Mary, Mother of God

The Sacred Page ^ | December 29, 2015

[NYer]

January 1 is the Solemnity (Holy Day) of Mary, Mother of God.  To call Mary the “Mother of God” must not be understood as a claim for Mary’s motherhood of divinity itself, but in the sense that Mary was mother of Jesus, who is truly God.  The Council of Ephesus in 431—long before the schisms with the Eastern churches and the Protestants—proclaimed “Mother of God” a theologically correct title for Mary. 

So far from being a cause of division, the common confession of Mary as “Mother of God” should unite all Christians, and distinguish Christian orthodoxy from various confusions of it, such as Arianism (the denial that Jesus was God) or Nestorianism (in which Mary mothers only the human nature of Jesus but not his whole person).

Two themes are present in the Readings for this Solemnity: (1) the person of Mary, and (2) the name of Jesus.   Why the name of Jesus? Prior to the second Vatican Council, the octave day of Christmas was the Feast of the Holy Name, not Mary Mother of God.  The legacy of that tradition can be seen in the choice of Readings for this Solemnity.  (The Feast of the Holy Name was removed from the calendar after Vatican II; St. John Paul II restored it as an optional memorial on January 3.  This year it is not observed in the U.S., because Epiphany falls on January 3.)

1.  The First Reading is Numbers 6:22-27:

The LORD said to Moses:
“Speak to Aaron and his sons and tell them:
This is how you shall bless the Israelites.
Say to them:
The LORD bless you and keep you!
The LORD let his face shine upon
you, and be gracious to you!
The LORD look upon you kindly and
give you peace!
So shall they invoke my name upon the Israelites,
and I will bless them.”

This Solemnity is one of the very few times that the Book of Numbers is read on a Lord’s Day or Feast Day.  Here’s a little background on the Book of Numbers:

The Book of Numbers is a little less neglected than Leviticus among modern Christian readers, if only because, unlike its predecessor, it combines its long lists of laws with a number of dramatic narratives about the rebellions of Israel against God in the wilderness, which create literary interest.  The name “Numbers” is, perhaps, already off-putting for the modern reader—it derives from the Septuagint name Arithmoi, “Numbers”, referring to the two numberings or censuses, one each of the first and second generations in the Wilderness, that form the pillars of the literary structure of the book in chs. 1 and 26.  The Hebrew name is bamidbar, “In the Wilderness,” which is an accurate description of the geographical and spiritual location of Israel throughout most of the narrative.

         The Book of Numbers has a strong literary relationship with its neighbors in the Pentateuch.  In many ways it corresponds with the Book of Exodus.  Exodus begins with the people staying in Egypt (Exodus 1-13), then describes their journey to through the desert (Exodus 14-19), and ends with them stationary at Sinai (20-36).  Numbers begins with the people staying at Sinai (Num 1-10), describes their journey through the desert (Num 11-25), and ends with them stationary on the Plains of Moab.  Sinai and the Plains of Moab correspond: at each location the people will receive a covenant (see below on Deuteronomy).  Furthermore, there are strong literary connections between the journeys through the Wilderness to and from Sinai (Ex 14-19; Num 11-25).  Both these sections are dominated by accounts of the people of Israel “murmuring” (Heb. lôn), “rebelling” (Heb. mārāh), or “striving” (Heb. rîb) against the LORD and/or Moses, together with Moses’ need for additional help to rule an unruly people (Ex 18; Num 11:16-39), and God’s miraculous provision for the people’s physical needs (Ex 15:22-17:7; Num 11:31-34; 20:1-13).  This is evidence of careful literary artistry: the central Sinai Narrative (Exod 20–Num 10) is surrounded by the unruly behavior of the people wandering in the desert.

         Numbers also has a close relationship with Leviticus.  If Leviticus established a sacred “constitution” for the life of Israel, exhibiting a logical, systematic order concluded, like a good covenant document, with a listing of blessings and curses (Lev 26), Numbers is more like a list of “amendments” to the “constitution,” together with accounts of the historical circumstances that led to their enactment.  And like the lists of amendments on many state and national constitutions, the laws have an ad hoc, circumstantial character, with little logical connection between successive “amendments.” 

