perpetual virginity of Mary..T or F?

[Randy_Carson]

Of course he waited until after Mary gave birth to Jesus to have relations with her, it does not say he never did not have relations with his wife. So Matthew is stating that Joseph did come to know Mary later on,

This is incorrect, and here is why:

Matthew 1:25: Until she brought forth her firstborn son

The Catholic Church teaches that Mary remained a perpetual virgin and that Jesus did not have any brothers and sisters. Many non-Catholics doubt these claims, and they frequently cite Matthew 1:25 in support of their views that Mary and Joseph had normal sexual relations after they were married and that Jesus was only the first of many children that resulted from their union. Let’s examine this important verse more closely using two popular Protestant translations.

24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. (KJV)

24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife.25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus. (NIV)

“Until”

In verse 25, the Greek heôs, “until,” does not necessarily contrast “before” to “after.” It means that up to a certain moment, something happened or not, without considering what happened after that moment. For example, the Greek text of the Septuagint says, in 2 Samuel 6:23, that “Mikal, daughter of Saul, had no children until (heôs) the days of her death.” This obviously does not suggest that she had children after her death. Matthew is interested in underlining that Jesus’ birth and conception were carried out without the intervention of any man.

Remove the word “until” from the verse, and you have the following:

“Joseph had no relations with her…she brought forth her firstborn”

Two simple statements. Protestants really disagree with the first of these two; therefore, the word “until” is the whole argument. Either Joseph held off “until” and then proceeded to have relations (the Protestant position) OR Joseph had no relations with her. Period. (the Catholic position).

Naturally, Protestants argue for a simple reading of the text, but Catholics counter that “until” doesn’t actually imply the cessation of past action (namely, holding off). Although things look intuitively obvious for the Protestant point of view, in actual fact, the Catholic position is not harmed at all by the word “until” because that word implies nothing…and other verses in scripture PROVE that point.

Genesis 8:7
The raven “did not return TILL the waters were dried up…”
Did the raven ever return?

Deuteronomy 34:6 (Knox)
No one knew the location of his grave “until this present day”
But we know that no one has known it since that day either.

Luke 1:80
“And the child grew and became strong in spirit; and he lived in the desert until he appeared publicly to Israel.” The Greek word translated “until” in this passage is heos, the same word used in Matthew 1:25. The child spoken of is John the Baptist who also lived in the desert after he appeared in public (cf. Matt. 3:1, Mark 1:3,4; Luke 3:2).

1 Timothy 6:14
“…that you keep this commandment without spot, blameless UNTIL our Lord Jesus Christ’s appearing…”
May this commandment be disobeyed after Jesus returns?

Because “until” does not require a cessation of activity, Matthew 1:25 cannot be used to disprove the perpetual virginity of Mary.

 

[Randy_Carson]

So you consider them married only in technicality.

No, and nothing I wrote suggests that. There was a tragic article in the news today about a bride who was killed in an automobile accident just minutes after leaving her wedding reception. Would you tell the groom that his marriage was only a “technicality”?

In the Jewish frame of reference consummation and even procreation are God-ordained and commanded if 2 people are married, one of our Jewish posters can correct me if I’m wrong. Also, the two shall become one flesh.

What is the RCC’s teaching on consummation and marriage? They teach that two people are actually married in the eyes of God even if they can consummate but don’t? Paul says not to abstain for long periods. I don’t see anything at all sinful or wrong with sleeping with one’s wife.

Well, duh. There is nothing wrong with sleeping with one’s wife. There is also nothing wrong with NOT sleeping with one’s wife by mutual consent as Paul advises.

You may wish to review the relevant sections of the Catechism for additional information concerning validity and consummation, but the short answer is that Mary and Joseph were validly married.

 

[aidanbradypop]

And then there is Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong who denies the virgin birth [perpetual - bolderdash!] -

And who wrote a book “Born of a Woman: A Bishop Rethinks the Virgin Birth and the Treatment of Women by a Male Dominated Church” … its probable that Jesus was the result of Mary;s being raped by a roman soldier … …is this one of the fruits of Protestantism or what

Really? Really? I guess I expected more from someone with over 3000.

