Mary's Perpetual Virginity

[Pons]

But we know from Matthew’s account that after Jesus was born Joseph and Mary consummated the marriage and together had children: James, Joseph, Simon & Judas - the names of His sisters are not given (Matt. 13:56; Mk. 6:3].

Manny, that text does not at all say that Mary had an older sister by the same name as her’s. Read it carefully! The text states that Jesus’ mother was standing near the cross, AND his mother’s sister. The second Mary mentioned is not Mary’s sister but “the wife of Clopas.” John does not give us the name of Mary’s sister.

However, in Mark’s account (15:40) he mentions the same women as John but also adds “Salome.” So it is most probable that Salome is the name of Mary’s sister who was beside her at the cross.

If you do a study in Matthew, Mark and John we see the women mentioned at the cross were: (1) Mary, Jesus’ mother, (2) Mary’s sister (Salome), (3) Mary Magdalene, (4) Mary the mother of James and Joseph, 5) the mother of the sons of Zebedee.

Whether “Mary, wife of Clopas” is Mary of Nazareth’s “sister” or not (what do the ECFs have to say?), someone other than the latter is clearly the mother of James and Joseph/Joses. Matthew mentions “James and Joseph” here and in the list of Jesus’s relatives, while Mark does the same, only rendering the second man Joses. Since that specific name combination occurs in identical contexts in two Gospels, they must be the same individuals. So If James and Joseph aren’t literally siblings, Simon and Judas can’t be either.

The Ever-Virginity of the Mother of God by Fr. John Hainsworth (Greek Orthodox) The same Mary is mentioned in succeeding verses, but as “mother of James” and “mother of Joseph”, and probably “the other Mary”. John is unique in having Mary of Nazareth present

Note that in Matthew the names “James and Joseph” were mentioned before. Indeed, the way Matthew mentions “Mary mother of James and Joseph” in 27:55, 56 presupposes that he has already introduced these “James and Joseph”—as indeed he has. In Matthew 13:55, we read that our Lord’s “brothers” are “James and Joseph and Simon and Judas.” Similarly, in St. Mark’s Gospel, “James and Joses” are mentioned as if we already know who “James and Joses” are, which in fact we do from Mark 6:3, where Christ’s “brothers” are listed as “James and Joses and Judas and Simon.”

It seems beyond reasonable dispute that the Mary at the Cross in St. Matthew and St. Mark is the mother of our Lord’s “brothers,” “James and Joses.” Also, it is inconceivable that Matthew and Mark would refer to the Lord’s Mother at the foot of the Cross as the mother of James and Joseph, but not mention that she is the Mother of Jesus as well!

Another link: Jesus’ “Brothers” and Mary’s Perpetual Virginity by by Mark J. Bonocore

All in all, it comes down to sola Scriptura or sola verbum Dei (or sola Dei verbum, I’m not exactly a Latin expert)

 

[Mickey]

This is yet one more analogy made that is unsubstantiated. As such, I again dismiss it outright. Either support what you’re claiming, or don’t make the claim.

To begin, I did not write the comment to you. It means nothing to me what you dismiss or support. It is Patristic interpretation. Your opinions are meaningless. Secondly, it is not polite to make demands–let’s show some manners.

 

[Good_Fella]

To begin, I did not write the comment to you. It means nothing to me what you dismiss or support. It is Patristic interpretation. Your opinions are meaningless. Secondly, it is not polite to make demands–let’s show some manners.

“If I do not find it in the ancient Scriptures, I will not believe the Gospel; on my saying to them, It is written, they answered me, That remains to be proved. But to me Jesus Christ is in the place of all that is ancient: His cross, and death, and resurrection, and the faith which is by Him are undefiled moments of antiquity.”

Ignatius of Antioch, ‘Epistle to the Philadelphians 8,2’ (c.A.D. 110)

“The apostles at that time first preached the Gospel but later by the will of God, they delivered it to us in the Scriptures, that it might be the foundation and pillar of our faith.”

