[Argentinian] Spanish nun sparks outrage with suggestion that Virgin Mary may have had sex

The Local (ES) ^ | 2/2/17 | Fiona Govan

[MHGinTN]

You appear to know them well! Wonder why GOD had the Apostle’s scribe write ‘her FIRST born son”? Catholics have yuge magic thinking to answer that one!

[ladyjane]

Yes - but wouldn’t it be important for Joseph to be a virgin?

All this talk about female virgins. Why not males ones?

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Ok.

Except the words in hebrew are specific to gender.

Apart from that, it seems we agree

:-)

[MHGinTN]

Your rabbit trail is not relevant to the conception and birth of Jesus.

[Phil DiBasquette]

Ay Caram-ba!

[MUDDOG]

was Joseph a virgin?

Not applicable. The term "virgo" was made male in mediaeval latinity.

[Chicory]

They could have been his cousins, they could have been adopted, Joseph could have been widowed and had children beforehand...

[Forward the Light Brigade]

Jesus had brothers and sisters and the Bible said that in all ways Mary was a perfect wife! Having children would have been one of the ways-—Sex had to be involved. Does it really matter? It is the message of Jesus and his acts that are the real value—not supernatural events. Life is a miracle—all life.

[MHGinTN]

AND the really plausible one, Joseph might have died leaving Mary with a passel of young children who were by the custom of that epoch many sent to be raised by aunts and uncles. By the time Jesus began His ministry, all would have been grown and would be called into family discussions like what might have prompted them as a group of Mother with brothers and sisters coming to the house where He was teaching and urgently seeking an audience with 'the oldest son of Joseph and Mary'.

[boatbums]

The brothers and sisters referred to were cousins and other kinsmen. Does your minister ever start a sermon with “Dear Brothers and Sisters”? Is everyone, then, the minister’s biological brother and sister?

Weak argument. My minister never starts a sermon with, "Dear cousins and other kinsmen", either. God's word tells us we ARE brothers and sisters in Christ, that Almighty God is our Father in heaven. When Scripture mentioned Jesus' brothers and sisters there were words for cousins and kinsmen in that language yet those words weren't used. When Paul, for example, spoke about having the right to take along a wife on missionary journeys, he said, "Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas?" (I Cor. 9:5). He certainly wasn't using the term "brothers" to mean fellow believers because Peter and the "other apostles" would have been included.

The truth is there is far more Scriptural support for Mary having other children with Joseph than there is for her taking a non-existent Jewish vow of celibacy going into a normal marriage. But you can believe whatever you want about it - it's NOT a subject that requires belief in order to be saved. It is, as some Reformers put it, a pious thought to think of Mary that way. Frankly, I respect and admire her regardless but I reject the notion that sexual relations within marriage is shameful or degrades her in ANY way - which is the real reason so many seem to get upset about the topic.

[boatbums]

They’re not Scripture. Opinions - everyone’s got them.

[wbarmy]

MY understanding is that the proper translation is that of a young woman,

That might be your understanding, and you have the right to your understanding, but you do not have the right to discount facts.

Matthew (1:23) and Luke (1:27) both claimed she was a virgin, using Isaiah 7:14 as the reference. Although the word "almah" can mean both a young woman or a virgin, both Matthew and Luke, under the authority of the Holy Ghost, said the proper translation or meaning was "virgin".

[wbarmy]

Can you imagine James always having to live with the phrase “why can’t you be more like your brother”?

[ealgeone]

If only all of the ecfs were in agreement you might have an argument. However they’re not. This puts us back to the text which does not support perpetual virginity.

[Joe Boucher]

Well this marxist Pope is crappola,
Why should Nuns be any different?

[metmom]

Why do people believe such weird things?

I don't know but it sure sends the message that sex is bad.

[metmom]

There's absolutely no need for Mary to have been a perpetual virgin, and, indeed, such dogma diminishes both Mary and the institution of marriage, to my mind...

There are a lot of subtle ways the Catholic church denigrates the institution of marriage all the while claiming to defend it.

[metmom]

Why is it so important to know if Mary was a virgin?

It's important to know that she was a virgin for the conception and birth of Jesus.

Beyond that, her virginity is meaningless.

The answer to that needs to come from Catholics about why they consider it so important to cling to a doctrine that simply cannot be supported from Scripture.

[metmom]

You appear to know them well! Wonder why GOD had the Apostle’s scribe write ‘her FIRST born son”? Catholics have yuge magic thinking to answer that one!

And they cannot claim to not be able to distinguish between *firstborn* and *only* because Jesus was Mary's FIRSTBORN son while He was God's ONLY Son.

The Holy Spirit, who used the words for brother and sister instead of cousin, also understands Greek well enough to not confuse *firstborn* with *only*.

[metmom]

Yes - but wouldn’t it be important for Joseph to be a virgin? All this talk about female virgins. Why not males ones?

No. Because sex between a husband and wife is NOT bad, wrong, sinful, or in any other way unworthy of *holy* people.

And there was no prophecy about Jesus' faster father being a virgin, since Joseph can't conceive and bear a son.

Honestly, the absurdity of the mental gymnastics Catholics go through to insist that Mary and Joseph didn't enjoy a normal, marital, sexual relationship.