Question about Catholic belief regarding Mary's perpetual virginity

  • Thread starter Thread starter HashemEchad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
jmcrae said:
And don’t forget, he married his sister, Sarai. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Sarah WAS his half-sister, as Abraham explained to Abimelech:

Gen 20:12 “And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother”
 
LilyM said:
Sarah WAS his half-sister, as Abraham explained to Abimelech:

Gen 20:12 “And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother”
Click to expand...
Yes, and Lot was also a near kinsman, but neither of them were full-blooded siblings.
 
jmcrae said:
Yes, and Lot was also a near kinsman, but neither of them were full-blooded siblings.
Click to expand...
Yes but a half-sister is still literally a sister - the dictionary definition requires only ONE parent in common. So it’s not merely an idiom for Abraham to call her such. Whereas Lot didn’t literally share a parent with Abraham but was instead his nephew, so it WAS an idiom to call them brothers.
 
inJESUS said:
how do you reconcile your reply with:

When a man makes a vow to the LORD or binds himself under oath to a pledge of abstinence, he shall not violate his word, but must fulfill exactly the promise he has uttered. "When a woman, while still a maiden in her father’s house, makes a vow to the LORD, or binds herself to a pledge, if her father learns of her vow or the pledge to which she bound herself and says nothing to her about it, then any vow or any pledge she has made remains valid. But if on the day he learns of it her father expresses to her his disapproval, then any vow or any pledge she has made becomes null and void; and the LORD releases her from it, since her father has expressed to her his disapproval. "If she marries while under a vow or under a rash pledge to which she bound herself, and her husband learns of it, yet says nothing to her that day about it, then the vow or pledge she had made remains valid.

It seems that God did not mind nor did He say it is a sin.
Click to expand...
There is no proof Mary did anything like that.
 
HashemEchad said:
There is no proof Mary did anything like that.
Click to expand...
There is also no proof she did not and more supports this then the other …

You are moving from … Never a part of the practice … to … Ther eis no proof she did this…

Mary [a betrothed woman] when approached by the angel with “you will bear a son” [note this is future tense - and a betrothed person would expect to have children - as you said in so many posts - this would be the ‘normal’ result] and yet Mary’s response in her “not knowing a man” implies that she does not "know’ man and would not come to “know” one …

This is a far stronger inference than your “until” … becuase in reality the until only is binding on the past actions - those that occur to the limiting event… Mary, if intending ‘normal’ marriage arrangement would be looking forward to bearing a son … and yet her response clearly indicates that she was not …
 
YADA said:
There is also no proof she did not and more supports this then the other …

You are moving from … Never a part of the practice … to … Ther eis no proof she did this…

Mary [a betrothed woman] when approached by the angel with “you will bear a son” [note this is future tense - and a betrothed person would expect to have children - as you said in so many posts - this would be the ‘normal’ result] and yet Mary’s response in her “not knowing a man” implies that she does not "know’ man and would not come to “know” one …

This is a far stronger inference than your “until” … becuase in reality the until only is binding on the past actions - those that occur to the limiting event… Mary, if intending ‘normal’ marriage arrangement would be looking forward to bearing a son … and yet her response clearly indicates that she was not …
Click to expand...
This is flat out incorrect YADA. Forgive my interruption but this verse is constantly mis-interpreted. The original greek is written in the past tense with regard to Mary’s response. She is saying I haven’t known a man. Not I don’t know man in the general sense. Also the word used there for man is the greek word aner which means:

of a male of a husband of a betrothed or future husband

So what Mary was really saying here was how can this be, I have not had sex with my husband?

PEACE
 
NDfan said:
This is flat out incorrect YADA. Forgive my interruption but this verse is constantly mis-interpreted. The original greek is written in the past tense with regard to Mary’s response. She is saying I haven’t known a man. Not I don’t know man in the general sense. Also the word used there for man is the greek word aner which means:

of a male of a husband of a betrothed or future husband

So what Mary was really saying here was how can this be, I have not had sex with my husband?

