Mary ever-virgin?

[mikeabele]

Pax:

You could not be more wrong in what you have suggested here. First of all there is nothing typical or simply normal about the Holy Family and the relationship of Mary and Joseph.

Now where are they called the “Holy Family”? Yes, they had a child that was the Son of God, but Mary was the “handmaiden” of the Lord, not the “Queen mother”.

Pax:

Mary and Joseph had the son of God in their midst. You wish to impose your own modern day standards on the situation rather than that of Jewish culture and religious practice.

It was not the practice of a Jewish woman to be betrothed(the only way out of such a bond is by divorce) to a man and have a vow of celibacy.

Pax:

Luke 1:34 says:

– Revised Standard
Luke 1:34 And Mary said to the angel, “How shall this be, since I have no husband?”
– King James
Luke 1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

Mary did not say “How can this be, seeing I will never know a man”. At that point in her life, she had not known any man. She was obviously didn’t think it possible for her to be with child without having relations with a man.

Pax:

Now please note that Mary was betrothed to Joseph and she clearly understood where babies came from. If she had anticipated having relations with Joseph she never would have responded to the angel the way that she did. She merely would have expected the fulfillment to made through Joseph.

She never would have been betrothed if her intention was to REMAIN a virgin.

Pax:

It was rare but not unheard of for Jews to consecrate themselves to God and to remain celibate in what was otherwise a marital arrangement. Your view needs to take these kinds of things into account.

Matt 19

10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. 11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. 12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

I Corinthians 7

7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. 8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. 9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

32 But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: 33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife. 34 There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband. 35 And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction.

One of the Scripture recorded, God-given, God-blessed purposes for marriage, any marriage, is the sexual union designed by God.

Mary being a devout Jewish woman would have cared for her husband, or she would have remained unmarried and a virgin. Scripture tells of Mary and Joseph’s children, but even if it didn’t it is clear that once Jesus was born, Joseph took his wife and knew her. Again it is unmistakably clear that before Christ was born, Mary is a virgin. Afterwards, she is never mentioned as a virgin, Joseph knew his wife, and she had other children, since Christ is the firstborn. You have clear testimony from Scripture.

Basically the arguement, from Scripture on your side boils down to:

A) Jesus gave His mother into John’s care, not His brothers(if they were half-brothers and not kinfolk)
B) Because Mary says “How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?”, it means she took a vow of celibacy and will never know a man.
C) Scripture is never clear that “brothers” and “sisters” are children of Mary, mother of Jesus.

Did I forget anything else, cause I want to deal with these individually.

 

[RyanL]

Mike,

I have just re-read some of my posts, and I have decided that I definitely owe you an apology. My posts have become increasingly snippish, and it appears that in my zeal for the love of truth, I have forgotten the truth about love. I am sorry, and I will pray to God that He may create a kind and gentle heart within me, and may lead me to see everyone as a child whom He loves (and not as a target for my verbal attacks). Please forgive me for being rude, and forgetting my place as a servant of God.

Now, as far as I can tell, these are the arguments provided:

1. Brother does not mean “full uterine brother with same father”. It can (and does) mean many familial relationships within the Bible - Biblical citations given. You have acknowledged that you do not believe “brother” means “brother” within this very context.
2. None of the “brothers” are refered to as “children of Mary”, which is a title applied to Jesus and no one else.
3. Jesus, who knew these “brothers” of His would repent and follow Him within 3 days, still gave His mother to the apostle John at the foot of the cross - a gross violation of Levitical Law, which Christ *never *broke (as that would be a sin).
4. The apostle James, who is called “the Lord’s brother”, is elsewhere described as being the son of Zebedee. Zebedee is not Mary’s husband. Biblical citations given.
5. Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant, a position held by the Fathers of the Church from as near to the apostles’ teaching as we can find written evidence. All evidence within the Bible points to this being the case, and the apostle John, who took Mary into his home for the rest of her earthly life, places her in Rev 12 - immediately following the unveiling of the old Ark of the Covenant - linking the two yet again. As the Ark was missing for the last several hundred years, any Jew who read Rev 11 would have immediately payed attention - and he would have found Mary in the next sentence. Being the Ark of the New Covenant, Mary was “pure” and “not to be touched”, and Joseph would have known this. Biblical citations given.
6. Mary was the spouse of the Holy Spirit, and as such was forbidden to Joseph to know. Biblical citations given.
7. “Until” does not necessissarily imply change - infact, sometimes change would be impossible following “until”. Biblical citations given.
8. Mary was concecrated to God, and in being so concecrated, she took a vow of celebacy. This is asserted as the only way to make sense of her response, “how can this be, since I know not man?” As no one who was planning on having a ‘regular’ marriage would question the statement, “You will have kids,” it makes no sense for her to do so without a vow being in place.

