Good. OK
Right .Was gonna put in “Mary”, but …So I meant to say(ask) that for you is it fitting for Mary because it would have been unholy and less divine for Mary to have relations with her husband Joseph as to not ? This was Aquinas’s argument-she would have been “desecrated”, less “dignified”. Otherwise, how do you see it as fitting?
Totally agree. Just hope you also agree some of the fathers did not say so, and helped bolster PV.
Theotokus took some mustering, had words of caution with it’s declaration, and the IC and Assumption were contested , a lot.
Ahhh they stole your thunder. I will always remember you for bringing it up. Hey, those post were six to ten years ago or so. I thought i missed some of that on this thread but apparently not.
That’s only because I started with the older ones. I could have gone from most recent to oldest.
It has less to do with sexual relations with Joseph and more to do with her being set apart for one thing: to be the Mother of God.
First, it’s “Marian”, not “Marion”, okay?
a) The argument proffered for the reason for Jesus to hand over his mother to the care of John instead is because of the siblings unbelief. That reasoning is not stated in the NT so you can not stand on it.
For me, it is the credibility of the Church at stake and Jesus. Jesus gave a perpetual guarantee on HIS Church that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it and that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. If the Church is to sprout untruth i.e. doctrines/dogmas proven to be untrue, then Jesus lied and is a failed prophet. So far, the Church has prevailed and all is good! Alleluia!
Mary being a PV does not point the the divinity of Christ. The virgin birth does but not the PV.
I have never understood the argument that because something (a doctrine) has been contested, it must therefore be rejected, or the fact that something was contested provides supporting evidence for rejection.
IMO we should stick to what we know. If we’re told that Mary’s ever-virgin, I can’t see any good reason to go speculating about whether Mary and Joseph *could *have had relations, whether it would have been unholy for them to do so, etc.
This is how I come at it…Episcopalians use Scritpure, Tradition and Reason.
If I’m not mistaken, the word brother does mean cousin. There several instances were 2 of the 4 brothers are mentioned to be the sons of another Mary. If that’s the case then you be thinking either the Hible contradicted itself, which we all know that it doesn’t, or the word brother means a broader term.This is one doctrine that I always had conflict with. Growing up Baptist, it was always taught that Christ had half brothers and sisters. We believed in the virgin birth of Christ but Mary did not remain a virgin after. Catholic teaching, as well as some other faith traditions, say she was a perpetual virgin.
Jesus’ brothers are mentioned in several Bible verses. Matthew 12:46, Luke 8:19, and Mark 3:31 say that Jesus’ mother and brothers came to see Him. The Bible tells us that Jesus had four brothers: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas (Matthew 13:55). The Bible also tells us that Jesus had sisters, but they are not named or numbered (Matthew 13:56). In John 7:1-10, His brothers go on to the festival while Jesus stays behind. In Acts 1:14, His brothers and mother are described as praying with the disciples. Later, in Galatians 1:19, it mentions that James was Jesus’ brother.
Roman Catholicism states that these “brothers” were actually Jesus’ cousins. However, in each instance, the specific Greek word for “brother” is used. There is a Greek word for cousin, and it was not used. Further, if they were Jesus’ cousins, why would they so often be described as being with Mary, Jesus’ mother? There is nothing in the context of His mother and brothers coming to see Him that even hints that they were anyone other than His literal, blood-related half-brothers.
Another argument is that Jesus’ brothers and sisters were the children of Joseph from a previous marriage, before he married Mary. An entire theory of Joseph’s being significantly older than Mary, having been previously married, having multiple children, and then being widowed before marrying Mary. The problem with this is that the Bible does not even hint that Joseph was married or had children before he married Mary. If Joseph had at least six children before he married Mary, why are they not mentioned in Joseph and Mary’s trip to Bethlehem (Luke 2:4-7) or their trip to Egypt (Matthew 2:13-15) or their trip back to Nazareth (Matthew 2:20-23)?
I would love to get the thoughts of other non Catholic Christians as well as non Christians about this subject.Look forward to reading them.
Excellently said. I’m very curious to see how this is answered.
Yes it can mean cousin as well.
Right. I know of both accounts of Joseph. One being he was young and the “siblings” were actually cousins and the other account you stated above.
I know how a lot people say show me in the Bible. But I think here, it is Good to see what the history was on Joseph and Mary. I mean we can see in both the OT and in history that 99% of the time the men had children from other women, some did it out of lust and adultery, others because their wife had died and moved on to another wife.
To be fair…some acutally believe Mary had other children. They take no issue with that as it would not have any issue with Christ being the Son of God.