The not so virgin Mary

[Stouts989]

I think the key here is “intend.” Name one thing that God intended for bad.

I don’t think He intended for those to be bad, although, He did already know they would be. Remember, each of those fell.

In Romans 9:17 Paul quotes Exodus 9:16.

17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH.”

God intended Pharaoh to harden His heart for His (God’s) Glory.

Paul then continues with verses 18-24

18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.
19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?”
20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it?
21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?
22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?
23 And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory,
24 even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.

Paul says in verses 22 and 23 that He (God) prepared the vessels for destruction and for glory. God intended both outcomes…

I ask the same question as everyone else…why would God do this? And Paul replies in verse 20-21

Not an easy read…

 

[GodIsGracious]

In Romans 9:17 Paul quotes Exodus 9:16.

17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH.”

**God intended Pharaoh to harden His heart for His (God’s) Glory. **

Paul then continues with verses 18-24

18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.
19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?”
20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it?
21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?
22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?
23 And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory,
24 even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.

Paul says in verses 22 and 23 that He (God) prepared the vessels for destruction and for glory. God intended both outcomes…

I ask the same question as everyone else…why would God do this? And Paul replies in verse 20-21

Not an easy read…

Seems to me you have the answre to your own question right there, especially since you started off this thread with trying to prove Catholics wrong.

 

[Erich]

Though you have to agree that if no future state is mentioned then the conclusion that Mary stayed a virgin can’t be made any more than she didn’t remain.

I just find it hard to believe that she did considering the verses given as a likely case as well as the 8-10 verses that talk about Jesus having brothers and sisters. Why must we assume that in all 8-10 verses the brothers and sisters are ALL referring to cousins? Just seems like a stretch…

Nope, no stretch. There are only four brethren of Jesus named in the Gospels: **Matthew 13:55 ** “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?”

Mark 6:2-3 ** - “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?”
Let’s begin with James. There are two men named James among the disciples. One, of course, is the brother of John and the son of Zebedee. This cannot be him then. So, this is the other James, called in Scripture James the less: Mark 15:40: "There were also women looking on afar off: among whom were Mary Magdalene, and ** Mary the mother of James the less, and of Joseph, and Salome." (emphasis added)
So James is indeed the son of a woman named Mary. Not only that, but Joseph is his brother. That’s two of the four, right? Then, in Matthew, reciting the names of the twelve: Matt 10:3: “…'James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddeus.” (emphasis added)
This too is talking of James the less, as the other James, son of Zebedee, is spoken of in the previous verse. It is NOT a trick or really that hard! * Alphaeus* is this James’ father, not Joseph, the husband of Mary, mother of the Lord.

Now go to John also speaking of those witnessing the Crucifixion: John 19:25: “Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother (Mary) and His mothers sister, *** Mary the wife of Cleophas***, and * Mary Magdalene*.” (emphasis added)
Look up John 19:25 at blueletterbible.org/ and click the ‘C’ icon (for the Strong’s Concordance), then click the Strong’s number for the name Cleophas. It comes up “father of James the less, the husband of Mary the sister of the mother of Jesus.”

Did you get that? That Mary, who was the mother of James the less, and of Joseph, from Mark 15:40, is the wife of Cleophas, the father of James the less, and she is called the ‘sister’ of Our Lord’s mother - Mary!

So, two of the four ‘brothers’ have been identified as the children of parents other than Joseph and the Virgin Mary. Of the brothers named, that still leaves Jude and Simon. Next, Jude: Acts 1:13 ** "…James, the son of Alphaeus , and Simon Zelo’tes, and ** Jude the brother of James…" (emphasis added)
There goes Jude out of the mix! *** Matter of fact, Jude says the same in his own epistle: Jude 1:1 "Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ *** and brother of James…" (emphasis added)
Lastly, Simon. Simon, called the Zealot, is identified as coming from Cana, not Nazareth as were Joseph, Mary and the Christ! Luke 6:15 "and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and ** Simon who was called the Zealot," (emphasis added)

Mark 3:18 “Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and ** Simon the Cananaean**…” (emphasis added)

Matt 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene. (emphasis added)
Simon is a Cananean, while Jesus is a Nazarene!

We see that Simon the Zealot being from Cana, and a ‘brethren’ or ‘brother’ of the Christ. Let’s go to John’s Gospel, chapter 2. Mary and Our Lord are invited to a wedding there! So, close business associates, maybe, of Joseph from the carpentry trade, or more likely - family, or brethren, relatives, are having this wedding! Like, maybe the Holy Family had actual kinfolk in Cana, be they cousins, in-laws, nephews, aunts, uncles, all of which are routinely called ‘brethren’!

