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

[wmscott]

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

It would be interesting to knowwhat translating of the Bible he is using

 

[wmscott]

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

To take this one step further… looking at his cited Scripture

John 20:20-23
KJV
20 When He had said this, He showed them His hands and His side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord.
21 So Jesus said to them again, “Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” 22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

John 20:20-23
Douay Rheims
[20] And when he had said this, he shewed them his hands and his side. The disciples therefore were glad, when they saw the Lord. [21] He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. [22] When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. [23] Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained

I do not “Explicitly” see the word “Would” either.

 

[Mystophilus]

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

19. εαν μη βαλω τον δακτυλον μου και] εραυνησω (“if not I-put the finger of-me [and] I-check/rauna&d=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=e)/rauna&i=1#lexicon)”)
21. ηραυνησε (“she checked”)

“thrust” is not even a very good translation for βαλω, which can, as the LSJ notes, denote movement “with or without a notion of haste” (A.II.6).

 

[benhur]

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?)

Thank you. We all do that and hopefully more ( like ask God, as Augustine did for understanding and faith on any matter, “He teaches us.”)

The Church is His living body but we also are His temple. It is corporate and individual.

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”.

Sounds like you are being a little but pious. Your opinion is your opinion, even if it is someone else’s.

My belief is my belief and of others. You don’t believe? And what is faith ? It is His gift to us. What you and I believe properly is His gift to you and me.

False piety to criticize ? Because I don’t always say, "thus sayeth the Lord to me, even to others) it must be from the mind of man ?

Please, we are long winded enough.

 

[benhur]

I am particularly interested in this part of the article:

 

[Randy_Carson]

Only if brother does not mean brother and sister sister and children children."

Ben-

I realize you are in the middle of a heated discussion with many people, but I would appreciate your honest answer to this one question:

Do you acknowledge that the Aramaic language does not have a word for “cousin” and that the word commonly translated into English as “brother” has a wide range of possible meanings which prohibit the possibility of proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that Mary did, in fact, have other children besides Jesus based solely on those verses which contain that word?

 

[benhur]

You said:

Thank you, for I, and others, have spoken, a lot. Even if you think it is all hot air, we have spoken just as surely as you have done, thank you.

Shall I be long winded again, and go tit for tat, and perhaps someone will say hooray (for our side) ?

You ASSUME an Americanized view of “brother”.

Wow, did not know Helvidius, Tertullian or Jovinianus were American. Cool. I suppose anything is possible if the apostles were Catholic.

Your view is an invention.

A “discovery or finding” , absolutely . “Seek and ye shall find, ask and it shall be given”. His truth on a matter, even wisdom, is a pearl, to be sought after.

Go ahead and tell the readers WHY St. Joseph “knew Mary not” when Mary was pregnant with Jesus.

Oh no, is this a trick question ? Shall I give you my pearl ? Well, it is there for anyone to see anyways, even a young adolescent.

For sure Joseph was obedient to the angel , his dream , that a *“knew not” shall conceive, *. So he “knew not” her. Right up to the birth it tells us.

You toss insults around about St. Jerome (“Jerome’s skewed view of marriage and sex, as when he responded to Jovinianus”)

Look, he is my hero also . I do not relish seeing any negatives about the saint. It is false piety to ignore them though , as scripture does not ignore, but even goes out of it’s way sometimes, to show that all saints fall short, but God is good and gracious.

It is done here to try to understand Jerome’s viewpoint. That is all.

Forget about what you personally think, and answer St. Jerome’s rhetorical question. .

I have answered it in another posts(s). Not sure the #,

In short. Mary 's womb was no longer holy (set aside for special purpose) in that the job was finished, and Jesus was no longer in her.(She was still “holy” even blessed,but not her womb).

Not sure, but was not the ark holy because what it contained (even His presence) ? If the contents were to be emptied and gone forever from within it, is the ark holy and unto what purpose ?** Holy requires a useful presence, usage.**

Her womb was holy both in purpose and presence of the Incarnate One. Is the essence of the Incarnate One subject to size , place, age ?( rationale we use to fight abortionists). If He was holy in the womb, making the womb holy, then was He holy in the manger, and the manger was holy? If He was holy walking, was not the ground that He walked on holy ? Or the chair that He sat in, or the clothes that He wore ?

Of course not, for He was clothed in humanity, even veiled, so that we could touch Him.

Sorry to say I am led to believe that St. Jerome was wrong on this ( that Mary should not be 'known not" forever by Joseph-a blessing and a curse).

Reminds me of a famous Italian sculptor who did a work of art for a certain city . The city then poked his eyes out so that he would not create anything so beautiful again, as in a rival town.

