Did saint Mary get married to Joseph?

[TheBreak]

English is not my first language, so I apologize for any misspellings.

IN book of Matthew chapter 1: 25 said “But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son”

Does that mean that saint Mary got married to Joseph after she gave birth to the lord?

 

[PaulfromIowa]

It means that they had no sexual relations, that is, that Jesus was a Virgin Birth.

Joseph and Mary were married.

 

[TheBreak]

It means that they had no sexual relations, that is, that Jesus was a Virgin Birth.

Joseph and Mary were married.

Oh, so according to the Catholic faith, Mary and Joseph had sexual relation AFTER the birth of Jesus. Because before, I thought that according to the catholic faith, Mary never ever had any sexual relation even after she gave birth to Jesus.

 

[followingtheway]

Oh, so according to the Catholic faith, Mary and Joseph had sexual relation AFTER the birth of Jesus.

No.

Because before, I thought that according to the catholic faith, Mary never ever had any sexual relation even after she gave birth to Jesus.

You were right the first time.

To answer your question, yes, Mary did marry Joseph.

 

[BA11]

No.

You were right the first time.

To answer your question, yes, Mary did marry Joseph.

Sounds like Joseph got a raw deal

 

[chero23]

Sounds like Joseph got a raw deal

No I think he got a great deal , he married an outstanding lady. He married the mother of God, he was our Lords JesusChrist father here on our earth, and married the mother of everyone on earth. I think he won by a long shot.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

No I think he got a great deal , he married an outstanding lady. He married the mother of God, he was our Lords JesusChrist father here on our earth, and married the mother of everyone on earth. I think he won by a long shot.

Very well said!

St. Joseph wasn’t “tricked” into a celibate marriage by any means. It is conjectured by many Fathers and Theologians that St. Joseph and the Virgin Mary had a mutual pledge of virginity. They were both committed to perpetual virginity even before they met. This would explain the Virgin Mary’s acceptance of St. Joseph, and St. Joseph’s attraction and love for the Virgin Mary. They were both Holy in the deepest sense of the word. This would also explain much in the Gospel story. Many Saints and Visionaries have likewise claimed this perpetual virginity on the part of both the Virgin Mary and St. Joseph.

 

[BA11]

No I think he got a great deal , he married an outstanding lady. He married the mother of God, he was our Lords JesusChrist father here on our earth, and married the mother of everyone on earth. I think he won by a long shot.

And was, supposedly, robbed of the great gift God gave to husbands and wives.

Once we sit down and think about it, it not only seems illogical God would deprive them of such but wholy unbiblical.

 

[TeenageConvert]

Oh, so according to the Catholic faith, Mary and Joseph had sexual relation AFTER the birth of Jesus. Because before, I thought that according to the catholic faith, Mary never ever had any sexual relation even after she gave birth to Jesus.

Nope. The Virgin Mary remained a virgin her entire life. Don’t worry, English is a stupid language…the “until” doesn’t really mean that they had sex after Jesus was born. It’s like saying Jesus will be with you until the end of the age…the until doesn’t mean he will cease to with you after the end, but it’s an odd way of expressing it. So you were correct the first time

 

[ALLGIRLS]

And was, supposedly, robbed of the great gift God gave to husbands and wives.

Once we sit down and think about it, it not only seems illogical God would deprive them of such but wholy unbiblical.

Because a life without sex isn’t worth living. Whatever. It’s been 2000 of Church teaching that Mary was a virgin before AND after the birth of Christ. 1st century Jews didn’t see sex the way our oversexed culture does. Women were “unclean” during and for 7 days after their mensrual periods, and for a LONG time after the birth of a child (not sure how they felt about sex during pregnancy. I don’t recall reading any rules about that in Leviticus). There wasn’t a whole lotta sex going on in the average Jewish marriage (which I like to tell folks who insist that can’t possible use NFP, because they have sex everyday!).

In Christ,
Ellen

 

[BA11]

Nope. The Virgin Mary remained a virgin her entire life. Don’t worry, English is a stupid language…the “until” doesn’t really mean that they had sex after Jesus was born. It’s like saying Jesus will be with you until the end of the age…the until doesn’t mean he will cease to with you after the end, but it’s an odd way of expressing it. So you were correct the first time

Granting this shaky premise, it still doesnt explain Jesus’ siblings called by name (and The brother/cousin argument doesnt hold up to the original Greek text as it does elsewhere in the bible). It doesnt explain the bible describing Jesus as their “first” child. It doesnt explain Jesus " becoming an alien to his own mother’s sons". It doesnt explain the multiple other contextual scriptural holes.

