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

[Mystophilus]

It’s completely relevant

The existence of two sets of Jameses and Josephs does not demonstrate that the other set are Jesus’ half brothers.

The Old Testament. The test …] was to “present” the cloth

I am afraid that the only part which is right here is the unstated reference to Dt 22, but the logic is fallacious.

“If she had been a virgin, there should be blood” does not logically imply “if there were blood, she must have been a virgin”. This is an error called affirming the consequent. You have somehow jumped from there to conflating a symptom (bleeding) with the condition (virginity), but the Jews did not do so, q.v. Encyclopedia of Jewish Medical Ethics: A Compilation of Jewish Medical Law, p.1115, and especially the footnotes there.

There is ZERO evidence that Joseph was elderly & had other children from a previous marriage.

There is are two reports, which are evidence, just not proof. This is the norm for history.

Why didn’t Jesus entrust Mary to one of His older step-brothers? Where were “they” when Mary & Joseph went to Bethlehem for the census? [etc]? You have many, many more Scriptural problems with these “brothers” being older step-brothers than younger half-brothers. In fact, you have ZERO with them being younger half-brothers.

Actually, no. In answer to the later questions, how many people were at the Crucifixion, or the empty tomb? The Gospel writers did not try to be exhaustive. As for the first, the claim that Jesus had younger half-brothers does not help, because her care should have devolved onto them, and thence onto Jesus’ “uncle”, Clopas, or his “cousin” Simeon, and so on through the family.

Really? Where? Cite that “earliest” source.

There is a short excerpt from Cameron on its dating here.

If it’s mid-first century, then it ought to specifically mention “who” they were,

No, it ought not, unless they were the text’s major concern.

What you actually find in the second century are Christians who believed Mary DID have other children?

The two documents already noted, which are the earliest texts covered here:
Gospel of Peter 70-160
Protoevangelium c.140-170
Hegesippus c.165-175
Origen’s Commentary on Matthew (ref GoP) c.247
Eusebius’ History (ref Heg) 311-313

which Eusebius later quotes from & affirms. And more importantly, we have Inspired Scripture that also affirms it.

You keep saying this, not demonstrating it.

I was referencing the page numbers in the book by either Cruze of Maier that translated the books of Eusebius to make it easier for you to reference. I know they weren’t “chapters.” I only referred to them that way in order to make it easier to find the actual quote. Work with me here!

O … kay. FYI, any ancient text exists in a huge number of editions, the page numbers of which bear almost no correlation to one another: your page 33 could be my page 59, and your page 37 could be my page 66 (because page sizes also vary). You made it harder to find the references, not easier. The standard practice for referencing texts is thus to use book, chapter, section, and line numbers (where available), or specialised conventions like Stephanus or Bekker numbers.

Second, why use a translation? The text is right here.

So, third, using book and chapter references for Eusebius, he calls James ‘εις …] των φερομενων του σωτηρος αδελφων (1.12), τον του κυριου λεγομενον αδελφον οτι δη και ‘ουτος του Ιωσηφ ωνομαστο παις (2.1), ‘ο του κυριου λεγομενος αδελφος (4.5). James is later referred to only once as τον του σωτηρος ‘ημων αδελφον (3.22) by Eusebius himself. Meanwhile, Joseph is του δε Χριστου πατηρ (2.1), and Simeon is called ανεψιον, ‘ως γε φασι, γεγονοτα του σωτηρος, τον γαρ ουν Κλωπαν αδελφον του Ιωσηφ (3.11), the son εκ θειου του κυριου (3.32), ανεψιον του κυριου (4.22).

Thus, one cannot logically describe the γενους κατα σαρκα του κυριου (3.11), γενους του κυριου (3.32), or grandsons ‘ενος των φερομενων αδελφων του σωτηρος, of Judas, τουτον δ’ ειναι αδελφον κατα σαρκα του σωτηρος (3.19) / του κατα σαρκα λεγομενου αυτου αδελφου (3.20) as Jesus’ blood kin, or claim that Eusebius says that Mary had other children, since he very precisely avoids that.

Not ALL early Greek speaking Christians understood that Mary’s virginity was perpetual.

