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

[tomberg]

This is almost a silly argument to even be having. The truth of the matter is there is absolutely no internal evidence from the Bible itself that tells us that Mary was to remain a perpetual virgin. There is actually much more evidence from the Bible itself to contradict this assertion. The Protestants have much more convincing arguments with actual textual evidence leaning towards their beliefs. Catholics have to repeatedly explain away clear evidence that Mary did not remain a Virgin, for example the mention in the Gospels themselves and in Paul’s letters about the brothers of Jesus, and the passage where it says “Joseph knew her not until she gave birth.” The textual evidence is far from pointing to Mary being a perpetual Virgin. Yes it can be explained away, but it creates a tortuous, and biased reading. The plain reading is pretty clear. The perpetual Virgin reading can only be superimposed with reference outside of the text itself. There is simply no denying this.

Similarly Jews have repeatedly pointed out that their is absolutely nothing in ancient or modern Jewish tradition that is special or sacred about virginity, except as it relates to marriage. Jews have repeatedly asserted that there is absolutely nothing in Jewish history (And I think they know there own history and traditions better than Christians do) that indicates that there were ever dedicated Temple virgins that were to remain Virgins for life. This is unheard of in Jewish religion, it simply did not occur. So the only evidence that we as Catholics have for this is the book of Proto-James which is not Canon and actually contradicts Canon is numerous places so it is about worthless as a source. We might as well cite The Apocalypse of Peter to inform our understanding about the Resurrection if we are going to go around citing non-canonical books as evidence of Orthodox belief.

We believe this because our tradition claims it as true. That is fine, we have an Old and Ancient tradition that is supposed to supplement what is in the gospels accounts and that is why we believe it. Not all spiritual proofs need be proven, they are a higher truth than actual historical factual truth.

 

[PRmerger]

This is almost a silly argument to even be having. The truth of the matter is there is absolutely no internal evidence from the Bible itself that tells us that Mary was to remain a perpetual virgin.

Where you operating under the misapprehension that we get all of our beliefs from the Bible, tomberg?

If so, where does the Bible provide “internal evidence” that we are to do this?

 

[tomberg]

Where you operating under the misapprehension that we get all of our beliefs from the Bible, tomberg?

If so, where does the Bible provide “internal evidence” that we are to do this?

I guess you did not bother to read my entire post before seeking to be argumentative. Go back and read try reading the last sentences I wrote where I claim that we believe based upon what our Tradition tells us, that we do not derive our beliefs exclusively from the Bible. That is why I think it is silly for Catholics who try to contort the Bible to make it conform with our traditional understanding and I actually think it makes us seem rather obtuse. It is absolutely nowhere to be found in the NT that Mary was to remain a perpetual virgin, this comes strictly from tradition outside of the NT canon.

 

[PRmerger]

I guess you did not bother to read my entire post before seeking to be argumentative. Go back and read try reading the last sentences I wrote where I claim that we believe based upon what our Tradition tells us, that we do not derive our beliefs exclusively from the Bible. That is why I think it is silly for Catholics who try to contort the Bible to make it conform with our traditional understanding. It is absolutely nowhere to be found in the NT that Mary was to remain a perpetual virgin, this comes strictly from tradition outside of the NT canon.

Then what is your point?

The reason we believe Mary remained perpetually a virgin is because we received that teaching from the Apostles. Via Sacred Tradition.

You believe that, apparently, to be part of the Word of God.

And Sacred Scripture does indeed reflect this teaching. There is no need to “contort the Bible” to reflect this teaching. It is evident there once we use the lens of the Faith which gave us this Bible.

 

[tomberg]

Then what is your point?

And Sacred Scripture does indeed reflect this teaching. There is no need to “contort the Bible” to reflect this teaching. It is evident there once we use the lens of the Faith which gave us this Bible.