Remember what Mary said to the servants? She told them to ‘Do as He says.’

Think about that a second? What would give this humble woman from Nazareth any position to so speak to the servants of someone else in an entirely different town, at their wedding? The simplest and most easily understood answer would be – she is a family relation to those giving the wedding feast…

So Simon is from Cana, and a ‘brother’ of the Lord! He’s not a sibling though, but very likely related. And James, Joseph and Jude all have the same father and mother, and it is not Joseph and the Virgin Mary, but their mother is named Mary and called the sister of Jesus’ mother Mary. Even here ‘sister’ may not mean blood sibling, or we have two sisters with the same name in the same family.

 

[sail1993]

catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp

I read through the article listed above written to explain way reform theology teaches that Mary was no longer a virgin after she had Jesus and bore other children along with the Catholic argument on why Mary remained a virgin.

What the article fails to mention is Matthew 1:24-25. This is (along with the verses mentioned in the article) why reform theology teaches that Mary didn’t remain as a virgin once Jesus was born.

Matthew 1:24-25 (with emphasis).

[NASB]
24 And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife,
25 but **kept her a virgin until **she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

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

[NIV]
24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

choose your favorite translation…they all say the same thing…

Blessings!

I have a Jerusalem Bible (Catholic), it states:
“When Joseph woke up he did what the angel of the Lord had told him to do: he took his wife to his home and though he had not had intercourse with her, she gave birth to a son; and he named him Jesus.”

 

[Cluny]

What the article fails to mention is Matthew 1:24-25. This is (along with the verses mentioned in the article) why reform theology teaches that Mary didn’t remain as a virgin once Jesus was born.

Matthew 1:24-25 (with emphasis).

[NASB]
24 And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife,
25 but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

What your posting fails to mention is Matthew 28:20–the same Gospel, where the same Greek particle EOS is used.

“Lo, I am with you always, even until [EOS] the end of the world.”

If EOS in Matthew 1:25 means that Mary and Joseph had marial relations after the birth of Jesus, then EOS in Matthew 28:20 means that at the end of the world, Jesus will no longer be with us.

Be consistent.

Furthermore, the term “firstborn son” has a technical meaning among Jews to this day.

A Jewish woman has a “firstborn son” if and ONLY if her first pregnancy results in the LIVE BIRTH of a MALE CHILD. This child is sujbect to the Law of Redemption of the Firstborn.

If her first pregnancy ends with abortion, stillbirth, miscarriage, or the birth of a female baby (living or dead), and her second pregnancy ends in the birth of a male child, this is NOT considered her “firstborn son”, and has no need to be redeemed.

BTW–In modern Jewish practice, the father gives five silver dollars to the Cohen (priestly descendant of Aaron) who says the appropriate prayers, and then donates the money to charity.

In other words, in Jewish usage (and Matthew is the most Jewish of the Gospels, remember) “firstborn son” does NOT mean the mother ever had other children afterwards.

I’ll bet you came to this form, thinking you’d tell us things we didn’t know.

I’ll also bet that you didn’t know these things I’m telling you here.

 

[OnlyJesus]

The testimony of Mary herself is a guarantee of her perpetual virginity. To the angel who announces to her that she is to be the mother of the Messias, the Mother of God, she mentions her resolution of remaining a virgin: “How shall this happen, since I do not know man?” She learns that God will, by a miracle, preserve her virginity intact. But, if even before becoming the Mother of God she had already resolved to remain a virgin, is it conceivable that she would have violated her resolution after God had consecrated her virginity by such a great miracle and had chosen her flesh to become the all-pure flesh of the Word Incarnate**?**

If Mary was a regular woman giving childbirth via a normal delivery, she technically would still be a virgin b/c she had not had sex. But physically her body would bear no sign or proof of virginity i.e. the membranes and tissues would be ruptured by the childbirth itself.

Mary followed Jewish customs for purification after Jesus birth like any other new Jewish mother, the description in v 23 indicates normal physiological birth.

22 And when** the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished**, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;

23 (As it is written in the law of the LORD, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord

24And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.

** Matthew 13:55-56** "Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56 “And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” 57 And they took offense at Him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his home town, and in his own household.”

** Mark 6:3** “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?” And they took offense at Him. 4 And Jesus said to them,
“A prophet is not without honor except in his home town and among his own relatives and in his own household.”

IN HIS OWN HOUSEHOLD.

Then in other verses in Matthew Jesus differentiates between his literal brothers and his spiritual brothers:

Mt 12:46 While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. 47 And someone said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You.” 48 But He answered the one who was telling Him and said,
“Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49 And stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, "Behold, My mother and My brothers! 50 “For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother.”

