Did Mary retain her virginal integrity while giving birth to Jesus?

Catholic Bridge ^ | David MacDonald

[Alex Murphy]

Overall, Catholics liked the movie "The Nativity" but had several problems with it. For one thing they changed Scripture during the closing of the movie. On the screen they flashed the Bible passage from Luke 1:46-54. But they left out the words "for me" from middle of the sentence "The Lord has done great things for me, and Holy is his name." I don't think they should have taken that out of the Word of God, without using any elypses to show they skipped it. Another issue with the movie is they showed Mary screaming and pushing in pain as she gave birth to Jesus.

The Early Church Fathers are almost unanimous in the assertion that the birth was painless and had no loss of Mary's virginal integrity during the birth. In other words, her Hymen didn't break. St. Augustine said "Jesus passed through the womb of Mary as a ray of sun passes through glass." Pope Martin in 649 AD defined the doctrine that Mary:

• Conceived without seed, of the Holy Ghost
• Generated without injury (to her virginity)
• And her virginity continued unimpaired after the birth

This was confirmed by Pope Paul IV and many others before and after. If Jesus emerged from a sealed tomb, and passed through closed doors, surely he could pass through Mary's womb without breaking her hymen and causing her pain. If pain is the punishment of original sin and birth pangs the first punishment at the fall (Gen 3) for Eve's disobedience. It follows that Mary as the new Eve, who was obedient to God (Lk 1:38), would not have suffered giving birth to the "new Adam". If Eve came out of Adam's rib with no pain while he slept, it follows that Jesus (the new Adam) came out of Mary (the new Eve) without pain.

[AnAmericanMother]

Oh, there was St. Polycarp, and also probably St. Ignatius of Antioch (though his purported correspondence with the Virgin Mary is spurious).

Think about it. It's not unlikely that plenty of the leaders of the Church knew her in her old age. I knew three veterans of WWI (one was my maternal grandfather). I also knew my great-grandmother who was born right at the start of the Civil War and remembered a great deal about the Reconstruction era. So here I am in 2010 able to talk first hand about a lady who met and spoke with Robert E. Lee!

[MHGinTN]

Now that post I can deal with, and find material over which to discuss the issues.

When I posted the data regarding what Dr. Mancuso related I was lending support to the notion that Mary was 'under the blood of The Savior' from the moment He was placed in her body. I don't argue over whether God had intercourse with her, that's an absurd debate for a Christian to entertain. I personally believe God placed Jesus in Mary's womb as an embryo aged being, and I also believe Jesus came and went from our where/when on several occasions which indicate that He could have been born without the usual deliver method. Can I prove any of it? Of course not! But the clues are int he Bible that this other where/when exists, that Jesus moved back and forth between our where/when and this other where/when, and the science of embryology is proving stem cells from a gestating child remain alive int he mother's body perhaps right through the rest of the mother's life.

Conjecture is what I'm offering. I'm not defending the Catholic dogma or refuting any of it, just aligning facts and information found in the Bible and in science. I do find it offensive that those opposed to the Catholic dogma are so vitriolic toward Mary.

I can understand vitriol toward each other in a heated debate ... we've had it both ways, Mr. Rogers. But to malign Mary the Mother of Jesus is jumping the shark. Especially since our recent scientific discoveries hint so strongly that something of the Savior likely remained with Mary after Jesus was out of her womb.

BTW, I would be probably be as adamant against someone maligning your mother, should that twig arise. And with Mary the Mother of Jesus, we as Christians have even more reason to defend her honor.

Your point made without a slur is an important one, as far as substantiation missing for the titles Catholics give to Mary. If she were as important to Christianity as Cathoics have made her out to be, she would likely be more heralded throughout ACts and even by Paul and others. And the argument that the tradition of that day downgraded women in that society so the writers of the testaments fo the spreading Church would not raise her to such significance doesn't quite float either, because it was to women that Jesus first appeared following His resurrection. And Luke makes it clear that the men didn't accept their witness at face value, so it was not a hidden secret that there was a conflict between the position of women and the spreading Church.

[Mr Rogers]

I’ve lost my temper more than once on a religion thread, which is why I now avoid them as a rule.

