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

[Porknpie]

According to Eusebius in his “Ecclesiastical History” (which I’m reading right now), who quoted earlier ECF’s, Joseph & Mary did indeed have children together after the birth of Jesus.

Eusebius Church history book 2 below. Even if Eusebius were to say something different, in now way is he infallible.

• 1. Then James, whom the ancients surnamed the Just on account of the excellence of his virtue, is recorded to have been the first to be made bishop of the church of Jerusalem. This James was called the brother of the Lord because he was known as a son of Joseph, and Joseph was supposed to be the father of Christ, because the Virgin, being betrothed to him, was found with child by the Holy Ghost before they came together, *

Although you can find ECF’s here & there - even as early as the second century - who believed Mary & Joseph didn’t consummate their marriage after the birth of Jesus (even though Scripture specifically calls Mary the “wife” of Joseph, & Joseph the “husband” of Mary),

Mary and Joseph never “consummated” their marriage in the sense of sexual relations. Married? Certainly.

the belief that they didn’t wasn’t “universally” accepted by the Catholic church as a whole until later.

And neither was the canon of Scripture universally accepted until 382 (Rome), 393 (Hippo) and 397 (Carthage).

The latter raises quite the contradiction:

a) I can trust the Catholic Church to have determined the canon of NT scripture, affirming 27 books out of over 200 (keep in the mind that the same Church affirmed 46 books of the OT…7 have been removed in Protestant bibles after 1,500 years of Church history)

b) I can not trust the same Church on faith and morals. In this case, its affirmation of Mary’s perpetual virginity (interesting, that no one, anywhere in history has claimed to be in the bloodline of Jesus. This is astonishing for a Jewish people that kept meticulous records of such).

If you can not trust the Church on the latter, then on the former, neither can you trust that the bible you own is the inspired and inerrant written Word of God.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

You reference a strict technicality of the term. Although by Jewish literature and writings many reference “Naso - The Nazarite Vow of the Nazarene” see here; kehilath-haderekh-benzi.blogspot.com/2012/06/naso-nazarite-vow-of-nazarene.html

Thank you; I will use the Christian and secular terminology to distinguish a more present clear understanding between a Narite vow and first century Nazarene and fourth century Nazarene’s.

Technically according to Jewish standards the Nazarene’s were not the only Jews who took a Nazarite vow. A Nazarite vow speaks generally of anyone (Jew) becoming Holy before God by a vow. When referencing the Holy Family and John the Baptist, specifically points to those of Nazareth took a Nazarite vow, thus a Nazarene vow.

 

[Elizium23]

There is no such thing as a Nazarene vow. You are conflating a demonym with another Hebrew word. “Nazarene” means “a person from Nazareth” and “Nazirite” means “someone who has taken [this specific] vow”. The two words do not mean the same thing and so you can’t mix them up like that. I understand if perhaps you are not proficient in English and/or Hebrew, but you have been told several times about this and seem not to understand.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Is there any evidence from the Jewish tradition or sources that there actually were virgins consecrated to the temple to remain perpetual virgins. My Jewish friends tell me that this was not a Jewish practice and that Temple Virgins was a Pagan practice that the Jews never adopted. The Jews took Gods command to be Fruitful and Multiply incredibly seriously and did not have any special sacredness connected to Virignity.

It’s important to understand for a Jew who took on a celibacy vow in the form of a Nazarite vow temporarily, or for life was not common. There is no such Jewish practice of consecrated (perpetual) virgins to the temple of God not to be confused with the Jewish practice of ending their Nazarite vows in the temple of God. Although the Jews would end their Nazarite vows at the temple of God when it existed until 70 a.d. Usually in the form of an animal sacrifice. There were dedicated individuals to the service of the temple priest in the temple of God. The maidens who were dedicated to the service of the temple priest, the high priest would select for these maidens a husband for support of their service to the temple priest. At least according to tradition.

The Nazarite vow is not uncommon to Orthodox Jews pre- and post Temple.

See Numbers 6 which references vows of celibacy in the form of a Nazarite vow.

1 Maccabees (part of the Christian Deuterocanon) 3:49 mentions men who had ended their nazirite vows, an example dated to about 166 BCE. Josephus mentions a number of people who had taken the vow, such as his tutor Banns (Antiquities 20.6), and Gamaliel records in the Mishna how the father of Rabbi Chenena made a lifetime nazirite vow before him (Nazir 29b).
The Septuagint uses a number of terms to translate the 16 uses of nazir in the Hebrew Bible, such as “he who vowed” (euxamenos εὐξαμένος)[29] or “he who was made holy” (egiasmenos ἡγιασμένος)[30] etc. It is left untranslated and transliterated in Judges 13:5 as nazir (ναζιρ).[31]

 

[Darryl_B]

Eusebius Church history book 2 below. Even if Eusebius were to say something different, in now way is he infallible.

