Virgin Mary in scripture

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I agree that “until” does not prove that it did happen after. That meaning really hasn’t changed in usage today. However, it also does not exclude the possibility that it did happen after. The problem with the “until” is that is offers no information at all about what happened after Jesus’ birth. Considering that Matthew made reference that she was a virgin when Jesus was born, would he not also mention that she would be ever-virgin as well? Even Isiah’s prophecy that the virgin will bear a son does not specifically forbid the woman from ever consummating a legal, and clearly allowable, marriage.

What I’m really asking about is if there is a passage somewhere else that tells Joseph that Mary is a holy vessel and he should not defile her, or something along those lines. Ezekiel 44:2 was mentioned a few times that stated that no man shall pass through the gate which the Lord enters, but given the context of that scene, I’m not sure if you can pull out that single line to justify another event without distorting it’s meaning.

No, there isn’t.​

At most, there is the drawing of inferences from the condition of Mary as mother of God made man in Jesus - inferences of the sort which build upon Uzzah’s unfortunate encounter with the Ark in 2 Samuel 6, for example. But that is too indirect to be evidence of absence of marital relations between the BVM & St.Joseph.

Isaiah 7.14 can’t be used as a prophecy of events centuries after it was delivered - it is a prophetic oracle for a particular situation which looks to a quick fulfilment. It mentions Assyrians, for example: there was a shortage of them in first-century Judaea, whereas they were a great danger to the kingdom of Judah at the time the Immanuel-oracle in Isaiah 7 was delivered, 700 years before. Its interpretation in Matt. 1.23 as a prophecy of the birth of Jesus is a Christian re-interpretation of it. ##

 

[HailMary]

I want to start out by saying that I’ve already searched through the archives looking for an answer to this, and I at least didn’t see it previously, but I could be wrong and would appriciate even a link to a previous post. I have a rather specific question, that hopefully isn’t too redundant as I’ve noted that it’s a bit of a popular topic.

Is there any scriptural basis for believing that Mary was a virgin after Jesus was born, or more specifically that Mary and Joseph never consummated their marriage? The only answers I’ve seen to similar questions quote the catechism, not the bible.

Mary was a consecrated virgin to God. How do we know this? Look at her reaction when the angel said she will bear a son. She said, “how can this be since I know no man”. This response makes no sense if she did not already consecrate herself to God.

Any normal person would say, oh, ok I’m going to have a son. Think people.

 

[papaspicy]

I often look at things from a very different angle, and I thought I would just add my :twocents: on two passages. Some support for Jesus’ biological brothers comes in Mark 6:17:

Is he not the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?

However, if we take this at face value, this would be a very uncommon family. There would be four brothers + at least two sisters + Jesus. At this time in history it is estimated that one in four pregnancies ended in the death of the mother. It would be an even higher rate for the lower class in a back-water of the Roman Empire like Judea. If Mary had seven children, she would really be beating the odds. (Of course this proves nothing because clearly God would protect Mary, but it is a valid historic point.)

Matthew 13:55-56 is a similar passage which is also interesting:

Is he not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother named Mary and his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas? Are not his sisters all with us?

Here we have people who are taking offense to some of Jesus’ teachings and who can’t believe that such wisdom comes from a person like Jesus. They clearly don’t have respect for him and ask isn’t this the carpenter’s son? And the answer, of course, is NO! He is not the carpenter’s son. We know this, but the people speaking don’t. Right from the start we know that they have no idea who Jesus is, and if they don’t truly know Jesus, how can we take any of their biographical sketch of him as fact.

The rest of you have clearly pointed out the answers as to who these people mentioned actually are. FCEGM thanks for the info about no Jewish ban on intercourse during pregnancy and about a Jewish man not having intercourse with a woman who has become pregnant by another.

However, I do have a question. Many of you say that it would have been an offense to Jesus’ potential brothers for Jesus to commit his mother to the care of a someone else if a brother existed. Would this offense not also be taken by the extended family? Clearly, whoever these “brothers” are, they accompany Mary in a couple of places. It almost seems that they are caring for Mary after Jesus begins his public ministry, since Joseph has apparently already passed away. Wouldn’t it make sense for them to continue this for Jesus?