 

[YADA]

Really? Really? I guess I expected more from someone with over 3000.

Hey - Not sure what you mean …

Was John Shelby Spong an Episcopal Bishop or not? - Hint the answer is YES
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Shelby_Spong

Did he write the book or not? Hint the answer is YES
amazon.com/Born-Woman-Rethinks-Treatment-Male-Dominated/dp/0060675233

This is one of the fruits of Protestantism … the ability for each individual Christian and / or Christian Community to hold to whatever particular beliefs they decide is True …

The early Christians, the Church, even all of the early Protestant Reformers believed and held that Mary was a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus … for 1800 years - then some began to teach a different belief … that Mary was only a virgin until Jesus was born but that she was not perpetually a virgin … and now you have Christians teaching and proposing that Jesus was not born of a Virgin - by an Episcopal Bishop …

You said some believe in the Virgin Birth and Perpetual Virginity
Some believe int he Virgin Birth but don’t believe in the Perpetual Virginity…
All I added is some don’t be in the Virgin Birth - ergo the second is a non-sequitor …

So - you thought better of me - how?, why? … What did I do? I hold to the teachings of the one holy catholic and apostolic church - and the teachings that are consistent and not subject to personal whimsy and opinion …

Oh - I get it … you dislike the path your position can take a person … not my fault

 

[Randy_Carson]

Some verses that could be a stubbling block.

1 CORINTHIANS
9:4-6

This is my defense to those who would examine me. Do we not have the right to our food and drink? Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

ST. PAUL GALATIANS 1:18-19

Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Peter, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.

ACTS 1:12-14 (following Jesus’ Ascension)
“Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet . . . When they had entered the city, they went to the room upstairs where they were staying, Peter, and John, and James, and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Mathew, James son of Alpheus, and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. All these were constantly devoting themselves to prayer, together with certain women, including Mary the mother of Jesus, as well as his brothers.”

I see the verses but you didn’t flesh out the objection, so I will hazard a guess: because these verses reference “brothers” in English, you assume that this means that Mary had other sons (and daughters by extension), correct?

And you are aware that the Aramaic language had no word for “cousin” or better “kinfolk”, correct?

So, if you were a Jew living in Jesus day (or earlier), you would have to call any close relative your “brother” even if he was not born of your mother, correct?

And you know of this famous example from the OT:

Lot, the “Brother” of Abram

Genesis 12:5
He took his wife Sarai, his nephew Lot, all the possessions they had accumulated and the people they had acquired in Haran, and they set out for the land of Canaan, and they arrived there.

Genesis 13:8
So Abram said to Lot, "Let’s not have any quarreling between you and me, or between your herdsmen and mine, for we are brothers.

Genesis 14:12
They also carried off Abram’s nephew Lot and his possessions, since he was living in Sodom.

Correct?

And you know that not a single verse of scripture refers to anyone as a son (or daughter) of Mary but only as this “brother/kin of the Lord”, correct?

Just making sure…

 

[Kliska]

You make no sense … a widowed person who makes a vow to serve God does not become a virgin - but from the moment of her vow lives a chaste life … they do not enter into sexual relations from that point

Exactly what I meant. A wife would have had relations with her husband to be considered an actual wife (the two become one flesh), and a widow would have been married, and hence also had relations. The unmarried young girl not having left her father’s house would be the only virgin. Mary was married to Joseph, and as I understand that, to be considered married in the culture and in the eyes of God they would have become one flesh, as reiterated in the NT.

So, if that is true, either Mary and Joseph were married and hence had relations or they were not married and didn’t. Any Jewish members that can confirm or deny that view?

Out of curiosity In the RCC if two people who can consummate but don’t, is their marriage considered binding and valid?

Paul says regarding this:1cor7:34 “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”

Yes, but if you state Mary was a wife, then she was married, and it was right that Mary would care for her husband, Joseph.