If I have missed a part of the argument, please correct me.

So far, you have failed to answer any of these arguments. Simply asserting that, “it says ‘brother’,” is not good enough. You have admitted that “brother” does not mean “brother”, and have failed to show evidence that half-brother is preferable over step-brother or cousin. Please address at least one of these arguments in your next post.

Again, I apologize for being rude. I had no place doing so, and it was completely impropper of me. Please accept my apology.

May God bless you and keep you,
RyanL

 

[Zooey]

mikeabele:

Now where are they called the “Holy Family”? Yes, they had a child that was the Son of God, but Mary was the “handmaiden” of the Lord, not the “Queen mother”.
It was not the practice of a Jewish woman to be betrothed(the only way out of such a bond is by divorce) to a man and have a vow of celibacy.
She never would have been betrothed if her intention was to REMAIN a virgin…

Mike, I would like to briefly address these three points.

1. Yes, the Child was the Son of God; He wasmore; he was, in fact, the 2nd person of the trinity. He was 100% God & 100% man. We are also told that(A) Joseph was a just man (Matthew 1:19), & (B) Mary “found favor w/God”, was “highly favoured” & “blessed”(Luke 1: 28,30,43,45, &48). This was, therefore, the Holy family.
   Mary, being a humble, as well as a holy woman (a frequent combination, IMHO), referred to herself as “handmaiden” before the birth of her Son, Who was & is, King of Kings & Lord of Lords. He rules from His throne in Heaven. Throughout scripture, the mother of the king is the queen. Ergo, Mary is queen mother…But even if she were not, we said “holy” family, not “royal” family. (Another thread?).
2. Actually, although this was not common, it did happen. An example is the Essenes; they practiced celibacy. So did others. In those days, every woman had to have a father and/or husband as a protector. Women did not live on their own, esp. with the Romans around!
3. How do you know this? Where is your support for this? (The fact is, that since every woman needed to be under a man’s care, she would have had to have a husband.See above). Mike, you cannot demand Bible verses in support from us, & not have anything but an opinion to offer in return.

Please read thoughtfully the information which has been provided you. God bless.

 

[Pax]

mikeabele:

Now where are they called the “Holy Family”? Yes, they had a child that was the Son of God, but Mary was the “handmaiden” of the Lord, not the “Queen mother”.

It was not the practice of a Jewish woman to be betrothed(the only way out of such a bond is by divorce) to a man and have a vow of celibacy.

Mary did not say “How can this be, seeing I will never know a man”. At that point in her life, she had not known any man. She was obviously didn’t think it possible for her to be with child without having relations with a man.

She never would have been betrothed if her intention was to REMAIN a virgin.

Matt 19

10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. 11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. 12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

I Corinthians 7

7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. 8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. 9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

32 But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: 33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife. 34 There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband. 35 And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction.

One of the Scripture recorded, God-given, God-blessed purposes for marriage, any marriage, is the sexual union designed by God.

Mary being a devout Jewish woman would have cared for her husband, or she would have remained unmarried and a virgin. Scripture tells of Mary and Joseph’s children, but even if it didn’t it is clear that once Jesus was born, Joseph took his wife and knew her. Again it is unmistakably clear that before Christ was born, Mary is a virgin. Afterwards, she is never mentioned as a virgin, Joseph knew his wife, and she had other children, since Christ is the firstborn. You have clear testimony from Scripture.

Basically the arguement, from Scripture on your side boils down to:

A) Jesus gave His mother into John’s care, not His brothers(if they were half-brothers and not kinfolk)
B) Because Mary says “How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?”, it means she took a vow of celibacy and will never know a man.
C) Scripture is never clear that “brothers” and “sisters” are children of Mary, mother of Jesus.

Did I forget anything else, cause I want to deal with these individually.