So someone says to Jesus, your mother and your brothers are outside, and Jesus points to his disciples and says** whoever does the will of My Father who is in Heaven he is my brother, sister, mother etc. **

That says to me that his disciples were speaking of his literal brothers and jesus distinguishes between literal brothers and spiritual brothers. At the same time, it seems so very odd if Mary was in fact honored in the precise manner that the Catholic Church Popes have prescribed, i.e. that she remained a Virgin after Christ’s birth and had not other chldren…and “queen of heaven” goodness gracious, that seems like Jesus made a terrible insult to his Venerated Mother. Doesn’t quite jive.

There is a scripture that says Jesus own brothers did not believe in him…

When Christ was dying he said John would be Mary’s son and Mary went to live and be cared for by John. Jesus chose the best possible person to care for his mother and put her into the hands of a man who trusted and believed in Jesus…unlike Jesus literal brothers who did not. Jesus was concerned for Mary’s spiritual well being.

In John 2 verse 12, again Jesus distinguishes between his literal brothers and his disciples:

12 After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples: and they continued there not many days.

In Galatians 1:18: Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother

 

[Stouts989]

Seems to me you have the answre to your own question right there, especially since you started off this thread with trying to prove Catholics wrong.

My post in response to Romans 9 was to someone else’s question…not one I brought up.

When I started this post on Mary I was looking for answers in response to some verses I didn’t find when I first read the given article.

But I’m kinda glad I over looked the information cause the article doesn’t defend its position well…(just my opinion).

 

[Erich]

Matthew 13:55-56 "Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56 “And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” 57 And they took offense at Him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his home town, and in his own household.”

** Mark 6:3** “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?” And they took offense at Him. 4 And Jesus said to them,
“A prophet is not without honor except in his home town and among his own relatives and in his own household.”

IN HIS OWN HOUSEHOLD.

Then in other verses in Matthew Jesus differentiates between his literal brothers and his spiritual brothers:

Mt 12:46 While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. 47 And someone said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You.” 48 But He answered the one who was telling Him and said,
“Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49 And stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, "Behold, My mother and My brothers! 50 “For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother.”

So someone says to Jesus, your mother and your brothers are outside, and Jesus points to his disciples and says** whoever does the will of My Father who is in Heaven he is my brother, sister, mother etc. **

That says to me that his disciples were speaking of his literal brothers and jesus distinguishes between literal brothers and spiritual brothers. At the same time, it seems so very odd if Mary was in fact honored in the precise manner that the Catholic Church Popes have prescribed, i.e. that she remained a Virgin after Christ’s birth and had not other chldren…and “queen of heaven” goodness gracious, that seems like Jesus made a terrible insult to his Venerated Mother. Doesn’t quite jive.

There is a scripture that says Jesus own brothers did not believe in him…

When Christ was dying he said John would be Mary’s son and Mary went to live and be cared for by John. Jesus chose the best possible person to care for his mother and put her into the hands of a man who trusted and believed in Jesus…unlike Jesus literal brothers who did not. Jesus was concerned for Mary’s spiritual well being.

In John 2 verse 12, again Jesus distinguishes between his literal brothers and his disciples:

12 After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples: and they continued there not many days.

In Galatians 1:18: Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother

See post #43 in this thread. Jesus didn’t have “literal brothers” as you put it. None of the “literal brothers” you refer to were children of Mary and Joseph.

 

[GodIsGracious]

But I’m kinda glad I over looked the information cause the article doesn’t defend its position well…(just my opinion).

Ok, I can get that. However, this leads me to believe that you looked over pretty much most of the article and the fact that you admitted to having done so pretty much takes from YOUR defense.

Secondly, it is clear that you started this whole thread to “prove” Catholics wrong. You can’t prove the truth to be wrong. You can only continue to deny it and make futile attempts to prove it wrong.

Consider - if you want a discussion on what Catholics believe and teach, present your ideas and case in such a manner to invite discussion rather than “bam! you’re wrong!” especially when your opening “argument” was clearly stated in what you were trying to disprove.

 

[Darian]

It doesn’t imply she had sex nor does it imply she didn’t. But the Bible and oral Tradition do not tell us she had sex, in fact the oral Tradition is clear that she remained a virgin her whole entire life.

Ezekiel 44:2 And the Lord said to me: This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it: because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it, and it shall be shut.

The word used for Elisabeth is kinswoman/cousin as she was releated to Mary but they didn’t live in the same town.

