I just read Luke Chapter 1 yesterday, and boy is it full of some interesting details!

1) When Zachariah "said to the angel, 'How will I know that this is so? For I am an old man, and my wife is getting on in years.' 'I am Gabriel. I stand in the presence of God, and I have been sent to speak to you and to bring you this good news. But now, because you did not believe my words, which will be fulfilled in their time, you will become mute,..."

Mary said "to the angel, 'How can this be, since I am a virgin?' The angel said to her, 'The Holy Spirit..."

Now, why is it that Zacharia got punished for his statement, but Mary was not even admonished?

My thoughts are that the angel Gabriel, being in God, knew their thoughts; and while Zacharia's was in disbelief (not believing the Power of God) Mary was merely not in understanding (still believing the Power of God, but not understanding how). What are your thoughts?

2) Also note how Mary said "How can this be since I am a virgin?" That statement, in conjunction with Zacharia's incident are proof of Mary's perpetual virginity. For, when the angel told Mary that she would bare a child, wouldn't Mary think that it would be from Joseph in the future even though she was currently a virgin (like Zacharia knew the Child would be his). In other words, if Mary's intentions were to not be a virgin later, then she might have thought that the angel was talking about the future, after her and Joseph were married! But no, Mary said, "... I am a virgin" not meaning presently (that was obviouse - because she was only betrothed, and sex didn't occur until marriage), but rather perpetually!

This brings a little question to me though, and forgive me for writing so much: If Mary was to be a perpetual virgin, then why was she going to be married? In her heart, as made manifest by this passage, it is clear that Mary's intention was to be a perpetual virgin; yet she was betrothed to Joseph.

My thought: Mary might have been confused as well. Maybe God lead her to Joseph (with the intention to marry him), even though Mary wanted to be a virgin throughout her life. Mary didn't understand God's plan at the time, but when the angel announced to her about Jesus, it must have all just clicked: Mary (and Jesus) needed Joseph (even though she was going to be a virgin) because she would later give birth the Son of God. So that would explain everything. What do you guys think.

I hope I stirred up some good comments. Thanks for your time.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake.huether@lamrc.com), July 02, 2002

Answers

to the top

-- Jake Huether (jake.huether@lamrc.com), July 02, 2002.

Well in the case of Zachariah he lost faith in the way the Lord God works miracles and mary never doubted the power of God. When Zachariah came to believe again in naming his son, John, GOD restored his sight. And Mary her caticle says it all. "I am the handmaid of the LORD".

Blessings.

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), July 02, 2002.

Hi Jake:

Good points! I think concerning why God gave Joseph to Mary and Jesus, is that Mary and Jesus needed an earthly provider, protector, supporter -- a husband. Joseph married Mary in obedience to God. He also probably staved off attackers of Mary. Imagine being a single girl, pregnant, in those times.

Let's not forget, too, that Joseph trained Jesus to be a carpenter (since carpentry was Joseph's train too). So Jesus must have had a remarkable relationship with Joseph.

Love,

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), July 02, 2002.

Hey Jake. A while back I thought of the same question.

"...while Zacharia's was in disbelief (not believing the Power of God) Mary was merely not in understanding (still believing the Power of God, but not understanding how). What are your thoughts?"

Those were my thoughts as well, an emphasis on Mary's concern about having a baby seemingly out of wedlock.

"This brings a little question to me though, and forgive me for writing so much: If Mary was to be a perpetual virgin, then why was she going to be married?"

Because if she was found out to be pregnant out of wedlock, I believe by Jewish law (someone correct me if I'm wrong) she would have been stoned and it would have been back to the drawing board.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 02, 2002.

Yes, God told Joseph to stay with Mary to protect her from certain harm from the crowds and Jesus too from the harm that Herod was to do to new born children out of jealousy of losing power to someone else. Joseph took the new born babe and Mary to Egypt to escape harm til it was safe to return after Herod's death.

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), July 02, 2002.

Jake,

Good questions. As to the first, Zachariah and his wife were (I assume) having relations, but due to their ages she was not becoming pregnant. Zachariah doubted that God could overcome their ages. Hence, his punishment.

For Mary, since she was not having relations, it was not a matter of not believing God's power, but rather asking how it would/could be accomplished.

The second point was well covered by others. Mary needed a husband in order not to be punished for becoming pregnant. Also, St. Joseph was her and Jesus' provider until his death.

-- Glenn (glenn@excite.com), July 02, 2002.

I think its the early church historian, Eusebius, who suggests that Joseph was an old man. If that is true, then that could easily explain why Mary married Joseph without a thought towards consummating the marriage.

Gail

-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), July 02, 2002.

