Does this say that Mary is ever virgin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter aarontassin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I wasn’t aware that Scripture stated “Joseph was old and had other children with his first wife.” I assumed that was taught through Tradition. If that is in Scripture (not that it has to be there to be valid), it seems that would further support that Mary did not have additional children in the flesh.
What has age to do with a man fathering chilren (apart from chromosomal degredation)?
Abraham and Charlie Chaplin were in their 90’s when they fathered. (Before you start looking Charlie Chaplin was not in the Bible.)
 
Hah! Don’t worry, Kevin. I don’t plan to re-search the Bible for this. I’ve read it three times in my life and haven’t blundered onto that statement about Joseph yet!
 
Can you see it?
The question is “CAN YOU SEE IT”

NAB
Matt 1:25 He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus.

Footnote: 25 Until she bore a son: the evangelist is concerned to emphasize that Joseph was not responsible for the conception of Jesus. The Greek word translated “until” does not imply normal marital conduct after Jesus’ birth, nor does it exclude it.

Douay-Rheims Bible
Matt 1:25 And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS

Footnote: 25 “Till she brought forth her firstborn son”… From these words Helvidius and other heretics most impiously inferred that the blessed Virgin Mary had other children besides Christ; but St. Jerome shews, by divers examples, that this expression of the Evangelist was a manner of speaking usual among the Hebrews, to denote by the word until, only what is done, without any regard to the future. Thus it is said, Genesis 8. 6 and 7, that Noe sent forth a raven, which went forth, and did not return till the waters were dried up on the earth. That is, did not return any more. Also Isaias 46. 4, God says: I am till you grow old. Who dare infer that God should then cease to be: Also in the first book of Machabees 5. 54, And they went up to mount Sion with joy and gladness, and offered holocausts, because not one of them was slain till they had returned in peace. That is, not one was slain before or after they had returned. God saith to his divine Son: Sit on my right hand till I make thy enemies thy footstool. Shall he sit no longer after his enemies are subdued? Yea and for all eternity. St. Jerome also proves by Scripture examples, that an only begotten son, was also called firstborn, or first begotten: because according to the law, the firstborn males were to be consecrated to God; Sanctify unto me, saith the Lord, every firstborn that openeth the womb among the children of Israel, etc. Ex. 13. 2.

Haydocks Catholic Bible Commentary

Ver. 25. See note on ver. 18. — St. Jerome assures us, that St. Joseph always preserved his virginal chastity. It is “of faith” that nothing contrary thereto ever took place with his chaste spouse, the blessed Virgin Mary. St. Joseph was given her by heaven to be the protector of her chastity, to secure her from calumnies in the birth of the Son of God, to assist her in her flight into Egypt, &c. &c. We cannot sufficiently admire the modest reserve of both parties. Mary does not venture to explain to her troubled husband the mystery of her pregnancy; and Joseph is afraid of mentioning his uneasiness and doubts, for fear of troubling her delicate mind and wounding her exquisite feelings. So great modesty, reserve and silence, are sure to be approved by heaven; and God sends an angel to Joseph in his sleep, to dissipate his doubts, and to expound to him the mystery of the incarnation. (Haydock)

Ver. 18. The account of the birth of Jesus Christ follows his genealogy. From these words, “before they came together,” Helvidius and others have started objections, which have been answered long ago by St. Jerome, where he shews in many examples from Scripture, that the words before and until do not signify what happened afterwards; for that point is left indefinite, but only what was done before, or not done. Thus when it is said, Sit thou at my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool, Psalm cix, by no means signifies, that after the subjection of his enemies, the Son of God is no longer to sit at the right hand of his Father. In common conversation, when we say that a man died before he reached his 30th year, we do not mean that he afterwards attained it. Or, should we say that Helvidius died before he did penance, we cannot mean that he afterwards did penance: the same conclusion should be deduced from the words, “before they came together,” the end being accomplished by the power of the operation of the Holy Ghost, without their going together. If we should advance, that such a man was cured before he went to a physician, the natural inference would be, that he did not go to a physician at all. Thus also in the language of Scripture, the word first-begotten does not mean after whom others were born, but before whom no one was born, whether there were further issue or not. And the reason is, because the law required that a sacrifice should be offered for the first-born, and that he should be redeemed very soon after his birth; nor did it allow the parents to wait and see if any other son should be born. (Estius) — True and perfect marriage, and continual living in the same, without knowing each other. (St. Augustine, lib. ii. Consen. Evang. chap. i.) (Bristow)
 
The Bible tells us Jesus had siblings. However, nowhere does it mention that Joseph was married before and had children by his previous spouse. We cannot make an argument out of silence. Where the Scripture is silent, we too must be silent.
:confused::rotfl:

Same old tired fallible argument to try to sully anything Catholic.
 
