Joseph was actually married to Mary, right?

[mmmcounts]

Ok, finally participating. For exhibit A, I’ll keep it brief.

EXAMPLE: I did not buy you dinner until I met you in person.
This satement does not mean that I bought dinner after we met …

It certainly does imply that you bought me dinner. And you did it when (or soon after) we finally met in person.

After the automobile accident almost took his life, Mike gave up drinking until the day that he died.

Does this statement mean that Mike took up drinking again once he was dead?

In order for an analogy to be valid, it must be similar enough to the initial subject that it warrants comparison. This does not qualify. Here’s what’s different: Following my death, I’m not capable of drinking. This is different from the initial statement about Mary and Joseph because they were certainly capable of having relations. Here is an example of a valid analogy:

After the automobile accident almost took my life I gave up drinking until the day of my [random family member]'s death.

Does this statement mean I took up drinking again on or shortly following the day of this tragic event? It does. That’s exactly what it means. I gave up drinking. Then tragedy struck. Then I took up drinking again. That is exactly the meaning of what is conveyed in that statement.

Randy, are you married? If so, try telling your father-in-law this: “I did not have relations with your daughter until we got engaged.” See what he thinks of that.

Seriously, please do this. After all, if your father-in-law is as perceptive as you are, there’s no way he’ll make a spurious assumption about pre-marital relations between the two of you based on such a statement. If he does, though, you are permitted to refute that assumption only using the arguments brought forward on this thread:

1. He’s reading too much into an idiomatic statement (you know what an idiom is, right? because this isn’t one),
2. He’s displaying typical father-in-law inability to look at historical context,
3. The word “until” or “til” is only binding on what comes before the event- the emphasis is on what “did not happen” before, so the topic of carnal relations after your engagement is not the topic at hand.

I would especially enjoy seeing you try to use number 3. It’s fun to imagine these kinds of things…This is what it would look like, just for review: In casual conversation with your wife’s dad, you mention that you didn’t have (relations) with his daughter until you were engaged. After telling him not to read so much into an idiomatic statement and that he should stop being so historically ignorant, tell him your statement had nothing to do with what you guys did after the engagement. See how that flies.

Remember, if you really believe this is what that kind of phrase means, you’ll back it up and do it. If you can’t bring yourself to do it, you’re going to have to do one of two things: Come up with a reason why this example is invalid, or admit that this use of language does have bearing on the events that happen after the conditions are met.

Here’s my example one more time: You say to your father-in-law,

You know, I didn’t [have union with] your daughter until she said yes to my proposal of marriage.

Compare this to Matthew 1:25-

But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son.

I’m guessing your dad’s a pretty smart guy. If you tell him this, I’m sure he’ll understand how it’s an idiomatic expression, it only refers to your actions prior to the engagement, and there’s no way it will communicate any kind of infidelity or misconduct between the engagement and the marriage. So go ahead and tell him this. There’s no way it will get you in any trouble.

I figure the perpetual virginity thing is the most important point, so we’ll tackle it first. After all, even if Jesus’ brothers weren’t birthed by Mary, that’s not really the point. The main point is this notion that Mary remained a virgin her entire life, an idea first promulgated by an apocryphal text that includes falsified information about both its date and authorship. Those are just two reasons why no one includes the Gospel of James in their canon. Yet the Catholic Church declares that its stories should be believed de fide. Funny, no?

Granted, the declaration does not reference the pseudepigraphical text directly, and for that exact reason- it’s never appropriate to base de fide doctrine on an apocryphal text. So the dogma (by virtue of the ordinary and universal Magisterium) merely states that it’s based on readily accepted history- which, as I’ve seen in your little Catholic tract, comes entirely from the Gospel of John and its acceptance by most (though not all) of the people whose opinions you care about. Yes, there is something wrong with that. It’s called the creation of de fide beliefs based on spurious apocryphal text. You know that ain’t right.

One more thing: We’ve only talked about Matthew 1:25 to this point. What about Matthew 1:18? This is the literal translation.

And of Jesus Christ, the birth was thus: For his mother Mary having been betrothed to Joseph, before their coming together she was found to have conceived from the Holy Spirit,

Now that’s an even bigger problem. You can’t really get out of that one. Yep, Joseph and Mary had relations. No doubt about it. She conceived Jesus before they came together, but later on, “come together” they surely did. And since that’s the case, none of the rest really matters. Not that I couldn’t school you on the “brothers” thing, or the stuff with John and the foot of the cross. But the thing is, those things are nothing more than a means to an end- and that is to demonstrate that Mary and Joseph were, indeed, married (see the title of the OP) and they had marital relations. That’s it.

I’d like to see what you can do with Matthew 1:18. And Randy, let me know how it goes with your father-in-law.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Ok, finally participating. For exhibit A, I’ll keep it brief. … I’d like to see what you can do with Matthew 1:18. And Randy, let me know how it goes with your father-in-law.

As you took your leisure, so will I given the hour of the night.

However, I’d like to quickly offer the following quotes from famous Protestants with whom you are no doubt familiar. Each of these learned men, who I daresay, had studied the Bible Alone far more than any young college student, professed their belief in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

Tell me, Mike, have you uncovered something that escaped the attention of:

Martin Luther (1483-1546)****

“Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb…This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.”

