The not so virgin Mary

[Good_Fella]

To all my fellow Catholics: How in the world did we miss all this for two millenia? Thanks Stouts989. I’ll call the pope and let him know what you’ve discovered!!

"Who’s calling, please?.."I see… "Did you say, Stouts?..I heard of a guy named Helvidius, but he never existed during my pontificate…“Anyway, don’t talk to me about it. I never promulgated the second Marian dogma. And I’m tired of hearing those same feeble arguments over and over again.”

Pax Christu:harp:

 

[MrS]

The evidence is far too sharp to ignor - but perhaps God has touched my heart

Beginning with a special thanks to Canto and all the others who contributed,

This has been extremely enlightening. I had always viewed, because of Protestant scruitany and hostility, that Mary was a mere pon; a vessel to deliver what was Good to the world - the Son of God. I dismissed her significance on the grounds that she was human and only later was made Holy. But Jesus himself, Holy, became a man. I had been mistaken. Mary is my Mother. I feel foolish for having thought so crudely.

It’s these revelations that make God’s urging stronger to unite myself with his Catholic Church. Thank you, posters, for this great concession to my faith!

God Bless you all.

And God will bless you abundantly.

Personally it makes sense to me to acknowledge that all grace (God) came to us through the vessel named Mary. I try to return the fruits of those graces to God by means of the same vessel…Mary… keeping in mind her first and on-going message to us “Do as my Son tells you.”

Mary does not appear very often in the NT. But she is there

• At the moment of the Incarnation, giving her fiat to God’s messenger, Gabriel
• At the manger in Bethlehem, giving birth to the Savior of the world
• On the trip to Egypt, protecting her young son, a fragile baby
• At the temple, marveling as Jesus read and taught the Jews
• At the wedding feast, as she was instrumental in His first miracle, the start of His ministry
• At the foot of the Cross, as she watched her Son die for our sins
• In the upper room as the frightened disciples received the Holy Spirit on the birthday of the Catholic Church
• In the heavens with the crown on her head, and Satan being crushed at her feet.

All generations shall call her blessed.

.

 

[dianaiad]

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.

.

Just a comment here…

I once had to hold my child down, literally and physically, so that a doctor could perform a very painful procedure on him. I knew that it was vital that this be done. I knew that the procedure might even be life saving–and certainly saved his ability to walk and live a normal life. It worked; he is tall and healthy.

I cried anyway. Who would not, seeing her child in pain, no matter what the reason?

 

[MrS]

Just a comment here…

I once had to hold my child down, literally and physically, so that a doctor could perform a very painful procedure on him. I knew that it was vital that this be done. I knew that the procedure might even be life saving–and certainly saved his ability to walk and live a normal life. It worked; he is tall and healthy.

I cried anyway. Who would not, seeing her child in pain, no matter what the reason?

Actually my comments echoed those of the Franciscan who was interviewed a number of years ago on EWTN. They have been studying this for over 500 years as they look at the issue of Mediatrix of all Grace.

.

 

[Jesus_123]

• Canto . . . the Holy Gift of the . . . *Grace of Patience *. . . God has entrusted to . . . and is perfecting in . . . your soul . . . in relation to your fellow man . . . wow . . . !

***“But that on the good ground are they,
which in an honest and good heart,
having heard the word, keep it,
and bring forth fruit with patience.” ***
Luke 8:15
:bible1:

. . . all for Jesus+
. . . Deo gratias (thanks be to God)+
​

---

**

• Jesus . . . Mary . . . St. Joseph . . . save souls +**

 

[Canto]

• Canto . . . the Holy Gift of the . . . *Grace of Patience *. . . God has entrusted to . . . and is perfecting in . . . your soul . . . in relation to your fellow man . . . wow . . . !

Thank-you

1 Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord Christ in your hearts, being ready always to satisfy every one that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you.

 

[Libertarian_FL]

Lets invoke common sense Mary was a young girl of marriage age, never married that means in that period around her middle teens. Now I’m not sure if this is true but the Catholic think Joseph was elderly that is not likely since most parents would have her married to a man of cultural age to marry at the time, around 30.

