Posted on 03/17/2012 2:30:01 PM PDT by reaganaut
I understand the history of the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary (ἀειπαρθένος). I know it was taught as early as the 4th century, and I understand the development of "Spritual Marriages" in the Early Middle ages. That isn't what I am asking.
I have a good grasp of the history, doctrine and Biblical texts. I have done a lot of research on the topic. I grew up in Catholic school and Matthew 1:25 always got me in trouble during Catechism class.
Douay-Rheims Bible
And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. (Matthew 1:25).
"Know" is a very common idiom for sex in Judaism of the period of writing. Again, I don't want to debate the text or history.
Protestants have no issue with Joseph and Mary having a normal marriage and having sexual relations AFTER the birth of Jesus (not before for obvious reasons) and having other children.
What I am curious about is the WHY the doctrine is important to MODERN Catholics (Medieval Catholics I get). Why does matter if Mary was ever-virgin (after the birth of Christ) or not?
HA HA HA.
I ain't laughing at you.
I am laughing because YOU have opened your heart and mind.
I'm for to be hoping you get what ya ask-ed fer.
Nonetheless, and despite Tradition, there are four people that some Protestants claim are the blood brothers of Jesus, an idea which comes from Mark 6:3 which says that Jesus is “the brother of James, and Joses, and of Jude and Simon.” But to find out who the real mother of these four are, look at the following:
Matthew 27: 55-56 tells us of three women at the Cross: “And many women were there beholding afar off, which followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him: Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedees children.”
Mark 15:40 tells us of the three women there, “There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome.”
John 19:25 is the most inclusive, telling us of four women’s presence, “Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.” (Note here the reference to Mary’s “sister” who’s named Mary!)
Putting all these together, we can cross off Joses and James the Less as being Jesus’ blood brothers because their mother is the wife of Cleophas.
We can cross Simon off the list because Mark 3:18 tells us he is a Canaanite, “And Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Canaanite...”
Jude, we are told in Jude 1:1, is the “servant of Jesus Christ and the brother of James.”
Crossing just one name off the list is enough to prove the point that the Hebrew word “brother” means many things (just as the word does in English today, my “brother or sister in Christ!”) and to prove that this is so even in the very particular context of Mark 6:3.
St. Papias, writing in the first and early second centuries and called by St. Irenaeus a “hearer of John,” refers clearly to all the above Marys in his letter, a fragment of which survives to this day. He writes:
Mary the mother of the Lord; Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphaeus, who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, and of Simon and Thaddeus, and of one Joseph; Mary Salome, wife of Zebedee, mother of John the evangelist and James; Mary Magdalene. These four are found in the Gospel. James and Judas and Joseph were sons of an aunt of the Lord’s. James also and John were sons of another aunt of the Lord’s. Mary, mother of James the Less and Joseph, wife of Alphaeus was the sister of Mary the mother of the Lord, whom John names of Cleophas, either from her father or from the family of the clan, or for some other reason. Mary Salome is called Salome either from her husband or her village. Some affirm that she is the same as Mary of Cleophas, because she had two husbands. [read the complete letter fragment here: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0125.htm. Will open in new browser window.]
In addition to this, Jesus could well have had step-brothers, as Church Tradition and early Church writings tell us that Joseph was an older man when Mary, a consecrated virgin, was betrothed to him so that he could act as her protector when she got to be of age enough to “defile the Temple” (though she could not, in fact defile the Temple). Please read the Protoevangelium of St. James, dated to ca A.D. 125, which, in chapter 9, clearly states that St. Joseph had other children from a former marriage. Though this document was rejected by the Church as being a part of infallible Scripture, it is very early evidence of the belief, held as possisble from the beginning of the Church, that Jesus had “brothers” because his earthly father, Joseph, had children when he married Mary, a consecrated virgin. Also see the apocryphal document, the Gospel of the Nativity of Mary, yet another early source which proves that many of the earliest Christians believed in Mary’s consecrated virginity, that Joseph was an aged man when he married her, and that she was kept free from sin.
Well, I asked for some response, and I got it and some understanding.
I’m not seeking to change my theology, Freddie.
off to bed, night all. I’ll be back after church and errands tomorrow.
Don’t read everything at fisheaters, or else you’ll start thinking everything is a Judeo-Masonic conspiracy.
