Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Woman, there is your son...son, there is your mother. And from then on, John took her into his care. Wouldn’t have been necessary if she had sons to take care her...
So Mary and Joseph were never married?
Mary was not an incarnation (rehash) of a Pagan Godess.
She was a humble servant of God, and favored above all other women because God chose her to bring bring about The fleshly manifestation of God — Jesus!
As such, this does NOT require Mary remain a virgin AFTER the birth of Jesus.
In other words the divinity of Jesus is NOT attacked by the humanity of Mary.
Indeed the divinity of Jesus is derived from the father (God, though the Holy Spirit).
It seems sin is inherited or visited upon the children through the father, not the maternal side. (there are scriptures to this point). Thus since the father is God, Jesus can come into the world sinless. Mary not need be sinless her entire life to be the vessel that bore Jesus. However Mary was indeed a virgin we know at least until Jesus was born. Since the bible indicates Jesus had brothers, we can deduce that Joseph was the father of Jesus’s siblings.
This in no way impugns the nature of Jesus, or Mary.
Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS -Matthew 1:25
Mary also said “Since I do not know man”, I believe the different interpretations from the original verse would have some assert she meant she would never know man.
Also, the Orthodox seem to think that God, Jesus, Son of God, came from a sacred place, hence, Mary did not have run-of-the-mill sex after the birth of Jesus.
Apologetics details.
That's just it. In the Bible, I can understand the arguments about brothers versus cousins. And I can understand the argument about the verb where "Joseph didn't know his wife until she gave birth". Either way, perpetual virgin or virgin until she gave birth but not after, they both can be argued from the Biblical passages.
But I can't understand throwing out the heresy word. A heresy is a belief against a core doctrine of the Christian faith. Read the creed, Jesus was "born of the virgin Mary". There is no core doctrine about what happened with Mary afterwards. It's not about Mary...
Additionally, the angel told Joseph not to worry about taking Mary as his bride. If the marriage was never consummated, was it really a valid marriage? So Joseph could have asked for an annulment?
But either way, it does not impact my salvation.
Limbo by Sister Mary Ada, OSJ
The ancient grayness shifted
Suddenly and thinned
Like mist upon the moors Before a wind.
An old, old prophet lifted
A shining face and said:
“He will be coming soon.
The Son of God is dead;
He died this afternoon.”
A murmurous excitement stirred
All souls.
They wondered if they dreamed –
Save one old man who seemed
Not even to have heard.
And Moses, standing,
Hushed them all to ask
If any had a welcome song prepared.
If not, would David take the task?
And if they cared
Could not the three young children sing
The Benedicite, the canticle of praise
They made when God kept them from perishing
In the fiery blaze?
A breath of spring surprised them,
Stilling Moses’ words.
No one could speak, remembering
The first fresh flowers,
The little singing birds.
Still others thought of fields new ploughed
Or apple trees
All blossom-boughed.
Or some, the way a dried bed fills
With water
Laughing down green hills.
The fisherfolk dreamed of the foam
On bright blue seas.
The one old man who had not stirred
Remembered home.
And there He was
Splendid as the morning sun and fair
As only God is fair.
And they, confused with joy,
Knelt to adore
Seeing that He wore Five crimson stars
He never had before.
No canticle at all was sung
None toned a psalm, or raised a greeting song,
A silent man alone
Of all that throng
Found tongue
– Not any other.
Close to His heart
When the embrace was done,
Old Joseph said,
“How is Your Mother,
How is Your Mother, Son?”
Does the RCC believe that sex within a marriage covenant makes you unrighteous?
Break out your Bibles and study the messianic Psalms.
The words of Jesus prophesized 1,000 years before Christ
Psalm 69 8
I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother’s children.
“Strikingly, it looks like every time St. Paul uses adelphos (unless I missed one or two), he means it as something other than blood brother or sibling. He uses the word or related cognates no less than 138 times in this way.”
This is a deliberately deceptive statement. Paul normally uses ‘brother’ to mean the spiritual brother, and that in turn does not mean the spiritual cousin. Here is a sample of his use of brother:
Rom 14:10
But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.
