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

[SyroMalankara]

Jesus would know since He’s God, as to the others, they seem to already know either by word or context: Luke 1:34 - ἐπεὶ ἄνδρα οὐ γινώσκω (since I do not know man).

 

[SyroMalankara]

I think those first few centuries, it was understood that Jesus had both brothers and sisters via Mary and Joseph.
They are mentioned in the gospels, written within 80-90 years of his death.

Bzz, wrong again. The Eastern Churches have always taught that these “brothers and sisters” were Joseph’s children from his marriage to Salome. Joseph was an older man, a widower. He is also the brother of Cleopas. Cleopas’ children are also referred to as Jesus’ “brothers and sisters” in Scripture, even though they are actually cousins. This is very common in Eastern cultures, and even Italy, Spain, etc.

There were other early “church fathers” like Tertillian who did not teach perpetual virginity, so there was apparently different beliefs about this early on.

So what? The Church’s teachings rarely rely on one church father, and almost never on only one who was later into heretical teachings.

 

[Randy_Carson]

it was understood that Jesus had both brothers and sisters via Mary and Joseph. They are mentioned in the gospels.

Have you ever noticed that they are always mentioned as Brothers and sisters of Jesus but NEVER as children of Mary? Why not?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

1. Therefore, neither apostle named James was a uterine brother of Jesus.
2. 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)

1. 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.

There were other early “church fathers” like Tertillian who did not teach perpetual virginity, so there was apparently different beliefs about this early on.

Perhaps. Let’s take a look:

Origen

“The Book [the Proto-evangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the firstfruit of virginity” (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).

"There is no child of Mary except Jesus, according to the opinion of those who think correctly about her." (Commentary on John 1, 4; PG 14, 32, in Gambero, Mary and the Fathers of the Church, 75.)

Hilary of Poitiers

“Indeed many depraved men give authority to their opinion that our Lord Jesus Christ was known to have brothers (and sisters). While if these were really the sons of Mary and not those of Joseph from a former marriage, never would our Lord at the time of his passion have given Mary to the apostle John to be his mother by saying to both of them, ‘Woman behold your son,’ and to John, ‘Behold your mother,’ unless he were leaving the charity of a son in the disciple for the solace of his now desolate mother.” (Commentary on Matthew, in Buby, Mary of Galilee, III, 134)

Athanasius

“Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary” (Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).

“If Mary would have had another son, the Savior would not have neglected her nor would he have confided his mother to another person, indeed she had not become the mother of another. Mary, moreover, would not have abandoned her own sons to live with another, for she fully realized a mother never abandons her spouse nor her children. And since she continued to remain a virgin even after the birth of the Lord, he gave her as mother to the disciple, even though she was not his mother; he confided her to John because of his great purity of conscience and because of her intact virginity.” (“De virginitate,” in Buby, Mary ofGalilee, III, 104)

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

**Epiphanius **

“We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit” (The Man Well-Anchored 120 [A.D. 374]).

“And to holy Mary, [the title] ‘Virgin’ is invariably added, for that holy woman remains undefiled” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 78:6 [A.D. 375]).

Jerome

“[Helvidius] produces Tertullian as a witness [to his view] and quotes Victorinus, bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian, I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proven from the gospel—that he [Victorinus] spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship, not by nature. [By discussing such things we] are . . . following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against [the heretics] Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man” (Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 19 [A.D. 383]).

“We believe that God was born of a virgin, because we read it. We do not believe that Mary was married after she brought forth her Son, because we do not read it. . . . You [Helvidius] say that Mary did not remain a virgin. As for myself, I claim that Joseph himself was a virgin, through Mary, so that a virgin Son might be born of a virginal wedlock” (ibid., 21).

**Didymus the Blind **

“It helps us to understand the terms ‘first-born’ and ‘only-begotten’ when the Evangelist tells that Mary remained a virgin ‘until she brought forth her first-born son’ [Matt. 1:25]; for neither did Mary, who is to be honored and praised above all others, marry anyone else, nor did she ever become the Mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin” (The Trinity 3:4 [A.D. 386]).

**Ambrose **

“Imitate her [Mary], holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of material virtue; for neither have you sweeter children [than Jesus], nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son” (Letters 63:111 [A.D. 388]).

"Behold the miracle of Our Lord’s Mother. She conceived, a Virgin; she brought forth, a Virgin. A Virgin was she when she conceived, a Virgin when pregnant, a Virgin after childbirth: as it is says in Ezekiel: And the gate was shut, and it was not opened for the Lord passed through it.” (“Homily for Christmas,” in Buby, Mary of Galilee, III, 128.)

