BellaOnline Forums Religion and Spirituality Catholicism Mary

Although I was rasied Catholic I have one question about a teaching that no one seems to be able to explain to me. Why is it SO important to the Cathholic Church that Mary (the mother of Jesus) was a virgin throughout her life?

The Bible implicitly states that Jesus had brothers and sisters. How did they ever come to the conclusion that even though the Bible says this we are not supposed to believe it? I had a priest tell me once that the Bible was talking about "spiritual brothers and sisters". To me, if that is what was meant, it would have said so. Didn't Jesus once say to his followers "If it were NOT true I would have told you"?

If Mary was not a virgin, there would be a lot of doubt about the Immaculate Conception. For Mary to remain a virgin means there were no siblings. This means the focus remains on Jesus. Imagine how the dynamics of the Bible would possibly be altered if Mary had loose morals or other children. There would be no miracle of the Immaculate Conception, which means Jesus would not have been viewed as the Son of God. The churches would not have much of a congregation.

But how could the dynamics of the Bible be any different? It specifically DOES speak of Jesus as having brothers and sisters! More than once. To ME it seems changed to say that there were no other siblings. That does not speak of loose morals, only of a married woman and her husband having more children.

What I meant is..If Mary were not a Virgin, the Immaculate Conception would not be believed. People would not believe Jesus is the Son of God, Herod would not be searching everywhere for Jesus, they would not have had to flee into Egypt, Christmas might just be a cold day that we spend too much money on, and not the celebration of Jesus's birth. Have you asked a Priest your question? I am going to, because now I am very curious to find out what he will say about this matter. The problem is, everyone might have a different opinion. They always do. Regarding Dynamics, if people did not believe Jesus was the Son of God, it would not have been part of the Bible. Imagine the Bible without any mention of Jesus or any of the events that took place during his lifetime. Or his crucifixion or Ascension. Right now I am reading The Gospel of Judas, it is fascinating.

If you do not get the same answer that I did, please let me know.

To me it almost seems to touch on "Mary Worship" to contradict what the Bible says about something just to be able place Mary on some higher level than she actually was.

As an example, it was told to me by a Muslim friend that the authors of the Bible deliberately wrote the story of Abraham, Isaac and Ishamel incorrectly. That actually it was Ishmael who was supposed to have been the natural successor of Abraham, and not Isaac. But that the Jewish writers deliberately changed the story around.

They claim some things in the Bible are true, as in the Virgin Birth, but claim that things they do not want to believe have been fabricated, as in it was not actually Jesus on the Cross (to refute the claim that he died and rose from the dead).

I know that was off topic but I am just using to enhance what I am saying about claiming the Bible is the Word of God, then changing it around to suit their own beliefs!

I understand what you are saying. I myself feel, human nature being what it is, that some of the people that have written parts of the Bible may have been a little creative, for lack of a better word, written things a bit differently than originally intended. For whatever reason. Maybe one day we will know the answer. I will let you know what I glean from others.

Some say that brothers and sisters mentioned in the Bible are extended family. Often you hear people refer to members of the church as brothers and sisters even though they are not related.

That is true, but the Bible specifically names them as being his "brothers and sisters". Not his "spiritual brothers and sisters".

Is ANYONE else in the Bible, that we know wasn't actually related to Jesus called that?

In ancient Israelite culture, the term "brothers" was used to refer to cousins and other relatives, not just siblings. In Genesis 13:8 and 14:16, Lot is called the "brother" of Abram, yet 11:27 indicates that Lot was actually Abram's nephew. In Genesis 29:15, Laban calls Jacob his "brother", though Jacob was his nephew (see Gen 28:2). In Leviticus 10:4, Moses calls Nadab and Abihu the "brethren" of Mishael and Elzaphan, while that very same verse describes them as first cousins once-removed. In I Chronicles 23:21-22, the word "brethren" clearly refers to cousins.

Scripture has more such examples, but these four sufficiently illustrate the broad usage of the term "brother" or "brethren" in the Bible.

Now, though the Bible speaks of Jesus' "brothers" and "sisters", nowhere does it actually call them children of Mary and Joseph. Jesus alone is called "the Son of Mary" (Mark 6:3), a phrase which in that culture denoted the only child of a widow. And Mary is always called simply "the mother of Jesus", never "the mother of Jesus, James, Joses, Simon, Judas and their sisters" or anything like that.

In fact, Saint Mark tells us that two of these "brother", James and Joses, had another mother, Mary the wife of Cleophas (Mark 15:40). That also indicates that they were not Jesus' half siblings or sons of the Blessed Virgin.

I was raised Catholic too and I understand that this statement does not refer to literal siblings. Wouldn't that be a can of worms!

Perhaps more puzzling to me is the strange situation in Genesis where Cain knows his wife - who was never mentioned as being born. If we assume that Adam and Eve had a daughter that wasn't mentioned, that would be Cain's sister - incest. Perhaps God created other people who were never mentioned besides Adam and Eve?

Who was Cain's wife?