If Catholics want to believe Mary remained a virgin, they can. I think it is quite a stretch in how one reads the NT, but for most the issue is so emotional that it isn’t possible to have a polite conversation.

It was one of the Orthodox - Kolo-something or other - who patiently explained to me that anything I wrote about Mary had the same emotional impact on him as if I had written about his own mother. So I think I’ll follow my normal rule and drop off this thread before I give more offense and stir more bitterness than I may have already done.

I have enough temptations to anger and judgment without looking for them here on FreeRepublic...and if I must find them, let it be on a political thread. My anger doesn’t give God any glory, or accomplish His will.

[MHGinTN]

Pax vobiscum, brother.

[Iscool]

But I wouldn’t want to get over your head.

You may easily get over my head with embrionic cell research, but you'll never get over the scriptures...

[aruanan]

This was confirmed [reasserted] by Pope Paul IV and many others before and after. If Jesus emerged from a sealed tomb, and passed through closed doors, surely he could pass through Mary's womb without breaking her hymen and causing her pain. If pain is the punishment of original sin and birth pangs the first punishment at the fall (Gen 3) for Eve's disobedience. It follows that Mary as the new Eve, who was obedient to God (Lk 1:38), would not have suffered giving birth to the "new Adam". If Eve came out of Adam's rib with no pain while he slept, it follows that Jesus (the new Adam) came out of Mary (the new Eve) without pain.*

It follows, it follows, it follows...

Positing a result I like doesn't make the premise sound; neither does arguing by analogy; besides, it's what goes in, not what comes out, that changes the virginal state.

Besides, the more interesting question is what is the origin of the desperation to keep Mary, who was, indeed, a virgin when she conceived and gave birth to Jesus, a lifelong virgin and why, in the principal NT documents, there is no hint of a virginal cult (and many relationships and language that have to be explained away), especially in Pauline letters regarding the status of virgins and marriage. Although Paul said that he thought it would be better for folks to remain unmarried as he was (presumably virginal, but at least chaste), his argument was that it would leave one free to concentrate on the work for the Lord not, "If remaining a life-long virgin was good enough for the mother of Jesus, it should be good enough for the rest of us," much less any allusion to the BVM, Queen of Heaven.

Over the almost two millennia since Jesus departed to prepare a place for his followers, there have been different traditions springing up and propagating themselves, some more successfully than others, because of a few unwarranted assumptions:

1. Mary had to be born without sin so Jesus would be born without the taint of original sin.

2. God didn't have Jesus conceived immaculately like he had Mary conceived immaculately so she could conceive Jesus immaculately because, well, because he just didn't!

3. Original sin was something that was passed along genetically through the body.

4. (I've actually heard this one taught in a college Biblical literature class) Sin is passed along through the father so that's why Jesus couldn't have had an earthly father or he would have had a sin nature.

5. Jesus only appeared to be born in a human body.

6. Jesus was the human body, subject to all the frailties and degradation of material existence; the Christ was the son of God who filled that earthly vessel but without partaking of its corrupt nature.

7. God couldn't have had Jesus born as the perfect lamb of God without blemish from Mary because she was of the fallen human race so he created, ex nihilo, within her womb, the perfect embryo of Jesus.

Most of these probably originated through Gnostic teachings (even millennia later, such as #7) that held matter to be evil and corrupt and spirit to be pure and good. Pretty much all of the answers to anyone questioning them fall into a few categories:

1. Well, that's how God chose to do it and who are you to question him?

2. With God and faith all things are possible, even squaring the circle, finding 2+2=5, and making God the origin and cause of all sin and suffering in the world for his greater glory as a holy and just God.

3. God revealed this to the church hierarchy, of which you are not a member and so cannot possibly understand, much less question, the veracity of their pronouncements and, if you were, would, by that very act of questioning, be demonstrating your lack of faith and antagonism to all things righteous and pure and, thus, confirm that you are wrong and they are right.

* It follows that Mary as the new Eve, who was obedient to God (Lk 1:38), would not have suffered giving birth to the "new Adam". If Eve came out of Adam's rib with no pain while he slept, it follows that Jesus (the new Adam) came out of Mary (the new Eve) without pain.

Both your allusions as well as the direction of proposed cause and effect are a bit screwy. The old Adam didn't come from the old Eve. And if Eve came out of Adam without pain, it doesn't follow that the new Adam came out of the new Eve (not even a scriptural concept) without pain. The most you could claim with such an analogy is that as Eve came from the originating body of Adam while he slept so he would feel no pain, so the new Eve came from the originating body of her mother while her mother slept so she would feel no pain. The reply to such a statement would be, "Why are you going on like this about something like that? What relevance does that have to anything?" Answer: none. But it would demonstrate that the multiple chiasms of Eve from Adam, new Adam from new Eve, Adam suffered no pain from Eve, the new Eve suffered no pain from the new Adam are constructed for the purpose of lending imaginative--rather than exegetical or rational--support to a doctrine the question of whose accuracy, or even necessity, has been thoroughly begged.

[Quix]

I'm not a Catholic and you're not a Catholic. Can you please stop insulting Mary the Mother of Jesus in your obsession to attack the Catholic Church? Perhaps you do not realize how your assaults are coming across. You are sliding into insulting Mary in your zeal to attack the Catholic Church. That's disgusting, Quix.

As Jesus gestated in Mary's womb, His blood cells were passed through the umbilicus to Mary's body, Mary's uterine tissues. Based in what science has discovered, Mary carried cells from The Savior with her, probably for her entire life! Stop and think, Quix.

If you believe the Bible and trust science has discovered a fact regarding human gestational processes, wouldn't having actual blood of the Savior inside you be even more amazing than by faith trusting in His blood to purchase your redemption? As a Christian speaking to a fellow Christian brother, I ask you to stop and think hard on this syllogism.

I don't recall EVER saying an insulting or unkind thing regarding the authentic Mary, mother of Jesus' earthly body.

I HAVE had LOTS of creative things to say about the absurdly horrific blasphemous, idolatrous, pagan, pseudo-Mary caricature the Vatican has made of her purported personage.

As God gives me breath, opportunity and mandate, I shall continue to. Blasphemy and idolatry purportedly in behalf of the mother of Jesus' earthly body is a dreadful and outrageously horrific insult TO HER as well as to Jesus.

I don't find the discourse on the cells of Jesus' body's earthly Blood in Mary over the span of her life to merit anything of any particular merit. It was a normal occurrance after a supernatural impregnation.

One could build another VATICAN DOGMA EDIFICE ON A SPLINTER OF A TOOTHPICK for a foundation by pontificating ad delirum about how since Mary's other children's blood was also co-mingled in her body, THEY must have been super special mortals, in line to be Jr God's too.

Give a bureaucratic RELIGION INSTITUTION very !!!!TRADITION !!!! BOUND a micrometer toward a new fantasized absurd dogma and they'll be out to the next galactic cluster 10 clusters over with it before you can bat an eye.

Though in this case, with their denial that Mary had other blood sons and daughters, that's not likely to happen. LOL

Blasphemy and idolatry regarding Mary are not small matters. Deeply and intensely entrenched sentiments about such are not easily changed if change is remotely possible at all.

My style is not one size fits all. However, some folks ARE awakened by the startling ways I can sometimes put things. PRAISE GOD FOR THAT.

[Joya]

Thank you and thank you.

Who cares? Er, uh, why would anyone wonder about this? Why?

What difference does it make?

I believe the Lord Jesus Christ was conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost and born of a virgin, (named Mary).

Scripture says that Joseph did not know Mary until she had brought forth her firstborn son, see Matthew Chapter One, in other words, the first chapter of the first book of the New Testament. [Ya know, something covered in Christianity 101.]

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt%201&version=NKJV

I don’t see why it makes any difference whether she had an easy childbirth or a difficult childbirth when Baby Jesus arrived.

Since He was fully God **and** fully man, I seriously doubt He had a miraculous birth. In order to be fully man it makes sense that He had a normal earthly birth, that’s one of the ways He is “God with us” (one of us).

Let us magnify the King of kings, He is worthy of all our praise and all our devotion.

[Joya]

Well put, see my post 228.

[Jvette]

I have read through your comments with extreme interest. The postulation that some of Jesus’ DNA in the form of embryonic stem cells remained with her for her entire life is fascinating.

I also appreciate that you see the underlying vitriol and hatred that runs through most of these types of threads and feel the need to defend Catholics even though you are not one.

As you can no doubt see, the thread was relatively thoughtful and intelligent until certain ones are pinged and show up with their stock in trade comments made on every thread regarding Catholicism.

As for when Mary was saved from her sin, your theory is an interesting one, but the Church has contemplated this for many years and Mary, herself proclaimed her Immaculate Conception, so the matter is settled for me.

What intrigues me about the stem cells is that this would certainly buttress the belief that Mary remained a virgin her entire life. What human could ever reside in the womb where the Lord God had?

Again, thank you for a very interesting conversation and the respect you showed in your posts.

[MHGinTN]

Thank you for your kind comments. I had a lot more I would have posted, but the atmosphere has declined so that I wouldn’t dream of offering anything else for discussion.

[Jvette]

Credit where it is due.

I look forward to more from you.

You are right, the hate brigade has arrived and the thread is now toxic to the extreme!

I an also most likely done with it.

[Quix]

agere_contra;
Mary the wife of Clopas is the “sister” of Mary the mother of Jesus, which makes the “brothers” actually Jesus’ cousins (or possibly even more distant relatives).

!!!WRONG!!!

What unmitigated irrational weasel wording.

There would be ABSOLUTELY NO POINT to the whole passage, if the words did not mean blood brother and blood sister in those and similar passages. Cousins et al were so plentiful that the emphasis of the verses and their context would be meaningless, absurd.

And there's this:

The James Ossuary - Evidence of Jesus' Brother?

Update - Oct 30, 2008:  Ossuary Deemed Authentic!

According to an announcement by BAR - Biblical Archeological Society - the inscription on the James Ossuary has been found to be authentic.  The IAA case that has been underway in Israel for over a year, with the intent of trying to prove that the inscription was a fake, has fallen apart.  Uncontested evidence has been produced which proves that the same 'ancient patina' which is found on the front part of the inscription 'James, son of ..." is also found in the tail end of the inscription ".. brother of Jesus".

Quoting BAR:  "In the most recent embarrassment for the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA), the government’s star witness, Yuval Goren, former chairman of Tel Aviv University’s institute of archaeology, was forced to admit on cross-examination that there is original ancient patina in the word “Jesus,” the last word in the inscription that reads “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.”

Authentic, uncontested archeological evidence for
James, an Apostle of the Lord, and for his Brother - JESUS!

from:

http://www.evidencetobelieve.net/james_ossuary.htm

How Was the James Ossuary Discovered?

The ossuary was purchased in the mid 1970's, but lay dormant in the care of its owner for several decades.  Mr. Golan, being Jewish and not familiar with the details of the Christian faith, had no idea that Jesus may have had a brother. The ossuary was purchased in the mid 1970's, but lay dormant in the care of its owner for several decades.  Mr. Golan, being Jewish and not familiar with the details of the Christian faith, had no idea that Jesus may have had a brother.  Consequently he assigned no importance to the ossuary, and it was ignored by him for many years.  It lay in his basement gathering dust until one day, in the spring of 2002, one of the world's leading experts in ancient Semitic scripts -- Andre Lemaire - was invited to view his collection.  Mr. Golan needed some help understanding some difficult to read inscriptions, and Mr. Lemaire - being a noted epigrapher - was just the person who could help decipher these.

Andre soon visited Mr. Golan in his apartment in Israel.  Mr. Golan showed him several photographs of inscriptions that he had difficulty reading -- including one of a stone ossuary inscribed with "Ya'akov bar Yosef akhui di Yeshua".  His eyes popped, and he immediately recognized the importance of this stone box -- if it was genuine.  The Jesus of the New Testament had never appeared in an archeological context.  If this was indeed the stone ossuary that held the bones of James, the son of Joseph and the brother of Jesus, the find would be nothing less than earth shaking! 

Mr. Lemaire remained cool, as was his habit.  "Very interesting", he said.  He asked to see the stone ossuary first hand, and soon did.  Upon inspection he reported said he "felt good about it".  He also examined the inscription very carefully and found it to be authentic in his professional opinion (see below for details, and Sources at the end of this article).

Did Jesus Have Brothers?

