How do I argue that Mary did not have other children?

[teachccd]

This thread contains a substantial amount of backup for why Mary would not have other children. But let me introduce an idea merely based on reason and logic. No Scriptural back up, just common sense.

Scenerio: My wife gives birth to the Second person of the Blessed Trinity. The Holy Spirit overshadows her and she conceives the eternal Word giving Him flesh so that He might dwell (pitch His tent) among us. Given all of biblical typology whereby anything occurring in the Old Testament is fulfilled in Christ and is brought to glorification in Christ and is elevated in Christ then here’s the following:

1. I can have sexual intercourse in the same canal that God passed through and hope for children that are infinitely lesser than the child that my wife previously gave birth to.
2. I can perhaps realize that something HIGHLY unusual took place and that we are no ordinary parents and my wife is no ordinary person. (No ordinary person carries God in her womb for nine months) So I resovle to treat her as Highly and as favorable as God does and love her for who she was eternally chosen to be. In my Jewish knowledge of Scripture I would know what happened to Uzzah when he merely touched the Ark of the Covenant (which carried the written Word of God) and what might happen to me should I “touch” (have intercourse with) the Ark of the New Covenant. (Who carried the Living Word of God)

In conclusion, I always stand by the idea that anytime one elevates Mary they elevate Jesus a thousand fold over. If Mary did not have other children and remained a virgin then Jesus is the special and only child given to the world through the unstained vessel He so deserves. If Mary did have other children then why did we not read that the Ark of the covenant contained other stones with lesser writings on them. Why not just fill this Old Testament Ark of the Covenant with tablets from other writers of the day. BECAUSE…It was reserved for the Word of God as was Mary. You see?? God makes PERFECT and reasonable sense…Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed are you among women and blessed is the fruit (not fruits) of your womb, Jesus…Now that is from Scripture!!..God Bless…teachccd

 

[Rightlydivide]

This thread contains a substantial amount of backup for why Mary would not have other children. But let me introduce an idea merely based on reason and logic. No Scriptural back up, just common sense.

Scenerio: My wife gives birth to the Second person of the Blessed Trinity. The Holy Spirit overshadows her and she conceives the eternal Word giving Him flesh so that He might dwell (pitch His tent) among us. Given all of biblical typology whereby anything occurring in the Old Testament is fulfilled in Christ and is brought to glorification in Christ and is elevated in Christ then here’s the following:

1. I can have sexual intercourse in the same canal that God passed through and hope for children that are infinitely lesser than the child that my wife previously gave birth to.
2. I can perhaps realize that something HIGHLY unusual took place and that we are no ordinary parents and my wife is no ordinary person. (No ordinary person carries God in her womb for nine months) So I resovle to treat her as Highly and as favorable as God does and love her for who she was eternally chosen to be. In my Jewish knowledge of Scripture I would know what happened to Uzzah when he merely touched the Ark of the Covenant (which carried the written Word of God) and what might happen to me should I “touch” (have intercourse with) the Ark of the New Covenant. (Who carried the Living Word of God)

In conclusion, I always stand by the idea that anytime one elevates Mary they elevate Jesus a thousand fold over. If Mary did not have other children and remained a virgin then Jesus is the special and only child given to the world through the unstained vessel He so deserves. If Mary did have other children then why did we not read that the Ark of the covenant contained other stones with lesser writings on them. Why not just fill this Old Testament Ark of the Covenant with tablets from other writers of the day. BECAUSE…It was reserved for the Word of God as was Mary. You see?? God makes PERFECT and reasonable sense…Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed are you among women and blessed is the fruit (not fruits) of your womb, Jesus…Now that is from Scripture!!..God Bless…teachccd

Let us get real and tune out the statues and pictures you have seen your whole life.
In real life, Joseph cleaned up and assisted Mary with the urine and excrement of Jesus. He had normal body functions.
In real life, especially considering the time era, Joseph would have assisted Mary or possibly cleaned up as she had the normal body functions of a woman capable of reproducing.
She also had normal bodily needs.
You have taken a human family, Joseph and Mary, and made them into something they were not.
The Son of Man came into the normal, messy, human world and yet lived without sin. I laugh at the idealized, clean looking, white representations of a normal Jewish family living in an era not quite as sanitized as this one.

 

[nguyencongbinh]

Dear TommD and all friends- Happy Thanksgiving

I will try my best to help you give a negative answer to the issue whether Our Blessed Mother had any other children . I need about 3 writings:

1 . HAVE WE READ THE BIBLE CORRECTLY?

****An important question we should ask ourselves whether we have correctly read Matthew ?
If we correctly read the Bible then all questions such as whether Mary remained a virgin after giving birth to Jesus, whether Mary and Joseph had any other children will be given by Matthew himself.

