Was Mary Forever Virgin?

[Halcyon]

agreed.

but, just to play the advocate, it is possible to become pregnant without actually having sex

I've never heard of it happening in mammals, but it happens in certain species of reptiles.
And obvioulsy insects give virgin birth all the time. Its called parthenogenesis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis

The problem with mammals is the XY pair of sex chromosomes needed to produce a male offspring, in theory a woman could give birth to a girl, a clone of herself - although i've never heard of it happening. But to give birth to a male would take... a miracle.

 

[SunMessenger]

After Jesus’ birth, Joseph and Mary had other children, Jesus’ half brothers and sisters. That is evident from the question inhabitants of Nazareth later asked about Jesus: "Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us?" (Matthew 1:25; 13:55, 56; Mark 6:3) We can conclude from this that Jesus’ immediate family consisted of his parents, four brothers, and at least two sisters

I respect your views on this matter however reading Matthew 13 and Mark 6 did not clear up the definition of brothers and sisters in my interpretation as eluded to earlier.

However I do recognize it has more possibility since reading Matthew 1. Further it does indeed insinuate that a sexual relationship may have taken place after the Birth of Jesus... For Clarification here is the part of Matthew 1 to which I refer ... "When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus." The words until She gave Birth To A Son are the ones I mean to be noticed... I may have learned something new today and I thank you for that ... Be Well And God Bless:bible:...:shout :shout :shout

 

[Mike182]

I've never heard of it happening in mammals, but it happens in certain species of reptiles.
And obvioulsy insects give virgin birth all the time. Its called parthenogenesis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis

The problem with mammals is the XY pair of sex chromosomes needed to produce a male offspring, in theory a woman could give birth to a girl, a clone of herself - although i've never heard of it happening. But to give birth to a male would take... a miracle.

.... yes .... but not quite what i was thinking....

a man can "spread" his stuff near a woman, without him actually having sex with her.... if his "stuff" goes into her without him actually having intercourse with her, then she could fall pregnant and, by technicality, they have not had sex

 

[Halcyon]

.... yes .... but not quite what i was thinking....

a man can "spread" his stuff near a woman, without him actually having sex with her.... if his "stuff" goes into her without him actually having intercourse with her, then she could fall pregnant and, by technicality, they have not had sex

Hmmm, well that would involve her and the man being naked at least from the waist down - together. He would need to either get his "stuff" on her privates, or someone would need to give the stuff a helpful nudge in the right direction.

Its as close to intercourse as you can get, and to claim a miraculous virgin birth afterwards would be a bit cheeky. There's also the matter of the hymen.

 

[Mike182]

Its as close to intercourse as you can get, and to claim a miraculous virgin birth afterwards would be a bit cheeky.

:biglaugh::biglaugh:

i'm sorry, but i'm gonna have to print that comment out, laminate it, and stick it on my wall, it's too funny! :biglaugh:

 

[James the Persian]

After Jesus’ birth, Joseph and Mary had other children, Jesus’ half brothers and sisters. That is evident from the question inhabitants of Nazareth later asked about Jesus: "Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us?" (Matthew 1:25; 13:55, 56; Mark 6:3) We can conclude from this that Jesus’ immediate family consisted of his parents, four brothers, and at least two sisters

Oh, no, the spurious English translation argument again, just one page after I pointed out the problems with it. I'd also point out that this is a quote of bystanders talking of Christ according to what they perceived to be true. It is not (unless JWs believe quite differently to other Christians) consistent with the actual truth. 'Is this not the carpenter's son?' must be answered with a no by Christians unless we extend the concept of father to include legal but not biological parents. The same is equally true of the 'brothers' and 'sisters'. Or at least, you can't prove otherwise from this quote. This is absoluely not an argument against the ever-virginity of the Theotokos, especially when you consider that the word 'brother' (and 'sister') could mean a rel sibling, half sibling, step sibling or cousin.

James

 

[may]

Oh, no, the spurious English translation argument again, just one page after I pointed out the problems with it. I'd also point out that this is a quote of bystanders talking of Christ according to what they perceived to be true. It is not (unless JWs believe quite differently to other Christians) consistent with the actual truth. 'Is this not the carpenter's son?' must be answered with a no by Christians unless we extend the concept of father to include legal but not biological parents. The same is equally true of the 'brothers' and 'sisters'. Or at least, you can't prove otherwise from this quote. This is absoluely not an argument against the ever-virginity of the Theotokos, especially when you consider that the word 'brother' (and 'sister') could mean a rel sibling, half sibling, step sibling or cousin.

