N
NDfan
Guest
Mickey we can use this thread 
Would you like to open?
PEACE
Would you like to open?PEACE
- Status
C
ckempston
Guest
Count me in.Mickey we can use this thread
PEACE
N
NDfan
Guest
Cool you saw it. Where’s Mickey? We need him.
N
NDfan
Guest
OK I’ll start off. Let’s keep this charitable. How about if we try to decide if Mary and Joseph even had marital relations let alone children?
M
Mickey
Guest
I will participate after a couple days–my Christmas is tomorrow–we are on the Julian calendar.
My apologies. I’m sure you will get ample action until I return.
Peace
My apologies. I’m sure you will get ample action until I return.
Peace
N
NDfan
Guest
Ok thanks Mickey. Merry ChristmasI will participate after a couple days–my Christmas is tomorrow–we are on the Julian calendar.
My apologies. I’m sure you will get ample action until I return.
Peace
Blessings.
R
ralphinal
Guest
Scripture never says that they did…
N
NDfan
Guest
Sure it does. Matthew 1:25.
R
ralphinal
Guest
Nope. Just says that they did not do it before he was born. there is no statement made about after, either way.
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
** How about if we try to decide if Mary and Joseph even had marital relations let alone children?**
**That’s already been decided centuries go.
No to both parts.**
**That’s already been decided centuries go.
No to both parts.**
C
ckempston
Guest
Exactamundo.
But he had no union with her UNTIL she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
Matthew would have been written long after Jesus resurrected and ascended, and presumably he would have interviewed eyewitnesses, perhaps Mary and Joseph themselves. Mary’s status as a perpetual virgin would have been quite clear at this point, so it would make no sense to use language that would suggest otherwise, as Matt 1:25 does.
C
ckempston
Guest
And centuries after Christ, I might add.
R
ralphinal
Guest
So if I say that I will not buy a new gun until I by my new car, can you say for certain that I will buy a gun and when that will occure?
N
NDfan
Guest
Sorry Ralph but this is incorrect. Heos Hou can mean a reversal of the action spoken of. In this case Matthew is confirming that they did not have marital relations until Christ was born.
Let’s go back to the earlier verses of Matthew. Matthew 1:18 clearly tells us that before they came together, meaning before they had marital relations Mary was found with child. As a result of this Joseph assumes Mary has committed adultery which as you know could have resulted in terrible punishment. If you understand the Jewish process of getting married this makes complete sense. Normally if this would happen the woman would be forbidden from having marital relations with another man unless the man initially claiming her virginity gave permission. In this case since we don’t believe Mary had sex with the Holy Spirit she would still be considered a virgin. Joseph not understanding this still contemplates divorce which in a Jewish betrothed arrangement is required to dissolve the contract. It isn’t until the Angel visits him to let him know the baby is from the Holy Spirit and that it’s Ok for him to move forward with the wedding. The difference now is that Joseph would be claiming Jesus as his own which is what GOD wanted anyway.
Given that Matthew was writing primarily to Jews it makes sense that he would clear this up so no one would question Joseph’s actions. Under the Jewish law a betrothal normally would last for 12 months during which the husband would prepare so to speak. Sex usually was not part of the equation because that meant you were officially married and the betrothal contract could not be reversed or canceled or destroyed.
Now given Mary became pregnant probably several months into the betrothal, at the one year point when the groom would normally take home the bride and consummate the marriage, she would still be pregnant. So Matthew is basically clarifying for us that although Joseph moved forward with marriage, he did not have marital relations with Mary at the one year point because she would still be pregnant. They waited until Christ was born. Therefore in this instance when taking the entire context of the verse into consideration, heos hou does mean reversal of action.
Incidentally there was an old argument that stated heos hou always meant reversal which, sorry Protestants, is false. Then many considered heos and heos hou to be equal. Heos confirms a state up until the time stated but does not confirm or deny a continuation afterward. Heos Hou can certainly confirm a reversal of the condition. Examples would be Matthew 5:25 with regard to not getting out of jail until the last penny is paid and Matthew 17:9 with regard to the transfiguration. Heos Hou has to be interpreted with the rest of the verse(s) to derive a reversal or continuation. In the case of Matthew 1:25 a reversal is in line because of the statement made in 1:18. Matthew gives the reader every reason to believe this was a normal betrothal with the intent of Joseph and Mary to have children.
