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

[eddie_too]

why should we believe that the early Christians deliberately espoused a lie which the perpetual virginity of mary would be if they knew, and how could they not know having been present at the time, she had borne children after the birth of Jesus?

all of what I know indicates that the early Church was vigorous about maintaining the purity of the Gospel.

people who want to deny the perpetual virginity of mary have significant hurdles to overcome and, to date, no one has overcome any of these hurdles in this thread.

 

[benhur]

This tells me a lot about your Christology benhur. These comments of yours reflect to me quite a bit about what you think of Jesus.

You will have to explain as I noted previously. WE have same Christology. We just have differing views *on some *of the "interfaces’’ we have with Christ (sacraments,holy water,relics, etc)

 

[YADA]

You want to idolize a memory, a past event, make it a “relic” ? There are dispensations, dispensations of the grace and presence of God. That is the main thing is it not ?

But if you prefer carbon atoms…

Let us go where God is,.In my opinion after the birth, for Joseph it was then the consummation of the marriage, a marriage commanded of God.

I am not an idolater and really resent that implication

But really would you treat it the same??? Its use accomplished, His presence gone, and you would treat it the same as if He were still there???

I might not treat it exactly the same - but that does not mean I would repurpose it to the most common use either … I am guessing you have no family heirlooms - nor special artifacts in your home … and probably wonder why they have museums and people safeguard precious artifacts … of course if the Church had not done that with scriptures [and others groups with many ancient writings and treasure - ]

Sounds like you are doing what Peter wanted to do at the Mount of Transfiguration, stay there and make a monument out of the place…Jesus kindly said , “let’s move on Peter, we’ve got other things to do”.

And so some claim, rightly so, in my opinion, for Joseph and Mary’s marriage ,“to move on, forward”.

Mary was always and every where the mother of Jesus … that was the primary focus of her life …

In your discussion with Catholholic you say that perhaps Joseph refrained from relations in order that the virgin birth of Jesus would be more believable and that after the birth - that was no longer necessary … if I get what you mean here

I think I did post my postulation as to why (God ordered it). Perhaps to make it perfectly clear that indeed it was the HS that conceived Him. They were astute to “wayward ways and their consequences” back then, as we are today, as in "wait a minute, “how do we know it really is His child and not yours Joseph”. No dna testing then. So, sorry Mary and Joseph , please abstain thruout the whole thing AND to show proper “fear” for what the Lord has done in her. Two birds with one stone. This was a special “intervention”, and treated as such (holy).

I think that the exact opposite would occur … The claim is that Joseph is not the Father - even though Mary and Joseph are married … If any questioned the paternity of Jesus - Tell me - how does their supposed abstinence between two married persons [before and during the gestation of a baby] prove conception by the Holy Spirit? How does the then subsequent normal relations of the couple after the birth of this child support the Mystery of the Virgin Birth … Really - what you are saying is that two married people claimed - with no proof that she conceived of the Holy Spirit - and then all was just normal … trust us - that’s the way it happened

And this discounts the fact that Mary clearly would have known she was espoused to Joseph AND known how babies were conceived … but said to the Angel - How can this be because I know not man? which - if not as explicit as you might like - clearly indicates she had no intention of engaging in relations with Joseph …

And where were all these younger children when Jesus was twelve?

 

[benhur]

]I am sure if you could convince Belshazzar about the Sacredness of the Temple and the Sacred accessories, he would have said the same thing as you in principle.

Not apples to oranges . Still under OT and dispensation for those chalices, no matter who had them/stole them . There original “intent-holiness”" had not changed.

I think part of the reason people have such a difficulty with the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary is due to a loss of the sense of the sacred in the world for a long time now.

Maybe, but fables do not increase sacredness, and part of the reason the CC is very careful on examining miracles and Marion appearances.

Also does not answer first critics of first few centuries , unless they also had lost sense of sacredness.

Yes, we do need an "awe’ of His doings, in our culture. Agreed

What makes you think the Blessed Virgin Mary was “forever emptied of the presence of God” (at least in EVERY sense)?

Low point here in our discussion for you misread my words, hopefully not out of frustration.

I said** her womb was emptied** of His presence. She gave birth.

Are you suggesting there was residual holiness, Presence, in the womb ? Then you did not answer the logic that wherever Jesus went thereafter could be touched, despite "residual Presence , by all ?