**Pope Siricius I **

“You had good reason to be horrified at the thought that another birth might issue from the same virginal womb from which Christ was born according to the flesh. For the Lord Jesus would never have chosen to be born of a virgin if he had ever judged that she would be so incontinent as to contaminate with the seed of human intercourse the birthplace of the Lord’s body, that court of the eternal king” (Letter to Bishop Anysius [A.D. 392]).

**Augustine **

“In being born of a Virgin who chose to remain a Virgin even before she knew who was to be born of her, Christ wanted to approve virginity rather than to impose it. And he wanted virginity to be of free choice even in that woman in whom he took upon himself the form of a slave” (Holy Virginity 4:4 [A.D. 401]).

**Leporius **

“We confess, therefore, that our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, born of the Father before the ages, and in times most recent, made man of the Holy Spirit and the ever-virgin Mary” (Document of Amendment 3 [A.D. 426]).

**Cyril of Alexandria **

“[T]he Word himself, coming into the Blessed Virgin herself, assumed for himself his own temple from the substance of the Virgin and came forth from her a man in all that could be externally discerned, while interiorly he was true God. Therefore he kept his Mother a virgin even after her childbearing” (Against Those Who Do Not Wish to Confess That the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God 4 [A.D. 430]).

 

[zz912]

You wrote, “No man may touch was is holy to God”

Would you consider God-Incarnate “holy”?

I was referring to something that was consecrated to God. Similar to things used in the Temple worship, or the Ark. Once they were consecrated to God, they could never be used for normal purposes. Yes, God-Incarnate is holy. But He IS God, and He can choose to make Himself available to man.

As far as, “She was married to Joseph and would soon enter into his home.”, Mary was NOT married to Joseph at the time, she was betrothed to Joseph.

Yes, she WAS married to Joseph. That is why she is referred to as his wife, and why Scripture says that Joseph planned to quietly divorce her. You can’t divorce someone you’re not married to.

She was married to Joseph, but she had not entered into his home yet.

Concerning, “She was no dummy and knew how babies were made, and yet she was puzzled how she would give birth to a child. This implies she was never going to have sexual relations with Joseph”, no it doesn’t, it clearly implied just what she said, “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?””.

A married woman who is soon to enter into her husband’s house and commence a normal marriage would not be puzzled about HOW she would give birth to a son.

Mary and the Angel were talking about the present in both the sense of time and the gift from God of the Incarnation.

See above.

 

[zz912]

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.

Joseph claimed and took Jesus as his foster child, so Jesus was his son. Scripture even refers to Joseph as his father. Jesus held all rights and priviledges and was a true legal heir to Joseph and to Joseph’s ancestor King David.

It’s not dishonest at all.

 

[GraceUnderFire]

It was never her intent to marry in the first place, but she did so as a protection of her vow of perpetual virginity. Joseph, was an older man, probably a widower, and he married Mary, not to take a second wife, but to bring her into his home for protection from other young suitors.

Bingo! Mary was consecrated to God from her youth. Tradition tells us after she was presented in the Temple and totally consecrated to God!


When Mary asked the Angel Gabriel how she would conceive because she “didn’t know man” she was pondering how her vow of chastity would mesh with her vow of virginity. Of course, we know that the Holy Spirit overshadowed her, not a mortal man.

Since Mary is the Ark, nothing else could enter it. Also, there is a passage in OT scripture about the gate being shut and only open to God. This is also a reference to Mary. Glory be to God! It’s a great mystery.

 

[zz912]

Did Jesus, Mary, or Joseph give this information to someone verbally?
Would Mary have told her son at some point that she was a virgin, and then he told this information to the men who followed him?

I ponder why her perpetual virginity didn’t become doctrine until the 4th Century or so.

.

It wasn’t until the 4th century that someone started to question her perpetual virginity. The Church defines teaching when needed.

 

[GraceUnderFire]

It wasn’t until the 4th century that someone started to question her perpetual virginity. The Church defines teaching when needed.

I think if a lot of Protestants think about this–what early Christians believed–they wouldn’t be Protestant anymore. Their church looks very little like the early Church. That would scare the heck out of me. #ComeHome

 

[Randy_Carson]

I think if a lot of Protestants think about this–what early Christians believed–they wouldn’t be Protestant anymore. Their church looks very little like the early Church. That would scare the heck out of me. #ComeHome

"This one thing at least is certain; whatever history teaches, whatever it omits, whatever it exaggerates or extenuates, whatever it says and unsays, at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this.

“And Protestantism has ever felt it so. I do not mean that every writer on the Protestant side has felt it; for it was the fashion at first, at least as a rhetorical argument against Rome, to appeal to past ages, or to some of them; but Protestantism, as a whole, feels it, and has felt it. This is shown in the determination already referred to of dispensing with historical Christianity altogether, and of forming a Christianity from the Bible alone: men never would have put [history] aside, unless they had despaired of it … To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.” (John Henry Newman, Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, Introduction, 4,5)

 

[PaulDupre1]

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.

