Prove it!

[guanophore]

Imagine you are Matthew or Luke (especially Luke because he was very particular about getting things accurate), wouldn’t you think it was EXTREMELY important to identify Mary as never having children and remained a virgin seeing that the CC thinks it’s so very important to their understanding of how the Savior should have entered humanity?

Obviously not, since Luke did not do this. I am sure these facts seemed self explanatory and elemental for them. I don’t think it ever occcurred to any of the writers that the Holy Scirptures would be separated from the Sacred Tradition that produced them.

Mary’s perpetual virginity is not really relevant to how the CC church “understanding of how the Saviour should have entered humanity”.

There is no disagreement with our separated brethren that He was born of a virgin, and that Jesus was her firstborn. These are the conditions under which He entered humanity.

 

[Jars_of_Clay_1]

The relevant passage is about how a woman taking a vow of celibacy will have that vow ratified by either her father, or her husband.

Num 30:3 "If a woman vows a vow to the LORD and binds herself by a pledge, while within her father’s house in her youth,
Num 30:4 and her father hears of her vow and of her pledge by which she has bound herself and says nothing to her, then all her vows shall stand, and every pledge by which she has bound herself shall stand.
Num 30:5 But if her father opposes her on the day that he hears of it, no vow of hers, no pledge by which she has bound herself shall stand. And the LORD will forgive her, because her father opposed her.
Num 30:6 “If she marries a husband, while under her vows or any thoughtless utterance of her lips by which she has bound herself,
Num 30:7 and her husband hears of it and says nothing to her on the day that he hears, then her vows shall stand, and her pledges by which she has bound herself shall stand.
Num 30:8 But if, on the day that her husband comes to hear of it, he opposes her, then he makes void her vow that was on her, and the thoughtless utterance of her lips by which she bound herself. And the LORD will forgive her.
Num 30:9 (But any vow of a widow or of a divorced woman, anything by which she has bound herself, shall stand against her.)
Num 30:10 And if she vowed in her husband’s house or bound herself by a pledge with an oath,
Num 30:11 and her husband heard of it and said nothing to her and did not oppose her, then all her vows shall stand, and every pledge by which she bound herself shall stand.
Num 30:12 But if her husband makes them null and void on the day that he hears them, then whatever proceeds out of her lips concerning her vows or concerning her pledge of herself shall not stand. Her husband has made them void, and the LORD will forgive her.
Num 30:13 Any vow and any binding oath to afflict herself, her husband may establish, or her husband may make void.
Num 30:14 But if her husband says nothing to her from day to day, then he establishes all her vows or all her pledges that are upon her. He has established them, because he said nothing to her on the day that he heard of them.
Num 30:15 But if he makes them null and void after he has heard of them, then he shall bear her iniquity.”
Num 30:16 These are the statutes that the LORD commanded Moses about a man and his wife and about a father and his daughter while she is in her youth within her father’s house.

Mary took a vow of celibacy before she was given to Joseph. Girls who were dedicated to God were permitted to remain at the Temple until puberty, but at that time, they were placed in the custody of an upright man in the community to be their guardian. Often such temple virgins were given to older men who had already completed their families, and could afford to support and protect such a young virgin.

A man entered into this relationship (marriage) fully consenting that he would honor the vow of celibacy of the woman. If the young lady made the vow “rashly” then the husband or father could nullify it.

Oh my goodness - thank you for all of this information! Where is the part where she took the vow? That’s the part I can’t find. I am not in any way asking you to provide that to me - I’m perfectly capable of looking myself, however I’ve been searching and I have not found it.

 

[Dokimas]

This has already been discussed.

Do you think Michal, in 2 Samuel 6:23 , gave birth after she died? For it says that “Michal had no children until the day she died.”

By your paradigm, it means that she did!

From my earlier post on this subject:
Does it say in Scripture that Joseph had sexual relations with Mary after the baby was born? I certainly could not find it anywhere in my Scriptural readings! Just that they had no relations UNTIL Jesus’ birth.