James

is this not the carpenters son? they asked , yes it seems Jehovah God uses whomever he pleases , and the people in general do not recognize him because they are thinking he should be someone different .he cant possibly be only a carpenters son they say................... some things never change ,the truth is staring at us in the face , but it cant possibly be the truth , why? becausepeople dont want it too be.............. just something that came to mind

 

[may]

some today do not believe that Jesus’ brothers and sisters were children of Joseph and Mary. Why? "The Church," says the New Catholic Encyclopedia, "from its earliest days taught that Mary was always a virgin. In view of this, then, there can be no doubt that Mary did not have any other children." The same reference work claims that the words "brother" and "sister" can refer to "some one or ones united in a religious or other common bond" or to relatives, perhaps cousins.

Is that really the case? Even some Catholic theologians, disagreeing with the traditional doctrine, support the view that Jesus had fleshly brothers and sisters. John P. Meier, former president of the Catholic Bible Association of America, wrote: "In the N[ew] T[estament] adelphos [brother], when used not merely figuratively or metaphorically but rather to designate some sort of physical or legal relationship, means only full or half-brother, and nothing else." Yes, the Scriptures indicate that Jesus had brothers and sisters who were born to Joseph and Mary.​

 

[sojourner]

I respect your views on this matter however reading Matthew 13 and Mark 6 did not clear up the definition of brothers and sisters in my interpretation as eluded to earlier.

However I do recognize it has more possibility since reading Matthew 1. Further it does indeed insinuate that a sexual relationship may have taken place after the Birth of Jesus... For Clarification here is the part of Matthew 1 to which I refer ... "When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus." The words until She gave Birth To A Son are the ones I mean to be noticed... I may have learned something new today and I thank you for that ... Be Well And God Bless:bible:...:shout :shout :shout

Personally, I think that, on one level, the whole virgin birth thing is probably fabrication. Every ancient hero purportedly had some kind of miraculous birth story, and "virgin births" are not uncommon in the religious milieu. However, the virgin birth is part of the mythos of my religion, so I repsect it and talk about it and celebrate it, as part of the mythos.

On another level, the statement in red, above, is telling for me. Until. That word changes everything, because it implies that sexual union did take place later on. If Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born, she most likely would not have remained so for the rest of her life.

"It is during Mary's presence at the Cross that her future role in the development of Christianity is unveiled. "When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, 'Woman, behold your son.' Then he said to the disciple, `Behold, your mother.''

This quotation is extremely culture-based. Since males were always the head of the household, Jesus was giving his mother to John, for John to take care of after Jesus died...as he would his own mother. I don't think the statement is as esoteric as you're making it out to be.

However. Since Mary is the "Mother of God," in that sense, we are her children. But not because Jesus told John, "Your mother."

 

[Krie]

I think that she was not a virgin for whatever reason that they thought she was they were foolish then and were not too medically smart

 

[evearael]

There's also the matter of the hymen.

For some women this is an issue, for some... not so much. There is a great deal of natural variation in women.

 

[James the Persian]

On another level, the statement in red, above, is telling for me. Until. That word changes everything, because it implies that sexual union did take place later on. If Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born, she most likely would not have remained so for the rest of her life.

Sorry to burst your bubble but this is another 'spurious English translation' argument. Greek simply doesn'yt work that way. Nor, to be honest, do anumber of other languages. If you were to try that argument with a Romanian speaker, for instance, they'd think you were barking because, as in Greek, absolutely nothing is implied about the period after the 'until'. An argument that only works in a specific translation and not in the language of the text that has been translated is no argument at all.

James

 

[gnostic]

Joseph was around 70 years old when he married Mary, and had kids of his own from a previous marriage.

What evidences are there, that Joseph was 70 when he married Mary?

Or that this was Joseph's 2nd marriage?

 

[James the Persian]

What evidences are there, that Joseph was 70 when he married Mary?

Holy Tradition says that he was an old man (though I can't say I've ever heard of a specific age being assigned to him). The early extra-scriptural book, the Protoevangelion of James is the only place I can think of where you'll find such a teaching written down.

