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

[stewstew03]

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.

Well, why do you think Simon (or Symeon) succeeded James as the Bishop of Jerusalem? (Hint: because Simon and James were brothers).

And if you read Matt 10:3, you’ll find that James is the son of Alphaeus (the Hebrew form of Alphaeus is Clopas, or Cleopas).

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

First, if Joseph had died (likely since he was much older than she was), then who would take care of Mary in her old age? It was the responsibility of the oldest son.

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).

Agreed. So, rather than entrust Mary to His unbelieving half-brothers, He chose to entrust Mary to the Apostle John, who by strange “coincidence” was the only Apostle who was not martyred for his faith. Why do suppose that was? Because God was watching out for Mary.

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.

Right. A cousin, and not a half-brother.

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.

Right.

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?

Um…for the reason you just explained above.

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.

All good to here. I’m not a hard-line “older half-brother by previous marriage” guy since the “pure cousin-theory” also works, but you’re not suggesting that Mary had other children with Joseph, right?

Right?

'Cause there’s not a verse of scripture that proves anything like that… :nope:

 

[PRmerger]

Therefore Mary did not mother other children.

I think all that needs to be asked of Bible Alone advocates who profess Mary did not remain ever-virgin is this:

Please direct me to the verse that states that Mary had other children.

They can search Genesis through Revelation, and not a single verse will be provided.

 

[joe371]

I think all that needs to be asked of Bible Alone advocates who profess Mary did not remain ever-virgin is this:

Please direct me to the verse that states that Mary had other children.

They can search Genesis through Revelation, and not a single verse will be provided.

:yup:

 

[Darryl_B]

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.

In other words you don’t have the evidence you claimed from the ECF’s and historians other than just simply having a strong desire to twist their statements into a forced premise that you maintain for whatever reason it is that you choose to maintain it.

That reason being … ?

 

[Darryl_B]

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.

Sorry just saw this looking back. No I did not miss the plot at all, you are assuming half-brother means DNA (that is after all only a modern legalistic thing). According to the flesh means earthly parentage, the genealogy is given as Josephs lineage to David. The marriage union of Joseph to Mary brought both Mary and her Son Jesus the Christ into ownership of Josephs family. Lineage came from the father not the mother. Hence Joseph was father of Jesus the Christ according to the flesh.

Jesus Christ had Joseph as father according to the flesh, (not by DNA but by ownership) and hence Josephs sons from his previous marriage, who were probably close to the same age as Mary are described as Jesus the Christs half-brothers. After all the next logical choice was the lineage of Josephs brother. Not Mary’s sister. First choice Josephs sons, second choice Josephs nephews.

This contradicts your hypothesis, assumptions and “support by Scripture”, it contradicts your appeals to Eusebius and other ECFs who all place relationship according to the flesh as a fraternal ownership, a family.

 

[Porknpie]

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.

Not only the 27 books but the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. So 29 books.

So, did Cyril of Jerusalem, & even Eusebius who quoted earlier sources.

Here is Cyril’s Catechetical lecture on divine scripture. Do you count 27 books?

1. Then of the New Testament there are the four Gospels only, for the rest have false titles 10 and are mischievous. The Manichaeans also wrote a Gospel according to Thomas, which being tinctured with the fragrance of the evangelic title corrupts the souls of the simple sort. Receive also the Acts of the Twelve Apostles; and in addition to these the seven Catholic Epistles of James, Peter, John, and Jude; and as a seal upon them all, and the last work of the disciples, the fourteen Epistles of Paul . 11 But let all the rest be put aside in a secondary rank. And whatever books are not read in Churches, these read not even by thyself, as thou hast heard me say. Thus much of these subjects.

What is more important to note here is not the list of the books, rather, a key criteria is that the books need to be read in Churches for them to be canonical. Of course, he is speaking about the Catholic Church and the Catholic Mass. There was no other Church, and everyone celebrated the Mass inclusive of receiving the actual body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ in the Eucharist.

So if you trust Cyril got it right on the canon of scripture (or close), then you should trust his Words below on the Eucharist:

“Having learn these things, and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, And bread strengtheneth man’s heart, to make his face to shine with oil, ‘strengthen thou thine heart,’ by partaking thereof as spiritual, and “make the face of thy soul to shine.”” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, XXII:8 (c. A.D. 350).

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),

OK.

which Paul himself calls Scripture “Inspired,” or “God-breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16).

Paul is speaking of the Old Testament in this verse as the proceeding verses he is talking of the scriptures that they have known since childhood.

14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

And Paul himself quotes Luke 10:7 & calls it “Scripture” (1 Timothy 5:18).

No he is referring back to Deuteronomy 25:4. Again, the Old Testament.

