How could Mary remain "ever virgin"?

[servus]

Dear Catholic Bro’s and Sisters,

“Then Joseph being raised from his sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and took unto Him his wife. And knew her not until she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called His name Jesus” Matthew 1:24-25

Joseph is doing the action in this entire phrase. He 1) took unto Him his wife (Mary), 2) knew her not UNTIL (Grk.heos) she had brought forth her first born Son (Jesus), and then 3) he named him Jesus.

This is common in the Old Testament as a way of implying sexual relations i.e “Adam knew Eve and she bore cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord” Genesis 4:1.

If God wanted us to beleive that Mary was ever-virgin, why would there be any hint that she had normal marital relations with her husband Joseph after Jesus was born? For example, if a wife said “I was a virgin until I married my husband” Why would someone years later presume she was always a virgin?

In the case of the Scriptures, why would they even imply Mary and Joseph had sexual relations after Jesus was born, if we were to beleive she was ever virgin?

 

[jmcrae]

The Scriptures were not originally written in English, so the assumptions we make in English when we use the word “until” don’t really apply to this particular passage.

The same word translated as “until” is used in a passage of the Old Testament describing David’s wife Michal, who remained without child “until” her death.

It’s the same “until” in both passages, and just refers to the period of time in question, without it being necessary for the situation to have changed after the end of the period of time in question.

The passage you are quoting doesn’t actually tell us either way, whether Mary and Joseph ever had sex together, or not - the point of the verse is that Joseph adopted Jesus without first consummating his marriage to Mary.

Whether it was ever consummated at all is left hanging - we Catholics believe and teach that it was not, and that Mary remained a virgin throughout her life. But we don’t base this doctrine on this verse: we base it on the oral Tradition that was handed down by the supposed “brothers” of Jesus: the Apostles.

 

[squeekster]

Might I ask a question? Why is it so necessary in Catholic theology for Mary to have remained a virgin all of her life?

 

[kleary]

In the case of the Scriptures, why would they even imply Mary and Joseph had sexual relations after Jesus was born, if we were to beleive she was ever virgin?

As the previous poster mentioned to you, you cannot claim that the scripture verses you cited imply Mary had sexual relations with Joseph. The problem is understanding in the modern times the English word “until” and not the Greek word as used at the time of Jesus.

The fathers of the Protestant Reformation at least knew that and got the perpetual virginity of Mary correct less all their errors on justification and everything else-

Martin Luther (1483-1546), On the Divine Motherhood of Mary, wrote:
In this work whereby she was made the Mother of God, so many and such great good things were given her that no one can grasp them. … Not only was Mary the mother of him who is born [in Bethlehem], but of him who, before the world, was eternally born of the Father, from a Mother in time and at the same time man and God. (Weimer’s The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v. 7, p. 572.)
Luther wrote on the Virginity of Mary:
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. (Weimer’s The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v. 11, pp. 319-320; v. 6. p. 510.)
The French reformer John Calvin (1509-1564) also held that Mary was the Mother of God.
It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of his Son, granted her the highest honor. … Elizabeth called Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary as at the same time the eternal God. (Calvini Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Braunschweig-Berlin, 1863-1900, v. 45, p. 348, 35.)
Calvin also up held the perpetual virginity of Mary, as did the Swiss reformer, Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531), who wrote:
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, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, v. 1, p. 424.)

 

[Damascus]

1)Do you have any reason to believe that she was unable to stay a Virgin?

 

[Truthstalker]

Dear Catholic Bro’s and Sisters,

“Then Joseph being raised from his sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and took unto Him his wife. And knew her not until she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called His name Jesus” Matthew 1:24-25

Joseph is doing the action in this entire phrase. He 1) took unto Him his wife (Mary), 2) knew her not UNTIL (Grk.heos) she had brought forth her first born Son (Jesus), and then 3) he named him Jesus.

This is common in the Old Testament as a way of implying sexual relations i.e “Adam knew Eve and she bore cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord” Genesis 4:1.

If God wanted us to beleive that Mary was ever-virgin, why would there be any hint that she had normal marital relations with her husband Joseph after Jesus was born? For example, if a wife said “I was a virgin until I married my husband” Why would someone years later presume she was always a virgin?