The Good News Kata/According to Matthaion/Matthew is considered the first Book of the New Testament. Please ask ourselves what were the punctuation marks Matthew intended.in writing Kata Matthaion for the following verses: ****

**egertheis de ho ioseph apo tou hupnou epoiesen hos prosetaxen auto ho angelos kuriou kai parelaben ten gunaika autou kai ouk eginosken auten heos hou eteken huion kai ekalesen to onoma autou **

literal meaning by word order:

**being raised in fact the Joseph from the sleep (or darkness) he immediately did as instructed him the angel of The LORD and1 he took the wife of him and2 he was never knowing her until the very true time whre she gave birth to the Son and3 he proclaimed (called )the name of him JESUS **

In all ancient manuscripts, (the Codex Vaticanus, a copy made in the 3rd or 4th century is a good example), Mt1: v1-25 looked as one long verse. Matthew, as all ancient Greek and Roman writers- used no punctuating rules at all but skillfully used conjunctions, prepositions, or words as the P5 silent punctuation marks where the trained Gospel proclaimers raised their voice or paused.
No one wanted to be misquoted. To me, in placing our punctuation marks gradually invented in the Middle Age to any ancient text without betraying the authors’ intent and syntax is a challenging work. Thanks to Vatican II, Our Mother The Church gave us Nova Vulgata, the New Version promulgated by John Paul II. Kata Mattahion is translated into Latin. He declared Nova Vulgata to be the editio typica , the text all Catholics should use as a master copy in liturgy. It’s interesting to pay attention to JP II’s punctuationmarks

Mt1:24 Exsurgens autem Ioseph a somno fecit,
sicut praecepit ei angelus Domini,
et accepit coniugem suam; (a pause here)
Mt1:25 et non cognoscebat eam, (a pause here)

– the following was the Greatest Event for mankind
**donec peperit filium, et vocavit nomen eius Iesum. **
(www.vatican.va)

John Paul II’s punctuation marks are grammatically correct. Based on Nova Vulgata we can re-apply the necessary punctuation marks to Kata Matthaion as follows:

egertheis de ho ioseph apo tou hupnou -
epoiesen hos prosetaxen auto ho angelos kuriou -
kai parelaben ten gunaika autou -
kai ouk eginosken auten -
heos hou eteken huion -
kai ekalesen to onoma autou -

**being raised in fact the Joseph from darkness (literally from his sleep)
he immediately did as instructed him the angel of The LORD **
(interestingly we found Matthew clearly intended 3 related but independent clauses here, each was introduced by kai/AND. It’s the same way as we say In The Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in the Sign Of The Cross)
** and1 he took the wife of him -

and2 he was never knowing her -

and3 AT THE VERY TRUE TIME she gave birth to the Son JESUS (YHWH /God/Ye + SHUAH/Saves) His Name Joseph did proclaim**

Matthew intentionally employed the archaic imperfect tense in And he was never knowing her because the imperfect tense described an action that was never ended in the past but continuously repeated. The act Joseph did never know (having sex) with Mary was repeated day by day.
In order to avoid the archaic imperfect tense, I prefer to read
AND2 MARY ALWAYS REMAINED PURE .
You may do so in any other similar way. It’s an independent clause.
Did the Bible state that Mary ever remained pure? YES
Did Matthew ever say Mary had any other children? NO
Did Matthew and John Paul II give you the clear answer to your problem? I believe so

**Next: ** : Is it a grave error to read AND HE KNEW HER
NOT UNTIL SHE DELIVERED HER SON ?
How many mistakes do you find?

 

[teachccd]

Let us get real and tune out the statues and pictures you have seen your whole life.
In real life, Joseph cleaned up and assisted Mary with the urine and excrement of Jesus. He had normal body functions.
In real life, especially considering the time era, Joseph would have assisted Mary or possibly cleaned up as she had the normal body functions of a woman capable of reproducing.
She also had normal bodily needs.
You have taken a human family, Joseph and Mary, and made them into something they were not.
The Son of Man came into the normal, messy, human world and yet lived without sin. I laugh at the idealized, clean looking, white representations of a normal Jewish family living in an era not quite as sanitized as this one.

You completely missed the point of my post and took off on a tangent. That’s o.k. I’m used to these typical Protestant dodgeball tactics. Re-read my post and then comment specifically on what was said. Otherwise don’t appeal to the fact that Jesus went to the bathroom. Your comment reflects absolutely nothing mentioned in my post…

 

[Metaron]

I was speaking with a person of another religion who told me that the blessed mother had other children and that the Catholic Church covers that up.

He quoted a vs. in Matthew. I am sure this is a typical case of people that misinterpret scripture. How do I argue that she did not?

He also argued that praying to Mary was wrong. I said, "Can I not ask my mother to pray for me? People misinterpret our religion all the time which is why I love learning ways to clear up their confusions.

Thanks to EWTN’s, Open Line show I have great answers for many questions…

I believe somewhere in the Bible that St.Jude and St.James, Christ’s “brothers”, were said to be “sons of Zebedee” and that there mother was another Mary, called “Mary Salome”. I’m not for sure, but I think I remember reading that. And “brother” in the Bible really just means “kinsman” in the Bible, so it IN NO WAY STATES that they were Jesus’ half-brothers or brothers. That is why a council (Can’t remember which one) condemned a title that some heretics were using for St.James: “Brother of God”.

 

[Rightlydivide]

You completely missed the point of my post and took off on a tangent. That’s o.k. I’m used to these typical Protestant dodgeball tactics. Re-read my post and then comment specifically on what was said. Otherwise don’t appeal to the fact that Jesus went to the bathroom. Your comment reflects absolutely nothing mentioned in my post…

The vessel (your words not mine) or canal was not “unstained”. It was a normal human birth. I see nothing to indicate otherwise and an aversion to the normal human experience.
There is nothing to support your contention.
He had a normal birth.
In a lowly place.
To a poor Jewish family.
Its beautiful the way it is.

