Possible challenge to Mary's perpetual virginity

[po18guy]

The Mary that is said to be the sister of the Virgin Mary–I doubt if two daughters would be named Mary in the same family.

Wouldn’t that point to the possibility that she was the Virgin Mary’s sister in law or brother in law’s wife?

I think that Joseph had a brother and that this Mary was his wife.

It might be a stretch but I can see a scenario where Jesus’s brothers weren’t siblings but they may have grown up together–the two Mary’s living in the same household or maybe close to each other–in fact maybe the other Mary’s husband who was Joseph’s brother might have died and this is why the two families were close to each other.

Is my thinking on this possible?

Certainly. The Rev. George Leo Haydock in his bible commentary on Matthew 13 explains the “brothers” as close relatives. Remember even from the first Passover (Exodus 12:4) that families were to join with the next family in procuring a lamb for the feast, if they were too small to obtain one for themselves. Relationships were much closer in that culture than they are today, were our next door neighbors are strangers.

Much of today’s odd twisting of scripture results from applying our pop culture template to biblical times. This guarantees error - especially in sexual matters.

As to the importance of virginity, the Catholic Church has two excellent examples in a much more recent age: Saint Elzear and Blessed Delphina. After their marriage, Delphina revealed to her new husband that she had taken a vow of perpetual virginity. Was his reaction to divorce her? No! He reciprocated by taking his own vow of virginity. Can you even imagine that happening today?

What a corrupt age we live in! And, we do not serve the truth or beauty when we impose modenr, earthy and sensual thoughts on a much more holy and God-fearing generation.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

po18guy:

As to the importance of virginity, the Catholic Church has two excellent examples in a much more recent age: Saint Elzear and Blessed Delphina. After their marriage, Delphina revealed to her new husband that she had taken a vow of perpetual virginity. Was his reaction to divorce her? No! He reciprocated by taking his own vow of virginity. Can you even imagine that happening today?

I don’t think this would be looked upon favorably by the Church today. In the 13th century, such a marriage might have been possible.

I also don’t think this corresponds to the Virgin Mary and St. Joseph’s marriage. In their case, I believe, there was an understanding BEFORE the betrothal; That they both entered into this marriage freely and with full consent because they were both perpetual virgins, and yet discerned that this was God’s will for both of them.

 

[po18guy]

I don’t think this would be looked upon favorably by the Church today. In the 13th century, such a marriage might have been possible.

I also don’t think this corresponds to the Virgin Mary and St. Joseph’s marriage. In their case, I believe, there was an understanding BEFORE the betrothal; That they both entered into this marriage freely and with full consent because they were both perpetual virgins, and yet discerned that this was God’s will for both of them.

I offered it as an example of that which was done in more genteel times than ours. Today, it might very well be grounds for annulment. Still their love of one another and of God was proved through their voluntary discipline within marriage. I do note that Elzear is the Saint while Delphina has yet to be canonized…

 

[steve_b]

I’m a little stuck on this one…

One evidence given that Jesus had no direct siblings is John 19:26-27, where Jesus entrusts care of his mother to John the disciple. Had Jesus a biological brother, the reasoning goes, he would have entrusted care to his brother instead.

It appears a possible challenge here is that perhaps due to lack of faith displayed by his brothers (c.f. John 7:5-10), adding to that Jesus often placed spiritual obedience above family fidelity (see Luke 8:19), then it might make sense that Jesus would pass over his brothers to entrust care to a faithful disciple.

After all, don’t we often see Jesus working “above the law” on other occasions?

Your responses are appreciated!

Kuddos to Timothy H for a great answer. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10607469&postcount=19

If you’re still around, here’s another way to look at it

Being the biological mother of Jesus, savior and redeemer of the world, made Mary blessed among all women who would ever be born. It makes her and her family highly visible. Where are her other biological children? What are their names. Afterall, everybody’s talking about her son Jesus, if your a brother, and your mom is Mary, and your brother is the son of God, 2nd person of the Blessed Trinity, who rose from the dead, and was seen ascending back to heaven, do you stay silent about that? Do you stay hiding in the weeds never to be heard of? If Jesus had sibblings, claiming to be his biological brothers and sisters I think it would be impossible to hide their identity. So who are they? Jews were maticulous at geneology. They can trace Jesus geneology with names, back to Adam. It would be a snap to give us His brothers and sisters from Mary.