And come on I can get that she was a virgin, had Jesus without Mary having relations with her since supposedly God sent an angel and he was religious so likely wouldn’t have. But a healthy man, married to I assume a nice looking wife would never have relations with her is utterly illogical. Unless God demanded he no and I don’t see one pasage supporting that. But he had a brother James that is clear so he had to come from somewhere.

Thankfully as a person outside this debate on strictly biblical grounds I can use historical sources and frankly what would make sense. And I checked with a Rabbi who has ample study in this area he supports my view that she was likely wed under custom, might have in this case not have had sex until she had Jesus then Mary and her husband enjoyed normal relations as a couple. Simple.

I’m not saying the Catholics are wrong or the Christians just if one injects some normal healthy views here that a man will in a marriage have normal relations with the wife he is wed to, the Catholic view seems less likely. After the birth of Jesus since both sides seem to feel she had to be a virgin until that point.

 

[dianaiad]

While Mary no dobut loved Joseph deeply she consecrated herself to God. She made a vow of virginity. To break such a vow…

At the risk of getting yelled at again…

Where is there any evidence that she made such a vow?

 

[MrS]

Lets invoke common sense Mary was a young girl of marriage age, never married that means in that period around her middle teens. Now I’m not sure if this is true but the Catholic think Joseph was elderly that is not likely since most parents would have her married to a man of cultural age to marry at the time, around 30.

And come on I can get that she was a virgin, had Jesus without Mary having relations with her since supposedly God sent an angel and he was religious so likely wouldn’t have. But a healthy man, married to I assume a nice looking wife would never have relations with her is utterly illogical. Unless God demanded he no and I don’t see one pasage supporting that. But he had a brother James that is clear so he had to come from somewhere.

Thankfully as a person outside this debate on strictly biblical grounds I can use historical sources and frankly what would make sense. And I checked with a Rabbi who has ample study in this area he supports my view that she was likely wed under custom, might have in this case not have had sex until she had Jesus then Mary and her husband enjoyed normal relations as a couple. Simple.

I’m not saying the Catholics are wrong or the Christians just if one injects some normal healthy views here that a man will in a marriage have normal relations with the wife he is wed to, the Catholic view seems less likely. After the birth of Jesus since both sides seem to feel she had to be a virgin until that point.

I wish I had a direct link to the source/info for you… however…

It was common in the Jewish community and faith for a girl to pledge herself to a life of temple prayer and virginity, much like religious orders today.

Yes Mary was young in years (14 or 15) when the angel appeared to her… not “supposedly”, but actually - as we read in Luke 1:20ff.

The custom also included the protection of the consecrated virgin by a person trusted by the Jewish authorities. Joseph was such a man. It would have been highly UNLIKELY that such a man be young, virile, and interested in having a family and then be asked to spend his life protecting a healthy young lady.

The language she spoke “…how can this be…I know not man…” is appropriate because Mary understood the lifetime vows she had made. How could she reason living celibate, and also having a child. However, as a young serious Jewess she also knew what the Scriptures (only the OT existed at the time) predicted.

It is far more likely that Joseph had been married, and was widowed with children. Catholic teaching has always taught that this is more likely, although one is allowed to think that Joseph was young. His position in life was ideal for the new responsibilities he would take on… looking after this maiden… as espoused to her. This is not the kind of marriage you are suggesting. “Most parents” as you noted… would NOT have been looking for a traditional husband for a daughter pledged to a celibate life for God.

As to Jesus having a brother… well that really stretches the lie/misunderstanding… especially when the clear, and Scriptural, reasoning for those assumptions has already been presented.

Tell your source… the Rabbi… that I understand he fails to see that the Messiah has indeed come. The Jews have denied that Jesus is the One promised in their Scriptures. So it is not unusual for him to tell you that he agrees with you. To say otherwise would mean he would have to accept or at least consider that Jesus is God.

By the way, Joseph died before Jesus began His ministry… now THAT would be unusual for the young, virile man you suggest as the husband to Mary. And there is a rather awesome (IMHO) reasoning for this too. … if you read this and are curious, ask.