“For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us their writings? Would it not be necessary to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those whom they did commit the churches?”

“Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church…those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the certain gift of truth.”

Irenaeus, 'Against the Heresies 3,1; 3, 4:1; 26:2 ( A.D. 180/199 )

“Therefore let those who deny that the Son is from the Father by nature and proper to his Essence, deny also that He took true human flesh of Mary Ever-Virgin.”

Athanasius, ‘Orations Against the Arians’, ll:70 ( A.D. 362 )

“He will glorify me, because He will take from what is mine and declare it to you.” {John 16:14}

“He who receives you, receives Me, and he who rejects you, rejects Me and the One who sent me.” {Matthew 10:40}

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Axion]

The Third Apostle James?

In order to allege that the Apostle James, “brother” of Jesus was a Son of Mary, you have to invent a shadowy third Apostle called James. Is this credible?

James “Brother of Jesus” is referred to as one of the APOSTLES by Paul in Galatians 1.9. Yet we know from Matthew 10:2-4 that neither of the Apostles named James was actually a Son of the Virgin Mary! One of the Apostles James, is however, the Son of ALPHAEUS, who most bible scholars agree is the same person as Clopas - already identified as Father of James and Joseph.

So if James “brother of Jesus” was an Apostle, he cannot have been a son of Mary.

One can argue that a **third ** James, supposed blood brother of Jesus, was elevated to the Apostleship at some time after the resurrection. However this presents a number of difficulties.

a) Why is this “third James” **never ** mentioned in the gospel accounts?
b) Why would the Apostles take a non-apostle as their leader in Jerusalem?
c) Why is the 3rd James’s elevation to Apostle not mentioned in scripture?
d) Why did Jesus give Mary as Mother to John, if this “third James” existed?
e) What happened to the “second” James, son of Alphaeus after the resurrection? If we imagine a “third James”, then James the Apostle, son of Alphaeus disappears from history mysteriously at exactly the same time the supposed “third James”, just as mysteriously appears.

We are also told that James the Apostle, “brother” of Jesus has a house in jerusalem, where all the disciples met. A big house for the younger son of a poor carpenter from Nazareth?

Is it not obvious that it is James the Apostle, Cousin of Jesus, who is the Apostle and “brother of the Lord” of the early church in Jerusalem?

The “Third James” hypothesis doesn’t hold water.

We are also told that James the Apostle, “brother” of Jesus has a house in jerusalem, where all the disciples met. A big house for the younger son of a poor carpenter from Nazareth

 

[Good_Fella]

Maurin, where did you go to school to learn Greek? Or were you just parroting something you read? I went back and did a little research on my own. Look at Matt. 2:9.Matt 2:9 After hearing the king, they went their way; and the star, which they had seen in the east, went on before them until it came and stood over {the place} where the Child was.In the Greek it is just heos. Yet a change took place. It went before them only until - then a change took place - it stopped.

Now look at Matt. 2:13:Matt 2:13 "Now when they had gone, behold, an angel of the Lord *appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, "Get up! Take the Child and His mother and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you; for Herod is going to search for the Child to destroy Him."Here, too, in the Greek only the word heos is used. Yet Joseph was to take the Child and mother to Egypt and stay there only until he tells them to, then a change was to take place.

Now look at Matt 5:26 "Truly I say to you, you will not come out of there until you have paid up the last cent.Here it uses the Greek “heos-hau.” Clearly what’s being communicated is the person does not come out until he has paid the last cent - then a change takes place.

Whether the Greek was heos-hau or the simple heos, it still implied in the text and context that a change was to take place. It is no different in Matt. 1:25. The implication there being that he kept her a virgin “until the time” when she gave birth - then a change took place. The assertion that neither Matthew or the Greek used implied change is absurd. It’s just another case of interpretation manipulation, trying to trump Scripture with tradition.

