What's the Significance of Mary's Perpetual Virginity

[Radical]

continued…

Proof #3 - The Presence of Older Siblings by Joseph’s First Marriage

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).

So your proof here is based on an inference. I do not see that an inference is necessary given that, as an explantion for the brothers’ actions, the passage itself adds that his brothers did not believe in him. From the Mark passage you provided:

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).

we know that Jesus’s family claimed that he was nuts (Mark 3:21)…tradition of respect for the eldest or not, someone who is viewed as crazy and as an embarassment would be told to get lost by younger brothers. In any event, even if your wild inference was correct and the brothers of Jesus mentioned in the gospels were older sons of Joseph then the following possibilities still exist apart from Mary’s perpetual virginity:

a) Mary had other sons after Jesus, but they weren’t the ones giving the advice
b) Mary had no other sons after Jesus, but had daughters
c) Mary had only one child, Jesus, but not for a lack of trying.

In other words, the possible existance of elder brothers by way of Joseph does not (in any way) establish Mary’s perpetual virginity…it is only something that offers an explanation of who those “brothers” could have been w/o being Jesus’s younger brothers by way of Mary.

Btw, an older brother for Jesus (by way of a earlier son of Joseph) presents a bit of a problem regarding Jesus’s claim to the Davidic throne as the first-born male.

Proof #4 - Jesus Entrusts Mary to John

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.

It isn’t that hard to imagine at all…if, they still thought Jesus was crazy (as per Mark 3:21) it would make sense that he would entrust Mary to a disciple who recognized Jesus as Lord and not as a lunatic. Further, even if James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude were not sons of Mary, it is not something that establishes (you seem to like the word proof) the perpetual virginity of Mary…**it is merely something consistent with Mary having no other sons and that, in turn, is merely something consistent with Mary not having had sex. Other possibilities exist including:

a) it was a spiritual entrustment and not a physical one
b) Mary had other sons, but they died in infancy
c) Mary had other children, but only daughters
d) Mary had no other children, but not for a lack of trying**

You need to find another word than “proof” …may I susggest “possibilities which allow for the possibility of Mary’s perpetual virginity”.

 

[aspirant]

So by asking “How can this be, since I do not know man?” she wouldn’t have meant “How can this be, since I haven’t had sex with Joseph yet.”

Correct. Gabriel’s statement about her son was in the future tense, not the present tense, so she need not have had sex with Joseph yet in order to conceive a son with Joseph. So her response implies that she has no intention of having sex in the future, either.

I note that the passage doesn’t make mention of such a plan and the angel’s answer doesn’t exactly mention that her plan of being a life long virgin would remain in place…or that it would be abandoned.

It doesn’t have to state these things explicitly, and we are not limited to what the text explicitly says. There’s no explicit elaboration of the Trinity in scripture, nor explicit condemnation of polygamy for Christians, nor explicit condemnation of deliberate abortion, and we still understand the Trinity to be truly revealed and polygamy & abortion to be morally forbidden.

Given their silence on the matter, it seems that the angel and Luke might have not been aware of that plan

Just the opposite. The fact that the text implies Mary had no intention of consummating the marriage, and cannot be plausibly read otherwise, indicates very clearly that Luke did know she never had children with Joseph.

Btw something that Mary could have been wondering at that time would be: “How can this be that I will give birth to the future king of Israel, since I haven’t even had sex with Joseph and Joseph is hardly next in line for the throne?”

Her actual words imply that she does not plan to have sex with any man in the future. If she also had a further question about Joseph’s lineage, it was unexpressed.

[the] rarity [of consecrated virginity among first century Jews] would mean that your proposal is unlikely

Not when contextualized with other information about sexual abstinence among ancient Jews. They held that one could, and in some cases should, abstain from sex if seriously devoted to pursuing certain other cultural values, primarily communing with the Word of God. No one, it turns out, had better opportunity for this than Mary and Joseph.

[the Protoevangelium of James is] early, but about a 150 years after the alleged fact

Yes, a good indicator of what Christians believed in that time period. Can you match it with a document clearly showing that Christians believed Mary had sex or other children with Joseph?

What is more significant? 1) The silence (wrt Jesus’s other siblings) in one short passage or 2) the silence (wrt Mary’s perpetual virginity) in all of the NT and in all of the writings known as the Apostolic Fathers?

The NT is not silent. Sufficient evidence for the traditional view, and no substantial evidence whatsoever supporting the Helvidian.

I find it odd that you would try to build something from “a” vs. “the” when I suspect that you would vigorously protest if a non-venerator would try to draw inferences from the “until” of Matthew 1:25 or from the “first-born” of Luke 2:7.

Because “the” implies there is only one, and “until” does not imply a reversal (in either Greek or in English), yes.

the same wording isn’t used in Matt 13:55. The full verse at Mark 6:3 reads: * Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary , the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him. * When brothers are expressly named and when sisters are expressly mentioned why should we spend any time trying to manufacture an inference out of “the”?

