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

  • Thread starter Thread starter excaliber
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
QUOTE=Tom Baum
You asked, “Well, we may also ask, “why on earth did Jesus get baptized?””
Ever heard of the “one baptism for the forgiveness of sins”?
Was Jesus in a state of sin when He was baptized? Did He ever commit a sin? Did He have original sin? No? Then why was He baptized?
You have heard that Jesus took ALL of the sins of ALL upon Himself on the cross, haven’t you?
Jesus wasn’t on the cross when He was baptized.
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.
I suppose God *could *have baptized the whole human race through Jesus’ baptism, but that’s not how He did it.

My point is, Jesus, being sinless, did not need baptism like we do. He’s God.
 
If you know this, then when is this supposed to have happened?

Personally, I do NOT believe that Mary lied to Jesus.
Luke 2: After three days they found him in the temple, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions; and all who heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers. And when they saw him they were astonished; and his mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated us so? Behold, **your father **and I have been looking for you anxiously.”
 
So are we saying that Mary was a member of a religious order from her child hood?

If she was taken to a temple and made a member of a religious order… simular to how a monk or priest is a member of a religious order… why was she betrothed to Joseph?

A member of a religious order that takes a life long vow of chastity does not get married… unless Mary never actualy took a LIFE LONG VOW.

As far as I know… there is no such religious order in Catholic or Orthodox tradishion where one takes a vow to remain a virgin and yet is alowed to get married?

:confused:
 
So are we saying that Mary was a member of a religious order from her child hood?

If she was taken to a temple and made a member of a religious order… simular to how a monk or priest is a member of a religious order… why was she betrothed to Joseph?

A member of a religious order that takes a life long vow of chastity does not get married… unless Mary never actualy took a LIFE LONG VOW.

As far as I know… there is no such religious order in Catholic or Orthodox tradishion where one takes a vow to remain a virgin and yet is alowed to get married?

:confused:
Yes that is what we are saying, and if you look back the bible confirms it. When the angel told her she would conceive a child and name her Jesus, she was shocked. Why would she be shocked.

If I was intending to vow my life to be without any Man and give myself to God I would ask How also. If I was intending to wed someday, I would think oh, ok, after I am married I will have a Child and name him Jesus.

But what Mary was asking the Angel how is this so, she was not asking how do women get pregnant, she was asking how do I keep my vow to God and not be with a Man, and also have a Child, as the Angel said, trust God he will take care of it, and he did.

By the power of God she indeed had this child and kept her vow to God.

What really bothers me is when People accuse Mary of being with other Men, they accuse her of breaking her Vow to God, and that’s not only a lie, it wrong.
 
RINNIE

I dont think many are saying she broke her vow.
I think people are saying that if she was a member of a religious order… marriage released her from that order.
 
Thank St John of Damascus for taking the time to write it down.

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.
Yes, the “widower” theory is the one I support.
 
RINNIE

I dont think many are saying she broke her vow.
I think people are saying that if she was a member of a religious order… marriage released her from that order.
Actually, marriage wouldn’t necessarily release her from the vow. According to Numbers 30:7

and her husband hears of it and says nothing to her on the day he hears it, then her vows shall stand and her obligations by which she has bound herself shall stand.

So yes, her vow to remain a virgin could have continued beyond her marriage.
 
Thank St John of Damascus for taking the time to write it down.

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.
prodromos-

What is your source for Salome of Zebedee being the daughter of Joseph by his previous marriage?

I have her as the daughter of Joachim and Anne and thus the sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus.

That would make Salome Jesus’ aunt and not his older step-sister.

Thanks!
 
Luke 2: After three days they found him in the temple, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions; and all who heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers. And when they saw him they were astonished; and his mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated us so? Behold, **your father **and I have been looking for you anxiously.”
See post #54.
 
