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

[perpetual200]

Since it is painfully obvious that a “brother” in Scripture need not be a uterine brother or even have a common parent, to INSIST the “brothers” of Jesus were uterine brothers, in absence of ANY other evidence, is not to “take Scripture as it reads” but to stubbornly cling to an interpretation without answering any of the many objections raised.

 

[perpetual200]

So we have fairly clear typology as afar as typology goes. Abraham has a son, Ishmael, born after the flesh, who typifies those fleshly Israelites who reject Christ, then Abraham has a miraculous child of promise, typifying Christ and those who are born of the Spirit. The younger or latter is always the favored of God, typologically. After which time, GOd closes the womb of the mother of the child of promise. (Sarah had no more children though she lived many years. Yet Abraham had many several children with Keturah).The brothers after the flesh share a common father, not mother, with the son of promise. The brethren after the flesh persecute the son of promise, as Jesus’ brothers did not believe in him, also His national “brethren” yet there is opportunity for them to be reconciled afterwards

 

[wmscott]

Even when i wasnt catholic i always assumed that she didnt have any other children.jesus is too pure to share a mother with anyone(or thats what i think)

I was a Southern Baptist that converted to Catholicism many years ago. I was taught many anti-Catholic falsehoods including this topic, however when it came to the Blessed Mother, She was the easiest to embrace and what the Catholic Church teaches about her. Far too many are so entrenched into what they have been taught or think they know that they are closed to any other possibilities. They cite their authority as being from the Holy Spirit on points counter to what the Catholic Church teaches. This leaves a conundrum…The Holy Spirit lied to someone because there can be only one truth. So who did the HS lie to? The Church Christ established, to which Christ promised will be guided by the HS, that has been guided by the HS for the last 2000 years plus, or an individual who takes the Book of the Church, decides what they like and do not like, chooses to believe what they decide to believe, set themselves up as having authority and apply their fallible personal interpretations to refute what Christ established. What’s the word… seems to me to be Hubris

 

[Erich]

Although the word “Trinity” doesn’t appear in Scripture, the concept of the Trinity is explicitly described in Scripture - especially based on the original Greek (Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14; etc).

Trying to keep up with this thread, but at 6 pages a day it’s kinda hard to keep up!

From this link (emphases mine):
Arians were principally concerned to preserve the Oneness of God from pagan polytheism. They argued cogently from Scripture. They were well-trained, Greek-speaking theologians who could read Scripture in the original tongues. The only problem was that they had the brighter, simpler idea that Jesus was not truly God but only a sort of godlet or superior created being.

In defense of this idea, the Arians rejected tradition and pointed to texts like “my Father is greater than I” (Jn 14:28) and “Why do you call me good? No one is good – except God alone” (Mk 10:18). They also pointed to the form of the Trinity as found in Paul: “God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit.” They could come up with plausible explanations for terms and expressions which we Evangelicals thought could only point to Christ’s divinity. For example, Arians said the statement, “I and my Father are one” (Jn 10:30) refers to oneness of purpose, not oneness of being. They pointed out that Scripture refers to supernatural created beings as “sons of God” (Job 38:7) without intending they are one in being with the Father. They observed that even mere humans were called “gods” (Ps 82:6; Jn 10:34-36), without the implication that they are God. Therefore they inferred that the Son, supernatural though he may be (as angels, principalities and powers are supernatural), is neither co-eternal with the Father nor one in being with him.

Now many Christians today regard all this wrangling over technical philosophical phrases like “co-eternal” and “of one being” as just so much theological technobabble. We lament that the early Church got so hung up on “cold Christs and tangled Trinities.” We shake our heads and say we need to forget all that head-knowledge and just magnify the Lord Jesus and worship him. We say well-intended things like, “Let’s just get back to basics and return to the simple biblical message that Christ died for us to take away our sins and give us a share in the life of God by the Holy Spirit.”

But this simple biblical message is precisely what Arianism denies – and it uses the Bible to do it!

You, too, reject tradition. Your interpretation is simply not what historic Christianity has ever understood its own Bible to mean. Are you really prepared to insist that twenty centuries of Christians (including people who had heard the apostles with their own ears had been utterly wrong while you alone are right?