 

[teachccd]

The vessel (your words not mine) or canal was not “unstained”. It was a normal human birth. I see nothing to indicate otherwise and an aversion to the normal human experience.
There is nothing to support your contention.
He had a normal birth.
In a lowly place.
To a poor Jewish family.
Its beautiful the way it is.

So you didn’t re-read my post. That’s o.k. Most times Non-Catholics cannot respond to what is layed out for them. But I still ask, and you may continue to dodge this, how is it that the Ark of the Covenant which carried the written Word of God had to be “unstained” and not touched and carried a certain way and lined inside and out with gold but the vessel (yes that is my word), Mary, can be stained with sin and “touched” in any way? So then, my conlusion from a Protestant standpoint is that the stone tablets are more valuable than the living Word of God. You say that it was a normal human birth. Well I beg to differ because Mary gave birth to the God-Man Jesus. No other birth rendered the person Who is the eternal God becoming man. Why would you lessen who Christ is by saying that this was just another normal occurance? Then when Christ was crucified it was just another criminal being put to death. Nothing special or unusual. He had a normal execution on a lowly hill in front of His Jewish mother. And you truly see Jesus this way. So very hard to believe…

 

[Rightlydivide]

So you didn’t re-read my post. That’s o.k. Most times Non-Catholics cannot respond to what is layed out for them. But I still ask, and you may continue to dodge this, how is it that the Ark of the Covenant which carried the written Word of God had to be “unstained” and not touched and carried a certain way and lined inside and out with gold but the vessel (yes that is my word), Mary, can be stained with sin and “touched” in any way?:

I do not compare the two and the question does not seem relevent. God accomplished his will the way the Bible records it. I see no reason to question why.
If God had wanted us to believe this, it would be in the Bible. There is nothing to indicate that Mary did not have sin.

 

[teachccd]

I do not compare the two and the question does not seem relevent. God accomplished his will the way the Bible records it. I see no reason to question why.
If God had wanted us to believe this, it would be in the Bible. There is nothing to indicate that Mary did not have sin.

Avoiding Biblical typology is avoiding what God has revealed. We only know Jesus as the true and ultimate sacrificial Lamb of God because of the Old Testament sacrifices. Everything in the Old Testament foreshadowed the New and the New Testament fulfills the Old. It’s the way God reveals Himself in a way for us to understand the fulfillment. If we fail to see this then we fail to hear our God Who painstakenly revealed Himself as an infinite God to a finite people. The suffering servant accounts of Isaiah 53 give us a window into who this Messiah should be.

You see, my friend, it is in the Bible but one must have the eyes of understanding to see. Refer to 2 Samuel chapter six and compare it to when Mary visits Elizabeth. In verse 9 David asks," How can the ark of the Lord come to me?" Elizabeth asks similarly, " How is it that the Mother of my Lord should come to me?" David lept and danced before the Ark as John the Baptist lept in the womb of Elizabeth when Mary stood on front of her.

What seems irrelevant to you resorts itself into a lack of "wanting " to understand the entire message of God. We cannot split the Old Testament and New Testament apart. They are meant to be utilized together to paint the portrait of our faith in Jesus Christ. To find typology irrelevant is to ignore the beginning of the greatest story ever told. The story of our salvation history…Re-think how you read Scripture and you will find that allowing Mary to be with sin doesn’t fit. It renders the beginning of the story meaningless and I know that is not what you’d want to do. Be fair to yourself and just check it out…God Bless…teachccd

 

[nguyencongbinh]

**Matthew in Mt 1:25 affirmed that MARY EVER REMAINED PURE – (part1) **

The virginity of Mary, Jesus’ Blessed Mother issue was clearly stated in Kata Matthaion/ the Gospel According to Matthew. In my previous pages, (post #22) I requested you to apply our punctuation marks to Mt1:24-25 because punctuating rule was unknown to ancient writers, Matthew included . We found that he wrote Mt 1:24-25 as follows:

egertheis de ho ioseph apo tou hupnou -
epoiesen hos prosetaxen auto ho angelos kuriou -
**being raised in fact the Joseph from darkness (literally from his sleep)
he immediately did as instructed him the angel of The LORD
**
Matthew then clearly intended 3 independent clauses, each was introduced by a kai/and: that connected the verbs
**Mt 1:24 B kai1 parelaben ten gunaika autou **
**And1 he took the wife of him **(stop)

(b) Mt 1: 25 A **kai2 ouk(eti) eginosken auten - **
**And2 he was never knowing her **( stop)
(c ) Mt 1:25B heos hou eteken huion –kai3 ekalesen to onoma autou –(stop)
and3 AT THE VERY TRUE TIME she gave birth to the Son -
JESUS His Name Joseph did proclaim (stop)

Historically the following avoidable mistakes occurred in readingMatthew. Missing Matthew’s intended pauses, Mt 1:18-25 were misread , misunderstood causing confusion and erroneous interpretations:

**1- We inadvertently missed a necessary pause before the word heos hou (UNTIL THE VERY TIME… THEN…) **so we used to mistakenly read without stopping: And he knew her not until she gave birth to his son. It’s a serious grammatical error.

