Mary- other children

[SPOKENWORD]

Nine other commandments? I don’t understand. What commandment am I ignoring? The discussion was about Mary’s perpetual virginity. What does that have to do with the commandments?

Hi Angainor. One of the ten is to honor your father and mother. I dont mean you personally,im speaking in the general body. God Bless.

 

[RSiscoe]

Scott Waddell:

Good overall response with just a minor quibble: Isn’t the soul eternal whether it be in Heaven or Hell? I thought when I first read the above that you were suggesting that our souls are annihilated if one is condemed to Hell.

Scott

Very good question, and thank you for asking. Yes the soul is eternal and thus will always exist. But, if it is separated from God (not in the state of grace), it is “dead” to the higher form of life. It does not cease to exist, but does not possess the “eternal life” of God.

Since man’s soul was created to be with God forever, the soul was created immortal, which means it will always exist. Adam was created, not only with an immortal soul, but with the “eternal life” of God animating it. When he fell, through original sin, he lost this “eternal life” of God, but his soul remained immortal.

I have to go, please let me know if I need to respond further.

Thanks

 

[MaggieOH]

SPOKENWORD:

Can a marriage be a marriage without having a sexual relationship? Wouldnt this be grounds for an annulment. God Bless

Mary and Joseph were under Judaic Law, not our laws. What is more relevant therefore is the following passage on vows and pledges that have been taken by both young men and women:

“If a woman makes a vow to Yahweh or takes a formal pledge during her youth, while still in her father’s house, and if he hears about this vow or pledge by her and says nothing to her, her vow, whatever it may be shall be binding.” (Numbers 30:4)

I have not given the whole of the quotation. It also says that if her father objects then the vow is not held to be binding. Then it discusses the situation of a woman who is a wife and her husband hears about it and does nothing, the vow becomes binding, and if he objects then it is not binding.

This relates to Mary because it is our understanding that she made a vow of virginity before she was betrothed to Joseph and that he knew about the vow and did nothing which means a vow of virginity to Yahweh is binding upon Mary. The other possibility that no one readily discusses is that Joseph had taken the vow of the Nazirite and was also a “consecrated virgin” or celibate if you prefer. This would explain why Joseph was chosen to be the husband of Mary even though her vow of virginity was known.

As far as I am concerned, marriage is not just about sex. It is also about companionship and ultimately love for one another. A couple who are in such a unique role as Mary and Joseph would have been totally dedicated to their mission. If Mary had taken a vow and Joseph upon hearing about it did not object then the vow is binding. If Joseph had also taken a vow or a pledge to Yahweh then he was also held to that vow.

In our hedonistic society with all of its emphasis upon sex rather than upon relationship there is a very blurred line that has been drawn up. It is as though a lot of people see the only end to marriage as that of a sexual relationship. That is an abuse of the marriage partner.

Maggie
(a wife of 28 years)

 

[Benadam]

MaggieOH:

Mary and Joseph were under Judaic Law, not our laws. What is more relevant therefore is the following passage on vows and pledges that have been taken by both young men and women:

“If a woman makes a vow to Yahweh or takes a formal pledge during her youth, while still in her father’s house, and if he hears about this vow or pledge by her and says nothing to her, her vow, whatever it may be shall be binding.” (Numbers 30:4)

I have not given the whole of the quotation. It also says that if her father objects then the vow is not held to be binding. Then it discusses the situation of a woman who is a wife and her husband hears about it and does nothing, the vow becomes binding, and if he objects then it is not binding.

This relates to Mary because it is our understanding that she made a vow of virginity before she was betrothed to Joseph and that he knew about the vow and did nothing which means a vow of virginity to Yahweh is binding upon Mary. The other possibility that no one readily discusses is that Joseph had taken the vow of the Nazirite and was also a “consecrated virgin” or celibate if you prefer. This would explain why Joseph was chosen to be the husband of Mary even though her vow of virginity was known.

