Joseph was actually married to Mary, right?

[mmmcounts]

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.

The so-called “truth” (infallible and central to the faith, at that) comes from a dubious text- which, by even your definition, is not infallible or central to the faith. That is the problem. How are you not getting this? It’s not like there was this belief floating around out there until someone (we don’t know who) claimed (falsely) to be James and wrote about it. The belief’s invention coincides with the creation of this apocryphal text, and it is from this text that you get your de fide doctrine on Mary.

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?

Sure thing. In the process of disagreeing with someone’s beliefs- no matter what they are- I do not feel that it is necessary or proper to make ad hominem attacks on people. I do try to avoid these and it is encouraging to realize how the only ones so far attributed to me on this forum are of your invention, not mine. So no, thank you, I will not partake.

Returning to Matthew 1:25 for a moment, though: This is an example of an “until” statement. But that’s not all it is. It is several other things.

1. Prior to the “until,” it involves people abstaining from something.
2. After the “until” point is reached, the people involved are still alive.
3. The reference point for the timing of the “until” is a punctiliar event rather than the duration of a process.
4. Both the before and after portions are spoken of as happening in the past- this would exclude examples such as “until now.” (Why do we exclude these? Simple. Because Matthew 1:25 doesn’t say “until now”- it says “until she gave birth.”) That’s the general idea of these parameters.

What I’ve done is searched for all the other places in the Bible that use the word “until.” After that, I select the ones that match with 1-4. (This process is called one selecting the most valid comparisons). Then we ask ourselves if it’s a situation where the people “abstained until” and then started up at that point, or if it’s a situation where they abstained and then continued to abstain.

Gen. 19:22- But flee there quickly, because I cannot do anything until you reach it. Do you suppose he did something once he got there? You know…something involving fire and sulfer?
Gen. 24:33- Then food was set before him, but he said, “I will not eat until I have told you what I have to say.” “Then tell us,” Laban said. You think he ate once he was done talking?
Gen. 29:7-8- “Look,” he said, “the sun is still high; it is not time for the flocks to be gathered. Water the sheep and take them back to pasture.” “We can’t,” they replied, “until all the flocks are gathered and the stone has been rolled away from the mouth of the well. Then we will water the sheep.” Do you think they…well freaking duh, it says right there.
Gen. 34:5- When Jacob heard that his daughter Dinah had been defiled, his sons were in the fields with his livestock; so he kept quiet about it until they came home. You think he stopped being quiet once they arrived?
Ex. 12:18- In the first month you are to eat bread made without yeast, from the evening of the fourteenth day until the evening of the twenty-first day. Are they permitted to eat yeast after the 21st day?
Ex. 34:34- But whenever he entered the LORD’s presence to speak with him, he removed the veil until he came out. Did he put the veil on once he came out?
Lev. 22:4- If a descendant of Aaron has an infectious skin disease or a bodily discharge, he may not eat the sacred offerings until he is cleansed. But then the general idea is that once you’re cleansed, you can eat, right?
Leviticus 23:14- You must not eat any bread, or roasted or new grain, until the very day you bring this offering to your God. And on that day, you eat, yes?
Joshua 6:10- But Joshua had commanded the people, “Do not give a war cry, do not raise your voices, do not say a word until the day I tell you to shout. Then shout!” Clear enough, right?
Judges 5:7- Village life in Israel ceased, ceased until I, Deborah, arose, arose a mother in Israel. So after this, village life did the…opposite of ceasing, yes?
1 Samuel 9:13- The people will not begin eating until he comes, because he must bless the sacrifice; afterward, those who are invited will eat.
1 Samuel 25:36- When Abigail went to Nabal, he was in the house holding a banquet like that of a king. He was in high spirits and very drunk. So she told him nothing until daybreak. Did she tell him something in the morning?
1 Samuel 25:37- Then in the morning, when Nabal was sober, his wife told him all these things, and his heart failed him and he became like a stone. :yup:
1 Kings 10:7- But I did not believe these things until I came and saw with my own eyes. Then did he?