2. We lost the meaning of the imperfect tense: Matthew wrote kai2 ouk(eti) eginosken auten – eginosken was in the imperfect tense, not in the perfect. Historically, it was never properly read as He was never knowing her but the Bible translators betrayed us by translating it into **AND HE KNEW HER NOT UNTIL HER CHILD WAS BORN ** then all resulting misinterpretations have raised. The meaning between the perfect and imperfect tenses is like apple and orange No one is granted the power to modify or distort the statement of anyone, The Word Of The Lord included.

Kata Matthaion employed many abbrev . OUK meant NON but alternatively it was the abbreviated OUKETI/ never as kat onar for kata onar in Mt 1:20. The first century Christians (or people reading the Greek with necessary grammar rules) understood *the imperfect tense showed the clock time relation as well as the aspect relation of the imperfective action… Joseph did never never have any sexual relationship with Mary. The action of not having sex continued from days to days. Joseph did so because of his respect toward Jesus and His Mother. * It’s easier for me to avoid the archaic imperfect tenses by reading kai2 ouk(eti) eginosken auten as And2 Mary Ever Remained Pure.

NOTE: The general grammar rules claimed that '**He was never knowing her ** ’ to be an independent clause. Following this rule, John Paul II, in his Nova Vulgata, placed a grammatical break before heos hou/donec (The issue he is blessed with the privilege of reading the Bible without any error need not be applicable here because we are only discussing grammar) - .The following experts in Scriptures reading - Protestants they were – also clearly understood the Greek syntax and placed a pause before the word heos hou separating Mt1:25A and Mt 1:25B. Please verify with the given source if you are in doubt:
1- **Robert Estienne Stephanus **and his 1550 Textus Receptus christianhospitality.org/greektr.htm
2- **Wycliffe and his 1382 Translation. **wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies
3- **Martin Luther **1545, www.bibledbdata.org/onlinebibles/german_l/40_001.htm
4- Geneva 1560, 5- Tyndale-1534, 6- Coverdale-1535, 7- Bishops-1568, 8- Old King James 1611 See www.faithofgod.net/NTcompare /Matthew.htm. .(reactor-core.org/geneva/geneva-0956.html

I hope the matter is settled. Since **Matthew affirmed that Mary Ever Remained Pure/ that she remained a pure lady (virgin) after Jesus was born **any false statement that there was no single verse in the Bible declaring her virginity was reversed by Matthew himself and should be completely disregarded.

**3. We failed to RAST (Read All Sentences Together) **
(to be continued in next post)

 

[nguyencongbinh]

**Matthew in Mt 1:25 affirmed that MARY EVER REMAINED PURE
** (contin. from post #29)

**3. We failed to RAST (Read All Sentences Together) **Even if you are not completely satisfied with my given statement. Please compare the following verses: I call it **the IAM (Isaiah-Angel-Matthew) Rule **created by Isaiah,and the heavenly angel followed by Matthew. Through this rule you will find that kai2 ouk(eti) eginosken auten And2 Mary Ever Remained Pure was never intended by Isaiah, nor requested by the angel. Matthew reported Joseph’s action (his respect toward Jesus and His Mother) as an independent accomplishment

Please read these 2 verses – in Greek – translation will be given later
Isa7:14: **Idou hê parthenos en gastri hexei
KAI texetai huion KAI kaleseis to onoma autou Emmanouel **
Mt1:23: **Idou hê parthenos en gastri hexei
KAI texetai huion KAI kalesousin to onoma autou Emmanouel **
Both verses are identical, except kaleseis in the prophecy foretold about 800 years before Jesus was born and kalesousin in the angel’s message. In the translation, you will find the two elements MARY giving birth to JESUS + JOSEPH to proclaim JESUS’s Name were the inseparable pair in both Isaiah and the Angel’s statement.

(Isaiah) Behold, a Young Pure Lady (a virgin) in her womb shall have (child),
AND she will give birth to Her Son, AND you (Joseph)- please proclaim (singular)His Name Emmanuel.
(Matthew reported the angel’s message to Joseph ) Behold, a Young Pure Lady (a virgin) in her womb shall have (child), AND she will give birth to Her Son, AND you-all peoples please proclaim (plural) His Name Emmanuel:
Now please compare this other following pair:
Mt1:21 t**exetai de huion KAI kaleseis to onoma autou Iesoun, **
Mt1:25: **heos hou eteken huion KAI ekalesen to onoma autou Iesoun **

Read the Greek first: In the 2 verses, DE (when it is time –vague time) is in contrast with HEOS HOU (at the very true moment- ascertained time) , kaleseis (you please call) is in contrast with ekalesen (he called)

Translation: God’s request given Joseph through the angel:
Mt 1:21 She will give birth –in deed- to Her Son,
AND you-(Joseph) please proclaim His Name Jesus
Matthew testified that Joseph had fully performed as being requested.
Mt 1:25 At the very true time she gave birth to Her Son
AND3 Joseph did proclaim His Name Jesus