My step-son and step-daughter know full well that I am not their biological father, but they both call me “dad” and introduce me to friends as their father. There is nothing dishonest about it. My wife, when talking to them, refers to me as “your dad” and they know exactly whom she’s talking about.

I raised them both from the time they were toddlers. I consider them my children and they consider me their father. Except when necessary (as in a post like this) I have never used the prefix “step-” in reference to those two of my four children.

I understand perfectly where Joseph and Mary were coming from.

Paul

 

[rinnie]

Why do you think she would not have needed to say this to Jesus?
He and they all may have thought she just could not get pregnant again.

.

Well because he is God and knows everything. He knows what we will and will not do, how we will die, when etc.

Do you think God did not know Mary gave her life up for him, to never take a Man? Because the Angel knew it quite well when Mary told him. And the Angel said Mary you have found favor with God. So I think we can agree God knows.

 

[EnglishTeacher]

Have you ever noticed that they are always mentioned as Brothers and sisters of Jesus but NEVER as children of Mary? Why not?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

1. Therefore, neither apostle named James was a uterine brother of Jesus.
2. 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)

1. 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.

Thanks so much for this post! I am going to copy and paste it and save it somewhere for next time I hear someone say that “Mary couldn’t have remained a virgin because the Bible says Jesus had brothers and sisters.”

I am shocked that the Protestants I have talked to (most of whom are pretty well versed in Scripture) have never mapped out the connections between these people before (i.e., which apostles were related to whom) to see that none of them could have been the sons of Mary, mother of Jesus. It’s all logical, and it’s all entirely laid out in Scripture. There is really no refuting it, even for the most “Bible-only” Protestants. Thanks again!

 

[GraceUnderFire]

Bingo! Mary was consecrated to God from her youth. Tradition tells us after she was presented in the Temple and totally consecrated to God!
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tBCYSJfF7lI/TsM8MNqcftI/AAAAAAAAI5c/BQh5bwXMOVg/s1600/m-presta%5B1%5D.gif

When Mary asked the Angel Gabriel how she would conceive because she “didn’t know man**” she was pondering how her vow of chastity would mesh with her vow of virginity.** Of course, we know that the Holy Spirit overshadowed her, not a mortal man.

Since Mary is the Ark, nothing else could enter it. Also, there is a passage in OT scripture about the gate being shut and only open to God. This is also a reference to Mary. Glory be to God! It’s a great mystery.

I meant to say how her vow of chastity would mesh with the Angel’s message of her having a child.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Thanks so much for this post! I am going to copy and paste it and save it somewhere for next time I hear someone say that “Mary couldn’t have remained a virgin because the Bible says Jesus had brothers and sisters.”

I am shocked that the Protestants I have talked to (most of whom are pretty well versed in Scripture) have never mapped out the connections between these people before (i.e., which apostles were related to whom) to see that none of them could have been the sons of Mary, mother of Jesus. It’s all logical, and it’s all entirely laid out in Scripture. There is really no refuting it, even for the most “Bible-only” Protestants. Thanks again!

:tiphat:

 

[Erich]

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

The following post, from another thread, pretty well sums it up:

Tantum_ergo:

Also, consider that Jesus is the Son of God. He is the legitimate Son of God.

Did God stop being the Father of Jesus? No. Since God is the legitimate father and Mary the legitimate mother, the only way for Mary to take ‘another’ husband without commiting adultery would be if God wasn’t really the legitimate Father or that He ‘divorced’ Mary.

OR, if Mary had REALLY been planning to marry and consummate the marriage with Joseph, what does that make God? It makes God the kind of God who like the Greek and Roman gods beds human women, has ‘half-human/half God’ offspring and then casts the woman aside as not ‘good’ enough for Olympus. It makes God into the kind of God who takes Mary to be the mother of HIS child and CUCKOLDING Joseph.

Is it FAIR of God to take a woman who was promised and intended to marry another man, impregnate her, and then say to Joseph, “OK, I’ve used her the way I want, NOW you can have her after me?” Is it fair to the relationship of a man and woman who planned to have ‘regular’ sexual relations to have the woman raising (as the man’s) the child of ANOTHER man and expect their lives to ‘go on as planned?’

Is it fair of God to play around with the love of a man and woman, which is what it would have been if Mary had planned to have a ‘sexual’ marriage with Joseph?

