Question

[BG45]

Okay, bit of a two for one question here...and while I suppose it could go under the Q&A About Catholicism Board, I was actually interested in hearing the non-Catholic view as well, so if this is in the wrong place, please, feel free to move it.

That little intro out of the way, a question. My first question is that often in Scripture we hear about Jesus's brothers. My question is, are they really his brothers, or are we dealing with something along the lines of cousins? My first reason for thinking it to be something along the lines of "not having brothers" is that at best they could only be half brothers, because God didn't father them.

Second is a Scripture from Genesis 13:8 (NASB)
[quote]So Abram said to Lot, "Please let there be no strife between you and me, nor between my herdsmen and your herdsmen, for we are brothers.[/quote]

Now Lot, was Abraham's nephew, not his brother, which could mean that the term 'brother' is being used as a term for relative. This could be the same for Jesus and his 'brothers'.

Although, in Matthew 1:25 it seems to imply Mary would later bear children, or at least have sex, by stating:
[quote]but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.[/quote]

That is one of the verses I've always heard quoted to counter the idea of perpetual virginity, besides Jesus's brothers. However, when reading Second Samuel, Chapter Six, we're told that Michal has no children "until the day of her death", which means that 'until' doesn't necessarily mean someone actually did something...like bear children.

Then there's one final thorn in my side on Jesus's brothers:
Matthew 27:56
[quote]among whom were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons.[/quote]

That says that Mary, the wife of Clopas, is the mother of James, who is often known as a 'brother' of Jesus. Heh.

So I guess I'll restate my question now that I'm done rambling, and thanks for reading. 1) Is Mary's only child Jesus, or did he have brothers?
2) If the answer to number one is that he didn't have brothers, does that mean she was a perpetual virgin?

[CatherineM]

You have to understand that Aramaic is a very old basic language, and there is really only one word to describe brother, cousin, nephew, etc. Their way of looking at family was different as well. We think in terms of mother, father, and their children as being "family" but to people in Jesus' time family meant more like clan.

That being said, there is nothing in our faith that would fall apart if these "brothers" of Jesus mentioned in the bible were the children of Joseph from a previous wife. He could have been older, a widower with children. Our faith does tell us, infailiably, that Mary had only one child, Jesus, and that she remained a perpetual virgin. That is in stone.

[MissyP89]

'Brothers' can also be a figurative, spiritual term. Example-- while you aren't my literal brother, you are most certainly my brother in Christ.

This also calls to mind the Crucifixion, when John is there with Mary, and Christ says "Behold your mother/brother." It's a figurative statement.

Catherine, I do believe he was asking about children that [i]Mary[/i] had, not children that Joseph fathered.

Praying for you, BG. Hope you get the answer I can't quite articulate.

[Jaime]

Its also important to note the societal structure of the time. Children were quite literally raised by the clan you belonged to. It is far different than how we raise our children today. So while these other children may or may not be cousins, they would be raised together like brothers and sisters.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote][b]Ezechiel 44:2[/b]
"And the Lord said to me: This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it: because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it, and it shall be shut"
[url="http://www.drbo.org/chapter/31044.htm"]http://www.drbo.org/chapter/31044.htm[/url][/quote]This scripture is considered among Catholics as prophesy concerning the Incarnation of God and the Blessed Virgin. It is referring to the Incarnation since it suggests that the Lord God shall pass through a physical gate, which would be rather unusual if one considers at this time the Jews considered God to be non-corporeal. Likewise, it is suggesting that the Lord God of Israel shall “enter” the world through this gate. Catholics traditionally call the Blessed Virgin the “Gate of Heaven” for many reasons but one being that she is the gate that the Lord entered the world. It is by her that God did take upon Himself a human nature and did become Incarnate. Therefore this verse is considered relevant to the Blessed Virgin in her perpetual virginity and being inviolate, granting we admit our Lord is God.

It states that the gate shall be shut being opened to no man suggesting that no other children may pass through the Blessed Virgin in conception, thus entering the gate. Likewise it states that no man shall pass through it suggesting that no man enter her thus defiling her virginity for the Lord God had entered the world by the Blessed Virgin. This is to keep in the integrity of the Son of God. If one was to therefore propose in light of this verse that the Blessed Virgin had other children or was not a perpetual virgin it would suggest our Lord was not God.[quote][b]Acts of the Apostles 1:15[/b]
“In those days Peter rising up in the midst of the brethren, said: (now the number of persons together was about an hundred and twenty)”
[url="http://www.drbo.org/chapter/51001.htm"]http://www.drbo.org/chapter/51001.htm[/url][/quote]Normally this verse is brought up to make the point that “brethren” does not always suggest of the same bloodline or of the same mother. If this were not true the mother of Saint Peter the Apostle would have nearly one hundred and twenty children after looking at this scripture. This would be physically exhausting for the mother and needless to say implausible when understanding female biology.[quote][b]Matthew 27:56-61[/b]
"Among whom was Mary Magdalen, and [u]Mary the mother of James and Joseph[/u], and the mother of the sons of Zebedee. And when it was evening, there came a certain rich man of Arimathea, named Joseph, who also himself was a disciple of Jesus. He went to Pilate, and asked the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded that the body should be delivered. And Joseph taking the body, wrapped it up in a clean linen cloth. And laid it in his own new monument, which he had hewed out in a rock. And he rolled a great stone to the door of the monument, and went his way. And there was there Mary Magdalen, [u]and the other Mary sitting over against the sepulchre[/u]."
[url="http://www.drbo.org/chapter/47027.htm"]http://www.drbo.org/chapter/47027.htm[/url][/quote]The issue that needs to be taken into consideration in the Gospel according to Saint Matthew, under traditional authorship, is that even Saint Matthew the Apostle refers to Mary the wife of Clopas as "the other Mary." Also in the writings of the Scriptures our Lord is always referred to as “the” son of our Lady and not “a” son of our Lady. Also at this time upon the Cross our Lord hands the Blessed Virgin over to the care of Saint John the Apostle, which in Jewish culture at this time would be unthinkable if the husband or other children were able to care for her. Likewise in the whole searching for our Lord when He was missing from the Blessed Mother and Saint Joseph there is never a mention of other children.