Or that this was Joseph's 2nd marriage?

Yes indeed, hence the 'brothers' and 'sisters'. I'd note that no Christians doubted the veracity of this ancient teaching until very recently. Even early Reformers like Luther held to the belief that the Theotokos was ever-virgin.

James

 

[gnostic]

And tradition is even less reliable than the canon scriptures.

The gospels doesn't mention any other children of Joseph in his (so-called) 2nd marriage. If Joseph did have other children than wouldn't they had followed him and Mary to Bethlehem.

It is merely speculation that Mary had remained virgin, and that she had no children of her own. It is also speculation that Jesus' brothers mentioned in the gospel turn out to be only cousins or only the sons of Joseph. It really hold no weights.

How can you expect me to believe anything in what the gospels say, and you or other people speculate that it mean something else, which contradict what the bible say?

 

[James the Persian]

And tradition is even less reliable than the canon scriptures.

The canonical Scriptures are Tradition, just Tradition in its written form. I personally don't see how any part of Tradition is less reliable than any other, but you're quite welcome to disagree.

The gospels doesn't mention any other children of Joseph in his (so-called) 2nd marriage. If Joseph did have other children than wouldn't they had followed him and Mary to Bethlehem.

You mean his first marriage, surely? You're right that they aren't specified as such (but nor is it said that they are not) but they are mentioned. James, for instance. It is quite apparent from the Tradition that you appear to reject that James was significantly older than Christ and whether or not other children would have accompanied them to Bethlehem surely depends on their age. Had Joseph's previous children been already adult then why would you expect them to tag along?

It is merely speculation that Mary had remained virgin, and that she had no children of her own. It is also speculation that Jesus' brothers mentioned in the gospel turn out to be only cousins or only the sons of Joseph. It really hold no weights.

It is not mere speculation. The Tradition is extremely old and just because you choose to ignore it does not relegate it to speculation. It could equally be said that it is pure speculation to suggest the opposite, and very late speculation at that. Scripture is not definitive either way, you are correct, but there are definite hints in there. It's also far from speculative to point out the flaws in the usual anti crowd's arguments, most of which seem to revolve around linguistic misunderstandings.

How can you expect me to believe anything in what the gospels say, and you or other people speculate that it mean something else, which contradict what the bible say?

I don't expect you to believe anything. The choice is yours. I have not once, however, speculated that what the Gospels say means anything other than the plain meaning of the text. If you think I have, please point it out. As I said above, no speculation is involved in correcting others' misunderstandings of the text when they are based upon the implications of a translation into another language. The implications in the original Greek are quite different.

James

 

[SunMessenger]

And tradition is even less reliable than the canon scriptures.

The gospels doesn't mention any other children of Joseph in his (so-called) 2nd marriage. If Joseph did have other children than wouldn't they had followed him and Mary to Bethlehem.

It is merely speculation that Mary had remained virgin, and that she had no children of her own. It is also speculation that Jesus' brothers mentioned in the gospel turn out to be only cousins or only the sons of Joseph. It really hold no weights.

How can you expect me to believe anything in what the gospels say, and you or other people speculate that it mean something else, which contradict what the bible say?

Beliefs in God are well beyond any human explanation. Ones Spirit is led to understanding certain things and in turn beliefs are formed deep in the unity of conscience and soul. They are not to be forced onto anyone by either argument or proof. They are simply what they are. If you choose to believe in only earthly things then that is what you believe. You can never be convinced by man of anything else. It is my belief only God has the power to convince the non believers. He does so regularly and quite miraculously. I wish you well and God Bless...

 

[wmam]

As to the "OP", Is Mary forever virgin......... No.

 

[gnostic]

Where does it say that James is older than Jesus? I don't recall any mention of their age differences.

I can gain access to other materials than the bible, so feel free to list any other sources other than the bible.

 

[gnostic]

Anyway.

It doesn't make any difference to me if Mary remained a virgin after Jesus or that she had children with Joseph. I just find it unlikely they had settled down with just Jesus, because the gospels indicated otherwise.

The indication that Jesus was the only child of Mary is merely speculation. Also it was Jewish custom to have many children they can afford to have. Joseph and Mary didn't live a Christian lives before Jesus' ministry, and it is crazy for people to think so.