.
 
40.png
Truthseeker4:
As to whether Joseph and Mary had sexual relations after the time frame required by God’s law I have no idea. The Bible is ‘silent’ except for the word till.

I know of no documents where it is stated that Jesus’ brothers and sisters proclaimed that he was their actual sibling. If indeed Jesus did have brother’s and sister’s born from Mary and Joseph where are the relatives today? Where were they 2000 years ago? What happened to them?

Those are some of the questions I am asking myself. I have no idea if you are asking those too.
Click to expand...
See I knew you ask the important questions! I had not even thought about, “if there were siblings where are their descendants?” How cool is that? 🙂

Scripture is actually not silent on it. The Protestant interpretation is silent on it. The link I gave to Chris before seems to be ignored. www.scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html#the_bvm-VIII
This is the whole thing again. The ‘spaces’ are underscores if my linky thing doesn’t work.

Matthew 28:29 uses ‘until’ in the same context as Catholics interpret 1:25 in the same gospel! It says, “I am with you until the end of the world.” If the Protestant interpretation were right then in this line Jesus is saying, “I will only be with you before and up to the point of the end of the world, but I will not be with you after the end of the world.” Since Jesus obviously said he would be with us forever, until MUST mean before and after. It cannot be talked around because it is in the same gospel.
 
Chris LaRock:
From what I can tell, Joseph was told to keep her a virgin till Christ was born. It doesn’t indicate that virginity was to continue afterwards. This is simply man’s traditions adding to the word of God. (sorry, guys! I just can’t buy this perpetual virginity thing - no matter how many so-called saints you qoute)
Click to expand...
That’s the whole problem–you cannot grasp it. It is your own perception, your modern thinking being imposed upon something that is no longer practiced, for the most part. For Catholics, it’s not a problem, since the idea of celibacy is very real. For Protestants, it’s problematic. I think David Currie, in his book “Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic” said it best when he said that the problem of celibacy is problematic for most Protestants because their clergy is married, and so this idea of being chaste even within marriage would be hard to understand. But more on that later (I have something to attend to, sorry).
 
BenYachov on another site said it well: That this is a case where the Reformers got it right, but unfortunately later modern evangelicals let their anti-Catholicism get the better of them.

Scott
 
40.png
Catilieth:
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).
Click to expand...
Interesting post! Lets put it this way, protestants are not the only
belief out there that denies the virginity of Mary. Mary remains
ever the True Virgin Mother of God. Why is it when she appears
to people she says such as she did to Bernadette, " Iam the
Immaculate Conception" There are accounts where she appeared
to people and identified herself as the Blessed Virgin. As a matter of fact, I know of a few beliefs out there that do not deny the fact
of Mary remaining a virgin. Why would Mary appear to people and
indentify herself as a virgin if in fact she was not? I have no idea
why protestants and jw’s ext deny the virginity of Mary. Do they
think that all these appearances where she identifies herself as
the Blessed Virgin are a mass hallucination? Not possible. Bernadette was severely questioned on her truthfullness, they
never found her to be a liar. She told the truth, and that is recorded
in history as a valid vision. What about the account of the Blessed
Virgin appearing to Saint Juan Diego? We all know of that account. What about all the appearances throughout history?
We have her word that she is the ever True Virgin Mother of God.
That is what matters.
 
40.png
Marilena:
Interesting post! Lets put it this way, protestants are not the only
belief out there that denies the virginity of Mary. Mary remains
ever the True Virgin Mother of God. Why is it when she appears
to people she says such as she did to Bernadette, " Iam the
Immaculate Conception" There are accounts where she appeared
to people and identified herself as the Blessed Virgin. As a matter of fact, I know of a few beliefs out there that do not deny the fact
of Mary remaining a virgin. Why would Mary appear to people and
indentify herself as a virgin if in fact she was not? I have no idea
why protestants and jw’s ext deny the virginity of Mary. Do they
think that all these appearances where she identifies herself as
the Blessed Virgin are a mass hallucination? Not possible. Bernadette was severely questioned on her truthfullness, they
never found her to be a liar. She told the truth, and that is recorded
in history as a valid vision. What about the account of the Blessed
Virgin appearing to Saint Juan Diego? We all know of that account. What about all the appearances throughout history?
We have her word that she is the ever True Virgin Mother of God.
That is what matters.
Click to expand...
We do not derive our doctrine from such appearances; our doctrine may be affi rmed by them but it does not stem from them.