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

“A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ…Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity.”

“Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity…When Matthew says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her…This babble…is without justification…he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.”

John Calvin (1509-1564)****

“Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s ‘brothers’ are sometimes mentioned.”

“The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband…No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words…as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called ‘first-born’; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin…What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us…No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.”

“Under the word ‘brethren’ the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity.”

Huldreich Zwingli (1484-1531)****

“I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonourable, impious, unworthy or evil…I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity.”

“I speak of this in the holy Church of Zurich and in all my writings: I recognize MARY AS EVER VIRGIN AND HOLY.” (January 1528 in Berne)

Heinrich Bullinger (1504-1575)****

“The Virgin Mary…completely sanctified by the grace and blood of her only Son and abundantly endowed by the gift of the Holy Spirit and preferred to all…now lives happily with Christ in heaven and is called and remains ever-Virgin and Mother of God.”

John Wesley (1703-1791)****

“I believe…he [Jesus Christ] was born of the blessed Virgin, who, as well after as she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.”

 

[patrick457]

One more thing: We’ve only talked about Matthew 1:25 to this point. What about Matthew 1:18? This is the literal translation.

And of Jesus Christ, the birth was thus: For his mother Mary having been betrothed to Joseph, before their coming together she was found to have conceived from the Holy Spirit,

Now that’s an even bigger problem. You can’t really get out of that one. Yep, Joseph and Mary had relations. No doubt about it. She conceived Jesus before they came together, but later on, “come together” they surely did. And since that’s the case, none of the rest really matters. Not that I couldn’t school you on the “brothers” thing, or the stuff with John and the foot of the cross. But the thing is, those things are nothing more than a means to an end- and that is to demonstrate that Mary and Joseph were, indeed, married (see the title of the OP) and they had marital relations. That’s it.

I think we’re playing semantics in an English translation here. Why not try the original Greek and prove from it that they did have marital relations with each other after Jesus? And make sure to note the differences between Greek and English grammar…

 

[CWBetts]

And of Jesus Christ, the birth was thus: For his mother Mary having been betrothed to Joseph, before their coming together she was found to have conceived from the Holy Spirit,

I dont get how this says they come together. In fact it doesn’t. Nowhere in the Scriptures does it say that Mary and Joseph ever had marital realtions. So, our belief in the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Mother isn’t against scriptures. It is only contrary to YOUR INTERPRETATION of the Scriptures. And as a Proteastant don’t you believe everyone is entitled to inerperet the Scriptures as the Holy Spirit guides them? Or does that onle apply to those that agree with you?

 

[Della]

First of all, I’m sorry if it seems like we are piling on you with replies, but it’s kind of unavoidable considering there’s only one of you and several of us–so please don’t think we are trying to overwhelm you with the number of replies, we’re just trying to respond to your points.

mmmcounts:

I figure the perpetual virginity thing is the most important point, so we’ll tackle it first. After all, even if Jesus’ brothers weren’t birthed by Mary, that’s not really the point. The main point is this notion that Mary remained a virgin her entire life, an idea first promulgated by an apocryphal text that includes falsified information about both its date and authorship. Those are just two reasons why no one includes the Gospel of James in their canon. Yet the Catholic Church declares that its stories should be believed de fide. Funny, no?

I’m afraid you’ve set up a straw man here. The Catholic Church never based it’s teachings on the Gospel of James. In fact, the Catholic Church went out of it’s way to not include it in the Canon of Sacred Scripture.

The idea of Mary’s perpetual virginity came from the oral teachings of the Apostles which also make up Sacred Tradition (Scripture being one part) and has been passed down through the centuries in the living witness of the Church.

Also, the Bible is not used as a “proof-text” by the Catholic Church. It is a “witness to” not a “proof for” any teaching. It’s Protestants who insist on using the Bible as a proof-text–probably because one can deduce anything by using it in that way.

In order to understand why the Church teaches what it teaches on any subject you first need to know how it discerns what is true in matters of faith and morals, which you obviously don’t know or you wouldn’t make statements like the one cited above. :yup:

Unless and until you do take the trouble to understand this, no fruitful discussion on Mary’s perpetual virginity (or indeed any other teaching of the Church) can happen.

 

[mmmcounts]

First of all, I’m sorry if it seems like we are piling on you with replies, but it’s kind of unavoidable considering there’s only one of you and several of us–so please don’t think we are trying to overwhelm you with the number of replies, we’re just trying to respond to your points.

Thanks, I’ll do my best to keep up. If it looks like I’m picking and choosing on what to respond to, I do it because I have to…but I will try to get to all the important stuff eventually.

I’m afraid you’ve set up a straw man here. The Catholic Church never based its teachings on the Gospel of James. In fact, the Catholic Church went out of its way to not include it in the Canon of Sacred Scripture.