I can only surmise some of Jerome’s asceticism views came into play.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

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

I have no problem with John being a cousin of Jesus. My current thinking is that John is the son of Salome and Zebedee, and Salome was the daughter of Clopas/Alphaeus and the “other” Mary. If Clopas and Joseph were brothers, this makes Salome a niece and John a second cousin (I think).

However, when I was researching thetaz’ theories online last night, I came across the blog of a University professor and author who claims that Joseph died (old age) and Mary married Clopas under Levirate laws and had more kids by him.

etc, etc.

 

[PRmerger]

Only if brother does not mean brother and sister sister and children children.

Do you mean that “brother” can only mean “uterine brother”?

Do you think St. Paul was the “uterine brother” of Ananias?

So Anani′as departed and entered the house. And laying his hands on him he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road by which you came, has sent me that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.”

And is Apollos the “uterine brother” of all the Corinthians?

As for our brother Apol′los, I strongly urged him to visit you with the other brethren, but it was not at all his will to come now. He will come when he has opportunity.

 

[benhur]

And I never said this doctrine can be “clearly demonstrated from the New Testament”. I said it can be implicitly demonstrated from the Old Testament prophecies and the “intention” to remain Virginal can also be inferred from the Angel Gabriel and Mary’s discussion in Luke chapter 1.

That is a fine line between *demonstrating *and being implicit. However, I guess implicit is a good word for it as long as you don’t use it to mean" without doubt or reserve" but "*understood from something else though not expressed."

LIST]

• And if you turn to Oral Tradition it points you to the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

• And if you turn to the Fathers it points you to the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

• And if you turn to the Eastern Churches (including their Liturgy) it points you to the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

• And if you turn to the authority of the Church today it points you to the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

• And if you turn to the authority of the Councils it points you to the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

• And if you turn to implicit teachings of Sacred Scripture it points you to the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

• And if you turn to the Saints throughout the ages it points you to the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

But alas . . . .

But alas, not only is the Pope** infallible**, but so to is Oral Tradition, and the Fathers, Eastern Churches, Liturgy, Church Authority, Councils, and CC Scriptural Interpretation. And **by unanimous consent on all things? **

And you HAVE turned to heretics benhur if you look to people like Tertullian and Helvidius for answers.

Rather,** it is sometimes heretical to believe against the status quo.**

Careful, the staus quo stoned the OT prophets also.

If you don’t turn to them, WHY think YOUR personal interpretation to be infallible? Then we are back to the authority issue again. You can’t side-step the authority issue benhur.

I have not side stepped the authority issue, as you have not side stepped the CC, or Fathers or Councils or Tradition being in error.

Or you HAVE fallen into private interpretation if you “go it alone” here (“me and my Bible”).

Truth is universal to the **individual **and the corporate body, not “either /or inflexibility” but “both /and”.

Is the “individual” part “dirty”, unilluminable, private, alone ?

That’s interesting. I think it odd for a Christian to DENY their are some people who God will guide into all truth.JOHN 16:13a

13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; The CC is a respecter of persons if it applies the scripture “of guiding into all truth” to a “church”(officials), the successive priesthood and not the priesthood of all believers (lay people).*

 

[benhur]

You have not shown ONE VERSE! . . .

Right. It has all been implicit.

 

[ericc]

I have no problem with John being a cousin of Jesus. My current thinking is that John is the son of Salome and Zebedee, and Salome was the daughter of Clopas/Alphaeus and the “other” Mary. If Clopas and Joseph were brothers, this makes Salome a niece and John a second cousin (I think).

However, when I was researching thetaz’ theories online last night, I came across the blog of a University professor and author who claims that Joseph died (old age) and Mary married Clopas under Levirate laws and had more kids by him.

etc, etc.

Indeed we have extra-biblical source of information which unfortunately Protestants try not to use if it undermine their case. So I have asked Tazlord to stick with scriptures only so that I am operating on their turf. Which is fine. Yet to find proof of maternal half brothers. He would have to prove either Mary commit adultery or remarry, either of which is not in the Bible. Linking verses together is such an arbitrary technique which everyone knows is useless as a logic tool as any permutation can be produced.

 

[onenow1]

Maybe this can help clear up some things ?John 20: 17 Jesus said to her, “Do not hold me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”

Now in the very next verse, to whom did she go?
John 20:18, "Mary Magdalene came, and announced to the “DISCIPLES”, “I have seen the Lord, and these things He said to me.”
When Jesus said “BRETHREN”, He meant His “DISCIPLES”, and not blood brothers.

