Why would Mary remain a virgin...after marriage?

[PRmerger]

Keep in mind that Jerome who believed that the “brothers” of Jesus were His cousins, contradicts his peer Augustine who believed they were His older step-brothers from an “alleged” previous first marriage of Joseph before he married Mary.

Nothing inherently disturbing about this.

Please note that neither of these early church fathers’ assertions contradicts Scripture.

AND! Neither of these ECFs assert that Mary had other children.

 

[thetazlord]

Agreed, if James the Just is Jesus half- brother then Jude the brother of James the Just must be Jesus half brother as well. This Jude is not of the foursome obviously. Unfortunately, this is extra-biblical and we should just treat it as good information to know.

Previously, I mentioned there is no conclusive proof that Clopas and Alphaeus is the same person. I don’t recall Alphaeus being mentioned to be associated with any Mary at Calvary. So, we have to leave that open. Unless you are contending that James of Alphaeus (one of the 12) is James of the foursome? Don’t believe such evidence exists. The bible mentioned about his disbelieving foursome brethren in Matthew and Mark. This Apostle can not be in the foursome by logic.

So who do you think are the parents of the foursome? Me thinks, Mary+Clopas. Clopas = brother of Joseph(Jesus dad). Therefore Jesus cousins. There are not that many options for folks standing around at Calvary. We only have so many Marys. If Jesus mum Mary is ever mentioned, she is always identified as Jesus mum, and not the mother of other kids with Jesus name omitted.

Actually, both James & Jude that wrote the epistles are part of this “foursome.” The “Mary” that was married to Alphaeus is the same Mary of Clopas. Clopas (‘Klōpas’ – ‘my exchanges’) is the same person as ‘Alphaeus’ (‘Alphaios’ – ‘changing’). The Catholic church is in agreement they are the same person, or a second husband of this “other” Mary since John’s Gospel was written much later (assuming Alphaeus had died by the time John wrote his Gospel).

James son of Alphaeus had a brother named Joseph, but not Jude, which is supported in Mark Ch.15 & 16. So, the “James & Joseph” who are sons of Alphaeus are not the same “James & Jude” who are Jesus’ brothers, who are also brothers with Simon & Joseph, and at least two unnamed sisters. So, they aren’t Jesus’ cousins or close relatives, but His half-brothers. This is more evident by realizing, Scripturally, there are four women at the cross, not just three.

Gentle reminder for your sources of ECFs that did not believed Mary EV.

Thanks for the reminder. Helvidius, Hegesippus, Tertillian, Eusebius, Africanus, I believe St. Melito, etc, and of course, Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John, and the apostle Paul.

 

[thetazlord]

For Mt 10:3, I think that you want 10:2. Also, Mt 13:46-50 seems to be a mistaken reduplication from 12:46-50.

A. Mt 12:46-50 and Jn 2:12 and 7:3-5 and Ac 1:14 use αδελφοι for people with whom Jesus had a close association, presumably for members of his household and/or wider family. On the other hand, 1 Co 15:6 (like many other verses in the NT) uses αδελφοι very broadly, for Christian brethren. These verses show us that αδελφος was used in a variety of ways, as was normal in Greek, and so we cannot logically assume that αδελφος = συναιμος.

B. Mt 20:20 and 27:56 specify that the αδελφοι who were sons of Zebedee in Mt 10:3/Mk10:35/Ac 12:2 had the same mother. On the other hand, Ac 7:13 uses αδελφοι for a group of 12 people of whom only 2 had the same mother. These verses show us that αδελφος was used in a variety of ways, as was normal in Greek, and so we cannot logically assume that αδελφος = συναιμος.

C. Lk 1:36 refers to Mary’s συγγενης (as does 1:58, with the plural). While Ps 69:8 uses αδελφοι and 'υιοι της μητρος as synonyms, Romans 9:3 uses αδελφοι and συγγενεις as synonyms. These verses show us that αδελφος was used in a variety of ways, as was normal in Greek, and that the fields of denotation of συγγενης and αδελφος overlapped.

D. Jn 6:42 shows that the Jews thought that Jesus was Joseph’s 'υιος, which is not particularly relevant.

E. Jn 19:25-27 shows Jesus using typically-familial terms (μητηρ and 'υιος) in a broad fashion, as was normal in Greek. It also shows Jesus passing his mother into the care of a male outside of his family, which suggests that there was no close male relative to perform that role.