[SIGN]The word “until” does not indicate anything that occurred subsequently. [/SIGN]

Here’s some examples of other verses which use the word “until” but don’t indicate what occurred afterwards…

In 2 Samuel 6:23, we read that Michal, the daughter of Saul, had no child “until” the day of her death. (We can presume that she didn’t have children afterwards, either. )

Hebrews 1:13
13 But to which of the angels said he at any time: Sit on my right hand, [SIGN]until I make thy enemies thy footstool?[/SIGN]

Afterwards, will he no longer sit at the right hand?

and
1 Timothy 4:13
13 [SIGN]Till I come[/SIGN], attend unto reading, to exhortation, and to doctrine.

After he comes, are they forbidden from reading the Scriptures?

I’m not sure you can compare the Hebrew contruction with the Greek.​

You’re correct that you did mention this before in answering me. I also responded. That discussion may have been missed by Jars of Clay.

 

[Dokimas]

Obviously not, since Luke did not do this. I am sure these facts seemed self explanatory and elemental for them. I don’t think it ever occcurred to any of the writers that the Holy Scirptures would be separated from the Sacred Tradition that produced them.

Mary’s perpetual virginity is not really relevant to how the CC church “understanding of how the Saviour should have entered humanity”.

There is no disagreement with our separated brethren that He was born of a virgin, and that Jesus was her firstborn. These are the conditions under which He entered humanity.

OR, Mary and Joseph had other children, (the NT brings out that Jesus had sibblings), so Matthew and Luke wouldn’t make the erronious statement of her perpetual celebacy.​

Remember, your church, as you say goes back to these men, make Mary’s perpetual virginity such an important part of your Gospel that I makes sense to me that the Holy Spirit would have them mention if it was true.

 

[guanophore]

Just so we’re on the same page: the Immaculate Conception is not Mary conceiving Jesus through the Holy Spirit.

The Immaculate Conception is about Mary being protected and SAVED from original sin, from the very first moment of her conception.

Ok, now I’m totally confused. Original sin had to do with sex?

No. I don’t see how you get that from PR’s post.

I thought original sin had to do with disobedience to God?

A lot of disobedience to God nowadays is sexual, but in that case, it was not.

It’s very interesting to me to read (hear) other thought processes in that we can read the same words, speak the same languages, hear the same arguments presented as truth, and never arrive at the same conclusion.

You have put your finger on why Jesus found it necessary to appoint an infallible arbitrating authority over His Church. there are about as many different opinions as there are belly buttons.

 

[guanophore]

While your information is correct your point doesn’t seem to matter so it doesn’t seem to answer the question whether or not she was going to concumate her marriage at a later date.

Please explain, Doki. If she planned to consummate it, why did she even ask the question?

No one in Israel expected for God to incarnate Himself. there were many expectations aboaut the Messiah, but that was not one.

 

[guanophore]

Oh my goodness - thank you for all of this information! Where is the part where she took the vow? That’s the part I can’t find. I am not in any way asking you to provide that to me - I’m perfectly capable of looking myself, however I’ve been searching and I have not found it.

The only scriptural reference I am aware of is her question to the angel of “How can this be, since I know not man”?

The other elements are preserved in the Sacred Tradition of the Church, which has always referred to her in prayers and liturgy as “Blessed Mary, ever Virgin”.

This together with the demonstration from Scripture that those called “brothers and sisters” of the Lord are from other parents supports what the Church has always believed and taught. Even the Reformers accepted Mary’s perpetual virginity.

 

[guanophore]

OR, Mary and Joseph had other children, (the NT brings out that Jesus had sibblings), so Matthew and Luke wouldn’t make the erronious statement of her perpetual celebacy.

No, Scripture does not indicate that Jesus had any siblings. However, that is also covered by Randy in the other thread to which I commended you.

Matthew and Luke were focusing on the birth of Jesus. The status of Mary did not come into discussion until heresies began to arrive at the end of the first century. At that time, the Church clarified the status of Mary, to refute the heresies.

Mary was a perpetual virgin. she was a consecrated vessel unto the Lord, and once a vessel is consecrated, it is never put back into daily use. See how the consecrated vessels were treated in the Temple, and how scandalized the Jews were when they were profaned by invaders. Joseph understood that Mary was the Ark of the New Covenant, and he also knew the consequences for touching the Ark.