According to a Catholic theologian and Bible translator I’m acquainted with, conjunctions do not have such intensely prescribed meanings as modern day commentators have tried to claim. The Bible is written in ordinary language. Words, like ‘until’ have a range of meanings depending on context. We cannot base an argument for or against the perpetual virginity of Mary, or a belief in this doctrine, on just one conjunction. There is not enough meaning in one conjunction out of context to draw any conclusions at all. We must regard the traditional teachings of the Magisterium and the Apostolic Church from earliest times. Unfortunately modern day Protestants, notably Fundamentalists, ignore the wise understanding of the entire Scriptures by the Church Fathers and the Episcopate in the formulation of Marian doctrines throughout the centuries. They deny the existence of one historic Christian Faith originating with Jesus and the Apostles. Like any gnostic, they exalt their own limited understanding or misunderstanding of Scripture over the understanding and infallible teachings of the Apostolic authority of the Catholic Church. :yup: In other words, they continue to whistle dixie.

“To be deep in history is to cease being Protestant.”
Cardinal John H Newman

---

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Pons]

Paul uses “apostle” more loosely than the Gospel writers, since he applies it to himself and Barnabas. There could have been a third James, whom Paul calls the “brother of the Lord”, but he couldn’t have been that literally (see thread ). What makes others think there’s a third James who wasn’t one of the Twelve is the unbelief of Jesus’ relatives while he was teaching.

So according to this view, this third James is the full brother to Joseph/Joses (and possibly Simeon and Judas) and most probably the son of a Mary, the wife of Clopas/Cleophas and Mary of Nazareth’s “sister” (possibly non-literal).

Some say Alphaeus is the same as Clopas/Cleophas, but some disagree… What’s important is that he’s not literally Jesus’ brother. James son of Alphaeus could be the brother of Matthew, aka Levi son of Alphaeus…

Wikipedia says the Eastern Orthodox don’t identify James “the Less” with James the “brother of the Lord” (for them, definitely a son of Joseph with another wife).

Even though the term “the Less(er)” may have originally been applied to the “brother of the Lord” and was transferred to the Apostle, that doesn’t make it wrong. James “the Greater” was part of Jesus’s “inner inner circle” together with Peter and John; no other James could match that. Sure, the “brother of the Lord” eventually led the local Jerusalem church, but he was not one of the Twelve.

An aside: there sure are a lot of people with the same names in the NT… all the more reason we need the Church to distinguish who’s who…

 

[PC_Master]

To begin, I did not write the comment to you. It means nothing to me what you dismiss or support. It is Patristic interpretation. Your opinions are meaningless.

Your interpretation, the RCC’s interpretation, patristic interpretation, and my interpretation are all opinions. Still, you avoid the point, which is that to establish something as fact, you should have some logic behind it.

Secondly, it is not polite to make demands–let’s show some manners.

Requesting actual support for an argument is completely reasonable. It’s just not comfortable for some. Lack of comfort does not equal lack of polity.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Lest Apophasis and his fellow separatists forget how far afield they have wandered from the faith of their spiritual forefathers, the Reformers, I present the following sobering quotations for prayerful reflection:

Early Protestants on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

Martin Luther (1483-1546)****

“Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb…This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.”

“Christ…was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him…I am inclined to agree with those who declare that ‘brothers’ really mean ‘cousins’ here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.”

“A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ…Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity.”

“Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity…When Matthew says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her…This babble…is without justification…he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.”

John Calvin (1509-1564)****

“Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s ‘brothers’ are sometimes mentioned.”

“The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband…No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words…as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called ‘first-born’; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin…What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us…No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.”

“Under the word ‘brethren’ the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity.”

Huldreich Zwingli (1484-1531)****

“I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonourable, impious, unworthy or evil…I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity.”

Heinrich Bullinger (1504-1575)****

“The Virgin Mary…completely sanctified by the grace and blood of her only Son and abundantly endowed by the gift of the Holy Spirit and preferred to all…now lives happily with Christ in heaven and is called and remains ever-Virgin and Mother of God.”