         Finally, Numbers “sets the stage” for the Book of Deuteronomy, providing us the necessary information about Israel’s geographical and moral condition when they arrived at the “Plains of Moab opposite Jericho” in order to appreciate Moses’ extended homily and renewal of the covenant that he will deliver at this site in the final book of the Pentateuch.

The specific text we have in this First Reading is the famous Priestly Blessing of Numbers 6.  The formula for blessing given to the priests involves the invocation of the Divine Name (YHWH) three times over the people of Israel. 

A Brief Excursus on the Divine Name

“If they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say?” “God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM,” say … “I AM has sent me to you” (Ex 3:13-14).  The revelation of the divine Name to Moses (Ex 3:13-15) is one of the most theologically significant passages of the Old Testament.  By revealing himself as “I AM”, God distinguishes himself from the other gods of the nations, which “are not.”  He is the only God who truly is.  Furthermore, the name “I AM” stresses that God exists of himself; unlike all other beings he does not take his existence from some other cause.  Later philosophical language will describe God as the one necessary being.  While lacking technical philosophical language, the ancients did have the concept of self-existence: in Egyptian religion, the sun-god Amon-RÄ“ “came into being by himself” and all other beings took their existence from him.  However, God reveals to Moses that it is He, the LORD—not Amon-RÄ“ or any other Egyptian god—who is the ground of being and the source of existence. 

The actual word given to Israel to serve as the Name of God is spelled YHWH in the English equivalents of the Hebrew consonants. It is not the full phrase “I AM WHO I AM” but rather an archaic form of the Hebrew verb HYH, “to be,” with the meaning “HE IS.” Out of respect for the third commandment, Jews after the Babylonian exile (c. 597–537 BC) ceased to pronounce the divine name at all, but instead substituted the title “Lord,” in Hebrew adonai, in Greek kyrios.  Thus the God of Israel is called ho kyrios, “the Lord” in the New Testament.  This sheds light on the meaning of the phrase, “Jesus is Lord!” (Rom 10:9; 1 Cor 12:3).

The Hebrew language was written without vowels until around AD 700, when Jewish scribes developed a vowel-writing system.  The form YHWH, however, was written with the vowels for adonai, the word Jews actually pronounced.  The English translators of the King James Version did not understand this system, and in a few instances combined the Hebrew consonants of YHWH (called the tetragrammaton, lit. “the four letters”) with the Hebrew vowels of adonai to form the erroneous name “Jehovah.”  Catholic tradition addresses God with neither the mistaken form “Jehovah” nor the ancient pronunciation “Yahweh,” but uses “LORD” to refer to the God of Israel, in keeping with the practice of Jesus and the Apostles.  In most English Bibles, “LORD” in caps represents YHWH in the Hebrew text, while “Lord” in lower case represents the actual Hebrew word adonai.

The concept of “name” in Hebrew culture was of great significance.  The “name” represented the essence of the person, and invoking the name made the person mystically present.  Therefore, God will speak of the manifestation of his presence in the Temple as the “dwelling of his Name” in various places of the Old Testament.

The invocation of the Name of God over the people of Israel communicates God’s presence and Spirit to them at least a mediated way. 

In post-exilic Judaism, the Divine Name (YHWH) was seldom if ever pronounced, except on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), when the High Priest would make atonement for the whole nation in the Holy of Holies, and then exit the Temple in order to bless the assembled people in the Temple courts.  There, he would pronounce the blessing of Numbers 6, including the vocalization of the Divine Name.  Every time the people would hear the Name pronounced, they would drop prostrate on the ground.  This is recorded in Sirach:

Sir. 50:20 Then Simon came down, and lifted up his hands over the whole congregation of the sons of Israel, to pronounce the blessing of the Lord with his lips, and to glory in his name, and to glory in his name;  21 and they bowed down in worship a second time, to receive the blessing from the Most High.