PEACE
Click to expand...
What I said was that the angel’s greeting implied a future event [you will bear a son - Mary was not already pregnant] … Mary did say she did not “know” a man … so I am not disagreeing with your position … What I said is that … implied in her response was that she would not ever know man because as a betrothed person, a future child would be concievable [both in the reality and in thought - so perhaps pun intended 🙂 ] …

You may take your personal interpretation of this ‘round yon Virgin Mother and Child’] …
 
Spirithound said:
Published c.200AD, the Mishnah (first component of the Talmud) is a compilation of the oral law of Judaism. As always in that era, the oral version predates the written considerably, and probably predates Jesus.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the information, Spirithound. God bless you! 👍
 
From the earliest biblical days adultery carried with it a sense of defilement, so that a woman who had know contact with another man, even if by force, was considered no longer fit to be visited by her husband (Genesis 49:4; 2 Samuel 20:3, . 16:21-22; Book of Jubilees 33:6-9; Epstein, , p.51). The Deuteronomic code teaches that a woman who is divorced by her husband and thereafter marries another man likewise cannot return to her former husband (Dt 24:1-4). As the Lord said through the prophet Jeremiah: “If a man put away his wife and she goes from him and becomes another man’s wife, shall he return to her again, shall not the land (his wife’s body) be greatly polluted?” (Jr 3:1; see <Targum to Dt 24:1-4)>. In rabbinic law a woman who has committed adultery is “defiled” and cannot remain the wife of her husband, but must be divorced <(Sifre on Dt>, edit. M. Friedman (1864) 270 p. 122b; , edit. M. Friedman (1915) 7 p. 4a and 19 p. 66). Furthermore any intimate male contact by the wife with Jew or gentile, potent or impotent, natural or unnatural makes divorce compulsory <(Sotha> 26b; 55a, b, 87b; 9a, Babylonian Talmud<; Kethuboth> 25a; 27a, <Yad, Sotah> 22, Jerusalem Talmud).

In Jewish Law a man betrothed to a woman was considered legally married to her. The word for betrothed in Hebrew is , a word that is derived from the Hebrew word which means “holy” “consecrated,” “set apart.” Because by betrothal (as in Mt 1:18; Lk 1:27) , or marriage, a woman became the peculiar property of her husband, forbidden to others. The (Marriages and Engagements) states; “The husband prohibits his wife to the whole world like an object which is dedicated to the Sanctuary” <(Kiddushin> 2b, Babylonian Talmud). We know from the Gospel of Matthew 1:14 that Joseph the husband of Mary was a righteous man, a devout law-abiding Jew. Having noticed that Mary was pregnant and that he, her betrothed, had nothing to do with the pregnancy, Joseph had either to publicly condemn her and have her put to death for adultery (Dt 22:22-29) or put her away privately. His decision was made when an angel appeared to him in a dream, saying: “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife; for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit; she will bear a son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins” (Mt. 1:20-21). The angel does not use the phrase for marital union: “go in unto” (as in Gn 30:3, 4, 16) or “come together” (Mt 1:18) but merely a word meaning leading her into the house as a wife <(paralambano gunaika)> but not cohabiting with her. For when the angel revealed to him that Mary was truly the spouse of the Holy Spirit, Joseph could take Mary, his betrothed, into his house as a wife, but he could never have intercourse with her because according to the Law she was forbidden to him for all time.