 

[Erich]

The individual body of believers that make up Christ’s church. This isn’t necessarily isolated to a particular “denomination,” but all those believers who have genuinely repented & believed in Christ as both their Savior AND Lord, trusting solely on His shed blood on the cross for the remission of their sins.

Did Christ found a visible Church or an invisible Church? From Is the Church Visible or Invisible?

                                             Certainly it was to a visible,  authoritative body that Christ declared, addressing its first earthly  leader, "I will entrust to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt.  16:19). What good would it have done to bestow the keys upon a Church so formless as to defy any effort to identify it? Then, too, Christ speaks of a visible Church when he recommends recourse to it for settling disputes among his followers: "Refer it to the Church" (Matt. 18:17). He tells his followers, who make us the Church  on earth, that they are "the light of the world. A city set on a  mountain cannot be hidden. Nor do they light a lamp and then put it  under a bushel basket; it is set on a lampstand, where it gives light to  all in the house" (Matt. 5:14-15; see also Luke 8:16,11:33).

…
Christ’s Church does have an invisible quality in that it is his Mystical Body on earth. But to understand the Church as having no visibility at all - and, as a consequence, no authority at all - conjures up a Church as tenuous as feathers in the wind. It’s almost as if Jesus, in setting up his Church, didn’t quite know what he was doing.

And from Fundamentalist or Catholic?

                                              Christ established one Church with one set of beliefs (Eph. 4:4–5). He did not establish numerous churches with contradictory beliefs.

…
Since the Christian Church was to exist historically and be like a city set on a mountain for all to see (Matt. 5:14), it had to be visible and easily identifiable. A church that exists only in the hearts of believers is not visible and is more like the candle hidden under the bushel basket (Matt. 5:15). But any visible church would necessarily be an institutional church that would need an earthly head. It would need an authority to which Christians could turn for the final resolution of doctrinal and disciplinary disputes. Christ appointed Peter and his successors to that position.

If you still think the Church is made up of all believers regardless of denomination, I would point out/ask the following (from Disunity on Essentials):

                                             Protestant apologists commonly respond that, although Protestants  may disagree among themselves on "non-essential" matters, they are  united in the "essentials" of the faith.

One problem with this argument is that Protestant churches have no effective method of determining which beliefs constitute essentials and which do not. The absence of a functional magisterium leaves each group of Protestants to decide for itself what beliefs are essential. If one group decides that a particular doctrine is essential or non-essential, then other groups have no effective way of refuting it. They could, of course, appeal to Scripture, but presumably the interpretation of the relevant passages is under dispute, and Scripture does not tell us which of its teachings are essential and which are not.

Good tests of practical unity in Protestant churches are: Whom do they let join? Whom do they let preach? Whom do they let pastor? If a particular congregation, as a matter of policy, will not let an individual with a particular belief join its fellowship, preach from its pulpits, or serve as a pastor in one of its churches, then this belief is considered an essential for unity. When these tests are applied, one can see that there is a great deal of practical disunity among Protestant churches—a disunity that goes far beyond the “essentials” named by Protestant apologists.

St. Paul refers to the Church as the Body (not the Soul) of Christ in various passages. Bodies are visible, souls are invisible.

 

[Erich]

No, I believe Scripture to be infallible. Not me, nor anybody else. And Scripture - approaching Scripture objectively, & without a preconceived personal or religious preconception - will not lead a person to believe that Mary did not have other children after the birth of Jesus. The fact that the East & the “major” Reformers agreed - centuries later - bears no weight on whether the PVM is true or not. Majority does not equate with truth. Scripture does.

Infallibility is the inability to teach error. The Bible is a collection of books – which don’t by themselves teach anything *per se (i.e. *the books have to be read).

Rather, the Bible is inerrant, not infallible. Those who read the Bible can certainly err in its interpretation; that’s why there are so many conflicting interpretations.

Did the Apostles teach different doctrines to different people?

The answer, of course, is “No.” The Apostles all taught the same doctrines…ALL the same doctrines. After all, Jesus tells us that the Holy Spirit was to guide them into all truth. If they are guided into all truth, then they cannot help but teach identical doctrines…they cannot help but teach the same truths…to all the different peoples they came across. From 1 Cor 11:18-19, it is obvious that there were those among the Corinthians who believed different doctrines. Who taught them these different doctrines, the Apostles? I don’t think so.