PEACE
N
NDfan
Guest
The intent of the thread was to have a friendly charitable discussion which spawned from another. Maybe to the RC the matter was decided but scripture does not support it. That’s the intent of the post is to debate what we feel scripture is saying.
R
ralphinal
Guest
I understand the logic. Now, if Matthew says what you claim he says, is this confirmed in any other Gospel?
Is the same word used when discussing Mical in Samuel, who had no children UNTIL the day of her death?
N
NDfan
Guest
Ralph no not for certain as you could easily change your mind. But if you made that statement to me my expectation is that once you got a new car a new gun would be next, or the matter would be under consideration. There’s no reason for me to believe otherwise.
If I said to you I’m not eating until noon. Does that mean I’m not eating after noon
No you would fully expect that at noon or shortly after I would be partaking in a meal.
R
ralphinal
Guest
In both of these examples, the issue to be done later is up to us. What about another one?Ralph no not for certain as you could easily change your mind. But if you made that statement to me my expectation is that once you got a new car a new gun would be next, or the matter would be under consideration. There’s no reason for me to believe otherwise.
If I said to you I’m not eating until noon. Does that mean I’m not eating after noon
Perhaps the man who will not wed until he graduates from college. Can we say for sure that he will ever wed? No, because the matter is not up to him alone.
Based on historical evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls, there was an understanding of people who were married though they had taken a vow of chastity. These people would not have relations within marriage. Granted, these people were essens, but since there is some reason to think that John was, it is possible that other members of his family were as well.
N
NDfan
Guest
Well the only way to confirm Samuel is to look at what the original Hebrew states and then try to take that to the Greek equivalent. This is where the argument from the Septuagint comes into play and the same argument Jerome used against Helvidius.
It’s easy to see the writer intended for us to understand that Mical had no children as long as she lived. It’s the same as saying I will not eat candy until I die. Not that I will eat candy after I die although if candy is in Heaven than great
But it is a confirmation that I will not eat candy while I’m alive. The difference is the time frame established which is what made Jerome’s argument so poor. It’s not an equal comparison to Matthew 1:25 as the condition of not having marital relations was due to cease once Christ was born. If Matthew wanted to tell us that Mary and Joseph never had marital relations he would said it another way.The point of M 1:25 is not to confirm Mary’s perpetual virginity, but to confirm that she was indeed a virgin at the time of her delivery of Christ. This was to keep in line with the prophecy. Not that she was a perpetual virgin as this has nothing to do with the prophecy. After Christ was born there was no reason for Mary to remain a virgin unless she had taken a vow to do so. Scripture never records this and in fact the only place we ever see it mentioned is in the Infancy Gospel of James as it is sometimes called. But this work was never accepted as authentic and never used for teaching in the early church. It literally contradicts Matthew.
R
ralphinal
Guest
Alright. NOw is this supported in the other Gospels or is it a one-time statement?Well the only way to confirm Samuel is to look at what the original Hebrew states and then try to take that to the Greek equivalent. This is where the argument from the Septuagint comes into play and the same argument Jerome used against Helvidius.
It’s easy to see the writer intended for us to understand that Mical had no children as long as she lived. It’s the same as saying I will not eat candy until I die. Not that I will eat candy after I die although if candy is in Heaven than great
The point of M 1:25 is not to confirm Mary’s perpetual virginity, but to confirm that she was indeed a virgin at the time of her delivery of Christ. This was to keep in line with the prophecy. Not that she was a perpetual virgin as this has nothing to do with the prophecy. After Christ was born there was no reason for Mary to remain a virgin unless she had taken a vow to do so. Scripture never records this and in fact the only place we ever see it mentioned is in the Infancy Gospel of James as it is sometimes called. But this work was never accepted as authentic and never used for teaching in the early church. It literally contradicts Matthew.
- Status