REMARK 1: **Heos **means UNTIL. (Mt1:17, Mt:18: 22-23, Jn 2: 7) - HOU means **WHERE **(Mt 2:9). **HEOS HOU ** together is however a time emphasized double conjunction meaning ** UNTIL/AT THE VERY TRUE TIME **. If I read Heos Hou only as UNTIL, as many have mistranslated, the emphasized intent of Matthew is lost. (Mt 17:9 Mt 18:34, Mt 13:33, 14:22, 17:9 and 26:36. Can I cite 2 examples:
1- In Matthew: Jesus commanded the 3 disciples: Tell no one the vision (transfiguration event) heos hou until the very day The Son of Man is raised from the dead.“
2- Jesus recommended his disciples to continue to stay in the city of Jerusalem heos hou until the very day that they have been given with the power of the Holy Spirit (Lk 24:49)(Also Lk13:21, 15:8, 22:18)
This is my attempted translation

Mt 1:24 J**oseph being enlightened (raised from darkness) by YHWH The Holy Spirit, The Healer and Comforter, immediately performed as the angel of the YHWH The Lord had instructed him as follows: **
Kata Matthaion was written in 70 AD or so when Mary was still living on earth and was proclaimed in front of her in the Breaking Of The Bread eucharist) . Mary did not write the Bible but acted as the main witness source, especially with the facts concerning Jesus’ infancy.

and1 he took Mary his wife carrying the Holy Child into The Family Home –
Mt 1:25A and 2 Mary ever remained pure (literally And2 Joseph was never sexually knowing her) –
This affirmation is an answer any issues against Mary’s virginity.

Mt 1:25B **and 3 At the very time (heos hou) The Divine Child was born of Mary
YWHW SHUAH GOD SAVES ALL HUMAN BEINGS –HIS NAME-
Joseph did proclaim. **
This is the most important verse of Matthew chapter 1: Rejoice- We are saved- Follow Joseph to proclaim Salvation to everyone. The issue of Mary’s virginity is only secondary.

NEXT ISSUE:: WHEN DID JOSEPH DISCOVER MARY WAS JESUS’ MOTHER? DID JOSEPH EVER INTEND TO DIVORCE HER? YES OR NO?

 

[PapaSquash]

I do not compare the two and the question does not seem relevent. God accomplished his will the way the Bible records it. I see no reason to question why. Yet you seem to see a reason to question the teachings of the institution founded by our Lord as “the pillar and foundation of truth,” the institution that you trust to compile the Bible.

If God had wanted us to believe this, it would be in the Bible.
What, then, did he want the first generation of Christians to believe, before “the Bible” as you have it, existed?

There is nothing to indicate that Mary did not have sin.** If the teachings of the “pillar and foundation of truth” are “nothing” to you, well, there you are.**

 

[nguyencongbinh]

I was speaking with a person of another religion who told me that the blessed mother had other children and that the Catholic Church covers that up.

He quoted a vs. in Matthew. I am sure this is a typical case of people that misinterpret scripture. How do I argue that she did not?

**Dear Catholic and non Catholic friends.

Greetings. In my posts #22, 30 and 31, I requested all of you to read Mt 1:24-25… Matthew affirmed that and2 he Joseph was never sexually knowing Mary. (it means) And2 Mary Ever Remained Pure in an independent clause he intended. His clear intention was confirmed as we compared Mt 1:25 with Isaiah and other verses in Matthew chapter 1 itself

Historically it was found that for many centuries, because we missed a necessary punctuation mark and because we mistakenly changed Matthew’s imperfect tense into the perfect, we have mistakenly read without a stop as follows: AND HE KNEW HER NOT TILL HER CHILD WAS BORN. The error and the resulting confusion we caused to ourselves because Matthew was misread and misunderstood then misinterpreted.
The error was pointed out by Our Pope John Paul II, and by the other great Protestants as Stephanus, Luther… who were experts in reading The Word of God and they all had placed a pause, a break before the word heos hou (until the very true time) separating the clauses.

To me then there is no need to venture into other biblical verses or other lengthy arguments. I hope that all doubts about the Perpetual Virginity Of The Blessed Mother have been clearly answered by Matthew himself. Ahe always remained pure. So any other questions such as whether Mary had any other children with Joseph need not be answered.

In my next posts, you will find that Joseph fully understood Who Jesus was and the role of Mary before she was engaged with him. He respected and loved Jesus and Mary during his whole life. All assumptions that he was angry with Mary when he saw her pregnant, he intended to divorce her until the angel appeared to him in a dream … etc were completely false. Matthew did never say so.

Some greek words may offend you but it is necessary for me to point them out so that we can find the truth.
Each post is limited to 6000 words. I cannot post the true greek fonts and necessary photos. If you want a full discussion, or have any questions, we may exchange emails. I’ll keep them confidential. Thanks
NguyenCongBinh50@yahoo.com

**

 

[nguyencongbinh]

**ISSUE1: When did Joseph know that Jesus was His Savior? Was it BEFORE or AFTER Mary was engaged to him?

Dear friends, you all are requested to join a jury and to find the true facts. Matthew stated Mary was lawfully engaged to Joseph in the ritual#1 (aras) according to their culture. In that day Joseph did not know anything about the divine source of the Holy Child . Then before he took her to his home (ritual#2- onah), he discovered she was pregnant. Being disturbed, Joseph intended to divorce her then the angel came to him in a dream. YES, It had been my wrong understanding for many years. Matthew proved I was completely wrong.
Please start with Matthew’s declaration in Mt 1:18:

KATA MATHAION tou de iesou christou hê genesis houtôs ên
mnêsteutheisês tês mêtros autou marias tô Iôsêph prin
ê sunelthein autous
heurethê en gastri echousa ek pneumatos hagiou.

