Brothers of Christ for Mickey

[NDfan]

In both of these examples, the issue to be done later is up to us. What about another one?

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.

I agree. But we would both expect that marriage could be on the table after college. What we wouldn’t expect is for this individual to get married while in college.

But let’s look at the use of heos hou in matthew 5 with regard to the jailer. It states that you will not get out of jail until the very last penny is paid. So once the last penny is paid will you get out of jail? Of course because the condition is set as a reversal of the clause. This is what makes heos hou different than heos. Heos would be more correct to use in the examples we provided given that a continuation of the clause after the condition ending cannot be confirmed. But it certainly cannot be denied either.

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.

Yes but Mary was not an Essene she was from the tribe of Judah and it’s believed her family and Josephs followed the Maccabean tradition which remained very strict to the law. When you say John do you mean John the Apostle? My recall on that is terrible.

 

[NDfan]

Alright. NOw is this supported in the other Gospels or is it a one-time statement?

Sorry Ralph forgot to answer that. When you say a one-time statement are you referring to Matthew 1:25 being stated somewhere else? Or just support for heos hou?

 

[ralphinal]

Sorry Ralph forgot to answer that. When you say a one-time statement are you referring to Matthew 1:25 being stated somewhere else? Or just support for heos hou?

More proof that they had sex.

I am trusting you on heos hou.

 

[NDfan]

More proof that they had sex.

I am trusting you on heos hou.

Well as you know there is no other place in scripture that covers the relationship of Mary and Joseph like Matthew. So the answer is no. But really we don’t see much about Joseph at all outside of Matthew.

I think the bigger point is that from Matthew 1:25 we can establish there was a possibility Joseph and Mary had marital relations. It’s not an emphatic interpretation that they did not. If they did then the possibility of having children exists. I don’t think the absence of Mary and Joseph’s sex life in other places of scripture proves that sex didn’t exist.

I think the next place to look in trying to validate whether they did or didn’t is reading and interpreting the supposed brothers and sisters of Christ. What do you think?

I need to run. Will be back later.

Blessings brother

 

[ralphinal]

Well as you know there is no other place in scripture that covers the relationship of Mary and Joseph like Matthew. So the answer is no. But really we don’t see much about Joseph at all outside of Matthew.

I think the bigger point is that from Matthew 1:25 we can establish there was a possibility Joseph and Mary had marital relations. It’s not an emphatic interpretation that they did not. If they did then the possibility of having children exists. I don’t think the absence of Mary and Joseph’s sex life in other places of scripture proves that sex didn’t exist.

I think the next place to look in trying to validate whether they did or didn’t is reading and interpreting the supposed brothers and sisters of Christ. What do you think?

I need to run. Will be back later.

Blessings brother

I was about to go as well. I have no issue moving on, so long as we both agree that this is not undeniable proof. I think that we do.

Besides, there is the old standby that if it is not covered at least by two or more verses, it is up for interpretation…

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Mickey we can use this thread Would you like to open?

PEACE

As in Mouse, Rooney, or some other ?​

 

[jimmy]

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.

The word ‘until’ does not suggest otherwise. It could be said that the US opposed the Nazis until the end of WWII. This doesn’t imply that after the end of the war they all of a sudden became supporters of the Nazis.

 

[fbl9]

this isn’t from scripture but it seems a logical agruement to me.(possibly only me)…We know St.Joseph is described as an upright man.WE know that God sent visions to him regarding the child Mary was carrying,in fact St.Joseph was told that Mary had concieved by the Holy Spirit.We know that an upright man has reverence for God.So what God fearing man would be so bold as to place through the same gate that God Himself has passed through…
Honestly put yourself in St.Joseph’s shoes for a bit here.Would you be willing to have marital relations with the mother of your God.

 

[believers]

Jesus had siblings. It does say it in scripture. "my mother’s children" Psa 69:4-9

Luk 24:44
And he said unto them, These [are] the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and [in] the prophets, and [in] the psalms, concerning me.

