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

[TxGodfollower]

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.

The names in Matthew 15:35 are fairly common names. It is very possible that the Judas the Apostle was a completely different Judas than the one listed as Christ’s brother.

As to your other point (why are they called Jesus’ brothers not Mary’s kids) is cultural. Look throughout the Bible at how many times people are called the ‘son of abc (their father)’ or the ‘brother of xyz’. I believe the few times when someone is referred to as son of mom is in cases like Bathsheba.

 

[TxGodfollower]

Mary, having had no other children after Jesus, would not have needed to explicitly say this for Jesus and his followers to know. In addition, the oldest Traditions of the Church record that St. Joseph was older and died before Jesus’ ministry, probably in Jesus’ youth.

Men on average die younger than women. Christ started his ministry at the age of 30. The youngest Joseph could reasonably be when Christ was born was probably 14. So, at the time of Christ’s ministry, he would have been atleast 44. According to a History Today article, average life expectancy in the Roman Empire: 25-30. Obviously that is skewed a bit by infant mortality rates and soliders in war, but even if you took those out, you’d probably be looking at 35-40. So, Joseph didn’t have to be significantly older than Mary to die first.

 

[Tom_Baum]

Well, we may also ask, “why on earth did Jesus get baptized?” Did Jesus really *need *to be born again, and have His sins forgiven by baptism? Our Lord did this as an example to us. Mary’s marriage to Joseph is also an example to us. Children need both a mother and a father in the home. The example of Mary as a single mother would not be the example that God wants us to have.

Here is another reason as to why Mary would remain a virgin. Think about it - Jesus is no ordinary child. If you were overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, carried the Incarnation of God in your body for 9 months, and gave birth to the Savior of mankind, you would be so profoundly changed that nothing of this world would hold any appeal to you.

Look at the lives of the seers in approved apparitions of Jesus or Mary. Those people spend the rest of their lives looking heavenward, not earthward. They are so interiorly changed, they can’t wait to die! I maintain that the encounters of Mary and Joseph with God are so transforming, that it would be impossible to keep a mundane life of child-rearing like everyone else. Mary and Joseph’s mission and vocation was to raise the Redeemer to adulthood, without the distractions of other children. 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.

You asked, “Well, we may also ask, “why on earth did Jesus get baptized?””

First off, Jesus told us that it was supposed to happen and Jesus made sure that it did happen.

Ever heard of the “one baptism for the forgiveness of sins”?

Sometimes God does stuff right in front of us and we are blind to what God is doing.

You have heard that Jesus took ALL of the sins of ALL upon Himself on the cross, haven’t you?

If Jesus was capable of that, it stands to reason that God could have “baptized” the whole human race thru John’s baptism of Jesus and that is at least part of the reason that Jesus saw to it that John did baptize Him.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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?

Common enough that the Law of Moses had clauses devoted to questions about such vows.

Mary’s Vow of Perpetual Virginity in Light of Numbers 30

Many people question whether Mary remained a virgin all of her life, and they dispute the idea that Mary had taken a vow of consecration to God. However, the Law of Moses contained specific instructions for both men and women who had made vows to the Lord. Let’s take a look:

Numbers 30:1-16
1 Moses said to the heads of the tribes of Israel: "This is what the LORD commands: 2 When a man makes a vow to the LORD or takes an oath to obligate himself by a pledge, he must not break his word but must do everything he said.

3 "When a young woman still living in her father’s house makes a vow to the LORD or obligates herself by a pledge 4 and her father hears about her vow or pledge but says nothing to her, then all her vows and every pledge by which she obligated herself will stand. 5 But if her father forbids her when he hears about it, none of her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand; the LORD will release her because her father has forbidden her.

6 "If she marries after she makes a vow or after her lips utter a rash promise by which she obligates herself 7 and her husband hears about it but says nothing to her, then her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand. 8 But if her husband forbids her when he hears about it, he nullifies the vow that obligates her or the rash promise by which she obligates herself, and the LORD will release her.

9 "Any vow or obligation taken by a widow or divorced woman will be binding on her.

10 “If a woman living with her husband makes a vow or obligates herself by a pledge under oath 11 and her husband hears about it but says nothing to her and does not forbid her, then all her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand. 12 But if her husband nullifies them when he hears about them, then none of the vows or pledges that came from her lips will stand. Her husband has nullified them, and the LORD will release her. 13 Her husband may confirm or nullify any vow she makes or any sworn pledge to deny herself. 14 But if her husband says nothing to her about it from day to day, then he confirms all her vows or the pledges binding on her. He confirms them by saying nothing to her when he hears about them. 15 If, however, he nullifies them some time after he hears about them, then he is responsible for her guilt.”

16 These are the regulations the LORD gave Moses concerning relationships between a man and his wife, and between a father and his young daughter still living in his house.

