The Virgin Mary was she always so?

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Well, doesn’t Jesus talk about sons turning against fathers, etc. Maybe “tearing apart his family” is in line with his teachings.
Which gospel(s) have Jesus telling John to look after Mary?

And we must ask ourselves, what does Christ mean by this when he says:

He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me. (Matthew 10:37)

And every one that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall possess life everlasting. (Matthew 19:29)

Jesus answering, said: Amen I say to you, there is no man who hath left house or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or children, or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, who shall not receive an hundred times as much, now in this time; houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions: and in the world to come life everlasting. (Mark 10:29-30)

If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:26)

In Jewish culture at the time of the 1st century, the family was the most important thing in this world (I wouldn’t be surprised if it still was). In many, many other cultures of the world the family is the most important thing in this world. So Christ is saying, if you put anything - even your beloved family - before me, that’s a big no-no.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

if none of the writers of the gospel would have used the word cousin then why does Luke use it in 1:36 “And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.” or is this just misinterpreted by every translation i looked at which either said relative or cousin and not sister. i haven’t learned new testament Greek yet but i’m curious what the actual word is. because if it is cousin doesn’t that put to shame everything written here.

I don’t know what the Greek text is, but in Latin the word used is cognata - this means a blood relation, a kinsman. So the accurate translation would be:

And behold, your kinswoman Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son; and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

You erroneously assume that the claim that she is conceiving a child is not earth shattering.

No way.

She is a virgin and will be for the near future. Marriages were regularly at least a year out from betrothal.

Gabriel said she is going to be pregnant.

Mary’s obvious question is how.

Mary, like the reader, assumes that the conception is not going to be a year away.

No, Mary - as well as every other bride - didn’t know when her bridegroom would come to fetch her. She, at the time of betrothal, was legally married. All that was lacking was Joseph taking her into his house. That could come at any moment. So, it could be that Joseph would come that night and fetch his bride. So that squashes any far fetched claim on this end.

Mary was shocked because she was going to remain a virgin, not because there was a definite one year waiting period for a normal marriage to take place (and even that makes little sense towards your preposterous assumptions).

What we find in Matt 1 is a sexual relationship with her husband after Christ’s birth:

Mat 1:25 “and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn son. And he called His name JESUS.”

Yes. Not only did Joseph “know” his wife after Jesus’ birth, but they also had at least one other son.

This is where you say that “till” does not really mean “till.”

I know, I know.

Luke confirms Mary had at least one more son:

Luk 2:7 “And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths”

If there was ever a good time to confirm that Mary was always a virgin, it was now. You have us seeking this doctrine between the lines and through innuendo.

Poppycock. Firstborn was a legal designation, it did not in any way imply additional offspring. Every couple who had a child, had a firstborn - though not all had more than one child.

 

[VociMike]

Poppycock. Firstborn was a legal designation, it did not in any way imply additional offspring. Every couple who had a child, had a firstborn - though not all had more than one child.

Indeed. To believe otherwise is to believe, for one thing, that when the Lord killed all the firstborn in Egypt, that every Egyptian single-child household was spared.

 

[Valke2]

poppycock?

 

[Valke2]

I have heard that the Jews used “only son” when it was an only child and “firstborn” if other children were born after the first one. But the Exodus argument is compelling.

 

[Jacafamala]

poppycock?

Huh? What? lol.

Pax Christi,
Ann

 

[Jacafamala]

Hello,
Poppycock. Firstborn was a legal designation, it did not in any way imply additional offspring. Every couple who had a child, had a firstborn - though not all had more than one child.

Oh, ok then Poppycock it is. Sorry, I missed that somehow. You can keep going now, and just (continue to) ignore me…
Pax Christi,
Ann

 

[JoeyWarren]

Hello,

No, Mary - as well as every other bride - didn’t know when her bridegroom would come to fetch her. She, at the time of betrothal, was legally married. All that was lacking was Joseph taking her into his house. That could come at any moment. So, it could be that Joseph would come that night and fetch his bride. So that squashes any far fetched claim on this end.

