Essays for Lent: Mary Ever-Virgin

StayCatholic.com ^ | 200 | Sebastian R. Fama

[Salvation]

 

Mary Ever-Virgin

by Sebastian R. Fama

Some say that Mary had children other than Jesus.  They cite several passages of Scripture that supposedly say as much.  One example is Matthew 1:24-25, which reads, "When Joseph awoke, he did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took his wife into his home.  He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus."

 

The word "until" seems to indicate that after the birth of Jesus there were normal marital relations.  However, the Greek word heos (ἕως) which is translated as until, does not imply that anything happened after Jesus' birth, nor does it exclude it.  The point of the verse is that Joseph was not responsible for the conception of Jesus.

 

The word "until" is used this way elsewhere. In reference to John the Baptist, Luke 1:80 states: "The child grew and became strong in spirit, and he was in the desert until the day of his manifestation to Israel."  Does this mean that once he appeared publicly he left the desert?  It might appear so, but Jesus says otherwise in Luke 7:24: "When the messengers of John had left, Jesus began to speak to the crowds about John.  'What did you go out to the desert to see, a reed swayed by the wind?'" John had already begun his ministry back in chapter 3. Here we are in chapter 7, and he is still in the desert.

 

Luke 2:7 is often pointed to as evidence that Mary had other children. It reads: "And she gave birth to her firstborn son." If Mary had a first born wouldn't that indicate that she had at least a second born? Not at all. In Hebrew culture the term first-born is simply a title for a woman's first child. If she only had one child he would still be her first-born. There is a perfect example of this in Numbers 3:40: "The Lord then said to Moses, 'take a census of all the first-born males of the Israelites a month old or more, and compute their total number.'"  How many of those one month old babies do you suppose had younger siblings? I think it would be accurate to say, none of them. And yet they are still referred to as "first-born."

But what about the verses that speak about the brothers and sisters of Jesus? For instance, Matthew 13:55-56: "Is He not the carpenter's son? Is not His mother named Mary, and His brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Are not His sisters all with us?" Could Matthew be referring to Jesus' cousins? Although both Greek and English have a word for cousin, Aramaic, the language spoken by Jesus, does not. Hence the words brothers and sisters are used. These terms can also be used to refer to friends. Observe how Jesus himself uses the word "brothers" in Matthew 28:10 and see what happens in verse 16: "Then Jesus said to them, 'Do not be afraid. Go tell my brothers to go to Galilee, and there they will see me'...The eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had ordered them." Were the disciples His siblings? Of course not!

A comparison of the three gospel accounts of the women at the foot of the cross demonstrates that James and Joseph, two of the named brothers, are the sons of Mary and Cleophas (Matthew 27:56, Mark 15:40, and John 19:25). This Mary is obviously not the mother of Jesus, as she is mentioned in addition to her. Another obvious reason is the fact that Jesus' mother was married to a man named Joseph, not Cleophas.

In Mark 6:3 Jesus is called "THE" son of Mary not "A" son of Mary. Elsewhere, Mary is called the mother of Jesus, but never the mother of anybody else. Even Protestant reformers such as Martin Luther, John Calvin and Ulrich Zwingli taught that Mary remained a virgin. They believed that it was the clear teaching of Scripture.

In Luke 1:30-35, we find the following: "Then the angel said to her, 'Behold you will conceive in your womb and bear a Son, and you shall name Him Jesus.'… But Mary said to the angel, 'How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?'  And the angel said to her in reply, 'The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.'" Mary's statement would make no sense unless she intended to remain a virgin. The angel said; "you will conceive" not you have conceived. Surely Mary knew the facts of life. If she were to conceive, her normal thought would have been that at some future time she would have relations with a man. Her protest could only have meant that she was a virgin and that she would like to keep it that way.  The angel's reply is an assurance that such would be the case. Mary's point becomes even more obvious when you consider the fact that she was already betrothed to Joseph.

Additional evidence can be found at the foot of the cross. In John 19:26-27 we find: "When Jesus saw His mother and the disciple there whom He loved, He said to His mother, 'Woman, behold your son.' Then He said to the disciple, 'Behold your mother.' And from that hour the disciple took her into his home." If Jesus had brothers and sisters, why did He entrust the care of His mother to the Apostle John?

Copyright © 2001 StayCatholic.com 

[daniel1212]

In Scripture, besides the Lord, there is no intercessor in heaven whom people pray to, except pagans, nor is their any warrant for one, but there is a strong psychological appeal to a heavenly mother.

[daniel1212]

Were you most concerned with these two sections of all of that?

I posted these with replies. Why are you posting them again unless it is like your usual practice of posting links for an argument?

[ForAmerica]

Easy, maybe becuase his sisters and brothers didn't believe in him. I came from a family who didn't know the Lord....in my will while they were youngsters, if anything were to happen to me I did not leave the care of my children to family members, I appointed a Christian family to raise the. So I have no problem with Jesus 's words to Mary and John....that they be family to one another.....because the family blood line we now have is in Christ....thus the "family of God"

Amen!

[Zuriel]

**If the Catholic Church brought us the Bible claim it was only they who are responsible why do they not clarify? Then there are those Catholics that claim scripture contains errors. Why would the CC perpetuate a collection of books that contain errors?**

The RC stance on this is so full of contraditions. Just like when I decided to debate that, during the ‘Temple Alone’ incident, Mary and Joseph were so occupied with possibly as many as four brothers and two sisters (Mark 6:3) of then twelve yr old Jesus, that they traveled all day without noticing him MIA. No other children? And they walk all day without taking a gander of his whereabouts? Where’s DCFS?

The RC defendant I was debating, claimed that Mary and Joseph had no other children, had no need to worry about Jesus, since he was God, and that he would be safe, and probably in the caravan with relatives. No need to worry....but what saith the Word?.....

“And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, they father and I have sought thee sorrowing.” Luke 2:48

‘Sought thee sorrowing’. Sounds like they were not too confident of the child’s safety after all. I believe that the parents were busy handling maybe two or three that were not walking yet, and a couple more that had to be herded along.

The focus of the entire bible is the person Jesus Christ. All of the other people in the scriptures fall into the very distant ‘also mentioned’ category.

(this is probably my only comment on this thread. The big rig awaits me in 7 hrs.)

Lord bless

[ForAmerica]

More redefinition of words to suit Catholic doctrine. Now “until” means “never”, “sister/brother” means “cousin” and “Hebrew and Greek” means “Aramaic”.

This is almost like when I talk to Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, redefining terms and definitions!

[johngrace]

Yes!

THE Holy Spirit by the Apostles written down for the record but not to point out that there was brethren. Immediate brothers? Not jewish or christian brethren. That is amazing statement.

If you see my profile I had Biblical verses numbers put in awareness by the Holy Spirit which was 41:3 which I found to mean something in my own life. I had a health problem. This was after hours of praying. I found psalm 41:3 answered my problem. Does it mean everything is especially for myself to the exact content in every verse God sends my way?

The problem you present is exactly what does Apostolic succession mean. Does it mean I go by split hairs on verses from you or do I go by people who are have been there for two thousand years.

It is always Easy to criticize, but more difficult to be correct without being part of history. I will go by the historical accounts than other people thousands of years later.

[Salvation]

As I said above to someone

The REdefining and REwording came with the REformation that poor Martin did.

I’m so sorry you don’t have the correct words in your Bible.

[Salvation]

Also remember that all other denominations got their Bibles from the Catholics.

The first Bibles printed were Catholic Bibles.

[ForAmerica]

Documented 36,000 manuscripts of the new testaments, we don't need "the church" to interpret for us!

Wasn't they the ones that tried to keep the bible from the public to keep control of the sheeple?

[johngrace]

"As will be seen, the Greek has words it uses for cousins (“suggenēs”, “anepsios”), which are different from the word for brethren (“adelphos”) which often refers to biological siblings. And while adelphos can also often mean brethren in the larger sense, when used with the name of a parent then that is less likely, while celibate marriage is unknown in Scripture, and is contrary to its description, (Gn. 2:24; Mt. 19:4,5) and again, the Holy Spirit abundantly records significant deviations. Thus the burden of proof is upon the Catholic to established perpetual Marian virginity, that this was the case as per his tradition — but which he cannot and does not do."

Tell that to Greek Orthodox Priest who knows greek better than all who do not speak greek. I guess it is all "greek" to the people on that site. LOL!!

The Greek Orthodox Church believe in the perpetual virginity. I guess they can't read greek now. I am amazed when people use this argument.

I know the wife of the Greek Bishop I wonder what He would say. I met her at a coffee cafe. She talked about the real presence with me besides other orthodox christian beliefs. Nice Christian lady. Oh! She speaks greek too.

[johngrace]

HI Dan-Correction.

"If you see my profile I had Biblical verses numbers put in awareness by the Holy Spirit which was 41:3 which I found to mean something in my own life. I had a health problem. This was after hours of praying. I found psalm 41:3 answered my problem. Does it mean everything is especially for myself to the exact content in every verse God sends my way?"

Correction.

Does it mean everything is especially for myself to the exact content in every verse of psalm 41 God sends my way? NO ! I was alerted for 41:3 not the whole psalm.

Sorry I meant the whole Psalm 41 verses. Sorry I left that out. I believe just basically 41:3. I have been on different devices some smaller than others to read or type.

Freeper Cheers!

[count-your-change]

Posting a page of links does not justification make but it does often produce the objection, “You didn't read the links I provided!” as if there is something new or unique there.
If a person can't or won't respond to a particular question it seem more honest and straight forward to simply say they don't want to go in that direction than disgorge a list of links.

[Cronos]

sioux-san--> the first point you make about Jesus' siblings not being entrusted with the care of their mother neglects the social aspects not only of that time but of any conservative society --> you do not entrust care of your mother to an outsider, you entrust her to your siblings if you have any.

Now if these alleged siblings disagreed with Jesus, why would they not be willing to take care of their mother? Why would He even go against the family, not be the perfect Jewish man by entrusting His mother to an outsider?

I'm sorry, but that argument does not make sense -- if there were brothers, she would be entrusted to them.

You can make some kind of argument if the brothers were dead or if there were sisters, but even in the event of sisters, it was the duty of the son-in-law to take care of the mother-in-law.

La familla :)

[Cronos]

sioux-san--> the secnd point you make about brother James is also dubious as brother could mean anything from cousin to a son of Joseph from a previous marriage (tradition has it that Joseph was a grown man, a widower when entrusted with the young Mary).

in this case even then by no means is Jesus was free to pick out whomever he wanted to take care of his mother. -- that was not done. And that is not done today in a conservative society in say the Arab world or India.

In a modern Western society you may do that, but you wouldn't do it in a pre-Industrial west either...

No, we should not view the past through our own moral code but through their own code.

[Cronos]

the Word comes first — and we read and pray over the Word together, don’t we? Why not ponder over what our forebears also thought of the Word? Their thoughts are crystalized on paper so we can see what they thought and prayed over.

[Sioux-san]

Jesus did a lot of things that “just weren’t done” back in that day. Things that got Him into a world of trouble, which He knew would happen (of course).

We just have to agree to disagree. The Bible gives specific names of people throughout the New Testament,but for the “disciple whom Jesus loved” the Bible chooses not to reveal who that person is— by what right do we name that person when the Bible choses to keep him/her anonymous? Or that the person chosen by Jesus to take care of his mother was John? From what the Gospels said, none of the original 11 were around at the crucifixion, having gone into hiding. Curiouser and Curiouser.