The question of Mary’s virginity is a struggle to reconcile the physical with the material. The divinity of Christ with his humanity. We seem to be chasing the ghost in the machine. (“O.K. got sorted Jesus, now what about his mother?”) I ask you where do we stop? - “Who could be holy enough to carry and give birth to Mary?” Do we now have the (physical) virginity of Mary’s mother? And then of her mother? Where do we stop?
 
The Bible tells us Jesus had siblings. However, nowhere does it mention that Joseph was married before and had children by his previous spouse. We cannot make an argument out of silence. Where the Scripture is silent, we too must be silent.
as another note, by your standard if something is immoral but Sacred Scripture is silent, it is OK. Sacred Scripture is silent when it comes to embryonic stem cell research, should we be silent. Sacred Scripture is silent when it comes to human cloning, should we be silent? These are just two, so when do we not be silent. Are we are to just go about our business and let things go unchallenged. By your standard of being silent, this can lead many into a precarious state. The truth is the truth and never needs to be silent. The truth needs to be proclaimed, never suppressed.
 
Exactly, Mary had to keep her womb clean even after she had Jesus, so she never had sex with her husband. This is clearly stated in scripture. Also, when the people spoke about Jesus brothers and sisters, they actually meant cousins and half brothers, since the bible clearly shows that Joseph was married before and had other children. it says “Joseph was old and had other children with his first wife”.

Also as has been pointed out, marriage in those days did not always involve sex, that is more a modern thing, it would have been quite normal for a virgin to vow never to have sex with her husband. Such vows were honoured by all concerned (especially a man like Joseph who was godly and too old to have intercourse with his wife).
You are restating a heresy - “flesh is evil.”
It is not clearly stated in Scripture Mary never had sex with her husband. This is speculative theology based on metaphysical speculation, not dogma.
Perhaps Jesus didn’t have brothers or sisters, this does not negate the possibility of sex between his parents.
The Bible does not clearly show Joseph was married before and had other children. Unless your Bible is an apocryphal gnostic text.
What has age to do with the possibility of a sexual relationship?
 
On of the best books I have ever read is “The Life of Mary: As Seen by the Mystics”. It answered all my questions about her life. It was also one of the most interesting books ever. It confirms Catholic tradition and JPII teachings that I sometimes wondered where he got his information.
 
On of the best books I have ever read is “The Life of Mary: As Seen by the Mystics”. It answered all my questions about her life. It was also one of the most interesting books ever. It confirms Catholic tradition and JPII teachings that I sometimes wondered where he got his information.
An interesting book: The information is entertaining, but hardly credible. Are you implying this is where Catholics get their Marian dogma? Frightening !
 
An interesting book: The information is entertaining, but hardly credible. Are you implying this is where Catholics get their Marian dogma? Frightening !
Catholics get their Marian Dogma from the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church gets its doctrine from the Sacred Scriptures and Sacred Tradition.

Marian visionaries can either be approved for reading or not, depending on Church judgment. Such readings however, if approved by the Church (via the magisterium) is considered to be profitable and pious. It is not where any Church doctrine originates however. Sometimes it can be very interesting in that it may enlighten a reading from Scripture that may have been murky or too sketchy on its own. But again, that does not imply any basis for Church doctrine.

Skeptics are quick to dismiss even approved visionary writings as fabulous or incredible. That is certainly their right. But it is also narrow minded. 😉
 
The issue is not about “knew”; we all “know” what that means. the question hinges on the word “till” or “until”. This is where your assumption falls apart. You assume that Joseph did not “know” her before the birth of Christ and that he “knew” her after. Why?

The word *until *here just says what happened up to the time of Christ’s birth. It doesn’t imply anything about what happened after that, although our modern use of the word until seems to imply that. For an example of this, look at 2 Samuel 6:23, which says, “Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death.” We’re obviously not supposed to assume that she had children after she died.

