Question about Catholic belief regarding Mary's perpetual virginity

[HashemEchad]

Your not gettng it…The Blessed Mother was not just ‘the girl next door’. If Jesus was/is God, and he was Divine, you cannot question God. Whatever He made possible, happened.
I NEVER implied (you love to change things around) that sex was disgusting. Only showing you what you said about the miracles and The blessed VIRGIN. Show me where I said The Blessed VIRGIN and St. Joseph were disgusting…show me.

Well, I don’t believe Jesus was divine. I believe Mary and Joseph had a normal, natural Jewish marriage, complete with sexual relations.

I do believe they did not have sex until at least they were fully married, because even though betrothal is as good as married, sexual relations are not permitted until the full nisuin (marriage.)

I also believe Jesus had brothers, because if the NT is historically accurate, it names his brothers and even mentions him having sisters.

Of course, all of this is assuming the NT is historically accurate, and Mary, Joseph and Jesus existed.

 

[adstrinity]

Gentile Catholics can believe whatever they want to, I’m just trying to show why in Jewish Law such a situation could never have been.

There is no such thing in Judaism as a sexless marriage, even by choice. And in ancient times, Mary’s parents would have insisted on having the tokens of her virginity because in those days, that was a woman’s only protection in case her husband later decided to claim he found her not a virgin when he married her.

But such a situation couldn’t only have been, it was.

Concerning the sexless marriage, Joseph DID want to divorce her quietly when he thought she had slept around on him. Matthew 1:18-25, "Now this is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about. When his mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found with child through the holy Spirit. Joseph her husband, since he was a righteous man, yet unwilling to expose her to shame, decided to divorce her quietly. Such was his intention when, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary your wife into your home. For it is through the holy Spirit that this child has been conceived in her. She will bear a son and you are to name him Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.” All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Behold, the virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel,” which means "God is with us. “When Joseph awoke, he did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took his wife into his home. He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus.”
God told Joseph to stay with Mary and Joseph being a good man of God, did that. According to Catholic beliefs. Joseph was told that God, Himself, was in his wife. The widower didn’t feel like having sex with the woman who was nurturing the Creator.

 

[jmcrae]

Well, I don’t believe Jesus was divine. I believe Mary and Joseph had a normal, natural Jewish marriage, complete with sexual relations.

I do believe they did not have sex until at least they were fully married, because even though betrothal is as good as married, sexual relations are not permitted until the full nisuin (marriage.)

I also believe Jesus had brothers, because if the NT is historically accurate, it names his brothers and even mentions him having sisters.

Of course, all of this is assuming the NT is historically accurate, and Mary, Joseph and Jesus existed.

Well, it also gives the names of the parents of these brothers, and their parents are not Mary and Joseph; they are a variety of other different people, including someone named Alphaeus, and someone named Suzanna - so, maybe they are brothers like “brothers in arms,” or else near kin, such as cousins, uncles, nephews, etc.

 

[Jimdandy]

HashemEchad,

We can offer you no proof that Mary was a perpetual virgin.

It is a matter of Faith, which is a gift from God, just as belief in Jesus and in the Holy Eucharist is a gift.

Next time you pray, would you pray for me? I will keep you in my prayers.

 

[HashemEchad]

HashemEchad,

We can offer you no proof that Mary was a perpetual virgin.

It is a matter of Faith, which is a gift from God, just as belief in Jesus and in the Holy Eucharist is a gift.

Do you ever wonder if this gift could be given to you, have you ever discussed this with God? (no need to reply, I am just curious and I do know you are settled in your own faith)
Next time you pray, would you pray for me? I will keep you in my prayers.

I will certainly remember to pray for you.

But I would never in a million years ask God for something I know in my heart is not true. After all my people, and esp. my mother’s family has suffered because of the Catholic church in history, there is no way I could ever consider joining it.

 

[jmcrae]

The reason we believe this is not because of some kind of agenda, but because it has been found to be true.

That something is true is really the only good reason to believe it.

It is also most fitting that Mary was always faithful to the Holy Spirit, even if it was not strictly required that she had to be.