Anyway, just some added thoughts. I believe scripture is pretty clear that the family spoken of was indeed siblings to Jesus via Mary. I understand the other teaching, I just don’t agree with it.

 

[Kliska]

No, and nothing I wrote suggests that. There was a tragic article in the news today about a bride who was killed in an automobile accident just minutes after leaving her wedding reception. Would you tell the groom that his marriage was only a “technicality”?

We aren’t talking about man’s perspective. Does the idea of the two becoming one flesh not really mean anything?

Well, duh. There is nothing wrong with sleeping with one’s wife. There is also nothing wrong with NOT sleeping with one’s wife by mutual consent as Paul advises.

Oh, now, don’t put words in Paul’s mouth. He says that it is ok under consent for a short length of time.

You may wish to review the relevant sections of the Catechism for additional information concerning validity and consummation, but the short answer is that Mary and Joseph were validly married.

I understand that is what the RCC teaches about Joseph and Mary, but would it hold true of others as well? If two people went through the ceremony and then never consummated, is that a valid and binding marriage?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Exactly what I meant. A wife would have had relations with her husband to be considered an actual wife (the two become one flesh), and a widow would have been married, and hence also had relations. The unmarried young girl not having left her father’s house would be the only virgin. Mary was married to Joseph, and as I understand that, to be considered married in the culture and in the eyes of God they would have become one flesh, as reiterated in the NT.

So, if that is true, either Mary and Joseph were married and hence had relations or they were not married and didn’t.

When Were Joseph and Mary Married?
Tim Staples
catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/when-were-joseph-and-mary-married

Excerpt:

There was no such thing as engagement (as it is understood in modern Western culture) in ancient Israel. The text says Mary was “betrothed” or “espoused” (Gr.—emnesteumene), not engaged. Betrothal, in ancient Israel, would be akin to the ratification of a marriage (when a couple exchanges vows in the presence of an official witness of the Church) in Catholic theology. That ratified marriage is then consummated—in the normal course—on the couple’s wedding night. So when Luke 1:27 says Mary was betrothed, it means they were already married at the time of the annunciation. If this were an ordinary marriage, St. Joseph would then have had a husband’s right to the marriage bed—the consummation.

This simple truth proves devastating to Mr. White’s (and the Protestant’s) argument. If Joseph and Mary were married—and they were—and they were planning the normal course, Mary would have known full and well how she could and would have a baby. As St. Augustine said, the question reveals the fact that this was not just your average, ordinary marriage. They were not planning to consummate their union.

Betrothed = Married?

For those who are not convinced “betrothed” equals “married” for Mary and Joseph; fortunately, the Bible makes this quite clear. If we move forward in time from the “annunciation” of Luke 1 to Matthew 1 and St. Joseph’s discovery of Mary’s pregnancy, we find Matthew 1:18 clearly stating Mary and Joseph were still “betrothed.” Yet, when Joseph found out Mary was “with child,” he determined he would “send her away privately” (vs. 19). The Greek verb translated in the RSVCE to send away is apolusai, which means divorce. Why would Joseph have to divorce Mary if they were only engaged?

Further, the angel then tells Joseph:

Do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit . . . When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took his wife (vss. 20-24).

Notice, Joseph took Mary “his wife,” indicating both St. Matthew and an archangel considered this couple married even though they were said to be “betrothed.” “Betrothed” is obviously much more than “engaged.”

Moreover, months later we find Joseph and Mary travelling together to Bethlehem to be enrolled as a family according to the decree of Caesar Augustus, just before Jesus would be born. They were obviously married; yet, even then, they were still said to be “betrothed” (see Luke 2:5).

So let’s recap what have we have uncovered. First, Joseph had already taken his espoused “wife” into his home and was caring for her. Second, Scripture reveals him to be her legal husband and to have travelled with Mary to be enrolled with her as a lawfully wedded couple and family. Third, she was called St. Joseph’s “wife” by the angel of the Lord… and yet, they were still referred to as betrothed.