We also have to take into consideration that when Mary was told by the archangel Gabriel “Behold, you shall conceive in your womb, and bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus” (Lk 1:31), he also added that this was to come about because “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the Holy one to be born shall be called the Son of God” (Lk 1:35). By stating it in those terms the archangel declared to Mary that God would enter into a marital relationship with her, causing her to conceive His Son in her womb, For “to lay one’s power <(reshuth)> over a woman” <(Targum to Dt> 21:4) was a euphemism for “to have a marital relationship with her.” Likewise “to overshadow” (Lk 1:35) by spreading the “wing” or “cloak” over a woman was another euphemism for marital relations. Thus, the rabbis commented <(Midrash Genesis Rabbah> 39.7; 3.9) that Ruth was chaste in her wording when she asked Boaz to have marital relations with her by saying to him “I am Ruth you handmaid, spread therefore your cloak ( literally, “wing”: <kanaph)> over your handmaid for you are my next-of-kin” (Ruth 3:9). , another Aramaic-Hebrew word for cloak, is derived from = shadow. Thus, “to spread one’s cloak <(tallith)> over a woman” means to cohabit with her <(Kiddushin> 18b, see also <Mekhilta on Exodus 21:8)>. Did not the Lord say to His bride Israel: “I am married to you” (Jr 3:14) and “your Maker is your husband”? (Is 54-5:5; Jr 31:32)? And what is more intimate than what the Lord said to His bride: “You developed, you grew, you came to full womanhood; your breasts became firm and your hair grew… you were naked… and I saw that you were now old enough for love so I spread my cloak over you… I gave you My oath, I entered into a covenant with you and you became Mine, says the Lord God” (Ezk 16:7, 8).
 
Having been enlightened by an angel in a dream regarding her pregnancy, and perhaps further by Mary concerning the words of the archangel Gabriel to her at the Annunciation, Joseph knew that God had conducted himself as a husband in regard to Mary. She was now prohibited to him for all time, and for the sake of the Child and Mary he could only live with her in an absolutely chaste relationship. Living a celibate life within marriage was not unknown in Jewish tradition. It was told that Moses, who was married, remained continent the rest of his life after the command to abstain from sexual intercourse (Ex 19:15) given in preparation the seventy elders abstained thereafter from their wives after their call, and so did Eldad and Medad when the spirit of prophecy came upon them; indeed it was said that the prophets became celibate after the Word of the Lord communicated with them <(Midrash Exodus Rabbah> 19; 46.3; 99 sect. 11; 81-82, 203-204; 9, 39; 111, 46; 13; 3 72; 87a; 87b, Babylonian Talmud).

Elijah and Elisha were celibate al their lives <(Zohar Hadash> 2:1; 30, 105, 33). When for the sake of the Torah (i.e., intense study in it), a rabbi would abstain from relations with his wife, it was deemed permissible, for he was then cohabiting with the Shekinah (the “Divine Presence”) in the Torah <(Zohar re Gn> 1:27; 13:3 and Psalm 85:14 in the <Discourse of Rabbi Phineas to Rabbis Jose, Judah, and Hiya)>. It is well known that the rabbis spoke concerning the obligation of all males to be married and procreated: “He who abstains from procreation is regarded as though he had shed blood” (Rabbi Eliezer in 63b, Babylonian Talmud; see also <Shulkhan Aruch (Code of Jewish Law) >section< Evenhar-Ezer> 1:1,3,4). According to 62b, B.T. a man is only half a man without a wife, citing Genesis 5:2 where it is said: "Male and female He (God) created them and blessed them, and called their name Adam (lit. “Man”).

Nevertheless, “if a person cleaves to the study of the Torah (i.e., dedicates all his time to it) like Simeon ben Azzai, his refusal to marry can be condoned” <(Skulkhan Arukh EH> 1:4). Rabbinic scholar Simeon ben Azzai (early second century A.D.) was extraordinary in his learning: “with the passing of Ben Azzai diligent scholars passed from the earth” <(Sotah> 9:15). He never married and was celibate all his life so as not to be distracted from his studies, and because he considered the Torah his wife, for who he always yearned with all his soul <(Yebamoth> 63b). He was an outstanding scholar <(Kiddushin> 20a, B.T.) and also renowned for his saintliness <(Berakoth> 57b, B.T.).