As far as I am concerned, marriage is not just about sex. It is also about companionship and ultimately love for one another. A couple who are in such a unique role as Mary and Joseph would have been totally dedicated to their mission. If Mary had taken a vow and Joseph upon hearing about it did not object then the vow is binding. If Joseph had also taken a vow or a pledge to Yahweh then he was also held to that vow.

In our hedonistic society with all of its emphasis upon sex rather than upon relationship there is a very blurred line that has been drawn up. It is as though a lot of people see the only end to marriage as that of a sexual relationship. That is an abuse of the marriage partner.

Maggie
(a wife of 28 years)

Maggie that is so true. I find that kind of projection when arguing the possibilities of human lives in history that by a priviledge of God, were made sinless and remained so. Elijah, Enoch, and maybe even Moses since it was undecided in court.

 

[TheGarg]

Angainor:

The question had to do with my personal willingness to sleep with my wife if she happened to have delivered the Son of God.
I say, no I would not be opposed. Why should I?

That has got to be the most irreverent, blasphemous thing I have ever heard.
This is one of my major beefs with prots. You all assume that you are somehow equal to Jesus or God, that somehow there is no need to be reverent.
This of course comes from living a life in “gathering spots” where the Eucharist is not present. You people would scratch you behind and tear the back of your pants out, right in front of him, without any attempt at holding back. To you, Jesus is a “buddy”, or an equal.

HE is our L-O-R-D, and should be given the respect as such. you can him haw around all you want, but let scripture back me up----
Luke 3:16
John answered them all, “I baptize you with Or in] water. But one more powerful than I will come, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

John understood the magnitude of who and what Jesus is, unlike yourself adn anyone else who would make the same self-serving statements like yours.

Why should you be opposed to having relations with your wife after God brought the Lamb through her???
Let me spell it out for you, Because G-O-D was present in your “wifes” womb.That makes it a holy sanctuary where YOU, a man, are NOT worthy to enter.
The ONLY Man worthy enough to be born in and pass from that sanctuary was the Son of God.

I can’t even fathom how someone would even consider it.
I believe Joseph understood that there were bigger things happening there than his personal desires, or what he felt he deserved. You prots could take a lesson from John the baptist, Joseph, or your nearest faithful Catholic.

May the peace, guidence, and mercy of God be on you.

 

[Church_Militant]

I would have to agree with you Garg. I mean Joseph had to know since he’d been visited by the angel too and been told to go ahead and take Mary as his wife in spite of the possible issues. He had to have been in some serious awe of what he was involved in, since this was obviously NOT your standard marraige relationship. Both he and Mary were righteous, so they had to have dealt with this themselves. They surely knew that their parenting skills were critical to fulfilling their responsibilties to care for the Son of God. Tradition also tells us that Joseph was much older and had been married before, hence the so-called brothers of Jesus… STEP-brothers and sisters, who were older and because they weren’t blood kin could’ve rebuked Him. If he had been their eldest brother such a rebuke would’ve been unheard of among the Jews. It just wasn’t done. Period.

 

[BibleReader]

Hi, glow8worm.

There is a way to discern, by a careful, relaxed reading of Scripture, that Jesus’ “brothers” and “sisters” were in fact cousins.

I’ll post the analysis later, when I have time.

 

[Angainor]

TheGarg:

You all assume that you are somehow equal to Jesus or God, that somehow there is no need to be reverent.

I guess I just don’t find marital relations particularly irreverent. After Jesus’ birth, life must go on. Jesus must be fed, cared for, he needed his diaper changed…

I don’t find the act of changing Jesus’ diaper to be reverent or irreverent, just everyday life.

 

[serendipity]

MaggieOH:

Serendipity,

on the contrary, the Psuedo Gospel of Matthew is not recognized as authentic teaching because of the errors and embellishments that are contained within it.

The very point that you bring up is the one point which indicated that this book did not deserve a place in the canon of Scripture. That is a story that is based upon the author’s conjecture. It was not an authentic teaching of the Church.