It’s not a straw man. The Gospel of James is the source of the “Ever-Virgin” myth. I treat it as an apocryphal text written at a different time than claimed by the author, whose identity is also false- and I treat the text as myth that may have some grain of truth to it, but only on the level that The Da Vinci Code contains grains of truth. In each case, I treat the text as a joke- something that has perhaps 10% truth to it, but the other 90% is fabrication. Oh, and the reason I don’t think it’s a straw man is because of this Catholic tract supplied by Princess18. catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp

It opens with the “inoculation strategy”- give a weak/incomplete Protestant argument and then refute it. Paragraph two is about “an important historical document” called the Protoevangelium of James. Paragraphs 3-6 all say something like “according to the Gospel of James.” The last two paragraphs of the first section return to the “brethren” topic.

Part two is entitled “The Protoevangelium of James” and talks about what it says. After this, all that remains is to quote people like Origen, Athanasius, Jerome, etc. who believe the stories found in the Gospel of James are legit. The first witness even says so explicitly.

Now what am I supposed to get out of that? There are perhaps three paragraphs dedicated to the “inoculation,” a few “arguments from authority,” and all the rest is devoted to the evidence found in the Gospel of James. Heck yes the Catholic Church bases this de fide belief on the Gospel of James.

(Patrick457) I think we’re playing semantics in an English translation here. Why not try the original Greek and prove from it that they did have marital relations with each other after Jesus? And make sure to note the differences between Greek and English grammar…

Ok, we can try it.

Τοῦ δὲ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἡ γένεσις οὕτως ἦν. μνηστευθείσης τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ Μαρίας τῷ Ἰωσήφ, πρὶν ἢ συνελθεῖν αὐτοὺς εὑρέθη ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχουσα ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου.

Again, the literal translation.

And of Jesus Christ, the birth was thus: For his mother Mary having been betrothed to Joseph, before their coming together she was found to have conceived from the Holy Spirit,

First, this phrase: μνηστευθείσης τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ Μαρίας τῷ Ἰωσήφ,
Skip the first word for the moment; verbs are usually placed differently in Koine than in English. Starting with the second word, “the” (def. article, gen. s. f.) “mother” (noun, genitive [implying ownership], s.) “of him” (pronoun, also genitive; indicates that his mother is…) “Mary” (the mother of Jesus).
Now we need that verb. The first Greek word you see there is: “Was espoused to” (aorist, which is a kind of past tense; pas, f.) “Joseph.”

Up next…

πρὶν ἢ συνελθεῖν
πρὶν ἢ- taken together, this means “before” and is an adverb acting as a preposition. It tells you when something happened. We get two time-oriented statements. For future reference, this is what they are: At the time when Mary and Joseph were “espoused to” each other, and before they came together. These both tell us the timing of her conception.

συνελθεῖν- “to be together coming.” There are a few possible translations, depending on the context. It could refer either to coming together or going together. If it is coming together, it could refer to the assembly of people together or to conjugal cohabitation. If it is “going,” it refers to two or more people going to the same place together. In this case, it refers to conjugal cohabitation. The main point of this is to communicate how Mary was fulfilling prophecy, quoted a couple of verses later: “Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son.” The “coming together” reference point only makes sense in the context of the prophecy if it is a statement declaring that she conceived before her first conjugal relations with Joseph. And if these conjugal relations are used as a reference point for other events in the lives of Mary and Joseph, we know they happened. The conjugal relations ARE the reference point.

If the statement about the conception happening prior to their “coming together” means “before their conjugal relations,” it’s relevant. It identifies Mary as a virgin who conceives, then says she fulfilled the prophecy about the virgin who conceives. If, on the other hand, you prefer a translation that makes no mention of conjugal relations with respect to their “coming together,” you are at a loss as to how that fulfills the prophecy concerning a virgin who conceives. The statement did have something to do with the prophecy, though, which Mary fulfilled. And it wasn’t because she conceived before going on a trip with Joseph. It was because she conceived before having conjugal relations with him. In order to express her virginity, συνελθεῖν must refer to that kind of “coming together.”

The chapter ends by saying καὶ οὐκ ἐγίνωσκεν αὐτὴν ἕως οὗ ἔτεκεν υἱόν- “and did not know her till she brought forth her son, and he called his name Jesus.” Verse 25 plainly states what Mary and Joseph were doing before Jesus’ birth- they were being chaste. It also lets you know they were chaste only until a certain time, though I can’t seem to prove it to your satisfaction. (Randy, how did that thing go with your father-in-law? Just send him an e-mail saying “I had no conjugal relations with your daughter until we got engaged.” He should understand perfectly). Let’s not forget verse 18, though. While verse 25 speaks of their chastity until the reference point of Jesus birth, verse 18 talks about the time of Mary’s conception through the power of the Holy Spirit. This is said to happen before a certain referential event, and that event is the coming-together of Mary and Joseph. The prophetic reference forces you to understand in the sense of conjugal cohabitation which properly follows marriage.

This shouldn’t be too hard to handle though, right? I mean, you don’t take the Gospel of James all that seriously to begin with…right? You don’t base any teachings and beliefs on that- and surely not any sort of dogma or de fide beliefs. Or so Della says.

 

[davidv]

{snip
It’s not a straw man. The Gospel of James is the source of the “Ever-Virgin” myth.
{snip}

It certainly is. This is a baseless assertion. Please provide convincing evidence.