The site may have a lot of good information, but after reading some of the forums, I don’t trust it, and I would recommend getting information about Catholicism elsewhere.
Freeper Cheers!
I’m not asking anything of you.
somewhere something has been said about man being created in His own image but in that there is the addition of the female to make man understand but why would god impose on man something he has no xperience with unless the Holy Ghost was really mamasan in the Trinity. Father, Son, And no mamasan?
I don’t feel or would impose.
It isn’t any kind of attack. It isn’t anything other than my best wellwishes for a FRiend.
No x perience? I laugh. You wassist born with it.
Then why is jesus named jesus? Shouldn’t it be Emmanuel?
Martin Luther was the first "protestant", it's ironic his beliefs have been diluted so much that many protestant churches have no regard or knowledge about his beliefs. Luther, along with most long standing Christian faiths, believe(d) in Mary as a perpetual Virgin and Blessed Mother. It's not just a Catholic "thing". Martin Luther divided the church, but I have no problem with that. Obviously God allowed it and His ways are not our ways. So to me Luther, like Judas, is simply a part of our church history and was possibly necessary for protecting His church.
If we are such a big target now, imagine what an easy target Christianity would be without all these thousands of little rogue mom and pop churches everywhere. Not to mention the Jehovah Witnesses and Hari Krishnas. God knows what He's doing. Although that is my personal opinion of Martin Luther, I don't any Catholics that have animosity towards him or protestants in general.
I don't know. Go to CATHOLICANSWERS.COM and ask them. That's their business.
Lol
Agree that the Virgin Birth is one of the last times we see God's hand directly however I cannot find any Scriptural evidence that Mary remained a virgin the rest of her life.
Would appreciate any Scriptural references to it.
>>And then I went to church and a St. Patrick Dinner! LOL!<<
Next year, I will somehow manage a corned beef & cabbage St. Patrick’s dinner. I haven’t had them in years.
Remember for a moment that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant, literally the vessel in which the flesh of the New Covenant was contained. What happened to Uzziah when he touched the ark of the old covenant without permission? He was instantly struck dead.
I don't believe your comparison is accurate. Uzziah literally "broke the rules" by which God established for worshipping and burning incense at the altar, and as a result was struck down with leprosy.
There aren't any Scriptural references or "rules" that say Mary must have remained a virgin after Christ's birth, and I don't see how people make that leap absent Scriptural evidence.
Joseph was still alive when Jesus was 12 years old because he and Mary both went looking for him and found him teaching in the temple.
Luke 2:41-50
[41] And his parents went every year to Jerusalem, at the solemn day of the pasch, [42] And when he was twelve years old, they going up into Jerusalem, according to the custom of the feast, [43] And having fulfilled the days, when they returned, the child Jesus remained in Jerusalem; and his parents knew it not. [44] And thinking that he was in the company, they came a day’s journey, and sought him among their kinsfolks and acquaintance. [45] And not finding him, they returned into Jerusalem, seeking him.
[46] And it came to pass, that, after three days, they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, hearing them, and asking them questions. [47] And all that heard him were astonished at his wisdom and his answers. [48] And seeing him, they wondered. And his mother said to him: Son, why hast thou done so to us? behold thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. [49] And he said to them: How is it that you sought me? did you not know, that I must be about my father’s business? [50] And they understood not the word that he spoke unto them. [Luke 2:41-50]
There are numerous historical documents which support the teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity such as the Protoevangelium of James, which was written probably less than sixty years after the conclusion of Mary’s earthly life (around A.D. 120), when memories of her life were still vivid in the minds of many.
If only biblical text is valid, then we need to burn our Joyce Meyer books. I really enjoy reading Joel Osteen perspectives. i have faith that the Holy Spirit enlightens him. That doesn't mean I worship him or deny God. The Bible only concept only seems to be applied conveniently when directed towards other faiths. I guess that's good because it would be a shame to disregard the many evangelical speakers and writers who give valuable testimony that isn't strictly biblical text.
Go ahead and burn those books. Doesn’t bother most Protestants. :)
Books written by Evangelicals are so less superior to the Bible and we by no means equate them to it.
I guess I’m missing your point. There were many women named Mary, correct? Perhaps many of those “Marys” had sons with similar names, too. It doesn’t seem that there were a lot of variety in names back then.
Peace to all my brothers and sisters in Christ, regardless of where your name is listed in the membership rolls.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.