A Fundamentalists Challange, Matt1:24 -25

  • Thread starter Thread starter Exporter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Exporter

Guest
Specifically, how do I refute Matt1:v24 - 25. That the Virgin Mary was ever virgin. A Fundamentalist asked me to refute that verse. I know they practice Sola Scriptura and will not listen to any extra-Biblical records auch at the Protoevangelical writtings.

I used Jesus command to John at the cross,“Woman behold thy son…Behold thy Mother”. Yes, Mary had no other son to care for her.

Was Matt1:v 24-25 not understood in the modern world? Luther and Calvin believed that Mary was ever virgin. Please.:hmmm:
 
Matt 1:24 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took his wife, 25 but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus.

The key to understanding this verse is the word “until”. Today we use it to mean that some action did not take place up to a certain time but implies that the action did happen later.

Biblically the word was used only to mean that a certain action did not take place before a certain point; it does not imply that the action did happen later. Here are a few examples:

2Kings 7:23 “Michol the daughter of Saul had no children until the day of her death” Does this mean that she had children after her death?

Gen 8:7 talking about the raven that Noah released from the ark, it says the bird “went forth and did not return till the waters were dried up upon the earth”. We know that the raven never returned at all.

Det 34:6 says that no man knows of the location of Moses’ grave “until this present day”, but we know that no one has known of the location since that day either.

So Matt 1:24 only tells us that Joseph and Mary had not had relations anytime before Jesus was born, giving testimony to the virgin birth. It actually say nothing at all about what happened after. Any honest person will concede this point.
 
Also

Lk 1:34 …how can this vbe
Lk 2:41-51 at 12 Jesus is the only son
Mk 6:3 the son of Mary, not a son of Mary
Mt 13:55-56
Mt 27:56
Jn 19:25 talking about the other Mary, wife of Clopas
Jn 7:3-4 brothers advise like elders - younger siblings would not be allowed to do this
 
The key to understanding this verse is the word “until”. Today we use it to mean that some action did not take place up to a certain time but implies that the action did happen later.
Click to expand...
Actually, it does not always imply later action happening in modern English as well. Consider:

“I have to leave the classroom for a moment. You kids behave until I get back.” Is it implied that the kids may misbehave upon my return?

Here is a web page with more material on that one word than you could possibly ever use: 😃 catholic-legate.com/articles/heosindex.html

Scott
 
40.png
Exporter:
Specifically, how do I refute Matt1:v24 - 25. That the Virgin Mary was ever virgin. A Fundamentalist asked me to refute that verse. I know they practice Sola Scriptura and will not listen to any extra-Biblical records auch at the Protoevangelical writtings.

I used Jesus command to John at the cross,“Woman behold thy son…Behold thy Mother”. Yes, Mary had no other son to care for her.

Was Matt1:v 24-25 not understood in the modern world? Luther and Calvin believed that Mary was ever virgin. Please.:hmmm:
Click to expand...
The other thing to remember is why the passage was presented in the first place. To provide emphasis that Joseph was not the natural father of Jesus.
 
40.png
Exporter:
Specifically, how do I refute Matt1:v24 - 25. That the Virgin Mary was ever virgin. A Fundamentalist asked me to refute that verse. I know they practice Sola Scriptura and will not listen to any extra-Biblical records auch at the Protoevangelical writtings.
Click to expand...
You don’t have to refute Matt 1:24-25, it is Scripture. But you do need to refute your fundamentalist friend’s misunderstanding of it and explain to him his need to understand it correctly in the whole context orf Scripture.

But here is your answer. Go to this link, print it out, give it to your friend and tell him to refute that. Even Luthe and calvin understood it that way as you correctly observed. As him to refute them too.

catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp

Emmaus
 
40.png
Exporter:
Specifically, how do I refute Matt1:v24 - 25. That the Virgin Mary was ever virgin. A Fundamentalist asked me to refute that verse. I know they practice Sola Scriptura and will not listen to any extra-Biblical records auch at the Protoevangelical writtings.
Click to expand...
You don’t have to refute Matt 1:24-25, it is Scripture. But you do need to refute your fundamentalist friend’s misunderstanding of it and explain to him his need to understand it correctly in the whole context orf Scripture.

