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

[PRmerger]

You’re still not getting what I’m saying. Since the PVM of Mary is making an assertion that Mary DEFINITELY 100% “remained” a virgin, & since there is ZERO evidence from Scripture that she did, how can you say that you agree that “you don’t feel comfortable believing in something that conflicts with the Word of God”?

I think perhaps the problem is that you don’t understand what the word “conflicts” means.

For it to “conflict”, something would have to say “A” and the CC would have to profess “not A”.

There is no verse in Scripture which conflicts with the teaching of the PVM.

You can search Genesis through Revelation, and you won’t find a single verse that conflicts with it.

As such, you have been duped into believing a man-made tradition, taz.

 

[Randy_Carson]

.

Obviously, maternal half-brothers, since Joseph was not Jesus’ biological father. I notice a lot of Catholics confuse half-brothers & step-brothers on this forum. Mary & Joseph were the parents of Jesus’ half-brothers.

If there were only three women, instead of four, then John doesn’t account for his OWN mother, even though Matthew & Mark did. This is extremely unlikely. Also, there are Hebrew & Greek words for “in-law” USED in both the OT & NT. If the “other” Mary was a sister-in-law, John would have used it. Plus, 100% of the time “sister” is used in the Gospels, it refers to uterine siblings, except when Jesus is comparing His biological family to His spiritual “brother & sister & mother.” Also, there is no reason given the text to “assume” that “sister” means sister-in-law, except to read a preconceived religious view INTO the text.

That’s because it requires more than a single verse to substantiate it, which is why it took THREE separate posts to do so. Go back & reread them.

This is where you’re getting confused. The “James & Joseph” who are in the grouping of the four brothers (James/Joseph/Simon/Jude) are NOT the same “James & Joseph” who are the sons of Alphaeus. But this is only apparent if you understand there are FOUR women at the cross, not THREE, which Scripture supports.

You keep saying this stuff over and over.

I’ve read all your posts. I’ve read the posts you are telling us to back and read. I’ve shown YOU how there are four women at the cross. I’ve named them. I’ve quoted the verses that prove who they were. I don’t see how this proves Mary had other children.

So, why don’t you sit down at your keyboard and type out your argument in neat logical paragraphs as if you were presenting a paper to a professor in college? Lay it all out. That would be a great post for you to refer back to later, btw, because your argument is a jumbled mess across multiple posts and it’s difficult to make heads or tails of it.

And so far, what you’ve posted doesn’t prove what you’re claiming it proves. :nope:

Try again.

And by the way, I did something similar in posts #519-522, and you have never responded to those posts to my knowledge.

 

[ericc]

.

Obviously, maternal half-brothers, since Joseph was not Jesus’ biological father. I notice a lot of Catholics confuse half-brothers & step-brothers on this forum. Mary & Joseph were the parents of Jesus’ half-brothers.

 

[eddie_too]

many things in Christian thought present a dilemma for a person who thinks God’s only public communication with human beings is through the Bible.

although the bible itself never claims to be the only source of God’s communication with men, there are still those who want to teach that it is the only source. their not recognizing that they contradict themselves when they create this doctrine that only scripture can communicate God’s will to mankind is at the heart of their dilemmas.

while it is true that sacred scripture never clearly and succinctly tells us that Mary bore only one Son, it is equally true that sacred scripture never clearly and succinctly tells us that Mary bore more than one Son.

it takes effort to read sacred scripture and to understand it as supporting either position. clearly then, Christians have a choice to make.

the reasons, outside of sacred scripture for believing Jesus was Mary’s only Son are many. they are based on history, on sacred scripture, on reason, on the authority of the RC magisterium and on the writings of the early Church.

the reasons, outside of sacred scripture for believing Mary bore sons other than Jesus are virtually non-existent, have some support in sacred scripture, are unsupported by reason, are unsupported by the men Jesus appointed to preach His Gospel to the world, and are found in some of the apocryphal writings of the early centuries.