There has been quite a bit of contention about whether or not Jesus had brothers and/or sisters.  But the Bible is very clear that Jesus did indeed have siblings.  Consider these passages:

• Matthew 13:55-56: "Is this not the carpenter's son?  Is not His mother called Mary?  And His brothers James, Joses, Simon and Judas?  And His sisters, are they not all with us?  Where then did this Man get all these things?"
• Mark 6:3: "Is this not the carpenter, the Son of Mary, and the brother of James, Joses, Judas and Simon?  And are not His sisters here with us?  And they were offended at Him."

Notice that in both passages James is named first, indicating he may have been the oldest.

In trying to maintain the perpetual virginity of Mary, some say that the references to brothers and sisters of Jesus in the Gospels are really cousins.  But the word used in these passages is the word for "brother", not "cousin".  There is a perfectly good word for cousin (anepsois), but that word is not used in these passages.  To presume these were the cousins of Jesus is to pervert the plain meaning of the text.

A clear reading of the Gospels also reveals that the Mary's virginity is limited to the birth of Jesus, her first born.  In Matthew 1:24-25 we read: "Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son.  And he called His name Jesus."  The implication is clear from a plain reading of the text: Joseph did have sexual relations with Mary after the birth of Jesus.

It's also reasonable that Joseph and Mary would continue to have other children.  Evidence indicates they were devout Jews, and as such would be expected to obey the Jewish Law of "be fruitful and multiply". What did the family of Jesus look like?

God ---- Mary-m-Joseph
        |            |
        |            +-----------+-------------+----------+-----------+-----------+
    Jesus    James     Joseph    Simon    Jude    Salome    Mary
                            4 half-brothers                       2 half-sisters

Who was 'James, the brother of Jesus'?

There were several people with the name James who lived during the time of Jesus, and are referred to in the New Testament.  There are of course two of the apostles - James, the son of Zebedee, and James the son of Alphaeus.  But James, the brother of Jesus stands apart. He was clearly identified as the "brother of the Lord" by Paul (see Gal 1:13-19).  Josephus, the famous 1st century Jewish historian, also identifies him as "the brother of Jesus".

What else do we know about James the brother of Jesus?

• James was likely not initially a believer in or a follower of Jesus prior to His resurrection (see John 7:2-5).
• After His resurrection, Jesus appears especially to James:  "After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles" (1 Cor 15:7).  Subsequent to this appearance James becomes a committed follower of Jesus.
• Soon after he became the leader of the early Christian church in Jerusalem, and had regular dealings with Peter, Paul and the rest of the Apostles. 
• James was a strong leader and mediator amidst controversy in the early church (according to the New Testament Acts). 
• He wrote the Epistle of James recorded in the New Testament - a letter providing guidance to Jewish Christians ("twelve tribes") scattered abroad.
• According to the first century historian Josephus, James was condemned by Annas the high priest and the Sanhedrin, and stoned to death (c AD 62).  The charge is not clear, but it may have been blasphemy - James identified himself as a "servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ" (James 1:1).
• He was known as 'The Just".  The second century writer Hegesippus, whose words are preserved by the fourth century historian Eusebius, tells us that because of his "excessive righteousness [James] was called 'the Just'"²

Is the Inscription on the James Ossuary Authentic?  A Look at the Facts

• Testing by the Geological Society of Israel confirms that the limestone is from the Jerusalem area, and that it was quarried in the 1st or 2nd century CE.
   
• When a stone ossuary lies in a cave for hundreds (or thousands) of years, a "patina" (a thin film of chemicals) develops on the surface of the stone.  Microscopic analysis of the ossuary and the inscription reveals that the very same patina on the surface of the ossuary is also the same patina that is embedded in the grooves of the inscription.  This tells us that the ossuary, and the inscription, are the same age.
   
• If the inscription was made by a modern tool, and done recently, then the patina would reflect this. The patina in the grooves of the inscription does not contain any metal shavings or evidence that it was done by a modern tool.
   
• The Aramaic used in the inscription has been examined by the world's foremost experts in ancient Aramaic.  The words used for son (bar), and brother (akhui) attest to the fact that the inscription is indeed the same ancient Aramaic spoken by Jesus and His apostles.
   
• The paleographic style of the letters inscribed on the stone places the writing in the 20 BCE - 70 CE time frame.  Furthermore, several of the letters - the shape of the dalet ("d"), yod ("y"), and aleph ("a") - narrow the date of the ossuary to roughly 50 - 70 CE, the very same time frame that James was recorded as being put to death!
   