Jewish tradition also mentions the celibate Zenu’im (lit. “chaste ones”) to whom the secret of the Name of God was entrusted, for they were able to preserve the Holy Name in “perfect purity” <(Kiddushin> 71a; 3:11; <Yer. yoma> 39a, 40a). Those in hope of a divine revelation consequently refrained from sexual intercourse and were strict in matters of purity (Enoch 83:2; Revelation 14:2-5). Philo (<Apol. pro Judaeis> IX, 14-17), Josephus, <(Antiq>. XVIII. 21) and Hipploytus ( IX, IV, 28a) wrote on the celibacy of the Jewish Essenes hundreds of years before the discovery of their settlements in Qumran by the Dead Sea. Philo Judaeus (c. 20 B.C.-50 A.D.), a Jewish philosopher, described Jewish women who were virgins who have kept their chastity not under compulsion, like some Greek priestesses, but of their own free will in their ardent yearning for Wisdom. “Eager to have Wisdom for their life-mate, they have spurned the pleasures of the body and desire no mortal offspring but those immortal children which only the soul that is dear to God can bring forth to birth” (Philo, . 68; see also Philo, . 100).

For “the chaste are rewarded by receiving illumination from the concealed heavenly light” <(Zohar> 11. 229b-230a). Because “if the understanding is safe and unimpaired, free from the oppression of the iniquities or passions… it will gaze clearly on all that is worthy of contemplation” (Philo, . 1.5). Conversely, “the understanding of the pleasure-loving man is blind and unable to see those things that are worth seeing… the sight of which is wonderful to behold and desirable” (Philo, <Q. Gen>.IV.245).
 
As the recipient of the great revelation that what was conceived in the womb of Mary, his betrothed, was of the Holy Spirit and that the Child to be born was destined to save His people from their sins, surely Joseph knew that he was called to take care of Mary and her Child, the Messiah, for the rest of his life, which is why the angel told him to take Mary as his wife. We may reasonable assume that Mary herself now shared with him all that the archangel Gabriel said to her. No less a Person than “the Son of God” (Lk 1:35) was to be entrusted to his care under the shelter of his humble home, now become the Holy of Holies. Jewish tradition mentions that, although the people had to abstain from sexual relations with their wives for only three days prior to the revelation at Mount Sinai (Ex 19:15), Moses chose to remain continent the rest of his life with the full approval of God. The rabbis explained that this was so because Moses knew that he was appointed to personally commune with God, not only at Mount Sinai but in general throughout the forty years of sojourning in the wilderness. For this reason Moses kept himself “apart from woman,” remaining in the sanctity of separation to be at the beck and call of God at all times; they cited God’s command to Moses in Deuteronomy 5:28 <(Midrash Exodus Rabbah> 19:3 and 46.3). Again, we may be sure that Saint Joseph remained celibate all his life because throughout his married years he was in daily attendance and communication with Jesus, the incarnate Word of God.

Source: ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/TALMUD.HTM
 
there is no word of brother or cousin in Aramaic: Gen 14:14 Lot was called Abrahams brother, but is actually his nephew. Gen 11:27 Aran was the father of Lot.

If Jesus had brothers then why would he give his mother to someone other than his real brother Jn 19:26-27. It would have been a grave insult to pass on care to someone other than the father or the sons. Why not just leave her to her husband?

In Acts 1:14-15 they prayed together was the apostles (11) + mary (1) + women (?) + brothers (?) = 120. These were also called Jesus brothers, Mary would have had around 80 sons.
 
loscampos said:
there is no word of brother or cousin in Aramaic: Gen 14:14 Lot was called Abrahams brother, but is actually his nephew. Gen 11:27 Aran was the father of Lot.

If Jesus had brothers then why would he give his mother to someone other than his real brother Jn 19:26-27. It would have been a grave insult to pass on care to someone other than the father or the sons. Why not just leave her to her husband?

In Acts 1:14-15 they prayed together was the apostles (11) + mary (1) + women (?) + brothers (?) = 120. These were also called Jesus brothers, Mary would have had around 80 sons.
Click to expand...
Of course Mary had no other children. She was perpetually virgin.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top