Yet another "Mary" thread . . . . .

[racer]

I know, we've just about beat this into the ground. But, I have some questions and instead of further confusing another OP, I decided to start my own.

If you are tired of the topic or feel the discussion is fruitless, feel free not to participate.

I've never really gotten into a real in depth discussion on this subject. Because of this I'm sure the information I am looking for has been given here but I've missed it.

So, with all of that said. Here are my questions. How do proponents of Mary's Perpetual Virginity explain away these verses:

Matt 1:24; Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

Matt 1:25; And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

This is quite a heavy indication that once Jesus was born, Mary and Joseph came together as husband and wife. I admit it is not definitive evidence, so please explain how we can infer that they NEVER came together as husband and wife.


Second are these verses:

Matt 13:55; Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?


Matt 13:56; And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this [man] all these things?

Okay, I'm do know that the argument has to do with the word used for "brethren, brothers and sisters." So explain to me what this argument entails. Is the word used the only word that would work in these verses? Is there only one word that identifies "brothers/sisters/cousins?" If not, what other word would work? Does the Catholic bible use a different word?

Anyhow, participate if you wish or ignore the post if you prefer . . . . .

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The Catholics (and Orthodox) here will soon tell you, LOL. And IMHO, while I'm with you, my sister in Christ, on what the most LIKELY meaning of those verses are, I don't conclude they are so much so that a dogmatic stand can be taken against the Dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. Therefore, I don't conclude that it's false.


However, just because it cannot be substantiated that it's false does not mean that it's true (a point somehow often missed). Can I prove that Jesus did not have pink hair and 50 children? Nope. Does that make it DOGMA that Jesus had pink hair and 50 children? Nope.


Protestants have no offical teaching regarding how often Mary and Joseph did or did not lovingly share intimacies with each other after Jesus was born in the sacred (and private!) bond of the Sacrament of Marriage. The Bible is understandably and respectfully silent about that supremely private issue - and so am I. So, the "burden of proof" is not on us to defend a doctrine we don't have, the 'burden of proof" is on those who DO have a dogma about the frequency of their intimate sharings, who DO say they know about such frequency and that it IS a matter of primary importance and certainly. I think the ball is in their court, so to speak. And since it's dogma, something more than "it's true because our particular denomination so says."


Let us not forget that the dogma is not "Jesus Had No Siblings" - nope. It's about Mary being a VIRGIN all her life; it's about the issue that Mary and Joseph never once (um, title of the Dogma!) lovingly shared such intimacies with each other in the private sacred bonds of the Sacrament of Marriage. Unless one wants to make the argument that it is IMPOSSIBLE to ever - even once - share such intimacies without having a child so named in the Bible, then there not being such would not indicate that Mary and Joseph were so deprived. There ARE nonvirgins who don't have a child named in the Bible - or even a child at all. I think we all know that. So, such provides no substantiation whatsoever. EVEN IF it could be proven that Mary had no other children (and it cannot), that does NOT prove at all that she never shared marital intimacies. That would be a huge and completely incredable leap.



My $0.01


Pax!


- Josiah



.

 

[E.C.]

Also, keep in mind that "brother" in Israel at the time (maybe even today, I don't know) meant not only your brother, but also meant any male relative; ie, cousins, step siblings, etc etc. I'd assume that the same would go with "sister", but I'm not 100% on that one.

 

[HisKid1973]

I aways wonder about the "know" also as know designates intimacey..Like when the sheep and goats are seperated..Does catholic tranlations use this word? And how do they define "know"" in both instances..pax..Kim

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Matt 13:55; Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?


Matt 13:56; And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this [man] all these things?

So how do you know whether they are full blood brothers or half brothers?

For example in Matt 1 it shows Judah and his "brothers" but remembering Judah had 5 full blooded brothers but also 7 "half brothers". Thoughts?

Matthew 1:1 A roll of the birth of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham. 2 Abraham begat Isaac, and Isaac begat Jacob, and Jacob begat Judah and his brethren/adelfouV <80>,

 

[racer]

The Catholics (and Orthodox) here will soon tell you, LOL. And IMHO, while I'm with you, my sister in Christ, on what the most LIKELY meaning of those verses are, I don't conclude they are so much so that a dogmatic stand can be taken against the Dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. Therefore, I don't conclude that it's false.

I was hoping that my post made it clear that I do see wiggle room for argumentation either way. While I think the slant of the verses that can be given is heavily against the dogma of Perpetual Virginity, I do see that it is not a definitvie slant.