Jesus’ ‘brothers’ (cousins) are called brothers as though not kids of Mary, they grew up together with Jesus in the same town.

Proof please that the geographic location of the relative determined the word used to describe said relative.

The same greek word is used to describe the brothers of Christ who are in the upper room with Mary and the 11 apostles. Luke tells us that there are 120 there. 120-12=108. Surely Mary didn’t have 108 sons after Jesus was born. (c.f. Actsc ch1)

There is no indication that the events of Acts 1:12-14 took place on the same day(when Mary and the Lord’s brothers are mentioned) as what is described starting in vs. 15 of the same chapter when the 120 were gathered. No number is given for that gathering just that the eleven, the women, Mary, and Jesus’ brothers were there.

Only Jesus is called a son (singular) of Mary/Joseph

I am called a son (singular) of my parents and I have brother and a sister.

Jesus gave Mary to the care of John on the cross - if he had blood brothers why not them?

First of all none of Jesus’ brothers were there, John was. Secondly, we are told in John 7:5 that His brothers did not believe. Would you leave your mother who is an obvious believer in the care of unbelievers?

If Mary had 7 children on Joseph’s wage as a carpenter it makes you wonder how they managed to get by.

Your forgetting about the gift of gold, frankensence SP?, and myrrh given by the wise men. These could go a long way in taking care of the needs of the family for a long time.

Brothers in Hebrew and Aramaic (and Latin and other ancient languages) could mean cousin or close family friend. When the OT was put in greek cousins etc were still refered to as brothers and this tradtion continued into the NT. Most of the OT quotes in the NT are from the Greek. Jesus and those in Israel/Palestine spoke Aramaic as their every day language.

Proof please that this translating tradition carried over into first composition.

In Genesis 14:12 (Hebrew and Greek) Lot is referred to as the son of Abram’s brother but two verses later Lot is referred to as Abram’s brother.

My pleasure

How common was it for a Jewish person to give birth to God in the flesh?

Do we see scripture that explicitly says they (Mary and Joseph) must have sex.

As St Augustine noted (comenting on the how can this be verse of Luke ch1) Mary made a vow of virginity, consecrating herself to the Lord, and when you make a vow with God he doesn’t ask you to break it. There is nothing wrong with virginity. In fact doesn’t St Paul speak highly of celibacy?

What proof does Augustine offer that Mary made such a vow? Are there any examples of this taking place within a marriage relationship? How can you keep a vow that may be in and of itself a sin? No there is nothing wrong with virginity or celibacy, but Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 7:4,5 that to defraud, for more than a defined time and then come back together, your spouse of conjugal rights is a sin. The Lord through Paul is prohibiting virginity or celibacy within marriage.

Nope, but who am I to deny the truth.

St Paul told the Theselonians that Tradition is written (the Bible) and spoken (oral Tradition).

Not to go off topic, but how do you know that all the right books are in the NT?

OP is original poster from what I gather

 

[YADA]

The posts have been great so far …

Let me just say … the Greek heous is clear but ALSO the word “until” or “til” in common usage can only be positively held for what comes before its limiting affect not future events … future events are always specualtive at best and open to other influences that affect outcomes … past events are open to evidentuary investigation …

Just as an example I can tell my grandson that I will take not take him to the movies until he cleans his room … when he has cleaned his room you can investigate the e evidence to show that I kept my word and did not take him to the movies [no ticket stubs, etc] or find proof that I violated that oath [stubs and popcorn grease on both our fingers]… but you cannot read into that passage that I immediately took him to the movies when his room was clean, nor the next day, next month, next year or ever … I could have changed my mind, wanted to take him - even intended to take him BUT was hit by a truck, had a heart attack or died. I may have lacked the means to purchase a ticket [ever]. OR I could have taken him OR I might intend to take him at some future time and place yet to be determined …

DEAR OP …

What did the original protestant reformers believe about the Mother of Christ? …

Can you [the OP] tell me what Luther, Calvin or Zwingli taught on this subject?

And why would a woman [espoused to be married] respond the way Mary did at the annunciation that she was to give birth to the Lord, mother the Incarnated Godhead … If she knew she was to have and intended to have carnal relations with her husband?