 

[Hubble]

I think Jesus consigning John to take care of his mother is the strongest scripture supporting that he may not have had direct siblings. But i think its hard to not take the other scriptures (that list names, and mentions them as brothers) at face value. That she was a virgin and pure before his birth seems paramount and I don’t revere Mary any less if she had other children. I also think a strong argument could be made that not having intercourse with her husband was a sin under Jewish law. As a catholic, i have found that Mary being “ever virgin” seems to be most important to those who show an unusually strong obsession with having to hold Mary to a level that is equal to Jesus. She was not. She was fully human.

 

[rtconstant]

I just had a thought on this. It isn’t conclusive but I thought I’d air it out. Since the ancients were so careful about issues of legitimacy and virginity and such. Would it not be likely that Joseph would have seen Mary as God’s wife after a fashion? Yes Joseph had all the legal rights. However, Mary had given God His first born Son. As the Father of Jesus was obviously still living and its not like one accuses God of fornication wouldn’t it be pretty likely that Joseph under even the most earthly of outlooks would have considered her “off limits”?

 

[Jimmy_B]

I often look at things from a very different angle, and I thought I would just add my :twocents: on two passages. Some support for Jesus’ biological brothers comes in Mark 6:17:

Is he not the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?

However, if we take this at face value, this would be a very uncommon family. There would be four brothers + at least two sisters + Jesus. At this time in history it is estimated that one in four pregnancies ended in the death of the mother. It would be an even higher rate for the lower class in a back-water of the Roman Empire like Judea. If Mary had seven children, she would really be beating the odds. (Of course this proves nothing because clearly God would protect Mary, but it is a valid historic point.)

Matthew 13:55-56 is a similar passage which is also interesting:

Is he not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother named Mary and his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas? Are not his sisters all with us?

Here we have people who are taking offense to some of Jesus’ teachings and who can’t believe that such wisdom comes from a person like Jesus. They clearly don’t have respect for him and ask isn’t this the carpenter’s son? And the answer, of course, is NO! He is not the carpenter’s son. We know this, but the people speaking don’t. Right from the start we know that they have no idea who Jesus is, and if they don’t truly know Jesus, how can we take any of their biographical sketch of him as fact.

The rest of you have clearly pointed out the answers as to who these people mentioned actually are. FCEGM thanks for the info about no Jewish ban on intercourse during pregnancy and about a Jewish man not having intercourse with a woman who has become pregnant by another.

However, I do have a question. Many of you say that it would have been an offense to Jesus’ potential brothers for Jesus to commit his mother to the care of a someone else if a brother existed. Would this offense not also be taken by the extended family? Clearly, whoever these “brothers” are, they accompany Mary in a couple of places. It almost seems that they are caring for Mary after Jesus begins his public ministry, since Joseph has apparently already passed away. Wouldn’t it make sense for them to continue this for Jesus?

This is a great post, I’m looking forward to reading other post’s of yours…

 

[Valke2]

Matthew 1:25 tells us that Joseph did not have relations with Mary before the birth of her Son. Why not? There was no ban on intercourse during pregnancy under the Jewish Law under normal circumstances, and if he was going to have intercourse with her after the pregnancy why not before?

It was because in Jewish culture this would have meant that Joseph acknowledged biological fatherhood over Jesus. Because he refused to do this he was saying in essence that he did not accept Jesus as his biological son though he would accept him as his legal son. By refusing to consummate his marriage with Mary he was in conformity with the Jewish Law. By not having intercourse with Mary before the birth of Jesus he is acknowledging in principle that he was also forbidden to have intercourse with her thereafter. A woman found to be with child that is not her husband’s is forbidden forever more to him and to the man who impregnated her. (In fact, a woman caught in adultery is likewise penalized.) Under Jewish, because Mary was found to be with child before she had consummated her marriage to Joseph she was forever forbidden to him. He could keep her as his wife but he was not allowed intimate relations with her. Had Mary born any children after Jesus she would have been stoned to death under the Law. Had Joseph claimed those children to be biologically his, he would have been stoned to death also.

