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

[PRmerger]

I perceive the sufficiency of Scripture “alone” to be infallible - not myself.

Well, if by “sufficient” you mean “materially sufficient”, then you are very Catholic when you say that.

However, if by “sufficient” you mean “Scripture alone”, then you have been duped into believing a man-made tradition, taz. For NOWHERE in Scripture does it state this.

You simply have fallen for a belief that you heard another (fallible) man proclaim. Who heard it from another (fallible) man…

but no one ever read “The Bible Alone is sufficient” in a single verse of the Bible. Ever.

One has to add ALONE in order to believe this man-made tradition, taz.

 

[thetazlord]

Don’t you see, taz, the irony in your statement here?

How do you know the source is a “false gospel”?

The answer can ONLY be: because you give your submission to the authority of the CC which discerned this for you and me.

So in denying Sacred Tradition you are also appealing to Sacred Tradition.

No, because I’ve read Proto-James & compared it to Scripture, & although there are similar themes, characters, & events between the two, it becomes painfully obvious after reading it that it isn’t guided by the Holy Spirit. And as mentioned before, the “Mary & Joseph” are not the same Mary & Joseph of Scripture when you read Proto-James & compare it to Scripture. Plus, since the “alleged” author had been DEAD for 150 years, should make it obvious to everyone that it’s a false “gospel.” So, the fact that CA Jimmy Akin & the Catholic church “agrees” that Proto-James doesn’t belong in the NT canon, & therefore not Inspired Scripture, does not mean I’m “appealing” to ‘Sacred Tradition’ - a term the NT NEVER refers to “tradition.” Unlike the Catholic, the Protestant doesn’t “need” to “appeal” to the tradition of men, but with the guidance of the Holy Spirit is able to discern by READING various texts & is guided to know what “is” & what “is not” Inspired Scripture.

 

[thetazlord]

Everything else?

What about the table of contents of the NT?

Does that come from the Bible?

Or do you get your belief about what belongs in the NT from some other entity?

Irrelevant to the discussion. Since we BOTH accept the EXACT SAME 27 books of the NT canon - just for different reasons - we should be focusing on what the NT Inspired canon actually supports. And it does NOT support that Mary “remained” a virgin her entire life. To believe otherwise is to ADD “YOUR interpretation” by imputing it into Scripture where it’s not there.

 

[thetazlord]

Well, if by “sufficient” you mean “materially sufficient”, then you are very Catholic when you say that.

However, if by “sufficient” you mean “Scripture alone”, then you have been duped into believing a man-made tradition, taz. For NOWHERE in Scripture does it state this.

You simply have fallen for a belief that you heard another (fallible) man proclaim. Who heard it from another (fallible) man…

but no one ever read “The Bible Alone is sufficient” in a single verse of the Bible. Ever.

One has to add ALONE in order to believe this man-made tradition, taz.

And you haven’t been “duped” into believing that extra-biblical “traditions” are at the same level as Scripture, even though Scripture NEVER states that? And what you’re still not getting is that since we AGREE on the EXACT SAME 27 book canon of the NT, that NOWHERE does it state, or even imply, that Mary “remained” a perpetual virgin. Don’t you think that since GOD EXPLICITLY STATED that the mother of the promised Messiah was going to be a virgin both DURING her pregnancy & AT His birth (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:25), that if she were to “remain” a virgin, that God would have ALSO EXPLICITLY STATED this particularly important & significant piece of information “somewhere” in the Bible, like He did with her being a virgin DURING her pregnancy & AT His birth?

 

[Randy_Carson]

No, it’s a case of the personal interpretations of fallible individuals vs. what Scripture actually supports. This is what you’re still not getting. Refer to posts #1005-1006

I have read posts #1005-1006.

What YOU don’t get is that when you say “this is what Scripture actually supports” what that really means is “this is my personal interpretation of scripture”.

Exactly! And what they had been “taught” wasn’t based on Scripture, which is a record of what we know Jesus, His disciples, & the first century Church actually believed & taught. Everything else is “the doctrines the precepts of men.”

Exactly! The Apostles taught their disciples who in turn taught there disciples and so on. And, oh by the way, at some point some things got written down. But not everything.

I don’t think I am any “better” nor “worse” than the opinions of any “scholar.” The Word of God - on the other hand - is.

When someone has earned a PhD and spent a lifetime studying certain things, you have to recognize his or her expertise whether the subject is British literature, molecular biology or Scripture. And unless you have the credentials and the published papers to established bona fides, I don’t think there is much basis for your claim that you are no “worse” than those who have them.

Good for you. I’ll stick with the Word of God over “countless theologians & scholars” who when you examine their beliefs don’t agree with each other over other issues, such as Augustine & Jerome who disagreed over the identity of Jesus’ brothers.

What hubris. What you are “sticking with” is your own interpretation of Scripture, but that must be pretty heady stuff now that you have left the Church and you’re out on your own.

Good luck with that!

 

[Randy_Carson]

NOWHERE does it state, or even imply, that Mary “remained” a perpetual virgin.

No implications?

1. Not a single verse of scripture says Mary had other children.
2. Not a single verse of scripture calls anyone a son or daughter of Mary.
3. When you read ALL of scripture, some very clear implications become apparent:

• In Luke 2:41-51: the story of Mary and Joseph taking Jesus to the Temple at the age of twelve, it is fairly obvious that Jesus is the only child. Since everyone agrees he was the first child of Mary, if there were up to five or more siblings, as some maintain (arguing, for example, from Matthew 13:55), they were nowhere to be found at this time. This passage alone furnishes a strong argument for the implausibility of the “literal brothers” theory.
• Jesus Himself uses brethren in the larger sense. In Matthew 23:8 He calls the “crowds” and His “disciples” (23:1) “brethren.” In other words, they are each other’s “brothers” (that is, the brotherhood of Christians). In Matthew 12:49-50 he calls his disciples and all who do the will of his Father “my brothers.”
• By comparing Matthew 27:56, Mark 15:40, and John 19:25, we find that James and Joseph – mentioned in Matthew 13:55 with Simon and Jude as Jesus’ “brothers” – are also called sons of Mary, wife of Clopas. This other Mary (Matthew 27:61, 28:1) is called Our Lady’s adelphe in John 19:25 (it isn’t likely that there were two women named “Mary” in one family – thus even this usage apparently means “cousin” or more distant relative). Matthew 13:55-56 and Mark 6:3 mention Simon, Jude and “sisters” along with James and Joseph, calling all adelphoi. Since we know for sure that at least James and Joseph are not Jesus’ blood brothers, the most likely interpretation of Matthew 13:55 is that all these “brothers” are cousins, according to the linguistic conventions discussed above. At the very least, the term brother is not determinative in and of itself.
• Firstborn: the use of this term to assert that Mary had “second-borns” and “third-borns” proves nothing, since the primary meaning of the Greek prototokos is “pre-eminent”. To illustrate: David is described by God as the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth (Ps. 89:27). Likewise, God refers to Ephraim (Jeremiah 31:9) and the nation Israel (Exod. 4:22) as “my firstborn.” Jesus is called “the firstborn of all creation” in Colossians 1:15, meaning, according to all reputable Greek lexicons, that he was pre-eminent over creation, that is, the Creator. The Jewish rabbinical writers even called God the Father Bekorah Shelolam, meaning “firstborn”. Similarly, God is called the “first” in Scripture (Isa. 41:4; 44:6; 48:12; cf. Rev. 1:8; 21:6-7). Christians are called “the firstborn” in Hebrews 12:23. Literally speaking, however, among the Jews, the firstborn was ordinarily the child who was first to open the womb (Exod. 13:2), whether there were other children or not. This is probably the meaning of Matthew 1:25, in which case hypothetical younger children of Mary are not implied at all, contrary to the standard present-day Protestant assertions.
• Mary is committed to the care of the Apostle John by Jesus from the Cross (John 19:26-27). Many Protestant interpreters agree with the Catholic view that Jesus likely would not have done this if he had brothers (who would all have been younger than he was). Many Church Fathers held this interpretation, including St. Athanasius, St. Epiphanius, St. Hilary, St. Jerome, and St. Ambrose, and used it in the defense of Mary’s perpetual virginity.
• Catholics believe that Mary’s reply to the angel Gabriel’s announcement that she would bear the Messiah, at the Annunciation – “How can this be, since I have no husband?” (Luke 1:34) – indicates a prior vow of perpetual virginity. St. Augustine, in his work Holy Virginity (4, 4), wrote: “Surely, she would not say, ‘How shall this be?’ unless she had already vowed herself to God as a virgin . . . If she intended to have intercourse, she wouldn’t have asked this question!”

These conclusions are not merely the result of “Catholic bias” and special pleading, as many charge. For example, the prominent Protestant Commentary on the Whole Bible comments on Matthew 13:55:

An exceedingly difficult question here arises: What were these “brethren” and “sisters” to Jesus? Were they, first, His full brothers and sisters? Or, secondly, Were they His step-brothers and step-sisters, children of Joseph by a former marriage? Or, thirdly, were they His cousins, according to a common way of speaking among the Jews respecting persons of collateral descent? On this subject an immense deal has been written, nor are opinions yet by any means agreed . . . In addition to other objections, many of the best interpreters, . . . prefer the third opinion . . . Thus dubiously we prefer to leave this vexed question, encompassed as it is with difficulties. [Commentary on the Whole Bible, Robert Jamieson, Andrew R. Fausset, & David Brown, editors, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1961 (originally 1864), 928; emphasis added.]

Matthew 1:24-25: “Joseph . . . knew her not until she had borne a son.”

This verse has been used as an argument that Mary did not remain a virgin after the birth of Jesus, but the same Protestant source also comments:

The word till does not necessarily imply that they lived on a different footing afterward (as will be evident from the use of the same word in 1 Samuel 15:35; 2 Samuel 6:23; Matthew 12:20); nor does the word firstborn decide the much-disputed question, whether Mary had any children to Joseph after the birth of Christ; for, as Lightfoot says, “The law, in speaking of the firstborn, regarded not whether any were born after or no, but only that none were born before.” 204

 

[Randy_Carson]

Another Protestant Reformer, Francis Turretin, on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

“This is not expressly declared in Scripture, but is yet piously believed with human faith from the consent of the ancient church. Thus it is probable that the womb in which our Savior received the auspices of life (whence he entered into this world, as from a temple) was so consecrated and sanctified by so great a guest that she always remained untouched by man; nor did Joseph ever cohabit with her.

Hence Helvidius and the Antidicomarianites (so-called because they were opponents of [antidikoi] Mary)are deservedly rebuked by the fathers for denying that Mary was always a virgin (aei Parthenon). They held that she cohabited with Joseph after delivery; yea, also bore children from him. As Augustine remarks, they rely on the shallowest arguments, i.e., because Christ is called the ‘firstborn’ of Mary (cf. De Haeresibus 56, 84 [PL 42.40, 46]). For as Jerome well remarks, she was so called because no one was begotten before him, not because there was another after him. Hence among lawyers: ‘He is the first whom no one precedes; he is last, whom no one follows.’ The Hebrews were accustomed to call the firstborn also only begotten; Israel is called ‘the first-born of God’ (Ex 4:22), although the only people chosen of God. Thus ‘the firstborn’ is said to be ‘holy unto God’ (Ex 13:2), who first opened the womb, whether others followed or not. Otherwise the firstborn would not have to be redeemed until after another offspring had been procreated (the law shows this to be false because it commands it to be redeemed a month after birth, Num. 18:16).

Not more solidly have they been able to elicit this from the fact that in the New Testament certain onesCoptic Annunciation are called ‘the brothers of Christ.’ It is common in Scripture not only for one’s own and full brothers by nature to be designated by this name, but also blood relatives and cousins (as Abraham and Lot, Jacob and Laban). Thus James and Joses, Simon and Judas are called brothers of Christ (Mt. 13:55) by a relation of blood. For Mary (who is called their mother by Matthew and Mark) is called by John the sister of the Lord’s mother. However what is said in Jn. 7:5 that ‘neither did his brethren believe him’ must be understood of more remote blood relations.

Nor is it derived better from this-that Joseph is said ‘not to have known Mary till she had brought forth her firstborn son’ (Mt. 1:25). The particles ‘till” and ‘even unto’ are often referred only to the past, not to the future (i.e., they so connote the preceding time, concerning which there might be a doubt or which it was of the highest importance to know, as not to have a reference to the future-cf. Gen 28:15; Pss 122:2; 110:1; Mt.28:20, etc.). Thus is shown what was done by Joseph before the nativity of Christ (to wit, that he abstained form her); but it does not imply that he lived with her in any other way postpartum. When therefore she is said to have been found with child ‘before they came together’ (prin e synelthein autous), preceding copulation is denied, but not subsequent affirmed.

Although copulation had not take place in that marriage, it did not cease to be true and ratified (although unconsummated) for not intercourse, but consent makes marriage. Therefore it was perfect as to form (to wit, undivided conjunction of life and unviolated faith, but not as to end (to wit, the procreation of children, although it was not deficient as to the raising of the offspring.”

Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. 2, 345-346.

 

[benhur]

Divorce at the time of Christ was a problem in Jewish society. There were two schools of thought on what allowed divorce. One of the views is that a man could divorce a woman for things as simple as she didn’t cook his dinner right. A woman found in an adulterous situation was stoned. Therefore if Joseph told people that the child was not his…Mary could be stoned. If he accepted the child as his…they were seen as just consummating the marriage early than usual…which is exactly what happened in the case of Mary and Joseph. But if Joseph quietly asked for divorce and did not accuse Mary of becoming pregnant by someone else that she would not be stoned. He could use any reason for the divorce. The angel is telling Joseph not to be afraid and do not divorce her…that is what the language do not be afraid to take her for your wife means. For she was already technically his wife, but he was going to let her go and divorce her. But once again, there is no time element given by the angel to when Mary would conceive…and so there is no reason to think that it would not be after she and Joseph consummated their marriage…which raises a problem if she had consecrated herself to God already. Hence the reason for Mary’s question to the angel “how will this be since I have no husband.”

Thank you . It says Joseph was a just man and being so can not condone adultery and the law would justly require divorce. Joseph was also compassionate, and could use lax divorce laws of the time to quietly just break the contract (and any trivial ground). This is what he faced. It didn’t matter if the marriage was consummated or not, if the wedding had taken place or not, she was pregnant and it was not by Joseph. She had broken the betrothal contract, before the wedding, (which usually took place a year later after betrothal.)

Joseph takes Mary to his home after this angelic visit , skipping a wedding when consummation would normally take place (with visible evidence of intimacy of a virgin per Deut 22)

Now as to Mary’s question of knowing no man. We all agree the saying** affirms her virginity.** Joseph’s and Mary’s reaction leave no doubt that they were both “unconsummated”. **That is the only concern for prophecy **.This is universal to us . She was virgin by her own words and Joseph’s reaction to her pregnancy(that is, Joseph touched her not, and Mary says that but more “no man has touched me”). Quite clear.

To say it veils a virginal vow is speculation.

To say it shows concern, anxiousness , for final wedding/consummation day ,which could be up to a year later and totally out of Mary’s hand and in Joseph’s timing, is also speculation.

That it is spoken and shows her present virginity is not speculation, indeed a gift for which to anchor our faith in about the facts of the Incarnation and relating prophecies.

 

[benhur]

So it is your understanding that “betrothed” means a contract was established which could not be removed except by divorce?

And how is that different from “married”?

Well, it is like the term “saved”. P’s use it mostly as a one time event, being born again. C’s say it is a three step deal ,like born again,then the walking out ,then the final glorification of the saint in heaven the final salvation .
In our culture married is a one time deal step.it is separate from engagement. You are man and wife after the wedding. In Jewish tradition it is two steps. betrothed and then consummated at the wedding. You are man and wife at the betrothal (though not one in flesh yet) and a year later is the wedding and “union” with witnesses.

 

[benhur]

So what is the difference between a marriage and a betrothal, in Mary’s time?

Not sure they used a word like “married”. There was betrothed or espoused and perhaps “wed’ or wedded” each signifying different stages.

 

[benhur]

Benhur. You said in post 1044:

Mary and Joseph WERE MARRIED.

The angel doesn’t say “to take Mary for his wife”.

The angel said to take Mary, your wife . . . meaning taking Mary your wife into your home.

The Marriage was two-stage but the actual marriage was the first stage.

That is called “betrothal” or “kiddushin”.

**

• Old Covenant kiddushin = betrothal = Married (and to break this would require a “divorce”)

**

After Kiddushin

After kiddushin occurs, then the bride goes and “prepares a place for you”, I mean “His wife”.

**

• Kiddushin (Betrothal) = The Marriage Liturgy
• Nisuin = The Ceremony of the Groom Taking His Bride Into His Home

**

Then the groom comes back after He prepares a place for His bride and brings His BRIDE (notice she is His “bride”) into His home.

Jesus (the Bridegroom) uses this SAME nuptial language with His Bride (the Church) too.

JOHN 14:1-3 1 "Let not your hearts be troubled; believe in God, believe also in me. 2 In my Father’s house are many rooms; if it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? 3 And when I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also.

See Ephesians 5 to see how St. Paul just matter of factly inter-mixes the two marriage paradigms (a man and wife and Jesus and the Church—His bridegroom).

Jesus (the Bridegroom) uses this nuptial language with His Bride (the Church).

Then after preparing a place for his bride, Jesus, I mean, “the groom” comes back and fetches his bride and takes her to His home (this is accompanied by a liturgy too and is called “nisuin”).

Yes this “completes” the marriage, but the marriage is still fully a “marriage” even after kiddushin or “betrothal”.

For you and I, when we are married, we are . . . well . . . “married.” But then when we take our bride into our home and consummate the marriage, this “completes” the marriage for us in a sense too.

But we are really married to our wives (or husbands as the case may be) right after (during) the wedding ceremony. Even before the bride is “taken into the home”.

Jews still do it this way today too, but kiddushin and nisuin are on the same day now as in our age the husbands usually have a place prepared for their brides. In days past, nisuin may have been soon, or it may have been several months.

St. Joseph and the Blessed Virgin Mary had completed kiddushin.

**
St. Joseph and the Blessed Virgin Mary were already “married”. **

St. Joseph and the Blessed Virgin Mary were “betrothed”. This IS being married. The initial stage but “married” never the less.

Let’s go to the Jewish website, Judaism 101 and “Frequently Asked Questions” (here) for more details.

As Judasism 101 states:

Heaven knew that. That is WHY the Angel refers to Mary as St. Joseph’s “WIFE”.

MATTHEW 1:18-20 18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit; 19 and her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to send her away. 20 But as he considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit;

Mary was never an “unwed mother” (see here by by the late Mary J. Giovanoni for more details on the pernicious poisoning effects of that viewpoint).

The fact that Mary was ALREADY married to St. Joseph when the angel came to Her in Luke 1, makes it even MORE obvious that Mary’s response to the angel can only be that of a Consecrated Virgin (who is married—as Numbers 30 lays out).

Thank you. We agree totally except for your (and mine) speculation to Mary’s question to the angel.

Beautiful post but **Matthew by no means makes obvious that Mary was consecrated virgin ** even though Matthew shows obvious knowledge of Jewish “marriage”/divorce

 

[benhur]

99% facts + 1%speculation:newidea: =100% speculation:sad_yes:

 

[ericc]

In terms off divorce, none .That is, divorce ends both a “marriage” and “betrothal”.

Mary and Joseph were not “wed” yet, only betrothed .

Our cultural term “engagement” is not contractual but anticipatory of eventual signing of one on “wedding day”.

Betrothal in Jewish custom, to my limited understanding, is a contract, with any monetary exchanges, in anticipation of an eventual “wedding” /consummation.

Me thinks

This is from “The Jewish Law of Marriage and Divorce in Ancient and Modern Times and Its Relation to the law of the State” by Rev. Dr. M.Mielziner, Professor of the Talmud and of the Rabbinical Disciplines at the Hebrew Union College:

Ancient Marriage Form
A. Betrothment
a. Its term and nature

A betrothment is termed, in Rabbinical Law, Kiddushin, or, also, Amain. The former of these two terms refers especially to the act of betrothing, while the latter indicates the state of being betrothed. The betrothed parties are called respectively Arus and Arusa.
…
“The nature of betrothment, according to the Rabbinical Law, is quite different. There, a betrothal is not a mere promise to marry, but it is the very initiation of marriage. The betrothed parties are in some respects regarded as married, though not yet entitled to the marital rights nor bound to fulfill any of the mutual duties of conjugal life, as long as the marriage was not consummated by the nuptials. The betrothment could be dissolved only through death or a formal bill of divorce. Faithlessness on the part of the betrothed female was treated as adultery. Without having been formally divorced, she could not enter a marriage contract with another person ; if entered upon, it was void.”

 

[Cathoholic]

Thetazlord. You stated (here):

you are still aren’t getting that trusting in what Scripture alone states prevents “MY interpretation” from being imputed into the text

You are merely asserting sola Scriptura here thetazlord.

What this means in practicality thetazlord is:

you are still aren’t getting that trusting in what Scripture alone states, INSURES “MY (thetazlord’s) interpretation” eisegetically being thrown into the text (sooner or later)

As I said thetazlord. Without the authority of the Church, you don’t even know what Scripture is.

Unless you want to show me where a verse (or series of verses) that states . . . .

Thetazlord PHANTOM VERSE In the Bible, belongs the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, etc. etc. . . . Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, . . . Jude and Revelation.

Where is THAT verse thetazlord (showing the Canon)?

You DO realize that the titles of the books are . . . . “editorial work” (as Karl Keating has stated) don’t you?

---

I asked in post 1007 (here):

QUOTE:
Thetazlord.

You said:

Quote:
Paraphrase = St. Jerome bases his affirmation of the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary on the Protoevangelium of James.

Literally: "which he bases on Proto-James"

I think you should stop asserting such things without giving quotes.

I want you to back your claim above up. (I don’t think you can.)

I see NOWHERE where St. Jerome appeals to “the Protoevangelium”.​

I see lots of places where he appealed to Scripture. And I see where St. Jerome appeals to earlier Church Fathers too.

WHERE are you getting your information about St. Jerome “basing” his affirmation of the Perpetual Virginity on the Protoevangelium?

Please either give a quote and some evidence, or retract about what you said about St. Jerome here.

It appears to me that you drew a conclusion about St. Jerome, and then worked backwards (just like you do with your denial of the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary). This is circular reasoning.

But I will be happy to acknowledge I am wrong about **your circular reasoning pattern **concerning St. Jerome, if you show me a direct quote of St. Jerome basing his affirmation of this doctrine based upon “the Protoevangelium” as you have asserted he did.

Now I’d like some evidence from you to back up what you said.

---

Summary:

**Two questions. I want some evidence on . . . . . **

Where is THAT verse thetazlord (the verse showing the Canon of Scripture)?

And

I want evidence as to where St. Jerome appeals to “the Protoevangelium” to assert the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary (and I don’t want you cooking it up in your mind, and then working backwards in a circular reasoning pattern—I want real evidence of what you said).

 

[YADA]

99% facts + 1%speculation:newidea: =100% speculation:sad_yes:

Thank you …you have just admitted that you are speculating …for if her question was just because of fear of the marriage bed as you admit …is speculation …and in my opinion a far more speculative position then the vow …as her question indicates no intention to have relations rather then a fear of the relations themselves …because if that was her fear she would be more likely to ask when she would conceive …not how …and as has been pointed out the angel merely indicated that this would happen not when

 

[LaRue]

When all is said and done, may I remind us all that “The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” Mary may or may not have given birth to other children. Wouldn’t Jesus himself have wanted his mother to have a happy and fulfilled family life?