Referring to Mary and Joseph as “engaged” in the face of all of this evidence would be like calling a modern couple at their wedding reception “engaged” because they have yet to consummate their marriage.

Once the fact that Mary and Joseph were already married at the time of the annunciation is understood, Mary’s “How shall this happen…” comes more into focus. Think about it: If you were a woman who had just been married (your marriage was “ratified,” but not consummated) and someone at your reception said—or “prophesied”—that you were going to have a baby—that would not really be all that much of a surprise. That is the normal course of events. You marry, consummate the union, and babies come along. You certainly would not ask the question, “Gee, how is this going to happen?” It is in this context of Mary having been betrothed, then, that her question does not make sense… unless, of course, you understand she had a vow of virginity. Then, it makes perfect sense.

 

[Randy_Carson]

We aren’t talking about man’s perspective. Does the idea of the two becoming one flesh not really mean anything?

Why do you believe that Mary and Joseph intended to become “one flesh”? Do you have a verse which says they did? :nope:

Oh, now, don’t put words in Paul’s mouth. He says that it is ok under consent for a short length of time.

I am fully aware of Paul’s intent. However, I have also known couples who made permanent vows of celibacy for the sake of the kingdom…later in their marriage. In the case of Mary and Joseph, they made a similar vow either before entering into the marriage (as a result of Mary’s vow of perpetual virginity) or shortly thereafter (as a result of the Annunciation). I personally lean toward the former.

I understand that is what the RCC teaches about Joseph and Mary, but would it hold true of others as well? If two people went through the ceremony and then never consummated, is that a valid and binding marriage?

Yes.

 

[Kliska]

When Were Joseph and Mary Married?
Tim Staples
catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/when-were-joseph-and-mary-married

Excerpt:

There was no such thing as engagement (as it is understood in modern Western culture) in ancient Israel. The text says Mary was “betrothed” or “espoused” (Gr.—emnesteumene), not engaged. Betrothal, in ancient Israel, would be akin to the ratification of a marriage (when a couple exchanges vows in the presence of an official witness of the Church) in Catholic theology. That ratified marriage is then consummated—in the normal course—on the couple’s wedding night. So when Luke 1:27 says Mary was betrothed, it means they were already married at the time of the annunciation. If this were an ordinary marriage, St. Joseph would then have had a husband’s right to the marriage bed—the consummation.

This simple truth proves devastating to Mr. White’s (and the Protestant’s) argument. If Joseph and Mary were married—and they were—and they were planning the normal course, Mary would have known full and well how she could and would have a baby. As St. Augustine said, the question reveals the fact that this was not just your average, ordinary marriage. They were not planning to consummate their union.

Betrothed = Married?

For those who are not convinced “betrothed” equals “married” for Mary and Joseph; fortunately, the Bible makes this quite clear. If we move forward in time from the “annunciation” of Luke 1 to Matthew 1 and St. Joseph’s discovery of Mary’s pregnancy, we find Matthew 1:18 clearly stating Mary and Joseph were still “betrothed.” Yet, when Joseph found out Mary was “with child,” he determined he would “send her away privately” (vs. 19). The Greek verb translated in the RSVCE to send away is apolusai, which means divorce. Why would Joseph have to divorce Mary if they were only engaged?

Further, the angel then tells Joseph:

Do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit . . . When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took his wife (vss. 20-24).

Notice, Joseph took Mary “his wife,” indicating both St. Matthew and an archangel considered this couple married even though they were said to be “betrothed.” “Betrothed” is obviously much more than “engaged.”

Moreover, months later we find Joseph and Mary travelling together to Bethlehem to be enrolled as a family according to the decree of Caesar Augustus, just before Jesus would be born. They were obviously married; yet, even then, they were still said to be “betrothed” (see Luke 2:5).