Jesus quotes the Psalms 69:4-9

Jhn 15:25
But [this cometh to pass], that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.

Psa 69:4
They that hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of mine head: they that would destroy me, [being] mine enemies wrongfully, are mighty: then I restored [that] which I took not away.

Jhn 2:16-17
And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise. And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.

Psa 69:9
For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me.

Psa 69:4-9
Psa 69 (4) They that hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of mine head: they that would destroy me, [being] mine enemies wrongfully, are mighty: then I restored [that] which I took not away. (5) O God, thou knowest my foolishness; and my sins are not hid from thee. (6) Let not them that wait on thee, O Lord GOD of hosts, be ashamed for my sake: let not those that seek thee be confounded for my sake, O God of Israel.(7) Because for thy sake I have borne reproach; shame hath covered my face. (8) I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother’s children. (9) For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me.

 

[Canto]

So did Mary and Joseph have sex?

It was natural for Mary and Joseph to have sex

True, ordinarily. But even in the Old Testament God asked married couples to refrain from intercourse for various reasons. For example, the priests of the temple had to refrain from intimacy with their wives during the time of their service. Likewise, Moses had the Israelites abstain from intercourse as he ascended Mount Sinai (Ex. 20:15). There is a theme here of refraining from marital rights because of the presence of something very holy.

God’s ways are not like our ways (Is 55:8–9). When the Second Person of the Trinity is in your wife’s womb, you can expect to have a different marriage than most folks!

Interestingly, according to Jewish law, if a man was betrothed to a woman and she became pregnant from another, he could never have relations with her. The man had to put her away privately or condemn her in public and put her to death. Joseph chose the more merciful option.

Then, the angel told him to lead her into the house as a wife (paralambano gunaika), but the language that describes marital relations is not used here. It was used, however, in Luke 1:35: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.” To “overshadow” a woman was a euphemism for having a marital relationship, as was the phrase “to lay one’s power” over a woman. The Holy Spirit had espoused Mary, and she had been consecrated, set apart for God.

• Jason Everet (from an article he wrote)

Matthew 1:26 knew her not

The Greek until (not the English) means up to a point in time and not after. So up til the birth of Christ Mary and Jospeh did not have sex with no implication they did afterward.

Matthew 28:20 says that Christ will be with us until the end of time. When the end of time comes will Christ no longer be with us?

Matthew 13:55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brothersJames, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude…

They are not his blood brothers
The verse says son singluar not plural
Only Jesus is called a son of Mary or Jospeh - no one else

Brothers in Hebrew and Aramaic could mean cousin or close family friend. When the OT was put in greek cousins etc were still refered to as brothers and this tradtion continued into the NT.

In Genesis 14:12 (Hebrew and Greek) Lot is referred to as the son of Abram’s brother but two verses later Lot is referred to as Abram’s brother.

In Acts Ch1 we read of 11 Apostles and the Mother of Jesus and his brothers in the upper room. We are told they numbered 120. Take away Mary and the Apostles and it leaves 108.

Mary had 109 children over 30 odd years. I don’t think so.

**Psalm 69:8 I am become a stranger to my brothers, and an alien to the sons of my mother. **

Is this about Mary becuase a few verse earlier…

69:5 O God, it is You who knows my folly, And my wrongs are not hidden from You.

What follies and wrongs did Jesus have?

How can this be since I do not know man

Mary would have know how babies are made
She would have been under the assumption that she whould have to hve sex with Joseph
But having made a vow of virginity to the Lord she asks how?