1 Timothy 5:18
18 for the scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.”

Deut 25:4
“You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.

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.

Go back to your sources and provide link that clearly lists a canon of scripture prior to 382 ad that matches what you have today.

Interesting though that you keep referring to this Church that determined scripture. We Catholics agree with that part. We can also read - from the same people that wrote, guarded and copied the New Testament scripture, how they referred to this Church. St. Ignatius was an ECF and a disciple of St. John (who himself wrote scripture. )

“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).

It’s very inconsistent to trust this Catholic Church on determining Scripture (inerrant it was in doing so) but reject its teaching on faith and morals.

 

[clem456]

Like so many other articles of faith, Mary’s virginity requires belief in an authoritative Tradition. It can never be proved to the unbeliever, (in our modern sense of intellectual proof,) from Scripture alone. But then, nothing about Christianity can be proved to an unbeliever.

Even the most basic article of Christian faith, the resurrection of Christ, requires belief in Tradition. You may point to Scripture and rightly observe that Scripture give us details of the resurrection. But even an atheist can (correctly) observe that Scripture has it’s origins in the Traditions of men. An atheist can claim that scripture is merely a story, and has a good case. Any and every article of Christian faith is lost to obscurity without the testimony of Tradition. Christianity is not a book, it is a Person, who lived among other persons. Tradition and Scripture are of one and the same source. One cannot exist without the other. One informs the other. One helps to reveal the other in it’s fullest sense.

So we come to the point where the perpetual virginity of Mary must be so, because the Church says it is so in a definitive way, just like it proclaims the resurrection of Christ. This is very hard to accept with our modern sensibilities, but without the authoritative Tradition of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, you have nothing.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Like so many other articles of faith, Mary’s virginity requires belief in an authoritative Tradition. It can never be proved to the unbeliever, (in our modern sense of intellectual proof,) from Scripture alone. But then, nothing about Christianity can be proved to an unbeliever.

Even the most basic article of Christian faith, the resurrection of Christ, requires belief in Tradition. You may point to Scripture and rightly observe that Scripture give us details of the resurrection. But even an atheist can (correctly) observe that Scripture has it’s origins in the Traditions of men. An atheist can claim that scripture is merely a story, and has a good case. Any and every article of Christian faith is lost to obscurity without the testimony of Tradition. Christianity is not a book, it is a Person, who lived among other persons. Tradition and Scripture are of one and the same source. One cannot exist without the other. One informs the other. One helps to reveal the other in it’s fullest sense.

So we come to the point where the perpetual virginity of Mary must be so, because the Church says it is so in a definitive way, just like it proclaims the resurrection of Christ. This is very hard to accept with our modern sensibilities, but without the authoritative Tradition of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, you have nothing.

Clem-

You’re right. About the best we can do beyond explaining the role of Tradition is to try to at least help them understand that the Bible does not teach that Mary had other children.

It’s a baby step, but it’s a start.

 

[joe371]

Clem-

You’re right. About the best we can do beyond explaining the role of Tradition is to try to at least help them understand that the Bible does not teach that Mary had other children.

It’s a baby step, but it’s a start.

My question is: why is it so important to so many non-Catholics (Eastern Orthodox Christians excluded) that Mary had other children? Something tells me that a lot of it has to do with a contrarian attitude toward the Catholic Church teaching of Mary; not in all cases of course.

 

[Jerurussia]

ISAIAH 7:14 is the prophetic promise of the miracle God chose: the virgin birth. And once God proclaims someone a virgin, that state sticks forever, see? The parallel is, “Thou art a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.”

 

[Randy_Carson]

My question is: why is it so important to so many non-Catholics (Eastern Orthodox Christians excluded) that Mary had other children? Something tells me that a lot of it has to do with a contrarian attitude toward the Catholic Church teaching of Mary; not in all cases of course.

Well, to be fair to them, the Bible clearly says that Jesus had “brothers and sisters.” So, our denial of that “fact” simply fuels the long-held belief that Catholics don’t read the Bible because the Catholic Church won’t let us. And some of that criticism IS justified; Catholics don’t read the Bible as much as Protestants.

The irony, however, is that we understand the scriptures better because our interpretations are correct and because we know what the author was actually saying and not just what the words on the page appear to be saying. Those can be two very different things!

 

[clem456]

Clem-

You’re right. About the best we can do beyond explaining the role of Tradition is to try to at least help them understand that the Bible does not teach that Mary had other children.

It’s a baby step, but it’s a start.