 

[HashemEchad]

I agree totally with your own feelings on this…its as if to imply that there is something dirty about sex, even within marriage, and hence a need to teach that Mary never had anything to do with it.

I know many Catholics (older generation) who truly did feel sex was dirty and shameful, and I wonder if it comes from this? because in medieval times, the Catholic church did actually teach that sex was only for procreation (Pope Gregory the Great for one, St Augustine for another)…archelaos.com/popes/details.aspx?id=71

 

[Jimdandy]

I will certainly remember to pray for you.

But I would never in a million years ask God for something I know in my heart is not true. After all my people, and esp. my mother’s family has suffered because of the Catholic church in history, there is no way I could ever consider joining it.

Thank-you- I have amended my post because it seemed so presumptuous of me

 

[ralphinal]

Sex is like everything else God has given us as gifts. We can make it dirty or we can make it beautiful. It is our choice.

I agree about it being generational.

 

[Spirithound]

Furthermore, in the NT it says that Joseph did not “know” her UNTIL she brought forth Jesus.

The NT also states that Jesus had brothers, and even names some of them!

And archaeologists not long ago uncovered an ossuary (bone box) with the name of one of Jesus’ brothers. It even said on the ossuary, in Aramaic, “the brother of Jesus” (and yes, they are sure it is the same Jesus.)

“Until”, Greek “heos” only refers to the period of time before the event takes place. No implication is made about the period after the event. Note that in English, both interpretations are acceptable, depending on the pragmatics of the sentence.

Jesus had brothers like I have sisters; close friends and cousins only.

Ossuary is a forgery.

It is also most fitting that Mary was always faithful to the Holy Spirit, even if it was not strictly required that she had to be.

Actually, according to the Talmud, Mary and Joseph would have been forbidden from engaging in marital relations.
come-and-hear.com/sotah/sotah_27.html#PARTb
From tractate Sotah, Chapter 5, folio 27b, read the first paragraph. Mary’s first experience (I really hesitate to call it a sexual experience, but we can see that it is in the same kind, since a baby resulted) was with the Holy Spirit. Because of this, she would have been forbidden from relations with Joseph, had the Holy Spirit been a human, and had the whole thing been found out and believed. This is God’s law, so it must also apply in the miraculous Virgin Conception.

 

[HashemEchad]

“Until”, Greek “heos” only refers to the period of time before the event takes place. No implication is made about the period after the event. Note that in English, both interpretations are acceptable, depending on the pragmatics of the sentence.

Jesus had brothers like I have sisters; close friends and cousins only.

Ossuary is a forgery.

Actually, according to the Talmud, Mary and Joseph would have been forbidden from engaging in marital relations.
come-and-hear.com/sotah/sotah_27.html#PARTb
From tractate Sotah, Chapter 5, folio 27b, read the first paragraph. Mary’s first experience (I really hesitate to call it a sexual experience, but we can see that it is in the same kind, since a baby resulted) was with the Holy Spirit. Because of this, she would have been forbidden from relations with Joseph, had the Holy Spirit been a human, and had the whole thing been found out and believed. This is God’s law, so it must also apply in the miraculous Virgin Conception.

Are you aware of the fact that “Come and Hear” is an antisemitic/white supremacist website that posts forged “quotations” purporting to be from the Talmud?

As for your “interpretation” based on that passage, all I can say is WOW. I had always had the greatest respect for the Catholic theologians I have known offline, but that has got to be the worst case of contortion to make something fit a dogma that I have ever seen.

 

[Cathdefender]

Well, I don’t believe Jesus was divine. I believe Mary and Joseph had a normal, natural Jewish marriage, complete with sexual relations.

I do believe they did not have sex until at least they were fully married, because even though betrothal is as good as married, sexual relations are not permitted until the full nisuin (marriage.)

I also believe Jesus had brothers, because if the NT is historically accurate, it names his brothers and even mentions him having sisters.

Of course, all of this is assuming the NT is historically accurate, and Mary, Joseph and Jesus existed.

Honestly? I really don’t care what you say about Jesus anymore. You will be judged by him the way your ancestors were judged.
When you see him coming and sit at the right hand of his father, you will drop on your knees, you will scream out NO, NO, and you will pull out your hair. I pray that God have mercy on your soul.

 

[HashemEchad]

Honestly? I really don’t care what you say about Jesus anymore. You will be judged by him the way your ancestors were judged.
When you see him coming and sit at the right hand of his father, you will drop on your knees, you will scream out NO, NO, and you will pull out your hair. I pray that God have mercy on your soul.

You are really amusing, did you know that? Do you have to work at it, or does it come naturally?

 

[Spirithound]

Are you aware of the fact that “Come and Hear” is an antisemitic/white supremacist website that posts forged “quotations” purporting to be from the Talmud?

As for your “interpretation” based on that passage, all I can say is WOW. I had always had the greatest respect for the Catholic theologians I have known offline, but that has got to be the worst case of contortion to make something fit a dogma that I have ever seen.

No, I was not aware of the nature of that website. I assumed that it was authentic. The introduction uses “we”, and appears to be from a genuinely Jewish woman who wants to help others learn about her religion. Anyways, could you please point me to an authentic online copy of the Talmud?
As for my interpretation, it says “Just as she is prohibited to the husband, so is she prohibited to the paramour.” I think that’s pretty clear that a woman who has a sexual partner other than her husband is thereafter forbidden to both of them. Of course, if I’m using a false passage, my interpretation is invalid.
Regarding the part where I apply it to the virgin birth, I have heard that Luke’s Gospel uses rather sexual/romantic language or connotations in the first chapter in telling of the annunciation. That means that the Holy Spirit was Mary’s first partner, and so Joseph would be forbidden from having relations with her. He married her because she needed protection and her baby needed a father figure.

 

[SenorSalsa]

perhaps i should just take a picture of my wristband, so i dont have to type this out all the time

“With God, all things are possible”-Mark 10:27. If God wanted a valid marriage that was sexless, he would grant a valid marriage. Lets also not forget that the only reason this would ever matter is if Joseph brought up a complaint against Mary. Which would be unlikely given the dream he recieved

 

[LilyM]

Gentile Catholics can believe whatever they want to, I’m just trying to show why in Jewish Law such a situation could never have been.

There is no such thing in Judaism as a sexless marriage, even by choice. And in ancient times, Mary’s parents would have insisted on having the tokens of her virginity because in those days, that was a woman’s only protection in case her husband later decided to claim he found her not a virgin when he married her.

In the Torah, a woman who is accused of not being a virgin is stoned at the door of her father’s home, IF the tokens cannot be found.

Believe what you want, but from a JEWISH point of view, legally, the whole thing was impossible (and remember, they were Jews.)

Oh, and “Cathdefender”, Mary was not “blessed” as far as anything that is said in my Scriptures, and she’s not my mother. Only Catholics need to call her that.

I just call her what historians call her: Mary, the mother of Jesus. Or to be more accurate: Miriam bat-Yehoiakim.

As for your claim of telling what is “filthy and disgusting”, are you implying that sex between a husband and wife are filthy and disgusting? Why does it disgust you to think that Mary and Joseph consummated their marriage?
Marital sex is not dirty or disgusting.

But Mary was already pregnant at the time of marriage - so it everyone would obviously think (d’uh) that she’d lost her virginity already. Joseph’s acceptance of the child as his own meant (d’uh) that he was acknowledging (in this case falsely) that he’d taken her virginity already - which is fine, according to Leviticus, as long as he paid the bride price of a virgin!

Tell me, how would it even be POSSIBLE to get these tokens of virginity from a girl who (so everyone thought) wasn’t a virgin? And yet her marriage with Joseph was taken as valid and binding.

 

[YADA]

The thing is, in Judaism there was never such a thing as a “vow of chastity”. That is something, in modern times, which is unique to Buddhism and Catholicism.

In ancient times, some pagan religions did that, but Judaism never did. Judaism has always, ALWAYS seen marital love as a joy and a blessing, never something to be abstained frm except during the menstrual period.