**I think I have been very clear Mary was still holy **as we all are in our calling. her calling evolved now to raise the Child (nothing to do with her womb anymore) and to the marriage (having partly to do with the womb, in my opinion, as in consummation).

God’s presence with her was there , just not in her womb. He told the apostles, “God, HS, is with you but shall be in you (at Pentecost)”.

 

[benhur]

I might not treat it exactly the same - but that does not mean I would repurpose it to the most common use either

Interesting. A Catholic insinuating marriage and consummation as “common” and not holy ground also…

 

[bloodfang]

1. Viagra wasn’t invented yet.
2. its her ****ing choice i **** dogs

 

[PRmerger]

Not apples to oranges .

Just to be clear: did you really mean NOT apples to oranges?

 

[benhur]

In your discussion with Catholholic you say that perhaps Joseph refrained from relations in order that the virgin birth of Jesus would be more believable and that after the birth - that was no longer necessary … if I get what you mean here

Right .If you abstain till the birth, for sure it is not yours.

I think that the exact opposite would occur … The claim is that Joseph is not the Father - even though Mary and Joseph are married … If any questioned the paternity of Jesus - Tell me - how does their supposed abstinence between two married persons [before and during the gestation of a baby] prove conception by the Holy Spirit? How does the then subsequent normal relations of the couple after the birth of this child support the Mystery of the Virgin Birth … Really - what you are saying is that two married people claimed - with no proof that she conceived of the Holy Spirit - and then all was just normal … trust us - that’s the way it happened

OK. I think I follow. I would agree that if she was virgin before, during and afterwards it helps say it was divine conception. Disagree its a better version but understand.

You have to start believing somewhere. God could have allowed, prophesied of virgin conception only and we would have to believe it. But God said virgin conception and birth, and we have to believe it. Form there the prophesy ends.

You might think ever virgin helps , but faith is still required, as in all all HS conception scenarios right ?.

What I like about about my belief is that it is more believable , more human, like hey they were normal otherwise. The bible makes Godly feats by men seem real because the heroes are so real , the good, bad and ugly are not hid from us. Also makes it clear it is God, working thru ordinary men. If your story is too tight, too well constructed, some may doubt its genuiness and think it contrived. I think the ever virgin version is in the latter category. It is beyond most marriages, and** instead of strenghtening credibility , may weaken it.
**

So I like my version, for** it is still incredible for her and Joseph to remain virgin up to the birth and very credible thereafter the consummation. **See what remains incredible ? The emphasis is what was prophesied and nothing else.

 

[wmscott]

Looks like this is getting to the end, for this thread at least, I am sure this is not the first of it’s kind and sadly it will not be the last.

Hats off to all that has taken the time to exhaustively explain the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mother. All of you provided voluminous details from the ECFs and Sacred Scripture that refuted the many attacks and falsehoods perpetrated against the Blessed Mother. Sadly it fell on deaf ears for some. Lets pray that a seed was planted to the obstinate and that the Holy Spirit will soften his heart towards Christ Blessed Mother. I also pray that of the many who were just observing that a seed of understanding and enlightenment was planted and that they will come to know and appreciate the Blessed Mother as the Catholic Church does.

Thank You :clapping::clapping::clapping:

 

[benhur]

And this discounts the fact that Mary clearly would have known she was espoused to Joseph AND known how babies were conceived … but said to the Angel - How can this be because I know not man? which - if not as explicit as you might like - clearly indicates she had no intention of engaging in relations with Joseph …

Though very well expressed here on CAF by yourself and others, it is* not so clear,* and not the only explanation, as has been posted.

If they were already married yes, but they were not . They were what we call "engaged’ for lack of a better term. WE all agree Mary was humble and obedient . We say to our kids obedience is not obedience if it is not "immediate " or “right away”. By that definition Mary could not comply ,though she wanted to .Why ? It takes two to “tango” and she did not know of the HS conception yet .

Her comment is a way of telling the angel, ok but it is not up to me, for Joseph has not taken me and i do not know when he will come for me. Can you wait?

And where were all these younger children when Jesus was twelve?

With Mary and Joseph . How do you think they could forget Jesus? Come on , you never would have had this "Home Alone " scenario with an only child , but with a bunch of kids.