So let’s recap what have we have uncovered. First, Joseph had already taken his espoused “wife” into his home and was caring for her. Second, Scripture reveals him to be her legal husband and to have travelled with Mary to be enrolled with her as a lawfully wedded couple and family. Third, she was called St. Joseph’s “wife” by the angel of the Lord… and yet, they were still referred to as betrothed.

Referring to Mary and Joseph as “engaged” in the face of all of this evidence would be like calling a modern couple at their wedding reception “engaged” because they have yet to consummate their marriage.

Once the fact that Mary and Joseph were already married at the time of the annunciation is understood, Mary’s “How shall this happen…” comes more into focus. Think about it: If you were a woman who had just been married (your marriage was “ratified,” but not consummated) and someone at your reception said—or “prophesied”—that you were going to have a baby—that would not really be all that much of a surprise. That is the normal course of events. You marry, consummate the union, and babies come along. You certainly would not ask the question, “Gee, how is this going to happen?” It is in this context of Mary having been betrothed, then, that her question does not make sense… unless, of course, you understand she had a vow of virginity. Then, it makes perfect sense.

I’ve seen this before; it is reading into the text something that is not there. A better argument, IMO, for RC’s is to say that they rely on RCC tradition, including the ECF’s that held to PV to support their view.

 

[YADA]

Exactly what I meant. A wife would have had relations with her husband to be considered an actual wife (the two become one flesh), and a widow would have been married, and hence also had relations. The unmarried young girl not having left her father’s house would be the only virgin. Mary was married to Joseph, and as I understand that, to be considered married in the culture and in the eyes of God they would have become one flesh, as reiterated in the NT.

So, if that is true, either Mary and Joseph were married and hence had relations or they were not married and didn’t. Any Jewish members that can confirm or deny that view?

Out of curiosity In the RCC if two people who can consummate but don’t, is their marriage considered binding and valid?

Yes, but if you state Mary was a wife, then she was married, and it was right that Mary would care for her husband, Joseph.

Anyway, just some added thoughts. I believe scripture is pretty clear that the family spoken of was indeed siblings to Jesus via Mary. I understand the other teaching, I just don’t agree with it.

Typical - you pick and choose - take only that which supports your preconceived notions and ignore that which does not …bad form

A young girl can make a vow - and with that vow in place - her father could contract a marriage for her to provide for her welfare - and her husband would know and accept that vow as a condition of marriage … she would remain a virgin

A widower could make that vow - and take a wife [who understands and accepts the vow] in order to care for his household … care for his children … or for whatever reason - that wife could be a virgin or merely maintain a chaste life if she was not

You are stuck in your own biases - and have been tainted by a society that worships sex as the be all and end all - I feel so sorry for you

FYI - my grandmother - left with several kids to feed and house married an elderly severely disabled man who needed in home care back in the early 1900s … this was a marriage of convenience … she could not be a live in caretaker for an unmarried man without causing scandal … she needed a home and food for her children … they married to prevent the scandal and for mutual benefit but there was never any sexual aspect to their marriage … though not a vow to serve God - people enter into marriage for many reasons …

And I understand your freedom to believe what you want - as another poster and I have discussed - some Christians doubt the virgin birth entirely - and they are free to do so - as with in Protestantism - you can pick and choose what you believe …

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’ve seen this before; it is reading into the text something that is not there. A better argument, IMO, for RC’s is to say that they rely on RCC tradition, including the ECF’s that held to PV to support their view.

Wow. I agree.

MY preference would be to argue that the Catholic Church has received full authority from Jesus and is infallible when teaching matters of faith and morals and, as a result, can be trusted completely with regard to the dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary which was defined in AD 553.

But I didn’t think you would buy into that, so I’m trying to demonstrate from scripture that there is actually not a single verse of scripture which explicitly or implicitly denies the doctrine…and you know this.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Hey - Not sure what you mean

I’m sure you do but I guess I will go with it.