My understanding was always she was an only child who parents beyond child barring years, not unlike St. John. St. Anne promised that if she was given a child she would dedicated her to God. This sourced in the Protevangelium of James.

Just from some brief looking around the Internets it appears it was Johann Eck in the 1500’s that proposed an idea that St. Joachim died shortly after Mary was born and St. Anne remarried and had more kids. Which doesn’t exactly mesh with the story given in the Protevagelium.
 
You wrote, “No man may touch was is holy to God”

Would you consider God-Incarnate “holy”?

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.

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?””.

Mary and the Angel were talking about the present in both the sense of time and the gift from God of the Incarnation.
To be “betrothed” at the time of Christ WAS TO BE MARRIED to that person. That is why Joseph decided to “divorce her quietly”. A couple was “married legally” but then the groom went off to make a home for his bride and would come to get her about a year later to bring her to his home and consecrate the marriage.

There is nothing that the angel said that indicates that it would be at that exact time….just that it would happen. There was nothing to indicate that it would happen before she and Joseph consummated their marriage. And thus her question, " How will this be since I am a virgin?" only makes sense if she had already consecrated herself to God as a virgin.
 
Jesus is a Nazarene, His cousin John the Baptist took the Nazarene vow of chastity and a vow to refrain from strong drink. Mary’s Judah tribe are Nazarenes who are practicing the sacrifice of bread and wine according to the priestly order of Melchezadeck.

The bible confirms Jesus being a Nazarene. It was not common for Jews to take on a vow of chastity, but it was not uncommon among the Nazarenes to practice vows of Chastity and vows refraining from strong drink and not cutting of the hair.

John the Baptist’s father Zechariah was cursed by the angel with deafness and speechless for doubting and questioning Gabriel’s message from God that he and Elizabeth will have a son in their old age.

The blessed Virgin Mary, also questioned and doubted Gabriel’s message that she will conceive a son. Mary before she is given divine revelation by Gabriel, She is already betrothed to Joseph understands how baby’s are conceived. Yet she questions the angels message the same as Zechariah, but she is not cursed why?

Mary being betrothed to Joseph should of rejoiced that she will be conceiving a child. But she doesn’t, she communicates to the angel, How can this be since I do not know man, and how can I violate my vow to God to keep my virginity? The angel removes Mary’s fear and how her conceiving will be of God, and her vow to God will not be violated.

When the angel allows Mary to keep her vow of chastity in her conceiving a child, Mary enters into her rejoicing as the hand maid of the Lord, and her fiat of allowing the Word of God be done to her just as the angel revealed to her.

If Mary is considered the hand maid of the Lord, does any one doubt a biblical just man in St. Joseph would of touched that which is Holy before God?

The first century Jews have laws concerning marriages. It was not uncommon for a Jewish man to take on a wife who served the temple of God in order to support her without conjugal relations. What was going to become scandal to Mary in this betrothal to Joseph, is that she became visible with child. Joseph being a “Just man” took her to his home and obeyed the angel’s instructions to take Mary as his wife confirming to Joseph that Mary will continue to do her work in God’s temple as the tabernacle of God’s Word incarnate, and Joseph is selected by the High priest to be the supporter of Mary by a contract of Marriage to support her work in the temple of God. All this mystery fulfilled and every letter comes to pass in Joseph’s betrothal, marriage to Mary who kept her temple vows of chastity in the service to God.

Thus according to Jewish law and the revelations given by the angel, Mary remains a virgin by her own will, that God protects Mary’s vow to God in her conceiving her child, in Marriage to Joseph, in giving birth to Jesus and remained a virgin after giving birth to Jesus. For what God opens remains open and what God shuts remains shut.

Mary is not cursed when Zechariah is cursed for questioning Gabriel’s message from God. Proves God protects Mary’s vow of chastity to her God.

Peace be with you
 
prodromos-

What is your source for Salome of Zebedee being the daughter of Joseph by his previous marriage?

