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

[Tom_Baum]

QUOTE=Tom Baum

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?

Jesus wasn’t on the cross when He was baptized.

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.

Concerning, “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?”

First off, it is written, “Jesus said to him in reply, “Allow it now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he allowed him.”

Jesus, Himself, tells us that it is “to fulfill all righteousness”.

Second, “righteousness” is to be “right with God” when used in a biblical sense.

Third, could be that whether we understand it or not, Jesus’s baptism somehow will “fulfill ALL righteousness”, just as Jesus said.

I would say that “all righteousness” just might mean that ALL will be righteous with God.

Something to ponder: What do you think is more important; that we now know exactly how God brings about the Salvation of humanity or that God does indeed bring about the Salvation of humanity?

As far as, “Jesus wasn’t on the cross when He was baptized.”

I never said that He was.

Could be tho that Jesus’s ministry was not just haphazard and there were reasons for all of it and that some fit together in ways that just might not be obvious to all and some might not be obvious to anyone.

You wrote, “I suppose God *could *have baptized the whole human race through Jesus’ baptism, but that’s not how He did it.”

Has God made you privy to this bit of information or did you just pull this information out of thin air?

You then wrote, “My point is, Jesus, being sinless, did not need baptism like we do. He’s God.”

My point is that neither one of us is God but as you said, Jesus Is God and He is the One that said, "“Allow it now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.”, so Jesus is the One Who not only insisted on being Baptised but said that there was/is a very good reason for it even if Jesus did not tell us what “fulfill all righteousness” exactly means.

It is written that “Mary pondered”, maybe we should be inspired by Mary’s pondering and do some pondering ourselves.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

It is written that “Mary pondered”, maybe we should be inspired by Mary’s pondering and do some pondering ourselves.

There are many things **Jesus fulfills as the Son of Man **by being born, baptism, suffer his passion, crucifixion and die, and many things Jesus fulfills as the only begotten Son of God; raise the dead, cast out demons, forgive sin, walk on water and when nature, sickness, leprosy, blindness obey His word.

 

[greypiper]

Incidentally, the belief that Mary (The Blessed Theotokos, in some jargons) remained a virgin appears so early in Church history that it predates many later beliefs which even Protestants accept and which are not explicitly in Scripture – such as the belief in the Trinity as three co-equal Persons in one Godhead, the Son begotten but the Spirit “proceeding.” That definition was put together in 325 AD to counter a bishop who had started teaching something like what the Jehovah’s Witnesses teach. So if you accept the “Catholic” doctrine of the Trinity, you have no grounds for disbelieving the “Catholic”* doctrine of Mary’s virginity.

*Eastern Orthodox, too!

 

[cmodrmac]

an observation:

this is one of the topics that non catholics need to avoid-conservative catholics, in my opinion, abandon all reasonable conversation in this area-you either believe this or not-

that Mary was a Virgin prior to becoming the Theotokos appears consistent with scripture-as for the perpetual virginity of Mary-once again some scriptural comments that suggest not ( do not want to rehash those passages in the gospel) but Catholics believe this fact which is fine-other Christians do not-but it is not an area of focus for us

 

[Randy_Carson]

an observation:

this is one of the topics that non catholics need to avoid-conservative catholics, in my opinion, abandon all reasonable conversation in this area-you either believe this or not-

that Mary was a Virgin prior to becoming the Theotokos appears consistent with scripture-as for the perpetual virginity of Mary-once again some scriptural comments that suggest not ( do not want to rehash those passages in the gospel) but Catholics believe this fact which is fine-other Christians do not-but it is not an area of focus for us

What make this significant is the large number of non-Catholic Christians who say, “Oh, those poor Catholics…if only their church would allow them to read the Bible for themselves they would see that Jesus had brothers and sisters.”

To which knowledgeable Catholics reply, "Oh, these ignorant “Bible Christians”…if only they knew that the Bible wasn’t written in King James English, they would understand that the Jews had no word for “cousin” in Aramaic, so all non-nuclear family members, such as cousins, were called “brothers”…even Abraham’s nephew, Lot, was referred to as Abraham’s “brother’ in the OT.”

 

[cena]

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.

catholic.com/blog/matt-fradd/jesus-had-brothers

 

[cena]

I am saying that “Jesus” was always God but was not always human, Jesus became human when Mary said YES.

The Word, the second person of the blessed trinity, always existed but Jesus the human did not until Mary said yes.(Which is what you said)

Edit: when Mary said yes the Word took on a human nature and became Jesus

 

[DoGodsBidding]

Incidentally, the belief that Mary (The Blessed Theotokos, in some jargons) remained a virgin appears so early in Church history that it predates many later beliefs which even Protestants accept and which are not explicitly in Scripture – such as the belief in the Trinity as three co-equal Persons in one Godhead, the Son begotten but the Spirit “proceeding.” That definition was put together in 325 AD to counter a bishop who had started teaching something like what the Jehovah’s Witnesses teach. So if you accept the “Catholic” doctrine of the Trinity, you have no grounds for disbelieving the “Catholic”* doctrine of Mary’s virginity.

*Eastern Orthodox, too!