As for Protestants, at best they reject these appearances as hallucinations, and they may even believe that they are Satanic. Never, never, never attempt to convince a Protestant that something is true because “Our Lady said so at ______ apparition.” You’ll set them back 5 years in their understanding of Catholic doctrine. They just will not accept it.
 
40.png
mercygate:
We do not derive our doctrine from such appearances; our doctrine may be affi rmed by them but it does not stem from them.

As for Protestants, at best they reject these appearances as hallucinations, and they may even believe that they are Satanic. Never, never, never attempt to convince a Protestant that something is true because “Our Lady said so at ______ apparition.” You’ll set them back 5 years in their understanding of Catholic doctrine. They just will not accept it.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t trying to define the doctrine from appearances. Only stating that they are valid, the Church itself declared them
valid. i was only trying to point out that since the Blessed Virgin herself indentified herself as such, it is further proof of the fact that she is the Blessed Virgin!
 
40.png
Marilena:
I wasn’t trying to define the doctrine from appearances. Only stating that they are valid, the Church itself declared them
valid. i was only trying to point out that since the Blessed Virgin herself indentified herself as such, it is further proof of the fact that she is the Blessed Virgin!
Click to expand...
I understand this – and it is a point I had never considered. So thanks. But this thread is dealing with people who are intransigent about everything that has to do with Mary. You can’t take apparitions as a starting point with them.
 
40.png
LittleDeb:
See I knew you ask the important questions! I had not even thought about, “if there were siblings where are their descendants?” How cool is that? 🙂

Scripture is actually not silent on it. The Protestant interpretation is silent on it. The link I gave to Chris before seems to be ignored. www.scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html#the_bvm-VIII
This is the whole thing again. The ‘spaces’ are underscores if my linky thing doesn’t work.

Matthew 28:29 uses ‘until’ in the same context as Catholics interpret 1:25 in the same gospel! It says, “I am with you until the end of the world.” If the Protestant interpretation were right then in this line Jesus is saying, “I will only be with you before and up to the point of the end of the world, but I will not be with you after the end of the world.” Since Jesus obviously said he would be with us forever, until MUST mean before and after. It cannot be talked around because it is in the same gospel.
Click to expand...
The scriptural interpretations seem a little forced on that site.
 
I have been staying up late because there is a need to hammer this out. This is so that I may be fully convinced. Hopefully my college homework hasn’t suffered.

Truly what solidifies Mary and Joseph not having children is that Jesus gave Mary to John. There was no mention of their own children traveling with them but it was kinsfolk and acquaintances while they sought out Jesus at the Temple after Passover was completed. He was 12 years old at that time. Knowing about Judaism customs (not all) and scriptures it would be unheard of for the widowed mother to go to someone who was not her son.

Tertullian is the only one that I could find closest to the time of the apostles that denied the ever virgin. I have no idea if that is true.

Here is a website that I encountered. I am not sure if these are scholarly or from credible sources, further investigation would give them credence or lack.

cin.org/users/james/files/talmud.htm

Here is another scripture that solidifies the perpetual virginity of Mary. This may be an allusion to her and Jesus.

EZ 44: 1-3
1 Then he brought me back the way of the gate of the outward sanctuary which looketh toward the east; and it was shut. 2 Then said the LORD unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut. 3 It is for the prince; the prince, he shall sit in it to eat bread before the LORD; he shall enter by the way of the porch of that gate, and shall go out by the way of the same.
I did check out the Scripture Catholic site. What I was trying to do is search the scriptures and see if what you all were saying was so.

