R
- Status
J
Jon_Hus
Guest
A few random thoughts. Most of the protestants have touched on the important Biblical reasons in support of Joseph having a normal husband/wife relationship with Mary.
- Jesus mentioned something about John the Baptiser being the greatest born of a woman.
- Joseph would not be a very good role model for being a good husband if he did not have a normal relationship with Mary.
- If Joseph was supposed to have behaved in the manner the RCC teaches, the Bible would have clearly stated so.
- The Ark of the Covenant symbolizes the Covenant God made with the descendents of Abraham thu Issac thru Jacob and housed the 10 commandments which are Jehovah’s rules (the Law) for man, not Man’s redemption through Christ. The Ark has been missing for over 2500 years.
- In the end, the sex lives of Joseph and Mary are basically their business not ours. The Bible teaches that sex within marrage is not defiled. A search of the Bible would indicate that Joseph and Mary had other kids as the Pharasees pointed this out (Jesus had brothers). How anyone would know this detail of Joseph’s and Mary’s personal lives, lacking clear Biblical data one way or the other is somewhat of a mystery to me. But, freedom of religion.
As a Lutheran who does believe in the her perpetual virginity, I don’t see how this comment adds to charitable dialogue in any way. Of all the arguments for and against semper virgo, this appears to me the least convincing.
Jon
J
Joshua27
Guest
The following explanation is given from the provided article:
The argument presented by the link is weak at best and presents a rather uneducated answer, because if what the writer says is true then NOTHING of the bible can be understood (or relied upon) from the English translations (which makes our versions useless)…
Matthew 1:25 (Greek) “καὶ οὐκ ἐγίνωσκεν αὐτὴν ἕως οὗ ἔτεκεν υἱόν· καὶ ἐκάλεσεν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν.”
ἕως [eos] = (Strong’s #2192; from Strong’s Exaustive Concordance of the Bible) means “even, as far as, how long, until, while, up to”; used as a preposition and adverb of continuance.
2 Samuel 6:23 [Hebrew] “Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till עַ֖ד] the day of her death”.
עַ֖ד [ad] = (Strong’s #5704; from Strong’s Exaustive Concordance of the Bible) means “as far as, even to, up to, until, while”; used as a preposition, adverb [of continuance] or conjunction.
…A point of continuance is defined for the statement to which the preposition is attached to either “continue” the statement or “end” the statement, which shows that the Hebrew and Greek words are expressed as the EXACT same meaning of our English translated word “until (till)”, for their usage is identical.
2 Samuel 6:23:
Statement - “Michal had no children”
Point of Continuance - “even to (up to) the day of her death”
Full Meaning - “Michal died childless”
Deuteronomy 34:6:
Statement - “No one knew the location of his grave”
Point of Continuance - “even to (up to) this present day”
Full Meaning - “The grave’s location remained hidden [during the time of the writer]”
Matthew 1:25:
Statement - “[Joseph] did not [sexually] know Mary”
Point of Continuance - “even to (up to) she brought forth her son”
Full Meaning - “Joseph knew Mary [at some point in time] after she gave birth”
The initial statement (of Joseph abstaining from Mary) was “ended” at the Point of Continuance (Mary giving birth to Christ). If the Point of Continuance was “even to the days of her life”, then this would’ve made semper virgo true…but this isn’t the case.
R
regression
Guest
That is Strong’s interpretation. It all goes back to authority. Does he have authority to define matters on faith and morals? I believe the Catholic Church does, based on Jesus’s words after the resurrection. I will side with the church over a man’s interpretation.
I
Izdaari
Guest
Of course, having made the decision to trust the CC’s authority, that logically follows.
But it isn’t very convincing to us non-Catholic Christians.
R
regression
Guest
In my opinion, this presents some good arguments:Of course, having made the decision to trust the CC’s authority, that logically follows.
But it isn’t very convincing to us non-Catholic Christians.
scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html
I
Izdaari
Guest
Thank you! That’ll take me some time to go through, but it should be interesting and informative.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
You know, Christians were not stupid for 1500 years and then miraculously with the advent of the printing press and somewhat increased literacy turned into geniuses who somehow ‘found’ a truth that had eluded all other Christians for 1500 years.