The Rabbi is wrong.

.

 

[dianaiad]

Actually my comments echoed those of the Franciscan who was interviewed a number of years ago on EWTN. They have been studying this for over 500 years as they look at the issue of Mediatrix of all Grace.

.

…and they completely ignored the very real probability that a mother would weep for a son in that much pain…whatever the cause?

I don’t get it. Mary was real. Jesus the Christ was and is REAL. We are talking here about a woman, living, breathing, loving and beloved. She is not some cold blooded walking bit of theological purity; not a goddess so far above human emotion that her every tear has to be ascribed to some overweening concern for humanity even as she watches her son die in agony.

As to mentioning the length of time these Franciscans (who are monks and male and–according to everything I’ve ever read about 'em anyway–celibate and childless) as evidence of the accuracy of their observations is not helpful. After all, for over three thousand years priests of Ra and Isis debated with great zeal the attributes of the deities they were loyal to.

Didn’t make 'em right though, did it?

So I’m coming at this entire situation from a POV that is, well…sideways. While I am not sola scripturian, that is, ‘if it ain’t in the bible it ain’t worth anything,’ I do figure that revelation is ongoing, and I do believe that any new revelation/teaching worthy of being placed along side the bible IS scripture by definition.

I do not see where any ‘tradition’ can be used to prove something like this–after all, tradition is simply what people think about what is; it is not proof of what is.

So here’s the deal, for me: where is there ANY evidence that Mary: a. made this vow of celibacy I hear about, b.* had* to remain virgin for her entire life, c. that sex with her lawful husband would have been so gaspingly sinful, or d.that Jesus having mortal siblings (well, half-siblings) would destroy His claim to Son of Godhood?

I honestly do not get it.

No.

Really.

I don’t.

Now, by ‘evidence,’ I mean scripture; biblical or acceptable apocryphal evidence; any evidence from her family, friends, acquaintances, ANYthing that could be considered a prime source.

…and I do NOT mean someone telling me that oh, of COURSE she was always a virgin and of course she had no other children because the Tradition says so, and here is a verse that if we go back and tweak the Greek meaning a bit, supports the Traditional view.

In case y’all haven’t been introduced to the terms yet, I want exegesis, not eisegesis; I want the information taken FROM the writings, not the writings tweaked to support an already formed opinion…an opinion that, quite frankly, comes from a very long standing chauvinism and disdain for women and sex, even sex between married couples.

As for me, I don’t care whether Mary was virgin forever or not. It doesn’t matter in terms of her Son; He was born to be Who He was, and nothing MARY could have done after His birth would have changed Him. I believe that God chose very well in Mary, and she raised him right (obviously).

But where is the evidence that she raised him as an only child in a virtual convent rather than as the oldest of several in a loving family?

Could someone just give me some quotes here, please?

Please excuse the frustration evidenced here, Mr.S…most of this post is NOT aimed at you or your comments, but rather at the entire tenor of the thread.

 

[MrS]

At the risk of getting yelled at again…

Where is there any evidence that she made such a vow?

Is this a question that assumes if it is not in the Bible, it ain’t so?? We hold the Scriptures is very high esteem and protect them as fully Truthful… as you might do to your Book of Mormon.

Many Truths may not be found easily or explicitly in the Bible. But these are Christian concepts, often rejected by non-Christian faith communities such as LDS. One is that if you are truly Catholic, you can have the faith and the grace to accept that Mary’s choice of a celibate life was a common Jewish occurrence. Another is the understanding of Joseph’s age, life accomplishments, and his strong ability to take care of Mary in her life of virginity.

.

 

[MrS]

Please excuse the frustration evidenced here, Mr.S…most of this post is NOT aimed at you or your comments, but rather at the entire tenor of the thread.

I understand that. And I appreciate what you say. But please understand that as much as you want to “consider the source” so do I. I consider that you are LSD, and not a Christian, much less a Catholic. Your walk with the Lord is very different than mine and many on this Catholic site.