 

[PRmerger]

How do you think they could forget Jesus? Come on , you never would have had this "Home Alone " scenario with an only child , but with a bunch of kids.

This demonstrates an impoverished understanding of family. You have a mental picture of a family as being a mom, dad, and kids.

In much of the world, family means: aunts, uncles, cousins, servants, grandparents…

and when a family travels, it’s always chaotic.

You’re picturing Jesus’ family like this:

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1381865/thumbs/s-PERFECT-FAMILY-large.jpg

Instead of like this:

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/...ChU65kjdB1RJb6Z-ByKEOVfI89OFF1ilv0b5qayHqq5wQ

 

[benhur]

Just to be clear: did you really mean NOT apples to oranges?

I was just going to “end”, and now I shall, but not with your usual video that i love so much, but with your catch of my language mistake, that has made me laugh and remind me of my real capabilities (gaffs/normalcy). Thank you. Blessings, and to all.

 

[mskejj]

Though very well expressed here on CAF by yourself and others, it is* not so clear,* and not the only explanation, as has been posted.

If they were already married yes, but they were not . They were what we call "engaged’ for lack of a better term. WE all agree Mary was humble and obedient . We say to our kids obedience is not obedience if it is not "immediate " or “right away”. By that definition Mary could not comply ,though she wanted to .Why ? It takes two to “tango” and she did not know of the HS conception yet .

Her comment is a way of telling the angel, ok but it is not up to me, for Joseph has not taken me and i do not know when he will come for me. Can you wait?

With Mary and Joseph . How do you think they could forget Jesus? Come on , you never would have had this "Home Alone " scenario with an only child , but with a bunch of kids.

You are incorrect. In the eyes of the Jews of the first century…she and Joseph were married. That is why Joseph thought he would divorce her. The couple would “marry” and then the groom would go off to build a home from his bride and then he would come to get her and they would consummate the marriage. There is no timing question from the angel to Mary. He addresses her with a title “full of grace” and she is greatly troubled at what sort of greeting this might be. His announcement that “she will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus.” gives NO indication that it is immediate. For Mary, if she had planned to have relations with her husband, she would not have asked “How CAN this be since I have no husband?” She would have known the story of Sarah from scripture…and would have assumed that it would happen like all other babies are conceived in God’s time. It only makes sense if she had taken a vow of virginity to God. Unlike Zechariah, she doesn’t doubt God but wants to know how this will occur…if she had vowed herself already to God.

 

[Randy_Carson]

If they were already married yes, but they were not . They were what we call "engaged’ for lack of a better term.

Ben-

This is incorrect. They were NOT “engaged” because someone who is engaged and decides to end the relationship simply breaks off the engagement. But scripture says that Joseph had in mind to DIVORCE her quietly. Only married people divorce.

Mary and Joseph were betrothed, a state in which they were married but he had not yet taken her into his own home.

 

[Porknpie]

It wont work, he is going to accuse you of putting forth a red herring when you ask him to read Jerome vs Helvidius

I don’t at all believe this is a red herring. It is evidence that others not only 500 years ago (all the major reformers who were anything but “Tradition”), but 1,600 years ago, believed from scripture that Mary was perpetual virgin. 55 times St. Jerome cites scripture, and St. Jerome by no means was a “Sola/o Scripturist”

And it’s hard to argue, that Theta knows biblical Greek and Hebrew better than St. Jerome.

 

[YADA]

Her comment is a way of telling the angel, ok but it is not up to me, for Joseph has not taken me and i do not know when he will come for me. Can you wait?

With Mary and Joseph . How do you think they could forget Jesus? Come on , you never would have had this "Home Alone " scenario with an only child , but with a bunch of kids.