Yet again, this was covered in the first link which I gave you.

And the linguistics of the NT Greek support that Mary had other children.

You keep repeating this, and not **demonstrating **it.

“consensus”

: a general agreement about something : an idea or opinion that is shared by all the people in a group (www.m-w.com)

Just 4 lines lower down on the same page:

a : general agreement : unanimity
b : the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned

I’M the one attempting to stay on subject & discuss - Scripturally - “who” the brothers of Jesus - in Scripture - were.

Sorry, but, if you cannot actually show how you think these texts say what you keep claiming them to say, we have nothing more to discuss here.

 

[LaRue]

Okay, I’m going to say something some will regard as heretical. What does it matter in the great scheme of salvation whether Mary remained a virgin after Jesus’ birth? It certainly didn’t affect her ability to be a good mother or a faithful servant of God. There is no reason she should remain a virgin after marriage. Indeed, I see the entire question as irrelevant.

A basic precept of Christianity is that Mary is the mother of Jesus. Whether she had other later offspring or not is irrelevant to her goodness–although as a mother myself, I can state with assurance that being a parent is a great test of all the Christian virtues.

Possibly we need to spend our thoughts and prayer life on more important issues, such as how well we’re living our own Christian lives. The quote from Isaiah that refers to a “virgin” giving birth is generally accepted to be a mistranslation which should have read “pure.” When one is pure in thought, word, and deed, one can still have a marital relationship.

 

[ericc]

(CONTINUED…PART 2)

Could James, Joseph, Simon, & Judas (Jude) be referring to Jesus’ disciples?

No.

I can go along with the statement but not necessary the way it was concluded. Simply, the Bible didn’t specify that one or any of them are of the 12 Apostles. May be of the seventy perhaps but out of scope of Scripture only.

 

[tweedlealice]

I want to compliment Pablobe, I think, on his detailed response on this issue. I never heard of Helvidius. I have read much of the Bible and cross referenced many. I own 5. The newer versions are translated from Aramaic, Greek, and Latin. There are groups of translators from the mainline religions including Judaism. Therefore more accurate. I found long notes log me out but on logging in my note is there but some of my soliloquies are lost to cyberspace. GRRR. So, our faith is simple and complex. It is faith (the substance of things not seen, etc) and mystery. Will this belief damage our relationship w God? Will we not go to heaven if we don’t get it right? We are sinners saved by grace and MERCY. I chose to believe. BUT, my feelings on this are: Mary was a virgin. Joseph got the message from the angel. They got married by Jewish law. When he was told she was impregnated by the Holy Spirit-He would not go where God had traveled. So, along comes our Savior. Thank you Lord,for becoming one of us, so unworthy. If a man has sex w a woman who has a child before 6 weeks is up, he can kill her. I worked the ER one night. A 21 yo came in. She just had a baby 2 wks ago,. They bought some pills to make things happier. Caffiene based I assume. The activity of the man pumped in air to a porous uterus and she died. The father was a druggie. I hope the grandparents got the baby. The Jewish culture you said had a 30 day of being unclean and they didn’t break those rules. She may have had to go into the Red Tent. It is a movie now. I had visited the Temple for some reference questions and the secretary gave me the book. Yulk. In my other post, I mentioned a phenonmena that men today have. They don’t want to have sex their wife because they could hurt the baby. (my son was doing this till I set him straight on the chemistry and physics behind this) I worked w 2 nurses who ended up divorced. Their husband wouldn’t get romantic after delivery because they saw her as the Blessed Mother. Sooo Sad. Well, they were regular guys w regular wives and children. Now, you have the Blessed Mother and our savior. ONe might feel unworthy. He was old. I do believe the older widower w children. It was the culture. They weren’t teenagers in love.
She was 14. I still don’t like the young thing. By the time it all came together, age could be a factor in function. So, there,stick that under your cap and wear it. PHEW. Plus read all the great stuff Pabloe wrote. I am probably rambling here a little.
excuse typos
In Christs love,
Alice:heart:

 

[ericc]

(CONCLUDED…PART 3)

Do the women at the cross support that Jesus had half-brothers & half-sisters?