John Wesley (1703-1791)****

“I believe…he [Jesus Christ] was born of the blessed Virgin, who, as well after as she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.”

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[apophasis]

Pons:

Whether “Mary, wife of Clopas” is Mary of Nazareth’s “sister” or not (what do the ECFs have to say?), someone other than the latter is clearly the mother of James and Joseph/Joses. Matthew mentions “James and Joseph” here and in the list of Jesus’s relatives, while Mark does the same, only rendering the second man Joses. Since that specific name combination occurs in identical contexts in two Gospels, they must be the same individuals. So If James and Joseph aren’t literally siblings, Simon and Judas can’t be either.

Yes, I agree that Mary the wife of Clopas is identified as the mother of James and Joseph. No problem there. And I agree James and Joseph (Joses) are siblings. However, I do not at all agree that the “Mary, mother of James and Joseph (wife of Clopas)” is identified as Mary’s sister. In Jo. 19:25 it states that standing by the cross were the mother of Jesus, and His mother’s sister. Then two more: Mary the wife of Clopas and Mary of Magdala. The name of Mary’s sister is not given. Mary, wife of Clopas, mother of James and Joseph, is an altogether separate person from “His mother’s sister.”

But I totally disagree with Fr. John Hainsworth’s false presupposition. He writes:"Note that in Matthew the names “James and Joseph” were mentioned before. Indeed, the way Matthew mentions “Mary mother of James and Joseph” in 27:55, 56 presupposes that he has already introduced these “James and Joseph” - as indeed he has. In Matthew 13:55, we read that our Lord’s “brothers” are "James and Joseph and Simon and Judas."The naming of James and Joseph in Matt. 27:56 was to identify who this Mary was. It does not at all presuppose that Matthew already introduced them earlier in Matt. 13:55. In fact, quite the contrary! The James and Joseph in Matt. 13:55 are clearly identified by the whole town of Nazareth as two of the four sons of Joseph the carpenter and his wife Mary, not Mary wife of Clopas. Matt. 13:55 does not say:"Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His mother’s sister (also called Mary), and her sons James and Joseph and Simon and Judas, and their sisters, are they not also with us?"No my friend, that is pure manipulation and distortion of the Scriptures (2 Pet. 2:16). The town of Nazareth does not identify James, Joseph, Simon Judas and their sisters as the sons and daughters of Mary, wife of Clopas. But literally as the children of Joseph the carpenter and his wife Mary. Which would make them half brothers and sisters of Jesus.

The futile attempt to try to identify James and Joseph (sons of Mary wife of Clopas) as the same as those previously listed in Matt. 13:55 (belonging to Joseph and Mary) clearly exposes an ulterior motive by the interpreter. Could it possibly be to preserve the legend of Mary’s perpetual virginity? :yup:

Fr. JH then writes:"It seems beyond reasonable dispute that the Mary at the Cross in St. Matthew and St. Mark is the mother of our Lord’s “brothers,” "James and Joses."To the contrary, when allowing Scripture to speak for itself it is totally unreasonable. The passages themselves tell us who their mothers were. From what’s revealed, Joseph and Mary had four sons, Mary and Clopas had two. Both families had sons named James and Joseph.

Not so unusual. Think about it, there were at least three Marys present at the crucifixion of Christ. “Mary,” “Joseph” and “James” obviously were very popular Jewish names at that time.

 

[apophasis]

A very interesting point I had not yet considered.

(Honestly, I expect this post to receive a reply stating “I’ve already explained the facts to you a bunch of times now”, instead of answering the arguments raised and supplying some evidence to support the crazy assertions given thus far. If that is the case, this debate is pretty well over, because Good Fella and others wouldn’t respond in a way which allows the conversation to continue.)

Yeah, no evidence and crazy assertions seem to be what we’re continually getting. It’s what I find presented for almost all the extra-biblical Marian dogmas. If people want to believe them, I guess that’s their business. But if you claim them as part of the Christian faith, then you’ve got to supply the evidence. Where is it???