From this passage, we can see that the Law of Moses contained instructions for determining which vows were to be honored and which could be nullified by the parents or husband of a woman. While this passage does not provide any evidence that Mary had taken a vow of chastity, it does demonstrate that vows to God did occur in ancient Jewish society and that they were to be taken very seriously.

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

I could say, “The Didache”, but that would be boring. How about simply pointing out that Joseph never appears in scripture after Jesus is found in the Temple? He wasn’t at the Wedding Feast in Cana. He wasn’t at the crucifixion with Mary. Why not?

I’ll just pose this question: If Joseph was an older man, and he died sometime before Jesus’ public ministry began, wouldn’t that explain the absence of Joseph in the Book of Acts?

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

Because the Didache says so? No. Okay, how about the idea that the “brothers and sisters of Jesus” (who are NEVER called the children of Mary or Joseph, btw), are really half-siblings and not Mary’s biological children?

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?

No, they did not. Herod’s desire to kill Jesus made that impossible.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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?

Yes.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The names in Matthew 15:35 are fairly common names. It is very possible that the Judas the Apostle was a completely different Judas than the one listed as Christ’s brother.

Judas Iscariot was dead at the time referenced in Acts 1:13 which states that “Judas the son of James” was with the group, so yes, there were to Judes or Judases at least.

As to your other point (why are they called Jesus’ brothers not Mary’s kids) is cultural. Look throughout the Bible at how many times people are called the ‘son of abc (their father)’ or the ‘brother of xyz’. I believe the few times when someone is referred to as son of mom is in cases like Bathsheba.

True enough. But women played a prominent role in the Early Church, and their presence is noted by verses such as this one which I provided:

“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)

Still, those who are named as “brothers of the Lord” have been shown to be sons of other women. Do you have still other brothers in mind?

 

[Tom_Baum]

It’s not part of Sacred Tradition but a part of small “t” tradition. This book as other’s which support Catholic theology and faith never meets the canon used by the Catholic Church to measure = canon the books of the bible. Each book had to prove it was used in the Apostolic Liturgy (Mass) and an Apostolic successor had to prove it was handed down to them from an Apostle. The New Testament books we have today, the Church canonized them as authentic letters from the apostles inspired of God.

For the record, Officially the Catholic church’s first Protoevangelium is recorded in Genesis 3:15

Matthew records his witness of St. Joseph genealogy and that St. Joseph is a “righteous man”, who was visited by an angel multiple times regarding the blessed perpetual virgin.

You wrote, “For the record, Officially the Catholic church’s first Protoevangelium is recorded in Genesis 3:15”

Genesis 3:15: “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; They will strike at your head, while you strike at their heel.”

What are you trying to say here?

You then wrote, “Matthew records his witness of St. Joseph genealogy and that St. Joseph is a “righteous man”, who was visited by an angel multiple times regarding the blessed perpetual virgin”.

Some call this Jesus’s genealogy but you are right it is Joseph’s genealogy not Jesus’s.

Where does it say anything about “the blessed perpetual virgin” in Matthew’s account of the genealogy?

 

[Randy_Carson]

You wrote, “For the record, Officially the Catholic church’s first Protoevangelium is recorded in Genesis 3:15”

Genesis 3:15: “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; They will strike at your head, while you strike at their heel.”

What are you trying to say here?

You then wrote, “Matthew records his witness of St. Joseph genealogy and that St. Joseph is a “righteous man”, who was visited by an angel multiple times regarding the blessed perpetual virgin”.

Some call this Jesus’s genealogy but you are right it is Joseph’s genealogy not Jesus’s.

Where does it say anything about “the blessed perpetual virgin” in Matthew’s account of the genealogy?

Mary’s genealogy is given by Luke. You may have noticed that the two are different?

 

[Tom_Baum]

Nevertheless, Mary did tell Jesus that Joseph was His father:

If you know this, then when is this supposed to have happened?

Personally, I do NOT believe that Mary lied to Jesus.

 

[rinnie]

Common enough that the Law of Moses had clauses devoted to questions about such vows.

Mary’s Vow of Perpetual Virginity in Light of Numbers 30

Many people question whether Mary remained a virgin all of her life, and they dispute the idea that Mary had taken a vow of consecration to God. However, the Law of Moses contained specific instructions for both men and women who had made vows to the Lord. Let’s take a look:

Numbers 30:1-16
1 Moses said to the heads of the tribes of Israel: "This is what the LORD commands: 2 When a man makes a vow to the LORD or takes an oath to obligate himself by a pledge, he must not break his word but must do everything he said.

3 "When a young woman still living in her father’s house makes a vow to the LORD or obligates herself by a pledge 4 and her father hears about her vow or pledge but says nothing to her, then all her vows and every pledge by which she obligated herself will stand. 5 But if her father forbids her when he hears about it, none of her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand; the LORD will release her because her father has forbidden her.