Mike,

You have listed three things[a, b, & c]. Ryan more accurately summarized the arguments. One of the things you need to consider is the body of evidence in its entirety. Attempts to pick individual points apart without looking at the entire picture does not do justice to the teachings. This is not only true of the Church’s teachings on Mary’s virginity, but it applies to all other Christian teachings as well.

 

[mikeabele]

Great! Unfortunately, I have to go to work now, and pay attention to my own wife(LOL) afterwards. I would ask your patience in not overwhelming me, I think I’m the only non-Catholic on this thread. I’d like to get to each one of your positions and explore them together.

RyanL,
Apology accepted, without knowing the tone in someones voice its difficult to read their attitude behind the words. If I thought you were being rude, I most likely overlooked it.

God bless

 

[Church_Militant]

mikeabele:

Now where are they called the “Holy Family”? Yes, they had a child that was the Son of God, but Mary was the “handmaiden” of the Lord, not the “Queen mother”.

What’s wrong with the title? And you still have not researched the title “Giberah” that I gave you way early on. Here’s the relevent part of the post: It most certainly is the Queen Mother.

Who the queens were to all the Davidic kings, of whom Jesus is one because He is the Messiah. Go back in the OT and find out who the queens in Israel were from Solomon on. The title that you are looking for is “giberah”.

As for referring to Joseph, Mary, and Jesus as the Holy Family…can you think of a more appropriate term, or is this just another case of Catholics can’t be right just because we are Catholics? There’s nothing wrong with the term…
Pax tecum,

 

[awfulthings9]

This isn’t in reply to any posts in particular, but just a thought I had recently. I haven’t seen this written about, so I’d be curious to get insight from the rest of you. We talk of Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant. Obviously we get this idea from the fact that she carried the Christ in her womb, but also from the parallels drawn by Luke in his allusions to 2 Sam and the imagery between the Arc in Revelations and the Woman cloaked in the sun. I was thinking about that recently, and I remembered that no body was allowed to touch the arc, illustrated by the incident in the Old Testament when the man carrying the arc, with the most noble intention of keeping it from falling, died when he put his hand upon it. Now, if the New Testament is hidden in the Old and the arc is truly a type of the Virgin Mary, I thought: What can I take from that episode. To me, that is just further evidence that even a man with the most noble intentions, such as Joseph, could not put his hands on Mary, so to speak, because she had been chosen for another purpose. Just as the arc needed people to protect it, so did Mary, so he was chosen for that purpose.
Second thought for this discussion: If Mary had fully given herself over to God and bore the son of God. Would not Joseph had looked at it as the equivalent to adultery to have intercourse with God’s “bride”. After all, would he not have recognized that she had committed herself to another and that committments such as this are life-long since he would have seen it in the context of a marriage that overruled his own?
Any thoughts?

 

[awfulthings9]

mikeabele:

You must mean the DRV version:

15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

The NAB corrects the mistranslation:

15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel."

Another note, because I read and had to respond to this. Mikeabele, the verse for me (I wasn’t the one who posted it), was never about whose heel the serpent would strike at, so your NAB correction is a bit of a moot point. The real issue in this verse is that God says he will put enmity between Satan and the woman and between his offspring and hers. Now, we have to ask, who is the woman? Our first guess would be Eve, since she was the only woman around at that time. However, since her offspring was not without sin (especially Cain), that’s a dead-end. It can’t refer to mankind as a whole since there are a great number of people who don’t have enmity, or hatred, for sin. We must look for a woman whose offspring has enmity between himself and Satan (and his seed). The only offspring with complete enmity between Himself and Satan is Christ, since he was without sin. Going back to the quote, God says he will also put enmity between the woman and Satan. Since that woman can’t be Eve because of her offspring, it must be Mary. Since she, like Christ is having “enmity” put between her and Satan, she is without sin as well. Unless, of course, you can come up with another candidate for “the woman”, a singular female whose offspring was free from sin?

 

[Church_Militant]

Originally Posted by mikeabele

You must mean the DRV version:

15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

The NAB corrects the mistranslation:

15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel."

There is no “mistranslation” in the DRV on Genesis 3:15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

15 “She shall crush”… Ipsa, the woman; so divers of the fathers read this place, conformably to the Latin: others read it ipsum, viz., the seed. The sense is the same: for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent’s head.

