Would it really matter or change anything if Joseph & Mary had other children?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Don9of11
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
We cannot rely on scripture alone! That is the devil’s tactic to deceive us with twists and turns.
With total respect, I would personally think that going outside of scripture alone makes it very probable to be deceived by Satan. The bible is inspired. The bible is holy. What other source can you trust as much as the bible?

Look at other denominations such as SDA’s for example. While they claim to be “Sola Scriptura” I call E.G. White a false prophet that has deceived the followers of the SDA church…they use many of her publications as supplication to the bible…I don’t personally see how it is the case.

I really don’t see how a person needs a church or any other body to interpret the bible for them. We are given brains and a mind to think for ourselves. By all means use the church for guidance and a place to feel belonging in a faith in Jesus - but the danger is when faith comes from total obedience to the church and belief in its teachings without reading the bible and questioning yourself.

“What is written in the Law? How do you read it?” (Luke 10:26)

Jesus replied, “Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God? (Mark 12:24)

Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. (Matthew 22:29)

The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born (Matthew 26:24)

Jesus looked directly at them and asked, “Then what is the meaning of that which is written:

“‘The stone the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone? (Luke 20:17)

You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, (John 5:39)

But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?”(Matthew 26:54)

With respect to the original question, I think it’d make a difference to the Catholic church but not Christianity as a whole. I guess that’s the problem with coming up with assertions that don’t have a strong scriptural support. It’s fair to believe and teach Mary definitely remained a virgin until she married Joseph and had Jesus - but if the argument is that she was really God’s and not Joseph’s bride - then why did she marry Joseph? And further, doesn’t a marriage need to be consumated?

You can’t look at this situation with blinkers.
 


I really don’t see how a person needs a church or any other body to interpret the bible for them. We are given brains and a mind to think for ourselves. By all means use the church for guidance and a place to feel belonging in a faith in Jesus - but the danger is when faith comes from total obedience to the church and belief in its teachings without reading the bible and questioning yourself. …
There is a biblical reason. Still need to think for ourselves though of course.

Acts14:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, [and said], Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.

Mat18: 17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell [it] unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Acts8:30 And Philip ran thither to [him], and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?
31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
 
Tantum ergo has wonderfully pointed out the fallacy of your statement. I however wish to address these statements.
There are no words from Mary herself in the bible about perpetual virginity (indeed, hardly anything from her, a major player, at all!) and that’s too bad. She’s the one I’d trust most to tell us about her own sexuality. I’m trying to imagine a scene where Mary is sitting on a rock somewhere with her son and/or his disciples, chatting on this subject, talking about her sexual life…
And, of course, after Jesus died Mary went off somewhere in hiding and kept quiet and out of sight. Or was kept quiet and out of sight.
You are being dishonest since in other threads it has been pointed out to you that Mary indicated her vow of virginity by stating “I know not man” Yet here you make the claim that there are no words. Since this has been pointed out to you before it is dishonest of you to make this claim. She was a married woman waiting for the second part of her marriage when she makes this strange statement. Strange only if you make the statement that Mary didn’t say anything about her virginity.
You do make Unwarrented assumptions. You are the first to suggest that Mary went into hiding:rolleyes:
Since the teaching of perpetual virginity wasn’t official until the 2nd or 3rd Century, and some “early church fathers” did disagree with it, it leaves space to ponder this question and allow for more information.
Since this has been declared infallibly, it is not open to debate.
Some say we have no evidence she had other children. We don’t have proof that she did not, either.
That she was given to John as his mother is proof, that when you see these brother’s mentioned with Jesus they speak as Him being younger not as an elder. These things are ignored in favor of personal bias.
 
1.- Peter the first apostol was no relation whatsoever to Jesus. His name originally was Simon Bar Jonas literarily Simon the son of Jonas and he was a fisherman.
Jesus changed his name to Peter when he gave him the keys of heaven and promised to build his church on him.

2.- The Immaculate conception does not refer to Jesus birth but rather it is HER conception that was immaculate in the sense that she was preserved from the original sin.
When She replied to Bernadette on who she was at the behest of the bishop the answer she gave was: “I am the immaculate conception”
Why would GOD do this? Consider the ramification she was going to be the vessel that would bring forth the saviour of this world.

3.- As for the hipotesis of Joseph having intercourse with Mary after the birth of Jesus we can only speculate, but one thing is certain if husband and wife do enter into the marital act with the hope to bring forth life the church teaches that it is not “dirty” it is after all a gift from GOD.
Personally I believe Joseph would have not requested to enforce his marital prerrogatives from Mary because he was well aware of the monumental task he had been assigned by GOD when the angel spoke to him.

