the virgin mary

liberation

Mary the mother of jesus is often refered to as the blessed virgin the virgin mary but was this only up to jesus was born after all mary and joseph lived for a long time after jesus was born and they were husband and wife?

Silenceisbliss

how do we in fact know that she was a virgin? seems like she was a bit of a fibber to me...

TravelJunkie

She was a virgin at Christ's birth. Thereafter, she was wife and mother but imo, still a very special lady.

Silenceisbliss

was mary married to joseph before she had jesus?

if she was, why didn't they consimate their marrage with sex as is natural?

Silenceisbliss

or was were they not married yet at the time of birth? was jesus a bastard then?

Fanny Cradock

You want to be very careful, Silenceisbliss.

bombidol

Yeah. God will get you!
I have no idea about any of the Mary and Joesph story personally so I'm of no use.

topper75

Silenceisbliss wrote: »

or was were they not married yet at the time of birth? was jesus a bastard then?

My belief as a Christian is that Jesus was the son of God made flesh. This is the belief of the majority of the people in Ireland, but as it's a free country, you are entitled to chose not to believe that.

However, what you are not entitled to do is to come on here and gratuitously type obscenities that are completely insensitive to peoples' religious beliefs.

jobucks

Silenceisbliss wrote: »

or was were they not married yet at the time of birth? was jesus a bastard then?

WHY would you come into a Religious thread and speak like that:(

Silenceisbliss

excuse moi! be careful? obscenities?

well excuuuuuuuse me for utilising full albeit superflous vocabulary!

my question was technically valid and grammaticaly correct, and unless you can contribute a USEFUL reply FANNY, then you needn't TROLL.

topper, could you explain what you mean by "son of God made flesh", i dont understand this.

BrianCalgary

Silenceisbliss wrote: »

excuse moi! be careful? obscenities?

well excuuuuuuuse me for utilising full albeit superflous vocabulary!

my question was technically valid, and unless you can contribute a USEFUL reply FANNY, then you needn't TROLL.

topper, could you explain what you mean by "son of God made flesh", i dont understand this.

Calling Jesus a bastard? Not that wise a move.

God came to Earth and was made flesh in the womb of Mary.
Mary and Joseph were engaged, Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit while they were engaged. She was still a virgin at this point. They went on to be married and to have other children.

Hope that helps.

Fanny Cradock

Firstly, your post aren't grammatically correct. Secondly, I suspect you chose to use the word 'bastard' in an outmoded vernacular sense in a childish attempt to rile the locals. Finally, please read the charter.

Welcome to the forum.

Silenceisbliss

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Calling Jesus a bastard? Not that wise a move

eh...never did that. get your facts straight

but thank you kindly. that does help

Silenceisbliss

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Firstly, your post aren't grammatically correct

Are you sure about that?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Welcome to the forum.

thanks FANNY

forum charter wrote:

The English dictionary is quite large and other words can be easily found.

Okay. I guess I could have used "wedlock", although my initial use of the word "bastard" ,which in your view, and not mine is outmoded. But yes it is a vernacular world...exactly!, and isn't the bible written in the vernacular and isn’t the language in the bible outmoded?!?! So you needn't question the legitimacy of my use of vocabulary.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

suspect you chose to.....

You suspect wrong.

Also, I read the charter, and in hindsight, I didn’t breach it
in the vernacular?!?! So you needn't question the legitimentcy

Galvasean

Im guessing Silenceisbliss is not a Christian. Neither are some of the posters who frequent this forum. We (the non Christians) are guests here and it would be wise to treat our Christian hosts with a proper amount of respect. He/she should take this into account before posting further. Perhaps a read of the charter is in order?

AtomicHorror

We like debate here. Open discussion is healthy. Us Godless lot like to come here to engage with the Christians for many reasons. This right here:

Silenceisbliss wrote: »

or was were they not married yet at the time of birth? was jesus a bastard then?