God Bless

 

[zz912]

The Church is His living body but we also are His temple.

The fullest measure of this is when we receive Him in the Eucharist. We LITERALLY become a temple to God.

 

[benhur]

And so far you (or anyone else here) has not been able to show me ONE. ** I’ve seen it alleged**, **but no evidence, no quotes, **etc.

???

900 posts and counting.

What are you punching at, air ?

Go back and re-read it. You are mixing up the “outer gate” with the gate of “inner court.” This is a different gate.

Nope, I believe it is the same gate, just a different perspective in the description of it.

But nobody has or will traverse the Eastern Gate of this prophecy (Ezekiel 44:1-2). That Gate is for God ALONE (“no one shall enter by it; for the LORD, the God of Israel, has entered by it; therefore it shall remain shut.”).

Yep, God shall never incarnate again as a man, and don’t look for Him as doing so, as Christ prophesied some would do or say.

The Incarnation is a once and for all deal like the Crucifixion, and Resurrection.

That didn’t get us anywhere did it? A spiritual Mexican standoff? Is that what **God’s revelation is reduced **to?

Our reaction to His Word in no way diminishes it. IT DOES NOT REDUCE HIS REVELATION.

The wheat with the tares, just as we shall always have the poor with us, light in the midst of darkness, we seeing thru a glass darkly, bearing one another.

You NEED someone who has God-given God-protected authority.

Amen, and may His grace and illumination guides us to that church.
.

I am not trying to defend that principle here on this thread. But my point here is, even your sola Scriptura paradigm itself cannot work.

That is right, otherwise my wheat and tare sentence above would not apply. There is no perfect fix till He returns, and I would not advocate for one. That would just add one more mistake.

 

[benhur]

The fullest measure of this is when we receive Him in the Eucharist. We LITERALLY become a temple to God.

No, but we are His monstrance, even before the "sacrament’, that is thankful for it.

 

[ericc]

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.

People are missing one point. How do we regard Holy Things? Mary’s womb is Holy, the abode of God for 9 months. Does it cease to be holy after 9 months? Can you defile it, can you touch it? Are you authorized? In the OT, unauthorized people gets zapped for unauthorized touching of the Tabernacle. To be in the presence of God, these people need to be purified too. Abstention from sex for example, washing of garments another. That’s why Catholics revere Holy Things. Things of God are not to be taken lightly. Do not profane the Eucharist is one. Those who don’t revere holy things will never understand. They pay lip service at the most. If people revere a printed book of paper, why do they not give an even higher reverence to the Mother of God? The Bible contains the words of God. The OT ark of the covenant contains the stone tablets, the words of God. Mary contains the WORD, God himself. She is the ark of the new covenant. You can print more Bibles if it gets old, torn and dirty and cast away. We have only ONE Mother. She is not cast away when she gets old. She becomes the Queen of Heaven.

 

[benhur]

I don’t know what you are talking about.

It is said Chrysostomos was ordained by excommunicated bishop.

If you are asserting the Fathers DID make mistakes, I agree.

OK. I assert ever virgin preaching was one of those mistakes.

But the Fathers also recognized an authority hierarchy whereby differences can be solved that went beyond merely “my interpretation of Scripture”.

Not sure all did, as Chrysostomos bishops indicate.

YOU have ignored a doctrine that asserts the specialness of Jesus, to follow after phony Bible-guys and Bible-gals that are think they are spiritual pied pipers as they come up with ever-new theological inventions in their conceit.

Actually, some say that is what Helvidius and Jovinainus came up against.

You have ignored Scripture, Tradition, the Eastern Fathers, the Western Fathers, history, the Councils, . . . even ignored your Protestant founders all to follow after . . . .

Please be more accurate. I did not ignore them, just said they all must be wrong on this.
. . . .

traditions of men that nullify the commandments of God (falsely labeled as “claims of divine revelation”).

Egg-zactly. Giving Mary wrong doctrine does not “bless” her.

 

[benhur]

Ben-

I realize you are in the middle of a heated discussion with many people, but I would appreciate your honest answer to this one question:

Do you acknowledge that the Aramaic language does not have a word for “cousin” and that the word commonly translated into English as “brother” has a wide range of possible meanings which prohibit the possibility of proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that Mary did, in fact, have other children besides Jesus based solely on those verses which contain that word?

Don’t claim expertise but yes agree to your point . Can not prove anything though the substance of faith are “evidences”. If you could prove this stuff everybody would be right, even saved. Those are Jesus’s words , not mine (well I paraphrased).

 

[benhur]

Do you mean that “brother” can only mean “uterine brother”?

No, that “brother” can mean uterine brother.