4.- Also one very important note to make is that in the ancient hebrew and aramaic languages there are no separate words to describe “brother” and “cousin” they have only one.
Also in their culture the care of the father and mother were of considerable importance and fall squarely on the family, this is what the command requires when it says “Honor your father and mother” If Jesus had blood brothers after his departure from this world it would befall on them to take care of the mother. He was after all the first born.
But what does Jesus do at the cross in Calvary?
He says to John the apostol “Son Behold your Mother” thereby entrusting her to him from that point on. That would have been totally contrary to the law and an affront to the “Brothers” if there were any.
All these little nuggets point to the fact that indeed Jesus was the only son of Mary.
  1. Sorry, I was having a dig at those who claim that the term “brother” was commonly used so James was jts another “brother” BTW “Brother” is in common usage today amongst committed Christians, who know they are “brothers in Christ” and Sons/daughters of the Father through Jesus.
  2. That’s a fascinating twist on “immaculate CONCEPTION” as told by Mary to Bernadette. Original sin is doctrine and dogma. Mary’s immaculate conception of Jesus is of crucial importance Biblically to fulfil the messianic Prophecy and indicate that ONLY Jesus was really the Christ, the Messiah - THE SON OF GOD. And also: SON OF MAN!
  3. Why should Joseph ENFORCE himself on Mary? Again this smacks of the God-given, beautiful, HOLY “two becoming one”. Mary was a dutiful, LOVING wife: Matt. 1:24/25: “he (Joseph did what the angel of the Lord had ommandded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he had no union with her UNTIL she gave birth to a son.” Sorry, but that puts paid to “perpetual virgin”. In any case her hymen would have broken when Jesus was born. It doesn’t matter: Mother Mary is still Queen of Heaven and a great gal!
  4. It looks like Jesus’ brothers (and sisters) were at odds with his mission. In John 7:5 “even his own brothers did not believe Him.” In Mark 3:31 to 35, Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived and sent word to call him out. He apparently rejects them. I doubt whether they’d draw attention to themselves by standing at the foot of the cross. Peter had already denied Him, why weren’t the other apostles/disciples there, too. Only the beloved John to whom Jesus could entrust his mother’s welfare. OK, conjecture, but just as much as using that Biblical moment to prove Jesus had no brothers.
    BTW, there’s also Matthew 13: 55/56: "they asked: isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren’t all his siters with us? If these siblings Joseph’s OLDER children by a previous marriage why weren’t they with him on the trip to Bethlehem to sign the official census?
    Why weren’t they with them for Jesus’ Bar Mitzvah? Because Jesus was the eldest, that’s why.
    All THESE large nuggets from the Gospel PROVE that Mary was a loving wife AND mother to a large brood. Good for you, Mother Mary.👍
 
There are more than that.

Both Jesus and Isaac, only sons, both carried their wood up to the mount for their sacrifice (Isaac was spared though). And some think that the mount Isaac climbed was the same that Jesus was later crucified on.
Anyone can make anything match up if we try hard enough. BTW, when I do this I’m accused of being sola scriptura so watch out.
 
Tantum ergo has wonderfully pointed out the fallacy of your statement. I however wish to address these statements.

You are being dishonest since in other threads it has been pointed out to you that Mary indicated her vow of virginity by stating “I know not man” Yet here you make the claim that there are no words. Since this has been pointed out to you before it is dishonest of you to make this claim. She was a married woman waiting for the second part of her marriage when she makes this strange statement. Strange only if you make the statement that Mary didn’t say anything about her virginity.
You do make Unwarrented assumptions. You are the first to suggest that Mary went into hiding:rolleyes:

Since this has been declared infallibly, it is not open to debate.

That she was given to John as his mother is proof, that when you see these brother’s mentioned with Jesus they speak as Him being younger not as an elder. These things are ignored in favor of personal bias.
There two infallible doctrines regarding Mary. No one is denying those here.
 
Tantum ergo has wonderfully pointed out the fallacy of your statement. I however wish to address these statements.

You are being dishonest since in other threads it has been pointed out to you that Mary indicated her vow of virginity by stating “I know not man” Yet here you make the claim that there are no words. Since this has been pointed out to you before it is dishonest of you to make this claim. She was a married woman waiting for the second part of her marriage when she makes this strange statement. Strange only if you make the statement that Mary didn’t say anything about her virginity.
You do make Unwarrented assumptions. You are the first to suggest that Mary went into hiding:rolleyes:

Since this has been declared infallibly, it is not open to debate.

That she was given to John as his mother is proof, that when you see these brother’s mentioned with Jesus they speak as Him being younger not as an elder. These things are ignored in favor of personal bias.
It never states she took any “vow” it says she was a virgin.
 
Anyone can make anything match up if we try hard enough. BTW, when I do this I’m accused of being sola scriptura so watch out.
The parallels of Sarah/Abraham and Isaac to Mary/God the Father and Jesus are very clear and unforced. A shadow of something greater.
 
But he had no union with her UNTIL she gave birth to a son." Sorry, but that puts paid to “perpetual virgin”.
“Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death” (2 Sam. 6:23). Are we to assume she had children after her death?

“no one knew the location of [Moses’] grave until this present day” (Deut. 34:6). But we know that no one has known since that day either.

Sorry, but nothing can be proved from the use of the word “until” in Matthew 1:25.
BTW, there’s also Matthew 13: 55/56: "they asked: isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?
These are the only named “brothers” of Jesus in all of Scripture… and Scripture plainly shows that they are not sons of Mary and Joseph.

There are two men named James among the disciples. One, of course, is the brother of John and the son of Zebedee. This cannot be him then. So, this is the other James, called in Scripture James the less: Mark 15:40: “There were also women looking on afar off: among whom were Mary Magdalene, and ** Mary the mother of James the less, and of Joseph,** and Salome.”
So James is indeed the son of a woman named Mary. Not only that, but Joseph is his brother. That’s two of the four, right? Then, in Matthew, reciting the names of the twelve: Matt 10:3: “…'James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddeus.”
This too is talking of James the less, as the other James, son of Zebedee, is spoken of in the previous verse. It is NOT a trick or really that hard! * Alphaeus* is this James’ father, not Joseph, the husband of Mary, mother of the Lord.

Now go to John also speaking of those witnessing the Crucifixion: John 19:25: “Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother (Mary) and His mothers sister, *** Mary the wife of Cleophas***, and * Mary Magdalene*.”
Look up John 19:25 at blueletterbible.org/ and click the ‘C’ icon (for the Strong’s Concordance), then click the Strong’s number for the name Cleophas. It comes up “father of James the less, the husband of Mary the sister of the mother of Jesus.”

Did you get that? That Mary, who was the mother of James the less, and of Joseph, from Mark 15:40, is the wife of Cleophas, the father of James the less, and she is called the ‘sister’ of Our Lord’s mother - Mary!

So, two of the four ‘brothers’ have been identified as the children of parents other than Joseph and the Virgin Mary. Of the brothers named, that still leaves Jude and Simon. Next, Jude: Acts 1:13 ** "…James, the son of Alphaeus , and Simon Zelo’tes, and ** Jude the brother of James…"
There goes Jude out of the mix! *** Matter of fact, Jude says the same in his own epistle: Jude 1:1 "Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ *** and brother of James…"
Lastly, Simon. Simon, called the Zealot, is identified as coming from Cana, not Nazareth as were Joseph, Mary and the Christ! Luke 6:15 "and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and ** Simon who was called the Zealot
,"

Mark 3:18 “Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and ** Simon the Cananaean**…”

Matt 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.
Simon is a Cananean, while Jesus is a Nazarene!

We see that Simon the Zealot being from Cana, and a ‘brethren’ or ‘brother’ of the Christ. Let’s go to John’s Gospel, chapter 2. Mary and Our Lord are invited to a wedding there. So, close business associates, maybe, of Joseph from the carpentry trade, or more likely - family, or brethren, relatives, are having this wedding. Like, maybe the Holy Family had actual kinfolk in Cana, be they cousins, in-laws, nephews, aunts, uncles, all of which are routinely called ‘brethren’.

Remember what Mary said to the servants? She told them to ‘Do as He says.’

Think about that a second? What would give this humble woman from Nazareth any position to so speak to the servants of someone else in an entirely different town, at their wedding? The simplest and most easily understood answer would be – she is a family relation to those giving the wedding feast…

So Simon is from Cana, and a ‘brother’ of the Lord! He’s not a sibling though, but very likely related. And James, Joseph and Jude all have the same father and mother, and it is not Joseph and the Virgin Mary, but their mother is named Mary and called the sister of Jesus’ mother Mary. Even here ‘sister’ may not mean blood sibling, or we have two sisters with the same name in the same family.
All THESE large nuggets from the Gospel PROVE that Mary was a loving wife AND mother to a large brood. Good for you, Mother Mary.👍
The “large brood” you speak of must be the one in Acts 1:15 – “In those days Peter rising up in the midst of the brethren, said: (now the number of persons together was about an hundred and twenty

That’s a lot of brothers of Jesus!