To give an idea of how Jews looked at family,

John in Rev 12 describes Mary’s history, and concludes with
Apocalypse (Revelation) 12:17

“seed” = σπέρματος Lexicon

These are Mary’s “other” children. All those who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of her son Jesus Christ.

 

[dcarollo]

Folks. – thanks all for your great answers! I failed to point out I am a Catholic (a fairly new one as of this Easter)

I believe what the church teaches about this (just as the Orthodox Church and even Luther and Calvin believed!)

I was mainly looking for grounds for which to answer the Protestant objection (which of course starts with the Bible alone for them). There are a few areas of Catholicism where it’s about faith seeking understanding – which I’m sure will be a lifetime process.

I need to take some time to read and absorb these.

 

[po18guy]

Folks. – thanks all for your great answers! I failed to point out I am a Catholic (a fairly new one as of this Easter)

I believe what the church teaches about this (just as the Orthodox Church and even Luther and Calvin believed!)

I was mainly looking for grounds for which to answer the Protestant objection (which of course starts with the Bible alone for them). There are a few areas of Catholicism where it’s about faith seeking understanding – which I’m sure will be a lifetime process.

I need to take some time to read and absorb these.

This is best approached from a cultural/contextual standpoint for the most part (As TimothyH properly did), but a bible Christian may not care about history or culture - if it is not in the bible, it simply does not exist. Therefore, it is sometimes best to rely on chapter and verse.

 

[dcarollo]

I came across this great article on Jewish Family structure!

haydid.org/pot2.htm

Excerpts:

“The family unit is partriarchical. The family was termed “bet av”, house of the father. To found a family was to build a house. The “bayit”, house, was a subdivision of the “mishpahah”, family or clan. The criterion for family membership was a blood relationship, legal ties ( marriage or adoption ), or geographical proximity. The father was head of the family and owner of its property. (Numbers 26:54-55) The father was the chief authority. He was expected to be benevolent, to show love to his family and also pity. (Psalms 103:13; Genesis 25:28;37:4;44:20)”

“The title father seemed to indicate a broader role of the patriarch, ie; Father of the City, etc. The title brother / sister were titles that extended beyond immediate siblings.”

 

[The_Serpent]

Treading dangerous ground, but here it goes! There are some traditions relating to St. Joseph, which claim he was a widower. Also that there were children from his previous marriage(s). This is a eastern tradition, not western. IF it were true it would be another explanation for the “brothers” of the Lord. Sorry I don’t have a quote though.

 

[Steveabrous]

Treading dangerous ground, but here it goes! There are some traditions relating to St. Joseph, which claim he was a widower. Also that there were children from his previous marriage(s). This is a eastern tradition, not western. IF it were true it would be another explanation for the “brothers” of the Lord. Sorry I don’t have a quote though.

This is the original belief. It is the one promoted in the Protoevangeleum of James written in the mid 2nd century.
I know several Roman Catholics, including myself, who believe this way

 

[CarolNoel]

Have really enjoyed reading this thread. Appreciate the information about the first born birthright.

 

[bsroufek]

Lets try to keep the language and concepts simple: the claim is that Mary had no other children other than Jesus. Whether Jesus had a “biological” brother - by Joseph is unknown.

St. Joseph is called “Her most chaste Spouse” by the Church. So, it stands to reason that he would not have any children.

 

[adrift]

I skimmed through so I hope I am not repeating what has alread been said

Besides the Cross we have this as evidence

Brethen of the Lord

Also, the attitude taken by the “brethren of the Lord” implies they are his elders. In ancient and, particularly, in Eastern societies (remember, Palestine is in Asia), older sons gave advice to younger, but younger seldom gave advice to older—it was considered disrespectful to do so. But we find Jesus’ “brethren” saying to him that Galilee was no place for him and that he should go to Judea so he could make a name for himself (John 7:3–4).