 

[Axion]

mmmcounts

1. The Greek sentence is merely there to show WHEN the conception of Jesus took place in time, and that she was a virgin when this happened. That is its sole concern.
2. Your supposition on the precise meaning of “coming together” is by no means valid - (you prefer “had sexual relations” traditional Christianity says “shared a home”) .

Gospel usage of the word for “coming together” referred to here: Sunevrcomai, is as follows**.**

Mr 3:20 And He came home, and the multitude gathered again, to such an extent that they could not even eat a meal.
Mr 14:53 And they led Jesus away to the high priest; and all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes gathered together.
Lu 5:15 But the news about Him was spreading even farther, and great multitudes were gathering to hear Him and to be healed of their sicknesses.
Lu 23:55 Now the women who had come with Him out of Galilee followed after, and saw the tomb and how His body was laid.
Joh 11:33 When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews who** came with** her, also weeping, He was deeply moved in spirit, and was troubled,
Joh 18:20 Jesus answered him, "I have spoken openly to the world; I always taught in synagogues, and in the temple, where all the Jews come together; and I spoke nothing in secret.

NONE of these scriptural usages of the same word has ANYTHING TO DO WITH having sexual relations.

1. You then claim that Mary and Joseph having sexual relations was used as a “reference point” for the prophecy in Isaiah and must therefore be a fact. This is reverse reasoning since you have not proved the first claim that any sexual relations were intended in the pasage! And Isaiah does not contain any prophecy that the Virgin the prophecy referred to, would cease to remain such.
2. "and did not know her till she brought forth her son, and he called his name Jesus." You have done nothing to prove that “till” here means that anything happened after Jesus’s birth. We go back to the fact that biblically, “till” does not mean that anything happened afterwards. Even interpreting the word “know” as meaning having sexual relations is a guess, since the word “know” means no more in general New testament use than it does in English.
3. The principal response to all these modern theories and presumptions about the Greek is quite simple. The early Church WROTE the scriptures, and spoke the same Greek they were written in. The early Church believed in the perpetual Virginity of Mary, and the Greek Church still does. These people KNEW their own language and what it meant - a lot better than modern English-speakers.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Michael-

I’d like to commend you for asking the right question. Matthew 1:18 and Matthew 2:25 are excellent, though common, verses to employ if one wants to deny the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. In fact, these verses are so obvious, that they were first utilized in the fourth century by Helvidius who made the same arguments against Our Lady that you have made.

Helvidius was answered forcefully by St. Jerome in a tract entitled, Against Helvidius, in 383 A.D. The date is interesting because it shows that belief in this doctrine is truly ancient—far older than sola scriptura or sola fide which are theological novelties by comparison. Origen, Hillary of Poitiers, Athanasius and Epiphanius had all written of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity long before Jerome took up his pen. Speaking of Jerome’s refutation, the noted Protestant scholar J.N.D. Kelly wrote:
“[Jerome] travesties [Helvidius’s] argument, insisting (to take one point) that it implies that Joseph seized Mary in his lustful embrace the very moment she was delivered of her child. The treatise is a dialectical masterpiece. One by one he dissects Helvidius’s points, and by cleverly deploying scripture satisfies himself that that the apparent meaning of the gospel texts is neither the only nor in fact the correct one…” (J.N.D. Kelly, Jerome: His Life, Writings and Controversies [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998], 105.)
St. Thomas Aquinas also wrote in condemnation in his Summa Theologiae:
We abhor the error of Helvidius who dared to say that Christ’s mother had intercourse with Joseph after His birth and bore other children. Christ, the only begotten of the Father, was fittingly the only begotten of His mother too, nor would it have been fitting for a womb which was the shrine of the Holy Spirit to be desecrated by a man, or for Mary herself to show ingratitude by deliberately losing what God had so miraculously preserved. So we assert without qualification that the Mother of God conceived as a virgin, gave birth as a virgin, and remained a virgin after the birth. The brothers of the Lord were not natural brothers, born of the same mother, but blood-relations.” (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, ed. Timothy McDermott [Westminster, MD: Christian Classics, 1989], 515.)
Reformer John Calvin, no friend of the Catholic Church, likewise condemned Helvidius’s error in no uncertain terms:
“Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s ‘brothers’ are sometimes mentioned.”

“The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband…No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words…as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called ‘first-born’; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin…What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us…No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.”

“Under the word ‘brethren’ the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity.”
Of course, Jerome’s demolition of Helvidius’s argument and the rebukes just cited are leveled at your own, as well, for in this misguided belief, you are spiritual bed-fellows.

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Before turning to the texts you and Helvidius have misused to bolster your common misunderstandings, I would like to say a few words about the circumstances under which the Virgin Mary agreed to be married. Ancient Tradition holds that Mary had taken an oath to remain a life-long celibate, and scriptural support for this view is not found wanting.

First, we may examine the words of Mary herself at the annunciation after the angel told her that she would be with child and bear a son: “How will this be since I am a virgin?” Mary was accustomed to the realities of life in a pastoral society. She knew how babies were made, and she was about to be married. “How can this be?” would seem like a pretty silly question unless she had made a prior vow of virginity. Thus, from Mary’s own lips, we have an indication that she had taken a vow of perpetual virginity.