The implication of the text, of course, is that James, Joses, Judah, and Simon are Jesus’ brothers but not Mary’s children. So they must be his brothers in some other way, e.g. Joseph’s children (whether by a previous wife or by adoption) or some other close kinsmen.

Btw, an older brother for Jesus (by way of a earlier son of Joseph) presents a bit of a problem regarding Jesus’s claim to the Davidic throne as the first-born male.

Hardly. David himself was not the first-born son of Jesse, but the youngest, yet the prophet anointed him to be king of Israel. The eldest son of a father is often not the recipient of God’s promises.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hello again, Randy More “proofs” ? I know you are trying to be a better apologist so I will offer this for your consideration:

So by asking “How can this be, since I do not know man?” she wouldn’t have meant “How can this be, since I haven’t had sex with Joseph yet.”…this, you say would be silly b/c she should have been clever enough to know that she would be having sex in the future with her husband…and that is how she would have a son in the future. Instead, you think that by asking “How can this be, since I do not know man?” she would have actually meant “How can this be, since it doesn’t fit with my plan of being a life long virgin?”

Correct. It was Mary’s intention to remain ever-virgin, and Joseph was chosen as a protector and not as a husband in the traditional sense of the word. In other words, Mary’s question has makes no sense if she had other plans.

… I note that the passage doesn’t make mention of such a plan and the angel’s answer doesn’t exactly mention that her plan of being a life long virgin would remain in place…or that it would be abandoned.

Our understanding of the “plan” is known from Sacred Tradition and is harmonious with Mary’s question. It all fits together very nicely.

Given their silence on the matter, it seems that the angel and Luke might have not been aware of that plan and that silence sure requires you to read a lot into that phrase “since I do not know man”. Here again we must rely on your ability to interpret Luke’s hidden meaning (when Luke was very capable of stating his meaning and describing something that has been given such importance by an institution that fancies itself as The Church).

The angel had no need to comment on Mary’s perpetual virginity one way or another. He was sent to announce the incarnation to a virgin, and this mission was complete as recounted.

We are not “reading into” the phrase “since I do not know man” as much as we are analyzing “How can this be” as the phrase that is pregnant with meaning.

The Catholic Church knows that Mary remained ever-virgin (as did Luther, Zwingli, Calvin and Wesley) from authority apart from scripture, and from that sure knowledge, she can look back at scripture to understand fully what Luke seems to have hidden from those who do not have recourse to the fullness of the Word of God.

good start…its rarity would mean that your proposal is unlikely
early, but about a 150 years after the alleged fact…and then a spurious document at that…not a good foundation for a “proof”. Ironically, I note this document says,* “But Mary had forgotten the mysteries of which the archangel Gabriel had spoken, and gazed up into heaven, and said: Who am I, O Lord, that all the generations of the earth should bless me?”* …given her cognitive abilities as described in the Protoevangelium of James, even if Mary was a consecrated virgin, it is likely that she wouldn’t have been able to remember the fact for more than a month or two at best.

Since the Protoevangelium of James pre-dates Helvidius by several hundred years, we can conclude that belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary is older than the first known denial of that virginity.

You do realize that there are other possible reasons that Jesus’s siblings were not mentioned at that time (besides perpetual virginity). Some of those reasons would be:
a) they are unimportant to the story
b) they died in infancy
c) there weren’t any other siblings, but not for a lack of trying
I find it very odd that you would resort to an argument from silence in order to explain away the (greater) silence of the NT and the Apostolic Fathers with respect to the matter of Mary’s alleged perpetual virginity. What is more significant? 1) The silence (wrt Jesus’s other siblings) in one short passage or 2) the silence (wrt Mary’s perpetual virginity) in all of the NT and in all of the writings known as the Apostolic Fathers?.

On the one hand, you argue that Mary’s perpetual virginity is so important that it must have been recorded in scripture to be true. On the other, you claim that the absence of any uterine siblings is completely unimportant to the narrative. Why would the authors of the gospel be required to report about Mary’s virginity? And why would they be silent about any uterine brothers and sisters given the details they provide about Lazarus, Martha and Mary and many other minor personalities? You seem to want to have it both ways.

I find it odd that you would try to build something from “a” vs. “the” when I suspect that you would vigorously protest if a non-venerator would try to draw inferences from the “until” of Matthew 1:25 or from the “first-born” of Luke 2:7.

Since these words can be explained with rock-solid evidence in support of Catholic doctrine, they do not trouble me. However, I am not sure that you can explain to even your own satisfaction why no one is called a “son of Mary” in the NT except Jesus himself. He was “the” one and only…

I’ll break here and continue in the next post since I must spend some time proving your next assertion to be in error.

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

In any event, it wasn’t a title and it was but one occasion and the same wording isn’t used in Matt 13:55. The full verse at Mark 6:3 reads: *Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary , the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him. *When brothers are expressly named and when sisters are expressly mentioned why should we spend any time trying to manufacture an inference out of “the”?