6 "If she marries after she makes a vow or after her lips utter a rash promise by which she obligates herself 7 and her husband hears about it but says nothing to her, then her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand. 8 But if her husband forbids her when he hears about it, he nullifies the vow that obligates her or the rash promise by which she obligates herself, and the LORD will release her.

9 "Any vow or obligation taken by a widow or divorced woman will be binding on her.

10 “If a woman living with her husband makes a vow or obligates herself by a pledge under oath 11 and her husband hears about it but says nothing to her and does not forbid her, then all her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand. 12 But if her husband nullifies them when he hears about them, then none of the vows or pledges that came from her lips will stand. Her husband has nullified them, and the LORD will release her. 13 Her husband may confirm or nullify any vow she makes or any sworn pledge to deny herself. 14 But if her husband says nothing to her about it from day to day, then he confirms all her vows or the pledges binding on her. He confirms them by saying nothing to her when he hears about them. 15 If, however, he nullifies them some time after he hears about them, then he is responsible for her guilt.”

16 These are the regulations the LORD gave Moses concerning relationships between a man and his wife, and between a father and his young daughter still living in his house.

From this passage, we can see that the Law of Moses contained instructions for determining which vows were to be honored and which could be nullified by the parents or husband of a woman. While this passage does not provide any evidence that Mary had taken a vow of chastity, it does demonstrate that vows to God did occur in ancient Jewish society and that they were to be taken very seriously.

I could say, “The Didache”, but that would be boring. How about simply pointing out that Joseph never appears in scripture after Jesus is found in the Temple? He wasn’t at the Wedding Feast in Cana. He wasn’t at the crucifixion with Mary. Why not?

I’ll just pose this question: If Joseph was an older man, and he died sometime before Jesus’ public ministry began, wouldn’t that explain the absence of Joseph in the Book of Acts?

Because the Didache says so? No. Okay, how about the idea that the “brothers and sisters of Jesus” (who are NEVER called the children of Mary or Joseph, btw), are really half-siblings and not Mary’s biological children?

No, they did not. Herod’s desire to kill Jesus made that impossible.

Also if you don’t mind if I add a small piece. Joseph was going to marry her and then divorce her quietly. Why?

Simple when chosen to be the Man for Mary he said I cannot, for I am but a old Man, what could I give to such a young girl.

But the Angel revealed to Joseph to trust God and do as he says. Joseph trusted God and indeed did as asked of him.

As far as the defense of Mary, she was always addressed as Mary the Mother of Jesus. And of course brothers and sisters in the O.T. were always referred to as relatives.

 

[Tom_Baum]

Joseph was the earthly Father of Jesus. Where was this ever denied.

Also where is it ever said that in order to be a Father of a child, you have to be his biological Father?

As far as, “Joseph was the earthly Father of Jesus. Where was this ever denied.”?

The bible.

Concerning, “Also where is it ever said that in order to be a Father of a child, you have to be his biological Father?”

Being the biological Father is what the “Father of a child” means.

One can be a step father, a foster father, an adoptive father but to put it simply the “father” of a child is the one who is biologically the father.

 

[Randy_Carson]

If you know this, then when is this supposed to have happened?

Personally, I do NOT believe that Mary lied to Jesus.

Tom-

Please read post #54. Thanks.

And thank you, Paul.

 

[Randy_Carson]

As far as, “Joseph was the earthly Father of Jesus. Where was this ever denied.”?

The bible.

Concerning, “Also where is it ever said that in order to be a Father of a child, you have to be his biological Father?”

Being the biological Father is what the “Father of a child” means.

One can be a step father, a foster father, an adoptive father but to put it simply the “father” of a child is the one who is biologically the father.

No, really…post #54.

 

[Tom_Baum]

Why would Mary tell God anything? Jesus is God, God knows everything. God revealed himself as human for mans good.

Also the reason her Perpetual Virginity only became doctrine later, was because it was never questioned before that. It was always known as truth.

You wrote, “God revealed himself as human for mans good.”

God did NOT REVEAL Himself as human, God became One of us in the Incarnation.

Before the Incarnation, God was NOT a human.

 

[prodromos]

Mary’s genealogy is given by Luke. You may have noticed that the two are different?

They are both Joseph’s.
Joseph’s fathers are of the same mother but different fathers, their mother remarrying after becoming a widow after the birth of her first son. The first brother married but died before producing an heir so the younger brother raised up seed for his dead brother in accordance with the law. Thus Joseph is the son by law of the older brother and the son by flesh of the younger brother, each brother being descended from David through different sons.

Cool huh!

 

[Randy_Carson]

They are both Joseph’s.
Joseph’s fathers are of the same mother but different fathers, their mother remarrying after becoming a widow after the birth of her first son. The first brother married but died before producing an heir so the younger brother raised up seed for his dead brother in accordance with the law. Thus Joseph is the son by law of the older brother and the son by flesh of the younger brother, each brother being descended from David through different sons.