Yes! Scripture tells us that there were FOUR women at the cross while Jesus was dying, & after His death, THREE of them were ‘looking on from a distance’:

“snip”

“Therefore the soldiers did these things. But standing by the cross of Jesus were His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.” (John 19:25)

Matthew & Mark are two of the ‘Synoptic Gospels’ – meaning they tell some of the exact same events, just slightly different, because they are written by different writers. Both Matthew & Mark, say that the women were ‘looking on from a distance’ after the death of Jesus. Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James (the Less) & Joseph are mentioned in both accounts. Matthew names the ‘third woman’ as ‘the mother of Zebedee’s sons (which we know are James & John – Matthew 4:21), while Mark names her as ‘Salome.’ Therefore, since Matthew & Mark are recording the exact same events, ‘the mother of Zebedee’s sons (James & John)’ IS ‘Salome.’ Therefore, Zebedee, Salome, James, & John are one blood-related, family unit.

In John’s account, Jesus is still alive on the cross, so there are FOUR women at the cross at this time: Mary the mother of Jesus, her sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, & Mary Magdalene. ‘Jesus’ mothers’ sister’ is Salome (Mark 15:40), not Mary, the wife of Clopas, because that would mean that MARY, the mother of Jesus had a sister named ‘MARY’!] ‘Clopas’ (‘Klōpas’ – ‘my exchanges’) is the same person as ‘Alphaeus’ (‘Alphaios’ – ‘changing’). So, Mary, the wife of Clopas IS Mary, the mother of James (the Less) & Joseph. So, since James (the Less) is the ‘son of Alphaeus’ (Matthew 10:3), then Mary, the wife of ‘Clopas’ IS also Mary, the wife of ‘Alphaeus.’ Therefore, Alphaeus (aka: Clopas), the ‘other’ Mary, James (the Less), & Joseph are also one blood-related, family unit.

So, if we compare these two blood-related, family units, to the family unit of Mary (Jesus’ mother), Joseph (Jesus’ step-father), & Jesus, who are with the ‘brothers’ (‘adelphos’) & ‘sisters’ (‘adelphē’) of Jesus in His ‘own household’ (Mark 6:4), we discover that these ‘brothers’ & ‘sisters’ of Jesus are His actual, blood-related, half-brothers & half-sisters, & not Jesus’ cousins, disciples, believing ‘spiritual’ brothers & sisters, or children from a previous marriage of Joseph.

If Jesus had half-brothers & half-sisters, why did He leave His mother under the care of an unrelated man – his disciple, John (John 19:26-27)?

At the time of Jesus’ crucifixion, His half-brothers had dishonored Him (Psalm 69:6-9; Mark 6:4), & were not believing in Him (John 7:3-5), until after His resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:7; Acts 1:14). Therefore, they were not at the cross. However, John was Jesus’ blood-related COUSIN, since John was the son of Zebedee & Salome, and Salome was the sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus (see above). .

Question is are they maternal or paternal half brothers, if indeed they are? If Mary is their biological mum, who is the father? Did Mary commit adultery or did she remarry? Which one is your position if you are claiming that she is the biological mum.

You claim "there are FOUR women at the cross at this time: Mary the mother of Jesus, her sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, & Mary Magdalene. ‘Jesus’ mothers’ sister’ is Salome (Mark 15:40), not Mary, the wife of Clopas, because that would mean that MARY, the mother of Jesus had a sister named ‘MARY’!] ". Unfortunately one can also read that there are 3 women although you claim there is a difficulty of two sisters named Mary. It is not a difficulty if the sister is her sister-in-law. The word choice is still appropriate.

You repeatedly claim blood -related but nowhere did you substantiate that.

You have not proven Clopas is Alphaeus. In fact you may be contradicting yourself. You claimed that James/Joseph/Simon/Jude are not disciples/apostles. But if you claim Clopas is Alphaeus, then there is an apostle called James of Alphaeus which mean that your earlier statement about these foursome is wrong. Hence, I do not support the contention that James of Alphaeus (apostle) is of the foursome. Alphaeus and Clopas are different persons. James of Alphaeus was never addressed as brother of the Lord in the Gospels, as an apostle yes. He is also not James the Just. James the Just was never addressed as Apostle as of the 12.