Second, the Law of Moses contained specific instructions for both men and women who had made vows to the Lord. This can be found in the thirtieth chapter of the book of Numbers.

Numbers 30:1-16
1 Moses said to the heads of the tribes of Israel: "This is what the LORD commands: 2 When a man makes a vow to the LORD or takes an oath to obligate himself by a pledge, he must not break his word but must do everything he said.

3 "When a young woman still living in her father’s house makes a vow to the LORD or obligates herself by a pledge 4 and her father hears about her vow or pledge but says nothing to her, then all her vows and every pledge by which she obligated herself will stand. 5 But if her father forbids her when he hears about it, none of her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand; the LORD will release her because her father has forbidden her.

6 "If she marries after she makes a vow or after her lips utter a rash promise by which she obligates herself 7 and her husband hears about it but says nothing to her, then her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand. 8 But if her husband forbids her when he hears about it, he nullifies the vow that obligates her or the rash promise by which she obligates herself, and the LORD will release her.

9 "Any vow or obligation taken by a widow or divorced woman will be binding on her.

10 “If a woman living with her husband makes a vow or obligates herself by a pledge under oath 11 and her husband hears about it but says nothing to her and does not forbid her, then all her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand. 12 But if her husband nullifies them when he hears about them, then none of the vows or pledges that came from her lips will stand. Her husband has nullified them, and the LORD will release her. 13 Her husband may confirm or nullify any vow she makes or any sworn pledge to deny herself. 14 But if her husband says nothing to her about it from day to day, then he confirms all her vows or the pledges binding on her. He confirms them by saying nothing to her when he hears about them. 15 If, however, he nullifies them some time after he hears about them, then he is responsible for her guilt.”

16 These are the regulations the LORD gave Moses concerning relationships between a man and his wife, and between a father and his young daughter still living in his house.
From this passage, we can see that the Law of Moses contained instructions for determining which vows were to be honored and which could be nullified by the parents or husband of a woman. While this passage does not provide any evidence that Mary had taken a vow of chastity, it does demonstrate that significant vows to God did occur in ancient Jewish society and that they were to be taken very seriously. Those who make light of the Catholic claim that Mary had taken such a vow should pause in light of the passage just quoted.

Concerning the Annunciation, we read the following exchange between the angel Gabriel and Mary:
Luke 1:31-34
31You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. 32He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end." 34"How will this be," Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”

To recap, at the time of this dialogue, Mary was betrothed to Joseph. Under Jewish law, they were already married but not yet living under one roof. If she had taken no vow of perpetual virginity, she would soon be engaging in normal marital relations with the likelihood of conception in the very near future. In this case, her question, “How will this be since I am a virgin?” makes no sense. If her virginity was only temporary, she knew that pregnancy would occur naturally soon enough.

On the other hand, if Mary had made a vow of perpetual virginity to the Lord, then her question makes much more sense. “How will this be since I am a virgin?” indicates that Mary questioned how this conception could occur since she had no plans to engage in marital relations because she was a virgin – a consecrated virgin by means of a vow before the Lord. Since Mary obviously understood how babies are made, she asked the angel how she could conceive without violating her oath to God. The angel responded that she would be overshadowed by the power of the Most High.

In preparing for the Incarnation, God performed two miracles: He preserved the young virgin’s womb during conception, and He opened the barren womb of the older woman, Elizabeth. “For nothing is impossible with God.” (Luke 1:37)

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Two other points which have already been noted elsewhere in this thread and are worthy of repeating:

1. “Until” in Scripture is used in the sense the Church understands it in Matthew elsewhere, such as the examples mentioned in previously in this thread: 2 Samuel, Hebrews and 2 Timothy. In all three cases, “until” did not mean a change in situation but only referred to what preceded events, such as Micah’s death, etc.
2. Mary’s perpetual virginity, assumption, and immaculate conception are all due to her unique relationship with Jesus Christ. It is all done for HIS GLORY, which is GOD’S. She was kept spotless so that He would have a clean temple in which to reside when He was conceived within her by the power of the Holy Spirit. The Church celebrates Mary not for her own sake, but for what God has done for her, which shows us His goodness and mercy to those Who hear His Word and keep it. And remember that Mary said in Scripture itself that her soul magnifies the Glory of the Lord, which means that she lives to reflect His Light, as the moon has no light of its own but can only reflect the light of the sun. In her case, Mary has no light of her own but can only reflect the Light of the Son.

Now, with all of this a precursor, I would like to turn to the text with which you issued your challenge to me, Matthew 1:18, which reads as follows: “This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit.”

Remarking on this text, former Presbyterian pastor and now Catholic convert Scott Hahn writes:
“Betrothal in ancient Judaism was unlike modern-day engagements. It was a temporary period (up to one year) between the covenant of marriage itself and the time when spouses lived together. Because couples were legally married during this intervening phase, a betrothal could be terminated only by death or divorce.” (Hahn, Scott and Curtis Mitch, The Gospel of Matthew, [San Francisco, CA, Ignatius Press, 2000], 18.)
The phrase “before they came together” as man and wife as found in Mt. 1:18 refers to this union of a married couple under one roof and not to their initiation of sexual activity.