Literal meaning by word order – line by line
Of in deed Jesus Christ the origin/birth in this way was
Having been engaged the mother of him to the Joseph –prin- BEFORE THAT TIME (time2)
-e- AND ALSO BEFORE lived together they (time3)
It (subject of verb was implied- it could be the origin, or Mary) was fully made known (to Joseph in time 1B) in stomach she having( THE CHILD intime1A) from Holy Spirit

**1. Joseph was HEURETHE – made aware **
I used to assume Joseph discovered the child when he saw the pregnant Mary. I was wrong: Please compare the verb ginosko (to know) with eurisko (to know with certainty) when I say: Living in California I ginosko/know a big quake to come but to a degree of certainty even the scientists did not eurisko, Please fid that that Mt 1:18 employed the verb eurisko in the passive voice that reads heurethe . Matthew stated that Jesus’ Coming was fully made known to Joseph. The first visit of the angel is thus implied.
‘Eureka. I have found it. Wholly satisfied I am’ – shouted out the great Archimedes (287 - 214 BC) from his bath tub. About 200 years later, the great but humble man Joseph, in fear, talked to himself:‘heurethe: Fully made aware of God’s Plan I was. Unworthy but I am. I was being terrified but The Word Of YHWH God The Holy Spirit raised me up.’

2.When Joseph was made aware of Jesus’ origin
Prin means before. ‘E’ : also. Joined together as a pair, the idiom prin + e enumerating several facts and their time frame: The main Fact#1 had occurred -PRIN before- fact#2 and –E- as well as before fact#3. The pair prin e is inseparable so prin was grammatically placed not before but immediately after its verb that can even be silently implied . Please compare Mt 1: 18 with the facts of the following examples:
Acts 7:2: Andres adelphoi kai pateres, akousate. Ho theos tês doxês ôphthê tô patri hêmôn Abraam onti en tê Mesopotamia prin ê katoikêsai auton en Charran
My brothers and fathers, please listen. The God of glory appeared (fact1) to our father Abraham prin before he was in Mesopotamia (fact2), e and also before he stayed (fact3) in Haran (Acts 7:2) It was Stephen’s address to the angry mob ready to stone him to death. St. Paul was one among the accusers I believe Stephen spoke in the figurative sense because Paul and the mob were not his fathers, nor brothers.
Mc 14:30: tautê tê nukti prin ê dis alektora phônêsai tris me aparnesê- Peter, in this very night, before (prin – fact #2 the cock crows the first time was implied), and also before (h êta182) the cock crows the second time (fact#3) then three times you will deny (fact#1) me thoroughly (Mc 14:30)
This is my rough draft 18. The Lord Jesus Christ’s birth in deed occurred as follows:
His coming - in that Mary (in time#1A) in her womb having a Child from God The Holy Spirit,
was fully made known (heurethe) to Joseph ( in time#1B)
before (prin) Mary, His Mother, get engaged to Joseph, (in time#2)
as well as before (e) the day ( time#3) they lived together,
Being requested to adopt Jesus The Holy Child as his son and to become Mary’s husband, St. Joseph immediately obeyed God’s Will. However, after Mary was betrothed (time2- this ritual1 is called aras or Kiddushin), Joseph’s holiness caused him to think of his role. He disqualified himself. He fell into a big terrifying fear (time3A). He thought of withdrawing then the angel came to him. The Word Of The Lord raised him up. He then in time obeyed and celebrated the ritual2 called onah, or Nisuin or chuppah taking Her and the Divine Child into his home to finalize the marriage
NguyenCongBinh**

 

[unacanta]

The scripture passage that is often used to claim Mary’s other children has Jesus being told his “brothers and sisters are here.” Jesus responds that his brothers and sisters are those who do the will of God. The passage is generally read from a Western perspective rather than the cultural perspective in which Christ lived.
I have a sister-in-law from Thailand. While my mother was still alive they had a discussion of the various terms we have to describe relationship. In her oriental culture there is no word for cousin. The Catholic Church teaches that when Jesus referred to his brothers and sisters he was actually speaking about cousins. What is also not known is whether or not Joseph was married before he wed Mary. If he was an older man, as is often speculated, he may have had children from an earlier marriage.
Mary’s perpetual virginity is a tenet of the Catholic faith with Jesus as her only begotten son. The rest of us were adopted.

Hmmmm, I must beg to differ here. The word cousin appears only in Col4:10 Aristarchus, my fellow prisoner, sends you his greetings; and also Barnabas’s cousin Mark (about whom you received instructions; if he comes to you, welcome him);

So if cousin was meant, it would have been used.

In the passages in Mark the word is brother. Not half brother, not cousins, not pal, nor anything else. Is it so hard to accept the bible and what it says as true?

Gal1:19 But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother.

Again not a cousin, not pal, not a friend but specifically the Lord’s brother.