I agree, the debate is pretty well over. :yawn:

 

[Spirithound]

Actually he said she would conceive in her womb and then bear a son. By Mary’s response we must conclude that she understood by Gabriel’s words that the conception (not the birth) would be imminent. We know that Mary was betrothed to Joseph, but what we don’t know is when the actual marriage (the second part) was planned to occur. Obviously Mary understood this to be not before she would miraculously conceive in her womb. For this reason she responded with, “How can this be, since I know no man?”

My friend, you are begging the question. You start off by assuming that Mary expected a miracle, and then you say that her words indicate she expected a miracle. Isn’t it at least theoretically possible that she took the Angel’s words to be referring to a future event? What sane person expects a miracle?

I find the previous explanation I’ve posted to be far more likely. To assume that she would have assume the birth would have come as a result of normal marital activity is to assume that she knew nothing of the prophecies of the virgin birth.

Why would she have expected herself to be the virgin in question? What sane person expects a miracle?

And that’s the mind-set of most couples who get engaged to be married.Which would be diametrically opposed to what you just said she KNEW to be the “normal course of events” upon marriage.

“Normal courses of events” happen to normal people. Mary was not normal.

And the fact that God chose a woman already engaged to be married to birth the long awaited Messiah, gives us the insight that God desired the Son to be born into a normal, Jewish family, including siblings. The Son incarnate would experience the first 30 years of the humility of His humanity through the cognitive operation of family life. Scripture testifies to it.

After all, it wasn’t prophesied that the Messiah would simply descend from heaven to this earth, but that He would be born into it. He was “king of the Jews” according to birth (Matt. 2:2; Jn. 18:37), the rightful Heir to the throne of David (Lk. 1:32-33). So the ONLY thing extraordinary about that family of the tribe of Judah was Mary’s first-born Son. The way God intended it to be.

Have ye the ear of God? These are empirical questions regarding God’s will, which quite frankly, I don’t think you have the answer to.

 

[PC_Master]

Why would she have expected herself to be the virgin in question? What sane person expects a miracle?

I didn’t say she expected this. Let’s look at the series of events, and throw in a bit of logic here.

First, the angel says Mary is highly favored with God. Thus, it is totally reasonable to assume that she knew well the prophecies of the Torah.

Then, the angel continues – the angel says she will give birth to a son to be named Jesus (Iesous translitterated from the Hebrew Yeshua), and that he will be called the son of the most high, and that he will sit in the throne of David, and that his kingdom will have no end.

Mary, knowing her scriptures quite well, quickly recognizes that the angel is speaking of the Messiah, the long-awaited savior. As a human being, Mary is astonished at this news (wouldn’t you be?). In her amazement, she asks how this is going to happen, seeing that she has had (again, this word was present tense, not future) no sexual relations with a man. Perhaps at this point, Mary starts to realize that she is the virgin prophesied of in the scriptures. Even if she did, I’m quite certain she would still be quite curious as to how she’d become pregnant while being a virgin. Again, wouldn’t you be?

So no, Mary didn’t expect a miracle. Mary was probably in awe that this miracle had fallen upon her, of all people.

 

[apophasis]

“Normal courses of events” happen to normal people. Mary was not normal.

Sure she was. What happened to her was extraordinary, but she herself was not. She learned as she went along.

Have ye the ear of God? These are empirical questions regarding God’s will, which quite frankly, I don’t think you have the answer to.

The Scriptures do. I have them to study.

 

[apophasis]

Lest Apophasis and his fellow separatists forget how far afield they have wandered from the faith of their spiritual forefathers, the Reformers, I present the following sobering quotations for prayerful reflection:

More accurately “the beliefs” of those men. The basis for “the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3) is not the personal beliefs of men, but divine revelation. Even those men needed to provide evidence for what they personally believed. Do you have those quotes for me to read?