There is simply no explicit or implicit reference in the text to suggest that Mary and Joseph had normal sexual relations at any time after the birth of Jesus and to believe otherwise is simply wishful thinking. To the contrary, the consistent witness of the Christian Church, beginning with the writings of the Early Church Fathers through the time of the Reformation and down to this very day is that Mary remained a virgin all the days of her life.

Beyond this, it would be folly for me to attempt a more elegant defense of Mary’s honor than was given by St. Jerome. Therefore, having said all I feel obliged to say, I refer you to those words penned more than 16 centuries ago and wherein you may read your undoing: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[RobbyS]

I just wanted to add to Yada’s excellent post that you are also projecting onto people in a different time and culture our sensibilities about marriage. People in Mary’s day didn’t fall in love and then get married. Marriages were contracted by parents for their children or other head of the family. They didn’t marry for love–they married to produce heirs and to maintain a stable society. Romance had almost no place in marriage. Joseph would not have felt deprived nor Mary either of anything by not having marital relations if both had agreed beforehand to remain chaste.

Also, as you read the Gospels you will never find a reference to Mary being the mother of anyone but Jesus. Whenever Mary is mentioned as a mother it is only with reference to Jesus and no one else. The persons listed as Jesus’ brothers and sisters were tribal relations of theirs not blood brothers and sisters.

Good points. To which I add that Protestant interpretation is affected by the historical hostility of the Reformers to monasticism and priestly celibacy. They also had a certain sympathy with the Jews, and assumed that the Jews they knew were exactly like the Jews of Jesus’ time. The Jews of their time also had no use for celibacy, or certainly did not think of it as especially virtuous, a Catholic tradition did. Hence the Protestants concluded that Mary and Joseph were a typical Jewish family of the 16th Century. Reading the Bible and seeing the words “Brothers” and “sisters” they concluded as fact which the New Testment does not say is fact. The Catholic stress on the virtue of virginity had led to the notion that Joseph was also a Virgin, but a separate tradtion has it that he was an older man, a widow with sons and daughters. But it may that --as was so often the case–Jesus was part of an extended family in a small village where almost everyone was at least distantly related. IAC, the text lends itself to many different interpretations.

 

[mmmcounts]

1. “Until” in Scripture is used in the sense the Church understands it in Matthew elsewhere, such as the examples mentioned in previously in this thread: 2 Samuel, Hebrews and 2 Timothy. In all three cases, “until” did not mean a change in situation but only referred to what preceded events, such as Micah’s death, etc.

Submit them for evaluation, by all means. You may also back it up by answering to the challenge of speaking to your father-in-law. You know the deal.

Matthew 1:18, which reads as follows: “This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit.”

And then- this is important, Randy- on the basis of what this verse says concerning Mary, she is declared to be the virgin who is with child spoken of in the prophecy of Isaiah.

Remarking on this text, former Presbyterian pastor and now Catholic convert Scott Hahn writes: The phrase “before they came together” as man and wife as found in Mt. 1:18 refers to this union of a married couple under one roof and not to their initiation of sexual activity.

But that translation, though technically one of several options within a Greek lexicon, does not make sense in light of its relation to the prophecy. The whole point of verse 18 is to demonstrate that she was a virgin. We get an “at this time” point of reference when we are told it was during the period of betrothal. We get a “before this time” with respect to the two “coming together.” If you choose a translation that omits any mention of conjugal relations- which you must do in order to maintain your position- the verse ceases to claim that Mary was a virgin. That makes relatively little sense in a verse that sets up the fulfillment of the prophecy about a virgin. No, Randy, you have to translate “came together” in the sense of conjugal relations. It is the only translation that makes sense. I hope I don’t have to repeat this too many times.

There is simply no explicit or implicit reference in the text to suggest that Mary and Joseph had normal sexual relations at any time after the birth of Jesus and to believe otherwise is simply wishful thinking.

Actually, it’s relatively normative, to say the least (at any point in history) for married people to have sex. And for the record, there’s no explicit or implicit reference to celibacy following marriage for Mary or Joseph. Or to Joseph having children prior to the birth of Jesus…you’d think they’d be with them at Bethlehem and en route to Egypt, right? Well, by the same argument you give for the death of Joseph at some point early in Jesus’ life, I submit that there couldn’t have been children born of Joseph prior to Jesus because there is no explicit or implicit reference to them in the text. You like them apples?

Therefore, having said all I feel obliged to say, I refer you to those words penned more than 16 centuries ago and wherein you may read your undoing:

There’s nothing on Matthew 1:18. No undoing here.

 

[CWBetts]

Submit them for evaluation, by all means. You may also back it up by answering to the challenge of speaking to your father-in-law. You know the deal.

And then- this is important, Randy- on the basis of what this verse says concerning Mary, she is declared to be the virgin who is with child spoken of in the prophecy of Isaiah.

But that translation, though technically one of several options within a Greek lexicon, does not make sense in light of its relation to the prophecy. The whole point of verse 18 is to demonstrate that she was a virgin. We get an “at this time” point of reference when we are told it was during the period of betrothal. We get a “before this time” with respect to the two “coming together.” If you choose a translation that omits any mention of conjugal relations- which you must do in order to maintain your position- the verse ceases to claim that Mary was a virgin. That makes relatively little sense in a verse that sets up the fulfillment of the prophecy about a virgin. No, Randy, you have to translate “came together” in the sense of conjugal relations. It is the only translation that makes sense. I hope I don’t have to repeat this too many times.