You need to dig a little deeper than this to understand what the scriptures actually say.

Brothers of Jesus, Not Sons of Mary**
**
Many non-Catholics deny the Perpetual Virginity of Mary by referring to passages of scripture that mention the “brothers” of Jesus. A rigorous analysis of scripture, however, proves their position is false. Consider the following:

1. Jesus had a “brother” named James.

---

"Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?”(Matthew 13:55)
2. James, the Lord’s “brother”, is an apostle.

---

“Then, after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. (Galatians 1:18-19)

3. There are two apostles named James.

---

“When morning came, he called his disciples to him and chose twelve of them, whom he also designated apostles: Simon (whom he named Peter), his brother Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Simon who was called the Zealot, Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.”(Luke 6:13-16)
4. One James (the brother of John) is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his father is Zebedee.

---

“James son of Zebedee and his brother John (to them he gave the name Boanerges, which means Sons of Thunder)” (Mark 3:17)
5**. The other apostle named James is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his father is Alpheus.**

---

“And when it was day, he called his disciples, and chose from them twelve, whom he called apostles: Simon, whom he named Peter and Andrew his brother, and James and John and Philip and Bartholomew, and Matthew and James the son of Alpheus, and Simon who was called the Zealot, and Judas the son of James and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.” (Luke 6:13-16)

6. Therefore, neither apostle named James was a uterine brother of Jesus.

7. The man named Joseph (or Joses) is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his mother is Mary and his brother is James. Therefore, this Mary is the wife of Alphaeus.

---

“Many women were there, watching from a distance. They had followed Jesus from Galilee to care for his needs. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons.” (Matthew 27:55-56)

8. Judas is not a uterine brother of Jesus because he is the son of James.

---

“When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James.” (Acts 1:13)

1. While Matthew 15:35 declares James, Joseph and Judas to be the “brothers” of Jesus, it has been demonstrated from scripture that they are NOT uterine brothers of the Lord. From this, it is apparent that scripture must be using the term “brothers” to mean relatives other than sons of Mary.

 

[Randy_Carson]

continued…

So your proof here is based on an inference. I do not see that an inference is necessary given that, as an explantion for the brothers’ actions, the passage itself adds that his brothers did not believe in him. From the Mark passage you provided:

we know that Jesus’s family claimed that he was nuts (Mark 3:21)…tradition of respect for the eldest or not, someone who is viewed as crazy and as an embarassment would be told to get lost by younger brothers.

Is that how someone in an Asian culture would react?

In any event, even if your wild inference was correct and the brothers of Jesus mentioned in the gospels were older sons of Joseph then the following possibilities still exist apart from Mary’s perpetual virginity:

a) Mary had other sons after Jesus, but they weren’t the ones giving the advice

Since “Bible Christians” are famous for insisting that everything be proven from the scriptures, surely you must be prepared to back up this claim with a verse or two.

b) Mary had no other sons after Jesus, but had daughters

Since the same passage that allegedly names the brothers of Jesus also mentions his “sisters”, either he must have had either both or neither. Which argument do you want to make? Or are you willing to concede the fact that Aramaic simply had no word for “cousin”?

c) Mary had only one child, Jesus, but not for a lack of trying.

An interesting speculation that still does not stand up to the analysis of Mary’s response to the angel that I posed earlier. If Mary fully anticipated a fruitful life with Joseph, then her question simply makes no sense. She would have said, “Well, of course I’m going to conceive and bear a son…I’m to be married soon.”

However, since I have already disproven the notion that the “brothers” of Jesus were uterine siblings, serious doubt is cast upon your argument that Mary did not remain ever-virgin. Thus, while I have the writings of the Early Church Fathers, the testimony of the Protestant Reformers and the infallible dogma of the Catholic Church, you have nothing but dubious opinions and “what ifs” that are rather easily explained.

In other words, the possible existance of elder brothers by way of Joseph does not (in any way) establish Mary’s perpetual virginity…it is only something that offers an explanation of who those “brothers” could have been w/o being Jesus’s younger brothers by way of Mary.

I agree that the theory about a previous marriage does not “prove” the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. However, knowing that the Perpetual Virginity is revealed truth, we can attempt to establish possible explanations for the family relationships about which the written record is vague.

Btw, an older brother for Jesus (by way of a earlier son of Joseph) presents a bit of a problem regarding Jesus’s claim to the Davidic throne as the first-born male.

Oh? Was King David Jesse’s oldest son?

It isn’t that hard to imagine at all…if, they still thought Jesus was crazy (as per Mark 3:21) it would make sense that he would entrust Mary to a disciple who recognized Jesus as Lord and not as a lunatic.

Why bother when his brothers would see Him resurrected in a few days? Trust me, if they did not believe previously, they would have at that point.