For more on this see the following article:

cin.org/users/james/files/talmud.htm

Another good article on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary:

bringyou.to/apologetics/a82.htm

I’ll just point out one issue with the link you posted. To use Moses as an example of how Judaism allowed celebicy in marriage is to emphasize the exception to the rule. Celebiacy in marriage was prohibited. Only with Moses, who had to be ready 24 hours a day to receive the word of God, was permitted a celibate marriage. No other prophets were granted this.

Maimonides writes (Laws of Marriage 15:3): “One whose soul constantly yearns for Torah, and he is constantly occupied with [its study] like Ben Azzai, and he cleaved to [Torah] his entire life and did not marry a woman – is not guilty of sin. This is provided that his inclination does not overpower him [with lustful thoughts].” THere’s nothing to suggest that Joseph would fit this criteria, which was apparently applied to less than 4 people in all of history. So it is a bit misleading for the author in the link to say “Celibate marriages were not unheard of in Judaism.”

 

[Tom]

Is there any scriptural basis for believing that Mary was a virgin after Jesus was born, or more specifically that Mary and Joseph never consummated their marriage? The only answers I’ve seen to similar questions quote the catechism, not the bible.

Yes, try:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=11145

Have you ever wondered about Mary’s perpetual virginity? I know the arguments about the “brothers and sisters” could be cousins and nephews, Jesus didn’t speak Greek, He spoke Aramaic. I’d just like to give my opinion. Please note it’s only mine, not the Catholic Churches.
First of all, I don’t think anything in Scripture is by chance, it all has a purpose. I’m not a quoter, I feel giving exact verses often results in taking things out of context, so I will only site chapter, read it all, it won’t hurt.
I find it interesting that, Mt and Lk approach the annunciation (of the birth of Jesus) from different perspectives. Mt, Chap 1 addresses the annunciation from Joseph’s side, while Lk Chap 1 addresses it from Mary’s. I think this is very significant when viewed from the OT book of Numbers.
We know Mary is a young teenager engaged to be married to Joseph. We know they are both good and pious Jews. We know Mary has knowledge of how children are conceived (I know not man). We know that at that time it was not unusual for engaged couples to have sexual relations, actually being engaged was considered a part of being married. We also know that Mary and Joseph did not yet have sexual relations. The question we must ask ourselves is, did Mary and Joseph intend to have sexual relations after their marriage? Now before you go ballistic, it was not uncommon to dedicate yourself to God, actually if we read Numbers chaps 27-30 we’ll find there were even laws concerning these vows.
When we read the rendering in Lk, the angel greets her and tells her she is to conceive in her womb and bare a son. Sounds simple enough doesn’t it? Put yourself in Mary’s place. So, I’m engaged to Joseph, we will marry, and have a child, it will be a son. Any question? Shouldn’t be “if” we intended to have sexual relations after marriage. “If” we didn’t intend to have sexual relations after our marriage then we’d ask “how can this be”?
The question “how can this be"? makes absolutely no sense if they intended to have sexual relations, remember she knew “how”. So why did she ask “how can this be”?
o.k. that’s the first part. Let’s discuss it.

 

[FCEGM]

I’ll just point out one issue with the link you posted. To use Moses as an example of how Judaism allowed celebicy in marriage is to emphasize the exception to the rule. Celebiacy in marriage was prohibited. Only with Moses, who had to be ready 24 hours a day to receive the word of God, was permitted a celibate marriage. No other prophets were granted this.

Maimonides writes (Laws of Marriage 15:3): “One whose soul constantly yearns for Torah, and he is constantly occupied with [its study] like Ben Azzai, and he cleaved to [Torah] his entire life and did not marry a woman – is not guilty of sin. This is provided that his inclination does not overpower him [with lustful thoughts].” THere’s nothing to suggest that Joseph would fit this criteria, which was apparently applied to less than 4 people in all of history. So it is a bit misleading for the author in the link to say “Celibate marriages were not unheard of in Judaism.”

The problem here, Valke, is that you are speaking for modern, post-Christic (that is, Rabbinical) Judaism, not ancient Mosaic Judaism. You are promoting the Talmudic tradition, which simply does not represent the totality of ancient Judaism, but the predominately Pharisaic sect(s) of Judaism which survived the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70.