In the case of the Scriptures, why would they even imply Mary and Joseph had sexual relations after Jesus was born, if we were to beleive she was ever virgin?

First, there is no hint or implication that she wasn’t. Or that she was. So we look a little wider. Nowhere does it say that the brothers and sisters of Jesus were of Mary - they could have been half-brothers, sons of Joseph from a previous marriage. At this point you pick your ears up, because it is very odd that the Word is this silent on this issue, as historically it is so prominent in the church.

Look in Luke 1:34: Mary asks the angel, how can this be, since I do not know a man? Not “don’t know until I marry” but “I do not know a man”. She was smart enough, as we all are, to know what happens when people get married. So was the angel. He wasn’t there to explain the birds and the bees. Something else was going on. This is a hint.

There are parallels between the Ark of the Covenant and Mary that others are better able to explain. Something holy had happened with Mary. Joseph was very aware of it. Her womb had held God, had been His tabernacle. Did Joseph fear God and have clear understanding about issues concerning the sanctity of the temple of the Lord? I think with him being a pious Jew that is evident. You don’t mess with the Holy of Holies. So, the argument goes, Joseph did not touch her, and she knew not man. Jesus is the only begotten Son of the Father, and He has no half-brothers or sisters.

Either you find this convincing, as the weight of the church fathers have argued for the perpetual virginity of Mary from day one, or you side with those who base their argument on eisegesis and an insistence that the “brothers and sisters” of Jesus are children of Mary - but without proof. Your choice: either to go with what makes sense when viewed fully, or to strain the meaning of the Greek word for brother to carry freight no one thought it would ever have to bear, least of all the authors of the Gospels and those who followed them. Clement of Alexandria before 157 AD vouched for the perpetual virginity of Mary, for example.

There is also the point that Mary remained a virgin even while giving birth to Jesus. How is that possible? How did He pass through the locked doors to see the disciples after the resurrection? Why believe the one miracle but discount the other? Mary, Ever-Virgin, is reasonable and logical based on all the evidence.

You will note on my profile I am Presbyterian.

 

[levi86]

Dear Catholic Bro’s and Sisters,

“Then Joseph being raised from his sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and took unto Him his wife. And knew her not until she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called His name Jesus” Matthew 1:24-25

Joseph is doing the action in this entire phrase. He 1) took unto Him his wife (Mary), 2) knew her not UNTIL (Grk.heos) she had brought forth her first born Son (Jesus), and then 3) he named him Jesus.

This is common in the Old Testament as a way of implying sexual relations i.e “Adam knew Eve and she bore cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord” Genesis 4:1.

If God wanted us to beleive that Mary was ever-virgin, why would there be any hint that she had normal marital relations with her husband Joseph after Jesus was born? For example, if a wife said “I was a virgin until I married my husband” Why would someone years later presume she was always a virgin?

In the case of the Scriptures, why would they even imply Mary and Joseph had sexual relations after Jesus was born, if we were to beleive she was ever virgin?

I think its amazing how some Christians are able to believe in a particular doctrine based on such little evidence, in this case a single word.

The OP has decided to believe that Mary was not “ever virgin” based on his infallible interpretation of a single word of scripture (until)

 

[levi86]

Dear Catholic Bro’s and Sisters,

“Then Joseph being raised from his sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and took unto Him his wife. And knew her not until she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called His name Jesus” Matthew 1:24-25

Joseph is doing the action in this entire phrase. He 1) took unto Him his wife (Mary), 2) knew her not UNTIL (Grk.heos) she had brought forth her first born Son (Jesus), and then 3) he named him Jesus.

This is common in the Old Testament as a way of implying sexual relations i.e “Adam knew Eve and she bore cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord” Genesis 4:1.

If God wanted us to beleive that Mary was ever-virgin, why would there be any hint that she had normal marital relations with her husband Joseph after Jesus was born? For example, if a wife said “I was a virgin until I married my husband” Why would someone years later presume she was always a virgin?

In the case of the Scriptures, why would they even imply Mary and Joseph had sexual relations after Jesus was born, if we were to beleive she was ever virgin?

I think its amazing how some Christians are able to believe in a particular doctrine based on such little evidence, in this case a single word.