If Mary of Jesus is there, Mary of Clopas is there and the foursome are the children of Clopas, how did you get Mary the mother of Jesus to be their biological mama so that you can called them half blood brothers?? Isn’t that confusing? We need the name of the “other” husband of Mary (of Jesus) to make your allegation of blood siblings worth considering.

You claim that Jesus half-brothers had dishonored Him (Mark 6:4), & were not believing in Him (John 7:3-5). Same point I made earlier. You linked the brothers of John 7:3-5 to Mark 6:4 and as disbelievers. In Matthew and Mark, there was no mention that these brothers are disbelievers. We just do not know that the brothers in John are the same as in Matthew/Mark. If you insist, you must prove it with evidence, not supposition. The brothers in John are nameless, could be just a generic group of kinsmen who didn’t believe in him.

Therefore, since Jesus’ brothers were not at the cross, & the rest of Jesus’ disciples were ‘fearfully’ hiding behind locked doors (John 20:19), Jesus entrusted His mother, Mary, to his only faithful disciple and COUSIN, John (John 19:26-27)

This is all conjecture. Equally plausible is that there were no blood brothers. Cousin John? Interesting. Imaginative mind. Chapter/Verse please.

 

[Porknpie]

And fallible human beings can also make fallible decisions as well. So, we’re back to where we were before. Before you can accept - objectively - if someone’s teaching of infallible Scripture is infallible, you have to compare that teaching TO infallible Scripture, since Scripture can never be wrong, while fallible human beings are capable of being wrong. Simply saying, “I believe someone is infallibly teaching something infallibly, because they ‘say-so’” is circular reasoning. The test to see if that is true is to compare that teaching TO infallible Scripture, which teaches that Mary had other children.

Theta - scripture can only be inerrant and inspired (thank you Guan), not infallible. How do you test scripture to determine if it is indeed inerrant and inspired?

 

[perpetual200]

Thetazlord, you are being illogical. First, you rightly assert the inspiration of Scripture, but fail to consider that Scripture is only inspired because the men who wrote it were inspired when they did so. Since Scripture contains doctrinal teaching and application and exegesis of previously written Scripture, this means that there at least WERE men who were capable of teaching in a manner that you consider infallible. Thus you cannot object in principle to the idea of God inspiring infallible teaching. You object to anyone interpreting Scripture infallibly because they are just “fallible men” but you recommend to us just such a procedure, we, as fallible men. Somehow you have a promise from God about your ability to correctly interpret Scripture that you deny to others.

 

[PRmerger]

Somehow you have a promise from God about your ability to correctly interpret Scripture that you deny to others.

Egg-zactly.

“The Catholic Church cannot tell anyone how to interpret Scripture!”

and

“There is a correct way to interpret Scripture and I have done it!”

and

“I am not infallible! No man is infallible!”

cannot all be true.

And yet taz has embraced all of the above.

http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws....s/2014/05/doesnt_make_any_sense_anchorman.gif

 

[JustaServant]

(CONCLUDED…PART 3)

Do the women at the cross support that Jesus had half-brothers & half-sisters?

Yes! Scripture tells us that there were FOUR women at the cross while Jesus was dying, & after His death, THREE of them were ‘looking on from a distance’:

“Many women were there looking on from a distance, who had followed Jesus from Galilee while ministering to Him. Among them was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.” (Matthew 27:55-56)
“There were also some women looking on from a distance, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the Less and Joseph, and Salome.” (Mark 15:40)

“Therefore the soldiers did these things. But standing by the cross of Jesus were His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.” (John 19:25)

Matthew & Mark are two of the ‘Synoptic Gospels’ – meaning they tell some of the exact same events, just slightly different, because they are written by different writers. Both Matthew & Mark, say that the women were ‘looking on from a distance’ after the death of Jesus. Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James (the Less) & Joseph are mentioned in both accounts. Matthew names the ‘third woman’ as ‘the mother of Zebedee’s sons (which we know are James & John – Matthew 4:21), while Mark names her as ‘Salome.’ Therefore, since Matthew & Mark are recording the exact same events, ‘the mother of Zebedee’s sons (James & John)’ IS ‘Salome.’ Therefore, Zebedee, Salome, James, & John are one blood-related, family unit.