1st Century Judaism had a plurality of traditions regarding marriage, chastity, and celibacy, and was not limited to the ideas found in the Talmud. For example, we know that the prophet Jeremiah was celibate, and presumedly Elijah and Elisah as well. The same was said about the priest-king Melchizedek. Also, Josephus and Philo tell us that the 1st Century Jewish Essensea were either celibate or lived continently with their legal wives. Jesus Himself (in the Gospel of Matthew - a 1st Century “Jewish” document) speaks of some men living as “eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of God” (Matt 19:12). Notice that Jesus is speaking in the present tense here. He is not merely making a suggestion, but referring to an existing condition within 1st Century Judaism. This same pre-existing condition is referred to by Paul in 1 Cor. 7:36-38 (and 39-40), which refers to a pre-Christian (Jewish) practice in the city-church of Corinth (and presumedly other such communities of the Diaspora as well), in which chaste men (per Matt. 19:12) are married to legal wives who are kept by their husbands as “his virgin.”

In the 1st Century expression of chastity (which was an eschatological expression - an expectation for the immanent coming of the Kingdom of God), it was still considered largely unthinkable (within Jewish society) that a man would not have a wife to cook for him and take care of him, even if he did not plan to live with her as a sexual partner or father children by her. Thus, such chaste individuals would still engage in mere legal marriages, but keep their wives as virgins. In 1 Cor. 7:36-40, Paul essentially teaches that such a virgin is bound to her husband as long as he lives; that he does better to keep her a virgin (for the sake of his vow to God) than to consummate the marriage; but if he does decide to have relations with her, whether out of natural human desire or to provide her with children to care for her in old age, then this man commits no sin (for she is his wife). This practice is implicitly referred to in the Dead Sea Scrolls as well, which probably explains the existance of female graves in the supposedly-celibate Essence community at Qumran.

Thus, it is simply untrue that celibacy and chaste legal marriages applied to only four people in history. The practice was relatively common among 1st Century Jews. It of course fell out of favor after the destruction of the Temple and the transition from Mosaic Judaism to post-Christic or Rabbinical Judaism, when eschatological expectations were no longer a main focus, and when the Jews became seriously concerned about preserving themselves (biologically as well as culturally) as a people. So, it is no surprise that the Talmud and the rabbis (including Maimonides who, btw, is a forebear of mine) would discourage celibacy.

Since the Blessed Virgin conceived and bore the very Word of God Incarnate, and she and Joseph had Him in their midst “24 hours a day”, it is no surprise that marital continence would be embraced by them.

 

[namguy69]

I want to start out by saying that I’ve already searched through the archives looking for an answer to this, and I at least didn’t see it previously, but I could be wrong and would appriciate even a link to a previous post. I have a rather specific question, that hopefully isn’t too redundant as I’ve noted that it’s a bit of a popular topic.

Is there any scriptural basis for believing that Mary was a virgin after Jesus was born, or more specifically that Mary and Joseph never consummated their marriage? The only answers I’ve seen to similar questions quote the catechism, not the bible.

" A cucea salus."

 

[Nita]

I believe the main Scripture passages for doubting Mary’s perpetual virginity are those that mention His brothers and sisters. Now something I’ve wondered about, IF they were children of Mary, when were they born? At the time Jesus was 12 years old and lost in the temple, there seem to have been only 3 members in the Holy Family (Jesus, Mary and Joseph), so these other children would have been born some time after that. Since Jesus started His public ministry at 30 years of age (Luke 3:23), the oldest any of these siblings would be is 18. This doesn’t gel with another passage often cited - Gal 1:19 where Paul speaks of seeing “none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother”. 18 years old would have been very young to have been one of Our Lord’s apostles (making John the apostle even younger than 18 if tradition is correct about him being the youngest).

All in all, the math just doesn’t add up to support James, Joses, Simon and Jude being Jesus’ blood brothers.

Nita

 

[mrs_abbott]

I want to start out by saying that I’ve already searched through the archives looking for an answer to this, and I at least didn’t see it previously, but I could be wrong and would appriciate even a link to a previous post. I have a rather specific question, that hopefully isn’t too redundant as I’ve noted that it’s a bit of a popular topic.