Gail

Yep, you are on to it. God chosed Joseph for he is a wise man with loads of patience and love. God knew that he could depend on Joseph to the right things at the right time and protect Jesus and Mary. And also he was a widower with other children who were grown and later became disciples of our Lord too. How wonderful and clever is our GOD.

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), July 02, 2002.

Jake: Wonderful thread indeed. The issue of Perpetual Virgin I feel relays the image of a Virgin Birth her having beed seeded by The Holy Spirit for those of us who hold to that.

As to the further physical relations with Joseph I feel we have no business whatever looking into that area. As pointed pointed out Joseph " may " have been an older man which I do not hold to for he had to support both mother and son until Christ's Mission began which was we are told at the age of thirty.

The family were on the run literally from the start and an old an would not have been chosen I feel due to simple reality of the hardships to follow.

The raising of an educated son then as now took monies for our first glimpse of Jesus was in the temple at age 12 where He astounded the elders with knowledge. Our next viewing of Him is during His Mission.

For example students of the Torah when examined had the scroll rolled tight and pins then inserted to a depth. The areas that had been punctured through were the examination. I wonder if we could do that these days.

-- Jean Bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), July 02, 2002.

Jean

Now you are bucking church tradition again. It is been clear from the beginning that Joseph was an older man from the beginning of the Church traditions. Why are you so doubtful of a man of age traveling so well. Many have done much better than their younger counterparts only on wisdom alone. Young age has little value over wisdom as older men are much more patient and able to make wise decisions based on a lifetime of knowledge and experience. A younger man may not be as obedient to God and his authority.

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), July 02, 2002.

Gail: "I think its the early church historian, Eusebius, who suggests that Joseph was an old man. If that is true, then that could easily explain why Mary married Joseph without a thought towards consummating the marriage."

I don't know if Joseph was an older man or not; I doubt it, but I'm not concerned about that but instead this: "If that is true, then that could easily explain why Mary married Joseph without a thought towards consummating the marriage." ...Mary would not need any assistance whatsoever with not giving a thought to consummating the marriage; I'm not even sure is as simple as 'not consummating a marriage' either, but that is another topic. Mary's unique redemption would rule out, I believe, any tendency towards temptation in that regard. I don't think it would explain anything.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 02, 2002.

Jean wrote: "The raising of an educated son then as now took monies for our first glimpse of Jesus was in the temple at age 12 where He astounded the elders with knowledge. Our next viewing of Him is during His Mission."

Jean,

Jesus wasn't wise or "educated" due to an expensive education! Rather, it was the Spirit that was in him from the beginning which allowed him to equal if not completely dumbfound the scribes and Pharisees that he taught, even at a young age. Remember Jesus was born a human, but His Spirit was, is, and ever shall be eternal in one with the Father! The Son, in the Spirit, with God, created those "elders" in the temple! How could He not be wiser than them?

Jesus was definitely taught to read the Old Testament Scripture - any one can learn (or be taught) to read; that didn't take much money. Then there is the aspect of studying the scripture; which could take a lot of money. Scholars nowadays I'm sure spend thousands. However, Jesus didn't need schooling to study (and understand) the Scriptures, which He was fulfilling at the time by simply living! Jesus understood the Scripture more purely and more fully than any scholar could ever hope because of his Divine nature. This is why he was so "smart" at age 12 in the temple.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake.huether@lamrc.com), July 02, 2002.

Jake

More thought for you. Jesus was God incarnate and immortally GOD himself before, during, and after his rising from the earth. His knowledge was his word which is the very Scrolls he read as it is his word that he was reading. The word of GOD is he himself who is spoken of in the words of the Old Testament. The WORD is of GOD and Christ is GOD. He DID not have to learn the WORD for the WORD is he himself. All Christ did is teach from the very beginning even at birth. Where do you think he came from? His soul is GOD incarnate and Immortal for nothing was beyond his very grasp. God is and was always the creator of all that is seen and unseen. I AM (GOD)the ALPHA (beginning) and the OMEGA (end). One GOD in Three Persons. Forever. Blessed is the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. One GOD forever.

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), July 02, 2002.

Amen, Fred! Wow, I never thought of it that way. "The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us". Jesus was the Word. The Pharisees and scribes and all the elders were used to reading the Word, now they actually could hear the word! That is why Jesus was so controversial, because when you read (even the Word) it is so much different than actually hearing the Word. When Jesus came, he was actually able to explain Himself (that is the Word written). But those who had read the Word were so used to their interpretation of It, that when It was explained, they withdrew in disbelief. Thanks for that insight, Fred.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake.huether@lamrc.com), July 02, 2002.