Similar information is recorded in the Mishnah, the second-century AD collection of rabbinic tradition and teaching that become the basis of the legal system of modern Judaism.  So in the Mishnah, tractate Yoma 3:8 and 6:2:

And [when the people heard the four letter Name] they answer after [the High Priest]: “Blessed be the Name of His glorious Kingdom forever and ever”. (M. Yoma 3:8)

Then, the priests and the people standing in the courtyard, when they heard the explicit Name from the mouth of the High Priest, would bend their knees, bow down and fall on their faces, and they would say, "Blessed be the Honored Name of His Sovereignty forever!" (M. Yoma 6:2)

We read this passage of Scripture in today’s liturgy for a variety of reasons. 

First, we gather as God’s people around the world on this, the first day of the civil year, to ask from God his blessing upon us. 

Second, we commemorate (in the Gospel) the circumcision and naming of Jesus.  For us in the New Covenant, the Name of God continues to be a source of blessing and Divine Presence, but the name we are to use is no longer YHWH but “Jesus.”  Jesus is God’s Name, the source of salvation.  When Paul speaks to the Philippians about the Name of Jesus, he may have in mind the prostrations in the Temple at the Divine Name:

Phil. 2:10  At the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth …

It has never been the Christian tradition to pronounce the holy name “YHWH.”  Jesus and the Apostles practiced the Jewish piety of substituting “Lord” (‘adonai, kyrios, dominus) for the pronunciation of the Name.  For this reason, under the pontificate of Benedict XVI, the pronounced name “Yahweh” was removed from contemporary worship resources.  The sect of the Jehovah’s Witnesses insist on the pronunciation of the Name, although their form of pronunciation is erroneous, and there is nothing in Christian tradition or the New Testament to encourage such a practice.  For us, the saving name is now “Jesus,” and although full prostration at the pronunciation of the name of Jesus is impractical, Catholic piety dictates a bow of the head at the mention of the Holy Name.

2.  The Second Reading is Galatians 4:4-7:

Brothers and sisters:

When the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son,

born of a woman, born under the law,

to ransom those under the law,

so that we might receive adoption as sons.

As proof that you are sons,

God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts,

crying out, “Abba, Father!”

So you are no longer a slave but a son,

and if a son then also an heir, through God.

This Reading has ties to the Gospel, which emphasizes Mary’s role in Christ’s birth (“born of a woman”) as well as Jesus and his family being obedient Jews, faithful to the Old Covenant in submitting to circumcision (“born under the law.”)

This Reading also reminds us that Jesus calls us to Divine sonship (or childhood, if gender neutrality is desired).  Let’s not forget that this is unique to the Christian faith.  Christianity—unlike Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Atheism—is a religion about becoming children of God.  In Judaism, Divine childhood is metaphorical; in Islam, it is blasphemy.  In Eastern religions, it is irrelevant, because God is not ultimately a personal being, but rather an impersonal force or essence that animates all or simply is All.  Christianity alone holds out the possibility of familial intimacy with Creator as a son or daughter to a Father.

Let us also notice the close connection between the gift of the Holy Spirit and divine sonship.  From a legal perspective, it is the New Covenant that makes us children of God; from an ontological perspective, it is the Spirit that makes us children.  The sending of the Spirit “into our hearts,” as St. Paul says, is parallel to the inbreathing of the “breath of life” into the nostrils of Adam, causing him to become “a living being.”  So we are revivified by the Holy Spirit, as Adam was brought to life at the dawn of time.  Adam was king of the universe, as it says: “Have dominion over the over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth” (Gen 1:28).  The word “dominion” (Heb radah) evokes the context of kingly rule: later it will be used of Solomon’s imperial reign (1 Kings 4:24; Ps 72:8; 110:2; 2 Chr 8:10).  So the Holy Spirit makes us royalty in Christ: as St. Paul says, “no longer a slave but a son … also an heir, through God.”  No longer a slave to what?  Sin, death, and the devil.  If we live controlled by lusts, in fear of death, and swayed by the suggestions of Satan, than we are still slaves.  If we are free of these things, then we are walking in the Spirit, as children of God.  This is a theme in the First Epistle of John, which is read during daily mass all through the Christmas season.

4.  The Gospel is Luke 2:16-21:

The shepherds went in haste to Bethlehem and found Mary and Joseph,

and the infant lying in the manger.

When they saw this,

they made known the message

that had been told them about this child.

All who heard it were amazed

by what had been told them by the shepherds.

And Mary kept all these things,

reflecting on them in her heart.