Because that is called superimposing a biased reading upon a text, that is far from evident from reading the text. The text is anything but clear about this, even with the understanding of faith. In fact the contrary understanding makes much more sense. The text is not only ambiguous, it is almost contradictory. If it was evident from the text, there would not be any dispute about what the text says. If a person, say a Buddhist were to just read the text of the New Testament itself, they would never, ever, not after a thousand readings, ever be able to conclude or even propose that Mary remained a perpetual virgin for the rest of her life. This is strictly a teaching from tradition that is not at all evident from the text, not even with our traditional understanding. I think it can be made to be read as being compatible, but saying that this text is self-evident is ridiculous. If someone were to find this text with no knowledge of Catholic doctrine they would never, and I mean never, derive anything from the text about Mary remaining a perpetual virgin.

This is why my wife, who actually was trained in apologetics at Harvard Divinity school has repeatedly told me to just ignore apologist because they are completely immune to common sense when it comes to argument since they are not interested in honest and open inquiry, they are only interested in proving their assertion, no matter how contrary to any available evidence.

 

[clem456]

…
It is absolutely nowhere to be found in the NT that Mary was to remain a perpetual virgin, this comes strictly from tradition outside of the NT canon.

Tradition is never “outside of” Scripture. Tradition and Scripture are of one and the same source and are so intertwined as to be inseparable.

But let me quote the catechism. It explains it much better than I can.
And, it’s something you can access, read, pray over, and absorb as a Catholic, without feeling the need to prove yourself against other posters here.
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm

I. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE

One common source. . .

80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.41
. . . two distinct modes of transmission

81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42

"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44
III. THE INTERPRETATION OF THE HERITAGE OF FAITH

The heritage of faith entrusted to the whole of the Church

84 The apostles entrusted the “Sacred deposit” of the faith (the depositum fidei),45 contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to the whole of the Church. "By adhering to [this heritage] the entire holy people, united to its pastors, remains always faithful to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. So, in maintaining, practicing and professing the faith that has been handed on, there should be a remarkable harmony between the bishops and the faithful."46

The Magisterium of the Church

85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."48

87 **Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”,49 the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms. **

 

[KathleenGee]

It is in mystery that Mary gave birth…how ?..we will never find out…just as we don’t know the actual date of Christ’s birth.

But we have faith to believe she was perpetual virgin always and conceived without sin…

This position going way back to the earliest days of Christianity.

 

[zz912]

1. Why did God need to create a human through non-natural means?
2. Why couldn’t baby Jesus be born the same as other babies?
3. Why did Mary need to serve as a surrogate mother for God?
4. Couldn’t God have just created Jesus the same way as He created Adam?

1. God Incarnated. He did so through supernatural means to show His Son as different. All other humans other than Adam and Eve were created through natural means.
2. He could have, but God the Father wanted something special for His Son.
3. Mary is NOT a surrogate mother for God. She IS the mother of Jesus. PERIOD.
4. Jesus was not created. He Incarnated in human form. He certainly could have done so in a different way, but He chose this way, a way of humility and becoming truly man, with a true mother.

 

[thetazlord]

As a Catholic I no problem believing that Jesus had half-brothers through Joseph (no common bloodline). Tradition has it that Joseph was much older and his wife had passed away. He married Mary to take take care of her and she had committed herself to being a consecrated virgin.

This is distinctly different - wildly different -from a belief that Jesus and Mary consummated their marriage and had children together after Jesus.

Actually, if they were half-brothers through Joseph, then that would mean that Joseph was Jesus’ natural father. I think you meant step-brothers. Understandable mistake. The “tradition” you are referring to dates back to a mid-to-late second century false pseudoepigraphical “gospel” - the Protoevangelium of James, attributed to James the Just…even though he had been dead for nearly 100 years. Plus, if you read through it, you’ll find that the “Mary,” “Joseph,” & therefore the “Jesus” of Proto-James is different than those described in the New Testament. Yes, there are similarities, but the differences mentioned are too disturbing to be ignored, coupled with the attribution to a false author. Before this writing, there is little to no mention of Mary’s post-virginal status in the ECF’s, let alone the NT.