...is against their charter, obviously meant to offend and very much counter-productive. We're not in here to take cheap shots. You can do that almost anywhere else on Boards.

Fanny Cradock

Cheers, Galvasean.

Group hug, everybody!

---

Now playing: The Knife - Pass This On
via FoxyTunes

topper75

Silenceisbliss wrote: »

excuse moi! be careful? obscenities?

well excuuuuuuuse me for utilising full albeit superflous vocabulary!

my question was technically valid and grammaticaly correct, and unless you can contribute a USEFUL reply FANNY, then you needn't TROLL.

topper, could you explain what you mean by "son of God made flesh", i dont understand this.

So the manner in which you referred to Jesus was not an obscenity?!
You claim not to understand the Christian principle that Jesus was the son of God made flesh?! What country did you grow up in? If you don't 'want' to understand it on the other hand - that is your own show.
Look - on the wild chance that you were not being facetious or trolling - we can safely assume that Joseph and Mary were married at the time of the birth of Jesus, if the Christchild's legitimacy means that much to you. Joseph was returning to Bethlehem to comply with the Roman census. Taking into account the Hebrew culture of the time, he would not be travelling alone with some maiden to whom he was not betrothed. Unfortunately for all of us, the gospels did not make this explicit. Again, the culture of the time probably rendered the need for such a statement superfluous.

Silenceisbliss

topper75 wrote: »

So the manner in which you referred to Jesus was not an obscenity?! .

sorry, but I honestly dont think so.

topper75 wrote: »

You claim not to understand the Christian principle that Jesus was the son of God made flesh?! .

i didnt understand the wording at all. no. sorry for being ignorant

topper75 wrote: »

What country did you grow up in? .

Belgium...relevance??....

anywho, STOP ATTACKING ME FOR TAKING CHEAP SHOTS! the bible uses outmoded words...give me a solid reason why i should get attacked for doing the same. sorry but, it's extremely hypocritical. that goes to all who have made ignorant presumptuous accusations at me.:mad:

and galvesean, your presumtion of me also not being catholic - INCORRECT

Galvasean

Silenceisbliss wrote: »

and galvesean, your presumtion of me also not being catholic - INCORRECT

Well then, do some proper research on your religion.

Silenceisbliss

Galvasean wrote: »

Well then, do some proper research on your religion.

eh, no.

by technicality im christian. the whole baptism thing.

but I chose not to be a practicing christian.

dont tell me what to do.

CMpunked

Galvasean wrote: »

Im guessing Silenceisbliss is not a Christian. Neither are some of the posters who frequent this forum. We (the non Christians) are guests here and it would be wise to treat our Christian hosts with a proper amount of respect. He/she should take this into account before posting further. Perhaps a read of the charter is in order?

Nice to see a bit of respect on these forums

Silenceisbliss wrote: »

eh, no.

by technicality im christian. the whole baptism thing.

but I chose not to be a practicing christian.

dont tell me what to do.

Dude, you need to chill out. no one is questioning what you are or not.

But you have contradicted yourself here.


Calling Christ a bastard (by todays terms) by the way his birth is, in a way, correct.
The way you went about asking this question i think is what has everyone so ruffled.

Fanny Cradock

Silenceisbliss wrote: »

Are you sure about that?

Yes. But he who is without sin... So I cheerfully withdraw the comment.

Silenceisbliss wrote: »

thanks FANNY

No problem. Though I am unsure as to why you my name entirely in capitals.

Silenceisbliss wrote: »

Okay. I guess I could have used "wedlock", although my initial use of the word "bastard" ,which in your view, and not mine is outmoded. But yes it is a vernacular world...exactly!, and isn't the bible written in the vernacular and isn’t the language in the bible outmoded?!?! So you needn't question the legitimacy of my use of vocabulary.