Having been over shadowed by the Holy Spirit in an intimate and once in a life time manner such that the result of the encounter was the birth of the God Child Jesus - why would Mary [or even Joseph] consider sexual intimacy a factor in their relationship? … Mary was intimately joined to the Holy Spirit - such that many early christian writers refered to her as the “spouse of the Holy Spirit” … you can see where this imagery comes from …

This is something I cannot understand … no days psychologists tell us that children are permanently scared from entering into healthy sexual relationships because their mother’s verbally abused them during potty training … yet Mary and Joseph had to have sex - even though Mary - a vigin - gave birth to God through miraculous means … they have to be just like the overly sexed 20th - 21st century american populace … and not to would somehow dishonor God, be disobedience to the command to be fruitful and multiply …

 

[Good_Fella]

The posts have been great so far …

Let me just say … the Greek heous is clear but ALSO the word “until” or “til” in common usage can only be positively held for what comes before its limiting affect not future events … future events are always specualtive at best and open to other influences that affect outcomes … past events are open to evidentuary investigation …

Just as an example I can tell my grandson that I will take not take him to the movies until he cleans his room … when he has cleaned his room you can investigate the e evidence to show that I kept my word and did not take him to the movies [no ticket stubs, etc] or find proof that I violated that oath [stubs and popcorn grease on both our fingers]… but you cannot read into that passage that I immediately took him to the movies when his room was clean, nor the next day, next month, next year or ever … I could have changed my mind, wanted to take him - even intended to take him BUT was hit by a truck, had a heart attack or died. I may have lacked the means to purchase a ticket [ever]. OR I could have taken him OR I might intend to take him at some future time and place yet to be determined …

DEAR OP …

What did the original protestant reformers believe about the Mother of Christ? …

Can you [the OP] tell me what Luther, Calvin or Zwingli taught on this subject?

And why would a woman [espoused to be married] respond the way Mary did at the annunciation that she was to give birth to the Lord, mother the Incarnated Godhead … If she knew she was to have and intended to have carnal relations with her husband?

Having been over shadowed by the Holy Spirit in an intimate and once in a life time manner such that the result of the encounter was the birth of the God Child Jesus - why would Mary [or even Joseph] consider sexual intimacy a factor in their relationship? … Mary was intimately joined to the Holy Spirit - such that many early christian writers refered to her as the “spouse of the Holy Spirit” … you can see where this imagery comes from …

This is something I cannot understand … no days psychologists tell us that children are permanently scared from entering into healthy sexual relationships because their mother’s verbally abused them during potty training … yet Mary and Joseph had to have sex - even though Mary - a vigin - gave birth to God through miraculous means … they have to be just like the overly sexed 20th - 21st century american populace … and not to would somehow dishonor God, be disobedience to the command to be fruitful and multiply …

A learned Jewish rabbi once told an acquaintance of mine that anyone who disbelieves Mary remained “continent” after having given birth to Jesus doesn’t understand the Torah.

Pax Christu :harp:

 

[YADA]

A learned Jewish rabbi once told an acquaintance of mine that anyone who disbelieves Mary remained “continent” after having given birth to Jesus doesn’t understand the Torah.

Pax Christu :harp:

True … but then the Jewish mind and life experience includes an understanding with God that can comprehend a dedication to the Lord - a singular dedication to God…

the Hebrew scriptures make many referecnes to just that .- as does St Paul …

Even the OP’s mention of large families being the norm … look at Abraham and Sara [Isaac was their “first born” and only son] - even though Abraham fathered a son with Hagar … God told Abaraham to "take your son, your only son, the one you love … " … many other important familial writings are of small or singular chidren …

The Book of Numbers has referecnes to woman who dedicate themselves to the Lord [both in their father’s house and/or their husband’s] … this vowed - once made and not immediately reprimanded was to stand and to be honored by father and or husband … consecrating oneself to the service of God is not new, it is not a ‘catholic’ invention …

 

[Good_Fella]

=Stouts989;5255035]

I just find it hard to believe that she did considering the verses given as a likely case as well as the 8-10 verses that talk about Jesus having brothers and sisters. Why must we assume that in all 8-10 verses the brothers and sisters are ALL referring to cousins? Just seems like a stretch…

It seems more like a stretch of coincidence that four alleged male siblings of Jesus had the same names as four of his apostles.

How common was it for Jewish families to have only one child? I’m under the understanding that it was nearly unheard of.

How common was it for Jewish families to have the divine Messiah for their son? I understand that such a thing would be completely unheard of.

Do we see anywhere in scripture where God tells Mary or Joseph that Mary must remain a virgin (after Jesus is born) in order to honor Him?

Mary chose to remain a virgin by her own free will. Just as the Son of Man chose to accept his cup of suffering in his agony at the garden of Gethsemane by his own free human will.

Why wouldn’t Mary want to honor God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply”?

Why wouldn’t the apostle Paul? Perhaps he can answer your question.

Does the idea that Mary might have had children after Jesus make her any less of a Godly woman…or a saint?

It would certainly make her more ordinary, which you prefer her to be.