In John’s account, Jesus is still alive on the cross, so there are FOUR women at the cross at this time: Mary the mother of Jesus, her sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, & Mary Magdalene. ‘Jesus’ mothers’ sister’ is Salome (Mark 15:40), not Mary, the wife of Clopas, because that would mean that MARY, the mother of Jesus had a sister named ‘MARY’!] ‘Clopas’ (‘Klōpas’ – ‘my exchanges’) is the same person as ‘Alphaeus’ (‘Alphaios’ – ‘changing’). So, Mary, the wife of Clopas IS Mary, the mother of James (the Less) & Joseph. So, since James (the Less) is the ‘son of Alphaeus’ (Matthew 10:3), then Mary, the wife of ‘Clopas’ IS also Mary, the wife of ‘Alphaeus.’ Therefore, Alphaeus (aka: Clopas), the ‘other’ Mary, James (the Less), & Joseph are also one blood-related, family unit.

So, if we compare these two blood-related, family units, to the family unit of Mary (Jesus’ mother), Joseph (Jesus’ step-father), & Jesus, who are with the ‘brothers’ (‘adelphos’) & ‘sisters’ (‘adelphē’) of Jesus in His ‘own household’ (Mark 6:4), we discover that these ‘brothers’ & ‘sisters’ of Jesus are His actual, blood-related, half-brothers & half-sisters, & not Jesus’ cousins, disciples, believing ‘spiritual’ brothers & sisters, or children from a previous marriage of Joseph.

If Jesus had half-brothers & half-sisters, why did He leave His mother under the care of an unrelated man – his disciple, John (John 19:26-27)?

At the time of Jesus’ crucifixion, His half-brothers had dishonored Him (Psalm 69:6-9; Mark 6:4), & were not believing in Him (John 7:3-5), until after His resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:7; Acts 1:14). Therefore, they were not at the cross. However, John was Jesus’ blood-related COUSIN, since John was the son of Zebedee & Salome, and Salome was the sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus (see above). Therefore, since Jesus’ brothers were not at the cross, & the rest of Jesus’ disciples were ‘fearfully’ hiding behind locked doors (John 20:19), Jesus entrusted His mother, Mary, to his only faithful disciple and COUSIN, John (John 19:26-27).

You DO know plagerism is against forum rules…right?

 

[clem456]

And what do you do when you see scriptures quoted to say something you disagree with ? Do you lap it up and say, "I like this, and will discard what I used to like. " ?

No, I think it odd for a Christian to think all his views are absolutely truthful.

When I see something in the faith I don’t understand I look to the Church, which is Christ’s livinng body. I defer to the Church’s Tradition, Scripture, and living Magisteriuum, which is living in Christ. (Christ is alive, is he not?)

I do not hold “my views”. I gve my assent to the Church. That’s the whole point of this thread.
Interesting that your frame of reference for belief starts witth the word “my”.

How do you answer your own question???

 

[PRmerger]

Okay, I’m going to say something some will regard as heretical. What does it matter in the great scheme of salvation whether Mary remained a virgin after Jesus’ birth?

All teachings on Mary only serve to enhance, highlight and nourish our understanding of Christ.

An impoverished understanding of Mary leads to an impoverished understanding of Christ.

Additionally, there have been not a few Muslims who have stated, “How could your Jesus have been God if the womb which contained him contained tainted creatures also?”

It would be like the Ark of the Covenant, in addition to carrying the Word, also carried some dirty pebbles.

Possibly we need to spend our thoughts and prayer life on more important issues, such as how well we’re living our own Christian lives.

Catholics are quite capable of doing both. There is no need to create a dichotomy.

The quote from Isaiah that refers to a “virgin” giving birth is generally accepted to be a mistranslation which should have read “pure.” When one is pure in thought, word, and deed, one can still have a marital relationship.

That seems to affirm a very midieval view of sex. As if someone who has had sex is now “impure”. That is certainly NOT the Catholic view of sexuality.