 

[ALLGIRLS]

Granting this shaky premise, it still doesnt explain Jesus’ siblings called by name (and The brother/cousin argument doesnt hold up to the original Greek text as it does elsewhere in the bible). It doesnt explain the bible describing Jesus as their “first” child. It doesnt explain Jesus " becoming an alien to his own mother’s sons". It doesnt explain the multiple other contextual scriptural holes.

The Bible DOES NOT say He was her “first child.” It says He was her “firstborn son.” A “firstborn son” is simply the son that “opened the womb”, it’s a religious designation, it doesn’t mean that any other children came after that. And I don’t recall anyone besides Jesus referred to as “children/sons of Mary” (And yes, despite being Catholic, I’ve read all 4 Gospels many, many times). You must be reading a really loosy-goosy translation.

The ones “called by name” are actually sons of other women, also “called by name”. It’s been explained many times on this website (look in the “ask an apologist” section). “Brother” was a word used to mean any close male relative (Abraham and Lot were called “brothers”, even though Abraham was actually his uncle). It’s Catholic doctrine that Mary was a perpetual virgin. She’s the “Ark of the New Covenant”. Don’t like it, don’t be Catholic. Do you really think our salvation rests on this? If not, why try to convince us we’re wrong?

In Christ,
Ellen

 

[adrift]

Granting this shaky premise, it still doesnt explain Jesus’ siblings called by name (and The brother/cousin argument doesnt hold up to the original Greek text as it does elsewhere in the bible). It doesnt explain the bible describing Jesus as their “first” child. It doesnt explain Jesus " becoming an alien to his own mother’s sons". It doesnt explain the multiple other contextual scriptural holes.

Guess what? When my aunt had her first child it was also her last. Here is the definition of a first born from Judaism 101

Firstborn
If a woman’s first child is a male child born by natural childbirth, then the child must be redeemed from a kohein (priest) by a procedure called Pidyon Ha-Ben. In addition, firstborn males must observe a special fast the day before Pesach (Passover), commemorating the fact that they were saved from the plague of the first born.
Ishmael
Firstborn son of Abraham by Sarah’s Egyptian maidservant, Hagar. According to both Muslim and Jewish tradition, he is the ancestor of the Arabs.

Ishmael was the only child of Hagar but her first born. Ignorance of the culture and trying to make another culture be the same as the one you live in causes a great deal of misunderstanding.
Genesis calls Abraham the brother of Lot when it is clear that Lot was his nephew. There are so many examples in scripture of brother being used when it was obvious not a relationship of a uterine brother.

The only scriptural holes is due to misinterpretation and lack of knowledge of context and culture.

 

[BA11]

The Old Testement was written in Hebrew. The gospels were written in Greek. Both were translated (often poorly) to english.

Anepsios is the greek term used for cousin in the bible. Adelphos, meaning “womb” or “same womb”, is the term for blood brother used. The original greek uses adelphos when speaking of the men in question and their relation to Jesus every time, without fail. In comparison, versus such as Col. 4:10 use anepsios when conveying cousin or close relative.

It’s frankly not even a question once the Greek text is examined. It’s as clear as it can be. The writers were literally saying they came from the same womb. Just to drive the point home the Greek term for blood sister was adelphe and, guess what, it’s the term used when describing Crist’s sisters.

I’ll need to look it up again, but I believe the KJV of the bible translates about five different words to brothers across the Old and New Testements. The english translation is useless in this instance.

 

[Church_Militant]

Posh… there is more than ample evidence that Our Blessed Lord Jesus had no blood siblings, and only step siblings from Joseph’s first marriage…

I have an article on this on my blog at The Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

In fact all 3 “Pillars of the Reformation” taught this belief.
The Perpetual Virginity of Mary:

Martin Luther: “ It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin… Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact.” ( Works of Luther, Vol. 11, pages 319-320; Vol. 6, page 510.)

John Calvin: “ There have been certain folk who have wished to suggest from this passage [Matthew 1:25] that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph’s obedience and to show that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company… And beside this Our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or no there was any question of the second.” (Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25. Published in 1562.)

