Possible challenge to Mary's perpetual virginity

[dcarollo]

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!

 

[pablope]

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.

 

[st_antony]

try to read prophet ezekiel chapter 44 ,the first 5 verses

 

[Catholic1954]

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!

If Jesus had a biological brother, there would be no need to entrust the care of the Blessed Mother to him; he would automatically assume the responsibility, under the law. Women in 1st century Palestine needed a man to legally protect and provided for them and the closest male relative took over that role at the death of the spouse or only son. Mary had no other male relatives, so in his final moments, Jesus made sure that she would be protected by his beloved disciple.

 

[Buzzard_86]

Another aspect to consider is Mary herself, she was greeted by the angel and proclaimed “full of grace” (as in overflowing) the grace that God imparted to her was complete in accordance with her role as the mother of Christ. Being in the “human condition” we tend to view biblical and spiritual topics from our own perspective and sometimes forget to try and view it from the purely spiritual side. If God bestowed His Grace upon Mary to this extent, it stands to reason that she had attained the level of grace that we all strive for and with this in mind, what need or desire would she then have for fulfillments of the flesh? And after giving birth to Christ and being the mother of God, she would probably not desire to have regular, mortal children.

And as Pablope pointed out, this is not a new belief of the Catholic Church; but rather one that has been handed down to us from the very first Christians.

pax vobiscum

 

[po18guy]

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!

Since “the bible” tells us that the ignorant and unstable twist and distort the scriptures (2 Peter 3:16), we must therefore listen to the Church (Matthew 18:17). Paul set the scriptures aside and went to the Church to settle the circumcision question (Acts 15). The Church decided and the matter was settled for all time. The Church teaches that Mary, having declared herself to be the bond slave of her own Son (Luke 1:38 with no expiration date), had no other children. No other child of Mary is named, either in Sacred Tradition, or in Sacred Scripture. None is mentioned when Jesus remained behind in the temple (Luke 2:44). None is mentioned at the wedding feast in Cana (John 2:1-2). None is mentioned at any of the crucifixion accounts. None is mentioned, period. Since it was known at that time that Mary had no other children, it would have been nonsensical to mention it in scripture. It was common knowledge, following from Gabriel’s word to Mary that she would bear “a Son” - singular (Luke 1:31). Mary, for her part, was almost incredulous that she, even though preparing for marriage, would have even one child. If she were planning on children, why would she dare to ask this fearsome supernatural spirit being (who just arrived from God’s throne) how she was supposed to have a child? (Luke 1:34) She knew that relations with man produced children, yet she was shocked to hear that she would have “a Son.” That is worth pondering.

Keep in mind also that some modernist Christians believe that Mary was some random woman chosen simply because she had a womb (a patently sexist notion) - also contradict Martin Luther, Jean Calvin and the other reformers. From where do these modernist believers get their authority to make such a claim? Clearly, it is their egos, and nothing more. Remember that the ignorant and unstable twist and distort the scriptures (2 Peter 3:16). In the very next sentence, Peter cautions against listening to such foolish persons (2 Peter 3:17).

As to the poorly thought out argument of Matthew 13:55 which claims to “prove” that Mary had other children (while conveniently ignoring John 19), those brothers and sisters were the children of the other Mary, wife of Clopas, and close relatives of Christ. Need more? We see in Genesis 11:8 that Abram and Lot were uncle and nephew. So, in Genesis 13:27, why does Abram call Lot his “brother”? Hint: it was the language, which had no word for cousin.

Do you have a copy of Catholicism for Dummies? I believe that you would greatly benefit from a copy. it is an excellent resource that you may rely on for years to come. Hughly recommended.

 

[Pilosopo]

Don’t get me wrong, but I believe – heck lived – the fact that Mary is a Virgin. Spent hours before her statue asking for her intercession, admiring the beauty of virginity, and the steady loving care of her sacred motherhood.

With that said, I thought, what if I were to entertain the possibility that Joseph and Mary had sexual relations? Is my faith shaken? Hardly. As two married adults, they perfectly could have. So? Perhaps there lay a key in comprehending the beauty and sacredness of sexual relations.