• What are the chances that this could some other James?  How many persons with the name James were also the son of Joseph, and a brother of a Jesus?  Mathematical studies have been done to try to answer this question.  The name James appears in 2 percent of the inscriptions.  Joseph, in 14 percent.  And the name Jesus in 9 percent.  The chances that all three names appear together?  Only 1/40th of 1 percent (.02 x .14 x .09 = 0.000252).¹
   
• Most ossuaries are without inscriptions.  The ones that are inscribed and that date from the 1st century are normally inscribed in the style "xxxx, son of yyy".  There is only 1 - one - other example of an ossuary out of thousands where there was a name appended.  The primary reasons for doing this were only two:  1) to differentiate the person from others that they might be confused with, or 2) to associate the person with someone famous.  Clearly the ossuary of James was being marked to differentiate it from the rest - as being the very special resting place of the Lord's brother.
   
• Some skeptics say that if this was the James that was the brother of Jesus, the inscription would have read "the brother of the Lord", or "the brother of the Messiah".  But is this so?  If we read Josephus, the famous Jewish historian of the 1st century, he refers to James in just the same way:  as "the bother of Jesus, who is called the Messiah".

Could Someone Have Faked The James Ossuary?

Some have argued that the inscription is a forgery.  Is this possible?  Lets consider the accusations and their viability:

• Some has said that the first part of the inscription - "James, son of Joseph" - was written by one hand, while the second part - "brother of Jesus" - was by another hand. The problem with this objection is that it runs counter to many of the world renowned epigraphists who have examined the inscription - among them Professor Frank Cross of Harvard, Father Joseph Fitzmyer, formerly of the Catholic University of America, Dr. Ada Yardeni (author of The Book of Hebrew Script, Joseph Milik, a prominent Dead Sea Scrolls epigrapher, and Andre Lemaire.  All of these experts see only one hand in the inscription.
   
• Another accusation is that the first part of the inscription is written in more of a formal manner, while the second part is written in a cursive manner.  However this argument breaks down on close examination.  As Mr. Lamaire points out, formal and cursive characters are all mixed together in the inscription, not an uncommon practice for such ossuaries.  With F=Formal and C=Cursive, this is how the inscription reads:  CFFCFFFCCFFCFCCCCFCF.
   
• Observations have been made that parts of the inscription are more incised than others, as if cleaned by a sharp instrument recently.  But this is not unlikely if one considers how the ossuary came to be discovered.  An ossuary with no inscription is practically worthless, and one with an inscription that is hard to read is worth very little.  To maximize value, Its likely that the antiquities merchant cleaned (and perhaps etched out more deeply) some of the letters.  But cleaning is quite different from forgery, and according to experts the evidence points to cleaning - not forgery.
   
• Some have asserted that the "patina" on the inscription - especially the first part - does not match the patina or film on the rest of the ossuary.  But that should not be a surprise to anyone, since Mr. Golan freely admitted that his mother cleaned the inscription with soap and warm water several times, and it was likely cleaned by maids as well.  This being the case, one would expect to find a difference in the film around the parts of the inscription that were cleaned.  What is interesting, however, is that the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) report states that the same yellowish patina that is on the side of the ossuary is also in the incisions of the letters of "the brother of Jesus".  Meaning the last words of the inscription have to be authentic!  But if the last words are authentic, and the evidence outlined above stands the test of scrutiny, its likely that the first words are just as authentic.

Evidence Argues That The James Ossuary is Authentic

All of the evidence to date points to the conclusion that the ossuary, and the inscription, are authentic.  That this stone box once contained the bones of one of the greatest figures of the early Christian church ...

"Ya'akov bar Yosef akhui di Yeshua"

James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus

Sources and Further Information

¹ - "The Brother of Jesus", by Hershal Shanks and  Ben Witherington III, p. 57
Royal Ontario Museum (ROM) page on James Ossuary
² - ibid, p 27.
Royal Ontario Museum web site:  http://www.rom.on.ca
Biblical Archeological Society page on the James Ossuary:  http://www.bib-arch.org

[PICS FROM THE ARTICLE AT THE RELATED LINK]

[metmom]

What a bunch of nonsense.