It is not within my power to convert you or anyone. Apologetic efforts are meant to share, defend, and teach what we Catholics believe. I can only attempt to do so within reason.

What I have shared with you is, I hope, entirely reasonable. It does not go against anything in the book of the Catholic Church - the Bible.

I do not have the letter from mom or any other source to throw at you. But perhaps if you ask an honest, and knowledgeable Jewish scholar about the customs of those times… you will learn that all we understand is totally within reason.

And actually the virginity of Mary is quite essential to helping us understand just how loving a God we have in Jesus.

.

 

[chaplinmike]

One is that if you are truly Catholic, you can have the faith and the grace to accept that Mary’s choice of a celibate life was a common Jewish occurrence. Another is the understanding of Joseph’s age, life accomplishments, and his strong ability to take care of Mary in her life of virginity.

A couple of questions. If Mary’s choice was to be celibate why did she Mary Joesph? Or better yet why would Joseph Mary her? Did He also chose a life of celibacy? And two. You said understanding Joseph’s age? Where can I read about Joseph’s age?:

 

[dianaiad]

I wish I had a direct link to the source/info for you… however…

It was common in the Jewish community and faith for a girl to pledge herself to a life of temple prayer and virginity, much like religious orders today.

Where is there ANY evidence that Mary did this? Anything? Anywhere? Don’t you think that this would have been important enough to, y’know, MENTION?

Yes Mary was young in years (14 or 15) when the angel appeared to her… not “supposedly”, but actually - as we read in Luke 1:20ff.

Yeah, she was actually something like 13 or 14. So?

The custom also included the protection of the consecrated virgin by a person trusted by the Jewish authorities. Joseph was such a man. It would have been highly UNLIKELY that such a man be young, virile, and interested in having a family and then be asked to spend his life protecting a healthy young lady.

The language she spoke “…how can this be…I know not man…” is appropriate because Mary understood the lifetime vows she had made.

I repeat. Where is there any evidence that she actually made vows like that?

How could she reason living celibate, and also having a child. However, as a young serious Jewess she also knew what the Scriptures (only the OT existed at the time) predicted.

It is far more likely that Joseph had been married, and was widowed with children.

Where is there ANY evidence of this? Anywhere?

Catholic teaching has always taught that this is more likely, although one is allowed to think that Joseph was young. His position in life was ideal for the new responsibilities he would take on… looking after this maiden… as espoused to her. This is not the kind of marriage you are suggesting. “Most parents” as you noted… would NOT have been looking for a traditional husband for a daughter pledged to a celibate life for God.

As to Jesus having a brother… well that really stretches the lie/misunderstanding… especially when the clear, and Scriptural, reasoning for those assumptions has already been presented.

Where? Everything you are supposing as ‘very likely’ or ‘probable’ hinges upon something we have absolutely no evidence for. None. Zip. Nada. Everybody is assuming that she made such a vow because, well…the early church fathers didn’t want to think about her actually having sex with Joseph and producing children. ewww.

The problem is, though, that you can’t DO this backwards. First find evidence that she actually MADE this vow, or that she actually did NOT have sex (and children) with her lawful husband, or that Joseph was an elderly decrepit widower and decide from that evidence the reasons why she chose to live the life she did. That’s not what I am seeing here though. I’m seeing this: ‘we don’t want to think that she had sex and other children, therefore she must have made this vow.’

Tell your source… the Rabbi… that I understand he fails to see that the Messiah has indeed come. The Jews have denied that Jesus is the One promised in their Scriptures. So it is not unusual for him to tell you that he agrees with you. To say otherwise would mean he would have to accept or at least consider that Jesus is God.

No, it simply means he has a better handle on what would have been more likely, given the cultural and religious times. Joseph and Mary were JEWS, remember? And I hate to break it to you like this, but so was Mary’s Son. He was perfect–and part of that perfection was that He would have obeyed the Mosaic Law until it came time for Him to fulfill it rather publicly. Marian remained a Jew all her life–a Jew who saw the Messiah, her son, come.