Of course, I now understand that you never intended to cause offence; all this was due to you not understanding how the term bastard is construed by others. We have all learnt a great deal from this experience. And now we move on.

oobydooby

BrianCalgary wrote: »

God came to Earth and was made flesh in the womb of Mary.
Mary and Joseph were engaged, Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit while they were engaged. She was still a virgin at this point. They went on to be married and to have other children.

As far as I remember the story, Mary remained chaste even after the birth of her son. In the Confiteor prayer (Catholic) there is a line 'And I ask the Blessed Mary, ever Virgin, all the angels and Saints, and you my brothers and sisters to pray for me to the Lord our God'. From this the inference is clear that she remained a virgin.

Again, offhand, Joseph when he learned of Mary's situation, intended to 'divorce' her. (They were betrothed at the time, an intermediate step between engagement and marriage). To avoid ruining her reputation, and his own presumably, being a descendant of King David, he waited to choose the right time. He then received inspiration about what the circumstances of the child's conception was and he devoted the rest of his life to serving God, and pondering his curious fate to be serving his wife's father, son and spouse, who was also his own father and stepson.

hivizman

oobydooby wrote: »

As far as I remember the story, Mary remained chaste even after the birth of her son. In the Confiteor prayer (Catholic) there is a line 'And I ask the Blessed Mary, ever Virgin, all the angels and Saints, and you my brothers and sisters to pray for me to the Lord our God'. From this the inference is clear that she remained a virgin.

I'm glad you raised this point, because I was thinking about the "perpetual virginity" issue myself. I guess that Catholics refer to her as "the Virgin Mary" because they believe that Mary was "ever-Virgin", but this is difficult to square with the biblical references to the brothers and sisters of Jesus. As an Anglican, I would accept the virgin birth of Jesus, but it doesn't seem theologically necessary for Mary to remain a virgin. Any explanation?

oobydooby wrote: »

Again, offhand, Joseph when he learned of Mary's situation, intended to 'divorce' her. (They were betrothed at the time, an intermediate step between engagement and marriage). To avoid ruining her reputation, and his own presumably, being a descendant of King David, he waited to choose the right time. He then received inspiration about what the circumstances of the child's conception was and he devoted the rest of his life to serving God, and pondering his curious fate to be serving his wife's father, son and spouse, who was also his own father and stepson.

In the nativity stories, both Matthew and Luke use a Greek word that means "to be betrothed" (the New Revised Standard Version translates this as "to be engaged", but I think the older word gives a clearer signal that betrothal at that time was more serious than engagement is today). According to Raymond E Brown's The Birth of the Messiah (Doubleday Anchor Bible Reference Library, 1993, p. 123): "in the Jewish matrimonial procedure . . . [t]he consent ("betrothal"), usually entered into when the girl was between twelve and thirteen years old, would constitute a legally ratified marriage in our terms, since it gave the young man rights over the girl. She was henceforth his wife . . . and any infringement on his marital rights could be punished as adultery. Yet the wife continued to live at her family home, usually for about a year. Then took place the formal transferral or taking of the bride to the husband's family home where he assumed her support. . . . In Galilee . . . the wife had to be taken to her husband's home as a virgin."

PDN

Silenceisbliss has received a short ban (3 days) from this forum and will hopefully learn enough manners to be able to participate in debates here in the future.

Splendour

liberation wrote: »

Mary the mother of jesus is often refered to as the blessed virgin the virgin mary but was this only up to jesus was born after all mary and joseph lived for a long time after jesus was born and they were husband and wife?

Mary is only referred to being a virgin in the beginning of the gospels of Matthew and Luke before Jesus was born. After the birth of Jesus she is no longer referred to as a virgin. We are told in Matthew 1,25 'But he had no union with her UNTIL she gave birth to a son.And he gave him the name Jesus.'



The Catholic stance is that Mary remained a virgin throughout her entire life-though I don't know how they come to this conclusion. Strange thing is in my Catholic bible the footnote to Matthew 1, 25 reads: 'Until she bore a son'- the evangelist is concerned to emphasize that Joseph was not responsible for the conception of Jesus. The Greek word translated 'until' does not imply normal marital conduct after Jesus birth, nor does it exclude it'

Aside from this, I don't see what the problem is with Mary not retaining her virgin status after Jesus birth...