I have her as the daughter of Joachim and Anne and thus the sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus.

That would make Salome Jesus’ aunt and not his older step-sister.

Thanks!
As Tevye was prone to saying in Fiddler on the Roof, Tradition! If it is written anywhere, I suspect it is something no one has bothered to translate into English yet. Only about one third of St John Chrysostom’s homilies have been translated afterall.
Have you asked yourself the same question regarding the source for Salome being a child of Saints Joachim and Anna? I have to admit I have never heard of it, whereas the tradition that Salome and James accompanied Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem is well known, with James staying with them on their flight into Egypt, something which is even found in Italian churches
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c8/Guido_Da_Siena_-Flight_into_Egypt-WGA10984.jpg/800px-Guido_Da_Siena-Flight_into_Egypt-_WGA10984.jpg
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Guido_Da_Siena_-Flight_into_Egypt-_WGA10984.jpg
 
Anything from small “t” radition is subject to opinion and speculation.

The bible does not confuse the Nazarite vow in the new testament taken by Jesus cousin John the baptist;
Please read Luke 1:15 "For he will be great in the sight of the Lord; and he will drink no wine or liquor, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother’s womb. Then compare it with the Old Testament of a Nazarite which are noted in Numbers 6. Verse 2 says: “He shall separate himself from wine and strong drink, and shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of strong drink, neither shall he drink any liquor of grapes, nor eat moist grapes, or dried.”

When one “separates himself or herself” from something has taken on a vow.

What is interesting in regards to the Nazarite vows in the first century relates to Pauls disciplines of practicing his Christianity.

Anyone from Nazareth is considered a Nazareen, this does not mean that all Nazoreens took on a Nazarite vow.

The title Nazoreen of the fourth century takes on a different Christian title different from the first century Jews.

The first century Jewish Ebonites all accepted the virgin birth.
 
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.
You wrote, “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.”

Just because “vows to God did occur in ancient Jewish society” proves that some people could have taken vows to God but just as you said, “this passage does not provide any evidence that Mary had taken a vow of chastity”.

Not everything is written down but it seems that if Mary did make this kind of vow than it seems that it might have been mentioned, but it seems that for whatever reason there is no mention of this from either Mary or Joseph at any place, including their two extraordinary encounters concerning Mary’s pregnancy.

It is written that Mary says, “I do not know man”, she did not say anything to the effect that she had made a vow to never know man.

You then wrote, “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?”

Whether Joseph was an older man or not and he died would also explain it, people die at all kinds of ages.

You also wrote, “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?”

Since Jesus was the focus of who they were speaking of, that could be why they were referred to as Jesus’s brothers and sisters.

If they were brought into the marriage by Joseph, do you think that this might have been pointed out rather than referring to them as Jesus’s brothers and sisters?

If that were the case than these who were thought of as “half-siblings” would not have been half-siblings at all.
 
Have you asked yourself the same question regarding the source for Salome being a child of Saints Joachim and Anna? I have to admit I have never heard of it, whereas the tradition that Salome and James accompanied Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem is well known, with James staying with them on their flight into Egypt, something which is even found in Italian churches
Patristics? Even better…Wikipedia! 🙂

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salome_%28disciple%29

And on the Three Marys:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three_Marys
 
Since Jesus was the focus of who they were speaking of, that could be why they were referred to as Jesus’s brothers and sisters.
Jesus did not have any siblings who were the children of Joseph and Mary.

As mentioned earlier, there are only four brethren of Jesus named in the Gospels: **Matthew 13:55 ** “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?”