Actually, it’s relatively normative, to say the least (at any point in history) for married people to have sex. And for the record, there’s no explicit or implicit reference to celibacy following marriage for Mary or Joseph. Or to Joseph having children prior to the birth of Jesus…you’d think they’d be with them at Bethlehem and en route to Egypt, right? Well, by the same argument you give for the death of Joseph at some point early in Jesus’ life, I submit that there couldn’t have been children born of Joseph prior to Jesus because there is no explicit or implicit reference to them in the text. You like them apples?

There’s nothing on Matthew 1:18. No undoing here.

I, for one, am tired of your smug arrogance! We have shown that there is nothing in the Scriptures to establish Mary had conjugal realtions with Joseph. Furthermore, even the reformers held to her perpetual virginity. Your insistance that Mary had conjugal relations is a very young invention indeed. If you wish to learn about Catholicism, by all menas, ask away. But if it your intent to attack the Catholic Church, I would just as soon you simply said “Good Day!” and be on your way. I have neither the time, nor the inclination to defend against baseless attacks.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Submit them for evaluation, by all means. You may also back it up by answering to the challenge of speaking to your father-in-law. You know the deal.

And then- this is important, Randy- on the basis of what this verse says concerning Mary, she is declared to be the virgin who is with child spoken of in the prophecy of Isaiah.

But that translation, though technically one of several options within a Greek lexicon, does not make sense in light of its relation to the prophecy. The whole point of verse 18 is to demonstrate that she was a virgin. We get an “at this time” point of reference when we are told it was during the period of betrothal. We get a “before this time” with respect to the two “coming together.” If you choose a translation that omits any mention of conjugal relations- which you must do in order to maintain your position- the verse ceases to claim that Mary was a virgin. That makes relatively little sense in a verse that sets up the fulfillment of the prophecy about a virgin. No, Randy, you have to translate “came together” in the sense of conjugal relations. It is the only translation that makes sense. I hope I don’t have to repeat this too many times.

Actually, it’s relatively normative, to say the least (at any point in history) for married people to have sex. And for the record, there’s no explicit or implicit reference to celibacy following marriage for Mary or Joseph. Or to Joseph having children prior to the birth of Jesus…you’d think they’d be with them at Bethlehem and en route to Egypt, right? Well, by the same argument you give for the death of Joseph at some point early in Jesus’ life, I submit that there couldn’t have been children born of Joseph prior to Jesus because there is no explicit or implicit reference to them in the text. You like them apples?

There’s nothing on Matthew 1:18. No undoing here.

I get it.

Jerome, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin and Wesley were all idiots. You and Helvidius got it right.

One point regarding the “other children” of Joseph. Tradition tells us that Joseph was much older than Mary, and it was precisely because of his advanced age that he was considered to be a good choice to marry the young virgin. Sexual relations were not part of the plan for this unique family - Joseph took Mary into his protection so that she would not be defiled by another young buck with evil on his mind. This 'advanced age theory" is supported by the fact that Joseph does not appear at the wedding at Cana with Mary nor does it appear that Mary had anyone else to care for her at the time of the crucifixion.

If this is correct, then Joseph’s other children would have been much older than Jesus - perhaps even married with children of their own. They would not have been interested in travelling to Egypt with the Holy Family. “Go to Egypt with you and Mar…er, mom? Gee, Dad, it took us 400 years to get out the last time we went down there…thanks, we’re good.”

Now, how 'bout them apples?

 

[Della]

mmmcounts:

It’s not a straw man. The Gospel of James is the source of the “Ever-Virgin” myth. I treat it as an apocryphal text written at a different time than claimed by the author, whose identity is also false- and I treat the text as myth that may have some grain of truth to it, but only on the level that The Da Vinci Code contains grains of truth. In each case, I treat the text as a joke- something that has perhaps 10% truth to it, but the other 90% is fabrication. Oh, and the reason I don’t think it’s a straw man is because of this Catholic tract supplied by Princess18. [

It opens with the “inoculation strategy”- give a weak/incomplete Protestant argument and then refute it. Paragraph two is about “an important historical document” called the Protoevangelium of James. Paragraphs 3-6 all say something like “according to the Gospel of James.” The last two paragraphs of the first section return to the “brethren” topic.

Part two is entitled “The Protoevangelium of James” and talks about what it says. After this, all that remains is to quote people like Origen, Athanasius, Jerome, etc. who believe the stories found in the Gospel of James are legit. The first witness even says so explicitly.

Now what am I supposed to get out of that? There are perhaps three paragraphs dedicated to the “inoculation,” a few “arguments from authority,” and all the rest is devoted to the evidence found in the Gospel of James. Heck yes the Catholic Church bases this de fide belief on the Gospel of James.](http://www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp[/url)

I’m afraid we’re misunderstanding one another here. While the Gospel of James is not canon (remember the Church rejected it) it does not mean that nothing in it can possibly be accurate or what was believed by all at the time. So, the GoJ is a source not the basis upon which the PVofM taught by the Church. It merely shows that it was believed at the time, not that the Church teaches for that reason.