BrianCalgary

oobydooby wrote: »

As far as I remember the story, Mary remained chaste even after the birth of her son. In the Confiteor prayer (Catholic) there is a line 'And I ask the Blessed Mary, ever Virgin, all the angels and Saints, and you my brothers and sisters to pray for me to the Lord our God'. From this the inference is clear that she remained a virgin..

A catholic prayer without Biblical foundation. There are references in teh bIble to Jesus siblings.

oobydooby wrote: »

Again, offhand, Joseph when he learned of Mary's situation, intended to 'divorce' her. (They were betrothed at the time, an intermediate step between engagement and marriage). To avoid ruining her reputation, and his own presumably, being a descendant of King David, he waited to choose the right time. He then received inspiration about what the circumstances of the child's conception was and he devoted the rest of his life to serving God, and pondering his curious fate to be serving his wife's father, son and spouse, who was also his own father and stepson.

Right on here.

Asiaprod

Splendour wrote: »

The Catholic stance is that Mary remained a virgin throughout her entire life-though I don't know how they come to this conclusion. Strange thing is in my Catholic bible the footnote to Matthew 1, 25 reads: 'Until she bore a son'- the evangelist is concerned to emphasize that Joseph was not responsible for the conception of Jesus. The Greek word translated 'until' does not imply normal marital conduct after Jesus birth, nor does it exclude it'

Aside from this, I don't see what the problem is with Mary not retaining her virgin status after Jesus birth...

Sorry, just had to wade in on this one, I have researched the position of both Mary "the Mother of Jesus" and Mary Magdalen" from the perspective of feminism in the early church, the early church being somewhat of a passionate hobby, or even obsession, with me. With respect to the beliefs of Catholic practitioners, volumes have been written refuting the "Virgin Mother" and the "Perpetual Virginity" arguments. Though I do understand and accept the importance placed on, and worship directed to, Mary by practitioners, I too tend to favor the view that these titles are probably constructs put in place by the early church fathers to counteract, control, absorb or validate popular mythology or folk-law prevalent at that time into their efforts of solidifying, authenticating, validate and propagating their church. These arguments against "The Virginity/Perpetual Virginity" do not contradict, nor do they concern themselves with, the fact that their could indeed have been some kind of involvement or intervention by The Holy Spirit or God on a spiritual plain, or that there was some pre-determination that she would bear the Son of God. They are aimed at refuting the idea that the biological aspects and mechanisms required to conceive a child and give birth can realistically be circumvented by anyone, especially in this day and age with our understanding of procreation.
In layman's terms a man and woman have sex, God or the Holy Spirit intervene and empower the fetus, or spirit of, with the attributes, essence or whatever of Jesus, who is born both human and divine. The mother can no longer be considered a physical virgin. This physical virginity can only be viewed as a bestowed honorific title, which in itself is an oxymoron, it is a physical impossibility to remain a virgin once the person has given birth to a child. It is a more acceptable usage to use the term "Spiritual Virginity," which relates to Mary's state of grace before, during and after the conception.

The following is an extract from a lecture given by John Shelby Spong, Episcopal Bishop of Newark, New Jersey. He retired in early 2,000 to become a lecturer at Harvard University. For those interested, he has written some fine books and many interesting lectures. This is a nice account of how he believes Mary as "The Virgin Mother" entered into the Christian tradition.