While some have speculated that theses could be “children” of Saint Joseph from a previous marriage I side with Saint Jerome and tradition that suggests that Saint Joseph was likewise virginal and pure.[quote][b]The Perpetual Virginity of Mary Against Helvedius (383AD)[/b]
"[b]21[/b]. But as we do not deny what is written, so we do reject what is not written. We believe that God was born of the Virgin, because we read it. That Mary was married after she brought forth, we do not believe, because we do not read it. Nor do we say this to condemn marriage, for virginity itself is the fruit of marriage; but because when we are dealing with saints we must not judge rashly. If we adopt possibility as the standard of judgment, we might maintain that Joseph had several wives because Abraham had, and so had Jacob, and that the Lord's brethren were the issue of those wives, an invention which some hold with a rashness which springs from audacity not from piety. You say that Mary did not continue a virgin: [b]I claim still more, that Joseph himself on account of Mary was a virgin, so that from a virgin wedlock a virgin son was born[/b]. For if as a holy man he does not come under the imputation of fornication, and it is nowhere written that he had another wife, but was the guardian of Mary whom he was supposed to have to wife rather than her husband, the conclusion is that he who was thought worthy to be called father of the Lord, [u][b]remained a virgin[/b][/u]."
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm[/url][/quote]Likewise because we are called to Divine Faith believing all that God has revealed to us for He cannot deceive or be deceived, thus we are to believe anything the Church proposes to our faith of the Church He founded to teach, govern, and sanctify us unto salvation. Therefore the reason as Catholics we believe in the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Mother is the Church has so definitively and sternly defined such a matter even though this may serve to reaffirm and explain such doctrine.

Edited October 25, 2007 by Mr.CatholicCat

[BG45]

Catherine, thanks for the explanation on the Aramaic. hot stuff, thanks for the explanation on how families were raised together at the time in terms of the structure. Missy, thanks for the prayers and thoughts.

Mr. Catholic Cat...wow. Um, I feel really guilty about not writing a longer reply, but thank you for the sheer abundance of Scriptural quotations and the explanation as to how they fit into Catholic theology. Yeah um...you definitely answered my question in detail, and thank you.

[Pleural]

[quote name='BG45' post='1408766' date='Oct 24 2007, 07:22 PM']Then there's one final thorn in my side on Jesus's brothers:
Matthew 27:56
That says that Mary, the wife of Clopas, is the mother of James, who is often known as a 'brother' of Jesus. Heh.

So I guess I'll restate my question now that I'm done rambling, and thanks for reading. 1) Is Mary's only child Jesus, or did he have brothers?
2) If the answer to number one is that he didn't have brothers, does that mean she was a perpetual virgin?[/quote]

Eh, why do you think it says that? Matthew names three women as being there, 1) Mary Magdalene 2) Mary the mother of James and Joses and 3) the mother of Zebedee's sons (which Matthew 4:21 says were James and John).

Indeed, the Catholic church agrees that Jesus' mother Mary was present at the cross. But why wouldn't she be named here?
Or perhaps she was named as "Mary the mother of James and Joses".
See also Mark 15:47 where "Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses" beheld where Jesus' body was laid.

Summary of the women present during the crucifixion:

Matthew 27:
many women which followed Jesus from Galilee; among them:
Mary Magdalene
Mary the mother of James and Joses
the mother of Zebedee's sons

Mark 15:
Mary Magdalene
Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses
Salome
and many other women which had come up with Jesus unto Jerusalem

Luke 23:
the women that followed him from Galilee

John 19:
his mother (Mary)
his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas
Mary Magdalene

Since you don't explicitly say it, I guess that your reason for concluding that Mary the wife of Clopas is the same as Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses is the fact that John says Mary of Clopas but does not mention "the mother of James and Joses", but Matthew and Mark mention the mother of James and Joses without saying "Mary the wife of Clopas". However, there's no reason to assume that everyone there was named. Quite the contrary. In fact, Salome is mentioned by Mark but not Matthew -- it's obvious that she was one of the "many women" Matthew mentioned, even though he did not name her. It's quite possible that Mary the wife of Clopas was one of the "many women" referred to by Matthew and Mark who were not named, and that she's not the mother of James and Joses. On the other hand, (if we set aside the other evidence for Jesus' brothers) it's also possible that Jesus' mother Mary was one of the unnamed "many women", and the Clopas' wife was indeed the mother of James and Joses. But these verses certainly do not make it clear that James and Joses were Clopas' sons.
In Galatians 1:19, why would James be isolated and called "the Lord's brother", if nothing else was intended other than brotherhood under God?

Perhaps the most clear proof is found earlier in Mark, when Jesus was in Nazareth:
[quote name='Mark 6:3']Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.[/quote]

As Jesus was in "his own country" (verse 1), the people here were the ones most likely to know who he and his family were. They would know who his mother was and who brothers were. Note that they mention James, Joses, Juda, and Simon immediately after Mary's name. In Luke 4 they also said "Is not this Joseph's son?"
Given that Mary and Joseph were both mentioned as parents, and 4 men were called brothers, it seems most logical to conclude that these were indeed the younger brothers of Jesus by the union of Mary and Joseph.

It's important to keep in mind that statements about Mary's other children and Jesus' brothers are not essential to understanding the fact that Mary was the wife of Joseph and thus had sexual intercourse with him. In other words, the answer to BG's question #2 is false, by logical necessity: A (perpetual virginity) implies not B (no brothers),
but not B does not imply A.

[Pleural]

[quote name='BG45' post='1408766' date='Oct 24 2007, 06:22 PM']Although, in Matthew 1:25 it seems to imply Mary would later bear children, or at least have sex, by stating:
That is one of the verses I've always heard quoted to counter the idea of perpetual virginity, besides Jesus's brothers. However, when reading Second Samuel, Chapter Six, we're told that Michal has no children "until the day of her death", which means that 'until' doesn't necessarily mean someone actually did something...like bear children.[/quote]

There are other places where Scripture very strongly implies that Mary would have not remained a virgin her entire life. The verse which even the Catholic church accepts as the definition of marriage, Genesis 2:24, says

[quote name='Genesis 2:24']Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.[/quote]

It is clear, and the Catholic church accepts, that this means that the two, husband and wife, will be united physically in sexual intercourse. God created sex for marriage and it is an inextricable and essential component of marriage.

[quote name='I Corinthians 7']4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.[/quote]

It is clear that a husband and wife have an obligation to express love of one another through their bodies (as well as other ways), and that it is only permissible to forgo marital sex "with consent for a time". Even if you assume that Joseph consented to being deprived from physical intercourse with his wife, there is no way to twist "for a time" into "throughout their whole marriage" (which we know was at the least about 12 years [see Luke 2]).

Indeed, asserting that Mary remained a virgin her entire life amounts to accusing her of a very great sin, a fraudulent marriage, and the denial of God's commandments as to how a husband and wife are to behave in relation to one another. It is inconceivable that a woman as virtuous as Mary, who was committed to serving and obeying God, would reject the covenant of marriage which God established.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Pleural' post='1414193' date='Nov 4 2007, 07:08 PM']There are other places where Scripture very strongly implies that Mary would have not remained a virgin her entire life. The verse which even the Catholic church accepts as the definition of marriage, Genesis 2:24, says
It is clear, and the Catholic church accepts, that this means that the two, husband and wife, will be united physically in sexual intercourse. God created sex for marriage and it is an inextricable and essential component of marriage.
It is clear that a husband and wife have an obligation to express love of one another through their bodies (as well as other ways), and that it is only permissible to forgo marital sex "with consent for a time". Even if you assume that Joseph consented to being deprived from physical intercourse with his wife, there is no way to twist "for a time" into "throughout their whole marriage" (which we know was at the least about 12 years [see Luke 2]).

Indeed, asserting that Mary remained a virgin her entire life amounts to accusing her of a very great sin, a fraudulent marriage, and the denial of God's commandments as to how a husband and wife are to behave in relation to one another. It is inconceivable that a woman as virtuous as Mary, who was committed to serving and obeying God, would reject the covenant of marriage which God established.[/quote]
It is the ancient tradition of the Church that Mary was indeed ever-virgin, as befitting her unique role as the Theotokos, the Mother of God, the Christ-bearer.

Nowhere does it state that it is a sin to refrain from sexual intercourse.
Obviously the role of Mary is unique in that she was to bear the Word Incarnate.
The tradition is that Mary was a consecrated virgin, and upon being

[quote]According to the [i]Protoevangelium[/i], Joseph was required to regard Mary’s vow of virginity with the utmost respect. The gravity of his responsibility as the guardian of a virgin was indicated by the fact that, when she was discovered to be with child, he had to answer to the Temple authorities, who thought him guilty of defiling a virgin of the Lord. Mary was also accused of having forsaken the Lord by breaking her vow. Keeping this in mind, it is an incredible insult to the Blessed Virgin to say that she broke her vow by bearing children other than her Lord and God, who was conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit.[/quote]

[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp"](Full article, "Mary: Ever Virgin" with quotes from the Early Church Fathers here.)[/url]

["Kyrie eleison"]

Hello BG,

I have often thought about you and believe that you will come home to the fullnes of truth!


[quote name='Pleural' post='1414193' date='Nov 4 2007, 07:08 PM']There are other places where Scripture very strongly implies that Mary would have not remained a virgin her entire life. The verse which even the Catholic church accepts as the definition of marriage, Genesis 2:24, says
It is clear, and the Catholic church accepts, that this means that the two, husband and wife, will be united physically in sexual intercourse. God created sex for marriage and it is an inextricable and essential component of marriage.
It is clear that a husband and wife have an obligation to express love of one another through their bodies (as well as other ways), and that it is only permissible to forgo marital sex "with consent for a time". Even if you assume that Joseph consented to being deprived from physical intercourse with his wife, there is no way to twist "for a time" into "throughout their whole marriage" (which we know was at the least about 12 years [see Luke 2]).

Indeed, asserting that Mary remained a virgin her entire life amounts to accusing her of a very great sin, a fraudulent marriage, and the denial of God's commandments as to how a husband and wife are to behave in relation to one another. It is inconceivable that a woman as virtuous as Mary, who was committed to serving and obeying God, would reject the covenant of marriage which God established.[/quote]

Pleural,

A great sin? Joseph knew the manner in which Mary was conceived and just as Mary's role was to do God's will, so was Joseph. God’s ways are not like our ways (Is. 55:8–9). When Blessed Mary was conceived by the Holy Ghost this deemed her and her marriage UNIQUE and like no other union. This union is not your run of the mill marriage, Joseph knew of his role in protecting Mary in every way and form.

Did you know that in the Old Testament couples were to refrain from relations and this was asked by God?

Do you remember that Uzzah was struck dead for touching the Ark (2 Sam. 6:6) which contained the word of God?

What more with Mary who carries the word that is to become flesh.

Priests of the temple had to refrain from having relations with their wives during the time of their service.

What about Moses having the Israelites cease relations as he ascended Mount Sinai (Ex. 20:15).

Ceasing to have relations in not uncommon and with Mary and Joseph poses no contradiction as their union is unique and Mary represents something very holy as Blessed Mary is the bearer of the Incarnate word that became flesh and is GREATER than the Ark of the covenant which contained the word of God in the OT.

Also, are you aware in the Jewish law, if a man was committed,to a woman and she becomes pregnant from another, he could never have relations with her.

What was the law if this happened....the man had to put her away privately and or to put her to death. We know Joseph did not do this.

Luke 1:35: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.

The Holy Spirit has OVER SHADOWED Mary, in every way and form, like never before, it is a MIRACLE and she has been consecrated, set apart for God and only to serve GOD, in every way and form.

Mary's whole being belongs to the Father the SON and the Holy Spirit and as prophecied, a SWORD would pierce her soul too, as Saint Simeon, spoke to Mary and Joseph.

Luke 2
(34) "This child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be spoken against, (35) so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. And a sword will pierce your own soul too."

Edited November 5, 2007 by "Kyrie eleison"

[Pleural]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1414597' date='Nov 4 2007, 10:45 PM']It is the ancient tradition of the Church that Mary was indeed ever-virgin, as befitting her unique role as the Theotokos, the Mother of God, the Christ-bearer.[/quote]

In other words, "I have nothing to say to refute your sound logic so I'll just
rehash what's already been said about Roman tradition."
No offense, but that adds nothing to the debate.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1414597' date='Nov 4 2007, 10:45 PM']Nowhere does it state that it is a sin to refrain from sexual intercourse.
Obviously the role of Mary is unique in that she was to bear the Word Incarnate.
The tradition is that Mary was a consecrated virgin, and upon being
[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp"](Full article, "Mary: Ever Virgin" with quotes from the Early Church Fathers here.)[/url][/quote]

Actually, it is a sin. The verses I referred to show that quite clearly,
especially I Corinthians 7:4-5.