By the way, Joseph died before Jesus began His ministry… now THAT would be unusual for the young, virile man you suggest as the husband to Mary.

The average lifespan of humans around Jesus’ time was 25. Of course, there were some old timers, too…but the culture of the time had men marrying around the age of 30, when they were considered old enough, and to have passed most of the danger years. VERY few people lived past 65 or 70.

Women were married to these 30 year olds as soon as they reached puberty. Why? Because child birth was DANGEROUS. Get the babies before something happened to mom.

The point of the above is this: according to Jewish custom of the day, Joseph would have been 30. Jesus began His ministry when He was 30. Joseph would have been 60…and that, quite frankly, was pretty ancient for those times. Shoot, it’s an accomplishment in THESE times. Millions of people nowadays don’t make it that long. My own husband did not…he didn’t see fifty. The fact that Joseph wasn’t around when Jesus began teaching is not proof that he was an old man when he married Mary. Not even close.

And there is a rather awesome (IMHO) reasoning for this too. … if you read this and are curious, ask.

The Rabbi is wrong.

.

I’d just like a prime source, or a quote.

The whole thing makes no sense to me, y’know. Oh, not the “Did Mary have other kids or not” debate–her doing so or not doing so makes no difference to the fact that Jesus is the Christ–but that there are people on this thread whose faith in Him would be utterly destroyed if it turns out that Mary DID have other children.

That…I don’t get.

 

[dianaiad]

Is this a question that assumes if it is not in the Bible, it ain’t so?? We hold the Scriptures is very high esteem and protect them as fully Truthful… as you might do to your Book of Mormon.

Many Truths may not be found easily or explicitly in the Bible. But these are Christian concepts, often rejected by non-Christian faith communities such as LDS. One is that if you are truly Catholic, you can have the faith and the grace to accept that Mary’s choice of a celibate life was a common Jewish occurrence. Another is the understanding of Joseph’s age, life accomplishments, and his strong ability to take care of Mary in her life of virginity.

.

No, this is a question that assumes that any position you take needs to be taken because there is evidence for it somewhere. I have made it pretty clear that it doesn’t need to be biblical, but it DOES need to be something definite, written by the people actually involved; Mary, Joseph, Christ…one of the apostles in some apocryphal writing…something.

What y’all are giving me is backwards. You are assuming that Mary remained celibate, but aren’t giving me ANY reason why you think so except that everybody else thinks so too…but why did THEY (all those 'they’s that make up Tradition) think so?

What is it except for that eww factor I referred to in another post?

 

[MrS]

No, this is a question that assumes that any position you take needs to be taken because there is evidence for it somewhere. I have made it pretty clear that it doesn’t need to be biblical, but it DOES need to be something definite, written by the people actually involved; Mary, Joseph, Christ…one of the apostles in some apocryphal writing…something.

What y’all are giving me is backwards. You are assuming that Mary remained celibate, but aren’t giving me ANY reason why you think so except that everybody else thinks so too…but why did THEY (all those 'they’s that make up Tradition) think so?

What is it except for that eww factor I referred to in another post?

All I can suggest is that you have raised this question (as many others have before you). They have been asked, as I now ask you:

Where is the evidence that Mary and Joseph had a version of marriage that you think they had.
Where is the evidence that Mary’s intent to live a celibate life is not Jewish custom, was not what she intended and thus clashes with a reasonable understanding of our Scripture.

or

we could question your real intent at even asking as an LSD. Where is there any evidence for the foundation of your beliefs?.. a truly impossible thing to prove.

Now that may sound like avoiding the question you have… but I have answered it. You just won’t accept anything less than a notarized affidavit, huh?

.

 

[dianaiad]

I understand that. And I appreciate what you say. But please understand that as much as you want to “consider the source” so do I. I consider that you are LSD, and not a Christian, much less a Catholic. Your walk with the Lord is very different than mine and many on this Catholic site.

Goodness. I’m channeling an old Star Trek episode here…I’m a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (that’s “LDS,” not “LSD.” )

I have never claimed to be Catholic. In fact, I have specifically stated that my viewpoint in this matter is sideways to yours. That said, this is the second time that you have figuratively patted me on the head and told me that I couldn’t possibly understand this because, well, I’m not a Christian or a Catholic.