Mary's pilgrimage into western mythology was a slow one. She is never mentioned in all the writings of the Apostle Paul, the earliest creator of material that came to be included in the New Testament. Paul, who wrote between 49-64 C.E., had no interest in Jesus' origins. His only references to Jesus' family came when he said that Jesus was "born of a woman, born under the law." He asserted that "according to the flesh," Jesus was descended from the House of David. Paul also made reference to Jesus' brother, a man named James. No divine origin here, no miraculous birth, no both of which were viewed as heretical due to their use by Gnostic Christians..
The pattern was continued in Mark, the earliest Gospel, written between 70-75 C.E. or 40 to 45 years after the earthly life of Jesus came to an end. Once more there is no story here of a miraculous birth. There are, however, two references to Jesus' mother, but neither is flattering. She appears in this first Gospel to be embarrassed by Jesus, to think him "beside himself" and Mark says that she went with Jesus' four brothers, James, Joses, Judas and Simon, and his two sisters to "take Jesus away" [see Mark 3 and 6]. That is hardly the behavior one would expect from a woman who had been visited by an angel and who had been told that she was to be the Virgin Mother of the Son of God.
The Virgin story entered the Christian tradition in the early 9th decade gospel of Matthew, some 55 years after the death of Jesus. It was repeated in the late 9th or early 10th decade gospel of Luke, and then it disappeared in favor of the concept of Jesus' divine pre-existence in the 10th decade Gospel of John. The mythology of Mary, however, was destined to expand in the development of Christian history.
By the early years of the 2nd century the idea of the Virgin as the ideal woman began to grow. First, it was said of her that she was a virgin mother. Next, she became a permanent virgin, making it necessary to transform the biblically mentioned brothers and sisters of Jesus into half-siblings or cousins. Next the church fathers claimed for her the status of being a postpartum virgin which caused the hierarchy of the church to go through intellectual gymnastics to prove that the hymen of the Virgin Mary had not been ruptured even during Jesus' birth. Tales circulated that perhaps Jesus was born out of his mother's ear! Then someone found a text in Ezekiel [see Chapter 44:1] which suggested that when "the gates of the city were closed only the Lord could go in and out." Without either shame or apology that verse, written about 800 years before the birth of Jesus, was said to demonstrate that Jesus could be born without disturbing the gates of his mother's womb.
Next in the 19th century the Virgin was declared to be immaculately conceived. Even her own birth was now said to have been miraculous. The stain of human sin found in the myth of the fall of humanity (in the Garden of Eden) was not allowed to touch her. Finally in the 20th century, literally at the dawn of the space age, Mary was proclaimed to have bodily ascended into heaven. This new doctrine was based on the fact that no one knew her place of burial. The reason, the Church's leadership suggested, was that she had never died.

I also found this following extract from none other than Pope John Paul II on the role of "Mary is the Virgin Mother" to be very confusing, if not slightly hypocritical in that he based one of his argument for the Virginity on the "Infancy Gospels" that are to my understanding both non-canonical and also viewed in places as heretical due to their use by early Gnostic Christians, and in the fact that he claimed the the early church accepted the virginal motherhood of Mary, which it did not until it was sanctified by the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD. I don't think one shoould cherry-pick selected pieces to suit ones argument, while omitting vast swathes of texts as heretical, when these same texts very often help to clarify what the original message may have been.

From the beginning, the Church has acknowledged the virginal motherhood of Mary. As the infancy Gospels enable us to grasp, the first Christian continuities themselves gathered together Mary's recollections about the mysterious circumstances of the Saviour's conception and birth. In particular, the Annunciation account responds to the disciples' desire to have the deepest knowledge of the events connected with the beginnings of the risen Christ's earthly life. In the last analysis, Mary is at the origin of the revelation about the mystery of the virginal conception by the work of the Holy Spirit.

If one cares to look at the account of lets say Luke 1 (English-RSVCE) the account is given as
31. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus.
32. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David,
33. and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end."
34. And Mary said to the angel, "How shall this be, since I have no husband?"
35. And the angel said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.

Nowhere does it say you are NOW mystically pregnant. This entire account is in the future tense, a premonition of a future event.....something that IS to happen. It does not say how it will happen, just that you will have a child and that child will be the child of God.

Bduffman

Something I don't understand.