Luke 1:26 says that Mary was "espoused" to Joseph. Espoused means that they are to be married. It does not mean that Mary has been consecrated as a virgin and Joseph is to guard her virginity. Matthew 1:24 says that Joseph "took unto him his wife" -- Mary is obviously considered his wife, not a woman committed to remaining a virgin her entire life. Other verses use the same type of language. Their relationship as described in the Bible is that of [b]husband[/b] and [b]wife[/b], not ever-virgin and virgin-guardian.

[quote]Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.
But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.[/quote]

Clearly, from verse 19, Joseph believed that Mary had been unfaithful before their marriage and had in that way become pregnant. That is why, before his dream, he intended to "put her away privily", without making a public example of her, as was sometimes the custom to do.

The Bible also gives examples of people calling Joseph Jesus' father. Thus they must have thought that Mary and Joseph had a normal marriage; they knew Joseph to be Mary's husband and did not think of him as the "guardian" of her virginity.

The Protoevangelium of James says Joseph was a widower with children. Yet Jerome (as mentioned by Mr.CatholicCat) maintained that Joseph was a virgin, not a widower. Catholic Tradition in this matter is completely contradictory. You can't just pick out the ones that support your view and ignore other sources which deny the reliability of your first source.

The Protoevangelium of James also claims to be written by James, a son of Joseph from a previous marriage. However, that would make James at least 125 years old, and possibly as old as 150 or older at the time the Protoevangelium was written (120-150 AD). Besides that, scholarship has determined that James did not write the Protoevengelium of James, based on style and Jewish custom at the time. It is obviously not a credible source for doctrine.

Also, the parallels the Protoevangelium of James draws between Mary and Jesus (angel announces the birth, significant event recorded at age 12) would tend to suggest that the work is not historically correct, but rather that the stories about Jesus were copied and modified and attributed to Mary. This may not be enough to incriminate the source by itself, but it offers perhaps a reasonable explanation for how someone came up with some of the ideas.

Perhaps most striking, the Protoevangelium of James directly contradicts the Biblical accounts of Jesus' birth. According to chapters 18-20 of the Protoevangelium, Jesus was born [b]in a cave[/b]. The gospels tell us quite plainly that Jesus was born in a manger in Bethelehem.

You can't use sources which directly contradict the Bible and expect them to have any credibility in a discussion of any of the Biblical saints.

From Origen's quote on the page you linked, Origen may not have believed in the idea of Mary's perpetual virginity himself ("now those who say so..."). On the other hand, if he did believe it, Origen used the Protoevangelium of James as a source, so his credibility in this issue depends on it being reliable, which has been shown to be false.

Hilary and Athanasius -- huge jump in time here, and these people had no other source for the idea that Mary was always a virgin than the Protoevangelium, as far as we know.

Jerome disagrees with the Protoevangelium and claims that Joseph was a virgin, not a widow, as I said above. In addition, Jerome goes so far as to say "we do not believe that Mary was married", directly contradicting scripture which calls Mary the "wife" of Joseph.

[quote post='1414875' date='Nov 5 2007, 12:50 PM']A great sin? Joseph knew the manner in which Mary was conceived and just as Mary's role was to do God's will, so was Joseph. God’s ways are not like our ways (Is. 55:8–9). When Blessed Mary was conceived by the Holy Ghost this deemed her and her marriage UNIQUE and like no other union. This union is not your run of the mill marriage, Joseph knew of his role in protecting Mary in every way and form.[/quote]

Again, that claim relies on a thoroughly disreputable source. See above.
God's ways are not like our ways, indeed, but when he creates a covenantal relationship (marriage) and we enter into that covenant, we are to live according to that covenant as he has ordained it. Otherwise we are following OUR ways, not his.

[quote name='"Kyrie eleison' post='1414875' date='Nov 5 2007, 12:50 PM']Did you know that in the Old Testament couples were to refrain from relations and this was asked by God?[/quote]

False. Unless you mean only temporarily. In which case, see below.

[quote name='"Kyrie eleison' post='1414875' date='Nov 5 2007, 12:50 PM']Do you remember that Uzzah was struck dead for touching the Ark (2 Sam. 6:6) which contained the word of God?[/quote]

Yes. That is completely irrelevant to this situation. However, I presume that you are trying to say "Mary is the ark of the new covenant and thus those who touch Mary would be struck down", and I will refute that argument as if you had said it.

One, it is ridiculous to assert that someone who touched Mary would be struck down.

Two, and probably more importantly, as you say, Uzza was struck down for touching the ark [b]"which contained the word of God"[/b]. If the analogy is indeed correct, and Mary was the ark of the new covenant, then after she gave birth to Jesus, the Word of God was no longer in the ark (in Mary) -- he was out in the world, about His Father's business.

If your comparison of Mary with the ark is correct, it might accurately explain why Joseph "knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son". However, once the Word was born and no longer in the ark, the analogy fails to provide any explanation for Joseph and Mary would not have consecrated their marriage in the way that God ordained.

[quote name='"Kyrie eleison' post='1414875' date='Nov 5 2007, 12:50 PM']What more with Mary who carries the word that is to become flesh.[/quote]

[quote name='"Kyrie eleison' post='1414875' date='Nov 5 2007, 12:50 PM']Priests of the temple had to refrain from having relations with their wives during the time of their service.

What about Moses having the Israelites cease relations as he ascended Mount Sinai (Ex. 20:15).[/quote]

Again, a temporary situation. I have not denied, and indeed have quoted Scripture to you which says that a husband and wife are not to abstain from such relations except "with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer". The Old Testament situations you have referred to are entirely consistent with this New Testament scripture and with my views as I documented them here. If anything, these situations support my case, not yours.

[quote name='"Kyrie eleison' post='1414875' date='Nov 5 2007, 12:50 PM']Also, are you aware in the Jewish law, if a man was committed,to a woman and she becomes pregnant from another, he could never have relations with her.