RCC Magisterium teaching has taken the very humanity of Christ away by deifying Mary. Yes,Christ our Lord entered our world via the birth canal of Mary just as any other human baby does.

It is totally absurd to think that Josph and Mary never had sexual intercourse once Jesus was born. They were a man and woman just as any other in the world. There is no scripture which would lead us to believe anything else.

The difference is God decided to nestle into the placenta of a peasant virgin. Once He was born she did not know if to worship Him or feed Him, so she did both. The strong arms of Joesph which held Him knew not to what to call Him. In the end he just named Him Jesus as the Angel instructed.

To deny the humanity and frailness of Mary cast doubt on the Christ, the God who appeared in the flesh.

Len

 

[Chuck_M]

It is totally absurd to think that Josph and Mary never had sexual intercourse once Jesus was born. They were a man and woman just as any other in the world. There is no scripture which would lead us to believe anything else.

The difference is God decided to nestle into the placenta of a peasant virgin. Once He was born she did not know if to worship Him or feed Him, so she did both. The strong arms of Joesph which held Him knew not to what to call Him. In the end he just named Him Jesus as the Angel instructed.

I realize that this is a popular argument, but just think about it for a minute. Your second paragraph above seems to imply that Mary and Joseph weren’t really sure about the divinity of Jesus. Even still, how is it “absurd” to think that after giving birth to the Son of God they might refrain from sexual relations? I would think that this would be the more likely scenario.

 

[unacanta]

I realize that this is a popular argument, but just think about it for a minute. Your second paragraph above seems to imply that Mary and Joseph weren’t really sure about the divinity of Jesus. Even still, how is it “absurd” to think that after giving birth to the Son of God they might refrain from sexual relations? I would think that this would be the more likely scenario.

You point of course is well taken. We must consider though you peer the the Magisterium Teaching and the imagine things which were conjured up by it, not necessarily paying heed to what scripture said or did not say. If you read the scripture little is said one way or the other concerning Mary other than to reveal she was human which was why Christ came so that he could share in our humanity.

The point here and I will not try to get myself entangled in the argument if she remained a virgin through out her entire life is it really matters not. Our faith is in Christ the Savior, not His mother or the status of her virginity.

Len

 

[gus]

You point of course is well taken. We must consider though you peer the the Magisterium Teaching and the imagine things which were conjured up by it, not necessarily paying heed to what scripture said or did not say. If you read the scripture little is said one way or the other concerning Mary other than to reveal she was human which was why Christ came so that he could share in our humanity.

The point here and I will not try to get myself entangled in the argument if she remained a virgin through out her entire life is it really matters not. Our faith is in Christ the Savior, not His mother or the status of her virginity.

Len

I would disagree with your last point because of the Following
If Mary had other children then the divinity of Christ is in serious question. If Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit then no way would Joseph be intimate with Mary. That would be an abomination. We Catholic’s from the ECF’s understood this
and have defended this point.
There was never a shortage of people who wanted to disprove Chirst’s Dininity.

 

[nguyencongbinh]

The word cousin appears only in Col4:10 …
… So if cousin was meant, it would have been used.
In the passages in Mark the word is brother. Not half brother, not cousins, not pal, nor anything else. Is it so hard to accept the bible and what it says as true?

My dear Catholic Answers Friends,
Fact#1: The doubt on Mary’s purity dated even before Jerome’s time because Matthew’s 1:18-25 was poorly punctuated and Matthew’s words erroneously modified.
Mary’s purity - her perpetual Virginity - was a fact affirmed by Mt in Mt1:25. The fact was confirmed by John Paul II through his new official version of the Bible called Nova Vulgata. In my posts I have pointed out that Matthew wrote KAI OUK(eti) EGINOSKEN AUTEN as an independent clause. John Paul II translated it into Latin as ET NON CGNOSCEBAT EAM and a grammatical COMA he added here. Let’s me translated it into English: AND2 JOSEPH WAS NEVER KNOWING MARY (I stop here because it’s an independent clause.)
English is my second language but the syntax required me to value the difference between **AND2 HE KNEW HER NOT ** in contrast with AND2 JOSEPH WAS NEVER KNOWING MARY. Why did Matthew employ the imperfect tense? Matthew affirmed Mary’s Virginity a true fact. Can anyone modify it into a perfect tense? We have mistakenly did so The imperfect tense and the perfect tense are like apple and orange. We all should read as the grammar required: And2 he was never knowing her. The imperfect tense looked archaic so I can read : (a) Joseph did never know (having sex) with Mary during his life - (b) or more politely AND2 MARY EVER REMAINED PURE. Hope you may read my posts again have thus read Mt 1:25 and Mt 1:18. I will read the rest of Mt1 with you.