Further, even if James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude were not sons of Mary, it is not something that establishes (you seem to like the word proof) the perpetual virginity of Mary…it is merely something consistent with Mary having no other sons and that, in turn, is merely something consistent with Mary not having had sex.

Gee, I consider this admission to be a major victory. Protestants come into this forum trumpeting the fact that Jesus had brothers and sisters as evidence that the Catholic Church is in error - thus not infallible and thus not the one, true Church. You have conceded (the possibility at least) that Mary had no other sons mentioned in the NT.

This may seem like a minor point to you, but a major point of contention has just been called into question. You can’t imagine how pleased I am.

Other possibilities exist including:

**a) it was a spiritual entrustment and not a physical one **
b) Mary had other sons, but they died in infancy
c) Mary had other children, but only daughters
d) Mary had no other children, but not for a lack of trying

You need to find another word than “proof” …may I susggest “possibilities which allow for the possibility of Mary’s perpetual virginity”.

Okay, speculate all you want…though I’m not sure what good it does you. The preponderance of evidence and opinion from both Catholic and non-Catholic sources is against you, but whatever.

I’m still basking in the glow… :dancing:

 

[youngsaint]

Whether you chose to believe Mary remained a Virgin or not, why is it so significant to Catholics that Mary had remained a Virgin after the birth of Christ? It would not have been sinful for her to have relations with her husband and beget other children.

Salvation is through Chris alone! Mary is not a saviour and she recognized who is the saviour (Luke 1:47 greek - “theO tO sOtEri mou,” “God THE SAViour OF-ME.”

So why is it so significant to Catholics that Mary had remained a Virgin after the birth of Christ? Would it cause the means to salvation to change? No!

In Is. 7:14 it says that “Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be Emmanuel.” Also if Mary was not virgin then Christ technically be God’s son but Joseph. So all you protestants who believe in scripture along should pay a lot of attention to this verse.

 

[Annie_B]

In Is. 7:14 it says that “Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be Emmanuel.” Also if Mary was not virgin then Christ technically be God’s son but Joseph. So all you protestants who believe in scripture along should pay a lot of attention to this verse.

youngsaint -
I don’t believe that anyone here is denying that Mary was a virgin when she conceived Jesus. The debate is whether or not she remained a virgin for the rest of her life. The verse you are quoting here states the obvious - that Mary was a virgin at the conception of Jesus - but it does not state whether that state of virginity lasted throughout her entire life.

Annie B

 

[Radical]

Correct. Gabriel’s statement about her son was in the future tense, not the present tense, so she need not have had sex with Joseph yet in order to conceive a son with Joseph. So her response implies that she has no intention of having sex in the future, either.

Implies the assumed intention. You know, Mary could have actually asked how this could be if she was to hold her (alleged) vow of virginity, (if that was her meaning) but she didn’t. Luke could have actually clarified that she asked this question (which requires an inference) b/c she was wondering how this could be if she was to hold her (alleged) vow of virginity,** but Luke didn’t even though he was quite capable of doing so**. The angel could have mentioned that this wouldn’t affect her (alleged) vow of virginity, but he didn’t. Yours is a rather bold inference to make in the face of such silence…it seems to me that there is little reason to make that inference except that it supports your desired belief.

It doesn’t have to state these things explicitly, and we are not limited to what the text explicitly says. There’s no explicit elaboration of the Trinity in scripture, nor explicit condemnation of polygamy for Christians, nor explicit condemnation of deliberate abortion, and we still understand the Trinity to be truly revealed and polygamy & abortion to be morally forbidden.

You are correct, but you are comparing apples to oranges. Wrt the trinity we have express statements that the Father is God. We have express statements that the Son is God. Further, we have statements that there is only one God. The doctrine of the trinity works off of these express statements to produce a reconciliation. Wrt the virgin birth we have a express statement that Mary will have a child and we have an express statement that she will be a virgin at birth. There is no need to work off of these express statements to produce a reconciliation b/c the scriptures provide the answer as to how this could be. ….and then wrt PV we have your inference that she will be a perpetual virgin. We need a reason to make the inference besides your desire.

Just the opposite. The fact that the text implies Mary had no intention of consummating the marriage, and cannot be plausibly read otherwise,…

Right, an angel miraculously appears and tells her that she will give birth to the Christ and the only possible way to understand her question would be as, “How can this be, cause I did not plan to have sex with any man in the future?”….I suppose that there is no way that it could be along the lines of, “How can this miraculous stuff be, cause I am merely a unimportant young virgin?” ….hold on, come to think of it, that makes more sense and doesn’t conflict with the fact that she is betrothed.

Her actual words imply that she does not plan to have sex with any man in the future.

That is quite the gift of discerning implications that you possess

Yes, a good indicator of what Christians believed in that time period.