You are quite welcome, Jake.

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), July 02, 2002.

Jake

Now you see how the Eucharistic Gifts we give to GO actually become alive and real for it is the WORD in and of itself and the real presence of Christ that we are seeing before our very eyes. He is alive and real though in the form of bread he is actually nourishing us fully. It is really Christ both in WORD and BODY Fully Christ Fully GOD. And the Holy Spirit makes it all happen right before our eyes and in our minds and in our hearts and of course from our lips. How can you possibly miss that? It is the most precious gift GOD gave us, HIMSELF. That is what drives me. His presence is all around us in every imaginable thing we see feel breathe and smell. ALL of it is him. WOW. That is what I have seen for years .........POWER of the real CREATOR---GOD.

Blessings.

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), July 02, 2002.

GO---GOD... The Eucharistic gifts we offer to GOD to become the Body and Blood of Christ. The Eucharist that GOD feeds us with. Nourishment for the soul. For the remission of sins, his blood. What a LOT of LOVE he gives us.

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), July 02, 2002.

My compliments and thanks to all who posted such interesting messages on this thread. JFG

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 02, 2002.

Yes John, these are the types of threads this board needs more of. For myself, I have found many times where I needed help in interpreting Scripture and teachings and this board has helped tremendously.

God Bless everyone!

-- Glenn (glenn@excite.com), July 03, 2002.

The discussion about Mary and Joseph's marriage is a good reminder that there is a lot more to marriage than just "having sex". It is perfectly reasonable, as C.S. Lewis pointed out in "Screwtape Letters," to marry in order to preserve chastity, and also to raise a family. The modern idea that you can only marry if you're "in love" creates a lot of unfulfilled expectations - one reason the divorce rate is so high.

Love,

-- Christine L. (christinelehman@hotmail.com), July 03, 2002.

Fred, you wrote "And also he was a widower with other children who were grown and later became disciples of our Lord too. How wonderful and clever is our GOD."

Where is it stated that Joseph was a widower? Is that Biblical? Just curiouse, becaues I had never known that.

Thanks.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake.huether@lamrc.com), July 03, 2002.

Don't believe it, Jake. In the Litany of the Saints, Holy Mother Church says, ''Blessed be Saint Joseph, {Mary's] her most CHASTE spouse. Joseph was virginal and chaste all his life. He was specially elected to become the spouse of Mary; who is also holy and chaste.

It isn't likely God would give Mary someone else's widower. He had to be the most angelic of men, though not conceived without sin. Nor would God have brought Jesus into the life of Saint Joseph as an afterthought.

The idea was meditated on and investigated by the Church Fathers. But it never became a teaching of the Church that Joseph had ever before been married.

As for being ''biblical'', no tradition has to be written to be true. It has only to trace back to the teachings of the Apostles and their disciples, and therein will have the stamp of truth.

The Holy Spirit has seen fit to preserve the truth in this way since the beginning (Pentecost), and whether that truth is written or not, we accept it on faith. Faith in Him, the Holy Spirit. He is God, who can neither deceive nor be deceived.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), July 03, 2002.

Jake

Again Gene is contesting others. It has been well known that Joseph is a widower and has children of his own from his previous wife. I have known this for some time and there is not one dispute of this fact. If the Church has this knowledge first hand then it is accepted.

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), July 03, 2002.

"It is perfectly reasonable...to marry in order to preserve chastity"

People do this? Man. It would be a lot less expensive and time consuming to buy a good fishing boat instead.

I don't know, Christine L, about what you call the modern notion of 'falling in love'. I don't think it is the modern notion, I think it is the right notion; the natural one the way God made it to be. I wouldn't bother starting up a family if I wasn't in love with someone and attracted to them in the first place.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 03, 2002.

Fred, --You have NO proof of the church having taught Saint Joseph was a widower with or without children. That is an obvious mistake on your part. The Holy Family is seen in the New Testament as comprised of three persons; Jesus, Mary and joseph. Joseph had no other family. He is a member of the Holy Family, not a 2nd family after he was widowed. For the love of God, don't insist on another argument. You're plainly wrong.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), July 03, 2002.

Sorry Gene, but I was led to this fact for many years as the way of proving that Mary concieved only one Child Jesus and that his "Brothers" were those sons of Joseph's from a previous marriage. It was instilled into me for years. From what I have just found out it may have been from an "Apocrypha" of the early years of Christianity that is still unsubstantiated as is written in the Catholic Encyclopedia. Was this a fabrication of heresy? I still am not sure but it is interesting how it still gets around well.

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), July 03, 2002.