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

an observation:

this is one of the topics that non catholics need to avoid-conservative catholics, in my opinion, abandon all reasonable conversation in this area-you either believe this or not-

that Mary was a Virgin prior to becoming the Theotokos appears consistent with scripture-as for the perpetual virginity of Mary-once again some scriptural comments that suggest not ( do not want to rehash those passages in the gospel) but Catholics believe this fact which is fine-other Christians do not-but it is not an area of focus for us

Here is a mystical Catholic response; The perpetual virginity of the blessed Mother of God, reflects our salvation in the present and when we see God’s face in heaven.

Without that perpetual virginity, spotless and immaculate garment God graced the blessed virgin, mystically speaks to every baptized Christian’s salvation and to those purified in Christ before the descending of the Holy Spirit.

Mystically Mary’s perpetual virginity reflects those in the body of Christ.
We need Mary’s perpetual virginity, because God has set His precedence in Mary to settle for nothing less in His children.

Peace be with you

 

[Elizium23]

an observation:

this is one of the topics that non catholics need to avoid-conservative catholics, in my opinion, abandon all reasonable conversation in this area-you either believe this or not-

that Mary was a Virgin prior to becoming the Theotokos appears consistent with scripture-as for the perpetual virginity of Mary-once again some scriptural comments that suggest not ( do not want to rehash those passages in the gospel) but Catholics believe this fact which is fine-other Christians do not-but it is not an area of focus for us

The heresy that Mary had marital relations is a novelty, so it is quite obviously false. Mary’s perpetual virginity was taken for granted for hundreds of years until it was challenged.

 

[tomberg]

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.

 

[robwar]

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

Mary would have been stoned as an adulteress, that is why Joseph was thinking about putting her away “quietly”. It’s not a matter of being a single mom in the 1st Century.

 

[Porknpie]

an observation:

this is one of the topics that non catholics need to avoid-conservative catholics, in my opinion, abandon all reasonable conversation in this area-you either believe this or not-

This is not a liberal - conservative topic. This is simply Church teaching and all Catholics hold to Mary’s perpetual virginity. Even the major reformers professed the same. The thought that she was not, is a new sola scriptura thought of modernity, divorced from the deposit of faith handed down from the apostles. Only one example of reading and interpreting the bible, separate from the One Faith that produced it.

Luther: “It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a Virgin.”

Calvin: “Helvidius has shown himself too ignorant, in saying that Mary had several sons, because mention is made in some passages of the brothers of Christ.”

Zwingli: “I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.”

While Calvin describes Helvidius as “ignorant”, I believe Luther would have described the thought of Mary having children after Jesus as “obscene” and the “work of the devil”.

This youtube video on Mary is one of my all-time favorite. Highly recommend that all take the time to watch the 11 minutes.

And Merry Christmas All !

 

[thetazlord]

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

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. 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), the belief that they didn’t wasn’t “universally” accepted by the Catholic church as a whole until later. The belief gained steam after a mid-to-late second century pseudoepigraphical false “gospel” - the Protoevangelium of James that professed that Mary was a perpetual virgin. The idea is that since Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, that He is Mary’s “spouse” - not Joseph, again, even though Joseph is referred to as Mary’s “husband.” Also, the idea is that since God the Son was conceived in Mary’s womb, then Joseph would “taint” the womb of someone who carried God in her womb. I don’t know why that’s an issue, since sin isn’t something that is transmitted “genetically.” But these are the ideas behind them. Eusebius makes some good points though if you want to check out his sources of earlier ECF’s.

 

[HelenRose]

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.

I don’t have the answer to that because I don’t know the mind of God and I personally don’t believe in speculating about or asking another couple about their sex lives. I can surmise that raising God made Man would be enough responsibility for Joseph and Mary.

I also surmise that both Joseph and Mary gave themselves totally to the Christ Child. It would take a terribly arrogant man to approach Mary in any other way than with veneration for her and for her child.

I am sure that they were not “told” to not have sex. They probably figured out for themselves that their purpose on Earth was slightly more important than that.

 

[Darryl_B]

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.

Please provide your reference from Eusebius. It is with regard to James, where Eusebius cites Hegesippus of which we only have fragments.

 

[thetazlord]

Please provide your reference from Eusebius. It is with regard to James, where Eusebius cites Hegesippus of which we only have fragments.

Unfortunately, my copy of Eusebius is at home. But not only does he reference Hegesippus about James, but Eusebius also regards Jude as well. And it’s not just Hegesippus that he quotes. I also have more than one copy of Eusebius, translated by two different sources, & they both say the same thing.

 

[GaryTaylor]

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

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.

 

[Darryl_B]

Unfortunately, my copy of Eusebius is at home. But not only does he reference Hegesippus about James, but Eusebius also regards Jude as well. And it’s not just Hegesippus that he quotes. I also have more than one copy of Eusebius, translated by two different sources, & they both say the same thing.

I mention James first, Jude is latter. You need Book 3 Chapter 7 for James, and Book 3 Chapter 19 for Jude. Cite them. We can all discuss them.

You could extend into Chapter 20 for the other than Hegesippus but Im not sure it is useful to the topic.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Unfortunately, my copy of Eusebius is at home. But not only does he reference Hegesippus about James, but Eusebius also regards Jude as well. And it’s not just Hegesippus that he quotes. I also have more than one copy of Eusebius, translated by two different sources, & they both say the same thing.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDoQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ewtn.com%2Flibrary%2FANSWERS%2FMARYCLEO.HTM&ei=ZUOdVOr7LcaiNoH9gIgP&usg=AFQjCNFwqej_Ao3Me2deULZ-QWFgZ0_62w