The note clarifies it. And since Jerome has 2nd & 3rd century texts to work from that are no longer extant today as he translated the Vulgate from which the DRV is taken, who is likely to have been right? I vote DRV.
Pax vobiscum,

 

[DeFide]

Here’s an interesting verse if “brother/brethren” always means uterine brothers:

In those days Peter stood up among the brethren (the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty), and said… (Acts 1:15)

I guess we should assume that Mary had 121 kids.

 

[Axion]

mikeabele:

To answer the “third James” post…James—a form of Jacob

1. Son of Zebedee Matt. 4:21

Fisherman Matt. 4:21

One of the Twelve Matt. 10:2

In business with Peter Luke 5:10

Called Boanerges Mark 3:17

Of fiery disposition Luke 9:52–55

Makes a contention Mark 10:35–45

One of inner circle Matt. 17:1

Sees the risen Lord John 21:1, 2

Awaits the Holy Spirit Acts 1:13

Slain by Herod Agrippa Acts 12:2

So here’s the first Apostle James.

(Apostle James ) 2. Son of Alphaeus; one of the Twelve Matt. 10:3, 4

Identified usually as “the Less” Mark 15:40

Brother of Joses Matt. 27:56

Hmmmmmm.

More later…

(Apostle James) 3.

Son of Joseph and Mary Matt. 13:55, 56

Your supposition from the word brother/kinsman…

Lord’s brother Gal. 1:19

Rejects Christ’s claim Mark 3:21

The verse says “his family” - that’s quite a leap of imagination! No mention of any James here, let alone a brother!

Becomes a believer Acts 1:13, 14

The James mentioned here is the Son of Alphaeus, not Mary.

Sees the risen Lord 1 Cor. 15:7

No mention of which James here. it could have been 1 or 2.

Becomes moderator of Jerusalem Council Acts 15:13–23

Paul confers with him Gal. 2:9, 12

So at some time between Acts 1, and Acts 15, this supposedly disbelieving James, brother of Jesus, is made an Apostle - with no reference at all in Scripture of this happening, and not only this, he is put ahead of all the Apostles chosen by Jesus, and is made leader in Jerusalem!

However scripture makes no record at all of this happening! This is incredibly unlikely.

The Apostle made head of the Jerusalem Council is clearly James the Less, son of Alphaeus, kinsman of Jesus.

Wrote an epistle James 1:1

Brother of Jude

Al you’ve done here is try to “write out” Apostle James 2 - James the Less, whose father we know is Alphaeus/Cleopas! So. What happened to him. According to you, he vanishes from history and is never seen again after Mark 15, to be “replaced” by your “3rd James” - the son of Mary!

And according to you we have two Marys, “sisters” according to scripture, who have sons called James, Joses and Jude?

 

[Wildgraywolf]

And the Angel answered and said vnto her, The holy Ghost shall** come vpon** thee, and the power of the Highest shall** ouershadow** thee. Therefore also that holy thing which shall bee borne of thee, shall bee called the sonne of God. (Luk 1:35 KJV)

The words in bold are ancient euphemisms for a groom “taking possession” of his bride.

According to your logic then, Mikeabele are you saying that Jesus is the bastard Son of God?

Main Entry: 1bas·tard
Pronunciation: 'bas-t&rd
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, probably of Germanic origin; akin to Old Frisian *bost *marriage, Old English *bindan *to bind
1 : an illegitimate child
2 : something that is spurious, irregular, inferior, or of questionable origin

Main Entry: il·le·git·i·mate
Pronunciation: -'ji-t&-m&t
Function: adjective
1 : not recognized as lawful offspring; specifically : born of parents not married to each other
2 : not rightly deduced or inferred : ILLOGICAL
3 : departing from the regular : ERRATIC

Please provide scriptural references if you believe me in error.

 

[Wildgraywolf]

My own personal opinion…

If my fiancé told me she was pregnant and that an angel told her she’d become pregnant by the Holy Spirit and the child would be the Son of the Most High (this being the same God I’ve been worshiping all my life) and further more if I was told in a dream that everything my fiancé said was TRUE and NOT to split, but continue with the wedding; quite honestly the LAST thing I’d even consider is starting my own family. So if my fiancé was a virgin to begin with she’d certainly stay that way even as my wife.

I would be in awe, humbled by the events surrounding all of this; I would quickly realize that I am a participant in something that was much, much bigger than me. Aside from what the church teaches I think it’s more than reasonable, given the circumstances of Annunciation that Mary remained a virgin.