What I wrote earlier is this:
When thinking about the Temple I know that the high Priest is the only one who could go into the Holy of the Holies. This is where the Ark was kept. I think that you could relate this to Jesus being the High Priest. Any other person that went in there was struck dead. Do you mean that if Joseph knew Mary he would be struck dead since he was not from the Levitical priesthood?
It would probably be entirely possible.

2 Sam. 6:7 - the Ark is so holy and pure that when Uzzah touched it, the Lord slew him. This shows us that the Ark is undefiled. Mary the Ark of the New Covenant is even more immaculate and undefiled, spared by God from original sin so that she could bear His eternal Word in her womb.

You are correct mercygate. All appearances of Mary or others are suspect. Yes, even people who have a private revelation. Each one must be fully examined to see if they are from God or from satan. It must line up with scripture and must come true. Those who have said that they have received private revelation about the world coming to the end on such and such date are totally debunked. Satan can appear as an angel of light. I do believe in private revelation and revelation for the body of believer’s. The point is that it all of it must be accurate if not it is not from God.

🙂 Melissa
 
According to CC doctrine, do people go to hell for not believing in the perpetual virginity?
 
40.png
LittleDeb:
Matthew 28:29 uses ‘until’ in the same context as Catholics interpret 1:25 in the same gospel! It says, “I am with you until the end of the world.” If the Protestant interpretation were right then in this line Jesus is saying, “I will only be with you before and up to the point of the end of the world, but I will not be with you after the end of the world.” Since Jesus obviously said he would be with us forever, until MUST mean before and after. It cannot be talked around because it is in the same gospel.
Click to expand...
You say this but you don’t look at other verses within Matthews gospel. What about Matthew 13:30
Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’ "

This obviously shows until to show up to a time of. What about this…
Matthew 17:9
As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus instructed them, “Don’t tell anyone what you have seen, until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead.”

There are FAR more verses in Matthew than denote the meaning of up to a time than the “Before and After” meaning! I could show you more if you’d like.
 
Protestante,
Bible verse slinging is a protestant activity.
We Catholics have both the Bible and the Magisterium on which to rely.
If you read ALL the posts on this thread explaining our reasons for our knowledge of Mary’s perpetual virginity, you would know that.
Pulling many verses from a Bible book will change no one’s mind, just in case that’s your aim here.
 
40.png
Protestante:
You say this but you don’t look at other verses within Matthews gospel. What about Matthew 13:30
Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’ "

This obviously shows until to show up to a time of. What about this…
Matthew 17:9
As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus instructed them, “Don’t tell anyone what you have seen, until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead.”

There are FAR more verses in Matthew than denote the meaning of up to a time than the “Before and After” meaning! I could show you more if you’d like.
Click to expand...
No one denies it can mean a reversal–but even if it shows up like that many times, one cannot conclude one way or the other regarding 1:25 based on mere frequency. The existence of one example of it meaning a continuation is more than enough to allow the Catholic interpretation. This is one of Eric Svendsen’s errors found here: Heos Hou Central

Scott
 
catsrus said:
Protestante,
Bible verse slinging is a protestant activity.
We Catholics have both the Bible and the Magisterium on which to rely.
If you read ALL the posts on this thread explaining our reasons for our knowledge of Mary’s perpetual virginity, you would know that.
Pulling many verses from a Bible book will change no one’s mind, just in case that’s your aim here.
Click to expand...

We know the bible is the inspired word of God. We don’t know for sure if the traditions of the CC are inspired of God or simply the word of man. It’s a conflict of conscience for the Non-Catholic, since the CC traditions seem to be adding to the bible in many areas. Can’t you understand that? Quoting your saints, popes, and Catholic literature isn’t very convincing to anybody who hasn’t been told why these sources are reliable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top