But here is your answer. Go to this link, print it out, give it to your friend and tell him to refute that. Even Luther and Calvin understood it that way as you correctly observed. Ask him to refute them too.

catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp

Emmaus
 
All Matt 1:25 “he had no union with her until she gave birth…” is saying is Mary was a virgin at the time she gave birth to Jesus. That’s it. It stresses the Virgin Birth of Christ. The same with Matt 1:18 “before they came together…” Two examples of until/before from the Gospels in english with the same meaning:

Luke 1:80 – John the Baptist “lived in the desert UNTIL he appeared publicly to Israel.” Did John stay in the desert? Yes. (cf. Matt 3:1; Mark 1:3-4; Luke 3:2-4)

John 4:49 – “Sir, come down BEFORE my child dies!” Did he die? No. (Yes, eventually but not immediately).

Just means up to a certain point X is true. Does not suggest what happened after that point. Various other translations of Matt 1:25 read:

“He had no relations with her at any time before she bore a son.” (New American Bible)

“he had not known her when she bore a son.” (Knox translation)

That’s the meaning. For more excruciating detail on the Greek phrase see The Heos Hou Central page and articles mentioned above

Phil P
 
Well done! Excellent points on a verse I’ve always wondered about. Thanks! <>< CM
 
I posted this in a different thread earlier today. I hope you find it helpful.

Originally Posted by dave152
*A close, baptist friend of mine told me today that Mary (via Joseph) gave birth to children after Jesus was born.

I refuted this with, “no Mary was ever-virgin”, however I struggle with supporting this belief.

Where does he get this information that Mary gave birth to additional children? Does the bible in some way claim this?

Where might I find some information to supportmy Catholic belief? Obviously, any support though the bible would be most convincing to him.

Thanks!*
Your friend probably bases his belief that Mary had other children on the verses that speak of the “brother and sisters” of Jesus. In reality, these verses neither prove nor disprove the Protestant OR Catholic belief.

If one reads scripture ONLY as a 21st century English speaker, which many Protestants tend to do ("it says “brother” so by golly it means “brother”) one would have to draw the Protestant conclusion. However, if one reads it like a 1st century, Aramaic speaking Jew, one could just as surely conclude that Mary had no children because the word for “brother” was used not only for a sibling. It was also used for half and step-siblings, cousins, uncles and other relationships. For example, some translations have Abraham’s relationship to Lot being that of “brother” when we know that Lot was, in fact, Abraham’s nephew. Also, throughout the NT we see the word “brother” used to refer to the disciples and all Christians. So the point can’t be proven either way simply on the use of the word “brother”. We need to look at other scriptures for clues.

Perhaps the most obvious proof can be found in John 19:27. Jesus left his mother in the care of a non-relative. In the culture of the day, any other sons that Mary had would have been obligated to care for her. It wouldn’t even have been an issue. To leave his mother in the care of a non-relative if there were sons to care for her would simply have been unheard of. Are we to believe that Jesus used his dying breath to horribley insult his brothers? I don’t think so.

In Matt 28:10 and John 20:17 we see Jesus telling Mary Magdelene to “go and tell my brothers” that he was going to the Father and to meet him in Galilee. Who does Mary run and tell in Matt 28:16 and John 20:18? The disciples! Why would Mary run to the disciples when Jesus had specifically said “my brothers” if Jesus really had blood brothers? Well, there are three possibilities:
  1. Mary disobeyed. The very first thing she did after seeing her beloved Lord and Savior was alive was to blatently disobey him. No way. Scrap #1.
  2. Mary was so confused after the shock of seeing Jesus alive that she made a mistake. Maybe. However, Jesus didn’t seem particularly surprised to see the disciples instead of his brothers show up. In fact, his disciples certainly seem to be exactly who he was expecting, in fact who he had wanted to be there. Scrap #2.
  3. Jesus didn’t have any blood brothers. Mary understood him to mean “brothers” in the much broader sense in which the word was commonly used in that time and culture. This is the only viable option.
In Acts 2:14 Luke records that gathered together were “Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers”. OK, so Jesus DID have brothers, right? Well, the very next sentence tells us that those brothers numbered 120 persons!! Is that even humanly possible? If it is all I can say is poor Mary!!

Hope that helps!!

In Christ,
Nancy 🙂
 
Also, let’s not forget Mary’s reply to Gabriel when he tells her she will give birth.
28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 29 Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be. 30 And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God.
31 Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever. 33 And of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34 And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man? (DRV)
Click to expand...
Remember, Gabriel had said nothing at that point about how he would be conceived, he simply said she would bear a child. Her question “how shall this be done?” makes no sense unless she had taken a vow of virginity and did not expect to ever have relations with a man. Otherwise, she would know full well how her conceiving a child “shall be done”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top