According to onechurch.org/Brothers_in_the_NT.htm the vast majority of the time that the Greek word “adelphos” and its feminine form “adelphe” appear in the New Testament – in the King James Version they are usually translated “brother”, “brethren”, “sister”, or “sisters” – it can not or almost certainly does **not **refer to a family sibling.

No, all these large nuggets from the Gospel actually prove the opposite of what you think they prove.
 
  1. That’s a fascinating twist on “immaculate CONCEPTION” as told by Mary to Bernadette. Original sin is doctrine and dogma. Mary’s immaculate conception of Jesus is of crucial importance Biblically to fulfil the messianic Prophecy and indicate that ONLY Jesus was really the Christ, the Messiah - THE SON OF GOD. And also: SON OF MAN!
When Mary told Benradette she was the Immaculate Conception she was not referring to the birth of Jesus that is an ignorant understanding. Try doing a search and you will find that your understanding would be wrong. Jesus’ birth is the Virginal Birth. :rolleyes:
  1. Why should Joseph ENFORCE himself on Mary? Again this smacks of the God-given, beautiful, HOLY “two becoming one”. Mary was a dutiful, LOVING wife: Matt. 1:24/25: “he (Joseph did what the angel of the Lord had ommandded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he had no union with her UNTIL she gave birth to a son.” Sorry, but that puts paid to “perpetual virgin”. In any case her hymen would have broken when Jesus was born. It doesn’t matter: Mother Mary is still Queen of Heaven and a great gal!
Not being a virgin means you have had sex not that the hymen is broken. There are many women who have not had sex but the hymen was broken in a physical activity such as horse back riding. If you haven’t had sex, you are still a virgin. It is ignorance to say otherwise.
Until means up to a certain point without indicating anything changes after that point.
2 Samuel 6:23
Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death.
According to your reasoning, she had a child after she died.
  1. It looks like Jesus’ brothers (and sisters) were at odds with his mission. In John 7:5 “even his own brothers did not believe Him.” In Mark 3:31 to 35, Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived and sent word to call him out. He apparently rejects them.
You have missed Jesus’ message. He is pointing out that those who follow Him are His family. Mary who said I am the slave of God was the first to follow.
I doubt whether they’d draw attention to themselves by standing at the foot of the cross. Peter had already denied Him, why weren’t the other apostles/disciples there, too. Only the beloved John to whom Jesus could entrust his mother’s welfare.
Since it was Jewish law for sons to provide for their mother, Jesus wouldn’t have had to say anything. So the very fact that He did provide care for His Mother shows that He was an only child.
OK, conjecture, but just as much as using that Biblical moment to prove Jesus had no brothers.
BTW, there’s also Matthew 13: 55/56: "they asked: isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren’t all his siters with us? If these siblings Joseph’s OLDER children by a previous marriage why weren’t they with him on the trip to Bethlehem to sign the official census?
Why weren’t they with them for Jesus’ Bar Mitzvah? Because Jesus was the eldest, that’s why.
Bar Mitzvah didn’t exist at the time. The first use of the word was in the Talmud to connote someone who is subject to the law. the ceremonies as known today began in the Middle ages. So you admit that there were no brothers mentioned going to the Temple. Where are the brothers that you speak about? It says only Mary and Joseph returns to Jeruselem to search for Jesus. It doesn’t mention anyone else going with them. So where are these siblings of Jesus. No where they don’t exist.
Your quote does not say that Mary is mother to them. Jesus is referred to as being THE son of Mary never as A son of Mary. You cannot find anywhere in scripture Mary being named mother to anyone but Jesus. Those named are also named as children of different mothers.

John 7:3–4
Luke 2:7
Demonstrate that these were older “Brothers” as , according to the culture, it would have been considered disrespectful to give an older sibling advise or to try to seize him.

As for the use of the term brother, Lot calles Abraham’s “brother” Gen. 14:14 even though he was the son of Haran, Abraham’s brother Gen. 11:26–28 so he would have been a nephew of Abraham. Jacob Gen 29:15 is called the “brother” of his uncle Laban. So the term “brother” does denote relationships other than having the same parents.
 