If I were a Catholic, I wouldn’t be asking the questions I am asking, obviously.

Y’know, Mr.S, if you’ve read any of my posts, you probably know by now that I’m a little on the…feisty…side? I don’t react well to being condescended to, and I absolutely do NOT react well to being told that I am not a Christian as if I agreed with you that I was not.

I understand that you don’t think I am. Fine. You need to understand, however, that*** I *** disagree with you on this, and that I think I am. I won’t insist that you suddenly change your mind and consider that Mormons are Christians if you won’t insist that I ‘admit’ that I am not; I won’t ever agree with you. Given that this conversation has nothing to do with whether Mormons are Christians, and given that the “Are Mormons Christian?” issue is a perpetual topic ender right up there with Godwin’s Law, I suggest that you not insert your opinion about that in posts that don’t directly address that issue. It tends to derail the conversations.

It is not within my power to convert you or anyone. Apologetic efforts are meant to share, defend, and teach what we Catholics believe. I can only attempt to do so within reason.

What I have shared with you is, I hope, entirely reasonable. It does not go against anything in the book of the Catholic Church - the Bible.

I do not have the letter from mom or any other source to throw at you. But perhaps if you ask an honest, and knowledgeable Jewish scholar about the customs of those times… you will learn that all we understand is totally within reason.

And actually the virginity of Mary is quite essential to helping us understand just how loving a God we have in Jesus.

Yes, everything Tradition says about Mary IS reasonable—IF it were based upon ANY hint, intimation, speckle, titch…anything at all–to show that Mary actually made vows of celibacy, or that Joseph was indeed old, or…

but there isn’t any.

Look at it this way: it is also perfectly reasonable to assume that, having received a degree in English from BYU in 1974, I would have been a school teacher all my life; in no way would I have had time to be a real estate agent or the manager of a call center or a vaccuum cleaner salesman or managed a shoe store; why, it would be ludicrous, right?

So, since it was ludicrous that I would have done any of those things, then of course I was a teacher all those years; you can go back and see my BYU transcripts for my junior year, and the tradition of my children (several generations from now) would let you know that of course thier G-grandmother could never have sold vacuum cleaners…ewww…therefore I must have got that degree and must have taught.

The problem, of course, is that I did not get a degree from BYU. In 1974, having returned from a mission myself, I got married, then got pregnant–and from that year to this I have done many different things, including selling vacuum cleaners.

Oh, and getting an English degree, too, but not for another 31 years.

Reasonable? Yes, your statements are reasonable–but only if you can show me where the basic assumptions are accurate; Mary made a vow of celibacy, Joseph was an old man, and God commanded Mary to stay celibate after Jesus’ birth.

That’s the problem, y’know. Without evidence of the above, no amount of reason based upon the assumption that the above is true means anything at all.

 

[MrS]

Reasonable? Yes, your statements are reasonable–but only if you can show me where the basic assumptions are accurate; Mary made a vow of celibacy, Joseph was an old man, and God commanded Mary to stay celibate after Jesus’ birth.

That’s the problem, y’know. Without evidence of the above, no amount of reason based upon the assumption that the above is true means anything at all.

That is why I suggested then and now that you seek out a credible Jewish scholar who can inform you of the customs that I referred to.

If you truly seek the answer, you will try to do that. It does not matter if they accept or reject Jesus as the Messiah. But if they are aware and honest of the customs… you will have your “proof”.

In the meantime I will look for the same “evidence” you seen bent on rejecting.

As an aside… and just for conversation… no one has ever proved gravity. The only “evidence” we have comes from dropping something. Yet we accept it because it is reasonable.

.

 

[dianaiad]

All I can suggest is that you have raised this question (as many others have before you). They have been asked, as I now ask you:

Where is the evidence that Mary and Joseph had a version of marriage that you think they had.
Where is the evidence that Mary’s intent to live a celibate life is not Jewish custom, was not what she intended and thus clashes with a reasonable understanding of our Scripture.

Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, Mr.S.

Or, in other words, if Mary was espoused of Joseph, as the scriptures say they were, then the assumption would be that the marriage was intended to be a real one, as the vast majority of the marriages so arranged at that time were. In fact, marriages such as YOU are assuming between Mary and Joseph were rare enough that if it were important enough that Christ’s mission would be compromised if they did have sex, then one would expect to see some specific mention of that somewhere.

There isn’t any.

Now, true, that does not mean that their marriage could NOT have been just that sort of marriage; as you say, there is nothing specifically saying that it was not. However, since such a marriage would have been the exception rather than the rule, it’s fairly safe to assume that in the absence of specific information that it was to be a celibate marriage, that there was no commandment that it be so.

It’s also illogical to assume that because there is no evidence to show that Mary did NOT make a vow of celibacy, that she did. Again, such a vow would have been an exception, not the rule.

or

we could question your real intent at even asking as an LSD. Where is there any evidence for the foundation of your beliefs?.. a truly impossible thing to prove.

Again with the Star Trek episode? That’s LDS, m’friend, not ‘LSD’…and you are throwing more fallacious reasoning out than I have characters to list them in this post. It doesn’t MATTER what my beliefs are here. My beliefs don’t enter into the matter at all. We are discussing yours. Or rather, the evidence upon which you base yours.

Not to mention the irony of your demand here: if I admit that the basis for my religious beliefs is unprovable, does that mean you are admitting that there is no basis for your belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity?

Focus, Mr.S. Attacking me and my beliefs is NOT giving me the quotes and evidences I asked for, and is simply indicating that you either don’t have a clue what they are and have just realized that you are in an untenable position, or that you realize that there aren’t any and are attempting to deflect attention away from the question and on to the beliefs of the questioner. That’s also a fallacy.

Now that may sound like avoiding the question you have…

Yes, actually, that’s exactly what it sounds like.

but I have answered it. You just won’t accept anything less than a notarized affidavit, huh?

.

where did you answer it?

I will accept: ANY evidence of ANY kind that Mary actually made vows of celibacy. (and that does NOT include any version of 'she must have, because, well, she was celibate…a truly circular and useless argument).

As well, I would accept ANY evidence of ANY kind that Joseph was an old man when he married Mary, and that they did not have sex after Jesus’ birth. Anything, that is, except the astounding circular arguments I’ve been seeing all through this thread. Stop the Mary-go-round and show me where the circle started.

Just that.

 

[dianaiad]

That is why I suggested then and now that you seek out a credible Jewish scholar who can inform you of the customs that I referred to.

If you truly seek the answer, you will try to do that. It does not matter if they accept or reject Jesus as the Messiah. But if they are aware and honest of the customs… you will have your “proof”.

In the meantime I will look for the same “evidence” you seen bent on rejecting.

As an aside… and just for conversation… no one has ever proved gravity. The only “evidence” we have comes from dropping something. Yet we accept it because it is reasonable.

.

In other words, Mary made a vow of celibacy and Joseph was an old man because she was celibate all her life. She was celibate all her life because she made a vow of celibacy and Joseph was chosen to protect her and be the partner in that celibate marriage. She made the vow and married an old man because she was celibate all her life. She was celibate all her life because she made the vow…getting dizzy yet?

Here’s the thing, Mr. S. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I do not have to prove to you that she had sex with Joseph after Jesus’ birth. Frankly, I don’t care whether she did or not; the matter is irrelevant to me, to my beliefs, or to my faith in Christ. It is important only to YOU. YOU are the one who is insisting that she was celibate/ virgin all her life. Since it is your claim, you get to prove it.

What I see is that Tradition (a bunch of church leaders throughout the years) have decided that she was celibate; possibly because even sex between married partners was considered to be sinful. Who knows why? The fact is, they decided that.

But they haven’t given you, me, or anybody else any reason to think so other than that eww factor.

So if you have any thing that supports your view, trot it out, sir. Your claim. Your proof.