What was the law if this happened....the man had to put her away privately and or to put her to death. We know Joseph did not do this.[/quote]

You don't provide a reference. In any case, that only agrees with the Biblical account and what I've said of it.
You ignore the fact that the Bible records that Joseph did in fact intend to do one of those things. This shows the fact that Joseph believed that Mary had been unfaithful before their marriage. Indeed if the man's choice was to "put her away privately or to put her to death", then Joseph followed that, as we read that Joseph being a just man and "not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily" (read Matthew 1). It is only because God gave a specific revelation to Joseph through one of His angels that Joseph did not put her away.

[quote name='"Kyrie eleison' post='1414875' date='Nov 5 2007, 12:50 PM']Luke 1:35: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.

The Holy Spirit has OVER SHADOWED Mary, in every way and form, like never before, it is a MIRACLE and she has been consecrated, set apart for God and only to serve GOD, in every way and form.

Mary's whole being belongs to the Father the SON and the Holy Spirit and as prophecied, a SWORD would pierce her soul too, as Saint Simeon, spoke to Mary and Joseph.

Luke 2
(34) "This child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be spoken against, (35) so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. And a sword will pierce your own soul too."[/quote]

You're really stretching far to try to wring your desired meaning out of those few words.

Edited November 6, 2007 by Pleural

["Kyrie eleison"]

QUOTE( @ Nov 5 2007, 12:50 PM)
A great sin? Joseph knew the manner in which Mary was conceived and just as Mary's role was to do God's will, so was Joseph. God’s ways are not like our ways (Is. 55:8–9). When Blessed Mary was conceived by the Holy Ghost this deemed her and her marriage UNIQUE and like no other union. This union is not your run of the mill marriage, Joseph knew of his role in protecting Mary in every way and form.


[quote]Again, that claim relies on a thoroughly disreputable source. See above.
God's ways are not like our ways, indeed, but when he creates a covenantal relationship (marriage) and we enter into that covenant, we are to live according to that covenant as he has ordained it. Otherwise we are following OUR ways, not his.[/quote]


Indeed, Pleural, God's ways our not our ways, or [b]your[/b] ways, most indeed in the case of Mary and the relationship of Mary to Joseph. Again it must be [b]reiterated [/b]that this marriage is not a normal one by any standard, regardless of a marriage covenant.

We must remeber a young Jewish girl is [b]overshadowed[/b] by the 3rd person of the Holy Trinity and [b]impregnated[/b] Blessed Mary to bear the [b]WORD THAT BECAME FLESH[/b].

Blessed Mary is carrying the [b]seed[/b] of the Holy Ghost, [b]not [/b]of Joseph.


QUOTE("Kyrie eleison @ Nov 5 2007, 12:50 PM)
Did you know that in the Old Testament couples were to refrain from relations and this was asked by God?


[quote]False. Unless you mean only temporarily. In which case, see below.[/quote]

Again, this union between Joseph and Mary is not a usual one.


Luke 18:28-30:

28 And Peter said, "Lo, we have left our homes and followed you." 29 And he said to them, "Truly, I say to you, there is no man who has [b]left house or[/b][b] wife[/b] or brothers or parents or children,[b] for the sake of the kingdom of God,[/b] 30 who will not receive manifold more in this time, and in the age to come eternal life."

Peter then replies..

Matthew 19:27-29:

27 "Lo, we have left everything and followed you. [b]What then shall we have?" [/b]
28 Jesus said to them, "Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of man shall sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
[b]29 And every one who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name's sake, will receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life. [/b]

And it is not contradictory or false for those who are married to become continence (to give up relations with their lawful wife for the sake of god). Nor it is a great sin, as you stated!

Moses was continence on his journey to the promise land as he communicated with God regularly, it was commanded by God.

Exodus 19:15
15He said to the people, "Be ready for the third day; do not go near a woman."

It was because Moses was speaking directly to God.

Numbers 12
8With him I speak mouth to mouth,

Scripture[b] does[/b] support that those who are married [b]do [/b]give up relations with their wives [b]after [/b]the call from God, and Joseph did certainly know the CALL and ROLE of Mary, as his OWN ROLE TO MARY and JESUS.

QUOTE("Kyrie eleison @ Nov 5 2007, 12:50 PM)
Do you remember that Uzzah was struck dead for touching the Ark (2 Sam. 6:6) which contained the word of God?


[quote]Yes. That is completely irrelevant to this situation. However, I presume that you are trying to say "Mary is the ark of the new covenant and thus those who touch Mary would be struck down", and I will refute that argument as if you had said it.[/quote]

On the contrary, Uzzah being struck dead for touching the Ark is very[b] relevant. [/b]. It represent how the Ark that[b] contained [/b] Holy the word of God, was not to be [b]DEFILED[/b], even by a touch.

[b] Mary carried the FLESH and BLOOD of the INCARNATE WORD.[/b]

[quote]One, it is ridiculous to assert that someone who touched Mary would be struck down.[/quote]

Anyone who would attempt to [b]defile [/b]Mary in any way or form, do you doubt that they would be struck down? Do you find that so ridiculous?

[quote]Two, and probably more importantly, as you say, Uzza was struck down for touching the ark "which contained the word of God". If the analogy is indeed correct, and Mary was the ark of the new covenant, then after she gave birth to Jesus, the Word of God was no longer in the ark (in Mary) -- he was out in the world, about His Father's business.[/quote]

So, be your reasoning, after I give birth to my child I am no longer the carrier of my child, the mother of my child? After the child leaves my body, I have no connection to my child? My child carries my DNA and the child and I are[b] always [/b]part of one another. even after birth. Mary will always be the Mother, The Ark of the New Covenant, who carried and gave her DNA to the 2nd person of the Trinity.

[quote]If your comparison of Mary with the ark is correct, it might accurately explain why Joseph "knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son". However, once the Word was born and no longer in the ark, the analogy fails to provide any explanation for Joseph and Mary would not have consecrated their marriage in the way that God ordained.[/quote]

The analogy does not fail, only by your reasoning.

[b]Mary has been CONSECRATED by the HOLY GHOST, 'overshadowed' 'impregnated' and intimately touched by the HOLY GHOST to BEAR "HIS"SON. [/b]

This is exactly why Mary remained ever virgin. She belongs [b]only[/b] to the FATHER the SON and the HOLY GHOST.