 

[thetazlord]

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

Sorry for taking so long, but I had to research it & type this out. Note: this is only what Eusebius says about James & Jude. He writes more about Joseph & Mary, which further backs all this up.

In “Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History” translated by C.F. Cruse, he writes in Book 1 on pp.28-29:

(5) Afterward, he says, he appeared to James; he, however, was not merely one of these disciples of our Savior, but he was one of his brethren.

The “he says” Eusebius seems to be alluding to is Clement of Alexandria from his Hypotypses – (see “2” of this same chapter of same book of Eusebius)

Paul L. Maier’s translation of “Eusebius – the Church History” refers to James as, “one of the alleged brothers of the Savior” (p.45).

In Book 2, pp. 35-36 of Eusebius (translated by Cruse), he writes:

(2) Then also James, called the brother of the Lord, because he is also called the son of Joseph…. This James, therefore, whom the ancients, on account of the excellence of his virtue, surnamed the Just, was the first that received the episcopate of the church at Jerusalem. (3) Clement, in the sixth book of his Institutions, represented it thus: “Peter, and James, and John after the ascension of our Savior, though they had been preferred by our Lord, did not contend for the honor, but chose James the Just as bishop of Jerusalem.” (4) And the same author, in the seventh book work, wrote also thus: “The Lord imparted the gift of knowledge to James the Just, to John and Peter after his resurrection, these delivered it to the rest of the apostles, and they to the seventy, of whom Barnabas was one.” (5) There were, however, two Jameses: one called the Just, who was thrown from a wing of the temple and beaten to death with a fuller’s club, and another, who was beheaded. Paul makes mentions of the Just in his epistles. “But other of the apostles,” said he, “saw I none, save James the brother of our Lord” (Gal. 1:19).

In Book 2, pp. 58-62, Eusebius goes on to talk about the death of James the Just & exactly who he is, quoting & referencing Hegesippus, who Eusebius says is “fully coincided with Clement” (p.61), as well as quotes Josephus on the same matters, “James the Just, who was the brother of him that is called Christ” (20).

In Book 3, p. 81, Eusebius states:

(1) After the martyrdom of James [the Just]…the apostles & the disciples of our Lord…declared Simeon, the son of Cleophas, of whom mention was made the sacred volume, as worthy of the Episcopal seat there. They said he was the cousin german “first cousin” – translated by Maier, p.92] of our Savior, for Hegesippus asserted that Cleophas was the brother of Joseph.

In Book 4, p.134, Eusebius states:

(4) ”After James the Just had suffered martyrdom…Simeon, the son of Cleophas our Lord’s uncle, was appointed the second bishop, whom all proposed as the cousin of our Lord.”

Based on Cruse’s & Maier’s translations, if Simeon & Jesus were indeed first cousins, by way of Cleophas & Joseph the step-father of Jesus being brothers, then that would mean that in order for James the Just to be the son of Cleophas & the “other” Mary mentioned in the Gospels, then Jude would also have to be Cleophas’ son as well. However, Simeon is not mentioned anywhere in the Gospels as a brother of James, nor a brother of Jude, nor does Eusebius mention this, nor quote from an earlier Christian source. Nor is Cleophas mentioned as the father of James the Just. In fact, the “Joseph” who is mentioned as a “brother” of Jesus in the Gospels does not appear anywhere else in the New Testament, nor mentioned by Eusebius, nor does he quote who this “Joseph” is from an earlier source.

In Maier’s translation of “Eusebius – the Church History,” he states:

“Book 7 also describes two material items of maximum interest: the statue of Jesus at Caesarea Philippi and the bishop’s throne of his half brother James in Jerusalem,” p.255.

In Appendix I of Maier’s translation, he cites Josephus’ Antiquities, as well as Eusebius:

“In Antiquities 20.200, Josephus makes a second reference to Jesus in reporting the death of his half brother James, which is also cited by Eusebius in 2.23,” p.336

Regarding Jude, in Book 3, p.84, Eusebius quotes Hegesippus:

(1) “There were yet living of the family of our Lord, the grandchildren of Judas, called the brother of our Lord, according to the flesh.”