There two infallible doctrines regarding Mary. No one is denying those here.
Again read what I wrote. I said that the Immaculate Conception of Mary was infallible proclaimed and the it wasn’t up for debate.
 
With total respect, I would personally think that going outside of scripture alone makes it very probable to be deceived by Satan. The bible is inspired. The bible is holy. What other source can you trust as much as the bible?
Ummmm, you have to trust Sacred Tradition as much as the Bible, because Sacred Tradition tells you what books belong IN the Bible.
 
Yes it would really matter. Yes, it would change, in a word, everything.

Either something is true or it isn’t.

We have been told, as a dogmatic truth, that Mary was ‘ever virgin’. That teaching goes back to the 2nd century AD; it isn’t something recent.

Let me give you an example. In 1899 my husband’s grandmother, on a visit in Europe, met her grandmother, aged at that time 100. IOW, the grandma’s grandma was born in 1799. And the story was told to me in 1987 when my husband’s grandmother also turned 100.

So, I was talking with a woman whose own memory encompassed talking with a woman who would remember Waterloo, the war of 1812, and as an elderly woman, the U.S. Civil War. This woman was born at the time George Washington died.

So let’s picture the 2nd century AD which is the years 101-199 or so. Let’s say Jesus died in AD 33, St Peter in AD 66. A person born in AD 33 could live to be 100 in AD 133. That person could have a 12 year old granddaughter born in AD 121 who lived to be 100 in AD 221 --which is the THIRD CENTURY AD. So that grandchild by the middle of the SECOND CENTURY would have had first hand knowledge from somebody born around the time Jesus died, who would have been an adult when St., Peter died.

IF Mary had had other children, there would be enough witnesses in the SECOND CENTURY AD (and even the early THIRD) who would have known people (probably grandparents or great aunts, uncles, or cousins) who were alive when Jesus died and rose from the dead, and who personally knew the apostles AND who knew the whole family connection, etc. There would have been plenty of oral stories about Jesus’s ‘uterine brothers and sisters’ too. Nobody could HOPE to go around making up stories about ‘perpetual virgin’ if Mary had NOT been one–there were too many people who ‘knew the truth’ and who made DANG SURE the truth got told. Anybody who has studied the early Church Fathers knows that even the slightest tinge of UNTRUTH got addressed ASAP.

But instead, we have loads of uncontested teaching that Mary was a perpetual virgin. And we have absolutely NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that she had any other children than JESUS.

Why does it matter? Because TRUTH MATTERS. ANY LIE is an offense against truth. . .an offense against God. And a lie which by its nature attacks God by stating that He is NOT who He is (and arguing that Mary was not a perpetual virgin is an attack which indeed states that Christ is NOT who He is) is the worst lie of all.

It matters, It matters very much.

And no, I’m not saying sex is bad between ‘married people’. But tell me, when did God divorce Mary so that she would be ffree by Jewish law to marry and have children by somebody else than God?

I mean, God is the Father of Christ, right? So either God cuckolded Joseph, just like all the ‘other’ gods, the Greeks, Romans, Egyptiansm etc, to make a ‘half god’ like Hercules. . .

Or God really thinks of women as not being ‘human’, being property, so that He can ‘use’ Mary and then turn her back over to her ‘owner’ Joseph. . .

or else God really enters into a true marriage, physical and spiritual, with Mary. . .in which case by Divine Law, which Jesus later brings up with the Pharisees, would make Joseph an adulterer if he had relations with Mary after Jesus was born. . .but would be NO PROBLEM AT ALL if Joseph and Mary never INTENDED to have relations but that he intended to protect her as women in that society were not permitted to function without a living male relative as guardian.

You see, people who leap at the 'after ’ and think Mary and Joseph were just your normal everyday couple who happened to have a half-god in the family, and then had the ‘normal kids’ later, really ARE implying that God USED Mary as an incubator, and that He then threw her as an unwanted ‘leftover’ to Joseph (who apparently didn’t CARE that she was now the mother of a half-god and just wanted to have lots of his OWN rugrats. . .)
Wholeheartily AMEN to that!
 