Rom 14:15
For if because of food your brother is hurt, you are no longer walking according to love. Do not destroy with your food him for whom Christ died.
Rom 14:21
It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles.
Rom 16:23
Gaius, host to me and to the whole church, greets you. Erastus, the city treasurer greets you, and Quartus, the brother.
1Co 1:1
Paul, called as an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,
When discussing our brothers in Christ, Paul was a monotheist. In John we read, “ But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God...”
It is in this sense Paul usually uses “brother”. If we have ONE father, then we are “brothers”. If we have multiple fathers but are related, we are “cousins”. Thus Paul’s use is that of brother, not cousin - the sons of one father!
Dave Armstrong’s statement is deliberately misleading. If you want to know the truth, seek it in scripture rather than getting it second hand from someone who does not honor the truth.
I don't know if it's ignorance or deceit that compels these authors to try to trash the scriptures...
No one ever claimed adelphos only meant brother from the same womb...No one...
Adelphos means a brother, literally or figuratively...
If two men are Christians they are brothers in Christ...If a man belongs to a union he is a union brother...If a male is your blood brother??? Adelphos...
What adelphos does NOT mean is kin, kinfolk, cousin, relative, in-law or out-law...It means 'only' brother...
Doesn't matter what brother means in Hebrew or Aramaic...Doesn't matter if Jesus only spoke Aramaic...Jesus had the bible written to the entire world in Greek...And maybe it was because Greek had the language where brother and kinfolk could be distinguished from each other...
I place this in the category: we have no way to know for sure, especially when based upon how the words are translated. I once told a person, who was adamant on this topic: I’ll have to ask Jesus when I get to heaven.
For others, when I’m in a sarcastic mood, I say: This is one of the top ten things I’ll go back in time to find out, if Doctor Who ever picks me as a companion.
My personal bottom line is that Mary’s perpetual virginity is not what I hang my faith in her Son and his message of salvation upon.
Good article.
**But they are usually translated kinsmen, kinsfolk, or kindred in KJV: that is, in a sense wider than cousin: often referring to the entire nation of Hebrews. **
Protestants get it wrong.
**I wrote about the “Hebraic” use of the Greek adelphos: as applying to cousins, fellow countrymen, and a wide array of uses beyond the meaning of “sibling.” Yet it is unanimously translated as “brother” in the King James Version (KJV): 246 times.**
And wrong 246 times. LOL!
I would respectfully disagree and that James does disprove the perpetual virgin idea, however this the issue of Mary’s virginity (which doesn’t make sense either as Joseph WAS her known husband, who in the world would go without sex in marriage?).
It is a side issue and not foundational to Christian belief if Mary was a virgin or not AFTER the birth of Christ, we know that she was before, as the conception of Christ was a miracle that only God could do, but once again Mary’s part in this is secondary, and she merely points to the Savior, Messiah, and OUR God!
-JS
OMG!!!!!! and how many angels can dance on the head of a pin???
It makes more sense to me than any thing else that Jesus was Mary.s only child and was the youngest.
Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?”
At that time Jesus must have been about 30 years old but they did not really know him, yet they seemed to be familiar enough with his brothers and sisters.
Every one knew James, (I am the brother of James ) the scriptures mentioned indicate that his brothers did not have the respect for him that would be seen if he had of been an older brother.
Any one from a big family knows that it would be highly unlikely that if Jesus had younger brothers some of them would be ready to follow him any where.
Yet there was none followed him.
This has been said so many times it is wore out just like the arguments against it, but if marry had other children they would have taken care of her rather than her being taken care of by the apostle John.
Having studied this extensively over the last three months with input from respectable leaders on both sides of this issue, I have come to the conclusion that the God inspired Word does not make it clear enough for it to be an issue of importance. Both the Protestant (for lack of a better categorizing term) and the Catholic argument can very well be correct. The only thing wrong is that either side insist they are right.
II Timothy 2:23.
What’s wrong with; “We believe this to be the case and here’s why, but we can’t say for sure.”?
What we see is the same type of arrogance displayed by the evolution crowd stating their case as fact.
A little humility people.