Scripture says that the Messiah would be born of a virgin, true enough, but what scripture doesn’t say is that the “said virgin” would already be engaged to someone else. Also, scripture doesn’t say that the Messiah would have a step-father who would lead them safely into Egypt. So, either we have the wrong virgin and Messiah or perhaps the bible isn’t explicit about every single detail. Does it need to be?

Is it so unbelievable that Mary remained a virgin? Is it really so far fetched? Nope. It is simply because it is a Catholic dogma that makes it objectionable and totally unbelievable.

 

[Pax]

Mike,

For purposes of exploring the “brothers and sisters” of the Lord usage we should take a closer look at Act 1:14-15. The verses say:

“All these with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers. In those days Peter stood up among the brethren (the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty), and said,”

Now take a head count. We have eleven apostles[12 if we count Mathias], the women[Mary Magdalen, maybe Mary the wife of Clopas, and say a few others], Mary the mother of Jesus and His brothers. So twelve apostles, “maybe” ten women and Mary the mother of Jesus. That’s only a little over twenty people. The rest are identified as brothers of Jesus. According to the strict Protestant interpretation that would mean that Jesus might have had as many as eighty to a hundred brothers because verse 15 says that there were approximately one hundred twenty in the company of persons gathered there. Surely, you do not believe that scripture is telling us that Jesus had that many brothers. The language and its usage is the key to understanding what is being said about Jesus and his kinsman and friends.

I hope this sheds a little more light on the subject.

 

[Pax]

Mike,

I know we have hit you with a lot and from all sides, so take your time to respond. Please note that this topic has real depth and a lot of scripture behind it. You have a view from your non-Catholic tradition and a different lens through which you view scripture. I think it’s important to examine differences in interpretation both exegetically and historically. In the case of the Catholic position on the perpetual virginity of Mary both methods support the teaching.

Please take the time to do some historical research on the Christian view of Mary’s perpetual virginity. I know that you are busy just like the rest of us, but this is worth delving into. I trust scripture and the Church on this issue without question because it has always been universally believed until relatively recently. We can no more drop a teaching like this than we can drop part of the Trinitarian formula of baptism in favor of baptism in the name of Jesus only. The historical data concerning what early Christians believed about Mary is overwhelmingly persuasive.

 

[Todd_Easton]

I believe the following Scriptural arguments support or affirm the constant teaching the Church from apostolic times that Mary was a perpetual virgin:

Leviticus 10:10 says, “You are to distinguish between the holy and the common…” Mary, or at least her reproductive system, was consecrated to the Lord, made holy by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit and by the presence within her of her holy offspring, Jesus. (It is not without reason the woman in the crowd said to Jesus, “Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts that you sucked!”) Once something is consecrated it is not to be used for ordinary purposes; that would be a sacrilege. See Exodus 30:22-38 regarding the capital crimes of using holy anointing oil and holy incense for ordinary purposes. Therefore, it would have been a sacrilege for Mary’s reproductive system to have been used for the conception and birth of common children after being consecrated by the conception, gestation, and birth of the God-man, Jesus. Committing such sacriledge would have been completely out of character for Mary, who was “the handmaid of the Lord,” and for Joseph, who was “a just man.” So, Mary’s perpetual virginity is likely.

When Mary said, in Luke 1:34, “since I do not know man,” she may well have meant “since I am a virgin, and I intend to remain a virgin.” Otherwise her remarks make little sense. So, Mary’s perpetual virginity is a possibility.

Is anyone else in the Bible, besides Jesus, ever explicitly called a son or daughter of Mary? No. So, Mary’s perpetual virginity is a possibility.

Is the word “brother” in Scripture ever used to mean something other than “uterine brother” ? Yes. The brothers of Jesus, may refer to step-brothers, as indicated in the Protoevangelium of James (written about A.D. 120). Or they may be close relations such as cousins, nephews, etc.; recall that Abraham’s nephew Lot was called his brother. Or they may refer to adopted brothers. So, Mary’s perpetual virginity is a possibility.

Is the word “until” in Scripture always used to mean a change of action? No. Because the Bible says, Philip “preached the gospel to all the towns till he came to Caesarea,” are we to assume that he stopped preaching the gospel once he got there? No. So, when it says they had no relations until she gave birth, it does not necessarily mean they had relations after Jesus’ birth, and Mary’s perpetual virginity is a possibility.