Was John Shelby Spong an Episcopal Bishop or not? - Hint the answer is YES

Thanks for the hint

Did he write the book or not? Hint the answer is YES

Once again…thanks for the hint

This is one of the fruits of Protestantism … the ability for each individual Christian and / or Christian Community to hold to whatever particular beliefs they decide is True …

Among other wonderful fruits

The early Christians, the Church, even all of the early Protestant Reformers believed and held that Mary was a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus … for 1800 years - then some began to teach a different belief … that Mary was only a virgin until Jesus was born but that she was not perpetually a virgin … and now you have Christians teaching and proposing that Jesus was not born of a Virgin - by an Episcopal Bishop …

and how does that relate to TEC?

You said some believe in the Virgin Birth and Perpetual Virginity
Some believe in the Virgin Birth but don’t believe in the Perpetual Virginity…
All I added is some don’t be in the Virgin Birth - ergo the second is a non-sequitor …

And that is extremely sad. Some Catholics do not believe Pope Francis is a true pope. That is sad as well. Right?

So - you thought better of me - how?, why? … What did I do? I hold to the teachings of the one holy catholic and apostolic church - and the teachings that are consistent and not subject to personal whimsy and opinion …

I’m happy for you!

My position? And what might that position be?

 

[Kliska]

Why do you believe that Mary and Joseph intended to become “one flesh”? Do you have a verse which says they did? :nope:

This is an appeal to ignorance. The text is clear in teaching the “one flesh” idea.

I am fully aware of Paul’s intent. However, I have also known couples who made permanent vows of celibacy for the sake of the kingdom…later in their marriage. In the case of Mary and Joseph, they made a similar vow either before entering into the marriage (as a result of Mary’s vow of perpetual virginity) or shortly thereafter (as a result of the Annunciation). I personally lean toward the former.

Again, I just don’t see that here in light of scripture.

Yes.

So, they wouldn’t be granted an annulment if trouble should arise? Could you quote the CCC on that, because from what I read it looked like conjugal love was involved if possible.

 

[Kliska]

Wow. I agree.

MY preference would be to argue that the Catholic Church has received full authority from Jesus and is infallible when teaching matters of faith and morals and, as a result, can be trusted completely with regard to the dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary which was defined in AD 553.

But I didn’t think you would buy into that, so I’m trying to demonstrate from scripture that there is actually not a single verse of scripture which explicitly or implicitly denies the doctrine…and you know this.

Umm… no, I don’t. I believe it is quite clear from scripture that James was Jesus’ brother.

 

[Randy_Carson]

A bit of scripture study for our Protestant brothers and sisters:

Precedent for the Mary’s Dedication to the Lord

1 Samuel 1:19-28
19 Early the next morning they worshiped before the LORD, and then returned to their home in Ramah. When Elkanah had relations with his wife Hannah, the LORD remembered her. 20 She conceived, and at the end of her term bore a son whom she called Samuel, since she had asked the LORD for him. The next time her husband Elkanah was going up with the rest of his household to offer the customary sacrifice to the LORD and to fulfill his vows, 22 Hannah did not go, explaining to her husband, “Once the child is weaned, I will take him to appear before the LORD and to remain there forever; I will offer him as a perpetual nazirite.” 23 Her husband Elkanah answered her: “Do what you think best; wait until you have weaned him. Only, may the LORD bring your resolve to fulfillment!” And so she remained at home and nursed her son until she had weaned him. 24 Once he was weaned, she brought him up with her, along with a three-year-old bull, an ephah of flour, and a skin of wine, and presented him at the temple of the LORD in Shiloh. 25 After the boy’s father had sacrificed the young bull, Hannah, his mother, approached Eli 26 and said: “Pardon, my lord! As you live my lord, I am the woman who stood near you here, praying to the LORD. 27 I prayed for this child, and the LORD granted my request. 28 Now I, in turn, give him to the LORD; as long as he lives, he shall be dedicated to the LORD.” She left him there;

From this passage, we see a biblical precedent for the perpetual dedication of a child to God. Hannah then goes on to worship God in the following words:

1 Samuel 2:1-2, 7-8
1 and as she worshiped the LORD, she said: "My heart exults in the LORD, my horn is exalted in my God. I have swallowed up my enemies; I rejoice in my victory. 2 There is no Holy One like the LORD; there in no Rock like our God. … 7 The LORD makes poor and makes rich, he humbles, he also exalts. 8 He raises the needy from the dust; from the ash heap he lifts up the poor, To seat them with nobles and make a glorious throne their heritage.