none of us are going to persuade anyone who is convinced that their reading of sacred scripture is superior to anyone else’s reading, superior even to the reading of those Jesus Himself appointed to be His teachers for us. only people who are convinced of their own superiority can reject the teachings of the apostles.

when someone can conclude that THEY are NOT interpreting sacred scripture when they draw a conclusion from sacred scripture that is not clearly and concisely provided by the words of scripture, there is little reason to believe that they are open to discussion and learning.

this means it is best to leave these people in whatever peace they can find in their lives. only the grace of God is able to penetrate the shields some people set up so as not to be upset by people who disagree with them. that means it is our responsibility to pray that God grant these people the gift of faith. believing in the bible is not the same thing as believing in Jesus Christ. let us pray that more and more people believe in Jesus rather than in themselves or what they read in the bible.

we cannot really know why some reject Jesus’ Church. we have been taught that faith in Jesus and His Church are Divine gifts. only God knows why He allows some to remain unbelievers. knowing His mercy, we conclude that whatever the reason it is related to God’s will to save as many souls as is possible.

 

[onenow1]

They had two children, JOHN and JAMES, Mk 3:17. JOHN at the foot of the cross to whom Jesus gave His mother, was not a child of Mary, the mother of Jesus, but of Zebedee and Salome. If Jesus had blood brothers, why then did He not give His mother to them? Jewish law would have demanded it…

1. Did Jesus Christ found the Bible or the Church?
   Does the Bible say it was the Bible? No, it says He founded His Church, Matthew 16:18.
2. What is the pillar and foundation of the truth?
   Does the Bible say it is the Bible? No, it says it is the Church, 1Timothy 3:15.
   This verse also tells us that the Church was already in existence before 1Timothy was written.
3. Who or what is the final authority?
   Does the Bible say it is the Bible? No, it says it is the Church, Matthew 18:15-18.
4. Who is the teacher of all the wisdom of GOD?
   Does the Bible say it is the Bible? No, it says it is the Church, Ephesians 3:10.

GENEALOGY:

—Zebedee------Mt 4:21,Mk 1:19, Mk 3:17----------------

• ------begat--------James and John-------------------------

—Salome------------Mt 27:56, Mk 15:40--------------------

—Cleophas-(Alphaeus)–Mt 10:2-3, Jn 19:25, Acts 1:13------

• ------begat------James (the less), Joseph (Joses), and Jude---------

—Mary----the other Mary, Mt 27:56,61, 28:1, Jn 19:25------

—THE HOLY SPIRIT------Lk 1:35-38----------------------

• ------begat------JESUS THE CHRIST--------------------

—Mary---------------------Lk 1:30-38-----------------------

This ‘Genealogy’ shows who the real parents of the ‘brothers’ in Mark 6:3, and Matthew 13:55, are,
and makes the word ‘brother’ a non-argument.

“Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . ‘brothers’ really means ‘cousins’ here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.”
Martin Luther, (Sermons on John, chapters 1-4, 1537-39).

Comment: Mary knew from the word of God, Jesus would be the Son of God. Mary was stunned with the angels statement till the angel told her the Holy Spirit will come upon you, the power of the most High will overshadow you. Look up: Luke 1:32-36

God bless
And the truth will set you free.

 

[wmscott]

Thetazlord,

Take a quick look at St. Jerome’s refutation of Helvidius here: **Jerome vs Helvidius **

To what degree does he use or quote other ECF’s; or does he cite any other early Church writings?

To what degree does St Jerome use scripture to support his argument?

I’ll answer the last question: a very quick read of the text is that he cites scripture, giving chapter and verse 55 times.

He would take issue with you saying that Mary’s perpetual virginity is not seen in scripture.