Thanks for your time and thoughts

Not at all. Thanks for your honest questions.

If scripture is the Word of God…then all other writings and teachings are subjected to His Word.

A garden enclosed is my sister, my spouse; a spring shut up, a fountain sealed.
Songs 4, 12

Pax Christu
:harp:

 

[Canto]

What proof does Augustine offer that Mary made such a vow? Are there any examples of this taking place within a marriage relationship? How can you keep a vow that may be in and of itself a sin?

Augustine’s proof is oral tradition – the oral tradition St Paul told us to hold onto alongside written tradition
Mary’s vow of virginity made to God is in no way a sin
When you make a vow with God He doesn’t ask you to break it

Luke 1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

Mary was betrothed to Joseph. Mary knows (I would have thought) that to become pregnant she would have to have sex with Jospeh, so why would she inquire to the means of becoming pregnant. Maybe she made a vow of virginity from her childhood, knew God didn’t want her to break that vow and so inquired as to the means.

Numbers 30:3 ¶ If a woman vow any thing, and bind herself by an oath, being in her father’s house, and but yet a girl in age: if her father knew the vow that she hath promised, and the oath wherewith she hath bound her soul, and held his peace, she shall be bound by the vow:
4 Whatsoever she promised and swore, she shall fulfil in deed.
5 But if her father, immediately as soon as he heard it, gainsaid it, both her vows and her oaths shall be void, neither shall she be bound to what she promised, because her father hath gainsaid it.
6 If she have a husband, and shall vow any thing, and the word once going out of her mouth shall bind her soul by an oath,
7 The day that her husband shall hear it, and not gainsay it, she shall be bound to the vow, and shall give whatsoever she promised.
8 But if as soon as he heareth he gainsay it, and make her promises and the words wherewith she had bound her soul of no effect: the Lord will forgive her.

13 If she vow and bind herself by oath, to afflict her soul by fasting, or abstinence from other things, it shall depend on the will of her husband, whether she shall do it, or not do it.
14 But if the husband hearing it hold his peace, and defer the declaring his mind till another day: whatsoever she had vowed and promised, she shall fulfil: because immediately as he heard it, he held his peace.
15 But if he gainsay it after that he knew it, he shall bear her iniquity.
16 These are the laws which the Lord appointed to Moses between the husband and the wife, between the father and the daughter that is as yet but a girl in age, or that abideth in her father’s house.

 

[Canto]

Proof please that this translating tradition carried over into first composition.

Jesus spoke Aramaic
Anepsios is rather too precise a word for Jesus’ adelphoi. Anepsios means “first cousin” or sometimes merely “cousin.” Now every cousin is a kinsman, but not every kinsman is a cousin. Therefore, adelphos, not anepsios, was the appropriate word to use in Matthew 13:55 and elsewhere to describe Jesus’ relatives.

The Septuagint began to be read in synagogue worship, so that for many Jews at the time of Christ, and for some time thereafter, the Septuagint was the Bible. This became true also for several generations of early Christians. The influence of the Septuagint on the Greek language as spoken and written by the Jews of the Diaspora and even in Palestine was enormous. (One could rightly compare the Septuagint translation in this respect to the influence of the King James Bible, another translation, on the development of the English language.)

Almost eighty percent of the Old Testament citations and allusions in the New Testament come from the Septuagint, not from the Hebrew Bible. Stylistically, much of the New Testament, particularly the four Gospels and Acts, is heavily dependent on the Septuagint. Even Luke, who can write a Greek so pure as to be reminiscent of Thucydides, generally prefers to write “Jewish Greek” in the manner of the Septuagint.

The editors of the Oxford Annotated Bible (RSV) write:

“Since all the authors represented in the New Testament appear to have been either Jews or Jewish proselytes before becoming Christians, it is natural that their use of Koine Greek was colored by their familiarity with the special characteristics of the Hebrew Old Testament (the Septuagint). Here and there the Gospels and the first half of Acts preserve in Greek certain turns of expression which reflect an underlying Aramaic idiom, which was the mother tongue of Jesus and his disciples” (“Introduction to the New Testament,” p. 1168).

David Hill writes:

“The vocabularies of the Greek Old Testament and the Greek New Testament have a great measure of similarity, and research into the syntax of the Greek of the Septuagint has revealed its remarkable likeness to that of the New Testament” (op. cit., p. 16).

Hill and others go so far as to posit the existence among Hellenistic Jews of a special vernacular Greek with a pronounced Semitic cast which found literary expression in the Septuagint and later on in the New Testament.