Mary was shocked because she was going to remain a virgin, not because there was a definite one year waiting period for a normal marriage to take place (and even that makes little sense towards your preposterous assumptions).

Poppycock. Firstborn was a legal designation, it did not in any way imply additional offspring. Every couple who had a child, had a firstborn - though not all had more than one child.

I will add that the word used is prototokos. It is a noun, not a an adjective as atemi is implying.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Indeed. To believe otherwise is to believe, for one thing, that when the Lord killed all the firstborn in Egypt, that every Egyptian single-child household was spared.

Cecil Demilles supports the issue that “only born” were killed as well…

 

[eddieg57]

You didn’t answer the question.

In whose care would you want your daughter:

• a Christ-rejecting husband?
• or a faithful Catholic husband?

I already know the answer.

At least…I hope I do.

…

You probably guesed it a faithful catholic husband.but on the case of Mary we can’t rule out the angles that visited Marry. Wouldn’t that startle you. Even in the old testiment even samuel was obiedient to God. I am going to stick with St Louis DeMonfort.

 

[eddieg57]

Mary was so humble. If the authors didn’t “feel hardpressed” to “make her out” as forever virgin, it was because they didn’t fully know her–yet. Why? Because it pleased God to have it be that way.

ewtn.com/library/Montfort/TRUEDEVO.HTM

True Devotion to Mary. St. Louis Marie De Monfort:

*2. Because Mary remained hidden during her life she is called by the Holy Spirit and the Church “Alma Mater”, Mother hidden and unknown. So great was her humility that she desired nothing more upon earth than to remain unknown to herself and to others, and to be known only to God.

1. In answer to her prayers to remain hidden, poor and lowly, God was pleased to conceal her from nearly every other human creature in her conception, her birth, her life, her mysteries, her resurrection and assumption. Her own parents did not really know her; and the angels would often ask one another, “Who can she possibly be?”, for God had hidden her from them, or if he did reveal anything to them, it was nothing compared with what he withheld.
2. God the Father willed that she should perform no miracle during her life, at least no public one, although he had given her the power to do so. God the Son willed that she should speak very little although he had imparted his wisdom to her.

Even though Mary was his faithful spouse, God the Holy Spirit willed that his apostles and evangelists should say very little about her and then only as much as was necessary to make Jesus known.

1. Mary is the supreme masterpiece of Almighty God and he has reserved the knowledge and possession of her for himself. She is the glorious Mother of God the Son who chose to humble and conceal her during her lifetime in order to foster her humility. He called her “Woman” as if she were a stranger, although in his heart he esteemed and loved her above all men and angels. Mary is the sealed fountain and the faithful spouse of the Holy Spirit where only he may enter. She is the sanctuary and resting-place of the Blessed Trinity where God dwells in greater and more divine splendour than anywhere else in the universe, not excluding his dwelling above the cherubim and seraphim. No creature, however pure, may enter there without being specially privileged.
2. I declare with the saints: Mary is the earthly paradise of Jesus Christ the new Adam, where he became man by the power of the Holy Spirit, in order to accomplish in her wonders beyond our understanding. She is the vast and divine world of God where unutterable marvels and beauties are to be found. She is the magnificence of the Almighty where he hid his only Son, as in his own bosom, and with him everything that is most excellent and precious. What great and hidden things the all-powerful God has done for this wonderful creature, as she herself had to confess in spite of her great humility, “The Almighty has done great things for me.” The world does not know these things because it is incapable and unworthy of knowing them. *

Mary is so humble. She is the model of a Christian. That is why I love her.
Peace in Christ,
Ann

 

[eddieg57]

I see that you are one that walks with faith. Although there are many thought as ideas about this subject, Mary, I think I will side with you. No doubt. about Mary remaining a Virgin. I have read a little of St. Louis DeMonforte.I think I will go to catholic treasures and study a little more