The authors of the books of the Bible quote many sources outside Scripture when those sources are useful or true. Truth doesn’t reside solely in Holy Writ nor only in Christianity–truth is truth no matter who cites it, heretic, pagan or Christian. The Church teaches the truth revealed to it by the Holy Spirit be it spoken by believer or non-believer.

The fact that the major reformers continued to believe in the PVofM even after they rejected other teachings of the Church ought to tell you something.

You need to ask: “Why does the Church teach what it does about Mary?” not just “Is the Church right about Mary?” The first question is the right one because it will lead you to the truth of the matter. And what is that truth? It is simply that the Church’s teachings about Mary are there to support its teachings about Jesus. They aren’t there just to give Mary a special place within the Church–they are there to tell us that Jesus was truly God and Man (Mary, Mother of God), that he was born of a virgin (Immaculate Conception & PVofM), that he means to keep his promise to us that we will be raised from the dead (Assumption of Mary). Truly, you don’t understand what it is you are rejecting or why you are rejecting it because you are rejecting a straw man, as I stated before.

 

[mmmcounts]

I’m afraid we’re misunderstanding one another here. While the Gospel of James is not canon (remember the Church rejected it) it does not mean that nothing in it can possibly be accurate or what was believed by all at the time.

Sure, some of the material in it might be accurate- along the same lines as Dan Brown’s material in The Da Vinci Code. The fact of the matter is this: The Gospel of James, even by Catholic definition, is not infallible. As such, it is inappropriate to create doctrine that forces Catholics to hold a de fide belief based on such material.

So, the GoJ is a source not the basis upon which the PVofM taught by the Church. It merely shows that it was believed at the time, not that the Church teaches for that reason.

What exactly is the difference between calling something the primary historical basis for a belief and calling something the primary historical source upon which a belief rests? I think it’s kind of the same thing. Should I put this in simpler terms? We get these stories about Mary from the Gospel of James. You can call it a source, a basis, or whatever you want, it doesn’t matter. It is the reason for the creation of de fide Catholic doctrine concerning Mary.

I’ve thrown the term “de fide” out there a few times already, and this is why: If something is de fide doctrine, that means it is accepted and taught as essential doctrine. My contention is that it is not appropriate to create de fide doctrine based on an apocryphal text whose author probably falsified both his name and the time at which he created it. If you could put full confidence in the contents of the Gospel of James, it would probably be canonized. It is not- and yet you’re still supposed to put full confidence in its contents where they appear as essential doctrine. How is it that you see nothing wrong with that?

You need to ask: “Why does the Church teach what it does about Mary?” not just “Is the Church right about Mary?”

Quick question: Any reason why I can’t ask both questions? Are they mutually exclusive or something? I mean, I can’t really ask both at the EXACT same time, but once I’m done with one, is it OK if I move on to the other one? I just want to make sure I have your permission.

Don’t you think it’s a little silly that you’re attempting to answer my questions and also tell me what questions I’m supposed to ask? Is that a little bit like talking to yourself?

Truly, you don’t understand what it is you are rejecting or why you are rejecting it because you are rejecting a straw man, as I stated before.

You want to see a straw man? Here’s a straw man.

[SIGN]I get it.

Jerome, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin and Wesley were all idiots. You and Helvidius got it right.[/SIGN]

Courtesy of Randy Carson. Thank you for that.

 

[CWBetts]

A question for the Catholics here: Why are we listening to someone who belongs to a church founded by an adulterous monarch?

 

[Randy_Carson]

A question for the Catholics here: Why are we listening to someone who belongs to a church founded by an adulterous monarch?

Because he needs our help.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’ve thrown the term “de fide” out there a few times already, and this is why: If something is de fide doctrine, that means it is accepted and taught as essential doctrine. My contention is that it is not appropriate to create de fide doctrine based on an apocryphal text whose author probably falsified both his name and the time at which he created it. If you could put full confidence in the contents of the Gospel of James, it would probably be canonized. It is not- and yet you’re still supposed to put full confidence in its contents where they appear as essential doctrine. How is it that you see nothing wrong with that?

The real problem for you is that you do not understand that Jesus established a single Church that is infallible in matters of faith and morals. Thus, the Church has determined infallibly that the ancient belief that Mary remained a virgin all of her life is true; the fact that the Protoevangelium of James is the oldest written record of this belief is irrelevant.

You are hung up on the idea that the Church got this erroneous idea about Mary from a dubious text. Catholics would say that the idea was true all along and the fact that it is referenced in a dubious text does not detract from the truth.

You want to see a straw man? Here’s a straw man.

[sign]I get it.

Jerome, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin and Wesley were all idiots. You and Helvidius got it right.[/sign]

Courtesy of Randy Carson. Thank you for that.

If I have misrepresented your position regarding Jerome, Helvidius, et al., in order to attack it, then by all means, correct me. Do you not believe that you and Helvidius are correct and that Jerome and the others were fools to believe such a stupid doctrine regarding the Blessed Virgin Mary?