There are two scenarios.
Either Mary wasn't married - this would explain why she would have been a virgin (if sex before marriage was regarded as wrong back then). She then gets pregnant & explains to her fiance that it was god. (Her being unmarried doesn't explain why she travelled with Joseph for the census - another discrepancy I just thought of).

Or she was married (but remained a virgin - unlikely?) got pregnant & explains this to her husband that it was god.

Why would Joseph accept either explanation?

PDN

Bduffman wrote: »

Something I don't understand.

There are two scenarios.
Either Mary wasn't married - this would explain why she would have been a virgin (if sex before marriage was regarded as wrong back then). She then gets pregnant & explains to her fiance that it was god. (Her being unmarried doesn't explain why she travelled with Joseph for the census - another discrepancy I just thought of).

Or she was married (but remained a virgin - unlikely?) got pregnant & explains this to her husband that it was god.

Why would Joseph accept either explanation?

The first scenario is the correct one. They were engaged, but not yet married. The second scenario is impossible since, if the wedding had not been consummated, marriage would not technically have taken place. Travelling with Joseph to the census is not a discrepancy at all. As a pregnant woman Mary would be treated as Joseph's wife and would travel with him.

The reason why Joseph accepted the explanation is because an angel of the Lord appeared to him and told him what had happened (Matt 1:20-24).

Bduffman

PDN wrote: »

As a pregnant woman Mary would be treated as Joseph's wife and would travel with him.

So there wasn't the same stigma attached to a pregnancy outside marriage as there was until only recently?

JimiTime

Bduffman wrote: »

So there wasn't the same stigma attached to a pregnancy outside marriage as there was until only recently?

I think you'll find that nobody thought she was pregnant outside of marriage.

Bduffman

JimiTime wrote: »

I think you'll find that nobody thought she was pregnant outside of marriage.

Sorry - I don't understand. Do you mean that everyone thought they were married, or no-one knew she was pregnant?

PDN

Bduffman wrote: »

Sorry - I don't understand. Do you mean that everyone thought they were married, or no-one knew she was pregnant?

While sex before marriage was frowned upon in Judaism it was a fact of life. Teenagers had hormones back then as well.

Marriage in the Jewish culture was not a one day deal like in ours (5 minutes before the wedding you're still single, then as soon as you sign the register you're married). Marriage was much more of a process including the initial proposal, the paying of the dowry, the preparation of the wedding chamber, the groom collecting the bride from her home, the marriage supper & the sexual consummation. This whole process could take months, and once it had started they already used words like 'wife' and it could only be ended by 'divorce'.

Incidentally, this is still true in many cultures. As a pastor with several hundred Africans in my congregation I find it quite difficult to ascertain if some couples are actually married or not depending on how far along they are in the process.

Mary was considered the 'wife' of Joseph because she was already past the point of the paying of the dowry. She was now her husband's responsibility and probably considered part of his family for purposes of the census.

Bduffman

PDN wrote: »

While sex before marriage was frowned upon in Judaism it was a fact of life. Teenagers had hormones back then as well.

Marriage in the Jewish culture was not a one day deal like in ours (5 minutes before the wedding you're still single, then as soon as you sign the register you're married). Marriage was much more of a process including the initial proposal, the paying of the dowry, the preparation of the wedding chamber, the groom collecting the bride from her home, the marriage supper & the sexual consummation. This whole process could take months, and once it had started they already used words like 'wife' and it could only be ended by 'divorce'.

Incidentally, this is still true in many cultures. As a pastor with several hundred Africans in my congregation I find it quite difficult to ascertain if some couples are actually married or not depending on how far along they are in the process.

Mary was considered the 'wife' of Joseph because she was already past the point of the paying of the dowry. She was now her husband's responsibility and probably considered part of his family for purposes of the census.

OK - thanks for the explanation.