Scripture clearly says the carpenter’s son, whose mother is Mary.

What’s with the Catholic obsession that Mary had to be perpetually a virgin? Why was it necessary?

Once the Scripture was fulfilled that a virgin would conceive and bear a son, there was no need for her to remain a virgin.

WHY is it so important to Catholic to teach and believe that Mary was always virgin? How does that affect Jesus ministry here on earth? How does that affect the plan of redemption and salvation through faith in Christ alone?

Mary’s continued virginity, or lack thereof, is totally irrelevant to what Jesus came to earth to do, and that is purchase forgiveness through the shedding of His blood and His death on the cross.

What does Mary and Joseph’s sex life have to do with that?

[Legatus]

Why in the name of all that's decent did you ping me into this TOILET of a thread?!

[johngrace]

Hi Q- If I remember right I read this same thing but they are all common names Jesus is Joshua in Hebrew. All the names are repeats of ancestral relatives that go back. Like Joseph is honoring the Joseph line that goes back to Joseph with the pharoah in the old. I live in NY I have jewish friends they are named after the ancesters. This goes back to old testament days.

Thats why you have a lot of Mary names and Joseph. Mary is the translation from the hebrew Miriam. You know Mose's kin. So to have that combo of same names with more than one is always possible. All their names are repeats thru history. Everybody had similiar names. A jewish person has to honor relatives. Thats why there are so many with those names. Also if you go back to this time in history the smaller population dictates more of these names. They are closer to the original name source( person).

Just to be fair that article does not seem right. IMHO.

[Mad Dawg]

The main question of this thread leaves me utterly uninterested. But this, on the other hand, is more intriguing:
I think describing a woman utterly free of sin as “semi-divine” is reasonable.

I'll argue to the contrary. Here's an attempt at a reductio:

If being sinless means that Mary is semi-divine, then EITHER Adam and Eve were semi-divine (which may not be so very far off base, actually) OR it is the nature of man to sin.

But if it is the nature of man to sin, then Creation was not "very good," for sin is evil.

As to the semi-divinity of Adam and Eve, if that is to be accepted (and note how I get a lot less all logic-y and everything) I would suggest that it would be a destiny thing, rather than an as they were right then thing.

Here's an attempt at a "constructive." The principle division in the Biblical view of "everything that is" is that between Creator and creature. In particular: Mary is nowhere thought of as a creator (that I know of, anyway.) In general, it is unclear to me what 'semi-divine' would mean. Outside of the Incarnation it is hard to imagine anything being both Creator and creature.

In any event the official teaching is that Mary was preserved from sin NOT on her own toot but by a unique act of Christ at her conception and, I assume but could be wrong, by a continued sustenance in grace.

It is okay, I think, to say that in a way all the saints will be semi-divine at the general resurrection and thereafter. But I would say that that was more a matter of an eternally increasing intimacy with God Himself and the eternally increasing gift of grace to sustain that intimacy.

In any event, I think the most interesting problem posed by your assertion is the one about whether and how man is 'naturally' sinful.

[Mad Dawg]

This is not meant to establish the "Immaculate Conception" but only to address an argument against it.

But the Bible is clear that Jesus was the only perfect one.

Well, there's a difference between perfect and sinless.

But in any event, while one may joke about asterisks and all, if we are to take Paul with logical rigor, then Jesus sinned. But Jesus did not sin, therefore "all" does not mean "all". Therefore it is loosely said , and finding another instance of a sinless person does not take away from the point Paul as making when he quoted that psalm.

Further, the teaching is that Mary was not sinless by her own power but by a special grace. The common metaphor is that we have been pulled out of the bog by Jesus, while Mary was caught just as she was about to fall into it.

[Politicalmom]

The Bible specifically states and names the brothers of Jesus, and mentions, but doesn’t name, sisters as well.

[MHGinTN]

‘In that Adam sinned and sin passed to all men’ ... if there were humankind who had no spirit component (perhaps they evolved to that point of homo erectus but without a spirit in their soul/behavior mechanism) and God created adam to have a spirit component but it was sinless until he willfully disobeyed God, then all those descended from Adam would have inherited the spirit component as passed to Adam’s off spring after God breathed into Adam and he became a living soul ... Or something like that?