Even the first ‘reformers’ believed in Mary’s perpetual Virginity.
Now throughout Christian history, any ‘heresies’ or teachings not felt to be supported by Scripture and tradition were dealt with. There are scores of writings about the heresies of the Pellagians, the Monophysites, the Arians, the Gnostics, etc.
But there isn’t one peep that “hey, this group of Christians is teaching something unbiblical about Mary!” There isn’t the shadow of such teaching. In fact, the teaching we do have from as early as the 4th century presents Mary as “God bearer” rather than ‘just’ an incubator. If Mary’s ‘virginity’ had not been taught by Christians as truth, then why, at this point, was it not specifically pointed out? IOW, if people were ‘right on’ in defending her position as theotokos rather than the contrary teaching from some heretics, if she really was not a perpetual virgin–and we know that she was being taught as such–if it was wrong, why wasn’t IT addressed as well? Why do we have people 1000 years later --people like Luther, Calvin and Zwingli, affirming the CONSISTENT CHRISTIAN TEACHING of her perpetual virginity? Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli read the same "scripture’ as those who teach this NEW doctrine, but they didn’t find this ‘problem’ with Matthew. Because there is no problem.
Why is there a ‘push’ to make Mary something she was not? Why try to preach a ‘new’ teaching? Doesn’t Scripture have something to say ‘against’ that? IT is not the CATHOLICS (and right-minded Protestants like Jon) who preach a ‘different gospel’ from St. Paul --it is those who argue against Mary’s perpetual virginity. They may be well intentioned but they are sadly misinformed.
Even the first ‘reformers’ believed in Mary’s perpetual Virginity.
Now throughout Christian history, any ‘heresies’ or teachings not felt to be supported by Scripture and tradition were dealt with. There are scores of writings about the heresies of the Pellagians, the Monophysites, the Arians, the Gnostics, etc.
But there isn’t one peep that “hey, this group of Christians is teaching something unbiblical about Mary!” There isn’t the shadow of such teaching. In fact, the teaching we do have from as early as the 4th century presents Mary as “God bearer” rather than ‘just’ an incubator. If Mary’s ‘virginity’ had not been taught by Christians as truth, then why, at this point, was it not specifically pointed out? IOW, if people were ‘right on’ in defending her position as theotokos rather than the contrary teaching from some heretics, if she really was not a perpetual virgin–and we know that she was being taught as such–if it was wrong, why wasn’t IT addressed as well? Why do we have people 1000 years later --people like Luther, Calvin and Zwingli, affirming the CONSISTENT CHRISTIAN TEACHING of her perpetual virginity? Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli read the same "scripture’ as those who teach this NEW doctrine, but they didn’t find this ‘problem’ with Matthew. Because there is no problem.
Why is there a ‘push’ to make Mary something she was not? Why try to preach a ‘new’ teaching? Doesn’t Scripture have something to say ‘against’ that? IT is not the CATHOLICS (and right-minded Protestants like Jon) who preach a ‘different gospel’ from St. Paul --it is those who argue against Mary’s perpetual virginity. They may be well intentioned but they are sadly misinformed.
I might add that the problem for some is that it appears that marian teachings like perpetual virginity are about the Holy Theotokos. They are not! They are about the salvation we find in Jesus Christ!!
Jon
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Absolutely, and I wanted to mention but feared that as usual I’d be too verbose. It can’t be repeated enough–this is not ‘just about Mary." It is always about Jesus. If we somehow diminish or mistake anything about Mary and who she is, that has an effect on our understanding of who Jesus is. And of course, Jesus is our ultimate ‘end.’ Not Mary. She is always the ‘gate’ or "door’, Jesus is the actual destination. We don’t usually get into a place unless we can go through the door but we aren’t heading to heaven just to stop short at the Pearly Gates and say, I’m done, no need to go in!
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
Give me a brief as possible example. One please if you will
J
Joshua27
Guest
Why does someone always go “there”; go to extremes…in terms of concluding that if Mary wasn’t “perpetually a virgin” then we’re claiming she was just “an incubator” (as if to presume we think she was SO unimportant that she wasn’t even alive)? And how does negating her perpetual verginity diminish Christ?