A good indication of what a certain group of Christians thought and tried to pass off as apostolic…

…Can you match it with a document clearly showing that Christians believed Mary had sex or other children with Joseph?

match a document rejected by a pope? How about Tertullian saying:
They found it easier to esteem him a prophet, some great one no doubt, but one in any case who had been born. Even if there had been reason to tempt him by investigating his nativity, any other means would have been more in keeping with such temptation than the mention of those relations whom, in spite of having been born, he might by that time have lost. Tell me, does everybody who has been born, have a mother still living? Does everybody who has been born, have brothers born to him as well? Vs Marcion 4:19

The NT is not silent. Sufficient evidence for the traditional view,…

since when did questionable inferences constitute evidence?

Because “the” implies there is only one,…

So when James is described as the son of Zebedee (Matt 4:21 & 10:2)…it means that he was an only child? I guess John 6:42 means that Joseph had no other sons too?

…and “until” does not imply a reversal (in either Greek or in English), yes.

You need to focus on “not until” instead of merely “until” and you should take into account the tense of the “know”…but you are correct that the Greek equivalent of “not until” need not indicate a reversal, but such is often the case. Likewise, “the” need not imply that there is only one, yes? If you need help with that, consider, “I am going to the store”. With the tense taken into account, I understand that the translation of Matt 1:25 would look like: “was not knowing her until”….which seems to me to be more indicative of a reversal than “did not know her until”…but again, it is not conclusive, just more likely.

The implication of the text, of course, is that James, Joses, Judah, and Simon are Jesus’ brothers but not Mary’s children. So they must be his brothers in some other way, e.g. Joseph’s children (whether by a previous wife or by adoption) or some other close kinsmen.

So from an extremely questionable “implication” you travel to a “must”…not good form for a “proof”.

Hardly. David himself was not the first-born son of Jesse, but the youngest, yet the prophet anointed him to be king of Israel. The eldest son of a father is often not the recipient of God’s promises.

…and David wasn’t from a kingly lineage…he had to be anointed to kingship…again apples to oranges. You are right that God wouldn’t have to work through the eldest, but it is odd that Catholics will insist that God got all sorts of other stuff just so for the birth of his Son, but then didn’t bother to attend to the first-born requirement.

 

[MrZetterlund]

Isn’t it well established in the Bible that Jesus had other brothers?

 

[Muzhik]

Isn’t it well established in the Bible that Jesus had other brothers?

No, it’s established that He had BRETHREN, which given the language (Aramaic) being used could mean brother, step-brother, or cousin. Some of the previous posters have made excellent cases for the idea that Jesus had step-brothers. The non-canonical tradition is that Joseph was a widower, who had children with his late wife. After Jesus was born, these step-brothers and step-sisters would be His “brethren.”

 

[Bill_Pick]

Matt 1-25
25 “Till she brought forth her firstborn son”… From these words Helvidius and other heretics most impiously inferred that the blessed Virgin Mary had other children besides Christ; but St. Jerome shews, by divers examples, that this expression of the Evangelist was a manner of speaking usual among the Hebrews, to denote by the word until, only what is done, without any regard to the future. Thus it is said, Genesis 8. 6 and 7, that Noe sent forth a raven, which went forth, and did not return till the waters were dried up on the earth. That is, did not return any more. Also Isaias 46. 4, God says: I am till you grow old. Who dare infer that God should then cease to be: Also in the first book of Machabees 5. 54, And they went up to mount Sion with joy and gladness, and offered holocausts, because not one of them was slain till they had returned in peace. That is, not one was slain before or after they had returned. God saith to his divine Son: Sit on my right hand till I make thy enemies thy footstool. Shall he sit no longer after his enemies are subdued? Yea and for all eternity. St. Jerome also proves by Scripture examples, that an only begotten son, was also called firstborn, or first begotten: because according to the law, the firstborn males were to be consecrated to God; Sanctify unto me, saith the Lord, every firstborn that openeth the womb among the children of Israel, etc. Ex. 13. 2.

 

[Teneas]

Isn’t it well established in the Bible that Jesus had other brothers?

It’s a vicious cycle that keeps repeating itself, if one never reads through the entire thread before posting. Not getting onto you, just pointing out that your question, and the answers that are there to give, have been given.

To everyone:

There comes a point where you either accept, or you don’t. Both sides have presented arguments to support their beliefs. Scripture can be used for both sides. I don’t know why I type these words right now, as it will have no effect. The debate shall go on forever, or at least until those of us that make it to heaven get to find out.

Peace to you all…remember that peace when I have a bad day and post in frustration alright?

 

[youngsaint]

youngsaint -
I don’t believe that anyone here is denying that Mary was a virgin when she conceived Jesus. The debate is whether or not she remained a virgin for the rest of her life. The verse you are quoting here states the obvious - that Mary was a virgin at the conception of Jesus - but it does not state whether that state of virginity lasted throughout her entire life.

Annie B

My bad,

“Mary-ever-virgin…”
I believe it because the Catholic Church teaches it, why do any of us need a better reason?