This thread offers hilarious, tortuous answers in support of the “perpetual” virgin dogma. If you loved God, Jesus, Mary and had compassion for poor old Joseph you would be glad she was (as stated in the INFALLIBLE Gospels) a fruitful wife and mother. It looks like Catholics are more concerned that the FALLIBLE church should not be caught out in a porky pie than Mary AND Joseph enjoying life in the fulness of God’s wonderful gifts. If the Clergy are forced to give up on God’s particularly nice and HOLY gift that’s no justification for putting the dampers on those who glady fulfil God’s order to “go forth and multiply”
PS The Pope’s INFALLIBLE, Ex-cathedra statement was that Mary was the Immaculate Conception, NOT condemning her to life-long celibacy… If THAT conception is twisted to suggest it meant HER no-original-sin birth, then Jesus’ conception was not “immaculate”: now THAT IS heresy!:rolleyes: You can’t have it both ways:)
 
  1. Why should Joseph ENFORCE himself on Mary? Again this smacks of the God-given, beautiful, HOLY “two becoming one”. Mary was a dutiful, LOVING wife: Matt. 1:24/25: “he (Joseph did what the angel of the Lord had ommandded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he had no union with her UNTIL she gave birth to a son.” Sorry, but that puts paid to “perpetual virgin”. In any case her hymen would have broken when Jesus was born. It doesn’t matter: Mother Mary is still Queen of Heaven and a great gal!
Yep you don’t mess with the spouse of the Holy Spearit!!!
 
This thread offers hilarious, tortuous answers in support of the “perpetual” virgin dogma. If you loved God, Jesus, Mary and had compassion for poor old Joseph you would be glad she was (as stated in the INFALLIBLE Gospels) a fruitful wife and mother. It looks like Catholics are more concerned that the FALLIBLE church should not be caught out in a porky pie than Mary AND Joseph enjoying life in the fulness of God’s wonderful gifts. If the Clergy are forced to give up on God’s particularly nice and HOLY gift that’s no justification for putting the dampers on those who glady fulfil God’s order to “go forth and multiply”
PS The Pope’s INFALLIBLE, Ex-cathedra statement was that Mary was the Immaculate Conception, NOT condemning her to life-long celibacy… If THAT conception is twisted to suggest it meant HER no-original-sin birth, then Jesus’ conception was not “immaculate”: now THAT IS heresy!:rolleyes: You can’t have it both ways:)
Mat12:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from [their] mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive [it], let him receive [it].
 
posted by ianGE
…3. Why should Joseph ENFORCE himself on Mary? Again this smacks of the God-given, beautiful, HOLY “two becoming one”. Mary was a dutiful, LOVING wife: Matt. 1:24/25: “he (Joseph did what the angel of the Lord had ommandded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he had no union with her UNTIL she gave birth to a son.” Sorry, but that puts paid to “perpetual virgin”. In any case her hymen would have broken when Jesus was born. It doesn’t matter: Mother Mary is still Queen of Heaven and a great gal! …
Mat1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, **and shall bring forth a son, **and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
 
…posted by ianGE
…3. Why should Joseph ENFORCE himself on Mary? Again this smacks of the God-given, beautiful, HOLY “two becoming one”. Mary was a dutiful, LOVING wife: Matt. 1:24/25: “he (Joseph did what the angel of the Lord had ommandded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he had no union with her UNTIL she gave birth to a son.” Sorry, but that puts paid to “perpetual virgin”. In any case her hymen would have broken when Jesus was born. It doesn’t matter: Mother Mary is still Queen of Heaven and a great gal!..
Consider the use of “until” / heos (Greek) later in Matthew.

Mat 22:44 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till (heos)I make thine enemies thy footstool?
The use of “heos” does not infer that the Lord will cease to be on right hand. He will remain. Can we be sure? Yes , obviously, but also given
Luke 22:69 **Hereafter **shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God.

Consider applying this precedent of heos to mat 1:25. And then consider the context of mat 1:25 and what Matthew is trying to illustrate, ie Isa7:14

In other words Matthew is highlighting fulfillment of isa (ie virgin birth)
He is not inserting the word “heos” to
tell you that they slept together after the birth.
Interpreting it as such, is, to me, ridiculous.
He uses “heos” as a tool to put the “full stop” on the fulfillment of Isa7:14, ie that Joseph played no part in the pregnancy.
 
Again read what I wrote. I said that the Immaculate Conception of Mary was infallible proclaimed and the it wasn’t up for debate.
What in the world does this have to do with Mary having a normal marriage that included a sexual relationship with her spouse? She was/is the Immaculate Conception. That talks about a grace given to her in preparation for her being the Mother of Jesus. It has nothing to do with her having a sexual relationship with her spouse.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top