Is there any scriptural basis for believing that Mary was a virgin after Jesus was born, or more specifically that Mary and Joseph never consummated their marriage? The only answers I’ve seen to similar questions quote the catechism, not the bible.

I found scriptural evidence hinting that she WASN’T a virgin her whole life. She was up til the birth of Jesus. After Jesus was born, scripture hints that they maybe consumated their marriage.
Matthew 1:25
“He had no relations with her UNTIL she bore a son, and he named him Jesus.”

 

[Tom]

I find it interesting that, Mt and Lk approach the annunciation (of the birth of Jesus) from different perspectives. Mt, Chap 1 addresses the annunciation from Joseph’s side, while Lk Chap 1 addresses it from Mary’s. I think this is very significant when viewed from the OT book of Numbers. To understand the Scriptural support of her perpetual virginity we need to read Scripture from her perspective.
We know Mary is a young teenager engaged to be married to Joseph and will soon be married. We know they are both good and pious Jews. We know Mary has knowledge of how children are conceived (I know not man). We know that at that time being engaged was considered a part of being married. We also know that Mary and Joseph did not yet have sexual relations. The question we must ask ourselves is, did Mary and Joseph intend to have sexual relations after their marriage?
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.

So, put yourself in her place, you’re soon to be married and one night you’re visited by an angel who tells you the Lord is with you, and you’re blessed among women. I think we can all understand her angst.
www.drbo.org:

31 Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus.

O.K. well, I’ll be married, have normal sex with Joe, we’ll conceive and have a son, great news it’s a gonna be a boy. His name is a little strange, God is with us? I might ask about the name.
www.drbo.org:

32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever.

Wow, he shall be the king? The expected Davidic king? I have some serious questions about this!
www.drbo.org:

33 And of his kingdom there shall be no end.

Well, it’s the return of the old Jewish kingdom, and it will last forever, my son will be the great military king the Jewish people have long awaited. Boy do I have questions!!!
www.drbo.org:

34 And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?

What??? Wait a second!!! All of those things the angel said and she asks how she’s gonna become pregnant??? Because she’s a virgin??? Hello Mary!!! You’re engaged, I’m telling you in the future you’re going to become pregnant, certainly you’re not going to be a virgin in the future when you’re married are you??? Oh, wait, maybe you are. That question of yours, “how shall this be done, because I know not man?” makes absolutely no sense to anyone engaged and planning a normal sexual marriage. It only makes sense, and perfect sense, if you’re NOT planning to have sexual relations. Remember she would be answering the angels message of what would occur in the future, with her future state of virginity, not her present state. Would it make sense for her to answer, well sure, I’m a virgin now but how shall this be when I’m married? Certainly she didn’t think the angel was telling her to fornicate prior to her marriage, that would be a sin. So she had no reason to believe her pregnancy would be other than natural and after her marriage. Why then that nagging question?
www.drbo.org:

35 And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Now he tells me!!! Why did he wait until I made a fool of myself by asking that silly question? Hmmm maybe God wanted me to ask that question so that you folks reading this 2,000 years later would see that I was under a vow of virginity, that I never intended to have sex after my marriage, that Joe understood that, maybe that’s why you had Matt tells the story from Joes perspective. But boy now I REALLY have questions, what do you mean “overshadow” that’s a term meaning impregnate!! The Holy Spirit of God is going to impregnate me???
www.drbo.org:

36 And behold thy cousin Elizabeth, she also hath conceived a son in her old age; and this is the sixth month with her that is called barren: 37 Because no word shall be impossible with God. 38 And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

No questions? Just let it be done?

 

[Valke2]

The problem here, Valke, is that you are speaking for modern, post-Christic (that is, Rabbinical) Judaism, not ancient Mosaic Judaism. You are promoting the Talmudic tradition, which simply does not represent the totality of ancient Judaism, but the predominately Pharisaic sect(s) of Judaism which survived the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70.