 

[clem456]

Why is Mary important?
We are called to know God. He reveals himself to us. We are called to be in his image.
What is his image?
He loves, he gives, he trusts. His full revelation, Christ, is given in the flesh to a woman. This is how God himself acts. God loves every person uniquely and graces us with unique charisms, or gifts.
How uniuely the woman Mary is graced…“kecharitomene”. In acknnowledging God’s grace as revealed in Mary, we can only come closer to Christ.

It is the unfortunate product of individualism that denies the unique grace given by God to every person.

Or are you envious because I am generous?

Instead we cry “it can’t be possible!” As if God’s grace were ours to dispense.

 

[eddie_too]

concerning the apostle Thomas not being present when Jesus breathed upon the apostles after His Resurrection upon giving them the power to absolve sins, Jesus may well have done this for Thomas individually. also, we might remember, any of the other twelve could have done this for Thomas at another time. jumping to conclusions based on erroneous interpretations of sacred scripture is a common occurrence among those who have only themselves for guidance.

the most absurd thing to believe is that everything of importance that occurred in the lives of Jesus and His apostles is recorded in the New Testament. the gospel of John even tells us that Jesus said and did far more than is recorded in the New Testament.

the best resolution of this issue is to answer the question of whether or not Jesus gave His apostles His authority to preach His Gospel. preaching the Gospel requires interpreting the words of the New Testament.

 

[pablope]

Thank you for being reasonable for some in frustration perhaps say we have no biblical , historical interpretation of evidences for our Marion doctrine.Well, we do not pick and choose evidences though we definitely do pick and choose interpretations thereof (as we all do).

Everything is evidence for something, based on interpretation.

I think so. I think individuals and churches do this , including C and CC or as noted above with the “as we all do”.

Benhur…I would like you to read this and give us your view on it (no disrespect intended…just want to know what you think and it is by a protestant):calledtocommunion.com/2009/10/stanley-hauerwas-on-reformation-sunday/

I am particularly interested in this part of the article:

This creates a quite different attitude among Catholics about their relation to Christian tradition and the wider world. Protestants look over to Christian tradition and say, ‘How much of this do we have to believe in order to remain identifiably Christian?’ That’s the reason why Protestants are always tempted to rationalism: we think that Christianity is to be identified with sets of beliefs more than with the unity of the Spirit occasioned through sacrament.

Moreover, once Christianity becomes reduced to a matter of belief, as it clearly has for Protestants, we cannot resist questions of whether those beliefs are as true or useful as other beliefs we also entertain. Once such questions are raised, it does not matter what the answer turns out in a given case. As James Edwards observes, “Once religious beliefs start to compete with other beliefs, then religious believers are — and will know themselves to be — mongerers of values. They too are denizens of the mall, selling and shopping and buying along with the rest of us.”

In contrast, Catholics do not begin with the question of “How much do we need to believe?” but with the attitude “Look at all the wonderful stuff we get to believe!” Isn’t it wonderful to know that Mary was immaculately conceived in order to be the faithful servant of God’s new creation in Jesus Christ! She therefore becomes the firstborn of God’s new creation, our mother, the first member of God’s new community we call church. Isn’t it wonderful that God continued to act in the world through the appearances of Mary at Guadalupe! Mary must know something because she seems to always appear to peasants and, in particular, to peasant women who have the ability to see her. Most of us would not have the ability to see Mary because we’d be far too embarrassed by our vision.

 

[zz912]

Because Mary remaining a virgin after the birth of Jesus is NOT supported by Scripture. That is the “interpretation” that is ADDED to Scripture that actually contradicts it, which also supports that Mary had other children. So, if you’re not going to believe me (which I don’t expect you to) at least believe what Scripture supports, not what it doesn’t.