It wont work, he is going to accuse you of putting forth a red herring when you ask him to read Jerome vs Helvidius

 

[wmscott]

If you mean show you “ONE VERSE” that Mary had other children WORD-FOR-WORD, then show me “ONE VERSE” that uses the actual WORD “Trinity” - not just verses that support it. Because that is what you are doing, which is a strawman. BTW, I HAVE shown you the verses, but because of your preconceived “belief,” you are blocking yourself from accepting that Scripture not stating WORD-FOR-WORD that Mary had other children is irrelevant whether she did or not. Rather, Scripture DOES support it, but you have to examine MULTIPLE Scriptures, which “have” been shown to you, that you simply ignore.

Deflecting and dodging the question are we???

 

[onenow1]

Deflecting and dodging the question are we???

We Catholics are under a continuous bombardment of negativism from many sources. How many times have you heard from the pulpit a Catholic priest deliberately attacking a non-Catholic Church? I do not recall one single case in which this has happened. Yet others take great pleasure in attacking our Catholic Church, and they will do it from the pulpit. It amazes me how some non-Catholic sects seem to spend a significant percentage of their time in attacking our Church, instead of preaching to their own followers, of “love thy neighbor” as taught by the Word of GOD in Holy Scripture.

God Bless

 

[wmscott]

If you mean show you “ONE VERSE” that Mary had other children WORD-FOR-WORD, then show me “ONE VERSE” that uses the actual WORD “Trinity” - not just verses that support it. Because that is what you are doing, which is a strawman. BTW, I HAVE shown you the verses, but because of your preconceived “belief,” you are blocking yourself from accepting that Scripture not stating WORD-FOR-WORD that Mary had other children is irrelevant whether she did or not. Rather, Scripture DOES support it, but you have to examine MULTIPLE Scriptures, which “have” been shown to you, that you simply ignore.

Wait a minute Are you recycling the Catholic challenges to try and prove your points and are now introducing Red Herrings?

I asked you this back in post #518 and you stated in post #611 "Although the word “Trinity” doesn’t appear in Scripture, the concept of the Trinity is explicitly described in Scripture ", And accused me of introducing Red Herrings

Many here HAVE shown you the verses, you simply ignore them, but because of your inadequacy in being able to fully discern what has been provided to you for you edification, you hold to a fallacious interpretation that is hindering you from accepting that the Blessed Mother remained ever virgin. Whether by flawed personal interpretations, pride, hubris, or an anti-Catholic position, the fact remains that Scripture DOES support it, but you have to examine MULTIPLE Scriptures, which “has” been shown to you, you chose to ignore them.

 

[benhur]

Yes … God commanded with exactness the construction of the Arc of the Covenant … even if empty - it remains set apart … forever …

If you had possession of the Arc and it was emptied of its contents - the actual Arc of the Covenant - verified

You assert that it would not be sacred any more and could be used for any common purpose? And you would find that acceptable?

benhur - I really doubt that - I cannot believe that you would really use it as a container for non sacred objects … - just another antique piece of furniture …

Really - would you?

You want to idolize a memory, a past event, make it a “relic” ? There are dispensations, dispensations of the grace and presence of God. That is the main thing is it not ?

But if you prefer carbon atoms…

Let us go where God is,.In my opinion after the birth, for Joseph it was then the consummation of the marriage, a marriage commanded of God.

 

[benhur]

Yes … God commanded with exactness the construction of the Arc of the Covenant … even if empty - it remains set apart … forever …

If you had possession of the Arc and it was emptied of its contents - the actual Arc of the Covenant - verified

You assert that it would not be sacred any more and could be used for any common purpose? And you would find that acceptable?

benhur - I really doubt that - I cannot believe that you would really use it as a container for non sacred objects … - just another antique piece of furniture …

Really - would you?

But really would you treat it the same??? Its use accomplished, His presence gone, and you would treat it the same as if He were still there???

 

[wmscott]

We Catholics are under a continuous bombardment of negativism from many sources. How many times have you heard from the pulpit a Catholic priest deliberately attacking a non-Catholic Church? I do not recall one single case in which this has happened. Yet others take great pleasure in attacking our Catholic Church, and they will do it from the pulpit. It amazes me how some non-Catholic sects seem to spend a significant percentage of their time in attacking our Church, instead of preaching to their own followers, of “love thy neighbor” as taught by the Word of GOD in Holy Scripture.