 

[racer]

Also, keep in mind that "brother" in Israel at the time (maybe even today, I don't know) meant not only your brother, but also meant any male relative; ie, cousins, step siblings, etc etc. I'd assume that the same would go with "sister", but I'm not 100% on that one.

I understand what you are saying. But, my question would be was/is there no way of distinguishing between brother/male relative. Was there not a more precise word?

 

[racer]

I aways wonder about the "know" also as know designates intimacey..Like when the sheep and goats are seperated..Does catholic tranlations use this word? And how do they define "know"" in both instances..pax..Kim

Those are also good questions. Does the Catholic Bible use the same words in these verses?

 

[E.C.]

I understand what you are saying. But, my question would be was/is there no way of distinguishing between brother/male relative. Was there not a more precise word?

I can't say, because I know not Hebrew or Aramaic.

 

[racer]

So how do you know whether they are full blood brothers or half brothers?

For example in Matt 1 it shows Judah and his "brothers" but remembering Judah had 5 full blooded brothers but also 7 "half brothers". Thoughts?

Matthew 1:1 A roll of the birth of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham. 2 Abraham begat Isaac, and Isaac begat Jacob, and Jacob begat Judah and his brethren/adelfouV <80>,

I think you probably mean how do I know that there weren't Jesus' step-bros and sis . . . . because the only way they could be half-brothers would be that Mary be the mother.

But what evidence or implications would you use to argue that the verses do indeed speak of step-siblings? Because I would direct you further to these verses:

Mat 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Luk 2:7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I think you probably mean how do I know that there weren't Jesus' step-bros and sis . . . . because the only way they could be half-brothers would be that Mary be the mother.

But what evidence or implications would you use to argue that the verses do indeed speak of step-siblings? Because I would direct you further to these verses:

Mat 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Luk 2:7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

I don't conclude they are so much so that a dogmatic stand can be taken against the Dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. Therefore, I don't conclude that it's false.

When the Bible is silent or cannot be defined, I would rather not err on Dogma.

Btw, how would the Jews view whether Mary had to remain a perpetual virgin or not? What is to say the LORD did not close up her womb after Jesus was born so she could not have children even if she did have sex with Joseph?

Isaiah 5:7 For the vineyard of the LORD of hosts [is] the house of Israel, And the men of Judah are His pleasant plant. He looked for justice, but behold, oppression; For righteousness, but behold, a cry [for help.]

Reve 14:19 and the messenger did put forth his sickle to the land, and did gather the vine of the land, and did cast [it] to the great wine-press of the wrath of God;

 

[racer]

When the Bible is silent or cannot be defined, I would rather not err on Dogma.

Btw, how would the Jews view whether Mary had to remain a perpetual virgin or not? What is to say the LORD did not close up her womb after Jesus was born so she could not have children even if she did have sex with Joseph?

Isaiah 5:7 For the vineyard of the LORD of hosts [is] the house of Israel, And the men of Judah are His pleasant plant. He looked for justice, but behold, oppression; For righteousness, but behold, a cry [for help.]

Reve 14:19 and the messenger did put forth his sickle to the land, and did gather the vine of the land, and did cast [it] to the great wine-press of the wrath of God;

Well the use of the word "firstborn" is a slight indication that her womb was not closed . . . . . . .

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

When the Bible is silent or cannot be defined, I would rather not err on Dogma.

Me, too.

Which is why I don't embrace this teaching as Dogma.

Btw, how would the Jews view whether Mary had to remain a perpetual virgin or not? What is to say the LORD did not close up her womb after Jesus was born so she could not have children even if she did have sex with Joseph?

1. That would make the Dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary false, because then she wouldn't have remained a virgin all her life.


2. "With God all things are possible." But it doesn't mean all things are dogma. Could God have suddenly made Mary 8 feet tall? Of course, no one would deny that God has the ability to do such. But does His ability to do so make it dogma that He did?



Thank you.


Pax!


- Josiah

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

There were many people in the early centuries of Christianity who rejected the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. Though the doctrine was popular among the later church fathers, there was opposition to it even in those later centuries. The church father Basil commented that the view that Mary had other children after Jesus "was widely held and, though not accepted by himself, was not incompatible with orthodoxy" (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], p. 495).