Maggie

Thank you for enlightening me of this fact, Maggie. I misread my source, and would have been completele misinformed without your help!!!:tiphat:

 

[serendipity]

MaggieOH:

This relates to Mary because it is our understanding that she made a vow of virginity before she was betrothed to Joseph and that he knew about the vow and did nothing which means a vow of virginity to Yahweh is binding upon Mary. The other possibility that no one readily discusses is that Joseph had taken the vow of the Nazirite and was also a “consecrated virgin” or celibate if you prefer. This would explain why Joseph was chosen to be the husband of Mary even though her vow of virginity was known.
Maggie
(a wife of 28 years)

Sorry, but one more question. where does our udnerstanding of Mary’s vow of celibacy rest, fi we can not trust the apocrypha? I already mentioned that I erroneously thought it was there.

 

[Church_Militant]

Angainor:

I guess I just don’t find marital relations particularly irreverent. After Jesus’ birth, life must go on. Jesus must be fed, cared for, he needed his diaper changed…

I don’t find the act of changing Jesus’ diaper to be reverent or irreverent, just everyday life.

Hey, I agree with you… Love making within the context of marriage is never meant to be somber or without pleasure, but when ya stop and think about the Holy Family it moves into a whole new realm. Your point about changing Jesus’ diapers is good though. They did go through the mundane things of every day life, though I’m sure that living with God in the flesh had to make that different and interesting as well. truth is, I can’t really get my mind around what all that had to be like. Whew!
Pax vobiscum,

 

[Theodora]

MaggieOH:

Mary and Joseph were under Judaic Law, not our laws. What is more relevant therefore is the following passage on vows and pledges that have been taken by both young men and women:

“If a woman makes a vow to Yahweh or takes a formal pledge during her youth, while still in her father’s house, and if he hears about this vow or pledge by her and says nothing to her, her vow, whatever it may be shall be binding.” (Numbers 30:4)

I have not given the whole of the quotation. It also says that if her father objects then the vow is not held to be binding. Then it discusses the situation of a woman who is a wife and her husband hears about it and does nothing, the vow becomes binding, and if he objects then it is not binding.

This relates to Mary because it is our understanding that she made a vow of virginity before she was betrothed to Joseph and that he knew about the vow and did nothing which means a vow of virginity to Yahweh is binding upon Mary. The other possibility that no one readily discusses is that Joseph had taken the vow of the Nazirite and was also a “consecrated virgin” or celibate if you prefer. This would explain why Joseph was chosen to be the husband of Mary even though her vow of virginity was known.

As far as I am concerned, marriage is not just about sex. It is also about companionship and ultimately love for one another. A couple who are in such a unique role as Mary and Joseph would have been totally dedicated to their mission. If Mary had taken a vow and Joseph upon hearing about it did not object then the vow is binding. If Joseph had also taken a vow or a pledge to Yahweh then he was also held to that vow.

In our hedonistic society with all of its emphasis upon sex rather than upon relationship there is a very blurred line that has been drawn up. It is as though a lot of people see the only end to marriage as that of a sexual relationship. That is an abuse of the marriage partner.

Maggie
(a wife of 28 years)

I love the information you gave that, as concluded from Numbers 30:4, Joseph must have also taken a vow of virginity. We all know Mary did.

From Scripture we also know that Joseph in a dream was informed by an angel that what is begotten in her is of the Holy Spirit (Mat. 1,20).

Having said this, Joseph and Mary could not have sexual relations after the birth of Jesus, because in doing so they:

1. Would have broken their vows
2. Would have commited adultery.

After all, the real spouse of Mary is the Holy Spirit. There’s just no way Joseph ever would have considered to trespass on that what belongs to God.

This being the case, I say no - Mary had no other children.

 

[MaggieOH]

Angainor:

I guess I just don’t find marital relations particularly irreverent. After Jesus’ birth, life must go on. Jesus must be fed, cared for, he needed his diaper changed…

I don’t find the act of changing Jesus’ diaper to be reverent or irreverent, just everyday life.