Anyway, they had their hands full raising the Son of God.

Why would anyone who had God in their midst distract themselves having sex and making more babies?​

•  Remember, your church, as you say goes back to these men, make Mary's perpetual virginity such an important part of your Gospel that I makes sense to me that the Holy Spirit would have them mention if it was true.

It was God that made Mary an important part of the Gospel. What is important to Catholics is that Gospel message be kept intact. We cannot stand by while parts of it that are found objectionable by modern day innovators are excised.

The Marian doctrines are part of the One Divine Deposit of Faith:

Jud 1:3 Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.

The faith is one, seamless whole. We don’t pick and choose the parts that make sense 2000 years later, or jettison what seems too “unbeleivable”. Once we begin to excise parts, there is no element that is safe. While it would definitely be more convenient to cave into modern Evangelical rejections of the doctrines of the Church about Mary, we are not at liberty to do this. So, even though the "proof’ we prefer is not in scripture, we are commanded to hold fast to that which was committed to us, whether by word of mouth, and in writing. That deposit of faith says that Mary was a perpetual virgin.

 

[Dokimas]

Please explain, Doki. If she planned to consummate it, why did she even ask the question?

No one in Israel expected for God to incarnate Himself. there were many expectations aboaut the Messiah, but that was not one.

I don’t know why she understood it but I do not see any reason she was planning to be celebate. I do see where the Bible says Joseph did not know his wife until Mary gave birth to her first born.

 

[Jars_of_Clay_1]

The only scriptural reference I am aware of is her question to the angel of “How can this be, since I know not man”?

The other elements are preserved in the Sacred Tradition of the Church, which has always referred to her in prayers and liturgy as “Blessed Mary, ever Virgin”.

This together with the demonstration from Scripture that those called “brothers and sisters” of the Lord are from other parents supports what the Church has always believed and taught. Even the Reformers accepted Mary’s perpetual virginity.

I see. Yeah, I couldn’t find anything to substantiate that either. That’s what I thought. Thanks to all who contributed there opinions.

 

[guanophore]

I don’t know why she understood it

And that is precisely our point, here Doki. Mary did NOT understand why the angel was telling her she would have a child, because she never had any intention of having relations with a man.

That is why she asked “how will this be”? Her vow of celibacy had already been received and approved by Joseph according to the Law.

• but I do not see any reason she was planning to be celebate.

Mary’s reason for consecrating herself to God in celibacy do not have to be understood by you. However, I think it is clear in the NT from what both Jesus and Paul have to say that the celibate state is honored and used by God.

• I do see where the Bible says Joseph did not know his wife until Mary gave birth to her first born.

He did not know her after that either.

 

[Jars_of_Clay_1]

I don’t know why she understood it but I do not see any reason she was planning to be celebate. I do see where the Bible says Joseph did not know his wife until Mary gave birth to her first born.

Don’t mean to get into your conversation with another person but I just wanted to say that I find it interesting that Jesus is referred to as “first born.” It would be odd to use the word “first born” if you only have one child. To me, first born means there are other children involved.

My sister has a daughter and she calls her “my daughter.” She doesn’t call her “first born” because there are no other children. My brother in law has a few children and he refers to his 1st son interchangeably as “first born” and “son.”

Just for the record I don’t believe that Mary and Joseph remained celibate in their marriage, nor do I believe that Jesus didn’t have brothers. (Not asking for clarification of this - I’m stating what I believe). Also for the record for those who did provide information with regard to your stand on the celibacy of Mary & Joseph’s marriage - I am looking at the info you provided - I like to know why people believe what they believe.

Just an observation. Thanks for listening.

 

[Dokimas]

No, Scripture does not indicate that Jesus had any siblings. However, that is also covered by Randy in the other thread to which I commended you.

Matthew and Luke were focusing on the birth of Jesus. The status of Mary did not come into discussion until heresies began to arrive at the end of the first century. At that time, the Church clarified the status of Mary, to refute the heresies.

Why would anyone who had God in their midst distract themselves having sex and making more babies?​

It was God that made Mary an important part of the Gospel. What is important to Catholics is that Gospel message be kept intact. We cannot stand by while parts of it that are found objectionable by modern day innovators are excised.