F. Mk 15:40, 47, and 16:1, and Mt 27:56 refer to Mary the mother of James the Less and of Joses (Ιωσης). There is no reason to presume that this Mary is the mother of Jesus, since a/ all of these were quite common names from the period, b/ that other group (Jesus’ apparent household/associates) includes not only a Ιακωβος and a Ιωσης but also a Ιουδας and a Σιμων (Mk 6:3, Mt 13:55), which would make omitting half of them very strange especially since it is expressed that way in both gospels, c/ in neither gospel is the mother of James and Joses identified as the mother of Jesus, the omission of which would be quite bizarre, and d/ there is no mention of that Mary being the mother of John, despite Jn 19:25-7. That is, in all probability, another Mary.

(Also, this is James the Less, not the James of Ac 15:13, one of the leaders in Jerusalem, the one mentioned in Gal 1:19 and 2:9, who most probably was the James in Mk 6:3 and Mt 13:55.)

The confusion comes from the number of women at the cross, which according to John’s Gospel were four, not the three mentioned in Matthew & Mark’s Gospel who had moved away from the cross after Jesus died. Perhaps this response I gave below might help:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12670639&postcount=480

G. We do have an extra-biblical historical source, the Protoevangelium of James, which claims that Mary had no other children. Since that text was written within one lifetime of Jesus’ ministry, if its claim were false, we could reasonably expect C2nd or 3rd criticisms of its historical inaccuracy but we have neither those nor records of same (despite having copious records of such criticisms on other scores, e.g. Epiphanius’ Panarion).

The problem is that this is a pagan source that states that Mary’s mid-wife “tested” her virginity by breaking her hymen, which would no longer make her a virgin, which contradicts Scripture which states that she was a virgin at Jesus’ birth. So the “Mary” of Proto-James isn’t even the same Mary of Scripture. I’m afraid this is the earliest source of Mary’s virginity (140-180 A.D.) - much longer than a “generation” after the time of the apostles.

H. We have no record whatsoever of the subsequent lineage of Jesus’ brothers. Given the nature of eastern Mediterranean cultures at the time, their ideas of inheritance, and Jesus’ status within the early Church, his nephews, grand-nephews etc would have been celebrities. Instead, there is just nothing, and this is coherent with the theory that Jesus gave his mother into John’s care because they had all died.

Actually, we do by Eusebius’ Ecclesiatical History that confirms that Mary & Joseph had children after the birth of Jesus, & that at least one of His half-brothers (Jude) had grandsons. And one of Jude’s descendants became the last Hebrew bishop of Jerusalem. Eusebius gets his sources from earlier ECF’s.

I. The Orthodox have been reading these texts in their own language, with minute scrutiny, without any dogma telling them what to believe, for two thousand years, and the majority consensus from them is that there is no evidence of Mary having had other children.

The Orthodox broke away from the RCC long after this Marian dogma was well-established. They simply didn’t disagree with it. So, their “agreement” doesn’t automatically make their “belief” correct or incorrect.

Just to reiterate, none of this is dogma for me, either. However, on a linguistic basis, there is no clear demonstration that the αδελφοι of Jesus were Mary’s children, and, on a historical basis, there is no evidence of but instead attestation against any such children having existed. I cannot disagree with that unless I get hold of a time machine, go back, and take DNA samples.

Fortunately, we don’t need a time machine, because we have Inspired Scripture, that supports that Mary & Joseph did indeed have children after the birth of Jesus, & even named four of their sons.

 

[PRmerger]

Fortunately, we don’t need a time machine, because we have Inspired Scripture, that supports that Mary & Joseph did indeed have children after the birth of Jesus, & even named four of their sons.

Now, if you could cite any verses that state that these 4 men were the sons of Mary, you would have a case.

Unfortunately, you can search the entirety of Scripture–from Genesis through Revelation, and you will not find a single verse that speaks of the “sons of Mary”.

In that you have added to Scripture, taz.

 

[thetazlord]

Nothing inherently disturbing about this.

Please note that neither of these early church fathers’ assertions contradicts Scripture.

AND! Neither of these ECFs assert that Mary had other children.