Christians weren’t supid back then, but they were uneducated in their faith because it was against the law to have a bible because only the Religious Authority was allowed to interpret. Anyone caught with a bible would be imprisoned or killed [go on…tell me this isn’t a part of our religious history]. At one point in our history it was even illegal to pass out copies of the bible. So how sure can one be of the truth (1500 years ago) when the only source of said “truth” was from the Religious Authority who preached it, the same who exercised the restriction of laity owning a bible?
Question: Do you think all truth has been discovered (uncovered)? Or a better question, Do you think the entire truth [including ALL topics] promoted through Christendom is 100% correct?
I’m interested in your answer, because history is replete with examples of nations of people believing in a “truth” for hundreds of years (in some cases, near millenia) only for a new “revelation” to be presented (one day) that gives a clarification or correction to a once held “truth”: in Science (planetary movement), in Geography (earth was flat vs round), in Economy (capitalism vs communism) etc…take your pick. Why is it that Religion is somehow immune to revelation or clarification?
of everything I have said to you.
If “ALL things” was already understood and “NOTHING” was forgotten, then why would Christ need to send the Holy Spirit at all.
I appreciate the statements that “it’s not just about Mary, but Christ”, but the focus of this thread WAS specifically about Mary (and the fact that her conception by the Holy Spirit makes her the HS’s true wife [thus Joseph wouldn’t have consummated with her]). And (with respect) it’s all too convenient to redirect the focus of this topic when issues are raised that can’t be defended, such as the biblical passage of Matthew 1:24-25 that clearly states that consummation occured AFTER the birth of Christ.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
J
jmcrae
Guest
It implies that she and Joseph felt free to distract themselves from raising Him, by adding other children, or by making Him equal with their other children.
So, St. Augustine (one of the Bishops who helped to discern the canon of the New Testament, and who was also one of the Bishops who helped to define the theology of the perpetual virginity of Mary) was not allowed to have or read the Bible? Even if this is true (and as far as I know, it was only heretical translations of the Bible that were forbidden), the Middle Ages were many centuries after the teachings about Mary became considered to be Doctrine. During the 300s and 400s AD when these things were being discerned, everyone who could read had access to the Scriptures - and since this was before the fall of Rome and the loss of civilized infrastructure, most people could read.
Also, throughout the entire history of the Church, Scripture has always been read out during the Liturgy of the Word at Mass, and paintings, sculptures, and plays or skits based on Biblical events were always available to those who could not read or write - the people of the 14th century were actually better informed about what’s in the Bible than many people today are, simply because it was the central subject of discussion, at the time.
Actually, the source of truth is the Apostolic teaching, which was being preserved by the authority of the Church. They didn’t just start making stuff up after the fact, and certainly not during the period of the “dark ages” - if anything, they were even more conservative then than at any other time.
J
Joshua27
Guest
Laity (i.e. lay people; the general public); the average joe and jane did NOT have bibles. King Henry I and Charlemagne are not average joes.
“Baloney” isn’t sourcing proof to the contrary…even your explanation of “the bible was expensive” also serves to prove my point that average people did NOT possess the bible to clarify or corroborate “truth”.
Let me answer your question even though you’ve chosen not to answer mine:
You’re presuming that this is 1500 years ago and the ordinary person already has a copy of the true bible (which they didn’t). But answering in today’s era, it would see “The Book of Mormon” on the cover, not “The Holy Bible”, so I wouldn’t accept it.
Now back to the thread topic; explain Matthew 1:25 (as compiled and authorized by the CC to be included in sacred Scripture). I’ve given the greek original along with explanation of the words in usage. You can even research the greek words yourself.
Explain perpetual viginity in light of Joseph “knowing” his wife after the birth of Christ.
J
jmcrae
Guest
The Scriptures never actually state that Joseph had sex with Mary - and in fact, there is also no record of their wedding. If you take a literal interpretation of the Scriptures and refrain from adding anything to them, it seems as if although they came to live together, they remained perpetually engaged, and never actually got married.