Ulrich Zwingli: “I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel, as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.” ( Zwingli Opera, Vol. 1, page 424.)

 

[BA11]

NM, probably shouldnt derail a thread on this board anyway. My apologies.

 

[Church_Militant]

Sure it’s concrete…but not like you assert… See the full article at that link.

1. 
   *]"I’ve never understood why Catholics claim that Mary was a virgin her entire life. The Bible says that Jesus had brothers. Matthew 13:55 settles the matter for me: ‘Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brethren James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us?’"
   
   In answering any biblical objection to the faith, step number one is putting the other at ease by agreeing that if a teaching contradicts Scripture, the teaching must be wrong.
   
   Next, examine the biblical evidence. In the case of Mary’s perpetual virginity, the key to explaining Matthew 13:55 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.

1. 
   

   *]"But there was a Greek word for cousin, anepsios. If the brothers of the Lord were really his cousins, why wasn’t that word used?"
   
   Here is a common misconception to be on the lookout for: “Catholics teach that the brothers were actually cousins.” That’s not the Catholic position. In fact, we can’t tell if any of the “brothers” were cousins. All the Church affirms is that they were not children of Mary. They could have been children of Joseph from a prior marriage. But the specific word for cousin (anepsios) probably would not have been used in Matthew 13:55 unless all the “brothers” were cousins. If even one of them was not a cousin, the more general term " adelphoi" covers the situation. Even if all of them were cousins, the term “brother” could still be used by Matthew to appropriately describe them.
   
   These things were taken for granted by the early Christians, who were familiar with the biblical languages and who knew that Mary was a lifelong virgin. In A.D. 380, Helvidius proposed that Mary had other children because of the “brothers” in Matthew 13:55. He was rebutted by Jerome, who was arguably the greatest biblical scholar of the day. The Protestant reformer John Calvin seconded Jerome: “Helvidius has shown himself too ignorant, in saying that Mary had several sons, because mention is made in some passages to the brothers of Christ” [quoted by Bernard Leeming, *Protestants and Our Lady, 9]
   . Martin Luther agreed with Calvin that Mary was always a virgin, as did Ulrich Zwingli: “I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary” [E. Stakemeier, *De Mariologia et Oecumenismo

   , K. Balic, ed., 456].
   
   *]"But Matthew 1:25 states that Joseph had no relations with Mary until she bore a son. Wouldn’t that imply that he knew her afterward?"
   
   Before you move on to this objection, notice that the verse in question has changed. You have presented scriptural and historical evidence to support the Church’s interpretation. If the person that you are speaking with leaves Matthew 13:55 to rest, it may be a sign that he sees the incompleteness of the “brethren of the Lord” argument. This is a good sign, so follow his lead—so long as the conversation stays on topic. Zealous Protestants will have any number of objections to the faith, and, if you hope to make any progress, take only one topic at a time.
   
   Now, does Matthew’s use of “until” mean what your friend says it does? Not necessarily. The Greek word for “until” (heos) does not imply that Mary had marital relations after the birth of Christ. In 2 Samuel 6:23, we read that Michal, the daughter of Saul, had no child “until” the day of her death. (Rest assured that she didn’t have any children after that day, either.) Hebrews 1:13 and 1 Timothy 4:13 are similar examples.
   
   When we interpret any passage, we must consider what the author was trying to say. Matthew’s intent here is not to explain what happened after the birth of Christ. He is only concerned with the fact that Joseph and Mary had no relations before then. It is the virgin birth, not later siblings, that Matthew is concerned with.

 

[Church_Militant]

Furthermore, The early Christians made it pretty clear that they do not share your “concrete” interpretations.

There’s a great deal more:
Brethren of the Lord
Mary: Ever Virgin

 

[JonNC]

Granting this shaky premise, it still doesnt explain Jesus’ siblings called by name (and The brother/cousin argument doesnt hold up to the original Greek text as it does elsewhere in the bible). It doesnt explain the bible describing Jesus as their “first” child. It doesnt explain Jesus " becoming an alien to his own mother’s sons". It doesnt explain the multiple other contextual scriptural holes.

Most would consider Luther to be rather an expert on the Greek (even if they disagree with him on his transaltion). On the subject of brothers/cousins and “until”.

Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that ‘brothers’ really mean ‘cousins’ here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.

When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.

Jon

 

[BA11]

I’ll just leave you with our disagreement and let this thread continue. My bad for derailing it on this board.