God Bless

So true, I am a convert and I remember back in the 60’s and 70’s anti-Catholic attacks from the pulpit and in their Sunday schools or prayer groups. Since converting over 30 years ago I do not remember either an attack by a Catholic Priest or Deacon on the Protestants. I remember them referring to Protestants as Brothers and Sisters in Christ.

 

[benhur]

Yes … God commanded with exactness the construction of the Arc of the Covenant … even if empty - it remains set apart … forever …

If you had possession of the Arc and it was emptied of its contents - the actual Arc of the Covenant - verified

You assert that it would not be sacred any more and could be used for any common purpose? And you would find that acceptable?

benhur - I really doubt that - I cannot believe that you would really use it as a container for non sacred objects … - just another antique piece of furniture …

Really - would you?

Sounds like you are doing what Peter wanted to do at the Mount of Transfiguration, stay there and make a monument out of the place…Jesus kindly said , “let’s move on Peter, we’ve got other things to do”.

And so some claim, rightly so, in my opinion, for Joseph and Mary’s marriage ,“to move on, forward”.

 

[benhur]

Oh. Well that is very Catholic of you, ben.

We just don’t make it an “only”. Brothers doesn’t have to mean ONLY uterine brothers. Hence, the “brothers of the Lord” are NOT uterine brothers.

Your welcome. That is why the word used by a brother here, implicit,is very good. The meaning must be derived from context. The text is not “clueless”. Language is too much His gift, from His mind.

Hence, the “brothers of the Lord” are NOT uterine brothers.

Yes for some, and not by default. It is in the eye of the beholder. Oh no, is that personal, private,corporate, relative ? Yes,yes, yes and no .

 

[benhur]

benhur. I explicitly defined earlier what I meant by “Americanized” definition of “adelphos”(here) and it doesn’t mean from “the USA” benhur.
Let me give you what I explicitly said (again) . . .
If you prefer, a “NON-Greekized” way to define “adelphos” or . . . .an UNBINLICAL way to define “adelphos” that’s fine.
Call it what you want, but if you are going to truncate or pare down the Biblical meaning of adelphos, I want to see the evidence. And I have seen NO evidence.

OK. Thank you. It’s all Greek to me, as they say.

You can add in Ebion and Cerinthus to your cadre of heretics that you want to follow too. They ALSO denied the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Thank you. I will look them up. Is that why they were heretics, the ever virgin question?

Otherwise, see I am not ALONE !!! Cool. and see I am not an inventor !!! Cool.
. .

 

[zz912]

Sounds like you are doing what Peter wanted to do at the Mount of Transfiguration, stay there and make a monument out of the place…Jesus kindly said , “let’s move on Peter, we’ve got other things to do”.

And so some claim, rightly so, in my opinion, for Joseph and Mary’s marriage ,“to move on, forward”.

Actually Peter was asking about building booths there for them as the Festival of Booths was happening.

And the Church that Jesus built, which is the pillar and foundation of the truth, which Christians are to know how to behave by remaining in her, and who Christians are commanded to turn to when they have questions about the faith, that Church has declared something as true about the Christian faith. It is well worth our time to properly ponder on it some.

 

[Cathoholic]

I asked thetazlord to give me ONE VERSE where it says Mary is the mother of ANYONE (in a biologic sense) other than Jesus.

I also asked thetazlord to give me ONE VERSE where it says ANYBODY is the son or daughter of the Blessed Virgin Mary (in a biologic sense) other than Jesus.

Thetazlord claimed this is a “straw man”. I said I’d give him that but then give me the series of verses but I want QUOTES, not personal assertions with personal interpretations.