Fact#2: Unfortunately, until now many still mistakenly read AND HE KNEW HER NOT UNTIL SHE BORE HER FIRST BORN CHILD. In believing that it’s THE TRUE WORD OF THE LORD, we assumed Jesus had other brothers (adelphoi), and sisters.
It’s interesting to find after reading Mt 1:1-17 that Jesus self proclaimed He is the **ben Adam Son Of Man **and adopted not only Joseph but the whole sinful human family as His fathers then as The First Born Brother of his human family so that all adamsA. B, C to …Z be saved. (Adam means a human). YES. you and I, we are all brothers and sisters of Christ, too because : *People God knew in the beginning and God at that time also determined them to be conformed to His Son’s image, so that Jesus to be the firstborn among his many brothers and sisters. (*Rom 8:29). Jesus affectionately called his disciples **‘my brothers’ (**Mt 28:10) and each of us. Here are (Mary) my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother, and sister, and (as Mary, my) mother." (Mt 12:50)
The old tradition of the Jews calling ach their own brothers as well as their cousins, nephews, neighbors and other Jews as ach/brothers (Gen 14:16, 19:7; 29:15, Num14:33; Rom 9:3; Strong #251&252). Please read Gen 14:13-16, how many times the term ‘brother’ was used but it was the way Abraham calling his nephew Lot. When Jesus, Mary, Matthew, Paul … etc… were still on earth, the old Jewish tradition was still observed. ACH was translated into adelphoi/brothers. My brothers and fathers adelphoi kai patéres were Stephen’s last words to St. Paul and other angry people before he was stoned to death (Acts 7:2). Paul was never married but Timothy was at the same time his brother and his son (Phi 1:1, 1Tim:2; 2Tim:1,2). It’s interesting. Onesimus and Philemon were Paul’s brothers, too even they were not Jews. Jesus affectionately called his disciples ** ‘my brothers’ **(Mt 28:10) The apostles adopted themselves as adelphoi brothers and it was the way the Christians are calling themselves. Through Jesus’ blood, we are saved. May the practice continue because we are his true blood brothers and blood sisters through His Blood.

In my next posts, please read Mt 1:19 and 1:20 with me . Thanks

For thousand years, we, the Vietnamese also called each other anh (brother) chi (sister) or em (young sister and brother) To the older people we called them bac, chu (uncles) or co, di (aunts). See any Vietnamese, call them anh chi em brother or sister and they like it].

 

[nguyencongbinh]

I God accomplished his will the way the Bible records it. I see no reason to question why.if God had wanted us to believe this, it would be in the Bible. There is nothing,

Answer from PapaSquash:
I do not compare the two and the question does not seem relevent. God accomplished his will the way the Bible records it. I see no reason to question why.

Yet you seem to see a reason to question the teachings of the institution founded by our Lord as “the pillar and foundation of truth,” the institution that you trust to compile the Bible.

If God had wanted us to believe this, it would be in the Bible.
What, then, did he want the first generation of Christians to believe, before “the Bible” as you have it, existed?

I agree with PapaSquash. May I add a few FACTS. Reasons may differ- Facts cannot.
MARY WAS THE MAIN LIVING WITNESS TESTIFYING THE FACTS RECORDED IN THE GOOD NEWS

**Historical facts in Jesus’ life were based on witnesses’ account. How many years the Mother Of Jesus did live among the first believers? Did she share the Story of Salvation with them? How did Matthew and Luke gather facts concerning Jesus’ birth, the events in his tender years under the care of Mary and Joseph? Was Mary present at the thousands Sunday Eucharists? Did the apostles, Matthew included, repeat Jesus’ Word in front of her? Yes. Acts Of The Apostles affirmed it. Mary did not write the Gospel but she supported it as the main witness.

Of course she was the only witness when the angel visited her, when she sung the Magnificat, when Joseph proposed the marriage then wedded her, when Jesus was born at Bethlehem, and when the Holy Family fled to Egypt. She was the only witness about the life of The Risen Christ and her life as Joseph’s wife. The Cana wedding wonderful sign was pronounced the first miracle by Mary rather than John. It was Mary, standing next to the cross and listening to the dying Jesus’ last words that were recorded in the Gospel. It was her leading the apostles to build a strong faith in Jesus.

Paul vehemently persecuted the first believers but himself suddenly became an important witness/apostle and started building more new Christian communities. Since Peter and the apostles could not stay at the same time with all, their speeches (sharing of the Good News- or namely homilies in the Sunday Eucharists) were recorded in many copies and regularly distributed to the various congregations. The copies were later compiled (rewritten then bound into books) about 70-80 or so into “The Good News according to Mark (Peter), Matthew, or Luke, or John, or more” as we received them today. Some other books could have been lost. Of course Greek was the ‘international’ language at the time. The Salvation Book/ The Bible was inspired but the main facts concerning the risen Chirst were based on the then living and credible witnesses. We cannot deny these facts

The New Testament (in the form we have now) thus appeared hundred years after the Church was born. The facts were given by the witnesses to all Christians then by them to the next generations. People called the Virginity of Mary a dogma, I called it a fact affirmed by Matthew and Luke. Mary’s virginity is secondary to the Mystery Jesus was born as Our Savior, It’s however important, not to glorify or to deify her, but to glory Her Son.

Please read my posts. What did Matthew state about Mary’s Purity? He did not give any opinion, nor reasoning, but only facts - the actions of Joseph- kai ouk(eti) eginosken auten, Et non cognoscebat eam.** And Joseph was never knowing her. Please use the imperfect tense. Please do not read AND HE KNEW HER NOT TILL SHE BORE HER SON. It was the way the Bible - Mt 1:25 - was written. Please don’t change the syntax, nor the tense of the verb TO KNOW… May I make it simple: And2 Mary Ever Remained A Pure Virgin