Then the shepherds returned,

glorifying and praising God

for all they had heard and seen,

just as it had been told to them.

When eight days were completed for his circumcision,

he was named Jesus, the name given him by the angel

before he was conceived in the womb.

We note several things: Mary “kept all these things, reflecting on them in her heart.”  This is not only an historical indication of where St. Luke is getting his information about these events (so John Paul II [in his Wednesday audience of Jan. 28, 1987] and the Catholic tradition generally), but also a model of the contemplative vocation to which all Christians are called.  Especially during this Christmas season, up until the Baptism (Jan 13), we should carve out some time for quiet prayer, to meditate on the incredible events we celebrate and allow their meaning to sink into our hearts. 

Then we see the shepherds “glorifying and praising God for all they had heard and seen …”  This, too, describes the Christian’s vocation.  Pope Francis in particular has been calling us to return to the aspect of praise and joy that characterizes the disciple of Jesus.  Our faith is experiential, it is not just a philosophy.  It is an encounter with a person.  All of us should know what it means to come into contact with Jesus, to “hear and see” him.  In his First Epistle (which we are reading right now in daily mass), St. John sounds much like the shepherds:

1John 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life —  2 the life was made manifest, and we saw it, and testify to it, and proclaim to you the eternal life which was with the Father and was made manifest to us —  3 that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you may have fellowship with us; and our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.  4 And we are writing this that our joy may be complete.

Observe the connection in this passage with “seeing” and “hearing” and the culmination in proclamation and joy.  This is what disciples of Jesus do: they experience Jesus and then proclaim in joy what they have encountered.

Finally, we see the naming of Jesus at his circumcision.  Christians no longer practice circumcision, because Baptism is the “circumcision of the heart” promised by Moses that surpasses physical circumcision (cf. Deut 10:16; 30:6; Acts 2:37; Col 2:11-12).  Yet at our Baptism, the “circumcision of our heart,” we still receive our Christian name.

The name given to Jesus is the Hebrew word y’shua, meaning “salvation.”  In the Old Testament, we are more familiar with the name under the form “Joshua,” who was an important type of Christ.  Just as Moses was unable to lead the people of Israel into the promised land, but Joshua did; so also Jesus is our New Joshua who takes us into the salvation to which Moses and his covenant could not lead us.

Salvation is now found in the Name of Jesus, because salvation means to enter into a relationship of childhood with God the Father.  It’s not that other great religious leaders (Mohammed, Buddha, Confucius etc.) claimed to be able to lead us into divine childhood, but couldn’t. It’s that they did not even claim to be able to do so.  Jesus is unique.  So Jesus says, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.” (John 14:6).  This is not arrogance.  Jesus is the only great religious founder in human history to proclaim that God is a Father and we can become his children.  This concept of divine filiation is at the heart of the Gospel.  In a sense, it can be said to be the heart of the Gospel. 

On this Solemnity, let us give thanks to God that he has, through Jesus, made a way for us to become his children and receive a new name which he has given us (see Rev 2:17).  This intimate, personal relationship with God has been made possible by the cooperation of Mary, who became the mother of the one whose Name is Salvation. 

[Elsie]

James and Jude are listed by the Holy Spirit inspired Sacred Scriptures as the sons of Alpheus.

Do you dare to disagree with the Holy Spirit on this matter?

---

Another listing, inspired by the Holy Spirit, found in the Sacred Scriptures...

Mark 3:31-32
31 And his mother and his brethren came; and standing without, sent unto him, calling him.
32 And the multitude sat about him; and they say to him: Behold thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee.

Do you dare to disagree with the Holy Spirit on this matter of Jesus having BROTHERS?

[Elsie]

It is neither true nor fitting that the Blessed Virgin Mary’s vow of perpetual virginity,

VOW?

[Elsie]

...it is sad to see the honor of St. Joseph impugned by ignorant minds.

Your umbrage is noted.

[Elsie]

...it is sad to see the honor of St. Joseph impugned by ignorant minds.

Your umbrage is noted.

[Elsie]

...it is sad to see the honor of St. Joseph impugned by ignorant minds.

Hebrews 13:4 KJV
Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled:

[Elsie]

You saw it too!