Plus if you actually read Proto-James, the wording is explicit that “Mary’s” mid-wife forcefully “thrust” her finger up her which is pretty “athletic,” not “gently” like a modern-day doctor does. Plus, her mid-wife (actually it was Salome) cries out about her “inequity.” Checking to see if a woman is a virgin WITHOUT breaking the hymen would not be an act of inequity. Plus, you are still confusing “how” the ISRAELITES “tested” to see if a person was a virgin vs. modern day gynecology. You can’t use 20th & 21st OB-GYN techniques to understand ancient middle-eastern “testing” of virginity. Sorry, but by the “athletic” wording (“thrusting”) of Proto-James, she broke “Mary’s” hymen, rendering her a NON-virgin by OT Jewish standards. So, the “Mary,” as well as “Joseph” in Proto-James are NOT the Mary & Joseph of Scripture.

Again, you are reading your own bias and theology into the passage and not reading the passage honestly.

1. And I saw a woman coming down from the hill-country, and she said to me: O man, whither are you going? And I said: I am seeking an Hebrew midwife. And she answered and said unto me: Are you of Israel? And I said to her: Yes. And she said: And who is it that is bringing forth in the cave? And I said: A woman betrothed to me. And she said to me: Is she not your wife? And I said to her: It is Mary that was reared in the temple of the Lord, and I obtained her by lot as my wife. And yet she is not my wife, but has conceived of the Holy Spirit.

And the widwife said to him: Is this true? And Joseph said to her: Come and see. And the midwife went away with him. And they stood in the place of the cave, and behold a luminous cloud overshadowed the cave. And the midwife said: My soul has been magnified this day, because my eyes have seen strange things— because salvation has been brought forth to Israel. And immediately the cloud disappeared out of the cave, and a great light shone in the cave, so that the eyes could not bear it. And in a little that light gradually decreased, until the infant appeared, and went and took the breast from His mother Mary. And the midwife cried out, and said: This is a great day to me, because I have seen this strange sight. And the midwife went forth out of the cave, and Salome met her. And she said to her: Salome, Salome, I have a strange sight to relate to you: a virgin has brought forth— a thing which her nature admits not of. Then said Salome: As the Lord my God lives, unless I thrust in my finger, and search the parts, I will not believe that a virgin has brought forth.

1. And the midwife went in, and said to Mary: Show yourself; for no small controversy has arisen about you. **And Salome put in her finger, and cried out, and said: Woe is me for mine iniquity and mine unbelief, **because I have tempted the living God; and, behold, my hand is dropping off as if burned with fire. And she bent her knees before the Lord, saying: O God of my fathers, remember that I am the seed of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob; do not make a show of me to the sons of Israel, but restore me to the poor; for You know, O Lord, that in Your name I have performed my services, and that I have received my reward at Your hand. And, behold, an angel of the Lord stood by her, saying to her: Salome, Salome, the Lord has heard you. Put your hand to the infant, and carry it, and you will have safety and joy. And Salome went and carried it, saying: I will worship Him, because a great King has been born to Israel. And, behold, Salome was immediately cured, and she went forth out of the cave justified. And behold a voice saying: Salome, Salome, tell not the strange things you have seen, until the child has come into Jerusalem.

She says “thrust” as a figure of speech. The text says she “put” her finger in. So it was not as you claimed.

And the reason she said “iniquity” is because she doubted God.

So we see yet another passage (although not of Scripture) that you have incorrectly read or incorrectly described.

 

[zz912]

I understand that’s a Catholic “belief,” but that “belief” is not supported by Scripture. The NT passage by Paul you are referring to, if you read the SURROUNDING passages, Paul is “not” referring to “different” traditions (one by word, one by letter), but the SAME tradition (“either” by word or by letter). So, the different “modes” Paul is referring to is referring to spreading the SAME MESSAGE in one of two modes. Plus, it still doesn’t change the fact that Scripture does NOT support that Mary “remained” a virgin, but just the opposite. So, if a “tradition” conflicts with Scripture, the “tradition” is wrong.

This is completely false. First, St. Paul’s letters were written before much of the rest of the NT. So MOST of the NT Scripture wasn’t written down, and a LARGE part of the gospel message wasn’t committed to writing. And note something VERY important here…St. Paul doesn’t write down these very important teachings!!! He had no idea the other books of the NT would even be written, and yet he had NO concern about the complete gospel message being transmitted. So he actually indicates at that point in time that MOST of the gospel message was transmitted orally by the Church.