 

[Canto]

stand fast and hold the traditions which you have learned whether by word OR by our epistle - 2 Thess 2:14

In “THE PERPETUAL VIRGINITY OF BLESSED MARY” A.D. 383 St Jerome against Helvidius wrote…

“2. I must call upon the Holy Spirit to express His meaning by my mouth and defend the virginity of the Blessed Mary. I must call upon the Lord Jesus to guard the sacred lodging of the womb in which He abode for ten months from all suspicion of sexual intercourse. And I must also entreat God the Father to show that the mother of His Son, who was a mother before she was a bride, continued a Virgin after her son was born. We have no desire to career over the fields of eloquence, we do not resort to the snares of the logicians or the thickets of Aristotle. We shall adduce the actual words of Scripture. Let him be refuted by the same proofs which he employed against us, so that he may see that it was possible for him to read what is written, and yet to be unable to discern the established conclusion of a sound faith.”

St Augustine
15:5 On Marriage and concupisence 419 AD

"[5] …as the heretic Jovinian did, when the holy bishop maintained the permanent virginity of the blessed Mary even after child-bearing, in opposition to this man’s [Jovinian the heretic] impiety.

Holy Virginity 4:4 A.D. 401

“In being born of a Virgin who chose to remain a Virgin even before she knew who was to be born of her, Christ wanted to approve virginity rather than to impose it. And he wanted virginity to be of free choice even in that woman in whom he took upon himself the form of a slave”

Heresies 56 A.D. 428

“Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband”

St Ambrose
2:6 To Marcellina his sister – Concerning Virgins Book II 377 AD

"6. LET, then, the life of Mary be as it were virginity itself, set forth in a likeness, from which, as from a mirror, the appearance of chastity and the form of virtue is reflected. From this you may take your pattern of life, showing, as an example, the clear rules of virtue: what you have to correct, to effect, and to hold fast. "

Letters 63:111[A.D. 388]

“Imitate her [Mary], holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of material virtue; for neither have you sweeter children [than Jesus], nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son”

St Thomas Aquinas
Summa Theolgica Question 28. The virginity of the Mother of God

“We must therefore simply assert that the Mother of God, as she was a virgin in conceiving Him and a virgin in giving Him birth, did she remain a virgin ever afterwards.”

St Origen
Commentary on Matthew 2:17 A.D. 248

“Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the firstfruit of virginity”

St Athanasius
Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 A.D. 360

“Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary”

St John Chrysostom
Gospel of Matthew A.D. 370. talking about he knew her not til…

"And when he had taken her, he knew her not, till she had brought forth her first-born Son.’ He hath here used the word till,’ not that thou shouldest suspect that afterwards he did know her, but to inform thee that before the birth the Virgin was wholly untouched by man. But why then, it may be said, hath he used the word, till’? Because it is usual in Scripture often to do this, and to use this expression without reference to limited times. For so with respect to the ark likewise, it is said, The raven returned not till the earth was dried up.’ And yet it did not return even after that time. And when discoursing also of God, the Scripture saith, From age until age Thou art,’ not as fixing limits in this case. And again when it is preaching the Gospel beforehand, and saying, In his days shall righteousness flourish, and abundance of peace, till the moon be taken away,’ it doth not set a limit to this fair part of creation. So then here likewise, it uses the word “till,” to make certain what was before the birth, but as to what follows, it leaves thee to make the inference.”

St Basil
Homily In Sanctum Christi generationem, 5 ante A.D. 379

“The friends of Christ do not tolerate hearing that the Mother of God ever ceased to be a virgin”

 

[mardukm]

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.

That’s the problem with Protestantism. You don’t have any appreciation for the history of the early Church. Papias, writing around the turn of the first century, who was a colleague of Polycarp (yes, the very one who knew St. John himself) explained that the “brothers” of the Lord were really his cousins, the sons of Mary’s relatives.

As John Henry Newman stated, to know history is to cease being Protestant.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

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.

So just because the Church does not accept something as inspired means that it cannot be accepted as a historical document.:banghead:

The only thing that is in contradiction here is the witness of history and your own fallible interpretation of Scripture.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ckempston]

More proof that they had sex.

I am trusting you on heos hou.

Luke 2:7 she gave birth to her firstborn, a son.

The existence of a firstborn, at the very least, implies the existence of some born after.