My point was that since the PVM was believed to be Scripturally certain by their time as being believed to have been passed down from the apostles to the present time, then shouldn’t they also have known “for certain” Scripturally exactly “who” these “brothers” were, since they are mentioned by name? And James the brother of the Lord is mentioned so frequently in Scripture as the head of the Jerusalem Church? By right, Jerome & Augustine should have at least been in agreement of their relationship with Jesus, rather than be in opposition to each other.

 

[thetazlord]

Now, if you could cite any verses that state that these 4 men were the sons of Mary, you would have a case.

Unfortunately, you can search the entirety of Scripture–from Genesis through Revelation, and you will not find a single verse that speaks of the “sons of Mary”.

In that you have added to Scripture, taz.

Where does it say that Andrew was the “son of John” like Jesus calls Peter “son of John”? The RCC has no problem understanding Andrew to be Peter’s biological brother, & even refers to him as such. So, that’s not a good argument. Plus, the NT is about Jesus, not Mary, which is why most of the time, Jesus’ family is referred to in relationship to Him, not Mary. And, again, Scripture supports that the “brothers” of Jesus are His half-brothers, so the argument is moot anyways. There is nothing “added to Scripture” here.

 

[PRmerger]

My point was that since the PVM was believed to be Scripturally certain by their time

Nope, taz. That’s not how God’s Word works. We don’t glean our doctrines from Scripture.

Rather, the Scriptures confirm what was already being proclaimed and professed.

And what was being proclaimed and professed was the PVM.

Who the “brethren of the Lord” were, exactly, was not part of the faith, given once for all, to the saints.

 

[PRmerger]

Where does it say that Andrew was the “son of John” like Jesus calls Peter “son of John”? The RCC has no problem understanding Andrew to be Peter’s biological brother, & even refers to him as such.

Do you have any documentation that the Church proclaims that Andrew is the “son of John”?

 

[benhur]

Benhur -

What is your answer to the question below then from the previous post ?

*So where Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Catholic East, Catholic West and Orthodox all agree on something - based on Scripture AND Tradition, there are still select protestants that hold their ground and say “well they are all are wrong and I’m right”.

Benhur, is this your position?*

And I’ll add for clarity: are you open that to the thought that all over parties above are correct?

That is right . I am denying Luther’s , Zwingli’s, East’s and West’s infallibility on this issue

Now, what did Polycarp really say?

Do you agree Ignatius said nothing on this matter though Jerome claims he does ?

 

[benhur]

]It is a miracle. We do not need to know how it is done. Yes, we can speculate all we want. God can just will it and it happens. Or he can breath on her and it happens. Really, that is not important.

Yes, a miracle by His Word and nothing else. I would say there is much speculation, being the seedbed for much Marion doctrine.

It is not the purification rites that is critically important. It is who has the authorization to do it.

WE are not talking of who has authority to “make clean” butwho has the opportunity to be made clean(Mary, Joseph etc-Jews), thru proper channels in OT. Hopefully you do not deny this. It would be like one looking at your covenant practices(Baptism,confirmation,confession) and say it is not enough, we need something even better for a special project that an individual must embark on. I also understand our covenant is “better”, but clean is clean, forgiven is forgiven, justified is justified.

You think you have been cleansed. But how clean can one be? We are not sinless creatures. Cleansed once at baptism and dirty the next. Or are you relying on wearing an invisibility cloak to cover your sins? Can you self declare yourself righteous? If you can, you need not wait for Judgement Day. You can always try to enter heaven by the back door via your invisibility cloak and hope your OSAS key fits into the door. The key may not fit. May be there is no keyhole at all. Worse, there is no backdoor. Nothing unclean can enter heaven. Not only must you appear to be clean, you must be clean. You will have to check your cloak at the gate before entering and frisked. You didn’t know that, did you?

You said a lot here and i am not sure it is all proper CC understanding. Sounds very OT.

 

[Porknpie]

Nothing inherently disturbing about this.

Please note that neither of these early church fathers’ assertions contradicts Scripture.

AND! ** Neither of these ECFs assert that Mary had other children**.

Right, neither did. Augustine below speaks of Mary’s ever virginity.