What happened to the man who put out his hand to steady the Ark of the Covenant?

He was immediately struck down dead because he was not worthy to touch something that was holy.

What did the angel say to Ezekiel about the gate where the Lord passed through? He said that it was to remain shut and no one was to pass through it because the Lord has passed through.

Can you see the connection?

Maggie

 

[MaggieOH]

serendipity:

Sorry, but one more question. where does our udnerstanding of Mary’s vow of celibacy rest, fi we can not trust the apocrypha? I already mentioned that I erroneously thought it was there.

Hi Serendipity,

1. Despite not being able to accept everything that is written in these spurious works known as Apochrypha (their source is Gnostic), there are still elements of truth within them.
2. The writers of these works were of Greek origin and the works were not written in the time of the Apostles. The reason for the lack of reliability is the embellishments but that does not mean that everything that they wrote was in error.
3. We can find the names of the real parents of James, Jude, Simon and Joseph by strictly reading and observing the Scripture. The parents are Alphaeus (Clopas) and the other Mary, as they are identified in Scripture.
4. We also know that Mary intended to remain a virgin because of her response to the Angel.

I hope that helps.

Maggie

 

[BibleReader]

Okay, here is how to engage in a relaxed reading of the gospel text, to see that the “adelphos” and “adelphe” in Mark 6:3 were really cousins of some sort…

**1 ****He departed from there and came to his native place, accompanied by his disciples. ****2 ****When the sabbath came he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astonished. They said, "Where did this man get all this? What kind of wisdom has been given him? What mighty deeds are wrought by his hands! ****3 **Is he not the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him. Mark 6:1-3.
In Verse 1, note that they are in Jesus’ “native place,” Nazareth in Galilee.

Now, Jesus’ mother Mary has with her there in Galilee these “adelphos” named James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and un-named “adelphe.”

Are these “adelphos” and “adelphe” with Mary the mother of Jesus, in Galilee, children of Mary the mother of Jesus? Or, are they something else?

First, carefully read Matthew 27:55-56…

**55 ****There were many women there, looking on from a distance, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him. ****56 ****Among them were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee. **Clearly, the “Mary” in Matthew 27:56 is not Mary Jesus’ mother. Matthew refers to Mary Jesus’ mother as “Mary his mother.” See Matthew 2:11. And referring to Mary Jesus’ mother as “Mary the mother of James and Joseph” is like referring to Napoleon Bonaparte’s mother as “the lady who was mother-in-law to Josephine.”

There’s no doubt about it, the Matthew 27:56 “Mary” was not Jesus’ mother.

Now, note well: Matthew 27:55 says that this Mary who wasn’t his mother followed Jesus from Galilee – she was in Galilee with him!
**
That’s where Mark 6:3 finds these “adelkphos” named James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and certain un-name “adelphe,” right?
**
Now note the names of two of these children of this Mary in Galilee who wasn’t Jesus’ mother, in Matthew 27:56: *James *and Joseph! Is that Jamnes and Joses?
**
Now let’s jump ahead to Mark 15:40-41:

**40 ****There were also women looking on from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of the younger James and of Joses, and Salome. ****41 **These women had followed him when he was in Galilee and ministered to him. There’s that same Mary who wasn’t the mother of Jesus who was with Jesus in Galilee. Again she is identified as the mother of “James” and this time of *“Joses” *-- not “Joseph,” but clearly the same kid. Our i.d. of that Joseph as “Joses” turns out to be correct.

And the Mark 15:40-41 Mary has another child – an “adelphe,” Salome!

Finally, note well: While Mark 6:3 calls the kids there “adelphos” and “adelphe” of Jesus, *it does not call Mary Jesus’ mother *their mother!

Conclusion: The ones called “adelphos” and “adelphe” of Jesus in Mark 6:3 are apparently the children of a Mary who is a relative of Mary Jesus’ mother, where this Mary who is a relative of Mary Jesus’ mother was in Galilee, with her children, at the same time as the events of Mark 6:3.