• 1. Then James, whom the ancients surnamed the Just on account of the excellence of his virtue, is recorded to have been the first to be made bishop of the church of Jerusalem. This James was called the brother of the Lord because he was known as a son of Joseph,* and Joseph was supposed to be the father of Christ, because the Virgin, being betrothed to him, was found with child by the Holy Ghost before they came together,

I would tend to take the relationship to Joseph (not Mary) as the precedent for all occurrences of “brothers of the Lord”.

I would also tend to think that there was universal acceptance of this, and that it was not until the protestant that discoloration was surmised.

What I struggle with is why it is so fundamentally important to discolor Mary’s virginity. What is the motivation? What is the intended result?

 

[Path_Finder]

I think Jesus was supposed to be descended from the house of David, and this happens because he is the step son of Joseph. Just thinking here. Have to look that up.!

Luke 1:26, yes, St. Joseph.

And, this debated question often ends with both Mary and Joseph being descended from the House of David.

 

[GFresa9]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Jesus have a brother named James?
Also, under Jewish tradition, the marriage isn’t official until the big shebang happens.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Jesus have a brother named James?

You’re wrong. Mary had no other children besides Jesus.

Also, under Jewish tradition, the marriage isn’t official until the big shebang happens.

This was not a marriage that was intended to be consummated.

 

[prodromos]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Jesus have a brother named James?

James was the son of Joseph but not the son of Mary. Orthodox tradition is that Joseph was a widower with grown children of his own when he was chosen to be Mary’s guardian.
Salome, the mother of James and John, was also one of Joseph’s children.

So in one sense it is correct to refer to James the elder as Jesus’ brother, because Joseph was the father of James by blood, and the father of Jesus by law. There is no other way to describe their relationship in Hebrew culture other than as brothers.

 

[GFresa9]

James was the son of Joseph but not the son of Mary. Orthodox tradition is that Joseph was a widower with grown children of his own when he was chosen to be Mary’s guardian.
Salome, the mother of James and John, was also one of Joseph’s children.

So in one sense it is correct to refer to James the elder as Jesus’ brother, because Joseph was the father of James by blood, and the father of Jesus by law. There is no other way to describe their relationship in Hebrew culture other than as brothers.

Thank you for correcting me.

 

[joe371]

If no man may have relations with Mary… EVEN AFTER she gave birth to Jesus and was married…
Why on earth was she married?

Are Nuns married to a man and then told not to have relations?
NO

Are priests married to women and then told not to have relations?
NO

If God tells a person that they must remain a virgin… then that person goes and gets married…that makes no sence.

UNLESS being full of grace has nothing to do with remaining a virgin your whole life.

Fair enough. I see where it says that priests and nuns cannot get married. Where does it say that once married the couple is obligated to have children. Certainly this particular situation was a little different than your run-of-the mill union i.e. Mary gave birth to the Son of God; something tells me that her entire focus would have been on her Son, the God-man. Call me crazy. LOL. Perhaps Joseph was chosen to be Mary’s spouse and protector in life, which makes perfect sense in the first century, as per Jewish customs.

 

[joe371]

Maybe it has to do with the environment that Jesus was born into. It would have been a great shame to Jesus if he had no imputed father. That would make Jesus appear to be illegitimate and Mary to be of low moral character.

Such labels would have seriously impaired Jesus’ ability to preach His message, especially in the Jewish society of that time.

And, the young Jesus needed a human father in his life like every boy does.

Paul

 

[joe371]

Joseph getting married to mary so that people would THINK christ was his son is dishonest.

And the idea that christ needed to have a traditional family to grow up in dosent make sense… would you lie to GOD and tell him that joseph was his father?

Jesus would have known that joseph was not his father because HE IS GOD and canot be lied to.

No, Jesus did not need to have a traditional family to grow up. Yes, Jesus would have known that Joseph was not his father because HE IS GOD. Yes God can be lied to; it’s called free will. Of course, no one in their right mind would lie to God. Did Joseph claim to be the biological father of Jesus, or did Mary claim that Joseph was Jesus’ biological father? That would be a lie, so no. Neither Joseph nor Mary would lie. How did they explain it? No one knows. With God, nothing is impossible.

Joseph did not get married to trick people. He even planned to “divorce her quietly”. However, he did God’s will:

This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came aboutd]: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. 19 Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yete] did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly. 20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, **do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, **because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus,f] because he will save his people from their sins.”

I know I could never have relations with someone who just gave birth to the mother of God. That’s just me though…

 

[joe371]

You wrote, “It was never her intent to marry in the first place, but she did so as a protection of her vow of perpetual virginity.”

How do you know that she took a “vow of perpetual virginity” and was it a common practice for women who took a “vow of perpetual virginity” to get married?

You also wrote, “Joseph, was an older man”, how do you know?

You then wrote, “probably a widower”, how do you know?

As far as, “to bring her into his home for protection from other young suitors”, seems that if Joseph did have a home to bring Mary into, they should did not stay there long, did they?