 

[repo_man]

i got into a fight with someone earlier about mary. i defended her perpetual virginity and someone said that i was essentially a heretic because i was catholic.

anyways … is it compatible with the faith to say the four brothers mentioned in the bible are stepbrothers of joseph’s previous marriage?

 

[HailMary]

Lest Apophasis and his fellow separatists forget how far afield they have wandered from the faith of their spiritual forefathers, the Reformers, I present the following sobering quotations for prayerful reflection:

Early Protestants on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

Martin Luther (1483-1546)****

“Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb…This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.”

“Christ…was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him…I am inclined to agree with those who declare that ‘brothers’ really mean ‘cousins’ here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.”

“A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ…Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity.”

“Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity…When Matthew says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her…This babble…is without justification…he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.”

John Calvin (1509-1564)****

“Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s ‘brothers’ are sometimes mentioned.”

“The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband…No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words…as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called ‘first-born’; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin…What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us…No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.”

“Under the word ‘brethren’ the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity.”

Huldreich Zwingli (1484-1531)****

“I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonourable, impious, unworthy or evil…I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity.”

Heinrich Bullinger (1504-1575)****

“The Virgin Mary…completely sanctified by the grace and blood of her only Son and abundantly endowed by the gift of the Holy Spirit and preferred to all…now lives happily with Christ in heaven and is called and remains ever-Virgin and Mother of God.”

John Wesley (1703-1791)****

“I believe…he [Jesus Christ] was born of the blessed Virgin, who, as well after as she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.”

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

So if the Catholics, Orthodox, and the TRUE Protestants all believed in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary what does that say about the opponents on this thread and their theology?

(can someone say, “traditions of man”?)

 

[Good_Fella]

Yeah, no evidence and crazy assertions seem to be what we’re continually getting. It’s what I find presented for almost all the extra-biblical Marian dogmas. If people want to believe them, I guess that’s their business. But if you claim them as part of the Christian faith, then you’ve got to supply the evidence. Where is it???

I agree, the debate is pretty well over. :yawn:

Are you really sure about that?
Or are you still whistling dixie when you ain’t yawning. :yawn:

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[apophasis]

My friend, you are begging the question. You start off by assuming that Mary expected a miracle, and then you say that her words indicate she expected a miracle. Isn’t it at least theoretically possible that she took the Angel’s words to be referring to a future event? What sane person expects a miracle?

I didn’t say she expected a miracle either. But the account in Luke that describes the conversation between Mary and Gabriel certainly indicates that Mary did not at all correlate what Gabriel said would happen to her with her future marriage to Joseph. She understood it to be imminent and expressed to him her present condition of virginity (“I know no man”). So it stands to reason that she would question him with, “How can this be…?” Then he informed her of the pending miracle. So, no, she was not “expecting” a miracle. She wasn’t even expecting to be the “favored one.” I agree with PC, she must have been in awe over the whole encounter. But she was a Jew and was aware of the nation’s Messianic hope.

 

[HailMary]

I didn’t say she expected a miracle either. But the account in Luke that describes the conversation between Mary and Gabriel certainly indicates that Mary did not at all correlate what Gabriel said would happen to her with her future marriage to Joseph. She understood it to be imminent and expressed to him her present condition of virginity (“I know no man”). So it stands to reason that she would question him with, “How can this be…?” Then he informed her of the pending miracle. So, no, she was not “expecting” a miracle. She wasn’t even expecting to be the “favored one.” I agree with PC, she must have been in awe over the whole encounter. But she was a Jew and was aware of the nation’s Messianic hope.

Yes, only if you had an existing neo-protestant theology in your head could you try to make the bible say that.

 

[apophasis]

anyways … is it compatible with the faith to say the four brothers mentioned in the bible are stepbrothers of joseph’s previous marriage?

Not unless you can prove Joseph was previously married. And then you’d have to prove that he had four sons and an undisclosed number of daughters through that marriage.

I hope when you said you got into a “fight” over Mary, you weren’t speaking literally. As for the word, “heretic,” it’s thrown around so much these days it practically carries no meaning anymore.