Cool huh!

Joseph had two fathers?

Well, I’ve just done some reading on this theory, and I am completely dumbfounded. I’ve been at this for a long time, prodromos, and that’s the first time I’ve ever heard this explanation.

Thank you! :clapping:

Just an observation: In only three generations, this family had:

1. a man die young with a child (his wife remarries and has a second child)
2. the child of the man who died young also dies young (and childless), so his younger brother marries his brother’s wife and fathers Joseph
3. Joseph also dies young and childless (having adopted Jesus, the son of Mary)

Jesus’ father, grandfather and great grandfather all died young and two out of three childless.

 

[rinnie]

You wrote, “God revealed himself as human for mans good.”

God did NOT REVEAL Himself as human, God became One of us in the Incarnation.

Before the Incarnation, God was NOT a human.

God revealed himself as human through the Son Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is indeed human, although also Divine he is indeed human.

Jesus always existed, he took on his human nature in addition to his Divine at the Incarnation, but Jesus is still God and revealed himself as God the Son in his human nature.

The only way you can say God did not take on a Human Nature is to deny Jesus as God. And I disagree with you.

 

[prodromos]

Joseph had two fathers?

Well, I’ve just done some reading on this theory, and I am completely dumbfounded. I’ve been at this for a long time, prodromos, and that’s the first time I’ve ever heard this explanation.

Thank you! :clapping:

Thank St John of Damascus for taking the time to write it down.

Just an observation: In only three generations, this family had:

1. a man die young with a child (his wife remarries and has a second child)
2. the child of the man who died young also dies young (and childless), so his younger brother marries his brother’s wife and fathers Joseph
3. Joseph also dies young and childless (having adopted Jesus, the son of Mary)

Jesus’ father, grandfather and great grandfather all died young and two out of three childless.

Joseph was a widower with children of his own when he was chosen to be Mary’s guardian. Salome, the mother of James and John, the wife of Zebedee, was Joseph’s daughter. Why else do you think she could make such a request of Jesus regarding where her two sons might sit in His kingdom if it were not for the fact that she was His big sister.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Tom Baum;12585375]You wrote, “For the record, Officially the Catholic church’s first Protoevangelium is recorded in Genesis 3:15”

Genesis 3:15: “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; They will strike at your head, while you strike at their heel.”
What are you trying to say here?

In short; Gen.3:15 that God places “enmity” between Satan and the Virgin Mary, that same enmity God places between Satan sin and the blessed Virgin Mary’s seed (Jesus). When God pronounces the Woman’s seed, relates to her virginity, when it is the man who carries the seed. Because this Woman God reveals has a seed, reveals will be a Virgin pronounced by God and later again by Isaiah.

This is the first protoevangelium or the first Gospel revealed by God Himself.

Where does it say anything about “the blessed perpetual virgin” in Matthew’s account of the genealogy?

No, I did not reference Mary’s virginity from the genealogy account from Matthew’s gospel. Matthew gives an account of St. Joseph being visited by an angel, who reveals to St. Joseph of the virgins conception is of the Holy Spirit see Matt.1:18-24. Matthew includes in his gospel after the revelation of the angel the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 confirming Mary’s virginity of Child bearing to Matthews Jewish audience.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Marie5890;12581510]Gabriel, thanks for the explanation. I have a question that comes from the link I posted above.

The website declares the following

“We must point out again that while The Protoevangelium of St. James was condemned by the Church, many of the traditions concerning the Mother of God that it relates were accepted as a part of the deposit of faith by the Early Church.”

Is that a fair statement? That the Church “condemned” it, yet many of the traditions are apart of the deposit of faith by the Early Church?

Yes, it can be a fair statement with the understanding that the Sacred Tradition of Mary’s perpetual virginity the prophets speak of and God reveals was already believed in the Church long before The Protoevangelium of James writes about what is already believed in the Church.

The Church condemned it from ever being used in her Liturgies (MASS). Although the Sacred Tradition of the Virgin can be expounded upon from other canonized Apostolic letters.

Im trying to understand just how much weight and consideration should be given to it. The word “condemned” is pretty strong word, you know?

The condemnation by the church only confirms it is not Apostolic and never met the canon =measuring standard of canonized books of the bible. Many books record much of our Apostolic Sacred Traditions, but that does not mean they are inspired of God. Just as the Early Church Fathers expound on the mysteries of God. Their writings are never God breathed. Mainly on the grounds they write about what has already been revealed by Jesus and the Apostles.

The Protoevangelium of James is a good book for a read only but not for inspiration. We can take from James book and measure them against Sacred Tradition, when James becomes small (t) tradition which is not binding on the whole Church to believe as do the four Gospels.

Peace be with you