With that said, I have one thesis, and one hypothesis (but honestly, more like having fun with words, but it sounds good). First, there is some credence to the idea that the influence of Greek thought made its mark as Christianity blossomed in the Hellenic world. That is, there was this dualism between the invisible otherworldy connection we have on one hand, and the visible mundane connection we have on the other hand. Virginity = spiritual manifestation. Sexual relations = attachment to the world. The former valued, the latter dis-valued. Second, perhaps virginity is more than about technical or mechanical aspects of sexual relations. Could I validly expand the notion to refer to only having eyes for the one I love? (so the expression goes) Admittedly, sex is a powerful force, so it would do me well to listen to the older, wiser, authoritative teachings of Mother Church.

 

[Pilosopo]

Since “the bible” tells us that the ignorant and unstable twist and distort the scriptures (2 Peter 3:16), we must therefore listen to the Church (Matthew 18:17). Paul set the scriptures aside and went to the Church to settle the circumcision question (Acts 15). The Church decided and the matter was settled for all time. The Church teaches that Mary, having declared herself to be the bond slave of her own Son (Luke 1:38 with no expiration date), had no other children. No other child of Mary is named, either in Sacred Tradition, or in Sacred Scripture. None is mentioned when Jesus remained behind in the temple (Luke 2:44). None is mentioned at the wedding feast in Cana (John 2:1-2). None is mentioned at any of the crucifixion accounts. None is mentioned, period. Since it was known at that time that Mary had no other children, it would have been nonsensical to mention it in scripture. It was common knowledge, following from Gabriel’s word to Mary that she would bear “a Son” - singular (Luke 1:31). Mary, for her part, was almost incredulous that she, even though preparing for marriage, would have even one child. If she were planning on children, why would she dare to ask this fearsome supernatural spirit being (who just arrived from God’s throne) how she was supposed to have a child? (Luke 1:34) She knew that relations with man produced children, yet she was shocked to hear that she would have “a Son.” That is worth pondering.

Keep in mind also that some modernist Christians believe that Mary was some random woman chosen simply because she had a womb (a patently sexist notion) - also contradict Martin Luther, Jean Calvin and the other reformers. From where do these modernist believers get their authority to make such a claim? Clearly, it is their egos, and nothing more. Remember that the ignorant and unstable twist and distort the scriptures (2 Peter 3:16). In the very next sentence, Peter cautions against listening to such foolish persons (2 Peter 3:17).

As to the poorly thought out argument of Matthew 13:55 which claims to “prove” that Mary had other children (while conveniently ignoring John 19), those brothers and sisters were the children of the other Mary, wife of Clopas, and close relatives of Christ. Need more? We see in Genesis 11:8 that Abram and Lot were uncle and nephew. So, in Genesis 13:27, why does Abram call Lot his “brother”? Hint: it was the language, which had no word for cousin.

Do you have a copy of Catholicism for Dummies? I believe that you would greatly benefit from a copy. it is an excellent resource that you may rely on for years to come. Hughly recommended.

'Sounds like you’re cracking the whip on this one, brother. It hurts…:crying:

 

[po18guy]

'Sounds like you’re cracking the whip on this one, brother. It hurts…:crying:

They’re talking trash about mom, you know.

 

[khuldar]

They’re talking trash about mom, you know.

I believe in what the church teaches but golly gosh I feel chastised by your answer above.

 

[jbeck43]

Originally posted

**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!**

---

This type of an affront to brothers would have been much greater than just a failure to recognize a familial tradition.* It would have been so great an insult that it would be difficult to imagine that the last action Christ on earth would take would be to dishonor his own brothers in such a way and heap shame upon His mother not only for their lack of faith, but also in declaring them unfit to care for her.*