**Mark 6:2-3 ** - “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?”

Let’s begin with James. There are two men named James among the disciples. One, of course, is the brother of John and the son of Zebedee. This cannot be him then. So, this is the other James, called in Scripture James the less: Mark 15:40: “There were also women looking on afar off: among whom were Mary Magdalene, and ** Mary the mother of James the less, and of Joseph,** and Salome.” (emphasis added)
So James is indeed the son of a woman named Mary. Not only that, but Joseph is his brother. That’s two of the four, right? Then, in Matthew, reciting the names of the twelve: Matt 10:3: “…'James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddeus.” (emphasis added)
This too is talking of James the less, as the other James, son of Zebedee, is spoken of in the previous verse. It is NOT a trick or really that hard! * Alphaeus* is this James’ father, not Joseph, the husband of Mary, mother of the Lord.

Now go to John also speaking of those witnessing the Crucifixion: John 19:25: “Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother (Mary) and His mothers sister, *** Mary the wife of Cleophas***, and * Mary Magdalene*.” (emphasis added)
Look up John 19:25 at blueletterbible.org/ and click the ‘C’ icon (for the Strong’s Concordance), then click the Strong’s number for the name Cleophas. It comes up “father of James the less, the husband of Mary the sister of the mother of Jesus.”

Did you get that? That Mary, who was the mother of James the less, and of Joseph, from Mark 15:40, is the wife of Cleophas, the father of James the less, and she is called the ‘sister’ of Our Lord’s mother - Mary!

So, two of the four ‘brothers’ have been identified as the children of parents other than Joseph and the Virgin Mary. Of the brothers named, that still leaves Jude and Simon. Next, Jude: Acts 1:13 ** "…James, the son of Alphaeus , and Simon Zelo’tes, and ** Jude the brother of James…" (emphasis added)
There goes Jude out of the mix! *** Matter of fact, Jude says the same in his own epistle: Jude 1:1 "Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ *** and brother of James…" (emphasis added)
Lastly, Simon. Simon, called the Zealot, is identified as coming from Cana, not Nazareth as were Joseph, Mary and the Christ! Luke 6:15 "and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and ** Simon who was called the Zealot
," (emphasis added)

Mark 3:18 “Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and ** Simon the Cananaean**…” (emphasis added)

Matt 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene. (emphasis added)
Simon is a Cananean, while Jesus is a Nazarene!

We see that Simon the Zealot being from Cana, and a ‘brethren’ or ‘brother’ of the Christ. Let’s go to John’s Gospel, chapter 2. Mary and Our Lord are invited to a wedding there. So, close business associates, maybe, of Joseph from the carpentry trade, or more likely - family, or brethren, relatives, are having this wedding. Like, maybe the Holy Family had actual kinfolk in Cana, be they cousins, in-laws, nephews, aunts, uncles, all of which are routinely called ‘brethren’.

Remember what Mary said to the servants? She told them to ‘Do as He says.’

Think about that a second? What would give this humble woman from Nazareth any position to so speak to the servants of someone else in an entirely different town, at their wedding? The simplest and most easily understood answer would be – she is a family relation to those giving the wedding feast…

So Simon is from Cana, and a ‘brother’ of the Lord! He’s not a sibling though, but very likely related. And James, Joseph and Jude all have the same father and mother, and it is not Joseph and the Virgin Mary, but their mother is named Mary and called the sister of Jesus’ mother Mary. Even here ‘sister’ may not mean blood sibling, or we have two sisters with the same name in the same family.
 
The bible does not confuse the Nazarite vow in the new testament taken by Jesus cousin John the baptist;

Luke 1:15
"For he will be great in the sight of the Lord; and he will drink no wine or liquor, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother’s womb.

Then compare it with the Old Testament of a Nazarite which are noted in Numbers 6. Verse 2 says:

“He shall separate himself from wine and strong drink, and shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of strong drink, neither shall he drink any liquor of grapes, nor eat moist grapes, or dried.”

When one “separates himself or herself” from something has taken on a vow.
But Luke 1:15 is not recounting a vow made by John vow; it is telling us the angel’s prophecy about John. 🤷

So, what you’re saying is possible, but it only works if the angel is in effect prophesying the vow that John would make. :hmmm:

It’s possible, I suppose.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top