“Her virginity also itself was on this account more pleasing and accepted, in that it was not that Christ being conceived in her, rescued it beforehand from a husband who would violate it, Himself to preserve it; but, before He was conceived, chose it, already dedicated to God, as that from which to be born. This is shown by the words which Mary spake in answer to the Angel announcing to her conception; How,’ saith she, shall this be, seeing I know not a man?’ Which assuredly she would not say, unless she had before vowed herself unto God as a virgin. But, because the habits of the Israelites as yet refused this, she was espoused to a just man, who would not take from her by violence, but rather guard against violent persons, what she had already vowed. Although, even if she had said this only, How shall this take place ?’ and had not added, seeing I know not a man,’ certainly she would not have asked, how, being a female, she should give birth to her promised Son, if she had married with purpose of sexual intercourse. She might have been bidden also to continue a virgin, that in her by fitting miracle the Son of God should receive the form of a servant, but, being to be a pattern to holy virgins, lest it should be thought that she alone needed to be a virgin, who had obtained to conceive a child even without sexual intercourse, she dedicated her virginity to God, when as yet she knew not what she should conceive, in order that the imitation of a heavenly life in an earthly and mortal body should take place of vow, not of command; through love of choosing, not through necessity of doing service. Thus Christ by being born of a virgin, who, before she knew Who was to be born of her, had determined to continue a virgin, chose rather to approve, than to command, holy virginity. And thus, even in the female herself, in whom He took the form of a servant, He willed that virginity should be free.” Augustine, Of Holy Virginity, 4 (A.D. 401).

Still find it quite astonishing, that one would even thing of taking a position opposite the common belief’s of the Catholic East, Catholic West, the Orthodox and all the major reformers. Thus, I can’t think of a better definition of a man-made doctrine.

 

[thetazlord]

Nope, taz. That’s not how God’s Word works. We don’t glean our doctrines from Scripture.

Rather, the Scriptures confirm what was already being proclaimed and professed.

And what was being proclaimed and professed was the PVM.

Who the “brethren of the Lord” were, exactly, was not part of the faith, given once for all, to the saints.

And what was “proclaimed” was written down, so that we could compare what was being taught TO Scripture (Acts 17:11). So, “that” is how “God works,” because He says so in His written word, that supports that Mary did not “remain” a virgin after the birth of Jesus, because He had half-brothers & half-sisters.

 

[PRmerger]

And what was “proclaimed” was written down,

Certainly. But not *everything *that was proclaimed was written down.

Remember, St. Paul preached in the temple for 3 months.

And entering into the synagogue, he spoke boldly for the space of three months, disputing and exhorting concerning the kingdom of God.—Acts 19:8

The sheer volume of writing down EVERYTHING he said would make a scroll impossibly unwieldy.

so that we could compare what was being taught TO Scripture (Acts 17:11).

Well, since the NT had not yet been written, what you are proposing is that we compare everything to the OT.

Is that what you are telling us to do?

So, “that” is how “God works,” because He says so in His written word, that supports that Mary did not “remain” a virgin after the birth of Jesus, because He had half-brothers & half-sisters.

Since there is not a single verse that says that Mary did NOT remain a virgin, what you are proposing is a man-made tradition.

You heard a (fallible) man say it, who heard another (fallible) man say it…but no one ever read: “Mary birthed other children” in a single page of the Bible.

 

[YADA]

And what was “proclaimed” was written down, so that we could compare what was being taught TO Scripture (Acts 17:11). So, “that” is how “God works,” because He says so in His written word, that supports that Mary did not “remain” a virgin after the birth of Jesus, because He had half-brothers & half-sisters.

Again - that is your reading into the scriptures your personal bias because “you” think your interpretation is correct because “you” are so much brighter then all the Christians who came before you …

Even this belief that all the was 'proclaimed" was written down so that we could compare what was taught to the Scriptures … is a novelty that is giving the Scriptures a higher authority then the Church … and which contradicts ‘explicitly’ what those Scriptures tell us about the relationship between the written Word and the Church …

FYI … the Scriptures are good for study and reproof and help to prepare the believer … but … the Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth [and Jesus built His Church upon Peter the Rock … to whom Jesus also entrusted the care of the leadership and the people]

 

[sallybutler]

This may be a stupid question, but why is it so important to Protestants that Mary had other children, that she had sexual relations wit with Joseph?