I know what the CC believe about the verses that say Jesus had brothers and sister. I have responded to that understanding. Therefore, I will continue to use the verses.​

Are you sure Mary and Joseph know Jesus was God? BTW, I’m not sure whether or not they’d want more children. I do know what nature, God given desires wives and husbands have toward each other. I’m not sure why God would ask them to remain celebate.

 

[Dokimas]

Don’t mean to get into your conversation with another person but I just wanted to say that I find it interesting that Jesus is referred to as “first born.” It would be odd to use the word “first born” if you only have one child. To me, first born means there are other children involved.

My sister has a daughter and she calls her “my daughter.” She doesn’t call her “first born” because there are no other children. My brother in law has a few children and he refers to his 1st son interchangeably as “first born” and “son.”

Just for the record I don’t believe that Mary and Joseph remained celibate in their marriage, nor do I believe that Jesus didn’t have brothers. (Not asking for clarification of this - I’m stating what I believe). Also for the record for those who did provide information with regard to your stand on the celibacy of Mary & Joseph’s marriage - I am looking at the info you provided - I like to know why people believe what they believe.

Just an observation. Thanks for listening.

You were not getting into my conversation. I was getting involved in yours. If I owe you an apology, then I’m sorry.

 

[guanophore]

Don’t mean to get into your conversation with another person but I just wanted to say that I find it interesting that Jesus is referred to as “first born.” It would be odd to use the word “first born” if you only have one child. To me, first born means there are other children involved.

No, one must understand this within the context of the culture. This is covered extensively in the other thread as well. It is only “odd” to those who read the NT in a vaccuum.

My sister has a daughter and she calls her “my daughter.” She doesn’t call her “first born” because there are no other children. My brother in law has a few children and he refers to his 1st son interchangeably as “first born” and “son.”

The firstborn son under Mosaic Law had special rights, privileges, and status. this was the case even when there were no other children. Why would you expect modern American culture to explain ancient Hebrew culture? that seems like a self centered way to read any ancient text.

Just for the record I don’t believe that Mary and Joseph remained celibate in their marriage, nor do I believe that Jesus didn’t have brothers. (Not asking for clarification of this - I’m stating what I believe). Also for the record for those who did provide information with regard to your stand on the celibacy of Mary & Joseph’s marriage - I am looking at the info you provided - I like to know why people believe what they believe.

I encourage you to read the fine references Randy posted on the other thread. I think you will find them very informative.

 

[guanophore]

I know what the CC believe about the verses that say Jesus had brothers and sister. I have responded to that understanding. Therefore, I will continue to use the verses.

Do you mean to say you ignore the NT evidence that these children do not belong to Mary, the mother of Jesus?

Wow.​

• Are you sure Mary and Joseph know Jesus was God?

Not a bit.

• BTW, I’m not sure whether or not they’d want more children. I do know what nature, God given desires wives and husbands have toward each other. I’m not sure why God would ask them to remain celebate.

I don’t know that God ever asked them. They may have offered it out of love for Him, just like all those who make themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of God.

 

[Dokimas]

Why would you expect modern American culture to explain ancient Hebrew culture?

QUOTE]​

Doesn’t this question make void your desire for me to place myself in the role of Mary and Joseph?

 

[Dokimas]

Do you mean to say you ignore the NT evidence that these children do not belong to Mary, the mother of Jesus?

Wow.

I have not seen any NT evidence that when the translaters of the Gospels called some males and some females the brothers and sister of Jesus they were anything but brothers and sisters. So I’d have to answer you that you’ve falsely understood me.

 

[guanophore]

Why would you expect modern American culture to explain ancient Hebrew culture?

Doesn’t this question make void your desire for me to place myself in the role of Mary and Joseph?

No, placing yourself into history, standing within the culture and language of the time is an authentic way of understanding any historical writing. It is a form of exegesis. We don’t read our modernism into the text, but place ourselves into it’s time and culture. The same would be true of Shakespeare, or ancient Egyptian writings.

 

[Dokimas]

Not a bit.

In context to my statement, are you saying you don’t think Mary and Joseph new Jesus was (is) God thereby agreeing with me making your statement I was commenting on of little value?