Fred,

I, too, was told that Joseph was a widow and an 'old' man when he married Mary. Maybe he wasn't old as we consider old, but much older than Mary. After all, she was a very young girl when she gave birth to Jesus. I also was told that Joseph had children by his previous wife.

I am going to clarify this information with my pastor. I don't know if it is in the Bible.

I also have another question about Joseph. There is not too much information about him, really. Does anyone know when he died? How old was Jesus when he died? Also, how long after Jesus' death did Mary live?

MaryLu

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), July 03, 2002.

Good Questions MaryLu.

Maybe Mary outlived most of the Apostles and this is why her Assumption into Heaven was not Scriptually documented. I hope others have answers.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake.huether@lamrc.com), July 03, 2002.

MaryLu

I am getting tired of this God awful forum as it is being overrun by others who are constantly infiltrating it with heretical heresies and the like. This so called Catholism is becoming a total joke with the kow tos i have to put up with from certain individuals and it will be better if this forum did indeed die and be on with itself.

The so-called leaders in here are just becoming old stuffing with their silly pridefulness and the rest. It has come down to you girls and John G and Chris B whom are trustworthy these days.

I have enjoyed all of the stuff you Gail, Kathy, and even Jake H have done, for you all are so much more easy to reason and listen too. i am tired of this stuff of some so called experts who are to eager to LOVE themselves first and not help others.

Jake Please do me a favor and keep ypouu eyes on Kiwi. I feel that there is a lot of hope for the man as he is confused and needs all the gentleness he can get. He has been an inspiration to me in that I was once in his place many years ago and can see what he is going through.

To all of you May GOD always bless you as you all have done wonders for this forum with all your kind loving ways. Oh yes, Theresa Keep these girls smiling.

Blessings. PS I am not leaving entirely just a breather.

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), July 03, 2002.

Marylu,

I don't believe anyone knows when St. Joseph died. I think the last he was mentioned is finding Jesus in the temple.

Jesus was thirty three when he died. There is not a exact date on Mary's age. The Church has not said if she died on earth or not. You are free to believe that she never died.

St. Bridget has said in private revalations that the Blessed Mother died twelve years after the death of our Lord.(If I rember the years correctly). But you can take that however you want.

David

-- David (David@excite.com), July 03, 2002.

MaryLu

Mary did die a mortal dead like all of us do and she is believed to have lived a long life in the care of John the Apostle and it is believed he also died a natural death too.

Blessing

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), July 03, 2002.

Fred, what about the 4th Glorious Mystery of the Assumption?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 03, 2002.

Jake

If you are referring to Christ assuming the body of his mother after her holy and mortal death so that no mortal stain could be inflicted upon her by others. I am fully aware of that part of the Rosary and have read it many times in the Full Scriptural Rosary of the K of C. It is part of church tradition that Christ who is her earhly son and devine son too would not allow any earthly stain to consume her at her death. She was assumed both body and soul.

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), July 03, 2002.

Fred,

The Church does not teach that Mary died a Mortal death. You can believe that if you want, but please don't push that opinion on anybody!

Maybe you should reconsider leaving the forum? You are mixed up about "Our Lady" in some important facts. I would suggest cutting back forum time about 10 hours a day, but please don't leave>

I 'll make a friendly wager with you on this. If I am right, you leave forum for 1 week. If I am wrong, than you take a break, one week?

I say that Catholics don't have to believe that the "Blessed Mother" died a mortal death. Are we on? This is just a friendly wager.

David

-- David (David@excite.com), July 03, 2002.

David again you are a nutcase. Mary is mortal as youand I are and died a mortal death. GET OVER IT.

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), July 03, 2002.

Jake

I found this thread on the web I thought you might find it interesting. http://www.catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp

It helps to explain some things abot Mary, Joseph and Jesus and Brethren. This is very interesting and full of good info.

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), July 03, 2002.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

St. John of Damascus (P. G., I, 96) thus formulates the tradition of the Church of Jerusalem:

St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened, upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven.

-- Carolyn (FCB@heartland.com), July 03, 2002.

Full text here:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02006b.htm

-- Carolyn (FCB@heartland.com), July 03, 2002.

Sorry, Marylu. I was just trying to help. I am leaving this thread. If Fred wants to slander me, and call me a nutcase, than so be it! I will not try and force what the Sisters of Notre Dame taught me on Fred. He can stick with his KC buddies tell him.

God bless you.

David

-- David (David@excite.com), July 03, 2002.

Carolyn Bishop, I forgot one more thing!

Catholics are free to believe

(1) Mary died, and than was resurected to heaven.

(2) Did not die, and went straight up to Heaven without dying first.