Now ‘someone’ will complain that only a few words were referred to...

[daniel1212]

what's your problem with Jesus Christ also having a mother?

If i may weigh in, that is not the problem, nor does opposing the unqualified use of mother of God equate to a heretical view of Christ, or denies the deity of Christ, but the valid objection is that it is inconsistent with the precise language Scripture to say God has a mother, or brothers, or that God was killed, much less give formal title to such (i.e God Killers). And which does not make the distinction btwn the Son of God and God the Father. But "Mother of God", "Brother of God," "God-killer" most naturally denotes Divinity as having relations who ontologicallt are of the same nature.

Theotokos as God-bearer better denotes Mary was the vehicle of the incarnation, but RCs mostly shun that in preference to Mother of God in their idolatrous quest to glorify her above that which is written, which they manifest that are far more committed to than protecting Mary from being venerated as basically a goddess.

Yet mother of God as a mere technically-allowed title would not be so objectionable were it not a formal title as part of the egregious extrapolation of Catholics in making the humble pious holy mother of the Lord Jesus into

> an almost almighty demigoddess to whom "Jesus owes His Precious Blood" to,

> whose [Mary] merits we are saved by,

> who "had to suffer, as He did, all the consequences of sin,"

> and was bodily assumed into Heaven, which is a fact (unsubstantiated in Scripture or even early Tradition) because the Roman church says it is, and "was elevated to a certain affinity with the Heavenly Father,"

> and whose power now "is all but unlimited,"

> for indeed she "seems to have the same power as God,"

> "surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven,"

> so that "the Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, his Spouse."

> and that ''sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember Mary's name then if we invoked the name of the Lord Jesus,"

> for indeed saints have "but one advocate," and that is Mary, who "alone art truly loving and solicitous for our salvation,"

> Moreover, "there is no grace which Mary cannot dispose of as her own, which is not given to her for this purpose,"

> and who has "authority over the angels and the blessed in heaven,"

> including "assigning to saints the thrones made vacant by the apostate angels,"

> whom the good angels "unceasingly call out to," greeting her "countless times each day with 'Hail, Mary,' while prostrating themselves before her, begging her as a favour to honour them with one of her requests,"

> and who (obviously) cannot "be honored to excess,"

> and who is (obviously) the glory of Catholic people, whose "honor and dignity surpass the whole of creation."

Sources and more .

But just as Caths care not that they think of mortals above that which is written, nor can they objectively see such as wrong here or admit it, and even contrive Scripture to say what it does not.

[daniel1212]

Because not all humans, born of human parents, are sinners. Babies, mentally incapacitated people, etc, are not sinners.

You need to make a distinction btwn being a sinner by nature, which even infants are as manifestly having a fallen Adamic nature with its inherent proclivity to sin, versus being personally culpable of sinning, which they cannot be.

Scripture speaks of children before they "know to refuse the evil, and choose the good," (Isaiah 7:15,16) at which point they may do sinful things but while "sin is not imputed when there is no law" (though Rm. 1 indicts pagans as sinners by disobeying the innate light of the law they knew by nature) and infants are morally incapable of knowing and choosing good from evil on a moral basis (and souls are eternally damned based on what they choose, not their father's), "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression." (Romans 5:13,14)

"Sin is not imputed where there is no law," yet "death reigned from Adam to Moses" because Adam as the federal head of the human race sinned then all are negatively affected by the curse which it incurred, and thus even animals die, and "the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. (Romans 8:22)

And all mankind therefore also has a sinful nature, meaning they are sinners by nature, and do sinful things even before they are culpable, and later become guilty of sin when able to know how to make moral choices. That all sin and that death passed upon all men are both a result of Adam's sin. (Rm. 5:12; note also the use of "die" in Rm. 7:9)

Likewise Christ procured forgiveness and salvation for man (which even lost souls benefit from to some temporal degree) but one must choose Him to receive salvation:

For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. (Romans 5:19)

(I say this not to get off on a debate with those who hold that infants and the like are personally guilty of sin), but to show that even under the position of "all" in "all have sinned" not being inclusive, yet all are sinners by nature, and do sinful things even before they are culpable, and later become guilty of sin.