Voila: There is no evidence in the gospels that Jesus had “brothers” or “sisters.”

 

[TheGarg]

Angainor:

I guess I just don’t find marital relations particularly irreverent. After Jesus’ birth, life must go on. Jesus must be fed, cared for, he needed his diaper changed…

I don’t find the act of changing Jesus’ diaper to be reverent or irreverent, just everyday life.

Just what does that have to do with you being worthy to be where God has been, or your place in the order of things compared to Jesus.? Nothing…

 

[Angainor]

MaggieOH:

What happened to the man who put out his hand to steady the Ark of the Covenant?

He was immediately struck down dead because he was not worthy to touch something that was holy.

What did the angel say to Ezekiel about the gate where the Lord passed through? He said that it was to remain shut and no one was to pass through it because the Lord has passed through.

Can you see the connection?

Maggie

It is difficult to argue with that kind of imagery. I can point out that Jesus was already in this world for nine months when he was born, so I don’t think Mary’s birth canal is the East Gate mentioned in Ezekiel. Jesus entered the world through the incarnation. That is how he passed into this world, I see the incarnation is the gate that was shut to all others.

As for comparing Mary, to the Ark of the Covenant, I really don’t know what to say, so I guess I won’t say much. That is you’re claim. I can’t really refute it. I will say it goes against my mental image of the Mary and Joseph household. Wife of a carpenter. Traveling on a donkey…

 

[Angainor]

TheGarg:

Just what does that have to do with you being worthy to be where God has been, or your place in the order of things compared to Jesus.? Nothing…

Hello The Garg,

Worthy? I’m not worthy to breathe the same air Jesus might have breathed 2000 years ago. But God sent Him just the same.

Jesus was here. Walking the earth. Shaking people’s hands. Making conversation. Eventually dying a horrible death. We did not deserve it, but here He was, one of us. The Earth did not stop revolving while Jesus walked it. Life went on.

 

[MaggieOH]

Angainor:

I guess I just don’t find marital relations particularly irreverent. After Jesus’ birth, life must go on. Jesus must be fed, cared for, he needed his diaper changed…

I don’t find the act of changing Jesus’ diaper to be reverent or irreverent, just everyday life.

Do you believe that Jesus is the Son of God? Please consider your answer very carefully.

No one considers having sexual intercourse with one’s spouse as irreverent. That kind of answer is a smokescreen between real belief that Jesus is the Messiah, and lack of belief in Jesus as God. Yes, I know that this sounds very harsh. I think that I need to be harsh to get through the point that I want to make concerning the great mystery of the Incarnation.

If you believe that Jesus is the Son of God, then you have to agree that God passed through the “east gate” and that the gate must remain shut per the prophet Ezekiel:

“He brought me back to the outer east gate of the sanctuary. It was shut. Yahweh said to me, ‘This gate will be kept shut.’ No one will open it or go through it, since Yahweh the God of Israel has been through it. And so it must be kept shut.” (Ezekiel 44:1-2)

Now really concentrate on this passage please and think about answers to these questions:

• if Mary bore within her womb, Jesus who is the Messiah and Son of God, could her womb be described as the sanctuary where the Holy of holies is to be found?
• If Jesus was born in the normal way, that is he passed through Mary, is it possible to describe those most private parts of her body as the outer east gate of the sanctuary?
• Therefore, if Yahweh told Ezekiel that the outer east gate of the sanctuary must remain shut because Yahweh passed through it, would that not also apply to the sanctuary of the Messiah?

Look again at the exact words that have been used:

“No one will open it”. It is the first born son who opens the womb of the mother. It is the Son of God who has opened the womb of his mother. When this wording is applied to Mary, then Yahweh is saying to Ezekiel that no human creature, that is what comes from the seed of man will pass through the “outer east gate” (Mary’s body)

“or go through it” . Now this is where we get to the nuts and bolts of sexual intercourse and virginity. Surely when a man and woman come together it is described in terms of the Scripture as the man “going into” his wife?

