Catholic Apologetics Guidebook

Dialogue on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary – Page 2

It doesn't matter how many other verses use "brethren" to mean a brother in spirit.

I'm afraid that you are arguing against a point I didn't make. I didn't claim that "brother" was meant in the spiritual sense in these verses, but that it could mean a close relation such as cousin, since Aramaic had no word for cousin, and thus people who spoke Aramaic often used the word for "brother" to also mean cousin or other close relation.

If Mary *truly* stayed a virgin for life, what does that imply about Joseph, her *husband*? It means he had to stay a virgin too. Yes.. umm.. I'm skeptical of that :-)

Why are you skeptical? Is it so hard to believe that the man who was called to be the foster father of Jesus could have been given the necessary grace to practice some self-control? Countless men and women over the centuries have forsaken physical relations and dedicated themselves to a life of celibacy for the sake of the kingdom of God. Why is it hard to believe that Mary and Joseph could have done the same, if God had called them to do so?

On a similar note, why does it matter to Catholics that Mary haved remained a virgin? The prophesy that the Messiah would be born from a virgin would already have been fulfilled. As Jesus was the only man without sin (making Him the only suitable sacrifice for us), there's no reason to expect Mary was without sin. Besides, there's nothing sinful about having children with your husband in the first place (in fact it is encouraged biblically). So why is this such an emotional issue?

Well, I could turn the question around and ask why does it matter so much to some Christians that she didn't remain a virgin? It seems to me that those who are arguing the other side of the issue here are just as determined to support their view as I am to support mine.

All things considered, I would agree that this issue is a lower priority among the hierarchy of truths (for example, I believe it is much more important to be right about Jesus being born of a virgin than it is to be right about whether or not Mary remained a virgin after Jesus's birth). But still I am concerned about truth, and since what I believe to be true regarding this issue was challenged, I am giving reasons for my belief. I hope that makes sense. :-)

Then why were they married Paul? There is no reason for them to be married if they weren't going to have relations. (most respectful way I can say it!)

That's a good question, and I'll respond with another question: Why did they need to get married at all, even before Jesus was born, considering that Joseph wasn't actually Jesus's father? I would say that at least part of the reason was that a single mother in that time probably wouldn't have fared very well.

Also, many of the early Christians believed that Mary had taken a vow of life-long virginity prior to marriage, and that Joseph was a much older man (perhaps a widower) who had agreed to take her as his wife, solely for the purpose of providing for her and watching over her. Another belief that went along with this one was that Joseph had older children from a prior marriage, and that these children may have been the brothers and sisters of Jesus referred to in the Gospels. Now if we take the Bible as our only source of information, then this is all just speculation. But nothing in this theory contradicts the Gospel accounts, and it actually does a good job of explaining why we hear nothing about Joseph during the years of Jesus's ministry. Also, it seems to be supported by Mary's response to the angel Gabriel in Luke 1:34. After the angel tells her that she will bear a child, she responds as follows:

"'How will this be,' Mary asked the angel, 'since I am a virgin?'" (Luke 1:34, NIV)

This seems like a strange question, coming from a woman who is about to be married. If she were planning on having marital relations with Joseph starting in the near future, then why would she have asked this question?

This whole theory may sound far-fetched to you, but again I would go back to John 19:26-27, where Jesus entrusts Mary into the care of the "beloved disciple". Most Biblical commentators identify this "beloved disciple" as the apostle John, who was a son of Zebedee, and thus not a brother of Jesus. If Mary had other children, wouldn't they have taken care of Mary instead? For example, one of the two apostles named James is referred to as a "brother" of Jesus (see Galatians 1:19) -- would James not have taken care of Mary rather than John, if he were Mary's son?

Also, why does it say sisters, too? Are you saying that sisters means cousin, too? So Jesus had "brothers and sisters", or "cousins and cousins"?

While I hold no opinion on the topic of direct siblings of Jesus (it just doesn't matter to me. . .so why bother trying to decipher that issue), I'd like to warn against making a one -to-one comparison of language.

Since Hebrew is a gendered language (every word has a gender), it is possible for the "brothers and sisters" line to mean "cousins and cousin(e)s" (e added to denote feminine version) by the interpretation of the passage given above, and it would not be repetitive.

It's only redundant in English, where we use the same word (cousin) to denote both genders of relatives, as ours is a much more (but not completely) non-gender-specific language.

Still, my jury is out to lunch, permanently, on the actual issue in debate.

Hmmmm. I wonder how much Philosophical and Theological difference is all a case of semantics. . .

so are you saying that there is a mistake in 99% of the translations when they say "brothers and sisters"? (a simple yes might be good here, since I've read your posts about the translations)

Here's my thing. Why would God use men to write down His Word, and then allow it to be completely screwed by translations?

I'm pretty sure the brother passages in regards to James being Jesus' brother are in fact clear that he was a blood relative and that is widely accepted by many scholars. Jesus had no problem making the distinction between his disciples and his family....so Mary did have children after Jesus and it can't be conceiveable that Joseph and Mary never consumated their union.

I think that [name of other board member]'s point here is a good one [referring to text in orange above]. When you say "cousins (male) and cousins (female)" in English, you are repeating the same word. But I'm pretty sure that in many languages, if you said "cousins (male) and cousins (female)", the two words for "cousins" would be different.

Here's my thing. Why would God use men to write down His Word, and then allow it to be completely screwed by translations?