QUOTE("Kyrie eleison @ Nov 5 2007, 12:50 PM)
What more with Mary who carries the word that is to become flesh.



QUOTE("Kyrie eleison @ Nov 5 2007, 12:50 PM)
Priests of the temple had to refrain from having relations with their wives during the time of their service.

What about Moses having the Israelites cease relations as he ascended Mount Sinai (Ex. 20:15).


[quote]Again, a temporary situation. I have not denied, and indeed have quoted Scripture to you which says that a husband and wife are not to abstain from such relations except "with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer". The Old Testament situations you have referred to are entirely consistent with this New Testament scripture and with my views as I documented them here. If anything, these situations support my case, not yours.[/quote]

Scripture may support your case, but again, this is NOT, an ordinary situation, [b]if[/b] if it was I would totally agree with you and as stated above, there are EXCEPTIONS, to becoming continent.


QUOTE("Kyrie eleison @ Nov 5 2007, 12:50 PM)
Also, are you aware in the Jewish law, if a man was committed,to a woman and she becomes pregnant from another, he could never have relations with her.

What was the law if this happened....the man had to put her away privately and or to put her to death. We know Joseph did not do this.


[quote]You don't provide a reference. In any case, that only agrees with the Biblical account and what I've said of it.
You ignore the fact that the Bible records that Joseph did in fact intend to do one of those things. This shows the fact that Joseph believed that Mary had been unfaithful before their marriage. Indeed if the man's choice was to "put her away privately or to put her to death", then Joseph followed that, as we read that Joseph being a just man and "not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily" (read Matthew 1). It is only because God gave a specific revelation to Joseph through one of His angels that Joseph did not put her away.[/quote]

I did not ignore the fact that Jospeh intended to one of the things that is required by the law. It is a given.

I have noticed that you did not refute the Jewish law; if a man is betrothed, to a woman and she becomes pregnant from another, he could [b]never[/b] have relations with her.

Joseph was a very devout law-abiding Jew and religious man and this was not just another man's child, this was the Holy Spirit that overshadowed Mary and impregnated her.



QUOTE("Kyrie eleison @ Nov 5 2007, 12:50 PM)
Luke 1:35: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.

The Holy Spirit has [b]OVER SHADOWED[/b] Mary, in every way and form, like never before, it is a [b]MIRACLE [/b]and she has been consecrated, set apart for God and only to serve GOD, in every way and form.

Mary's whole being belongs to the Father the SON and the Holy Spirit and as prophecied, a SWORD would pierce her soul too, as Saint Simeon, spoke to Mary and Joseph.

Luke 2
(34) "This child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be spoken against, (35) so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. And a sword will pierce your own soul too."


[quote]You're really stretching far to try to wring your desired meaning out of those few words.[/quote]

Pleural,

You cannot deny that Mary and Jesus are so interconnected, as Mother and Son, and that Blessed Mary's life is CONSECRATED and SET APART to serve the FATHER, the SON and THE HOLY SPIRIT.

It is not a stretch, and not my desire to wring meaning from Saint Simeon's prophecy. For Blessed Mary, as a [b]mother[/b][b] to the SON of GOD[/b], was united to her son as she had to watch his AGONIZING death to the end.

[b]Yes, a sword did too pierce Mary's soul, as it pierced HER SON'S--united till the end.[/b]

Luke 2
(34) "This child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be spoken against, (35) so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. [b]And a sword will pierce your own soul too."[/b]

It is written.

Edited November 6, 2007 by "Kyrie eleison"

[Socrates]

[quote name='Pleural' post='1415329' date='Nov 6 2007, 02:13 AM']In other words, "I have nothing to say to refute your sound logic so I'll just
rehash what's already been said about Roman tradition."
No offense, but that adds nothing to the debate.[/quote]
Blah, blah, blah. You've provided no sound logic, merely rehashed your own protestant traditions of interpretation, which go back no further than the 16th century. All early Christian writings we have on the topic are in agreement as to Mary's perpetual virginity.
And "Theotokos" is a [i]Greek[/i] word, used by the Eastern Church. You can't say that this is some kind of Roman inovation. Veneration of Mary as the Mother of God and affirmation of her perpetual divinity is something universal in the early Church, and found in all traditions, Eastern and Western alike.

[quote]Actually, it is a sin. The verses I referred to show that quite clearly,
especially I Corinthians 7:4-5.[/quote]
This passage shows nothing of the sort:
[quote]Defraud not one another, except, perhaps, by consent, for a time, that you may give yourselves to prayer: and return together again, lest Satan tempt you for your incontinency.[/quote]
As we Catholics believe Mary, being the most pure bearer of Christ the Redeemer, had no incontinency, and Joseph fully respected Mary's unique role, there is no defrauding involved whatsoever.

You are here disregarding the absolutely unique role of Mary in bearing Our Lord and Redeemer Jesus Christ, and treating Mary as just any woman, and the Holy Family, as just any regular run-of-the-mill family. (As if Jesus was just any ordinary run-of-the-mill kid)
The divine conception of Jesus Christ was utterly unique, and so was the Holy Family.

Using your logic here, you might as well accuse Mary of sinning because she conceived a child out of wedlock!

[quote]Luke 1:26 says that Mary was "espoused" to Joseph. Espoused means that they are to be married. It does not mean that Mary has been consecrated as a virgin and Joseph is to guard her virginity. Matthew 1:24 says that Joseph "took unto him his wife" -- Mary is obviously considered his wife, not a woman committed to remaining a virgin her entire life. Other verses use the same type of language. Their relationship as described in the Bible is that of [b]husband[/b] and [b]wife[/b], not ever-virgin and virgin-guardian.
Clearly, from verse 19, Joseph believed that Mary had been unfaithful before their marriage and had in that way become pregnant. That is why, before his dream, he intended to "put her away privily", without making a public example of her, as was sometimes the custom to do.

The Bible also gives examples of people calling Joseph Jesus' father. Thus they must have thought that Mary and Joseph had a normal marriage; they knew Joseph to be Mary's husband and did not think of him as the "guardian" of her virginity.