Yes, if a person puts the whole of his faith in Scripture, then an appeal to the written word can be fruitful.
I think it is also good to challenge basic incorrect assumptions that protestants have about the nature of God’s revelation.
The problem is, the written word is never an exclusively sufficient foundation for anything Christian. Reliance on proving the written word brings objection upon objection. Wiggle room is always available if our faith is bound to the written word alone.
And this cuts both ways. There are Catholics who insist on written statements of Tradition taken out of context, just as there are other Christians who insist on the literal written word out of context with Tradition.

I think it is foundational for a Christian to admit the truth, that before any written word forms a Gospel, there is a Person, who lived among persons. Christianity is personal, The book is not the source and summit of our faith, Christ is. God reveals himself through his son, the second person of the Trinity, who came to live in a community. We just celebrated that last week.
Before Scripture we have a community of persons who give us their witness of this Person, Christ. Tradition is of one body with Scripture, all sourced in Christ.

I think we take the Incarnation of Christ for granted, along with all it implies. If God wanted us to prove our faith by the book, he would have sent us…a book, not his only begotten Son in the flesh.

Is God foolish, to entrust his Son, his only Word, to the hearts, minds, and mouths of men? Or should we trust God’s plan? If we are to trust God’s plan, then he has a durable and trustworthy method of revealing his goodness, with and through human beings, aka “The Church”.

 

[Jerurussia]

Luke’s lineage is the Virgin Mary’s lineage that does NOT include the king cursed by God to NEVER have a son on King David’s throne as does Joseph’s lineage.

If we open our eyes to what is hiding in plain sight, God ratified not primogeniture but ultimogeniture, inheritance of the YOUNGEST as with King David and countless other examples of God choosing Jacob, not Esau, for example. This is the TWIN SYSTEM: Adamic mandate that includes primogeniture, the first-born; AND the Woman & Seed mandate, separate and equal in God’s differing grant of divine power and authority, that includes ultimogeniture, inheritance of the youngest. So EVERYBODY on Earth has a divine job.

 

[rinnie]

My question is: why is it so important to so many non-Catholics (Eastern Orthodox Christians excluded) that Mary had other children? Something tells me that a lot of it has to do with a contrarian attitude toward the Catholic Church teaching of Mary; not in all cases of course.

I think because we claim to have the fullness of the truth, and when we make that claim we are challenged to prove it. And I understand this.

Although we only can give the answers the Holy Spirit provides the Church, it is or duty as true believers of the RCC to do our best with the grace given to us by God to do so.

But remember it is in these challenges, and truth provided by these challenges that opens some people up to the truth of the One True Church.

Unfortunately it makes others hate us more.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Luke’s lineage is the Virgin Mary’s lineage

Try this as an option:



Note that Estha had two husbands (Matthan and Matthat/Melchi) because one died and she remarried. By them she bore two sons. Jacob and Eli/Heli. Heli died childless, and his wife became Jacob’s wife under Jewish law.

Thus, Joseph (husband of Mary) had two “fathers”, a legal father and a biological father.

Jesus had a legal father (Joseph) and no biological father (since God was His Father).

Many thanks to Orthodox forum member, prodromos, for bringing this to my attention.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I think because we claim to have the fullness of the truth, and when we make that claim we are challenged to prove it. And I understand this.

Although we only can give the answers the Holy Spirit provides the Church, it is or duty as true believers of the RCC to do our best with the grace given to us by God to do so.

But remember it is in these challenges, and truth provided by these challenges that opens some people up to the truth of the One True Church.

Unfortunately it makes others hate us more.

ESPECIALLY those who think that their church is the genuine continuation of the Church founded by Jesus upon the rock, Peter, despite having no communion with his See in a very, very long time.

 

[magnet]

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.

If God placed a fully fertilized egg into Mary’s womb, she could not have been his biological mother. Therefore she was a surrogate mother.

On the other hand if God contributed half the genes and Mary contributed the other half, then Jesus would be the biological son of God and Mary.

What is the difference between incarnation and creation?

 

[Randy_Carson]

If God placed a fully fertilized egg into Mary’s womb, she could not have been his biological mother. Therefore she was a surrogate mother.

On the other hand if God contributed half the genes and Mary contributed the other half, then Jesus would be the biological son of God and Mary.

Mary contributed half of Jesus’ DNA. God did the rest.

What is the difference between incarnation and creation?

In creation, God made man.

In incarnation, God becomes man.

 

[joe371]

I think because we claim to have the fullness of the truth, and when we make that claim we are challenged to prove it. And I understand this.

Although we only can give the answers the Holy Spirit provides the Church, it is or duty as true believers of the RCC to do our best with the grace given to us by God to do so.

But remember it is in these challenges, and truth provided by these challenges that opens some people up to the truth of the One True Church.

Unfortunately it makes others hate us more.

:yup: