Now, now, how can Scripture be expected to trump Catholic tradition. < /sarc>
Such tortured logic to prove a point about Mary’s perpetual virginity which bear no consequence to anyone’s salvation. Continue on....
I don’t agree with this, but it’s also a how-many-angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin type of issue.
"How did Mary keep her virginity at Jesus’ birth? Jesus was miraculously conceived and miraculously born. St. Athanasius and St. Bernard compare the birth of Jesus from the womb of the Blessed Mother to the rays of the sun going through a window pane, leaving the glass intact. Through God’s power two bodies can be at the same place at the same time. His intervention can suspend the impenetrability of the bodies. After the Resurrection Jesus’ risen body went through closed doors."
“Hebrew had no word for cousin.”
LOL.
Brother is “AHKH”
Generic cousin is “doo-dah-NEEM”
Male-line cousin is “ben/bat- DOHD”
Female-line cousin is “ben/bat DOHD-dah”
The words are very specific because a child of an uncle is not necessarily Jewish, but typically of the same tribe.
Other than that, I obviously have no opinions on the rest of the article.
Therefore, Mary could not have remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus. Perpetuating a sham marriage would not burnish the halo of the normal woman (not goddess) who became the means God chose for the Incarnation.
A sham marriage is a form of fraud, of the vilest kind, since it lays an ax to the roots of the most sacred of human bonds. In Catholic doctrine, this is grounds for an annulment, a declaration that a real marriage was never formed, since there was no intention of consummating it.
Somehow, I fail to see how a fraudulent union, a sham wedding, would provide a normal and wholesome family for our Lord to grow up in. Imagine -- a marraige founded in a lie, perpetuated by a fraud, and maintained by the decision of the partners to cheat one another of their legitimate and normal marital obligations. The Freudian stresses induced would have precluded the sane, wholesome, and exuberant delight our Lord had in life, and demonstrated in the course of enjoying His everyday life. Say what you will, Jesus was breathtakingly normal. That's one reason the Jews failed to recognize Him!
(unless, of course, sex is in and of itself a "defilement." This sounds more neoplatonic than Biblical!)
Your threads opening line says that there is no historical evidence that Mary, the mother of Jesus, had other children.
Is there any historical evidence that Mary’s perpetual virginity was taught during the Early Church Apostolic Age?
IOW, we need historical (written) documents from Jesus’ disciples that show that they believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary, the mother of Jesus.
Since your opening thread line raises the issue of historical evidence, I ask the same in return.
From Luke Chapter 1
And Mary said:
My soul doth magnify the Lord.
And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid: for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. *
Because he that is mighty hath done great things to me: and holy is his name.
And his mercy is from generation unto generations, to them that fear him.
He hath showed might in his arm: he hath scattered the proud in the conceit of their heart.
He hath put down the mighty from their seat and hath exalted the humble.
He hath filled the hungry with good things: and the rich he hath sent empty away.
He hath received Israel his servant, being mindful of his mercy.
As he spoke to our fathers: to Abraham and to his seed for ever.
*These words are a prediction of that honour which the church in all ages should pay to the Blessed Virgin. Let Protestants examine whether they are any way concerned in this prophecy.
>>There is absolutely ho historical evidence that Mary, the mother of Jesus, had other children. The Catholic Church teaches that Mary was a Virgin before, during, and after the birth of Jesus.<<
And now I know why I am not Catholic. I would be embarrassed if my church took the stand in this article. I’d leave. Come to think of it, my wife DID leave.
The teaching that Mary died a virgin is as preposterous as the Church of Christ’s teaching about using musical instruments. The two teachings are of the same sort.
Mt. 1:25 – “but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus”.
To say this sentence and the context that the sentence was written in, does not mean what it simply means, is to render the entire sentence worthless and unnecessary to Scripture.
You have a problem with “until” not meaning “until after Jesus was born”, and “firstborn” not meaning “first of more than one”, let’s focus on the word “KNEW” then.
This word, in the context of sex, or marriage, or having children, has always been about sexual intercourse. The sentence opens discussing the fact Joseph, who did not follow Jewish tradition of consummating - and thereby completing the validation of the marriage - with Mary, because she was with child form the Holy Spirit. This act still was not yet performed and it was a step that was normally done the night of the wedding. The two had not yet become one flesh, going back to Genesis. Joseph had not yet KNOWN Mary.
This statement says he DID wind up ‘knowing’ Mary, his wife, and consummating the marriage according to the Jewish traditions. A marriage wasn’t complete until that act was done.
Now one can argue that simply Joseph KNOWING Mary doesn’t mean she had more children, and it is possible. But the fact is the statement recorded says he did KNOW her, and the very fact Joseph did, means Mary could not have been a virgin. Joseph did not know her before Jesus was born, but afterwards, he did. Whether or not you believe Jesus had brothers or sisters.
To deny the clear meaning of the sentence and its context is to turn the sentence into something non-sensical and devoid of meaning, which begs the question if it doesn’t mean what it appears to mean, and in fact according to some, supposedly proves the opposite of what the clear meaning is, why is it there at all?
Even if you give the Roman Church their machination arguments for “until” and “firstborn”, the word “KNEW” in the context of sex and children, is about sexual intercourse, and this particular case, between Joseph and Mary. It means she wasn’t a virgin AFTER Christ was born, regardless of whether He had brothers and sisters.
You claim there is no historical evidence of siblings, then spend many paragraphs constructing tortured arguments against the evidence that does exist, circumstantial as it is.
In contrast, there really is not one atom of evidence of Mary’s perpetual virginity. For some reason the Catholic Church has clung to this cherished belief since long before everday people could read scripture for themselves. Now I believe they can’t find a graceful way around it.
And as someone else pointed out, what does it really have to do with anything? Frankly, who cares? Jesus saves me. To Him I look and to no other.
When did folks first start believing that Mary had other kids? When did the first Reformer deny that mary was a perpetual virgin? And who was it? Are there Protestants who still believe that she was a perpetual virgin?
Freegards
for later
Mary did such a wonderful, brave and obedient thing, giving birth to the Savior, no doubt enduring gossip and talk. I don’t see why, after that, God would require her to marry some 90-year-old geezer and never have a normal marriage and more children. Having sons was so important to women in those days, too.
The only evidence that I will admit gives me pause is Jesus asking John to take care of His mother, rather than having one of His siblings do it. But I hope Joseph was way younger than 90, and I hope he and Mary were able to have a normal marriage. It doesn’t matter now, and it doesn’t affect anyone’s salvation, but I certainly think they both deserved it.
In what way would Mary be lessened by fulfilling Genesis 2:24 which is ordained by God Himself...
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. Genesis 2:24
and have more children after Jesus ???
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 1:24, 25
Yes, Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born...
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. Matthew 1:23
But she was a normal Jewish girl and a normal married woman and had a normal Jewish marriage...
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. Genesis 2:24
The “one flesh” indicates sex, the only way two would become one...
Mary did not get married in the Jewish sense and then just live in a vacuum, wrapped in cotton wool, and behind glass, the untouchable goddess...
She lived as a married woman in every sense of the word...
Joseph was in charge of the home etc...
God told him where to live or travel...
And he was not 90...He was still young and able..
He was a carpenter and taught Jesus the trade...
A 90 year old man could not have handled the tools that were used...
Jesus was called “the carpenter’s son” when he was grown..
So if Joseph was dead it hadnt happened that long before this was said...
There is no shame in Mary fulfilling what was necessary to have a legitimate marriage...
She only said to the angel, “How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?” Luke 1:34 because she hadnt as yet...
That verse does not indicate she woulod never have sex with her lawful husband...
She was engaged to Joseph...She expected to have sex to consumate their marriage...
And she was not an “innocent” virgin who didnt know about sex...she told the angel she knew it led to pregnancy...
How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? Luke 1:34
Mary fully intended to have sex with her husband after they were married, and was taught and preparted for it...
and so she did...after Jesus was born...
If God intended to use an ignorant unknowing girl as the mother of Jesus He was quite capable of keeping that knowledge from her “innocent” pure ears...
And then arranging for her to live out her natural life in a nunnery...
That type of woman would be too pure, too blessed to do anything as common as raise her own child and change his poopy diapers...
No, Mary was a normal Jewish girl with a normal Jewish marriage...