That’s wrong to. Jesus gave authority to Peter & the apostles, but not the kind of “authority” that your extrabiblical “tradition” teaches. Otherwise, you’d accept what the Bible supports vs. your “precepts the doctrines of MEN” (Matthew 15:9).

The authority to determine which books belong in the Bible. Seems like that authority is pretty strong. The authority also included the ability to bind on earth AND in heaven! That is pretty strong authority. Don’t you agree?

False again! I “ignore” anything outside of the Bible that conflicts with it. Anything that has been “added” to the Bible that conflicts with it is wrong, such as Mary “remaining” a virgin, since Scripture supports the opposite.

It only conflicts with your personal interpretation of the Bible. For the VAST majority of Christianity throughout the history of the Christian faith it has been understood and taught that Mary was ever virgin. The heretic Helvidius spouted that nonsense and the Church slapped his teaching down. And it wasn’t challenged until the later generations of the Protestant deformation.

Not really a ringing endorsement for your personal theology.

 

[zz912]

Then Thomas is NOT part of the Church? Because Jesus didn’t “breathe” on Thomas! Plus if Peter is God-breathed, then are you saying that Scripture can utter falsehoods? Because Jesus “breathed” on Peter, yet he later uttered a falsehood when Paul “condemned him to his face.” You’re still not getting that that passage you quoted has NOTHING to do with Jesus “breathing” the Holy Spirit on them - which didn’t occur until Pentecost - in the same way Scripture is “God-breathed.” Otherwise, you have Thomas NOT being part of the Church since Jesus did NOT breathe on Him, & Scripture uttering falsehoods since Peter was breathed on by Jesus, yet uttered falsehoods.

1. Scripture doesn’t mention if Thomas was later breathed on by Jesus or not. Your using an argument from silence. Even if Jesus did not breath on him, the oter Apostles could lay hands on him and confer that authority to him, just as they did with Matthias.
2. What falsehood did Peter utter? Specifically.

 

[zz912]

Actually it DOES “record” that Thomas was not there. You are “adding” to Scripture that Jesus “might” have “breathed” on Thomas later. The fact that John went out of his way to state that Thomas wasn’t there, is evident that Jesus didn’t breathe a SECOND time with Thomas present - otherwise, John would have recorded this second “breathing” too.

You are adding to Scripture. You cannot declare that because John didn’t write something, it didn’t happen. John himself says there is MUCH that he didn’t write down.

So why are you adding to Scripture?

 

[zz912]

“Filled”? At Pentecost & in Acts 4. John 20:22-23 only states that Jesus BREATHED on His disciples (minus Thomas), not they were “filled” with the Holy Spirit. In fact, it doesn’t actually STATE that Jesus “GAVE” Holy Spirit to them AT THAT TIME. Jesus merely said that they WOULD receive the Holy Spirit. You are “adding” to Scripture that Jesus gave it to them AT THAT TIME & that they were “FILLED.” So, I’m afraid YOU are the one exercising eisgesis rather than exegesis.

You are adding to Scripture the word “would”, which is not in the verse. Why are you adding to Scripture?

 

[zz912]

Okay, I’m going to say something some will regard as heretical. What does it matter in the great scheme of salvation whether Mary remained a virgin after Jesus’ birth? It certainly didn’t affect her ability to be a good mother or a faithful servant of God. There is no reason she should remain a virgin after marriage. Indeed, I see the entire question as irrelevant.

A basic precept of Christianity is that Mary is the mother of Jesus. Whether she had other later offspring or not is irrelevant to her goodness–although as a mother myself, I can state with assurance that being a parent is a great test of all the Christian virtues.

Possibly we need to spend our thoughts and prayer life on more important issues, such as how well we’re living our own Christian lives. The quote from Isaiah that refers to a “virgin” giving birth is generally accepted to be a mistranslation which should have read “pure.” When one is pure in thought, word, and deed, one can still have a marital relationship.

Because Mary isn’t just a receptacle. She is the Ark of the New Covenant. She is the Mother of God. She was the gate through which God entered the world.

Every single declaration about Mary is actually a declaration about WHO Jesus IS. All the Marian doctrines are actually Christological doctrines.