Well, if the Apostles didn’t teach different doctrines, then why is it okay for the pastors of today’s thousands upon thousands of Protestant denominations to teach different doctrines one from another? And, if it wasn’t okay for the Corinthians to hold to different beliefs…beliefs that caused division within the Christian congregation…then why is it okay today for Protestants to hold to different beliefs…beliefs that cause division within Christianity?

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’m denying that Scripture supports the PVM, because Scripture supports that the “brothers” of Jesus were His half-brothers, not solely because of the “heos” argument.

John Pacheco demolished the heos argument championed by Eric Svendson in his doctoral thesis (thereby destroying the thesis, as well).

You might want to read the whole thing here:

Heos Hou and the Protestant Polemic
By John Pacheco
catholic-legate.com/Apologetics/MaryAndTheSaints/HeosHouPolemic/HeosHouAndProtestantPolemic.aspx

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy Carson;12678447:

You’re right, Theta. Sacred Tradition is not different than Sacred Scripture.

Let’s let that sink in…

The “sacred” tradition I’m referring to are “traditions of men” that are not supported by Scripture. Keep in mind, even the “traditions” that Paul was referring to weren’t anything “new.” They were things & prophecies that were supported by the OLD Testament Scripture that were written. That’s why “traditions” are largely condemned in Scripture, not praised, even by Jesus Himself.

I have no problem condemning traditions of men, either. Like sola scriptura, sola fide, etc.

But the problem is that you cannot seem to distinguish between Tradition and tradition.

 

[Randy_Carson]

No, it’s based on Scripture, which I provided in another post. Please refer to it.

How will I find it amongst the hundreds of posts you have scattered across multiple threads.

If you can’t answer a direct question in a meaningul way, we’re wasting each other’s time.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Actually, I can. However, simply saying that those “who understand Scripture” as somehow “proof” that I’m wrong, only begs to question. You are using circular reasoning, “assuming” they are right & I am wrong. For example, these “experts” ignore the fact (or simply don’t, or refuse to, see) that there are FOUR women at the cross, not THREE. So, right from the get-go they are wrong. Once you accept - Scripturally - there are FOUR women (not THREE) you begin to discover the error. If you refuse to, then your confusion begins from the very beginning.

The number of women at the cross has no bearing whatsoever on whether Mary ever had a second child.

However, I will be happy to review your argument if you will kindly provide a link to the post.

Thanks.

 

[Randy_Carson]

It does, but you have to write out individual family units to realize that Salome, not the “other” Mary, is Mary’s sister.

Salome is the daughter of Clopas and Mary of Clopas; she is the wife of Zebedee and the mother of James and John.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Actually, both James & Jude that wrote the epistles are part of this “foursome.”

Agreed.

The “Mary” that was married to Alphaeus is the same Mary of Clopas. Clopas (‘Klōpas’ – ‘my exchanges’) is the same person as ‘Alphaeus’ (‘Alphaios’ – ‘changing’). The Catholic church is in agreement they are the same person

Clopas = Alphaeus - Agreed.

or a second husband of this “other” Mary since John’s Gospel was written much later (assuming Alphaeus had died by the time John wrote his Gospel).

Who is the “other” Mary you are referring to?
Who was her first husband?
Who was her second husband?
What is your source for her being married twice?

James son of Alphaeus had a brother named Joseph

Agreed.

but not Jude, which is supported in Mark Ch.15 & 16.

How is this supported? Be specific with verses and explanation.

So, the “James & Joseph” who are sons of Alphaeus are not the same “James & Jude” who are Jesus’ brothers, who are also brothers with Simon & Joseph, and at least two unnamed sisters.

This sentence does not make sense. You’re going to have to write bigger paragraphs or do something to be more descriptive. There are three names: James, Joseph and Jude, so even the names are slightly different. Consequently, I have no idea what you are trying to say.

So, they aren’t Jesus’ cousins or close relatives, but His half-brothers.