The OP has decided to believe that Mary was not “ever virgin” based on his own fallible interpretation of a single word of scripture (until)

 

[Cranch]

And knew her not until she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called His name Jesus.

Another way to phrase this would be:
And knew her not before she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called His name Jesus.
Means the same thing and says nothing at all about whether he “knew her” at anytime after she brought forth her firstborn son.

 

[PattiC]

so,

your understanding is tied up in the “meaning” of the word until?

ok, so Jesus will be with us ***until ***the end of time. Does that mean after time as we know it ends that He will leave us? Of course not.

It is a colloquialism. There are numerous instances of the word until in the Bible. I used to have a link to a concordance site online, since I never got the money together to purchase one… but my computer crashed and I lost that site.
If anyone else has instances of where this word is used, but doesn’t mean that something is different afterwards, maybe that is what is needed.

I will see if I can find it… tomorrow. got to get some sleep for now.

Patti

 

[Damascus]

Mary is not “ever-virgin” ?

Because of the word until or till?

**The Bible does not say that; it says he “knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son” (Mt 1:25). You are probably referring to the word “till” in that passage, but the Greek word does not indicate a change after Jesus’ birth. It simply states that Joseph had no relations with Mary before or during her pregnancy. All St. Matthew intended to establish is the fact that St. Joseph could not possibly Jesus’ father; he was not immediately concerned with discussing Mary’s continued virginity after Jesus’ birth. **

OP’s Next rebuttal-
Can you support you contention about the word “till” or “UNTIL” from the Bible?

**Yes. Genesis 8:6-7 states that the raven which Noah sent from the ark “went forth to and fro, until the waters were dried up from off the earth.” This does not mean the raven stopped flying around or returned to the ark after the waters dried up. **
**Psalm 110:1 says “The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.” Does this mean that Jesus will no longer reign at God’s right hand after He vanquishes all His foes? Similarly, I Corinthians 15:25 states that “(Jesus) must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.” Yet the Book of Revelation indicates that the Lamb will reign forever (22:1,3). Thus “till” cannot mean He will cease to be the King of kings after the Last Judgment. **

Good night OP. It was nice talking to you!

 

[Damascus]

so,

your understanding is tied up in the “meaning” of the word until?

ok, so Jesus will be with us ***until ***the end of time. Does that mean after time as we know it ends that He will leave us? Of course not.

It is a colloquialism. There are numerous instances of the word until in the Bible. I used to have a link to a concordance site online, since I never got the money together to purchase one… but my computer crashed and I lost that site.
If anyone else has instances of where this word is used, but doesn’t mean that something is different afterwards, maybe that is what is needed.

I will see if I can find it… tomorrow. got to get some sleep for now.

**Get some rest PattieC. I hope I found what you were looking for in the scripture so you can rest easy now. **I can PM you some good Mary stuff dont worry. I’ll get it to you tomorrow.

Patti

 

[JimG]

Mary replied, “How can this be, since I do not know man?”

Mary was betrothed to Joseph, whom she was to marry very soon.

Yet, when the angel told her she was to bear a son, she replies, “How can this be?”

It seems to me the implications are obvious: that she had already taken a vow of perpetual virginity, and thus would not ever “know” man. Only then does her question make sense.

For if the marriage had been intended to be consummated in the normal way, there would not be a question of “how can this be.” Rather she would simply give praise to God for the promise of a son. But she–an engaged woman–was puzzled at how this could be accomplished.

 

[ltravis]

This is an interesting discussion to me. I believe her perpetual virginity, but I have a hard time with that word “until”. Perhaps it is the translation, but it just seems like it wants to say there was a change in condition after. Looking at the other passages brought up, most of them are speaking of future events, and the word until seems to imply some sort of a completion of the events of the context. The dove flying to and fro speaks of a past event, but I really think that in that case the dove *does *quit flying to and fro because “to and fro” implied a search for dry land. I don’t know, the use of the “until” in the Mary passage just doesn’t sound right to me. Is it just the translation and our current uses of the word “until” that make it sound wrong to me as I have explained? Again, I fully believe her perpetual virginity. The undeniable references to her as the new ark, coupled with the verse in Ezekial about the gate to the old ark remaining “shut” are overwhelming evidence to me, as are the references to her as the spouse of the Holy Spirit.