In Psalm 69:8, “my mother’s children” may refer to the children of Abraham’s wife Sarah; “Look to Abraham your father and to Sarah who bore you” (Isaiah 51:2). Whereas Zechariah 12:10 supports the notion that Jesus was an only child:"…they look on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a first-born."

So, Mary’s perpetual virginity is a possibility.

Jesus is called “the son of Mary” but never “one of the sons of Mary.” So, Mary’s perpetual virginity is a possibility.

Jesus gave his mother into the care of John at the foot of the cross. This move would have been unnecessary if Mary had had other children who could take care of her. So, Mary’s perpetual virginity is likely.

 

[RyanL]

Todd,

We are trying to give Mike some time to research and answer the following arguments:

1. Brother in the passages you cite does not mean “full uterine brother with same father”. “Brother” can (and does) mean many familial relationships within the Bible (uncle, nephew, cousin, etc.) - Biblical citations given. You have acknowledged that you do not believe “brother” means “brother” within this very context. There is therefore no reason to believe what you have proposed over Catholic teachings.
2. None of the “brothers” are ever refered to as “children of Mary”, which is a title applied only to Jesus.
3. Jesus, who knew these “brothers” of His would repent and follow Him within 3 days, still gave His mother to the apostle John at the foot of the cross - a gross violation of Levitical Law, which Christ *never *broke (as that would be a sin).
4. The apostle James, who is called “the Lord’s brother”, is elsewhere described as being the son of Zebedee. Zebedee is not Mary’s husband. Further demonstrates that “brother” does not mean “brother”. Biblical citations given.
5. Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant, a position held by the Fathers of the Church from as near to the apostles’ teaching as we can find written evidence. All evidence within the Bible points to this being the case, and the apostle John, who took Mary into his home for the rest of her earthly life, places her in Rev 12 - immediately following the unveiling of the old Ark of the Covenant - linking the two yet again. As the Ark was missing for the last several hundred years, any Jew who read Rev 11 would have immediately payed attention - and he would have found Mary in the next sentence. Being the Ark of the New Covenant, Mary was “pure” and “not to be touched”, and Joseph would have known this. Biblical citations given.
6. Mary was the spouse of the Holy Spirit, and as such was forbidden to Joseph to know. Biblical and Midrash citations given.
7. “Until” does not necessissarily imply change - in fact, sometimes change would be impossible following “until”. This is exactly such an instance. Biblical citations given.
8. Mary was concecrated to God, and in being so concecrated, she took a vow of celebacy. This is asserted as the only way to make sense of her response, “how can this be, since I know not man?” As no one who was planning on having a ‘regular’ marriage would question the statement, “You will have kids,” it makes no sense for her to do so without a vow being in place.

Please, no one flood Mike any more than he can bear; there is much for him to answer already!

RyanL

 

[RyanL]

…still waiting…

 

[Zooey]

awfulthings9:

This isn’t in reply to any posts in particular, but just a thought I had recently. I haven’t seen this written about, so I’d be curious to get insight from the rest of you. We talk of Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant. Obviously we get this idea from the fact that she carried the Christ in her womb, but also from the parallels drawn by Luke in his allusions to 2 Sam and the imagery between the Arc in Revelations and the Woman cloaked in the sun. I was thinking about that recently, and I remembered that no body was allowed to touch the arc, illustrated by the incident in the Old Testament when the man carrying the arc, with the most noble intention of keeping it from falling, died when he put his hand upon it. Now, if the New Testament is hidden in the Old and the arc is truly a type of the Virgin Mary, I thought: What can I take from that episode. To me, that is just further evidence that even a man with the most noble intentions, such as Joseph, could not put his hands on Mary, so to speak, because she had been chosen for another purpose. Just as the arc needed people to protect it, so did Mary, so he was chosen for that purpose.
Second thought for this discussion: If Mary had fully given herself over to God and bore the son of God. Would not Joseph had looked at it as the equivalent to adultery to have intercourse with God’s “bride”. After all, would he not have recognized that she had committed herself to another and that committments such as this are life-long since he would have seen it in the context of a marriage that overruled his own?Any thoughts?

Well, I think that this makes very good sense.

 

[Zooey]

…still waiting…

[/quote]

And just when things were getting:yup: interesting, too!!