The Protoevangelium of James says Joseph was a widower with children. Yet Jerome (as mentioned by Mr.CatholicCat) maintained that Joseph was a virgin, not a widower. Catholic Tradition in this matter is completely contradictory. You can't just pick out the ones that support your view and ignore other sources which deny the reliability of your first source.

The Protoevangelium of James also claims to be written by James, a son of Joseph from a previous marriage. However, that would make James at least 125 years old, and possibly as old as 150 or older at the time the Protoevangelium was written (120-150 AD). Besides that, scholarship has determined that James did not write the Protoevengelium of James, based on style and Jewish custom at the time. It is obviously not a credible source for doctrine.

Also, the parallels the Protoevangelium of James draws between Mary and Jesus (angel announces the birth, significant event recorded at age 12) would tend to suggest that the work is not historically correct, but rather that the stories about Jesus were copied and modified and attributed to Mary. This may not be enough to incriminate the source by itself, but it offers perhaps a reasonable explanation for how someone came up with some of the ideas.

Perhaps most striking, the Protoevangelium of James directly contradicts the Biblical accounts of Jesus' birth. According to chapters 18-20 of the Protoevangelium, Jesus was born [b]in a cave[/b]. The gospels tell us quite plainly that Jesus was born in a manger in Bethelehem.

You can't use sources which directly contradict the Bible and expect them to have any credibility in a discussion of any of the Biblical saints.

From Origen's quote on the page you linked, Origen may not have believed in the idea of Mary's perpetual virginity himself ("now those who say so..."). On the other hand, if he did believe it, Origen used the Protoevangelium of James as a source, so his credibility in this issue depends on it being reliable, which has been shown to be false.

Hilary and Athanasius -- huge jump in time here, and these people had no other source for the idea that Mary was always a virgin than the Protoevangelium, as far as we know.

Jerome disagrees with the Protoevangelium and claims that Joseph was a virgin, not a widow, as I said above. In addition, Jerome goes so far as to say "we do not believe that Mary was married", directly contradicting scripture which calls Mary the "wife" of Joseph.[/quote]
The Protoevangelium is not considered Scripture nor infallible; you are missing the point here. The point of citing the Protoevangelium is that it shows that Mary's perpetual virginity was an ancient Christian tradition which can be found in some of the earliest Christian writings, and was also affirmed by various Early Church fathers, none of whom denied it.
The denial of Mary's divinity is a protestant innovation which started many centuries later.

And your claim about the Protoevangelium "directly contradicting the bible" regarding the cave/manger is silly and absurd. It is an ancient tradition that Christ was born in a cave that was used as a manger (this was in fact a common practice in the area at that time.) There is only contradiction there for those who want to make one.

And while the Fathers may disagree regarding the virginity of Joseph, they are in unity regarding Mary's virginity.
The evidence shows that Mary's virginity was an established belief in the Early Church, and we hear no reliable Christian voices in denial of this belief.

Edited November 8, 2007 by Socrates

[Pleural]

Well, that's a new one: "You have posted more than the allowed number of quoted blocks of text"
Splitting this post into two...

It seems our posts are getting longer and longer.
Unfortunately, you've left many of my points completely unanswered. Please re-read my previous post
as well as this one and respond to the points I've made, rather than re-hashing the same things you've already said...

[quote name='"Kyrie eleison' post='1415421' date='Nov 6 2007, 01:37 PM']We must remeber a young Jewish girl is [b]overshadowed[/b] by the 3rd person of the Holy Trinity and [b]impregnated[/b] Blessed Mary to bear the [b]WORD THAT BECAME FLESH[/b].[/quote]

Again, you're stretching and twisting words to try to fit them to your argument. I see you seem to think the word
"overshadowed" needs emphasis. Do you really believe that the word "overshadowed" means guaranteed-to-be-a-virgin-forever? Yes? No?
[b]You cannot define words to fit your doctrine.[/b]

[quote name='"Kyrie eleison' post='1415421' date='Nov 6 2007, 01:37 PM']Peter then replies..

Matthew 19:27-29:

27 "Lo, we have left everything and followed you. [b]What then shall we have?" [/b]
28 Jesus said to them, "Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of man shall sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
[b]29 And every one who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name's sake, will receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life. [/b]

And it is not contradictory or false for those who are married to become continence (to give up relations with their lawful wife for the sake of god). Nor it is a great sin, as you stated![/quote]

Ah, remember that your Roman Catholic church tells you that you are not qualified to interpret scripture? Why are you trying to do so here? Clearly you misinterpret this scripture if you take it as support for your doctrine of Mary's virginity until death.

Tell me, do you believe that all married Catholics should leave their husbands or wives? Should all Catholics leave
their parents and abandon their children? Should they use the name of Jesus to try to justify their behavior in doing so?

There are some things you need to learn about reading and interpreting scripture.
For one thing, look at the context of what you quoted. At least read the whole quote.

A little before the quoted passage...:
[quote]19:3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female,
19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.[/quote]

As if Genesis is not enough for you, Jesus himself while he was on earth reiterated the definition of marriage: the two are [b]one flesh[/b].
What has God joined together? Husband and wife.
What was the relationship between Mary and Joseph? Husband and wife.
QED

Now let's look at a bit more of the context of what you quoted.

[quote post='1415421' date='Nov 6 2007, 01:37 PM']19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
19:18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19:19 Honour thy father and [thy] mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
19:20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go [and] sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come [and] follow me.
19:22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
19:23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom
of heaven.
19:24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
19:25 When his disciples heard [it], they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
19:26 But Jesus beheld [them], and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
19:27 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?
19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of
Israel.
19:29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.
19:30 But many [that are] first shall be last; and the last [shall be] first.[/quote]

Jesus said "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom
of God". The disciples knew, as we know, that according to our natural knowledge and abilities, it is impossible for a whole camel to enter through the eye of a needle. Thus they wondered whether it was possible for anyone to be saved, or who can be saved, asking Jesus "Who then can be saved?" Jesus confirmed the impossibility of the task for men -- we cannot make a camel enter the eye of a needle, neither by ourselves can we enter the kingdom of God. But with God all things are possible. With God a camel can enter the eye of a needle. With God we can enter the kingdom of heaven. Peter then asked "Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shell we have therefore?" Jesus reply is consistent with his other words. For example, the first commandment is
[quote]Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all
thy strength: this is the first commandment.[/quote]
"And the second is like, namely Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

If we are to love our neighbors (and indeed even our enemies), certain we should also love our spouses, children,
and parents. We should not abandon them and certainly not leave them if they are following God,
and if we are married we should not abandon our spouses if they are willing to remain with us.

