If so, why.
If not, then why would it be wrong for mary to have natural relations with her HUSBAND? (BTW we know she did and she had other kids... the Bible says so).
What is your take on all of this?
2007-07-02 07:59:37 · 21 answers · asked by tlcbaotou 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
James O
In which verse does mary take her vow of celibacy?
Jesus was the first born, he was handing his responsibility down.
2007-07-02 08:14:45 · update #1
tebone0315
This IS very interesting. What verses in the Bible show this?
2007-07-02 08:16:36 · update #2
Actually, sex within marriage between a man and a woman is THE ONLY kind of sexual behavior the Catholic church considers "not sinful".
Of course, Mary could have (and who says she didn't, AFTER Jesus was born) had sexual relations with Joseph. Remember, she is called "Virgin Mary", because she supposedly engendered Jesus without having sex with a man. I haven't read the bible thoroughly, to know for sure whether or not it says there that she didn't ever had sex with her husband, but IMO if she had had, it would have been OK, to Catholic standards, because she and Joseph were husband and wife.
2007-07-02 08:13:03 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, it is not sinful for a man and woman to have sex within marriage.
It would not have been wrong for Mary and Joseph to have sex after they were married, but the fact is that they did not.
If you read the Gospel of James, written in 150 AD, you will read about the life of Mary. Mary was born to a very elderly couple, Anne and Joachim. Similar to Samuel in the Old Testament, Mary was consecrated to God at her birth. She was to remain a virgin all of her life and serve in the Temple. She was betrothed to Joseph an elderly man to serve as her guardian and protector. Joseph already had children (these are the brothers and sisters mentioned in the Bible), so he was willing to remain chaste.
Think about this: When the angel told Mary that she was going to have a child, she was surprised and confused. This reaction does not make sense if she was planning on having a family with Joseph. Her surprise and confusion were because she had intended to remain a virgin even AFTER she was married.
The Gospel of James is not in the Bible because it was not considered necessary for revealing the teachings of Jesus Christ.. There is also nothing in the Bible that tells us who the pharoah of Egypt during the time of Christ was, either, but it is a matter of history.
2007-07-02 15:13:55 · answer #2 · answered by Sldgman 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No Mary did not have other children. The children you refer to were Josephs from his first marriage(his wife died) .Mary remained a virgin her whole life.
When forty years of age, Joseph married a woman called Melcha or Escha by some, Salome by others; they lived forty-nine years together and had six children, two daughters and four sons, the youngest of whom was James (the Less, "the Lord's brother"). A year after his wife's death, as the priests announced through Judea that they wished to find in the tribe of Juda a respectable man to espouse Mary, then twelve to fourteen years of age. Joseph, who was at the time ninety years old, went up to Jerusalem among the candidates; a miracle manifested the choice God had made of Joseph,
2007-07-02 15:09:49 · answer #3 · answered by tebone0315 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No.
+ Marriage +
Marriage is a symbol of God's creation of the world in an act of divine love and self-outpouring.
Marriage is a symbol of the love, commitment, intensity, and passion of Christ for the Church for which He laid down His life.
Christians take sex very seriously because it is a glorious gift from God that lets us feel just a bit like God. We become lovers, givers, and creators.
+ Mary +
It would not be wrong for Mary to have sexual relations with her husband. But they decided as a couple to be celibate because of the miracle God performed in her womb.
+ Jesus' Siblings +
How was James, “the brother of the Lord,” (Matt. 13:55, Acts 15:13-21, 1 Cor. 15:7, Gal. 1:19) related to Jesus. All believers agree he was related, but no one knows exactly how.
The possibilities are that James was:
1. A full brother of Jesus, another Son of God born of the Blessed Virgin Mary. No one to my knowledge accepts that God had another child by the Blessed Virgin Mary.
2. A half-brother of Jesus, a younger son of Joseph and the Blessed Virgin Mary. Some Christians believe this possibility but most Christians including those who are Catholic and Eastern Orthodox believe that Mary remained a virgin for her entire life.
3. A stepbrother of Jesus, a son of Joseph and a previous wife. Many Christians believe that Joseph had a least one previous marriage that resulted in children.
4. A stepbrother of Jesus, an adopted son of Joseph and the Blessed Virgin Mary. When parents died, relatives frequently took their children in and raised them as thier own. An adopted orphaned boy would be considered the brother of Jesus.
5. A cousin of Jesus. The Aramaic language has no word for cousin. Aramaic frequently uses the word “aha,” which we translate into Greek as “adelphos” or English as brother, for cousin.