And therefore in the only exception to this then the Holy Spirit makes this obvious, as clearly stating that Christ, "did no sin" (1Pt. 2:22) "knew no sin" (2Co. 5:17) "and in him is no sin' (1 John 3:5) and was "holy, harmless [innocent] separate from sinners, Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins..." (Heb. 7:26) and "Which of you convinceth me of sin?' John 8:46)

And which manner of revealing exceptions to the norm is consistent with what the Holy Spirit does in the rest of Scripture (even as regards minor figures) from excessive age, to excess fingers/toes/height/strength/sins, to a talking donkey, to a special diet, to dedicatory prolonged chaste celibacy after marriage, to virgin birth, to prolonged fasts (and other miracles), to excessive zeal, to absence of genealogy.

All of which (besides making a good bible trivia quiz) testifies to the characteristic carefulness of the Spirit in making know exceptions to the norm, even less notable ones among lesser figures, and to imagine that He would not likewise at least make mention of the sinless state of Mary borders on the absurd.

There is a time when arguments from silence are valid, and this is one. Of course, Catholic traditions such as praying to created beings in Heaven also face inexplicable silence (approx. 200 prayers to god in Heaven versus zero to anyone else by believers), and the alleged sinless state of Mary is also contrary in principal to the manifest faithfulness of the Holy Spirit to at least note extra-ordinary aspects of those He speaks of, however minor they be.

In addition, the premise that a sinless vessel was necessary to bring forth Christ is invalid, as this limits God, and who brought forth His pure words thru holy yet sinful men, and RC theology itself has Mary being preserved from sin (somehow).

[Elsie]

You sly dog, you!

[Elsie]

Because Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ, who is God, it is accurate and appropriate to refer to her as the Mother of God.

Says the church of Rome; which has NEVER let a little fact that the phrase is NOT found in the bible, deter it from using it's 'teaching' power over it's members.

[Elsie]

Would be a lot less grief if we simply reffered to Mary as the Word does.

HERETIC!!!

 

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,

' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'  

[Mark17]

Matthew 10:16

:-)

[verga]

Catholics have only existed since Constantine invented them in 364 AD.

You want to know what is really funny, is that even with all their crazy ideas the Mormons are intelligent enough to know that Jesus did begin the Catholic Church with Peter as the first Pope. They just think it went off the rails with the "Great apostasy".

Well score one for the LDS.

[mitch5501]

"It's an easier job than playing chess with pigeons; I hear"

Assuming one knows the difference between chess and checkers.

[metmom]

And each one interpreted the bible differently....See, you are beginning to get the idea....there are not 30,000 different ways to interpret the Bible.

Prove it.

[metmom]

Broad is the road and wide is the way that leads to destruction and many there are who find it.

Lots of people believing something doesn’t make it right or truth or doesn’t mean it’s right or truth.

Truth stands independent of man’s opinions and beliefs.

[Iscool]

It is neither true nor fitting that the Blessed Virgin Mary’s vow of perpetual virginity,

We all (can) read the same scriptures...There was no vow of perpetual virginity...

which was honored by the Archangel Gabriel,

Oh man...The stuff you guys come up with...And then gullible people believe it even tho the scriptures reject such idea...

Mary was betrothed to be married to Joseph before she was approached by Gabriel...She had no intention of being a virgin after her and Joseph wed...

Mary's virginity had absolutely nothing to do with honor...It was the wedding that protected her honor, not her virginity...A virgin became pregnant for a SIGN...A sign to Israel (Isaiah 7:14)...

and preserved by the miraculous birth of God the Word,

Not only is your contention not supported by the scriptures, it contradicts the scriptures...This is how Jim Jones and David Koresch were successful...'Don't worry about what the bible says, believe ME'...

should be violated by any man,

So young Mary and Joseph meet and become betrothed to each other with the obvious intention of raising a family together...The operation is temporarily interrupted by God...

The scriptures inform us that the normal marriage of Mary and Joseph took place and they raised their family as planned...

and it is sad to see the honor of St. Joseph impugned by ignorant minds.

Mary's honor stayed intact by continuing on with the wedding plans and raising a family...There is nothing in the scriptures that give that twisted view of Mary that deifies her as another one of the forever virgin pagan goddesses of that time and before...