Is it fair to JESUS for God to use His mother as an ‘incubator’ and then leave Jesus as a huge reminder to Joseph, always feeling ‘apart’ from the ‘other kids’ who would be both Mary’s and Joseph’s? To put Joseph in the shoes of having to raise "the son of God’ and have that child (who was not Joseph’s ‘own’) always be considered as the oldest son, the heir, while the younger boys who ‘were’ Joseph’s ‘own’ would not have their true rights as the REAL ‘sons’ of Joseph?? How do you think those children would feel about their brother? Would they even really believe He was the son of God, and not some ‘lie’ foisted by Mary onto their father? How would they view their mother --as somebody who tried to lie and cheat and raise some ‘bastard’ above them and take their legal rights and status, take all the attention?

NOT exactly the kind of family you would think that God would want for any child, let alone that by your thinking God would have PLANNED to cuckold Joseph, rob Joseph’s ‘own’ children of their legal rights, and put them in the position of being party to what would have been lies (Jesus was NOT ‘the son of the carpenter’ or the ‘oldest child’, Mary would have been viewed as a slut, the children’s status even when the truth ‘came out’ would have been even WORSE than before). . .

Whereas by the grace of God and the testimony and the grace accorded by the Holy Spirit who LEADS US TO ALL TRUTH – the understanding of the truth --that God did NOT cuckold Joseph, that there were no ‘other children’ who would be robbed of their rights and would be made miserable–we have a situation where Joseph is shown to be a righteous, chaste, and WORTHY foster father to the ONE child for whom he freely takes on responsibility ‘on earth’. . .we have Mary’s love not divided between ‘God’ and ‘earthly’ but fully given to God and SUPPORTED by Joseph–we have Jesus not overshadowing and robbing his brothers and sisters or being unfairly elevated, but living with a father and mother who could devote themselves to GOD and His Son without anything coming between.

It’s so much more reasonable a picture–and it’s also the picture that has been presented through Christianity over the last 2000 years and endorsed by greater thinkers than any of us here –

in fact, the idea that Joseph and Mary were sexually ‘intimate’ was not even a concept which the first PROTESTANTS believed as is shown by the fact that Martin Luther believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. It is very much a ‘modern’ idea based on the hypersexualization of our culture along with the often unconscious desire to try to make Mary (and Joseph, and even Jesus) into more ‘human’ people, i.e., people ‘just like us’. . .and to dismiss as ‘absurd’ ideas such as perpetual virginity, continence, and giving ‘all’ to God instead of living a ‘normal’ life and giving Him anything ‘left over’ when and if it suits us too. . .

As I said earlier, the Bible is an excellent TOOL but it is not self-interpreting nor is it our AUTHORITY. There is a lot the Bible never tells us (what did Jesus do between the ages of 12 and 30, for example), and that’s because it doesn’t HAVE to. The Church has the authority to teach (and the Church’s teachings will not CONTRADICT Scripture and in fact the perpetual virginity does NOT contradict Scripture in any way). . .but it doesn’t HAVE to tell us WHY, WHEN, WHERE and HOW as if it were discussing a movie of the week about Mary’s perpetual virginity, complete with touching backstory and ‘guaranteed proof from eyewitness reports’. The Church teaches that Mary was a perpetual Virgin, it’s in the catechism, it’s in the teachings spread back over the centuries because that’s the way the Holy Spirit wanted to have us taught.

 

[Tom_Baum]

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

If Mary would not have gotten married, there is a good chance that Jesus would not have been born since Mary may have been stoned to death.

 

[Tom_Baum]

It was never her intent to marry in the first place, but she did so as a protection of her vow of perpetual virginity. Joseph, was an older man, probably a widower, and he married Mary, not to take a second wife, but to bring her into his home for protection from other young suitors.

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?

 

[Tom_Baum]

Why did Mary Get Married?

The Protoevangelium of James was written around A.D. 120, when some of those who had known the apostles were still alive. It records that Mary was dedicated before her birth to serve the Lord in the temple, as Samuel had been dedicated by his mother (1 Sam. 1:11). This required perpetual virginity of Mary so that she could completely devote herself to the service of the Lord.

According to the Protoevangelium of James, concerns about ceremonial cleanliness required that Mary have a male protector who would respect her vow of virginity. Joseph was “chosen by lot to take into [his] keeping the Virgin of the Lord.” His duty to guard Mary was taken so seriously that when Mary conceived, Joseph had to answer to the temple authorities. So Mary’s betrothal to Joseph was not in conflict with her vow of virginity.

Taken from:

Was Mary a Perpetual Virgin?
By Christine Pinheiro
catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0512sbs.asp

You wrote, “The Protoevangelium of James was written around A.D. 120”

Do you know why this “Protoevangelium of James” was not included in the books that made their way into what is now known as the bible?

 

[TxGodfollower]

The protestant insistence that Mary had other children is absurd and lessens the specialness and uniqueness of Jesus, and the roles that Mary and Joseph played in His life.

How does Christ having siblings reduce his specialness and uniqueness? He would still be Perfect, God, and have no biological father.