Well, the book of Numbers * is a part of the Hebrew texts [Torah] and it includes vows taken by a young woman still in her father’s house that he does not take exception to, vows of a woman taken with her husbands knowledge and the vows of widows …

There are some who argue [not convincingly IMHO nor in the opinion of most scholars christian or jewish in my research] that these vows do not include vows of sexual abstinance … but in context vows of chastity would be the most serious …

So I do believe that the historical record: found in Numbers, Nazorite Persons, the archealolgy around the Dead Sea Scrolls that contain the Essenes Sect community rules, would give credence to the fact that hebrew people could and did elect to live lives if Chastity …

To say it “never” occurred is not supported by te facts … it is just your atempt to impose your view of ancient jewish practice to discredit a tenet of the christian faith …

You ar free to believe what you want … no one is imposing christian belief upon you … as not one livingperson today was an eye witness to the marriage of Joseph and Mary … all we have is the writings and the teachings of our faith traditions …

It is, like much that is of God something we accept … not becuase we have the white sheets without blood [or for you the sheets stained] but in faith …

Pax Christe*

 

[Eileen_T]

The key point is that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant, having carried within her womb, the Word of God. As chapter 1 of John’s Gospel refers to Jesus.

Joseph, having been advised of this by an angel, would have given her the reverence the people of Israel gave to the original Ark of the Covenant which contained the 10 Commandments, written ny God. It was forbidden for anyone to touch the Ark on pain of death.

Matthew’s Gospel says Joseph “had no marital relations with her until she had borne her firstborn son” (Matt. 1:25) The word *until *here just says what happened up to the time of Christ’s birth. It does not say anything about what happened after the birth.

This use of “until” can also be found in 2 Samuel 6:23, which says, “Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death.” We can assume that she had no more children after she died.

I also would make the case that the “brothers” of the Lord were not older half-brothers but more likely cousins, since Jesus handed the responsibility of Mary to His disciple John. Something that would have been scandalous enough to make it into the Bible if the “brothers” were Mary’s stepsons. This is also a strong argument against Mary having born other children after Jesus.

 

[Jimdandy]

Honestly? I really don’t care what you say about Jesus anymore. You will be judged by him the way your ancestors were judged.
When you see him coming and sit at the right hand of his father, you will drop on your knees, you will scream out NO, NO, and you will pull out your hair. I pray that God have mercy on your soul.

Cath, please-your attitude is hurting you most of all.
Pray for unbelievers, no need to get short tempered and snippy-Jesus was a much better teacher and hundreds walked away from Him. I cannot recall Jesus lambasting anyone except the moneychangers who were violating His Father’s house.

Jesus spoke in parables because there were those who would not hear His message no matter what.

Defend you Faith, avoid tearing down others.
When an unbeliever stands before Jesus, I hope that person embraces Him with joy immeasurable.

 

[Eileen_T]

I cannot recall Jesus lambasting anyone except the moneychangers who were violating His Father’s house.

First, I have to agree with you about being charitable in our posts, especially when the poster we are responding to is trying.

However, I want you to remember that Jesus was not a “nice” guy as we would consider it, definitely not PC.

*‘For I tell you, if your uprightness does not surpass that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never get into the kingdom of Heaven.’ *Mt 5: 20

'Hypocrites! How rightly Isaiah prophesied about you when he said: “This people honours me only with lip-service, while their hearts are far from me. Their reverence of me is worthless; the lessons they teach are nothing but human commandments.”’ Mt 15: 7-9

*Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you are like to whited sepulchres, which outwardly appear to men beautiful, but within are full of dead men’s bones, and of all filthiness. *Matt 23:27

*'In his teaching he said, ‘Beware of the scribes who like to walk about in long robes, to be greeted respectfully in the market squares, to take the front seats in the synagogues and the places of honour at banquets; these are the men who devour the property of widows and for show offer long prayers. The more severe will be the sentence they receive.’ *Mk 12: 38-40

*‘The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and jeered at him, He said to them, “You are the very ones who pass yourselves off as upright in people’s sight, but God knows your hearts. For what is highly esteemed in human eyes is loathsome in the sight of God.”’ *Lk 16: 14-15

There are others.

We can forget that Christianity is a very muscular faith tradition.