Thetazlord earlier did it, and I immediately called him on it pointing out that several of those SAME verses he is using to point away from the Perpetual Virginity of Mary ACTUALLY points TOWARD the Perpetual Virginity of Mary as these same verses that Taz was using, explicitly refer to Jesus as the “SON” of Mary in a singular sense (NOT a plural sense). Others actually refer to Jesus the SON (not “one of the SONS) of Joseph!

I asked thetazlord to give us quotes again of the verses if he wants to try to super-impose these verses.

But he went back to just asserting it so because he says its so. This is classic ipse dixit fallacious reasoning.

Thetazlord tried the same method for early Church Fathers that allegedly deny the Perpetual Virginity of Mary—he wouldn’t quote one of them.

The arguments from thetazlord thus have NOT been persuasive.

I am still waiting for something that is not your incorrect interpretation of Scripture thetazlord. I am still waiting for you to QUOTE (not assert) verses that you can link this theory of yours together (without associated verses that CONTRADICT) what you are trying to put forth).

Nobody is falling for the canard. Nobody here is accepting the chicanery of your tradition.

 

[benhur]

So you are intimating St. Joseph wouldn’t touch the Blessed Mother because he KNEW God would not want him to from Isaiah’s prophecy.
OK. Fair enough so far.
If you think Joseph took Isaiah’s prophecy that the angel reminded him of, and concluded he shouldn’t touch the Blessed Virgin, WHY NOT? WHY Would GOD order this?
You still haven’t answered the question. WHY NOT?

Thank you for your calm and yet "studious’’ approach, indeed you are a "holic’’.

To reiterate, the prophecy" a virgin shall conceive AND birth". Why? I am still floored by your “fair enough”. Cool.

I think I did post my postulation as to why (God ordered it). Perhaps to make it perfectly clear that indeed it was the HS that conceived Him. They were astute to “wayward ways and their consequences” back then, as we are today, as in "wait a minute, “how do we know it really is His child and not yours Joseph”. No dna testing then. So, sorry Mary and Joseph , please abstain thruout the whole thing AND to show proper “fear” for what the Lord has done in her. Two birds with one stone. This was a special “intervention”, and treated as such (holy).

Did you think that because I say her womb was not “holy”( knowable by Joseph) after the birth , I would say it was not before it ?

Are you saying marital relations are “dirty”?

No. and any inference that some may have that bias, is applied to the situation** after** the birth, that is, reasoning for the "ever-virgin " there after part.

What do you think the reasoning is here benhur that St. Joseph should NOT know his wife at this point? (Don’t you see. This is one of my whole points on this thread. Your Mariology affects your Christology)

Holic, I have tried a bit just now to see any further point of understanding as to the why, on your part. I have answered as best I can. Have not read all your posts with Taz (I am not that holic- a lot of posting).

Really not sure the Christology error on my part. Trying to make sense of Jerome statement. He does not mention the prophecy, and seems to say he abstained merely out of fear and reverence , which to me is only half the story (one bird) and does not answer as to the why abstaining afterwards.

You saying St. Joseph is just extracting prophecy from Isaiah merely moves the question back one level to WHY would God inspire Isaiah to give this?
I am still waiting . . .

You have reasoned the opposing side well so far. Surely you can think of why also, though I think I have given the most probable reason (indeed assuring proper Christology- the fully divine part ).

 

[benhur]

The heretics are sure to cite Scripture verses because these heretics are “Scriptural” right benhur?

Why not go over there and show everyone all the “Patristic” evidence you have.

That there were voices down thru the ages might be enough. For sure they had scripture and tradition references as you . They did not reason from the Greek mythology or the Tripitake (Buddhism) or the Shastras (Hindu). They did not come from Chinese or Japanese culture. They came from a church culture , the Catholic church and reasoned accordingly.

 

[eddie_too]

could it be that st. joseph did not want to take liberties with the spouse of the Holy Spirit?

could it be that st. joseph recognized his marriage to Mary as something extraordinary and oriented to the protection of Mary and the Lord?

would those be good reasons, at least in the mind and faith of st. joseph, for why he and Mary did not have sexual intercourse after the Lord’s birth?