And look who is adding to the Scriptures now … the above is totally “Addition” to the story …

As for Mary saying - hey its not on my time line … where in the message of Gabriel did he say you are going to conceive right now … in this instance and not at some future time … Its no where … so that is you reading into the story …

As for Joseph and Mary being real people … they were … people before them and since them have taken a vow to serve God and forego earthly pleasures … that is not unique in human history and definitely not in the Judeo-Christian culture …

And engagement - as it is in our culture does not mean the same as espoused in the first century …

You were the one that insinuated that the Holy Spirit told Joseph to abstain until the birth of the child as a witness to the virgin conception and birth … I only asked how that would give testimony to that fact - the private lives of married couples … unless Joseph announced to the world the child was not his - which obviously he did not - because that would have identified her as an adulteress … which was the reason the Angel appeared to Joseph and told him not to be afraid … If you assert that this is some affirmation - I ask how - because if they then live totally normal carnal lives - not that marriage is not sacred - holy and a wonderful estate - but it begs the question … how does abstaining while Mary is pregnant speak if that chaste state is not maintained … You brought it up … I do not buy it - it does not make sense …

By the way - you are adding to the Scripture this communique from the Holy Spirit - no where do the Scriptures tell us that Joseph was commanded to abstain … we are only told by the Gospel writers that he did … and we are not told what occurred between Mary and Joseph after the birth - that is an argument fro silence

 

[Cathoholic]

Benhur.

You said:

Not apples to oranges . Still under OT and dispensation for those chalices

These things (like Sacred consecrated vessels and the Ark that the Holy Spirit “overshadowed” or “episkiosened”), are mere historical prefigurements.

The fulfillment is GREATER than the prefigurement!

These things are historical foreshadowings of greater things to come (Hebrews 10:1). The Blessed Virgin Mary is MUCH greater. Jesus of course in infinitely greater.

If these admonitions were true about mere chalices and Arks, HOW MUCH MORE true would they be about Jesus and the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Benhur. You asked if Ceninthus and Ebion denied Mary’s Perpetual Virginity.

They in fact did. They just took it a step or two further. They denied a Virginal conception undoubtedly because of “the evidence”.

Here is a great review from Karl Keating on what St. John the Evangelist thought of Cerinthus (who St. John the Evangelist personally knew, but apparently he did not like Cerinthus).

Quote . . . .

Let Us Flee for the Enemy of Truth Is Inside

**Karl Keating **

February 13, 2013

. . . . One such man from the end of the first century was Cerinthus, an opponent of John. Cerinthus taught that Jesus was not divine, that there was no Virgin Birth, that Joseph was Jesus’ father, that the Christ came to Jesus only at his baptism and abandoned him at the Crucifixion, and that God did not create the physical world, which was fashioned by lesser beings.

Irenaeus (d. 202), in his Against Heresies, recounts a story told by Polycarp (d. 156), who had studied under John. One day the apostle was in the public baths when Cerinthus entered. John stood up and told . . .

For the whole story see here.

 

[Cathoholic]

Why refrain?

behur you said:

Perhaps to make it perfectly clear that indeed it was the HS that conceived Him.

It is only “perfectly clear” if you believe him (St Joseph).

Many of the Jews did NOT believe Isaiah’s prophecy in IS 7:14, at least in the way fulfilled Jews (Christians) believed it.

What if St. Joseph DIDN’T refrain?

After all, St. Joseph could have said the same thing as you said even without “refraining”.

“Refraining” wasn’t necessary to make that assertion.

The Blessed Virgin Mary was ALREADY found “with child of the Holy Spirit” even when St. Joseph was contemplating putting Mary away.

There is a very good reason WHY St. Joseph would refrain. It is not merely to “convince” others.

No benhur. There is some other reason, MUCH more important as to WHY St. Joseph would know Mary NOT.

Please prayerfully meditate upon the “why” Joseph would refrain at all.

 

[Cathoholic]

benhur.

You said:

Thank you. Blessings, and to all.

Blessings upon you benhur and all here as well and many thanks for the dialogue.

(I am still reading some of today’s posts and getting “caught up” here)

 

[onenow1]

This demonstrates an impoverished understanding of family. You have a mental picture of a family as being a mom, dad, and kids.

In much of the world, family means: aunts, uncles, cousins, servants, grandparents…

and when a family travels, it’s always chaotic.

You’re picturing Jesus’ family like this:

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1381865/thumbs/s-PERFECT-FAMILY-large.jpg

Instead of like this:

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/...ChU65kjdB1RJb6Z-ByKEOVfI89OFF1ilv0b5qayHqq5wQ

The second picture makes me think of the family and friends that have gone to our maker. Most of the family got together at Christmas eve to give thanks to God and have many wishes for each other in the Polish tradition. I miss it.

God Bless