 

[Tom]

First a request. Please pray for guidance from the Holy Spirit. Open your Bible to Luke chapter 1, open your heart to the Holy Spirit.
One of the problems is that most people are reading Scripture out of the context it was written. The account in Luke is written as if it’s happening, notice the tense. You and I sitting in the 21st century know the story, Mary did not. Read it as if you are Mary, a very young teenager, a virgin, betrothed (legally married) to Joseph. This is exactly as taken from the gospel of Luke, no other source. So you’re Mary, a young teenager, a virgin, soon to be “taken” into the house of Joseph. You either understand this to mean normal sexual relations, or you understand you are a virgin forever.
www.drbo.org:

Luke 1:26 And in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, called Nazareth, 27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. 28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 29 Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be. 30 And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God.

First of all you’re being visited by an angel of God!!! Gabriel tells you, you are “full of grace”. For an angel of God to tell you you are “full of grace” is a BIG event! Now he says you are “blessed among women”. I’d be troubled too, how about you? Notice that nowhere in this greeting does Gabriel mention any conception.

 

[Tom]

www.drbo.org:

Luke 1:31 Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb

o.k. now, why exactly would you not think Gabriel is speaking of you having sexual relations with Joseph? Gabriel is saying “shall” as in the future. What is in your future again? Could Gabriel be speaking of anyone other than Joseph? Hardly! Unless we think Gabriel, an angel of God, is telling me I am going to commit adultery! Hardly likely. So why here are you, Mary surprised?
I’ll wait for your reply, I’m at work too, I understand it won’t be immediate. please excuse my delays as well.

 

[VociMike]

I have heard that the Jews used “only son” when it was an only child and “firstborn” if other children were born after the first one. But the Exodus argument is compelling.

I just found more evidence that “first-born” means only the first born (the first to open the womb, as it is said in the bible), not the first of multiple children.

Num 3:40 And the LORD said to Moses, “Number all the first-born males of the people of Israel, from a month old and upward, taking their number by names.”

Clearly, a first-born who is a month old cannot have any siblings, and yet is still considered a first-born in scripture.

 

[eddieg57]

First a request. Please pray for guidance from the Holy Spirit. Open your Bible to Luke chapter 1, open your heart to the Holy Spirit.
One of the problems is that most people are reading Scripture out of the context it was written. The account in Luke is written as if it’s happening, notice the tense. You and I sitting in the 21st century know the story, Mary did not. Read it as if you are Mary, a very young teenager, a virgin, betrothed (legally married) to Joseph. This is exactly as taken from the gospel of Luke, no other source. So you’re Mary, a young teenager, a virgin, soon to be “taken” into the house of Joseph. You either understand this to mean normal sexual relations, or you understand you are a virgin forever.
First of all you’re being visited by an angel of God!!! Gabriel tells you, you are “full of grace”. For an angel of God to tell you you are “full of grace” is a BIG event! Now he says you are “blessed among women”. I’d be troubled too, how about you? Notice that nowhere in this greeting does Gabriel mention any conception.

 

[eddieg57]

Well Tom I think I am going to take this question and forget it and believe traditionally. Mary is a virgin now and always. I am not going to bother you any more but I will pray for you. To Our Lady. I know she has helped me a lot God Bless and see you

 

[Tom]

I was going to wait, but I’m at work. Please if you have a question let’s do it one post at a time.
www.drbo.org:

Luke 1:31 and shalt bring forth a son

A little surprising, certainly more surprising than a woman soon to have sex with her husband becoming pregnant isn’t it? Any reason to think Joseph wouldn’t be the Father? Any hint at a reason?

 

[Tom]

www.drbo.org:

Luke 1:31 thou shalt call his name Jesus.

Hmmm interesting name, but Jesus was a fairly common name. Still no reason to think Joseph wouldn’t be the Father.