6. A comrade of Jesus. This is a remote possibility. Greek uses adelphos the same as English does in “a band of brothers.”
Possibilities 1 and 2 obviously go against Catholic beliefs.
The Catholic Church prefers possibility 5 but 3, 4 and 6 would not go against doctrine.
+ With love in Christ
2007-07-03 02:14:10 · answer #4 · answered by imacatholic2 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If sexual relations are not open to procreation through natural means or natural means of conception control, then YES.
Sex in real Christian marriage expresses Matrimony as sacrament and is a channel of Grace.
Mary would be free to have sexual relations with Joseph if she were not previously vowed to celibacy.
"Brethren" can mean any close relation,even friends, and not necessarily the womb -children of Mary.
If she had children,why was she given to John by Jesus at the Cross.
2007-07-02 15:09:07 · answer #5 · answered by James O 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
For any act to be ethical (i.e., not sinful) it has to meet three criteria: (1) the act itself as to be good (or at least not inherently bad), (2) it has to be done with the right motive, and (3) it has to be done under the right circumstances.
God created sex for (at least) two reasons according to the Bible: unity between a husband and wife ("two shall be one flesh") and procreation ("be fruitful and multiply").
Sex is not sinful in and of itself, though sex outside of marriage (adultery, fornication) is always sinful. Sex can be good within marriage, but it is not always good. It can be sinful even within marriage. For example, if someone has the wrong motive such as using sex to manipulate one's spouse. Or if it's done under the wrong circumstances. If either partner has a medical condition that could be made worse by sexual intercourse, then sex would be wrong, even if done with the right motive and within the bonds of marriage. So, sex is good within marriage when done for the right motive (e.g., to promote unity, for procreation) and under the right circumstances.
As to the second question, I don't think the Catholic Church teaches that it would have been sinful for Mary to have had sex with her husband, only that she did not. Sex within marriage is not a sin, but it can easily lead to sin (in motive, for example).
I think there are a couple of theological issues dealing with Mary's sexual purity. First, there is Jesus' miraculous, the teaching that he was "born of a virgin," not conceived in the natural way. That presupposes (minimally) that Mary was sexually pure from (before) the conception through the delivery. But the Church teaches that she was sexually pure after Jesus' birth as well, not just before.
Beyond this, the Church teaches that Mary was spiritually and morally pure (i.e., sinless) herself, indeed that she was the product of "immaculate conception." This does not mean that Mary's mother was a virgin. The Church teaches that she was conceived in the natural way, but that she was preserved from all sin (i.e., did not inherit original sin like everyone else). Thus the Bible calls her "full of grace," which is taken to mean that she was and is free from all sin. The Feast of the Immaculate Conception dates back at least to the 15th century (and may have much earlier origins), and Pope Pius IX declared the Immaculate Conception official dogma in 1854.
It is interesting that so many (not all, but many) "Bible-believing" Protestants insist that all babies are sinless until they reach a certain age--something the Bible NEVER ONCE teaches--yet they refuse to believe that Mary was sinless even though the Bible calls her "FULL of grace."
2007-07-02 15:34:46 · answer #6 · answered by historybuff33 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
sex within a marriage bond is praised by the catholic church.
please site where it says in the bible that mary had other children and also where it says that she was wrong to have natural relations with her husband, because, to my knowledge, it's not in there at all.
2007-07-02 15:05:51 · answer #7 · answered by iamohsotrendy 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
No. God allows it to be a unification and an act of love. Mary and Joseph were not to have those relations because she was to carry the Christ child. She needed to give up those earthly rights so she could truly be blessed with the Holy Spirit.
2007-07-02 15:03:59 · answer #8 · answered by txofficer2005 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Because within the Catholic Church, women can only be 3 things: a Virgin, a Mother or a Whore.
The problem is, a woman cannot be a Mother without being a Whore first (marriage or not), that's why Mary has to remain a virgin, otherwise, that would make Jesus the son of a whore.
Doesn't make sense, I know...
2007-07-02 15:06:41 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋
I'm not Catholic.
But yes the RCC teaches that sex is sin unless its for procreation.
Mary and Joseph had sex after Jesus was born.
They had four sons and at least two daughters. The sons are named in the gospels.
See Matthew 13:55-56 and Mark 6:3
Ignore the footnotes, the footnotes were written by men not God.
Pastor Art
PS: the Gospel of James, written in 150 AD, is a fake and a fraud, which was rejected by the early church as a fake and a fraud, its still rejected today
2007-07-02 15:20:50 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