The short answer: we do not know; no one person in the world knows. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that is all it is - an opinion. We, as Catholics, (I am a former Protestant) believe that the Spirit of Truth guided Jesus’ church into all truth, and will continue to guide Jesus’ church into all truth until He returns; therefore we trust Jesus’ church, beginning with the apostolic leaders who passed on, via apostolic succession, those doctrinal truths entrusted to them by Jesus; that is the faith, and such guidance is scriptural. Like you indirectly stated: there is no way any one person could answer your questions because no one person (past, present or future) is exclusively guided by God in terms of discerning doctrinal truth - right?

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Mary was married to and im guessing lived with her husband.
Why would they NOT engage in reproducing children?

I’d say it was a personal decision by her, and I think it would have caused a lot of tension between her and Joseph. He’s hardly mentioned in the Gospels other than in the nativity episode, and I have my own thoughts about that.

I mean if you were a full blooded male, and your young and attractive wife refused to have sexual relations with you, you’d be a bit tense at times.

However the fact is that Mary had the experience of the archangel Gabriel visiting her, and her memory of this would have been vivid. She also knew from experience she was the virgin mother of a child, and this was obviously a miracle of God.

So she’d have been caught between the revelation she received from God, and the normal expectation of her husband. As the “Mother of God”, what attitude should she have had to sex with her husband?

I think we tend to gloss over this problematic issue in the Holy Family. Christ is regarded as the “man of sorrows”. I wonder if He endured some tension at home as a child, as so many do? At least He’d have some experience of suffering to relate to before He actually started His ministry.

After all for God to say “This is my Son - in Him I am well pleased”, I suspect He would have had to endure some trials before that declaration.

 

[thetazlord]

Right, but you being of the human race means the human nature is passed to all and all are from Adam post fall. It wasn’t the sin, it was the resulting consequence of the sin which we are all part of.

I understand that, but in context of what I said

I don’t know why that’s an issue, since sin isn’t something that is transmitted “genetically.”

I was referring to the fact that since sin isn’t transmitted genetically, why would it be an issue for Mary to remain a virgin after the birth of Christ. Refer back to my original reply.

 

[thetazlord]

Eusebius Church history book 2 below. Even if Eusebius were to say something different, in now way is he infallible.

• 1. Then James, whom the ancients surnamed the Just on account of the excellence of his virtue, is recorded to have been the first to be made bishop of the church of Jerusalem. This James was called the brother of the Lord because he was known as a son of Joseph,* and Joseph was supposed to be the father of Christ, because the Virgin, being betrothed to him, was found with child by the Holy Ghost before they came together,

Mary and Joseph never “consummated” their marriage in the sense of sexual relations. Married? Certainly.

And neither was the canon of Scripture universally accepted until 382 (Rome), 393 (Hippo) and 397 (Carthage).

The latter raises quite the contradiction:

a) I can trust the Catholic Church to have determined the canon of NT scripture, affirming 27 books out of over 200 (keep in the mind that the same Church affirmed 46 books of the OT…7 have been removed in Protestant bibles after 1,500 years of Church history)

b) I can not trust the same Church on faith and morals. In this case, its affirmation of Mary’s perpetual virginity (interesting, that no one, anywhere in history has claimed to be in the bloodline of Jesus. This is astonishing for a Jewish people that kept meticulous records of such).

If you can not trust the Church on the latter, then on the former, neither can you trust that the bible you own is the inspired and inerrant written Word of God.

Sorry, still haven’t been home long enough to refer to my copy of Eusebius. But there are at least a dozen references about Joseph, Mary, James, & Jude from earlier ECFs that make it clear that Jesus had half-brothers. And as far as the NT canon goes, as earlier as the SECOND Century, a 27 NEW Testament canon was recognized by the Church. In fact, as far back as the mid-FIRST Century, when the apostles such as Paul & Peter were still alive, the NT books that were written up to that point, such as ALL of Paul’s epistles & the Gospel of Luke, were recognized as Inspired Scripture. But that’s a separate issue. The fact is that ECF’s as early as the second Century - recorded by Eusebius - wrote & believed that Jesus had half-brothers - & even named them.

 

[cena]

James was the son of Joseph but not the son of Mary. Orthodox tradition is that Joseph was a widower with grown children of his own when he was chosen to be Mary’s guardian.
Salome, the mother of James and John, was also one of Joseph’s children.

So in one sense it is correct to refer to James the elder as Jesus’ brother, because Joseph was the father of James by blood, and the father of Jesus by law. There is no other way to describe their relationship in Hebrew culture other than as brothers.

James the greater- Matthew 4:21-And going on from thence, he saw other two brethren, **James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in a ship with Zebedee their father, mending their nets: and he called **them.

James the Lesser-Luke 6:15 Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon called the Zealot,

 

[prodromos]

James the greater- Matthew 4:21-And going on from thence, he saw other two brethren, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in a ship with Zebedee their father, mending their nets: and he called them.

James the Lesser-Luke 6:15 Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon called the Zealot,

James, the brother of our Lord, was not one of the twelve.

 

[cena]

James, the brother of our Lord, was not one of the twelve.

You said James the elder so I just assumed you were talking about John’s brother