 

[JimG]

My uncle refrained from drink until the day he died.

My brother never spoke unkindly of another person until the day he died.

So why was Mary puzzled? The angel Gabriel didn’t say she was going to bear a son immediately. To an engaged woman, where’s the puzzlement in an angel saying you will bear a son?

 

[Damascus]

This is an interesting discussion to me. I believe her perpetual virginity, but I have a hard time with that word “until”. Perhaps it is the translation, but it just seems like it wants to say there was a change in condition after. Looking at the other passages brought up, **most of them **are speaking of future events, and the word until seems to imply some sort of a completion of the events of the context. The dove flying to and fro speaks of a past event, but I really think that in that case the dove *does *quit flying to and fro because “to and fro” implied a search for dry land. I don’t know, the use of the “until” in the Mary passage just doesn’t sound right to me. Is it just the translation and our current uses of the word “until” that make it sound wrong to me as I have explained? Again, I fully believe her perpetual virginity. The undeniable references to her as the new ark, coupled with the verse in Ezekial about the gate to the old ark remaining “shut” are overwhelming evidence to me, as are the references to her as the spouse of the Holy Spirit.

Is the word until bothersome to you?

Lets ask it this way. Do you have any biblical basis to assume that she broke her Virginity?

Or that she was not a consecrated Virgin? And that Joseph knew that?

I guess its a matter of one word letting you forget the preponderance of evidence to the contrary on top of my Psalms reference and others.

I would be happy to start a thread on any issue about Mary give me some ideas as to what your specific issue is.

 

[Damascus]

How does everyone reconcile Ezek 44:2? If I felt like typing I would, sorry.

 

[ltravis]

Is the word until bothersome to you?

Lets ask it this way. Do you have any biblical basis to assume that she broke her Virginity?

Or that she was not a consecrated Virgin? And that Joseph knew that?

I guess its a matter of one word letting you forget the preponderance of evidence to the contrary on top of my Psalms reference and others.

I would be happy to start a thread on any issue about Mary give me some ideas as to what your specific issue is.

Damascus, please please don’t read into my post that I reject her perpetual virginity! I stated at the beginning that I believed it and ended by saying how the evidence implied elsewhere in scripture (i.e. Ezekial) leaves no doubt that she was ever-virgin. I believe “until” was meant to be interpreted as only until, and not about any condition afterwords. I am with you completely on this one! I was just saying that, the way it reads now, “until” just doesn’t sound right. If one ignored the preponderence of irrefutable biblical evidence, it would imply that there was a change afterwords while other biblical uses of the word don’t quite seem to to me, and I was struggling for an answer why.

Are we on the same page now?
LT

 

[Damascus]

Damascus, please please don’t read into my post that I reject her perpetual virginity! I stated at the beginning that I believed it and ended by saying how the evidence implied elsewhere in scripture (i.e. Ezekial) leaves no doubt that she was ever-virgin. I believe “until” was meant to be interpreted as only until, and not about any condition afterwords. I am with you completely on this one! I was just saying that, the way it reads now, “until” just doesn’t sound right. If one ignored the preponderence of irrefutable biblical evidence, it would imply that there was a change afterwords while other biblical uses of the word don’t quite seem to to me, and I was struggling for an answer why.

Are we on the same page now?
LT

Yes. I understand your concern that it does not sound right.

I am lost as to why its a struggle.

But, again- I dont mean to offend you. I am only responding the only way I can and that I know how to. I do not struggle with words, so its foreign to me to see that as a struggle.

Its almost as if I would be belittling the word struggle by doing so.

 

[adrift]

Mary replied, “How can this be, since I do not know man?”

Mary was betrothed to Joseph, whom she was to marry very soon.

Betrothel meant something different than it does today. Marriage would take place and the woman would stay with her family to prepare to live with her husband. This period of time after the marriage but before the couple lived together was called the betrothel.

It seems to me the implications are obvious: that she had already taken a vow of perpetual virginity, and thus would not ever “know” man. Only then does her question make sense.

It seems to me too that it is even more obvious.when you realize that she was a married woman.