“Abram’s wife Sarai had borne him no child but she had an Egyptian maidservant named Hagar. So Sarai said to Abram, 'Listen now! Since Yahweh has kept me from having children, go to my slave girl. Perhaps I shall get children through her… He went to Hagar and she conceived…” (Genesis 16:1-4)

“Yahweh saw that Leah was neglected, so he opened her womb while Rachel remained barren. Leah conceived and gave birth to a son whom she named Reuben.” (Genesis 29: 31)

These passages might seem obscure but it is the language that is used here that points to how Scripture talks about the process of conception and birth, and how it is applied to the Woman who gave birth to the Messiah.

There is an injunction in Ezekiel that both Mary and Joseph as her husband would have known, that is, the gate (Mary) that the Lord has passed through will remain shut against all others.

Maggie

 

[MaggieOH]

Angainor:

It is difficult to argue with that kind of imagery. I can point out that Jesus was already in this world for nine months when he was born, so I don’t think Mary’s birth canal is the East Gate mentioned in Ezekiel. Jesus entered the world through the incarnation. That is how he passed into this world, I see the incarnation is the gate that was shut to all others.

I can assume from your answer that you do not understand the reality of either the Incarnation or the birthing process. I have to disagree with the statement that Jesus was already in the world for nine months when he was born. This is contrary to how we date our own birthdays. We do not count our own years in terms of the day that we were conceived, because it is only in very exceptional circumstances that the mother would even know the date of conception. As such you misrepresent the mystery of the Incarnation with your comments.

Jesus was not already in the world because He was in the womb of Mary. He grew there from a tiny molecule and continued to grow until the time for Mary to give birth had come. The Incarnation is the whole process. Mary conceived the Messiah, the Son of God in her womb, and He, that is God passed through Mary. I defy you to show how God was in the world before the actual day on which Mary was born.

As a mother of three sons, I know what it is like to have a baby in the womb. In fact I am one of the exceptions who knew within a day that I was pregnant with my first child and can name the actual date of the conception of my first son. However I celebrate his birth on the day that he passed through my body and was born.

As an aunt whose great-nephew perished just prior to birth, (and I know the anguish of my niece at that time) I recognize that having life in the womb does not mean that the child will be born alive. Whilst this sounds like I might approve of a pro-choice position with regard to abortion from the way I have phrased myself I want all readers to know that this is not the case because I abhor how my nephew was allowed to die in the womb. I am trying to point out that it cannot be argued that God was in the world in the way stated and that the Incarnation, that is “the Word was made Flesh and dwelt amongst us” is a reference to the birth of Jesus i.e. his passing through Mary to be born.

Angainor:

As for comparing Mary, to the Ark of the Covenant, I really don’t know what to say, so I guess I won’t say much. That is you’re claim. I can’t really refute it. I will say it goes against my mental image of the Mary and Joseph household. Wife of a carpenter. Traveling on a donkey…

However, it could be that your mental image is wrong. Have you thought about that possibility? Sure Mary was the wife of a carpenter. Did it ever strike you that God was shielding the Woman who was to give birth to the Messiah by making her as inconspicuous as possible? Being the wife of a carpenter meant that she had a rather humble background which is a far cry from that which was expected by the Jews of that time. They were not expecting the Messiah to be born in conditions of abject poverty. Yet, that is the way that God chose to be born into the world - the Incarnation: “The Was made Flesh and dwelt amongst us”. Since it would not have been possible for Mary to go by foot to reach Bethlehem because she was so heavily pregnant it was only appropriate that she was provided with a donkey.

Look to see what Scripture says. Is Jesus the New Covenant? If He is the New Covenant then the Woman who bore Him in her womb is the Ark of the New Covenant. That alone means that her womb has been sanctified and made Holy by God.

MaggieOH