The only half-brothers would have been from Joseph’s previous marriage. What “half-brothers” are you referring to? Those Mary bore by Joseph? Didn’t happen.

This is more evident by realizing, Scripturally, there are four women at the cross, not just three.

How does the number of women strengthen your case?

Matthew

1. Mary Magdalene,
2. Mary mother of James & Joseph,
3. Mother of James & John (This was Salome.)

Mark

1. Mary Magdalene
2. Mary mother of James & Joseph
3. Salome (mother of James & John)

Mark 15:40
40 There were also women looking on from a distance; among them were 1) Mary Magdalene, and 2) Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and 3) Salome.

Luke

1. women who had followed Jesus (Thanks, Luke. )

John

1. Mary mother of Jesus
2. Mary’s sister(in-law), Mary the wife of Clopas (who was Joseph’s brother)
3. Mary Magdalene

Total : Four

1. Mary
2. Mary, wife of Clopas
3. Salome, daughter of Mary & Clopas, wife of Zebedee, mother of James and John (sons of thunder)
4. Mary Magdalene

Sketch this out:

Joseph and Clopas were brothers. They each married a woman named Mary.

Clopas and his wife, Mary of Clopas had at least five children: Simon/Symeon, James the Lesser, Jude, Joses/Joseph and Salome.

Salome married Zebedee and bore two sons, the “sons of thunder”, James and John.

John was a second cousin of Jesus, and Mary was entrusted to his care.

Mark 16:1
When the sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and [her daughter] Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him.

 

[benhur]

I am not objecting to the objectives of marriage. I am highlighting appropriate behavior in the presence of God. Abstention from sex. I am highlighting that Mary’s womb is Holy being the abode of God. No right minded Jew will dare defile it

. Correct. For nine months and the 30 days plus for purification

You are assuming Joseph a righteous man will demand his right for sexual relations and that he doesn’t fear the Holy Spirit.

You assume for me. Thank you. Your reasoning should not put words in my mouth, (that Joesph feared not the Holy Spirit). Your reasoning is worthy of better demeanor.

I finally see your reasoning that Mary was not only a holy vessel for and during the gestation, but also thereafter. Kind of like the chalice that Jesus used during the last supper should never be used again out of reverence to it’s once use.

For sure we all agree that Mary’s womb was holy during her pregnancy.

For sure Joseph was obedient and touched her not .

For sure that is what he was told-touch her not until His birth and I suppose for a period of purification afterwards per the Law.

Do you have any evidence that abstinence was to be continued after the birth of our Lord ?

What evidence do you have that Joseph would have been disobeying the Holy Spirit and defiling a holy thing (Mary), with another holy thing (the marriage bed) ?

 

[benhur]

Benhur, you are arguing with management on this one.
When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth;
And the gates of Hell shall not prevail.

Yes, I agree 100%… a very strong Titanic like hull.

This is very Catholic.

Actually, I can see you being a great CCD teacher someday.

What is not Catholic is a more pliable view of the gates of hell not prevailing.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I posted a summation in posts #519-522.

bump for thetaz.

 

[benhur]

Me also thinks.

If you have trust in Ignatius and Origen on the canon …

Perhaps you’d reflect on what they also believed. Examples only. I bolded the words related to this thread.

Origen
“In addition to these there is also a seventh, albeit hard and laborious: the remission of sins through penance…when he does not shrink from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord.” Origen, Homilies on Leviticus, 2:4 (A.D. 248).

“And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail…” Origen, Commentary on John, 5:3 (A.D. 232).

"For if Mary, as those declare who with sound mind extol her, had no other son but Jesus, and yet Jesus says to His mother, Woman, behold thy son,’ and not Behold you have this son also,’ then He virtually said to her, Lo, this is Jesus, whom thou didst bear.’ Is it not the case that every one who is perfect lives himself no longer, but Christ lives in him; and if Christ lives in him, then it is said of him to Mary, Behold thy son Christ.’ What a mind, then, must we have to enable us to interpret in a worthy manner this work, though it be committed to the earthly treasure-house of common speech, of writing which any passer-by can read, and which can be heard when read aloud by any one who lends to it his bodily ears?" Origen, Commentary on John, I:6 (A.D. 232).