[daniel1212]

Tell that to Greek Orthodox Priest who knows greek better than all who do not speak greek. I guess it is all "greek" to the people on that site.

That is an argument without substance, and its premise would require you to side with the Greeks in their dissension from Rome on any linguistic issues on the filique, or any that relate to papal infallibility and power, purgatory, etc.

The reality is that knowing Greek does not automatically confer veracity (there are Greek speaking JW's), especially in an age when linguistical claims can be examined. And in the light of which it is easy to see that New Testament pastors were not formally referred to as priests, but bishops/elders, (Titus 1:5-7) both denoting the same persons in the same pastoral office.

And in this case there is no dispute that in the N.T. the Greek has words it can use for cousins [or other kin] which are different words than “adelphos” (“suggenēs:” Luke 1:36,58; 2:44; 21:16; 14:12; Mk. 6:4; Jn. 18:26; Acts10:24; Rom.9:3; 16:7,11,21; or “anepsios:” Col 4:10: ), and that adelphos often refers to biological siblings.

As for my next claim, it would be more accurate to say that when adelphos is used with a parent (not necessarily named), or when one is named as a brother then that it is less likely to be used in the wider sense, (avoiding duplicates: Mt. 1:2,11; 4:18,21; 10:2; 14:3; 17:1; Mk. 5:37; cf. Mt. 13:55)

However, the reality is that the dispute about PMV cannot be determined by linguistics, due to the lack of precision, though they have their influence, while context and the principal of exceptions being manifest play a strong role.

And in regards to the latter, my statements that celibate marriage is unknown in Scripture (presuming ability), and that this is contrary to its description, (Gn. 2:24; Mt. 19:4,5) are also true, as well as the fact that the Holy Spirit abundantly records significant deviations from the norm. And by which we know the virgin birth of the Lord Jesus and His sinlessness, and many other things, from the age of Methuselah to the strength of Samson to the number of toes of Goliath, to the supernatural transport of Phillip, to the signs of an apostle, etc., etc.

And which leaves the Catholic trying to defend cardinal doctrines of Marian exceptions without such revelation or any actual substantiation such as like core Scriptural doctrines have, leaving any real argumentation to being based on silence, that Scripture does not disallow what Rome claims.

The reality is that while the Roman Catholic apologists try far more to defend these Marian exceptions from Scripture than what Rome “officially” does as in the CCC or approved notes, any RCA with such private interpretations of Scripture are merely a “peon with an opinion,” as i think Akin described himself, and these exceptions were not based upon the weight of Scriptural warrant but come from Tradition, and by extension the self-proclaimed assuredly infallible of Rome.

Thus for all the various (and sometimes contradictory) polemical prolixity of such RCAs trying to wrest support from Scripture, as said, that is not their real authority and assurance, and the issue remains that of authority, which has previously dealt with extensively in many other threads.

[Cronos]

Jesus was true to the law == honor your father and mother.

[johngrace]

So the Greeks got it wrong too.

The lawyering of scripture does not mean just that any someone's opinion is right. I would go by all the history of the immediate people involved from the first generations of the church through time. This is what tradition holds for us. This sounds like a progressive lawyer twisting what the founding fathers of this country have declared. Which sad to say is slowly happening.

It is not about siding but shows that two ancient traditions of the church agree on alot more than disagreements. Anyone can use scripture like a lawyer. The enemy tried it with Christ our Savior. When we deny the history than try to make it after two thousand years for a socalled better interpreting of text than the original generations of the church leaders. It just shows why tradition matters in my view.

Look no matter what God's Divine Mercy can and will overrule and forgive a contrite heart. No matter how formal or informal.

Praise be to Jesus!!

[daniel1212]

I have no objection to links within in argument in order to substantiate or supplement it, or to support a related issue, or to occasionally refer one to resources for informational purposes, but object to posting a bunch of links in response to an argument as a substitute for a response of your own.