 

[Bill_Pick]

Dokimas, sorry I missplace your post so this just has to do.​

“Till she brought forth her firstborn son”… From these words Helvidius and other heretics most impiously inferred that the blessed Virgin Mary had other children besides Christ; but St. Jerome shews, by divers examples, that this expression of the Evangelist was a manner of speaking usual among the Hebrews, to denote by the word until, only what is done, without any regard to the future. Thus it is said, Genesis 8. 6 and 7, that Noe sent forth a raven, which went forth, and did not return till the waters were dried up on the earth. That is, did not return any more. Also Isaias 46. 4, God says: I am till you grow old. Who dare infer that God should then cease to be: Also in the first book of Machabees 5. 54, And they went up to mount Sion with joy and gladness, and offered holocausts, because not one of them was slain till they had returned in peace. That is, not one was slain before or after they had returned. God saith to his divine Son: Sit on my right hand till I make thy enemies thy footstool. Shall he sit no longer after his enemies are subdued? Yea and for all eternity. St. Jerome also proves by Scripture examples, that an only begotten son, was also called firstborn, or first begotten: because according to the law, the firstborn males were to be consecrated to God; Sanctify unto me, saith the Lord, every firstborn that openeth the womb among the children of Israel, etc. Ex. 13. 2.

 

[Janet1983]

“Mary-ever-virgin…”
I believe it because the Catholic Church teaches it, why do any of us need a better reason?

Well I assume that the reason for needing more than “because the Catholic Church teaches it” is because not all accept the authority of the Catholic Church.
I for my part know that there are different ways to see this and that Scripture does not clearly state whether or not she was a virgin throughout all of her life.
I accept that others favor the other possibility, but I for my part do not believe in the PV of Mary.

God be gracious to us and bless us, and cause His face to shine upon us. That Your way may be known on the earth, Your salvation among all nations.

In Him,
Janet

 

[PJM]

=shawn38;6140870]Whether you chose to believe Mary remained a Virgin or not, why is it so significant to Catholics that Mary had remained a Virgin after the birth of Christ? It would not have been sinful for her to have relations with her husband and beget other children.

Salvation is through Chris alone! Mary is not a saviour and she recognized who is the saviour (Luke 1:47 greek - “theO tO sOtEri mou,” “God THE SAViour OF-ME.”

So why is it so significant to Catholics that Mary had remained a Virgin after the birth of Christ? Would it cause the means to salvation to change? No!

*** Hi Shawn,

That is a very well phrased question: thumbsup: THANKS.

The answer lies in understanding something we can know with certainty about the very Nature of God, who can be briefly described as all good things, and only good things PERFECTED.

The two key words in this description for our discussion are “Good things” and Perfected.***

Both Jesus Himself and St. Paul [as evidenced by the Sacred Tradition of the CC on Her position of a celebrant clergy] hold virginity in very High Esteem.

Celibacy

** Mt. 19: 9-12 ** I [Jesus] say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery." [His] disciples said to him, “If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” He answered, **“Not all can accept [this] word, but only those to whom that is granted. [GIVEN the Grace to live it.] ** Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. **Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.”/COLOR]

1 Cor. 7: 6 "I say this by way of concession, not of command. I wish that all were as I myself am. [Virgin] But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. "

Sacred Tradition holds that Mary, the Mother to be of Jesus, was a “Temple Virgin.” This means that her parents presented her BACK TO GOD as a child; and that she was raised and instructed in the Temple by the Matrons and Priest, which is how we was so informed and educated on Jewish History and the Torah. As such Mary would have taken a vow of perpetual chastity.

Now back up a bit a pull out your bible and read Exodus chapters 25 to 27, which deal with the very explicit directions, Yahweh God gave to Moses on how to build His Ark which would I [dare to say would house “only” His Spiritual Presence?"]

Here is a sample verse: ** Exo.25:11 "* And you shall overlay it with pure gold, within and without shall you overlay it,*** and you shall make upon it a molding of gold round" about."

From this we catch a glimpse of God’s own Expectations for His self-Worship, honor and Glory.

So if God demanded [as He most clearly did] not simply GOLD, NO! PURIFIED GOLD, the most PERFECTED Gold available and possible for “only”] His SPIRIT. What then would this same God expect for the very abode [house / Mary’s womb] of His very REAL Son have to be? It would certainly HAVE TO BE PERFECT SO THAT THE INCARNATE CHRIST WOULD COME THROUGH A PERFECTED WOMEN.

Perfected by Divine Will, and through the very merits of her Divine Son. [Time dos NOT exist for God.] It was because of the singular honor, the willingness of Mary in Humble Obedience to her God, to accept the trail and tribulations of this position, to which, by virtue of her freewill, she could have declined! That God, all - Powerful, all-good and all JUST, honored Mary’s earlier vow of Chastity, and not only Perfected her prior to the Birth of Jesus [she was conceived by the Holy Spirit; Not man, therefore she remained a virgin…
[Luke 1:26-36] up to birth, and even after Birth, as a GIFT FROM GOD, and theologically because God is and must b PERFECT, Mary, as the chosen Mother of God was too also be kept perfect as is worthy of this singular honor.