These words are echoed by Mary’s canticle in Luke:

Luke 1:46-55
And Mary said: “My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord; 47 my spirit rejoices in God my savior. 48 For he has looked upon his handmaid’s lowliness; behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed. 49 The Mighty One has done great things for me, and holy is his name. 50 His mercy is from age to age to those who fear him. 51 He has shown might with his arm, dispersed the arrogant of mind and heart. 52 He has thrown down the rulers from their thrones but lifted up the lowly. 53 The hungry he has filled with good things; the rich he has sent away empty. 54 He has helped Israel his servant, remembering his mercy, 55 according to his promise to our fathers, to Abraham and to his descendants forever.”

Is it possible that Mary was dedicated to God by her mother in the same way that Samuel was dedicated to God by Hannah as a perpetual Nazirite? And could it be that Mary’s own prayer was patterned after that of Hannah precisely because she had studied the story of Hannah and Samuel in light of her own perpetual dedication to God?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Umm… no, I don’t. I believe it is quite clear from scripture that James was Jesus’ brother.

Because scripture calls James the son of Mary?

How is that verse worded exactly?

 

[aidanbradypop]

I see the verses but you didn’t flesh out the objection, so I will hazard a guess: because these verses reference “brothers” in English, you assume that this means that Mary had other sons (and daughters by extension), correct?

And you are aware that the Aramaic language had no word for “cousin” or better “kinfolk”, correct?

So, if you were a Jew living in Jesus day (or earlier), you would have to call any close relative your “brother” even if he was not born of your mother, correct?

And you know of this famous example from the OT:

Lot, the “Brother” of Abram

Genesis 12:5
He took his wife Sarai, his nephew Lot, all the possessions they had accumulated and the people they had acquired in Haran, and they set out for the land of Canaan, and they arrived there.

Genesis 13:8
So Abram said to Lot, "Let’s not have any quarreling between you and me, or between your herdsmen and mine, for we are brothers.

Genesis 14:12
They also carried off Abram’s nephew Lot and his possessions, since he was living in Sodom.

Correct?

And you know that not a single verse of scripture refers to anyone as a son (or daughter) of Mary but only as this “brother/kin of the Lord”, correct?

Just making sure…

Not assuming anything. I was just stating that those verses are usually used in denying the PV of Mary.

I stated my position further back in the thread that I am neither for or against such belief. I personally would not have done anything if I were Joseph and my views of the Blessed Mother are not damaged if she indeed had other children.

So I guess in short…I am not against such a belief.

 

[Kliska]

Because scripture calls James the son of Mary?

How is that verse worded exactly?

You actually know better than that Randy. You’ve seen the verses already. In the context, usage, and the actual events as recorded point to James and Jesus being siblings. Again, I understand the RCC tradition trumps that view in your eyes. That’s your belief, and I respect it.

 

[Randy_Carson]

So, they wouldn’t be granted an annulment if trouble should arise? Could you quote the CCC on that, because from what I read it looked like conjugal love was involved if possible.

If the marriage was never consummated, then an annulment could be granted.

1640 Thus the marriage bond has been established by God himself in such a way that a marriage concluded and consummated between baptized persons can never be dissolved. This bond, which results from the free human act of the spouses and their consummation of the marriage, is a reality, henceforth irrevocable, and gives rise to a covenant guaranteed by God’s fidelity. The Church does not have the power to contravene this disposition of divine wisdom.

Notice that the Catechism refers to a marriage that is “concluded” and “consummated”…not just consummated.

Mary and Joseph married to protect her vow of virginity since she could not stay in the Temple due to laws regarding impurity during her period. But where would she go? Where would she be safe?