Another time, they sought to restrain him for his own benefit: “And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for people were saying, ‘He is beside himself’” (Mark 3:21). This kind of behavior could make sense for ancient Jews only if the “brethren” were older than Jesus, but that alone eliminates them as his biological brothers, since Jesus was Mary’s “first-born” son (Luke 2:7).

 

[bsroufek]

At the time of Christ, I understand, the term “brother” was used even between members of groups. St. James the Less was actually a cousin of Jesus but was called “the Brother of the Lord”.

Neither Mary nor Joseph had any children besides Jesus. Mary lived with us quite some time after the death of Jesus, and we have her story in the Gospel of St. Luke.

Certainly, we would have heard of other children. But there were none.

 

[The_Serpent]

St. Joseph is called “Her most chaste Spouse” by the Church. So, it stands to reason that he would not have any children.

This is because they didn’t have any children, other than Jesus. Also, we need a good source on traditions about St. Joseph. Maybe some one has a source they can share in the forum? Of course St, Joseph may have been a widower, that married widow(s); for the mutual benefit of being married. But it would be unusual. Keep in mind St. Joseph was a descendant of King David. There would be family and society pressures to have children.:blushing:

 

[AmbroseSJ]

This is because they didn’t have any children, other than Jesus. Also, we need a good source on traditions about St. Joseph. Maybe some one has a source they can share in the forum? Of course St, Joseph may have been a widower, that married widow(s); for the mutual benefit of being married. But it would be unusual. Keep in mind St. Joseph was a descendant of King David. There would be family and society pressures to have children.:blushing:

Here ya go.

 

[fisherman_carl]

I’m a little stuck on this one…

One evidence given that Jesus had no direct siblings is John 19:26-27, where Jesus entrusts care of his mother to John the disciple. Had Jesus a biological brother, the reasoning goes, he would have entrusted care to his brother instead.

It appears a possible challenge here is that perhaps due to lack of faith displayed by his brothers (c.f. John 7:5-10), adding to that Jesus often placed spiritual obedience above family fidelity (see Luke 8:19), then it might make sense that Jesus would pass over his brothers to entrust care to a faithful disciple.

After all, don’t we often see Jesus working “above the law” on other occasions?

Your responses are appreciated!

Do you think John wrote that passage because he wanted to highlight that Jesus was concerned about which family member looked after his mother? Consider who the author is. Why would John bother to write that passage at all? Jesus is the Son of God. Is he worried about his mother when he knows he is God Incarnate and will rise from the dead in 3 days and see her again in his glorified state? This was written for our benefit.

Usually a dying person gives a last will and testament for their belongings while they are still alive. What belongings did Christ have besides his Mother?

Jesus did not just say John can you look after my mom? He said to John here is your mother. And what does that mean? One must honor one’s mother. And he says to Mary here is your son. This is more than a caretaker arrangement. This is family. What if John already had his own Mother to look after?

I think what Jesus is talking about is a family, but not just any, a spiritual family. A heavenly family. John is given the gift of a spiritual mother. And Mary is given spiritual sons. We read in Revolution 12 by the same author that she has other spiritual offspring which the devil makes war with. So we see Mary as the Mother of the church in these passages.

And as far as the OPs question. I would simply ask if Jesus had step brothers then what authority would he have over his brothers who would be still alive? In addition why would John put that in his gospel if Jesus was simply making a political statement about his supposed brothers? Because that is what it would amount to since his brothers would still be alive and would likely still take Mary home with them.

Keep also in mind James the brother of the Lord was not a disciple until after Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to him. So why did Jesus give his mother to John instead of James? To highlight Mary’s role in the church that John represents. It is not to highlight a blood bond but a spiritual one.