[quote]10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else
were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?[/quote]

The first part is very clear: believing wives and husbands (such as Joseph and Mary) are [b]commanded[/b] to remain together. The next case deals with the situation of a believing man whose wife does not believe, and vice versa. These Christians too, should remain with their spouses, and may lead their unbelieving spouse to Christ. Well, what does this have to do with Mary and Joseph? Nothing. This is an interpretation of the verses which you
quoted and claimed support your view. You see, we should place God above all else, that is the first commandment -- love God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength. We love God before our wives, husbands, mothers, fathers, and children. If it is necessary to leave them in order to serve the Lord, we do that; if they leave us, we accept that; because we love God above them. If our family accepts us, and if they are not interfering in our service to God, then we remain with them, but we must keep God first in our hearts.

[quote post='1415421' date='Nov 6 2007, 01:37 PM']Moses was continence on his journey to the promise land as he communicated with God regularly, it was commanded by God.

Exodus 19:15
15He said to the people, "Be ready for the third day; do not go near a woman."

It was because Moses was speaking directly to God.[/quote]

... Didn't we already go over this? "Be ready for the [b]third day[/b]" -- obviously this is a command to abstain for a very limited period of time! Another temporary case, absolutely unrelated to your doctrine. You are attacking a straw man because your doctrine is too difficult to defend. Please stop quoting these things as if they apply.

[quote name='"Kyrie eleison' post='1415421' date='Nov 6 2007, 01:37 PM']So, be your reasoning, after I give birth to my child I am no longer the carrier of my child, the mother of my child? After the child leaves my body, I have no connection to my child? My child carries my DNA and the child and I are[b] always [/b]part of one another. even after birth. Mary will always be the Mother, The Ark of the New Covenant, who carried and gave her DNA to the 2nd person of the Trinity.
The analogy does not fail, only by your reasoning.[/quote]

No, that's simply not true. If you give birth to a child, you are no longer the "carrier" of that child, as that child has left your body. You are the one who has carried that child, but no longer do. That child is an independent life which God has created. Your child is not a [b]part[/b] of you in any literal sense. Of course, if you raise the child and love him then you have a "connection" to that child, but it is not a physical connection, and a "connection" is not at all the same thing as physically containing that child.

[quote name='"Kyrie eleison' post='1415421' date='Nov 6 2007, 01:37 PM'][b]Mary has been CONSECRATED by the HOLY GHOST, 'overshadowed' 'impregnated' and intimately touched by the HOLY GHOST to BEAR "HIS"SON. [/b]

This is exactly why Mary remained ever virgin. She belongs [b]only[/b] to the FATHER the SON and the HOLY GHOST.[/quote]

Again, stretching the words 'consecrated', 'overshadowed', etc. to attempt to make them fit your opinion. You can't re-define them to mean what they do not.

Again, the situation with Moses and the Iraelites was temporary. And thank you for acknowledging that my case is in agreement with Scripture. I'd hope that that would be enough to make you stop repeating unscriptural arguments which have been soundly refuted, though, and to stop twisting scripture to fit your beliefs...

[Pleural]

[quote name='"Kyrie eleison' post='1415421' date='Nov 6 2007, 01:37 PM']Also, are you aware in the Jewish law, if a man was committed,to a woman and she becomes pregnant from another, he could never have relations with her.
QUOTE("Kyrie eleison @ Nov 5 2007, 12:50 PM)
What was the law if this happened....the man had to put her away privately and or to put her to death. We know Joseph did not do this.
I did not ignore the fact that Jospeh intended to one of the things that is required by the law. It is a given.

I have noticed that you did not refute the Jewish law; if a man is betrothed, to a woman and she becomes pregnant from another, he could [b]never[/b] have relations with her.[/quote]

If that last bit is accurate, then it deals with the usual case where a woman becoming pregnant by another was proof that she had defiled herself by committed fornication. Mary [b]did not do that[/b]. We've already been over this, also. Also note, that as I said and [b]as you agreed with[/b], Joseph intended to do just that -- to put Mary away and thus obviously to not have relations with her. It was only because of direct instruction from God that Joseph changed his mind and accepted Mary as his wife.

[quote name='"Kyrie eleison' post='1415421' date='Nov 6 2007, 01:37 PM']The Holy Spirit has [b]OVER SHADOWED[/b] Mary, in every way and form, like never before, it is a [b]MIRACLE [/b]and she has been consecrated, set apart for God and only to serve GOD, in every way and form.

Mary's whole being belongs to the Father the SON and the Holy Spirit and as prophecied, a SWORD would pierce her soul too, as Saint Simeon, spoke to Mary and Joseph.

Luke 2
(34) "This child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be spoken against, (35) so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. And a sword will pierce your own soul too."
Pleural,

You cannot deny that Mary and Jesus are so interconnected, as Mother and Son, and that Blessed Mary's life is CONSECRATED and SET APART to serve the FATHER, the SON and THE HOLY SPIRIT.

It is not a stretch, and not my desire to wring meaning from Saint Simeon's prophecy. For Blessed Mary, as a [b]mother[/b][b] to the SON of GOD[/b], was united to her son as she had to watch his AGONIZING death to the end.

[b]Yes, a sword did too pierce Mary's soul, as it pierced HER SON'S--united till the end.[/b]

Luke 2
(34) "This child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be spoken against, (35) so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. [b]And a sword will pierce your own soul too."[/b]

It is written.[/quote]

...
You already quoted that. And you still haven't even bothered [b]trying[/b] to explain [b]how[/b] how believe it supports your opinion. You mentioned that she had to watch her son's death. Well, she was there. If you acknowledge that that that is the explanation of Simeon's words about a sword, then what does that have to do with virginity? Nothing.

Don't you realize that saying that Mary served God in "every way and form" does not mean that she was always a virgin? Of course she served God through her marriage to her husband. One way of doing that is accepting and respecting what God created and set aside for marriage, not rejecting as you would have Mary to do.

Just noticed Socrates' new post -- I suppose I'll provide another response to your rehash of your own catholic traditions of interpretation later...