Well, I don't think that the Bible does get anywhere near "completely screwed" by most translations. But the fact is that when you are translating any text from one language to another (whether it's the Bible or anything else), it is virtually impossible to convey the exact meaning of the original language in the secondary language, including all subtle connotations and shades of meaning. This is because language is not an exact science. Many words have various different shades of meaning, and therefore it is sometimes impossible to find a word in another language that has the exact same meaning as the original word, including all connotations and shades of meaning. And when you get into figures of speech, slang expressions, etc., it can be even harder to find an exact translation in another language.

I think most translations are more than adequate for understanding the vast majority of the Bible, including its most important points. But still, there are certain words and phrases that are hard to translate adequately. And the bottom line is that I believe in the divine inspiration of the Bible, but not the divine inspiration of any particular translation.

In following up on my previous post, I would just like to clarify that my main purpose in arguing this point is not to prove Mary's perpetual virginity from the Bible, but rather to demonstrate that the idea of Mary's perpetual virginity is one legitimate way in which the Bible could be interpreted (and in fact is a way in which many Christians have interpreted the Bible over the centuries -- though admittedly, many Christians have interpreted it the opposite way as well).

Also, I do agree at least to a certain extent with what [name of other board member] said a few posts back, that this question of whether or not Mary remained a virgin after Jesus's birth is of limited importance when compared to other more central doctrines of Christianity.

I just wanted to make that clear, because looking back, I think that the energy that has been expended on this issue might be perceived as outweighing the importance of the issue. :-)

"'How will this be,' Mary asked the angel, 'since I am a virgin?'" (Luke 1:34, NIV)

I don't understand your point on this one. Mary said that to the angel because she wasn't married yet and the angel was telling her you are/or about to become pregnant with God's Son. She knew she hadn't been with any man yet and then later you read where Joseph was going to "put her away quietly" (break off the engagment) so as to not bring her shame. Then as we all know an angel was sent to Joseph to tell him not to dismiss her and that she was about to give birth to God's Son. So I think it's clear why she asked the angel that question....she WAS a virgin at that time!

I don't know how important this issue is in light of other doctrines as you point out but if it is the crux of the theology behind praying to Mary the Virgin Mother then it is very important to a lot of Christians on the board!

It may be an agree to disagree situation here! :-)

I understand where you're coming from. In order to explain the point I was trying to make, I think that it might be helpful to quote the entire exchange between Mary and Gabriel in the first chapter of Luke's gospel:

26: In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee,
27: to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin's name was Mary.
28: The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you."
29: Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be.
30: But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God.
31: You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus.
32: He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David,
33: and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end."
34: "How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?"
35: The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.
36: Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month.
37: For nothing is impossible with God."
38: "I am the Lord's servant," Mary answered. "May it be to me as you have said." Then the angel left her.

(Luke 1:26-38, quoted from the New International Version)

In verse 27, we see that Mary was "pledged to be married" to Joseph. I assume this means that Mary and Joseph planned to be married in the near future. Then in verse 31, the angel Gabriel tells Mary, "You will be with child and give birth to a son...." Mary's reaction in verse 34 is "How will this be ... since I am a virgin?" The angel then goes on to explain how she will conceive a child while still remaining a virgin.

The point that I was trying to make was that the angel said "you will be with child", but the angel did not indicate exactly when this would happen (presumably it would happen soon, but an exact time is not given). So if we assume that Mary and Joseph were planning on having normal marital relations, and if they were planning on getting married soon, then it seems to me that Mary's reaction would have been something more like this:

"OK, I understand the part about conceiving a child -- I assume it will happen in the near future, shortly after I get married. But what does all this other stuff mean, like 'Son of the Most High'?"

It seems to me that her actual response in verse 34 makes more sense if she had no plans to have relations with Joseph, even though they were pledged to be married.

I don't know how important this issue is in light of other doctrines as you point out but if it is the crux of the theology behind praying to Mary the Virgin Mother then it is very important to a lot of Christians on the board!

I don't think it is the crux of that theology -- I think that the two issues are mostly separate.

Now if we take the Bible as our only source of information, then this is all just speculation.

Exactly! It is speculation. Look, we have to start with the Bible. Can we listen and read other people's thoughts and ideas? Yes. Should we consider all points of view? Yes. Should we use someone else's words as the truth? No. The Bible is the truth. What I say or St. Augustine said is just commentary, however good it is. (I'm not comparing myself with him!) The Bible does not comment about a sexual encounter between Joseph and Mary. It never says that Joseph was old or that Mary remained a virgin forever. It does say that Jesus had brothers, separate from his spiritual brothers, and sisters. I don't believe it would say this unless Mary and Joseph had had sexual relations.

I guess I should clarify and say that I think that arguments against Mary's perpetual virginity are speculation too. I can point to a number of verses in the Bible which seem to point to Mary's perpetual virginity, but I can't prove it from the Bible. Similarly, I don't think you can disprove it from the Bible either. My point in saying that it's speculation is that I believe that this is a question which the Bible alone cannot definitively answer. That's why I have been concentrating more on trying to show that Mary's perpetual virginity is consistent with, and not contradictory to, the Bible -- but not entirely trying to prove it from the Bible.

Except it does say that Jesus had brothers and sisters and James the brother of Jesus etc. No one here has convinced me definitively to believe otherwise, using scripture alone.

OK, it's probably best to put this topic to rest then.