 

[Darryl_B]

It has been my observation that the perpetual virginity of Mary prompts pages and pages of postings in the Non-Catholic religions section by Protestants. What I don’t understand is why Protestants are so zealous to deny a purity that existed in Mary. Why is it so fundamentally important to deny the possibility of a perpetual virginity? Is it really that hard to fathom and accept?

 

[MikeandKriss]

We find Mary rebuked by Jesus on several occasions in scripture when she is trying to “mother” Him, or gain authority over Him.

[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]LK 2:49 And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]
(And also, here Jesus lets them both know in clear terms that His real Father is God the Father, not Joseph)

Later, she interrupts Jesus ministry, and wants Him to “come here!”.
Jesus rebukes both her and his brothers.
[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]MK 3:31 There came then his brothers and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him.
MK 3:32 And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brothers without seek for thee.
MK 3:33 And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren?
MK 3:34 And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
MK 3:35 For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]

Jesus makes this painfully clear that all who are in obedience to Him, is considered by God to be His immediate family.

Also, we see the brothers of Jesus somewhat taunting Him. They had not as of yet believed in Him. (which fulfilled the prophecy Jesus made saying a Prophet is not recognized in his home town read Luke 4:24) They were taunting him saying “go show yourself”!

[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]3 His brothers therefore said to Him, “Depart from here and go into Judea, that Your disciples also may see the works that You are doing. 4 For no one does anything in secret while he himself seeks to be known openly. If You do these things, show Yourself to the world.” 5 For even His brothers did not believe in Him.[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]
In these verses “the brothers” are different from “Your disciples”
They were ridiculing him “If you do these things go show yourself to the world”
We know it is an insult by verse 5 which clears it up “for even His brothers did in believe in Him”.

Now, remember who are His “Mother, Brother, Sister”? Those who follow Him. All the other apostle left. All that went to the cross with him was John and Mary, and Mary.
MK 3:35 For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother

John is spoken of often as the Beloved of Jesus. He was the only Apostle that went to the cross with Jesus, and Jesus already called Him his brother.
Who would you leave your mother with?

For the post further down as to why Mary’s virginity is challenged, that is simple. The bible makes it clear she did not remain a virgin.

MT 1:24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
MT 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

It is sad that the importance of these verses get place on Mary. They were included to prove the prophecy that a Virgin would conceive the Messiah. By the Holy Ghost.

It is not about Mary. It is about Jesus.

We also see a woman who was “paying special” homage to the Mother of Jesus. Jesus rebuked that also. And so should we.
[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]LK 11:27 And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked.
LK 11:28 But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]

Again, we are in the family of God by doing His will.

During His ministry Jesus never called His mother “Mother”. He called her “woman”.

Through Adam sin entered the world. All are sinners, until Jesus.
His lineage was a long line of sinners.
Noah drank
David committed adultery, and plotted murder,
on and on
The brothers of Jesus taunted him, His mother, like all mothers, probably just wanted Him to stay home and out of trouble. People were killed in those days challenging the Religious Politian’s.

All this does not matter. It was Jesus that was sinless and died.

And why this doctrine is challenged is because far more than making her a virgin forever, The Catholic Church has placed her on a throne and called her “Queen of Heaven”. They pray to her devoutly.

And that is a false doctrine that must be admonished in love.
Adoring the “Queen of Heaven” was an abomination.

[BIBLEDRB]JER 7:18 The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.[/BIBLEDRB]

[BIBLEDRB]1TIM 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;[/BIBLEDRB]

That is why this doctrine is challenged. Because it is idolatry to worship anyone but Jesus Christ. In the rosary, there are 53 Hail Mary’s and a few prayers to the Father.
That is a direct contradiction of:
[BIBLEDRB]2COR 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;[/BIBLEDRB]

Jesus wants EVERY THOUGHT. The Catholic mary exalts itself above Jesus.

When you place the words of men over and above the Word of God, (who is Jesus)
You are worshipping a god of your imagination. A vain thing.
And you are not in fellowship with Christ.

You must be Born Again to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

YOU MUST BE BORN AGAIN
Come back to the truth of the Bible.
Jesus will fill you with His Spirit, who will lead you to all truth.