Love and prayers,
Pat

 

[Tantum_ergo]

How about" The Catholic Church teaches it **because it’s true?"
**
Because really, that is it in a nutshell.

Virtually anything you believe, Janet (and others) you are taking on faith. Your own faith in what you believe about Mary is based on what you have ‘read’ and the statements of others who validate your own personal’ impression’; IOW, you’re accepting that the statements you make (which are themselves stated by others in your faith) are ‘true’.

Now, if you have the case (as we do here) where two completely opposite teachings are held up:

A. Mary remained a virgin all her life.
B. Mary did not remain a virgin all her life.

Only one can be true. The other MUST be false.

Now, we Catholics have 2000 years of teachings (and the Subtuum prayer, for example, which speaks of the ever-Virgin Mary, is dated to AD 250 in writing which means it was probably ‘oral’ teaching for a generation or more before that) in which Mary was virtually unanimously believed to be shown, through Scripture and tradition, to be ‘ever virgin’.

The very first ‘reformers’ such as Luther and Calvin believed this too.

IOW, the ‘break’ or the ‘new’ teaching, that she ‘wasn’t’ ever-Virgin, came about 1500 years into Christianity.

Myself, I have a hard time believing that God ‘allowed’ error for 1500 years without a clear indication that it was error. He doesn’t change. Search the Scriptures–any time that the Jews fell into error, not only was it ‘known’, but there was a ‘remnant’ (even as small as Noah and his family) who ‘carried on’ the truth.

There is no comparable ‘clear and consistent teaching’ from apostolic times that Mary was not ever Virgin. There is, OTOH, clear and consistent teaching from those times that she **was.

**It’s strange, when you think about it, that the NEW teaching (Protestant), which can be clearly seen to BE a new teaching and which cannot be shown to be consistently taught since the time of the apostles, isn’t seen by Protestants themselves (who usually carp at all kinds of so-called “Catholic add-ons and changes” to be **itself an example of a real, 'added-on, change in doctrine. **

 

[Radical]

Randy Carson:

You need to dig a little deeper than this to understand what the scriptures actually say.

always a good idea

Brothers of Jesus, Not Sons of Mary

Many non-Catholics deny the Perpetual Virginity of Mary by referring to passages of scripture that mention the “brothers” of Jesus. A rigorous analysis of scripture, however, proves their position is false. Consider the following:

again with the “proves”

1. Jesus had a “brother” named James.

"Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?”(Matthew 13:55)

and let us not forget his sisters and the other brothers Joseph, Simon and Judas

1. James, the Lord’s “brother”, is an apostle.

“Then, after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. (Galatians 1:18-19)

good

1. There are two apostles named James.

“When morning came, he called his disciples to him and chose twelve of them, whom he also designated apostles: Simon (whom he named Peter), his brother Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Simon who was called the Zealot, Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.”(Luke 6:13-16)

Here is where you start to go wrong. Your title should have indicated that “Two of the 12 were named James” . Not all apostles were included in the 12.

1. One James (the brother of John) is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his father is Zebedee.

“James son of Zebedee and his brother John (to them he gave the name Boanerges, which means Sons of Thunder)” (Mark 3:17)

agreed

1. The other apostle named James is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his father is Alpheus.

“And when it was day, he called his disciples, and chose from them twelve, whom he called apostles: Simon, whom he named Peter and Andrew his brother, and James and John and Philip and Bartholomew, and Matthew and James the son of Alpheus, and Simon who was called the Zealot, and Judas the son of James and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.” (Luke 6:13-16)

agreed again…except it should be the other one of the 12

1. Therefore, neither apostle named James was a uterine brother of Jesus.

This should be, “Therefore, neither of the Jameses listed among the 12 was a uterine brother of Jesus.”

1. The man named Joseph (or Joses) is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his mother is Mary and his brother is James. Therefore, this Mary is the wife of Alphaeus.

This should read "The man named Joseph (or Joses) and who is also designated as having the same mother as James the younger is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his mother is also named Mary and his brother is James the younger.

1. Judas is not a uterine brother of Jesus because he is the son of James.

This should read “The Judas that is listed among the 12 is not a uterine brother of Jesus because he is the son of James”

1. While Matthew 15:35 declares James, Joseph and Judas to be the “brothers” of Jesus, it has been demonstrated from scripture that they are NOT uterine brothers of the Lord.

no, your demonstration fails b/c you assume that three of the named brothers of Jesus, namely James, Joseph, and Judas are members of the 12…but it is a bad assumption. A rigorous analysis of the three synoptic gospels (Matt 12, Mark 3 and Luke 8) would have disclosed that the brothers of Jesus are mentioned on a couple of occasions. On the one occasion (Matt 12, Mark 3 and Luke 8) the 12 are mentioned, Jesus entered a house with his disciples after which Jesus’s mother and brothers arrive. It would seem that the 12 are in the house with Jesus and that Jesus’s brothers are outside with Mary. This, of course, would mean your effort to find (three of) Jesus’s four named brothers within the 12 was a waste of time.