J
Joshua27
Guest
Notice what you just said; that you just suggested the two were charged with raising Him. As the firstborn of a Jewish family (any family, really), Christ would’ve been responsible for the welfare of his younger siblings and with leading them as a good example to follow, preparing him mentally as he would eventually become the firstborn of the dead; to lead us (his younger spiritual siblings) on the correct path.
So - if anything - He needed younger siblings to learn how to be a big brother.
Well, I could argue the same things about Mary’s virginal conception when Mary says (in Luke 1:34), “Then said Mary unto the angel, ‘How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?’”
She never literally said she hadn’t had sex with a man, but it’s implied in context…Even as far back as Genesis, we are told what “knowing” (in this context) means…
Genesis 4:1 - “And Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, ‘I have gotten a man from the Lord.’”
…finally in Matthew 1:25 we are told that Joseph - though he married Mary - did not “know” his wife until she bore Chist…
Matthew 1:24-25 (KJV) “Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.”
All other translations agree with the meaning of “know”, even the popular NASB…
Matthew 1:24-25 (NASB) “And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, 25 but ***kept her a virgin until ***she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.”
So either “know” doesn’t really mean “sex” in this context (and thus Mary also didn’t mean it in this context), or to “know” DOES mean “sex” and Joseph did not know her until after Christ was born.
J
jmcrae
Guest
Notice the tense of the verb - she is not saying “I have not yet known man” but rather, “I know not man” - this is a perpetual condition. Why is she confused, if she is planning to marry and have sex with Joseph? Surely if that were the case, she would say to the Angel, “No kidding. I’m about to get married - of course I’m going to have children.”
All that the “until” tells us is that they did not have relations while she was pregnant with Jesus. It tells us nothing one way or the other about what happened afterwards.
And again, the “until” tells us nothing about what happened afterwards - only that there was no sex between the time Mary became pregnant with Jesus, and the time that He was born. There is nothing in the passage that says, “they had sex after that.” Nor does it say “they did not have sex after that.” The only way we know what happened is from the testimony of the Holy Tradition (that is, what the Apostles passed on in poetry, ritual, and song) which tells us that Mary, like her Son, was ever-virgin.
J
Joshua27
Guest
:ehh: Seriously!? And then she would be indignant (disrespectful) to an high-ranking Angel of God to boot, essentially saying “no duh”? This to the same angel that Zachariah disrespected just six months earlier (which was why Zach was stricken deaf and mute); the angel Gabriel? This answer isn’t biblically supported.
[So when **Adam knew his wife this was a “perpetual condition” also, right, (because the same phrasing style is used here)? He would perpetually “know” Eve once they started (never ending; never giving time for gestation or giving birth, not to mention that both would tire themselves, maybe get hungry)?]
Mary uses the indefinite article “a” and the conditional modifyer “since”. She did not say “I know not man”. While talking with Gabriel she asks, “how can this be since I know not a man?” Which is a perfectly legitimate question because she currently understood that without a man, she - a woman - could not narurally get pregnant.
Luke 1:34 “εἶπεν δὲ Μαριὰμ πρὸς τὸν ἄγγελον· πῶς ἔσται τοῦτο, ἐπεὶ ἄνδρα οὐ γινώσκω;”
Luke 1:34 (direct greek translation) “Said then Mary unto angel, ‘how will be this since a man not I know’”
She is not stating a perpetual condition but asking “how” based on her current situation.
“until” is a preposition (one of the few prepositions) that EXACTLY explains what happens after a determined “point of continuance”. Here’s a link to an earlier post that explains what a “Point of Continuance” is as it relates to the preposition “until”:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6789506&postcount=42
Replacing “know” with “sex”, let’s reread the passage:
Matthew 1:24-25 “Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him and took unto him his wife. 25 And sexed her not till she had brought forth her son, and he called his name Jesus.”
I think the problem is maybe that many equate the act of “sex” with something “dirty” and thus something which would defily the status of Mary’s holiness. But sex in the bounds of Holy Matrimony is indeed Holy and sanctified and clean and pure…essencially Good (and of God).
- Status