Also of interest is the Temple scene during Jesus’ youth. You would hardly expect a mother to misplace a single child and not notice he was gone, unless she was busy looking after others.

 

[mardukm]

Luke 2:7 she gave birth to her firstborn, a son.

The existence of a firstborn, at the very least, implies the existence of some born after.

In semitic culture, “Firstborn” ONLY refers to the one who opened the womb. THAT’S IT. It does not imply anything of a second-born, third-born, etc, etc,

Also of interest is the Temple scene during Jesus’ youth. You would hardly expect a mother to misplace a single child and not notice he was gone, unless she was busy looking after others.

She didn’t misplace him. He walked away. She could have been busy shopping (seriously, this scenario actually happened to me when I was a small child). What makes you think she was busy taking care of other kids?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ckempston]

That’s the problem with Protestantism. You don’t have any appreciation for the history of the early Church. Papias, writing around the turn of the first century, who was a colleague of Polycarp (yes, the very one who knew St. John himself) explained that the “brothers” of the Lord were really his cousins, the sons of Mary’s relatives.

As John Henry Newman stated, to know history is to cease being Protestant.

Blessings,
Marduk

First off, 400 years after Christ for the first explicit “witness” that Mary was a perpetual virgin is hardly convincing.

Secondly, half of it is hearsay. The works of Papias are virtually non-existent.

 

[NDfan]

The word ‘until’ does not suggest otherwise. It could be said that the US opposed the Nazis until the end of WWII. This doesn’t imply that after the end of the war they all of a sudden became supporters of the Nazis.

Jimmy you need to re-read my posts to Ralph as I explained this completely from the Greek perspective.

And no it does not mean that the US stopped opposing the Nazis. But if I told you that I wasn’t going to eat until noon you would fully expect me to be eating sometime thereafter. Your example is not relevant considering the use of the heos hou greek.

 

[mardukm]

First off, 400 years after Christ for the first explicit “witness” that Mary was a perpetual virgin is hardly convincing.

I don’t think St. Ireneaues was “400 years after.” Certainly, Papias was not “400 years after.” St. Athanasius was only 300 years after.

The works of Papias are virtually non-existent.

Fortunately for us, the one I read was not one of the “non-existent one.” It was contained in the Ante-Nicene Fathers series.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[NDfan]

this isn’t from scripture but it seems a logical agruement to me.(possibly only me)…We know St.Joseph is described as an upright man.WE know that God sent visions to him regarding the child Mary was carrying,in fact St.Joseph was told that Mary had concieved by the Holy Spirit.We know that an upright man has reverence for God.So what God fearing man would be so bold as to place through the same gate that God Himself has passed through…
Honestly put yourself in St.Joseph’s shoes for a bit here.Would you be willing to have marital relations with the mother of your God.

FBL you are trying to speak for Joseph comparing what you know now. We need to keep it relevant to the events of that time. If we stay strict to the Greek and understand the Jewish betrothal which is what Ralph and I are discussing, we find that the use of the word heos hou in matthew 1:25 can be suggestive of a reversal especially when coupled with what we are told in Matthew 1:18. At one time protestants tried to argue that heos hou always meant a reversal of the prior condition. We find that simply is not true. But there plenty of instances where it does suggest a reversal and can be gleaned when considering other passages or from the text itself.

A good example is Matthew 18:30.

And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till (heos hou) he should pay the debt.

Obviously we see here that as soon as the debt is paid the man will be freed from jail.

Your personal feelings about Joseph not having marital relations with Mary are irrelevant. Not intending that in a disrespectful way.

 

[mardukm]

I don’t think St. Ireneaues was “400 years after.” Certainly, Papias was not “400 years after.” St. Athanasius was only 300 years after.

Fortunately for us, the one I read was not one of the “non-existent one.” It was contained in the Ante-Nicene Fathers series.

So basically what we have is a continuous Tradition of the Church versus the novel interpretations of Protestants over 1600 years after the birth of Christianity (heck, even the first Reformers believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity!)

Blessings,
Marduk