Hill continues: “The language of the New Testament…reveals in its syntax and–more important for our work–in its vocabulary [the italics are Hill’s] a strong Semitic cast, due in large measure to its indebtedness to the Jewish biblical Greek of the Septuagint” (ibid., p. 18).

All of these statements ignore the historical reality of the Septuagint. It is in fact impossible to understand the Greek of the New Testament without reference to the Greek of the Septuagint; and it is likewise impossible to understand the peculiarities of Septuagint Greek without reference to the original Hebrew Old Testament.

The writers and very early readers of the New Testament were largely speakers of that special Jewish-flavored Hellenistic Greek of which I have written. Furthermore, being Jews, they were “Septuagint-conditioned.” They were used to the Septuagint usage of adelphos as the ordinary Greek rendering of the Hebrew ach in its many familial and extra-familial meanings–meanings much broader than uterine brother/sisterhood.

And as we have seen, as early as Plato the words of the adelph- family were not confined to uterine brother/sisterhood in mainstream Greek. Therefore, texts which call James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude adelphoi of Jesus do not prove that these were Mary’s children and younger siblings of Jesus.
"In ancient and, particularly, in Eastern societies (remember, Palestine is in Asia), older sons gave advice to younger, but younger never 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 Judaea so his disciples could see his doings, so he could make a name for himself (John 7:3-4). Another time, they sought to restrain him for his own benefit, saying ‘He must be mad’ (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 brothers german, since Jesus, we know, was Mary’s ‘first-born.’

Fr. Mateo catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9001fea2.asp

 

[Canto]

I am called a son (singular) of my parents and I have brother and a sister.

One of England’s finest scholars, Richard Bauckham, offered a comprehensive analysis of this text in the Catholic Biblical Quarterly. When “son of Mary” is used in Mark 6:3, Bauckham contends that calling Jesus by his mother’s name (a metronymic) indicates that locally, there was knowledge that Jesus was to be distinguished from his “brothers and sisters” because the locals knew that these adelphoi had different mothers. Bauckham cites various Old Testament genealogies where sons are ‘sons of a woman’ (named after their mother, not their father) to support this view.

NIV Zechariah 12:10 "And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.

(A sword shall pierce your own soul Luke ch1)

orthodoxanswers.org/eureka/mp3/didmaryhave.pdf

When Jesus was found in the Temple at age twelve, the context suggests that he was the only son of Mary and Joseph. There is no hint in this episode of any other children in the family (Luke 2:41–51). Jesus grew up in Nazareth, and the people of Nazareth referred to him as “the son of Mary” (Mark 6:3), not as “a son of Mary.” In fact, others in the Gospels are never referred to as Mary’s sons, not even when they are called Jesus’ “brethren.” If they were in fact her sons, this would be strange usage.

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).

Consider what happened at the foot of the cross. When he was dying, Jesus entrusted his mother to the apostle John (John 19:26–27). The Gospels mention four of his “brethren”: James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude. It is hard to imagine why Jesus would have disregarded family ties and made this provision for his mother if these four were also her sons.

catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp

Rather, adelphos (Mark 6:3) was used to describe brothers not born of the same parents, like a half-brother or stepbrother.

Nevertheless, other Gospel passages clarify these relationships. James and Joses were the sons of Mary of Clophas (Mk 15:40). Judas was the son of James (not either of the Apostles) (Lk 6:16). James the Lesser was the son of Alphaeus (Lk 6:15). James the Greater and John were the sons of Zebedee with a mother other than our Blessed Mother Mary (Mt 20:20).

According to Jewish law, the oldest son had the responsibility of caring for the widowed mother, and that responsibility would pass to the next oldest if anything happened to the first-born son. By this time, St. Joseph has died. Since Jesus, the first born, had no “blood brother,” He entrusted Mary to the care of St. John, the Beloved Disciple.

Interestingly, the Orthodox Churches solve this problem over brothers and sisters by speculating that St. Joseph was a widower who had other children before he married Mary. These brothers and sisters would really then be half-brothers and half-sisters. Perhaps this notion is why St. Joseph sometimes appears elderly in paintings.

Actually, this whole confusion is not new. About 380, Helvidius suggested that the “brethren” were the children born of Mary and Joseph after Jesus. St. Jerome declared this as a “novel, wicked, and daring affront to the faith of the whole world.” In his On th e Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mary, St. Jerome used both Scripture and the fathers, like Saints Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus and Justin Martyr to refute Helvidius. Later, the First Lateran Council (649) definitively declared that Mary was “ever virgin and immaculate.”

Therefore, as Catholics, based on Sacred Scripture and Tradition, we do not believe that Mary and Joseph had other children and consequently that Jesus had blood brothers and sisters.