It is also the God commanded duty for children to take care of their elderly parents according to Jewish law and the Ten Commandments.** Christ would not so easily dispense with that as we can see in Matthew 15:3, where Christ said,* “and why do you violate the command of God for the sake of your tradition?”* Here, though usually used by non-catholics incorrectly as a refutation of all tradition (see 2 Thess. 2:15), is used by Christ here to denounce a man-made one called the Corbon rule.* This was a rule whereby a Jewish man who had elderly parents was dispensed from taking care of them if he gave his assets to the temple for a time, and then after his parents passed would get back from the temple what he placed there.* It was a sinister rule.*

So here we are at the cross, with Christ giving his own mother to one for whom God commands others to care for, namely her own children–Christ’s own brothers, and He dispenses them from their duty.* So He fails to do what He condemns others for failing to do, and in a sense, He commits the very same crime that He condemns the Pharisees for.* That wouldn’t make sense.

The best explanation then must be that the Blessed Mother, His mother, and now spiritually our mother too, had no other children to care for her.* So Christ, being a good son, fulfills the command of God to honor his mother and father, by providing for His mother after His own death.*

This makes the best sense.

 

[po18guy]

I believe in what the church teaches but golly gosh I feel chastised by your answer above.

Really? How so? I was only speaking to you IF you oppose Church teaching. You do not. Why do you then feel chastised, where no chastisement is offered?

My response was regarding well-intentioned, but horribly mislead Christians who automatically oppose the Catholic Church without exercising their responsibility to investigate what they condemn.

Let’s look at the big picture: Consider that, during exorcisms, demons never insult the Blessed Mother. Not even demons! So, who does insult her by attacking or deriding Church teaching about her? Those who claim to be Christian! They do this even though Mary herself tells us that all generations will call her blessed.

We all defend our mothers. Mary is the Mother of God and mother of the Church. Is she not worth defending?

 

[khuldar]

Really? How so? I was only speaking to you IF you oppose Church teaching. You do not. Why do you then feel chastised, where no chastisement is offered?

My response was regarding well-intentioned, but horribly mislead Christians who automatically oppose the Catholic Church without exercising their responsibility to investigate what they condemn.

Let’s look at the big picture: Consider that, during exorcisms, demons never insult the Blessed Mother. Not even demons! So, who does insult her by attacking or deriding Church teaching about her? Those who claim to be Christian! They do this even though Mary herself tells us that all generations will call her blessed.

We all defend our mothers. Mary is the Mother of God and mother of the Church. Is she not worth defending?

Agreed she is worth defending. I do not oppose church teaching & rightly enough IMO you make me realise how much more I have to learn about the faith I love.

And for that I thank you, it has bought a good end to a good day. (it’s 840pm at night where I am.)

Peace

 

[po18guy]

Agreed she is worth defending. I do not oppose church teaching & rightly enough IMO you make me realise how much more I have to learn about the faith I love.

And for that I thank you, it has bought a good end to a good day. (it’s 840pm at night where I am.)

Peace

Well, I do get fired up when our Blessed Mother is involved! Why can’t Christians - especially Christians! - look into Catholic teaching on the slight chance that it just may be correct?

 

[Classicist]

Let’s remember not to pin the Lord too much to The Law, especially at this moment, considering the fact that He was literally fulfilling & finishing the Law on the Cross. Of course He’d institute a new law of a spiritual family.

 

[JRKH]

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!

If Jesus had a biological brother, there would be no need to entrust the care of the Blessed Mother to him; he would automatically assume the responsibility, under the law. Women in 1st century Palestine needed a man to legally protect and provided for them and the closest male relative took over that role at the death of the spouse or only son. Mary had no other male relatives, so in his final moments, Jesus made sure that she would be protected by his beloved disciple.

The above seems the best response to the possible objection that you propose.
I would add that a lack of faith by his brothers would have caused them to be adamant about getting Mary and bringing her home…getting her away from the Apostles.

That said…My best “proof” for the PV is to put myself in Joseph’s sandals…look at what he knew by the time that sexual relations would have been acceptably possible (After Jesus birth) and ask myself…If I were Joseph…knowing what I know…would I choose to have sexual relations with this woman?
This woman who is the Chosen one of the Almighty God to give birth to the Son of God?

I just can’t see Joseph - who we are told is a righteous man - would choose to have sexual relations with the one who has been given so fully to God…

What do you think?