St Ignatius
“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).

That Living Tradition is present as the Church discerned the canon of scripture. That same Living Tradition, also reflects Mary being a perpetual virgin, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, Sacramental Confession, and that Christ established a visible Church and that he would protect it and lead it to all Truth on faith and morals.

The same living tradition has evidences to the contrary of ever virgin . Shall we also join in Ignatius citing no pope in Rome or Origen in the pre-existence of souls ?

 

[benhur]

And so, the answer to your question is: I don’t know with certainty that Jesus did not have “an interface” between his human understanding and his divine understanding, but several passages suggest that Jesus, as a man, did not have infinite knowledge of the future, etc. A few others suggest that He did.

OK I think He certainly was intertwined with His Spirit. He was judicious in what, and how, and when, He revealed “HImself” or any of aspects of the Father, or His Knowledge etc…

 

[Porknpie]

The same living tradition has evidences to the contrary of ever virgin . Shall we also join in Ignatius citing no pope in Rome or Origen in the pre-existence of souls ?

That’s one of the reasons Origen is not a declared saint. But other things he got very right:

“And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail…” Origen, On John, 5 (A.D. 232).

Ignatius doesn’t have to use the word Pope He does give recognition to The Church (singular, of one faith).

“Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Mast High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who farmed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love.…” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, Prologue (A.D. 110).

 

[benhur]

So, Sacred Tradition, as a genre or mode of the transmission of the Word of God WAS equal to the Sacred Scriptures way back when, but somewhere along the way, Sacred Tradition lost its authority.

Is that the logic?

Not an either /or situation.

The dynamics of Tradition changed when Scripture, or as Scripture, was written, and subsequently was circulated, compiled, and later “authorized”.

The dynamics of Tradition changed when the apostles/ first witnesses died, and again with each passing generation .

Tradition and Scripture assert themselves the inherent authority of Scripture.

Tradition is still authoritative when in union with Scripture.

All the above is subject to interpretation giving opportunity for Divine Revelation and subsequent forming of tradition(s).

 

[Porknpie]

I don’t know where you got the idea of the “majority of protestant scholars didn’t believe it,” but it’s irrelevant "

The idea came from a highly regarded protestant scholar, Michael Gorman. His book on St. Paul can be read here. I recommend the book (yes a Catholic can read a protestant book…and I hope a protestant would read a Catholic author’s book). He makes the following points on St. Paul’s alleged writings. It’s to the point of the OP in this way: even when scripture says “all of Paul’s writings” are inspired - protestants are not certain which writings are St. Paul’s and which are not. Gorman goes even further and says that it’s commonly believed that the pastoral epistles were written after Paul’s death, so St. Peter could not have been referring to them. All in all, this again points to the trust you give, tacitly, to the authority of the Catholic Church to have determined scripture. This is based on the living Tradition of the Church. Yet, when it comes to Mary, despite all the Church has taught for 2,000 years, despite even the major reformers upholding her perpetual virginity, some insist that their view - based on scripture alone - is correct. This is quite… astonishing.

1 Timothy: “the vast majority of scholars reject Pauline authorship of this letter” (p 532).
2 Timothy: “the majority of scholars reject the Pauline authorship of 2 Timothy” (pg 535),
Titus: “Titus is routinely dismissed as a pseudonymous work by a ‘disciple’ of the apostle” (pg 572).
Ephesians: “perhaps 20-30% of New Testament scholars think that Paul actually wrote Ephesians” (pg 502).

because their “beliefs” aren’t God-breathed - ONLY Scripture is described as God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16).

All very Catholic. But the question is how do you know that 2 Timothy was written by St. Paul? For Gorman posits that Paul did not write it - and it very well might have been written after his death by a disciple of his.

But it’s irrelevant because if we had lived in the first century, we would have heard what Peter wrote about ALL of Paul’s writings as being Inspired Scripture.

I won’t even get into 2 Peter being disputed in the early Church. Now if protestants dispute St. Peter wrote 2 Peter, we then have a disputed book disputing disputed books. uch:

To bring it back to the OP…

If you can not trust The Church on Mary, then neither can you trust that all the books in your bible are the inerrant and inspired written Word of God.