And again, in Book 3, p.97, Eusebius again quotes Hegesippus:

(5) “But the same historian said that there were others, the offspring of one of those considered brothers of the Lord, who name was Judas.”

 

[thetazlord]

I believe you are speaking to the muratorian canon. It is not the same canon of NT scripture that we have today. Good catholic.com tract here.

Actually, Athanasius affirmed the 27 books of the NT canon by name that are the same as the ones we have today, before the Councils met. So, did Cyril of Jerusalem, & even Eusebius who quoted earlier sources. However, we can go earlier than that, since it’s believed that the slave Onesimus mentioned in Paul’s epistle to Philemon is the same Onesimus who was the later bishop of Ephesus that Ignatius wrote to, who F.F. Bruce suggested that he was instrumental in collecting & preserving the epistles of Paul. This would certainly affirm Peter’s earlier affirmation of all of Paul’s epistles as “Scripture” (2 Peter 3:15-16), which Paul himself calls Scripture “Inspired,” or “God-breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16). And Paul himself quotes Luke 10:7 & calls it “Scripture” (1 Timothy 5:18). So, by mid-FIRST century, when most of the apostles, like Peter & Paul were still alive, most of the New Testament had been written & recognized by the FIRST century Church as being Inspired Scripture. So, by the second century, these same books, as well as the later epistles, were also recognized, & later reaffirmed by later ECF’s (like those mentioned above) long before the Councils met.

 

[Darryl_B]

Sorry for taking so long, but I had to research it & type this out. Note: this is only what Eusebius says about James & Jude. He writes more about Joseph & Mary, which further backs all this up.

So all this says is that Simon was the son of Cleophas, James and Jude are the sons of Joseph by his first marriage and are therefore half brothers of Jesus the Christ. Cleophas and Joseph are brothers.

 

[thetazlord]

So all this says is that Simon was the son of Cleophas, James and Jude are the sons of Joseph by his first marriage and are therefore half brothers of Jesus the Christ. Cleophas and Joseph are brothers.

LOL! No, that’s not “all” that says. You’re missing a LOT of what I just posted, & only picked a fragment out of what I said. If you take the time to sift through ALL of what Eusebius wrote, he believed from his research from MULTIPLE ECF’s & other historians - not just Hegesippus - as well as Scripture itself that Jesus had half-brothers, James & Jude being two of them. It might if you go back & reread what I wrote.

 

[Darryl_B]

LOL! No, that’s not “all” that says. You’re missing a LOT of what I just posted, & only picked a fragment out of what I said. If you take the time to sift through ALL of what Eusebius wrote, he believed from his research from MULTIPLE ECF’s & other historians - not just Hegesippus - as well as Scripture itself that Jesus had half-brothers, James & Jude being two of them. It might if you go back & reread what I wrote.

I’m sorry but I haven’t missed the plot. The question is whether Mary remained a virgin. The proposition you put forward is that Mary mothered other children by Joseph. Eusebius does not say that and in fact you are actually agreeing with that.

Therefore Mary did not mother other children.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Mary mothered only one son Jesus.

It would be a great insult and disgrace for Jesus to give his mother into the care of John his disciple, had Jesus had older brothers whom Mary mothered. She did not.

One has to take into consideration of the first century Jewish family and tribal tradition’s existing. All of which Jesus reveals from His Jewish family/tribal traditions and laws, Mary was His only Mother and Jesus was Mary’s only Son.

One cannot try and force a 21st century family unit of traditions into a first century Jewish family tradition. Especially when it comes to what takes place if the Father and the Oldest or only Son dies. Jesus reveals clearly from the Cross, His responsibility to His Jewish Mother, should He die, will be left in good hands.

 

[thetazlord]

I’m sorry but I haven’t missed the plot. The question is whether Mary remained a virgin. The proposition you put forward is that Mary mothered other children by Joseph. Eusebius does not say that and in fact you are actually agreeing with that.