I wish you and Fred would let me teach you what the Catholic Church teaches, not what Fred's buddies tell him. Don't believe everything you read on net! :-)

Have a safe holiday, and God bless you.

David

-- David (David@excite.com), July 03, 2002.

David,
There is an accepted tradition in the Catholic Church which is believed to have resulted from the eye-witness testimony of the remaining apostles and disciples of Our Lord. They were summoned by Saint John to be at Mary's deathbed. She was attended by them in her last hours of life; she died and was assumed into heaven at once. She was not brought back to life, she was assumed upward body and soul, and received by Jesus and the angels and saints into heaven.

This is a dogma of the Church, binding on believers. The account of her earthly death is not insisted upon, but since it is an early Church tradition, Catholics believe it on faith. What is demanded of us is acceptance of the truth of her holy assumption (not resurrection) into heaven --body and soul together.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), July 03, 2002.

Gene,

You are free to believe that Mary died if you want to. (I do) But Catholics are NOT required to believe what you just said!

Therefore, my post is about what the Church teaches a Catholic is free to believe. Do you agree with me on this? I am not talking about my or your personal beliefs.

David

PS; Please read the thread that Kathy pulled up. We are talking about Church teaching!

-- David (David@excite.com), July 03, 2002.

Here's a description of Church teachings on the Assumption from Catholic.com. According to the description, we as Catholics hold as a doctrine that Mary was assumed into Heaven by God. Here is the relevant text:

"Pope Pius XII, in Munificentissimus Deus (1950), defined that Mary, 'after the completion of her earthly life' (note the silence regarding her death), 'was assumed body and soul into the glory of heaven.'"

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), July 03, 2002.

From what I remember reading (sorry, no references), David is correct. We do NOT know if Mary actually died on earth before her Assumption. It is a moot point anyway. After her earthly years were over, her body was brought to Heaven. Whether it was immediately before her death or shortly after is not important.

-- Glenn (glenn@excite.com), July 03, 2002.

Gene,

There are many Catholics that don't believe that Mary died. So, please rember I am talking about Church teachings, Not your personal beliefs.

Are you reading the threads provided? Did you read the link Mateo put up for us?

What is with you and Fred Bishop?

David

-- David (David@excite.com), July 03, 2002.

Glenn,

I agree. It is not important!( But, Gene, and the Bishops are 100 percent wrong) But if I have to correct Fred, Carolyn than I will do.

I love the Blessed Mother, and Eugene is wrong to! Sorry, Gene, but you should know better about Church teachings! Who do you think you are? Do you have a problem rembering old threads with what was said before? Can you back up what you say?

David

-- David (David@excite.com), July 03, 2002.

Now the Catholis Encyclopedia is wrong anf the Church is wrong. I don't think I would want to argue with that at all. Mary was assumed body and soul after her death that is what the Church teaches and the Glorious Mysteries of the Rosary say exactly the same thing too.

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), July 03, 2002.

One day we will find out all the answers, for sure!

BTW, David, I am sorry for wording my question wrong. When I asked how old was Jesus when he died, I meant how old was Jesus when St. Joseph died? I guess no one knows the answer to that because no one seems to know when St. Joseph died.

I know how old Jesus was when He died, but thank you for answering my question. It was misleading.

Good night everyone and have a blessed, fruitful, fun day tomorrow.

MaryLu

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), July 03, 2002.

Gene,

I am sorry for being a little short with you. You have always been respectful to me.

Fred hurt my feelings when he was yelling at me. :-) Please forgive me.

David

-- David (David@excite.com), July 04, 2002.

David,
You didn't upset me. I'm not sure I got my point across:

The account of her earthly death is not insisted upon but since it is an early Church tradition, Catholics believe it on faith. What is demanded of us is acceptance of the truth of her holy Assumption (not resurrection) into heaven --body and soul together. --The Assumption of Mary into heaven as body and soul-- is a dogma. It's a fine line between --body and soul (meaning alive)-- and the soul as well as the body-- not as a living person. Would the Church have bothered to state emphatically, in body and soul-- if it might be more directly said-- alive? Tradition is unclear, but this dogma explains only that Mary's mortal remains did not remain here on earth.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), July 04, 2002.

Thanks, Gino. I appreciate you always being so kind to me! I rember my first couple of days at this forum about 14-15 months ago. I was being beat up by a few regulars. I'll never forget the way you took up for me. :-)

Again, I am sorry for taking out some of my frustrations on you. I will say some xtra prayers for Bertha today. I wish you and your family a happy and safe, and God blessed holiday.

Your friend,

David

-- David (David@excite.com), July 04, 2002.