I know this is slightly off the topic but I am genuinely interested in this area(more from a historical perspective than a religious one).
Obviously many things changed from Jewish culture to Christian culture. But when (and how) did the very different attitudes to sex outside marriage & divorce come about? Divorce became forbidden in the Catholic church, & sex outside marriage became a matter of great shame even until recently.

(Sorry, now I've read my question, maybe this is too big a topic for a short answer.):o

Galvasean

Silenceisbliss wrote: »

by technicality im christian. the whole baptism thing.

Oh the whole 'once we baptize you, you belong to us forever' thing. I wouldn't worry about that. You can make your own choice.

Silenceisbliss wrote: »

but I chose not to be a practicing christian.

Out of curiosity, are you a Christian at at all (albeit a non-practicing one)?

kelly1

http://www.catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp
http://www.catholicsource.net/articles/perpetualvirginity.htm

http://www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp
http://www.ewtn.com/faith/Teachings/maryc2.htm
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p122a3p2.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbCFHTJ6Ax4

hivizman

kelly1 wrote: »

http://www.catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp
http://www.catholicsource.net/articles/perpetualvirginity.htm

http://www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp
http://www.ewtn.com/faith/Teachings/maryc2.htm
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p122a3p2.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbCFHTJ6Ax4

Interesting links. Most of these assume the perpetual virginity of Mary, and therefore have to explain away the biblical (and extra-biblical - such as in apocryphal book and in Josephus) references to the brothers and sisters of Jesus. They don't really explain why Mary should be "ever-virgin" - there's surely no contradiction between accepting that Jesus was conceived through the Holy Spirit and that Mary remained a virgin up to his birth, and thinking that Mary subsequently had children with her husband Joseph.

Much of the remaining argument is a recitation of remarks of the Church Fathers. Now, I realise that such remarks have to be taken seriously, but when they are asserting something that does not have explicit biblical support and indeed appears at first sight to be inconsistent with the multiple attestations in the Bible that Jesus had siblings, then can we be satisfied with this sort of appeal to authority?

One explanation that's proposed on one of these sites is that Mary was offered to the Temple as a perpetual virgin by her mother in fulfilment of a vow, and if Mary had had children other than Jesus, this would have breached the vow. This vow is based on a non-biblical source, the Protoevangelium of James, dated to about 120CE, and hence later than the canonical New Testament books. The Qur'an (Surah Al-Imran 3:35) also tells of such a vow in one of its narrations of the birth and life of Jesus.

I was struck by an explanation attributed to Pope Siricius I:

"You had good reason to be horrified at the thought that another birth might issue from the same virginal womb from which Christ was born according to the flesh. For the Lord Jesus would never have chosen to be born of a virgin if he had ever judged that she would be so incontinent as to contaminate with the seed of human intercourse the birthplace of the Lord’s body, that court of the eternal king" (Letter to Bishop Anysius [A.D. 392]).

Surely sexual intercourse with one's husband is not to be described as "incontinence"?

So I'm still asking - what's the theological necessity for the perpetual virginity of Mary?

0utpost31

TravelJunkie wrote: »

She was a virgin at Christ's birth.

How do you know this?

sorella

Try reading the Gospels..

All this is clearly explained therein.

If you need a Bible we will supply that gladly...

topper75 wrote: »

So the manner in which you referred to Jesus was not an obscenity?!
You claim not to understand the Christian principle that Jesus was the son of God made flesh?! What country did you grow up in? If you don't 'want' to understand it on the other hand - that is your own show.
Look - on the wild chance that you were not being facetious or trolling - we can safely assume that Joseph and Mary were married at the time of the birth of Jesus, if the Christchild's legitimacy means that much to you. Joseph was returning to Bethlehem to comply with the Roman census. Taking into account the Hebrew culture of the time, he would not be travelling alone with some maiden to whom he was not betrothed. Unfortunately for all of us, the gospels did not make this explicit. Again, the culture of the time probably rendered the need for such a statement superfluous.