I agree with St. Basil that this dogma is not incompatiable with orthodox Christianity, which is why I don't reject it, although I agree with my good friend Racer that the more obvious and likely view is that it is not so.

Lutherans are certainly welcome to embrace this (as did Martin Luther) but certainly are not required to. It's an accepted pious opinion but not dogma.


Thanks again.


Pax!


- Josiah



.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I agree with St. Basil that this dogma is not incompatiable with orthodox Christianity, which is why I don't reject it, although I agree with my good friend Racer that the more obvious and likely view is that it is not so.

Lutherans are certainly welcome to embrace this (as did Martin Luther) but certainly are not required to. It's an accepted pious opinion but not dogma.
Thanks again.
Pax - Josiah

Hi. It seems I remember a Jew on another forum saying that he believed their Messiah will bear children when he comes but unfortunately I was unable to find anything on that particlar topic.

http://www.jewfaq.org/moshiach.htm

Jews do not believe that Jesus was the moshiach. Assuming that he existed, and assuming that the Christian scriptures are accurate in describing him (both matters that are debatable), he simply did not fulfill the mission of the moshiach as it is described in the biblical passages cited above. Jesus did not do any of the things that the scriptures said the messiah would do.

 

[WarriorAngel]

There existed no special word in Hebrew or Aramaic for "cousin." The word "brother" is used in these languages generically, and does not necessarily imply children of the same parent. There are many examples in the Old Testament when the word brother was applied to any kind of relations: nephew (Gen. 12, 5), uncle (Gen. 29, 15); husband (Songs. 4, 9); a member of the same tribe (2 Kgs. 9, 13); of the same people (Exod. 2, 21); an ally (Amos 1, 9); a friend (2 Kgs. 1, 26); one of the same office (1 Sam. 9, 13).


St. Thomas Aquinas, actually holds that the Virgin Mary had made a formal vow of perpetual virginity together with St. Joseph. A vow of virginity would help explain why the Virgin Mary was so perplexed after the Angel Gabriel announced to Her that She was about to bear the Messiah. According to contemporary Jewish custom, marriage was in two stages. The first stage, or betrothal, was when the marriage was effectively made. The Virgin Mary and St. Joseph had concluded this stage. Sexual relationships after this point were not considered as fornication. However, we know that nothing of this kind had yet taken place between the Virgin Mary and St. Joseph ("How can this be, since I am a virgin?" [St. Luke 1, 34]). The second stage of marriage was the social formality of the public celebration. The Virgin Mary and St. Joseph in all probability had to forego this second stage due to their flight to Egypt, nevertheless, this fact did not impugn the validity of their marriage.


"St. Jerome shows, by divers examples, that this expression of the Evangelist was a manner of speaking usual among the Hebrews, to denote by the word until, only what is done, without any regard to the future. Thus it is said, Genesis 8, 6 and 7, that Noe sent forth a raven, which went forth, and did not return till the waters were dried up on the earth. That is, did not return anymore. Also Isaias 46, 4, God says: I am till you grow old. Who dare infer that God should then cease to be?...God saith to his divine Son: Sit on my right tillI make thy enemies thy footstool. Shall he sit no longer after his enemies are subdued?"


Further, according to the Jewish Law a child was designated as "first-born" irrespective of whether there were yet, or ever to be, subsequent children born to the same mother. This is gathered from Exodus 13, 2, which required that "every first-born that openeth the womb among the children of Israel" be consecrated to God forty days after their birth.

Who, then, exactly were the brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ?
It is best to start by looking at St. John 19, 25. There it is evident that the Virgin Mary had an older sister whose name was also Mary "Meanwhile, standing near the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene."

St. Augustine defense of the Virgin Mary's perpetual virginity:
"It is written (Ezekiel 44, 2): &#8216;This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it. Because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it...&#8217; What means this closed gate in the house of the Lord, except that Mary is to be ever inviolate? What does it mean that &#8216;no man shall pass through it,&#8217; save that Joseph shall not know her? And what is this -&#8216;The Lord alone enters in and goeth out by it,&#8217; except that the Holy Ghost shall impregnate her, and that the Lord of Angels shall be born of her? And what means this - &#8216;It shall be shut for evermore,&#8217; but that Mary is a Virgin before His birth, a Virgin in His birth, and a Virgin after His birth."

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

St. Augustine defense of the Virgin Mary's perpetual virginity:
"It is written (Ezekiel 44, 2): &#8216;This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it. Because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it...&#8217; What means this closed gate in the house of the Lord, except that Mary is to be ever inviolate?

Hmm. Revelation also shows the "Sanctuary" being closed from entering.
Again, I myself view Mary as simply "symbolic" so I actually have no view one way or the other whether she remained a virgin or not. That is not what is important in the general scheme of the LORD's redemption of Man. Peace.

reve 16:8 And is dense, the sanctuary, of smoke out of the glory of the God and out of the power of Him and no one was able to be entering into the sanctuary until should be being consummated the seven stripes of the seven messengers.

 

[IamAdopted]

There existed no special word in Hebrew or Aramaic for "cousin." The word "brother" is used in these languages generically, and does not necessarily imply children of the same parent. There are many examples in the Old Testament when the word brother was applied to any kind of relations: nephew (Gen. 12, 5), uncle (Gen. 29, 15); husband (Songs. 4, 9); a member of the same tribe (2 Kgs. 9, 13); of the same people (Exod. 2, 21); an ally (Amos 1, 9); a friend (2 Kgs. 1, 26); one of the same office (1 Sam. 9, 13).


St. Thomas Aquinas, actually holds that the Virgin Mary had made a formal vow of perpetual virginity together with St. Joseph. A vow of virginity would help explain why the Virgin Mary was so perplexed after the Angel Gabriel announced to Her that She was about to bear the Messiah. According to contemporary Jewish custom, marriage was in two stages. The first stage, or betrothal, was when the marriage was effectively made. The Virgin Mary and St. Joseph had concluded this stage. Sexual relationships after this point were not considered as fornication. However, we know that nothing of this kind had yet taken place between the Virgin Mary and St. Joseph ("How can this be, since I am a virgin?" [St. Luke 1, 34]). The second stage of marriage was the social formality of the public celebration. The Virgin Mary and St. Joseph in all probability had to forego this second stage due to their flight to Egypt, nevertheless, this fact did not impugn the validity of their marriage.


"St. Jerome shows, by divers examples, that this expression of the Evangelist was a manner of speaking usual among the Hebrews, to denote by the word until, only what is done, without any regard to the future. Thus it is said, Genesis 8, 6 and 7, that Noe sent forth a raven, which went forth, and did not return till the waters were dried up on the earth. That is, did not return anymore. Also Isaias 46, 4, God says: I am till you grow old. Who dare infer that God should then cease to be?...God saith to his divine Son: Sit on my right tillI make thy enemies thy footstool. Shall he sit no longer after his enemies are subdued?"


Further, according to the Jewish Law a child was designated as "first-born" irrespective of whether there were yet, or ever to be, subsequent children born to the same mother. This is gathered from Exodus 13, 2, which required that "every first-born that openeth the womb among the children of Israel" be consecrated to God forty days after their birth.

Who, then, exactly were the brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ?
It is best to start by looking at St. John 19, 25. There it is evident that the Virgin Mary had an older sister whose name was also Mary "Meanwhile, standing near the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene."

St. Augustine defense of the Virgin Mary's perpetual virginity:
"It is written (Ezekiel 44, 2): &#8216;This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it. Because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it...&#8217; What means this closed gate in the house of the Lord, except that Mary is to be ever inviolate? What does it mean that &#8216;no man shall pass through it,&#8217; save that Joseph shall not know her? And what is this -&#8216;The Lord alone enters in and goeth out by it,&#8217; except that the Holy Ghost shall impregnate her, and that the Lord of Angels shall be born of her? And what means this - &#8216;It shall be shut for evermore,&#8217; but that Mary is a Virgin before His birth, a Virgin in His birth, and a Virgin after His birth."

These words were in greek and the word used was for brothers for the greek has a different word for cousins... But the word used in the scripture was greek and the word was brother.. Tee hee I hope I didn't sound like I stuttered.. LOL

 

[Rowan]

I understand what you are saying. But, my question would be was/is there no way of distinguishing between brother/male relative. Was there not a more precise word?

I think the trouble is that most are used to the precision that the English language provides. Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic...not so precise. I generally agree that the term "brother" is not literal, since, as it was pointed out, the term is used different ways in the Bible.

 

[WarriorAngel]

These words were in greek and the word used was for brothers for the greek has a different word for cousins... But the word used in the scripture was greek and the word was brother.. Tee hee I hope I didn't sound like I stuttered.. LOL

Matthew originally wrote his in Aramaic....as was the language of Christ.