On the other occasion (Matt 13 and Mark 6) Jesus’s home-town-folk ask, “Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son? Isn’t this the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?” Now, if the home-town-folks are calling James, Joseph and Judas the brothers of Jesus b/c the are his disciples, then who are his sisters? Are they a group of 12 women that Jesus appointed as apostlettes? Why are these female disciples “here” with the home-town-folks?

As you might have noted by now, your proof has got real problems.

 

[aspirant]

Implies the assumed intention.

No, it implies no intention to have sex in the future. Apart from this, ignorance regarding the normal means of conception (ruled out by the phrasing of the question), or knowledge of infertility (which she wouldn’t have), no question of “how?” would naturally arise.

You are correct, but you are comparing apples to oranges.

Not remotely. The examples clearly show that textual implication is a reasonable source of doctrine for most Christians.

We need a reason to make the inference besides your desire.

The text itself provides sufficient reason; the text understood within the context of sacred tradition provides more than sufficient reason.

I suppose that there is no way that it could be along the lines of, “How can this miraculous stuff be, cause I am merely a unimportant young virgin?”

In the actual text, her objection is not “I am too unimportant” but “I am not knowing a man.” Though she is certainly humble, as other texts show, it’s definitely an objection on the basis of virginity and not humility. This is not a normal reaction for a betrothed woman.

How about Tertullian

If the best you have is a passage not showing he believed Mary had sex or other children with Joseph, it doesn’t really help your case.

So when James is described as the son of Zebedee (Matt 4:21 & 10:2)…it means that he was an only child?

Can you find any passage that identifies another child of Mary as Matthew 4:21 does for Zebedee? It would substantially help your case.

you are correct that the Greek equivalent of “not until” need not indicate a reversal

I know. The same happens in English. Matthew 1:25 can be translated “he knew her not when she had given birth to a son” without change in meaning.

David wasn’t from a kingly lineage…he had to be anointed to kingship

Yes.

You are right that God wouldn’t have to work through the eldest

And frequently did not. God exhibits a tendency to choose younger sons: Abel, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses…

it is odd that Catholics will insist that God got all sorts of other stuff just so for the birth of his Son, but then didn’t bother to attend to the first-born requirement.

What requirement? Even the first king after David, Solomon, was not the oldest living son of David when David made him heir.

The very first ‘reformers’ such as Luther and Calvin believed this too.

Also Bullinger & Zwingli. And later Protestants, too, like John Wesley, among others.

 

[aspirant]

If the best you have is a passage not showing [Tertullian] believed Mary had sex or other children with Joseph, it doesn’t really help your case.

Perhaps it will help to clarify this point. Tertullian is arguing in this passage that Jesus has human ancestry and family, contrary to the Marcionites who claimed Jesus had none. This is, of course, true. None of us believes that Jesus doesn’t have human relatives, both biological (through Mary) and adopted (through Joseph). We all believe Jesus is really human with a biological mother, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, and so on, regardless whether we believe he has brothers through Mary or some other relationship.

A bit later in the passage, Tertullian says “mother and brothers” are “names of blood relationship.” On this phrase people stake the claim that Tertullian believed Jesus’ brothers were biological siblings, sons of Mary. (Elsewhere he denies virginitas in partu, but I don’t think that’s what you’re really after.) But that is a bit more than Terullian says.

The terms “mother” and “brothers” are names of blood relationships, primarily referring to birthmothers and biological siblings, but they are also used in a derivative sense for non-blood relationships, adoptive parents and siblings, stepparents and siblings, etc. If Jesus called Joseph “father,” as he likely did, “father” is no less the name of a blood relationship just because blood isn’t how Jesus and Joseph are related.

I have a friend who is adopted. None of us would say she isn’t human, descended from humans, or has no family just because her family members, whom she calls by names derived from blood relationship, are not related to her by blood. That terms like “mom” and “brother” are taken from blood relationships and usually indicate blood relationships doesn’t make blended families any less a truly human family.

If someone wants to interpret Tertullian’s wording to mean that he believed Jesus had brothers through Mary, it’s possible, though more than he explicitly says. It is also possible to understand Tertullian’s words simply to mean Jesus really was “born of a woman,” has a mother and a family, as we all agree, against the Marcionite assertion that he had no human ancestry or family. That’s the point Tertullian is really addressing.

At the same time, we should remember that Against Marcion was written in Tertullian’s semi-Montanist period, as Tertullian was already abandoning orthodoxy, which is why Jerome has no qualms about dismissing Helvidius’ appeal to it by saying “[Helvidius] produces Tertullian as a witness [to his view]… Of Tertullian, I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church.”