PatricaMcKay2

liberation wrote: »

Mary the mother of jesus is often refered to as the blessed virgin the virgin mary but was this only up to jesus was born after all mary and joseph lived for a long time after jesus was born and they were husband and wife?

St Joseph was married before but his wife had died, he had a children from another marriage one of whom was St James an early leader in the Church, but St Mary remained a virgin all her life...Infact as her pregnancy didnt take place in a fallen manner she gave birth painlessly while remaining a virgin (I think there is ancient Eastern hymn about this). Yes she was a daugther of Eve, and bore the poison of the fall, but she was made full of Grace and the New Eve of the race of Christians.

PatricaMcKay2

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.vi.v.html

St Jerome goes into this with much greater detail and reference to Biblical texts.

Both Luther and Calvin accepted the perpetual virginity of St Mary aswell.

homer911

PatricaMcKay2 wrote: »

St Joseph was married before but his wife had died, he had a children from another marriage one of whom was St James an early leader in the Church, but St Mary remained a virgin all her life...Infact as her pregnancy didnt take place in a fallen manner she gave birth painlessly while remaining a virgin (I think there is ancient Eastern hymn about this). Yes she was a daugther of Eve, and bore the poison of the fall, but she was made full of Grace and the New Eve of the race of Christians.

Just to be clear, this is RC Dogma/Tradition. There is nothing in the scriptures to suggest or confirm this

Fanny Cradock

PatricaMcKay2 (what ever happened to the first PatricaMcKay?) this thread is 3 years old! It's generally considered against the rules of etiquette to drag old thread up.

georgieporgy

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

PatricaMcKay2 (what ever happened to the first PatricaMcKay?)

Born again i think.....

jophsie

Mary and Joseph took a vow of chastity in their marriage. There was no sex and no children after Jesus.

PatricaMcKay2

homer911 wrote: »

Just to be clear, this is RC Dogma/Tradition. There is nothing in the scriptures to suggest or confirm this

Its early tradition and its not RC dogma, the RCs believe that St Joseph was a virgin all his life, thats why they picture him with a lily.

Im not saying this is necessary to believe for salvation, but its pious to believe it.

Anyway my as I said my laptop exploded and I forgot my passwords.

Sorry for dragging up an old thread.

getz

mary was a virgin ? there is no proof,the word virgin was badly translated from the hebrew word in the bible [alma] isaiah 7;14, alma in hebrew means many things,young woman,maid,virgin, of marriageable age,or newly married.the roman church believes that mary continued to be a virgin all her life, yet the bible says he had brothers and sisters,matthew 13;55, matthew 27;56,mark 6;3.who do you believe the church or the bible ?

homer911

PatricaMcKay2 wrote: »

Its early tradition and its not RC dogma, the RCs believe that St Joseph was a virgin all his life, thats why they picture him with a lily.

Im not saying this is necessary to believe for salvation, but its pious to believe it.

Anyway my as I said my laptop exploded and I forgot my passwords.

Sorry for dragging up an old thread.

You can understand the non-RC sceptisism. You have just told us that RCs believe that Joseph was a virgin all his life, but a few posts earlier stated that Joseph was a widower with children from his earlier marriage!

gimmebroadband

getz wrote: »

mary was a virgin ? there is no proof,the word virgin was badly translated from the hebrew word in the bible [alma] isaiah 7;14, alma in hebrew means many things,young woman,maid,virgin, of marriageable age,or newly married.the roman church believes that mary continued to be a virgin all her life, yet the bible says he had brothers and sisters,matthew 13;55, matthew 27;56,mark 6;3.who do you believe the church or the bible ?

The CC compiled the bible, it didn't drop out of the sky!
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/wbible.htm

The reason brothers was used is that there was no word for cousin or nephew!
http://www.ewtn.com/library/scriptur/jesbrs.txt

When Jesus was dying on the cross he gave His mother to St. John to look after, which would seem strange if Jesus had other brothers!!!