Therefore Mary did not mother other children.

I’m afraid you did “miss the plot,” because in Eusebius’ own words, as well as those that he quotes earlier, he refers to Jesus’ “brother” as “of the flesh,” & “not merely one of His disciples, but one of His brethren,” & one of the “alleged brothers” of Jesus. He also makes it clear from his sources by earlier historians & ECF’s that they were His half-brothers. So, since even Eusebius, as well as his earlier sources, make it clear that James the Just & Judas were His half-brothers, then Mary couldn’t have “remained” a virgin, which is also supported by Scripture.

 

[thetazlord]

Mary mothered only one son Jesus.

It would be a great insult and disgrace for Jesus to give his mother into the care of John his disciple, had Jesus had older brothers whom Mary mothered. She did not.

One has to take into consideration of the first century Jewish family and tribal tradition’s existing. All of which Jesus reveals from His Jewish family/tribal traditions and laws, Mary was His only Mother and Jesus was Mary’s only Son.

One cannot try and force a 21st century family unit of traditions into a first century Jewish family tradition. Especially when it comes to what takes place if the Father and the Oldest or only Son dies. Jesus reveals clearly from the Cross, His responsibility to His Jewish Mother, should He die, will be left in good hands.

But Jesus was not bound by “tribal tradition” or “Jewish tradition” that wasn’t backed up by the Old Testament. In fact, Jesus scorned that kind of “tradition” (see Matthew 15:1-9). And there’s nothing in the OT about if the eldest son dies, & if the next oldest son is still alive, that the mother is entrusted to him. Plus, the Gospels state that Jesus’ brothers (who were not His disciples) didn’t believe in Him & even mocked Him (John 7:3-5). Jesus also compares His UNbelieving brothers on the OUTSIDE with His believing “brothers” on the INSIDE (Matthew 12:46-50). So, that’s why they weren’t at the cross, & why Jesus entrusted Mary to His ONLY faithful disciple, John, who - if you cross-reference the women at the cross correctly, between Matthew, Mark, & John’s Gospels - was also Jesus’ cousin. So, Jesus “did” entrust Mary to a faithful close relative & family member - John. So, there was no “disrespect” on Jesus’ part - only on the part of His mocking, unbelieving half-brothers who weren’t even at the cross. So, this is why Jesus entrusted Mary to His cousin & faithful disciple, and not His scorning, unbelieving, & absent half-brothers.

BTW, if these “brothers” were older step-brothers of Joseph from an alleged previous marriage of Joseph (which there is ZERO Scriptural support that Joseph was “ever” married before Mary), then “where” were they? Why didn’t Jesus entrust Mary to one of them? You have many more problems with these “brothers” being older step-brothers, than younger half-brothers. So, it’s not “forcing 21st century family unit traditions into a 1st Century Jewish tribal tradition.” It’s examining Scripture, based on the Greek, exactly “who” these “brothers” of Jesus actually are, which is supported by ECF’s & historians, like Eusebius & others.

 

[thetazlord]

{deleted} - duplicate entry

 

[stewstew03]

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.

So Ezekiel’s prophecy in chapter 44 is wrong?

The Lord said to me, “This gate is to remain shut. It must not be opened; no one may enter through it. It is to remain shut because the Lord, the God of Israel, has entered through it…"

-Ezekiel 44:2

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’m afraid you did “miss the plot,” because in Eusebius’ own words, as well as those that he quotes earlier, he refers to Jesus’ “brother” as “of the flesh,” & “not merely one of His disciples, but one of His brethren,” & one of the “alleged brothers” of Jesus. He also makes it clear from his sources by earlier historians & ECF’s that they were His half-brothers. So, since even Eusebius, as well as his earlier sources, make it clear that James the Just & Judas were His half-brothers, then Mary couldn’t have “remained” a virgin, which is also supported by Scripture.

Dude-

Joseph was a widower. Mary was his second wife. The “half brothers” were from Joseph’s previous marriage.