E
ealfred
Guest
Thank you Randy for replying.It might appear that way at first, but a closer look reveals more.
Matthew 1:25 – “Until”
Matthew 1:25 does not imply that Joseph knew Mary after she had borne Jesus.
The Greek heôs, “until,” does not necessarily contrast “before” to “after.” It means that up to a certain moment, something happened or not, without considering what happened after that moment. For instance, the Greek text of the Septuagint says, in 2 Samuel 6:23, that “Mikal, daughter of Saul, had no children until (heôs) the days of her death.” This obviously does not suggest that she had children after her death. Matthew is interested in underlining that Jesus’ birth and conception were carried out without the intervention of any man.
Remove the word “until” from the verse, and you have the following:
“Joseph had no relations with her…she brought forth her firstborn”
Two simple statements. Non-Catholics really disagree with the first of these two; therefore, the word “until” is the whole argument.
Either Joseph held off “until” and then proceeded to have relations (the Protestant position) OR Joseph had no relations with her. Period. (the Catholic position).
Naturally, some people argue for a simple reading of the text, but Catholics counter that “until” doesn’t actually imply the cessation of past action (namely, holding off). Although things look intuitively obvious for the non-Catholic point of view, in actual fact, the Catholic position is not harmed at all by the word “until” because that word implies nothing…and other verses in scripture PROVE that point.
Consequently, Matthew 1:25 cannot be used to disprove the perpetual virginity of Mary.
Nope. Here’s why that fails:
Matthew 13:55 – James, Joseph, Simon and Judas
Many non-Catholics seek to deny the Perpetual Virginity of Mary based upon the references to Jesus’ “brothers” as found in passages such as: "Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?” (Matthew 13:55)
Although this appears to be ample evidence to prove that Jesus had brothers and thus that Mary was not ever virgin, the key to explaining this verse is understanding the Greek word for “brethren” (adelphoi) and its feminine counterpart (adelphe). If the Greek words used in this passage connote only siblings, then the Catholic dogma of Mary’s perpetual virginity is false.
However, the word adelphoi has a much broader meaning. It may refer to male relatives that one is not a descendant of and that are not descendant from one (such as a blood brother, step-brother, nephew, uncle, cousin, etc.) or non-relatives such as neighbors, fellow workers, co-religionists, and friends.
Because of this broad usage, we can be sure that the 120 “brothers” in Acts 1:15 did not have the same mother. Neither did Lot and his uncle Abraham, who were called “brothers” (Gen. 11:26-28, 29:15).
The reason relatives were called brothers or sisters was because in Hebrew, there was no word for cousin, nephew, or uncle. So the person was referred to as simply a “brother.” Linguistically, this was far easier than calling the person the son of a mother’s sister. Since the New Testament was written in a dialect of Greek that was heavily influenced by the Semitic culture, many of the Hebrew idioms (like “brother” having multiple meanings) intrude into the Greek text. So, the fact that Jesus had adelphoi does not mean that Mary had other children.
:nope:
Per a proper understanding of what the Bible ACTUALLY says, we see that there is no evidence for your assertion whatsoever.
The Perpetual Virginity is believed by all Christians prior to the protestant movement. Even after that luther supported the dogma. It was calvin who rejected it.