[metmom]

Prove most people in that day couldn’t read.

You keep making a lot of unfounded assertions and expect us to believe you just on your say so.

It ain’t happening.

Show us the basis for your comments otherwise, there’s simply no reason for anyone to believe you.

[metmom]

James and Jude are listed by the Holy Spirit inspired Sacred Scriptures as the sons of Alpheus. Do you dare to disagree with the Holy Spirit on this matter?

Where? Chapter and verse.

Also, are you claiming that there was only one man alive at the time by the name of *James* or *Jude*?

The perpetual vow of virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary is no different than that taken by any Carmelite nun. They are called “Brides of Christ”, the Holy Spirit is their Spouse. She discussed this vow with the Archangel Gabriel at the moment prior to the Incarnation of God the Word, I can’t believe any honest person would miss it. Why is breaking that vow so important in the minds of certain protestants?

There is no Scriptural record of Mary making any vow before God of perpetual virginity.

Why do Catholics think that sex between a woman and her husband is sinful?

If Mary was betrothed to the Holy Spirit, then she would have been committing adultery to be become betrothed to Joseph. That betrothal to Joseph was every bit as legitimate a marriage as any> Joseph considered DIVORCING her when he found out she was pregnant until the angel told him to take her AS HIS WIFE.

HE didn't have any clue about any perpetual vow of virginity or claim of Mary being the *spouse of the Holy Spirit* or he wouldn't have considered such actions and been needed to be stopped by God.

The word for *brothers* in Greek means just that... *brother*, and they are listed BY NAME in the Gospels.

Psalm69:8 I have become a stranger to my brothers, an alien to my mother's sons.

Matthew 1:24-25 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.

Matthew 12:46-47 "While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. And someone said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You."

Matthew 13:55 "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?"

Mark 6:2-3 And when the Sabbath had come, He began to teach in the synagogue; and the many listeners were astonished, saying, "Where did this man get these things, and what is this wisdom given to Him, and such miracles as these performed by His hands?... Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?"

John 2:12 "After this He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother, and His brothers, and His disciples; and there they stayed a few days."

Acts 1:14 "These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers."

1 Corinthians 9:4-5 "Do we not have a right to eat and drink? Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?"

Galatians 1:19 But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord's brother..

Strong's Concordance

http://biblehub.com/greek/80.htm

adelphos: a brother

Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine

Transliteration: adelphos

Phonetic Spelling: (ad-el-fos')

Short Definition: a brother

Definition: a brother, member of the same religious community, especially a fellow-Christian.

Here is a link to the occurrences of the Greek word *adelphos*.

http://biblehub.com/greek/80.htm

The word *sister* (adelphe) in the Greek is the same.

http://biblehub.com/greek/79.htm

The word used is *brother* not *cousin*.

It can't mean a member of the same religious community in the context in which they occur, because then that would mean every man in Israel could be identified as Jesus' brother. So that would not identify Jesus as anyone in particular's brother.

It's not going to mean *brother in Christ* as that concept was not yet in place and the Jews, who knew Jesus as a Jew and knew His brothers as Jews, would not even begin to understand the new birth and what being in Christ meant.

They didn't even understand who JESUS was, much less being a *brother in Christ*.

The only definition left then, is to mean physical brother.

And it would not be *cousin*.

The word for *relative* that is used for Elizabeth is *suggenes*, not *adelphe*.

http://biblehub.com/greek/4773.htm

Strong's Concordance

suggenes: akin, a relative

> Part of Speech: Adjective

Transliteration: suggenes

Phonetic Spelling: (soong-ghen-ace')

Short Definition: akin, a relative

Definition: akin to, related; subst: fellow countryman, kinsman.

They knew the difference in those days between immedicte family, brothers and sisters, and extended family, cousins....

[metmom]

God Himself resided in the virginal womb for 9 months. It is neither true nor fitting that the Blessed Virgin Mary's vow of perpetual virginity, which was honored by the Archangel Gabriel, and preserved by the miraculous birth of God the Word, should be violated by any man, and it is sad to see the honor of St. Joseph impugned by ignorant minds.

Why do Catholics think that sex between a husband and wife is wrong or sinful?