1st Century Judaism had a plurality of traditions regarding marriage, chastity, and celibacy, and was not limited to the ideas found in the Talmud. For example, we know that the prophet Jeremiah was celibate, and presumedly Elijah and Elisah as well. The same was said about the priest-king Melchizedek. Also, Josephus and Philo tell us that the 1st Century Jewish Essensea were either celibate or lived continently with their legal wives. Jesus Himself (in the Gospel of Matthew - a 1st Century “Jewish” document) speaks of some men living as “eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of God” (Matt 19:12). Notice that Jesus is speaking in the present tense here. He is not merely making a suggestion, but referring to an existing condition within 1st Century Judaism. This same pre-existing condition is referred to by Paul in 1 Cor. 7:36-38 (and 39-40), which refers to a pre-Christian (Jewish) practice in the city-church of Corinth (and presumedly other such communities of the Diaspora as well), in which chaste men (per Matt. 19:12) are married to legal wives who are kept by their husbands as “his virgin.”

In the 1st Century expression of chastity (which was an eschatological expression - an expectation for the immanent coming of the Kingdom of God), it was still considered largely unthinkable (within Jewish society) that a man would not have a wife to cook for him and take care of him, even if he did not plan to live with her as a sexual partner or father children by her. Thus, such chaste individuals would still engage in mere legal marriages, but keep their wives as virgins. In 1 Cor. 7:36-40, Paul essentially teaches that such a virgin is bound to her husband as long as he lives; that he does better to keep her a virgin (for the sake of his vow to God) than to consummate the marriage; but if he does decide to have relations with her, whether out of natural human desire or to provide her with children to care for her in old age, then this man commits no sin (for she is his wife). This practice is implicitly referred to in the Dead Sea Scrolls as well, which probably explains the existance of female graves in the supposedly-celibate Essence community at Qumran.

Thus, it is simply untrue that celibacy and chaste legal marriages applied to only four people in history. The practice was relatively common among 1st Century Jews. It of course fell out of favor after the destruction of the Temple and the transition from Mosaic Judaism to post-Christic or Rabbinical Judaism, when eschatological expectations were no longer a main focus, and when the Jews became seriously concerned about preserving themselves (biologically as well as culturally) as a people. So, it is no surprise that the Talmud and the rabbis (including Maimonides who, btw, is a forebear of mine) would discourage celibacy.

Since the Blessed Virgin conceived and bore the very Word of God Incarnate, and she and Joseph had Him in their midst “24 hours a day”, it is no surprise that marital continence would be embraced by them.

THere’s a difference between celibacy and celibacy in marriage. It was not a politically motivated rule to prohibited celibacy. To say otherwise would be to run contrary the one of the first commandments, to be fruitful and multiply. MOreover, the husband has an obligation not only to engage in sexual relations with the wife, but to please her. Failure to do so is grounds for divorce.
Josephus, while stating that the Essence lived a celibate, communal life, also states that others “got married.” This seems to imply that celibacy may have been practiced but celibate marriages were not.

 

[Tom]

THere’s a difference between celibacy and celibacy in marriage.

Don’t keep me in suspense, what’s the difference? Celibacy means to not engage in sexual intercourse. How is the definition different in marriage?

It was not a politically motivated rule to prohibited celibacy. To say otherwise would be to run contrary the one of the first commandments, to be fruitful and multiply.

You feel it’s a commandment of God that every human must procreate? So if a couple doesn’t have a child it’s a sin? A human who does not marry is in sin?

Josephus, while stating that the Essence lived a celibate, communal life, also states that others “got married.” This seems to imply that celibacy may have been practiced but celibate marriages were not.

Or as I suspect they were married and remained celibate, no sexual intercourse, and, for the devotion to God, lived as brother and sister in a loving household helping each other.
Possible?

 

[FCEGM]

I found scriptural evidence hinting that she WASN’T a virgin her whole life. She was up til the birth of Jesus. After Jesus was born, scripture hints that they maybe consumated their marriage.
Matthew 1:25
“He had no relations with her UNTIL she bore a son, and he named him Jesus.”

Post # 5 answers this objection.

Also, you might find this article helpful in understanding the reason for our Blessed Mother’s perpetual virginity:

bringyou.to/apologetics/a82.htm

 

[Valke2]

Or as I suspect they were married and remained celibate, no sexual intercourse, and, for the devotion to God, lived as brother and sister in a loving household helping each other.
Possible?

well, that WOULD explain why they’re no longer around

There’s a difference between being celibate and unmarried and being celibate and married. There are obligations that are required in a marriage. One of which is sexual relations (in Judaism).