Other Examples of “Until” That Do Not Require Cessation of Action

Genesis 8:7
The raven “did not return TILL the waters were dried up…” Did the raven ever return?

Deuteronomy 34:6 (Knox)
No one knew the location of his grave “until this present day” But we know that no one has known it since that day either.
In line with your arguement,I like to present my view.
“The students in the class room did not make any noise until their teacher came”.
Can we say that they started to make noise after the teacher came?
Yes,we can say so,if we have some grudge against the teacher.
Otherwise,we will not say so.
It is nothing but an unfounded grudge against the SPIRITUAL AUTHORIITY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH THAT PLAYS HAVOC WITH INTERPRETATIONS merely based on the words “until” and “brothers and sisters”.

Perfect translation is a mirage,ten out ten is an impossible score in the area of human aspirations.
 
The Bible tells us Jesus had siblings. However, nowhere does it mention that Joseph was married before and had children by his previous spouse. We cannot make an argument out of silence. Where the Scripture is silent, we too must be silent.
Where does the Bible teach that Mary bore any child other than Jesus?

Specific verses would be helpful. Thanks.
 
You are restating a heresy - “flesh is evil.”
It is not clearly stated in Scripture Mary never had sex with her husband. This is speculative theology based on metaphysical speculation, not dogma.
Perhaps Jesus didn’t have brothers or sisters, this does not negate the possibility of sex between his parents.
The Bible does not clearly show Joseph was married before and had other children. Unless your Bible is an apocryphal gnostic text.
What has age to do with the possibility of a sexual relationship?
No. Heresy is promoting antagonism to the eternal teaching of the Church. No one is saying “flesh is evil”, that is twisting people’s arguments. What we are saying defiling the Ark of the New Covenant is sinful - as Joseph would have known. And having a relationship with another man while the Father of your Child is still alive are sinful -as Mary would have known.

Mary is “Ever Virgin” to the earliest Christians. These were people who actually lived and spoke Greek and knew the meaning of the Gospels.

It is those who try to posit on the basis of zero evidence that Christian tradition is wrong, that the Virgin mary was not a Virgin, that Joseph didn’t really believe that Mary had borne the only begotten Son of God, and that sex is all - who are engaging in improper and prurient speculation.
 
What did Christ say to that woman who said this to him, “Blessed are the breast that you suckled and blesssed is the womb that bore you!”

?
He said that those who hear the word of God and live by it are more blessed… Proving my point that spirit is more important than flesh… It even further proves Mary’s perpetual virginity. The Pauline epistles mention many times about the grace and beauty of remaining a virgin. I would like to believe that Mary was blessed with the ability to hear and do the word of God seeing that she gave birth to the Son. So why would she want to lose her virginity? To bear sons for Joseph to help him build some wooden chairs and cabnits that would only get burned up in “the fire” along with all the money they would have made? I highly doubt it.
 
You’d ‘like to get the common anti-Mary stuff out there’?
The concept of Mary’s virginity has been objected to by both Catholic and Protestant.
Some think ‘virginity’ refers to morality and spirituality not to biology. There are stories in some of the apocryphal texts referring to Mary’s biological virginity, which suggests it is fictional and symbolic rather than factual.
Christianity is an inclusive movement: The author’s of the Gospels (of Matthew and Luke) may have used the literary device of Mary’s virginity to express an intellectual concept of the incarnate Word - there are Greek, eastern (Buddha was born from the side of his mother) and Egyptian (Isis the beneficent goddess of chaste, maternal love) possibilities for cultural adoption.

Interesting book: The Virgin, Mary’s cult and the re-emergence of the Goddess,Ashe, G.,Arkana Paperbacks, U.S.A. 1988. ISBN 1-85063-100-X
Ok you lost me…
 
as another note, by your standard if something is immoral but Sacred Scripture is silent, it is OK. Sacred Scripture is silent when it comes to embryonic stem cell research, should we be silent. Sacred Scripture is silent when it comes to human cloning, should we be silent? These are just two, so when do we not be silent. Are we are to just go about our business and let things go unchallenged. By your standard of being silent, this can lead many into a precarious state. The truth is the truth and never needs to be silent. The truth needs to be proclaimed, never suppressed.
Please do not tell me you are just a drive by poster, please respond.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top