As I said once before, this whole question is a non-issue when it comes to belief in Jesus as the savior of mankind. As Jesus became aware of his mission and its consequences, he would have wanted his mother to be cared for after Joseph’s death. Traditionally, it was the eldest son’s responsibility to do so, but Jesus was not going to be at home after his mission began. He would have wanted his mother to have family around her, and in this case it would have had to be his younger siblings.

Is it going to shake your faith in Jesus if he had younger siblings? If it is, you have a serious faith crisis. If it isn’t, this question needs to be laid to rest as one that cannot be resolved, however much various viewpoints are presented. We weren’t there. Two thousand years after the fact, we just don’t know and can’t know exactly what happened concerning Mary and Joseph’s marriage ever being consummated. To me, it’s not worth arguing about.

 

[ericc]

When all is said and done, may I remind us all that “The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” Mary may or may not have given birth to other children. Wouldn’t Jesus himself have wanted his mother to have a happy and fulfilled family life?

Mary is very very happy to just have 1 very special child. A child god. Perhaps you can not imagine the immensity of this. To a poor family, this 1 child is all you need. Never in history had a God been born of a human mother. Do you know how immense is that? Shock and awe is nothing compare to this. Or are you treating this as just another kid, let us make some more? May I remind you that the difficulty is not proving evidence of absence, it is proving something without evidence. You are imposing your standards what a “happy and fulfilled family” is. You have no idea what that means to other people of a different race, different time, different status.

As I said once before, this whole question is a non-issue when it comes to belief in Jesus as the savior of mankind. As Jesus became aware of his mission and its consequences, he would have wanted his mother to be cared for after Joseph’s death. Traditionally, it was the eldest son’s responsibility to do so, but Jesus was not going to be at home after his mission began. He would have wanted his mother to have family around her, and in this case it would have had to be his younger siblings

.
Conjecture without evidence. Your opinion is as good as mine. Jesus had made plans for her, and that is John. You see, Jesus being God knows what is best for his mother, not you. You are a bystander making opinions for another.

Is it going to shake your faith in Jesus if he had younger siblings? If it is, you have a serious faith crisis. If it isn’t, this question needs to be laid to rest as one that cannot be resolved, however much various viewpoints are presented. We weren’t there. Two thousand years after the fact, we just don’t know and can’t know exactly what happened concerning Mary and Joseph’s marriage ever being consummated. To me, it’s not worth arguing about.

You claim you are Catholic. Then you should know that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. it cannot teach untruths. She has taught this as doctrine right from the beginning. If the Church is wrong on this, then the Church has taught error. Then you are accusing Jesus of lying when he gave his guarantee that the gates of hell won’t prevail . You are also accusing the Holy Spirit of not doing his job of guiding the Church into all truth.

If your approach is “we weren’t there” then what is your faith based upon? Eyewitness accounts? It doesn’t sound Catholic-like if I may say. Our faith is based upon the reliance on Christ who built his Church on Peter. Try telling Christ “I wasn’t there so I am not sure”. Christ said listen to the Church. The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. If you have doubts, disputes, take it to the Church, not outside the Church. We rely on Holy Scriptures and Holy Traditions. Our Marian beliefs are Holy Traditions.

Who has the faith crisis if you don’t understand the impact of this? Doesn’t it matter to you? It is not the arguing, it is defending the Church that Christ built on Peter. When people make unproven claims, we as Catholics should stand up and say “It is not true”. I am not going to sit idly by and say “it doesn’t matter”. You know what people say, silence may be construed as assent. I do NOT assent to this and that’s why I have to say it out loud. I object to people saying things about OUR Mother Mary that we know she didn’t do. We rely on the testimonies of our ancients to know the truth, not some one picking up OUR book yesterday and telling us how to understand it. We compiled the writings of Catholics and after filtering out all those non-qualified books, we have justifiable claim on the interpretation of it. We earned it. And Christ is besides us because the Church is his bride.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

1000 post limit.
Feel free to start another.