In defense of the Catholics . . .
Submitted by Heather on February 18 2000 at 05:10:28
In reply to Re: Origins of this board and a silly question Submitted by F.O.D. on February 18 2000 at 00:19:10
|
. . . the idea that sex was inherently sinful is not what prompts present-day Catholics to suggest that the Virgin Mary was, well, always a virgin. (Heaven only knows what earlier Catholics said; any weapon was good enough to attack sex in the old days.) The idea held by modern Catholics is instead, "Wow! What an incredible birth! Anything else would be an anti-climax!" An alternative theory about Jesus' brothers and sisters was that they were indeed Jesus' brothers and sisters, but by Joseph's first marriage. Joseph isn't mentioned in the later parts of the Gospels, leading early Christians to believe that he was older than Mary and had therefore died before Jesus began his ministry; if so, it's possible that Joseph was married more than once. And here's backing for the cousin theory, from a Catholic handbook: "The Greek word employed is a translation of the Aramaic 'ach,' which is used to express consanguinity [kinsmanship] in varying degrees. . . . It is possible to establish, with reasonable accuracy, that two of the so-called brothers of Jesus were the children of [Mary's] sister. We have only to compare Matt. 13:55, regarding 'Jesus' brethren James and Joseph,' with Matt. 27:58, mentioning 'Mary the mother of James and Joseph,' who, in 27:61 is again referred to as 'the other Mary,' and in John 19:25, as Mary the wife of Cleophas." Frankly, it looks to me as though there's no hard evidence either way. But on purely aesthetic grounds, it's really, really neat to have a saint who gave birth yet never had sex. Heather |