Peace
James

 

[Philthy]

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.

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. The point is simply this: Mary had no sons other than Jesus. If she had another son, he would be responsible for her care upon Jesus’ death.

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?

I don’t know - it certainly seems to be a stab in the dark based on nothing, really, other than speculation and the desire to contradict the Catholic teaching on Mary. There is no mention in Acts whether one of these alleged “brothers” came to challenge what happened, as we would expect. And the fact that that didn’t happen - based upon the silence of Scripture - is as strong as the assertion - based upon the silence of Scripture - that “it might make sense that Jesus would pass over his brothers to entrust care to a faithful disciple”

 

[Steveabrous]

After this, Jesus went around in Galilee. He did not want[a] to go about in Judea because the Jewish leaders there were looking for a way to kill him. 2 But when the Jewish Festival of Tabernacles was near, 3 Jesus’ brothers said to him, “Leave Galilee and go to Judea, so that your disciples there may see the works you do. 4 No one who wants to become a public figure acts in secret. Since you are doing these things, show yourself to the world.” 5 For even his own brothers did not believe in him.

]

A couple of things come to mind.

1. For Jesus to break jewish law because of this incident is petty. Jesus clearified the law at times, he never broke the law.
2. If Jesus had Brothers younger then him he would have no say in whom Mary went to live with. It automatically would go to the next born.

Also, for younger brothers to talk to their older brother like this would have been considered highly disrespectful in that culture. The way they are treating Jesus indicates that they are older then him (Son’s of Joseph not Mary), or not direct brothers but other blood relatives.*

 

[TimothyH]

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!

John 19:26-27, where Jesus gives his mother to the Disciple whom He loved, is not evidence but proof. One has to understand Jewish culture and family life to understand how it is proof.

The birthright fell to the firstborn son. The firstborn son would get a double portion of the inheritence but with it came responsibility to care for the elderly members of the family, women, the sick, etc. The story of Jacob and Esau tells us how birthrights worked.

The firstborn son could give up his birthright, sell it, trade it, or just give it away. Jesus was not just giving his mother to John. Jesus was giving up his birthright. Giving a birthright to a non-family member when you had living brothers was unheard of in Jewish culture. Only when you had no brothers would the birthright be given to a non-family member. If Jesus had had siblings then the birthright would have gone to one of them.

Palestinian Jews in the first century lived in family arrangements called, if I remember correctly, a bet-ab. Someone can correct me on the name. Under this arrangement, two or more nuclear families would live together and they would all share in family life - earning money for the houshold, raising the children. Jesus was likely raised in such an environment, with Mary and Joseph sharing a home with uncles or aunts, their spouses and his cousins. This shared-responsibility family arrangement, with extended family living is such close relationships, is why cousins living in the same houshold were called brothers. There was less of a distinction between cousin vs brother than there is now.

Also, for Mary to have had children by another man while the father of her first son was still alive was adultery. Jesus was a product of Mary and the Holy Spirit. For Mary to have then made children with someone else other than the Holy Spirit would mean that she is an adulterer. There is no way my Lord and Savior is the son of an adulterer.

We have to know something about Jewish culture and family life to know what Jesus was doing in John 19:26-27. Once we think like a first centry Jew it becomes clear. There is no way Jesus had siblings.

-Tim-

 

[snarflemike]

There’s no evidence that those “brothers” still disbelieved in Jesus at the time of the crucifixion. And they did come to believe later. Could not Jesus, God, have foreseen that? And why would Mary not have moved back with her “sons” when they came to believe. ?But the gospel says she stayed with John from that hour on - she never lived with anybody else from the crucifixion. So even when they came to believe, their mother didn’t move back with them?

But the most telling point is this. If they didn’t believe at the time of the crucifixion, here is what the situation would have been. The “brothers”, as believing Jews, would have just seen their brother Jesus executed for blasphemy. Would they really, as believing Jews, then let their mother go live in the home of an unrelated male, and a man who was a leader in the very blasphemous cult (their view!) that got their brother executed? Would you have allowed your mother to live with such a man?