Fr Saudners catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0090.html

 

[Good_Fella]

I am called a son (singular) of my parents and I have brother and a sister.

One of England’s finest scholars, Richard Bauckham, offered a comprehensive analysis of this text in the Catholic Biblical Quarterly. When “son of Mary” is used in Mark 6:3, Bauckham contends that calling Jesus by his mother’s name (a metronymic) indicates that locally, there was knowledge that Jesus was to be distinguished from his “brothers and sisters” because the locals knew that these adelphoi had different mothers. Bauckham cites various Old Testament genealogies where sons are ‘sons of a woman’ (named after their mother, not their father) to support this view.

NIV Zechariah 12:10 "And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.

(A sword shall pierce your own soul Luke ch1)

orthodoxanswers.org/eureka/mp3/didmaryhave.pdf

When Jesus was found in the Temple at age twelve, the context suggests that he was the only son of Mary and Joseph. There is no hint in this episode of any other children in the family (Luke 2:41–51). Jesus grew up in Nazareth, and the people of Nazareth referred to him as “the son of Mary” (Mark 6:3), not as “a son of Mary.” In fact, others in the Gospels are never referred to as Mary’s sons, not even when they are called Jesus’ “brethren.” If they were in fact her sons, this would be strange usage.

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).

Consider what happened at the foot of the cross. When he was dying, Jesus entrusted his mother to the apostle John (John 19:26–27). The Gospels mention four of his “brethren”: James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude. It is hard to imagine why Jesus would have disregarded family ties and made this provision for his mother if these four were also her sons.

catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp

Rather, adelphos (Mark 6:3) was used to describe brothers not born of the same parents, like a half-brother or stepbrother.

Nevertheless, other Gospel passages clarify these relationships. James and Joses were the sons of Mary of Clophas (Mk 15:40). Judas was the son of James (not either of the Apostles) (Lk 6:16). James the Lesser was the son of Alphaeus (Lk 6:15). James the Greater and John were the sons of Zebedee with a mother other than our Blessed Mother Mary (Mt 20:20).

According to Jewish law, the oldest son had the responsibility of caring for the widowed mother, and that responsibility would pass to the next oldest if anything happened to the first-born son. By this time, St. Joseph has died. Since Jesus, the first born, had no “blood brother,” He entrusted Mary to the care of St. John, the Beloved Disciple.

Interestingly, the Orthodox Churches solve this problem over brothers and sisters by speculating that St. Joseph was a widower who had other children before he married Mary. These brothers and sisters would really then be half-brothers and half-sisters. Perhaps this notion is why St. Joseph sometimes appears elderly in paintings.

Actually, this whole confusion is not new. About 380, Helvidius suggested that the “brethren” were the children born of Mary and Joseph after Jesus. St. Jerome declared this as a “novel, wicked, and daring affront to the faith of the whole world.” In his On th e Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mary, St. Jerome used both Scripture and the fathers, like Saints Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus and Justin Martyr to refute Helvidius. Later, the First Lateran Council (649) definitively declared that Mary was “ever virgin and immaculate.”

Therefore, as Catholics, based on Sacred Scripture and Tradition, we do not believe that Mary and Joseph had other children and consequently that Jesus had blood brothers and sisters.

Fr Saudners catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0090.html

Thank you, Canto, for your time and effort to produce an excellent post worth reading. I’m sure our Blessed Mother was gratefully smiling down upon you as you were plugging away at the keyboard.

Pax Christu :harp:

 

[Canto]

Thank you, Canto, for your time and effort to produce an excellent post worth reading. I’m sure our Blessed Mother was gratefully smiling down upon you as you were plugging away at the keyboard.

Pax Christu :harp:

Thank-you for your kind words
I must say I always get a lot out of reading your posts

Mary was the first person to accept Jesus as her personal Lord and Saviour as someone once said, she held Him in her very arms

who was it that also said Denying the Mother is one step away from Denying The Son

 

[MrS]

Thank-you for your kind words
I must say I always get a lot out of reading your posts

Mary was the first person to accept Jesus as her personal Lord and Saviour as someone once said, she held Him in her very arms

who was it that also said Denying the Mother is one step away from Denying The Son

I often opine that Mary was perhaps the greatest theologian who ever lived. Who else could rely on over 3 decades of learning about God from God Himself?

At the foot of the Cross, Mary shed tears. Not for her Son, because her will was to accept God’s will. That meant the death of Jesus on the Cross. Mary would have willed the death of her Son to fully accept God’s Will. Thus her tears were not so much for Jesus, as they were for us.

.