 

[benhur]

This may be a stupid question, but why is it so important to Protestants that Mary had other children, that she had sexual relations wit with Joseph?

Actually, we are criticized and perceived as not making as big a deal about anything Mary, almost to the point of dishonor. Really.

Why is it so important to Catholics and others that she was ever virgin ? Is that the seedbed for her immaculateness, then her sinlessness, then her assumption, then her co-redemptrix title, then her mediator role ?.

 

[spedteacherita]

This may be a stupid question, but why is it so important to Protestants that Mary had other children, that she had sexual relations wit with Joseph?

Hi, Sally,

I think (and others can clarify it for me as well) that we see Mary as an “ordinary” girl given an extraordinary calling from our God. From our perspective, the doctrines of Immaculate Conception, and Perpetual Virginity were not taught by the apostles or Jesus but were added as time went by.

Don’t everyone jump on me and argue with me about this as I’m just answering the question as to how I understand why Protestants feel that Mary and Joseph had other children. I’m not ready myself to get into a discussion…of course, there may be others who want to continue it here.

Blessings!

****There are no stupid questions, either!!

 

[thetazlord]

Do you have any documentation that the Church proclaims that Andrew is the “son of John”?

Certainly, this is from a very, well-respected Catholic source:

“St. Andrew, the Apostle, son of Jonah, or John (Matthew 16:17; John 1:42)”

newadvent.org/cathen/01471a.htm

My point was since the Catholic church doesn’t have a problem with Peter not being the “only” son of John (Andrew being the other), even though Jesus refers to Peter as “THE son” of John, & even though we know Andrew was his brother (adelphos) - and according to NewAdvent, the “OTHER son” of John, then the argument that Jesus is described as “THE son” of Mary doesn’t mean Jesus was her only son, anymore than Peter isn’t John’s only son, either.

Likewise, James the Less is referred to as James “THE son” of Alphaeus. Should we deduce them that James was Alphaeus’ ONLY son? No, because James has a brother (adelphos) named Joseph.

Therefore, the “THE son” of Jesus argument doesn’t work.

 

[YADA]

Actually we are criticized for not making as big a deal about anything Mary as Catholics do.

Why is it so important to Catholics and others that she was ever virgin ? Is that the seedbed for her immaculateness, then her sinlessness, then her assumption, then her co-redemptrix title, then her mediator role ?.

What is important is the Truth … your hyperbole aside - Mary being a Virgin informs us about Jesus, Mary being the Mother of God informs us about Jesus and HIs dual Natures, Jesus giving His Mother into the care of John for his mother [and ours] informs us of our relationship as heirs - sons and daughters of God the Father - and our relationship as brothers and sisters of God the Son.

Mary being faithful in her life to the will of God is an example to us [and not as unique as you might think] … Mary was preserved from original sin by Jesus and lived without committing personal sin … Enoch and Elijah too are believed to have lived sinless … Enoch is thought to have been taken directly to heaven without dying even because he walked all his days with the Lord]

The Scriptures inform us of Mary’s place in heaven and we all will be assumed into heaven … Jesus ascended - of His own power - being assumed means we are taken into heaven by our Lord and Savior - would you argue that Mary was not saved by her Son - Jesus the Messiah … and lest you say Jesus would not have already taken His Mother to Himself - He promised the good thief that “This day you will be with me in Heaven” … surely you don’t think that Mary’s “Let it be done unto me according to your Word” was less than the rebuke of the bad thief

We honor Mary as our Mother because Jesus is our Brother - He is also our Lord, Savior, King of Kings, High Priest, Good Shepherd, Healer, etc.

We honor Mary because she is the best example of how to serve God, she intercedes for us and gives us good advice and example …

“Let it be done unto me according to your Word” she is blessed exactly because she does as Jesus said his family would - “who are my mother and my brothers? The ones who hears and does the will of God” … Mary is the perfectly example of that

“Do whatever He tells you” - Again - Mary not only tells us to do the what Jesus commands - she actually did what our God asks - even when she did not understand and doing God’s will placed her in peril …

When you disrespect Mary - you disrespect Jesus

 

[benhur]

****There are no stupid questions, either!!

****There are only stupid answers !!

Just kidding , could not resist.

Yours was a very tactful, and courteous, and encouraging post. Thank you.