 

[Valke2]

You feel it’s a commandment of God that every human must procreate? So if a couple doesn’t have a child it’s a sin? A human who does not marry is in sin?

In Judaism, the commandment to procreate applies only to the man. Because childbirth has historically been such a dangerous undertaking, and still is in many countries, the woman is not commanded to have children. The rationale being that the commandments should be used to promote life, not death. A man who does not marry and have children has failed to fullfill a mitzvot/commandment.

 

[FCEGM]

THere’s a difference between celibacy and celibacy in marriage. It was not a politically motivated rule to prohibited celibacy. To say otherwise would be to run contrary the one of the first commandments, to be fruitful and multiply.

But there are many ways to “be fruitful and multiply.” One can do this spiritually as well as biologically. Clearly, Abraham is the father of many nations in a spiritual sense far more than in a biological sense (not even all Jews are Abraham’s literal biological descendants; rather, most Jews are descended from the other members of Abraham’s tribe [e.g. his retainers], and other peoples who either became subject to Israel, or who converted to Judaism over the centuries, e.g. the Ethiopian Jews). This is the nature of a Covenant People, which is what Judaism actually is (just like the Catholic Church).

What’s more, are you saying that the ancient Essenes violated the Commandments? They certainly didn’t think so. So, what you are really doing above is merely proving the old rabbinical saying that, “When you get three Jews together, you get four opinions.” You are merely advocating your own interpretation of Jewish tradition and calling it “Judaism.” However, other Jews would strongly disagree with you (e.g. the ancient Essenses, and also my own Jewish ancestors, who were often called the “Nazarenes” - that is, Christians).

MOreover, the husband has an obligation not only to engage in sexual relations with the wife, but to please her.

In your Talmudic (Pharisaic) Jewish tradition, yes. But this was not true universally for ancient Judaism. Again, you are not speaking for the totality of world Jewry as it existed in ancient times, but only for your surviving sect of Mosaic Judaism. My surviving sect of Mosaic Judaism (the Catholic Church) taught otherwise - as did some sects that did not survive (e.g. the Essenes).

Failure to do so is grounds for divorce.

If and when a woman possesses the right to divorce her husband, which was clearly not the case in ancient Judaism where women were typically regarded as property. King David took Saul’s daughter Michal away from her second husband and did not have children with her. Did she have the right to divorce him, even though David used her as a political pawn (as was his right, since she was considered his property)? So, again, you are imposing later, rabbinical pastoral teaching on the totality of ancient Judaism. That is a historical no-no.

Josephus, while stating that the Essence lived a celibate, communal life, also states that others “got married.” This seems to imply that celibacy may have been practiced but celibate marriages were not

You don’t understand what Josephus was referring to.Go back and read that passage. What he says is that some Essenses were married, but that they begat children/heirs through adoption and conversion. This is how they kept their sect alive. In other words, the Essenes were living the kind of chaste marriages recounted in Matt.19:12 and 1 Cor. 7:36-38, etc. They expected the end of the world to happen soon, and they were not interested in being “fruitful” in the biological sense.

 

[namguy69]

I believe the main Scripture passages for doubting Mary’s perpetual virginity are those that mention His brothers and sisters. Now something I’ve wondered about, IF they were children of Mary, when were they born? At the time Jesus was 12 years old and lost in the temple, there seem to have been only 3 members in the Holy Family (Jesus, Mary and Joseph), so these other children would have been born some time after that. Since Jesus started His public ministry at 30 years of age (Luke 3:23), the oldest any of these siblings would be is 18. This doesn’t gel with another passage often cited - Gal 1:19 where Paul speaks of seeing “none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother”. 18 years old would have been very young to have been one of Our Lord’s apostles (making John the apostle even younger than 18 if tradition is correct about him being the youngest).

All in all, the math just doesn’t add up to support James, Joses, Simon and Jude being Jesus’ blood brothers.

Nita

Could be, but Jesus is the only one we’re centered on here and the only one that counts.
Thanks for the post.