I’m out of time for now, but I’ll be back to complete this. I hope this gives you a chance to say “Yes!” to Scripture. Don’t worry, we’ll get to Matthew 1:25 eventually.

 

[bullfrog654]

i have some strange beliefes that of which dont make it right or wrong just imterpertation of the bible

Sin is pleasurable for a season…

Heb 11:25 Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season;

But never tells you it’s outcome…

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

heb and rom means it is pleasurable not to understand or abide by the deals above between the season it was accepted till it was written and understood such as in this essay. this is because god blesses the ignorance of man with bitterness sweet as honey. (revelations)

 

[Della]

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.

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?

Once again, with feeling , the GofJ is not a basis. The PVofM was believed by EVERYBODY when that “gospel” was written. It is cited as a source simply because it confirms that fact nothing more nothing less. It is you who are making more of it than the Catholic Church, dear friend.

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?

You can ask all the questions you wish, but if you truly wish to understand Catholic teaching the better question is why does the Church teach what it does about Mary. You also should ask yourself (don’t share this with us, of course): Why do I have to disprove a teaching that everyone held until the break up/break down of the major Protestant denominations? It’s important or I wouldn’t bring it up.

I was in the place you are now a few years ago. I had all kinds of misconceptions about the Church’s teachings. I wish I would have had this resource back then so that I could get the answers from those who ought to know best–faithful Catholics. We’re trying to help you understand not trying to debate you, dear friend.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The so-called “truth” (infallible and central to the faith, at that) comes from a dubious text- which, by even your definition, is not infallible or central to the faith. That is the problem. How are you not getting this? It’s not like there was this belief floating around out there until someone (we don’t know who) claimed (falsely) to be James and wrote about it. The belief’s invention coincides with the creation of this apocryphal text, and it is from this text that you get your de fide doctrine on Mary.

Aha. Now we get to the heart of the matter. You believe that the doctrine was simply invented. And you are wrong. The belief existed because it was true and became doctrine when the Church determined infallibly that it had been true all along.

Now, more on Matthew 1:18. The New American Bible translates the passage as follows:

“Now this is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about. When his mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found with child through the holy Spirit.”

As can be seen from this translation, “before they came together” simply refers to the time AFTER THEIR BETROTHAL but BEFORE CO-HABITATION. There is no implication that they had sex - EVER. This is simply your presupposition required by your theology.

Now, regarding Mt. 1:25: “But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son.”

If Joseph was entitled to sexual relations with his young bride, why would he wait until after the birth of the child before consummating the marriage? My wife and I had sex during all of her pregnancies, and this is common among married couples.

So, since your entire argument is built NOT upon black-letter evidence from the text but from your “understanding” of human nature, you would have to assume that Joseph and Mary would have been at it beginning the night she moved into his pad.

Would YOU have waited six months if you were in Joseph’s position? With hormones raging due to pregnancy, would MARY have wanted to wait? C’mon, they were just another couple with all the normal desires of youngsters in love. You KNOW they were in the sack the moment the last of the moving crew left after dropping off her furniture.

NOT.

At the very least, the text suggests that Joseph and Mary waited even when they didn’t have to. That alone casts doubt upon your “they were just another normal couple sexually” theory.

So, let’s add this up:

1. 
   *]The text does not suggest that Mary and Joseph ever had sex. “Heos hoo” does not mean what you need it to mean.
   *]Mary’s reply to the angel at the annunciation suggests that she did not understand how it would be possible for her to bear a son - not physically, but due to a vow which she may have taken.
   *]Such vows were taken seriously by the Jews and provided for in the law.
   *]No evidence of any offspring from the marriage exists. The “brothers” of Jesus were kinsmen who were called “brothers” due to the limitations of the Aramaic language.
   *]Early writings suggest that Joseph agreed to marry a virgin to protect her vow, and it is not necessary for those writings to be inspired in order to contain an accurate account.
   *]Early Church Fathers maintained steadfast belief in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary and vigorously defended the doctrine against attack.
   *]The Catholic Church, exercising the gift of infallibility, declared Mary’s Perpetual Virginity is a dogma of the faith.
   *]Protestant Reformers, who denied much that the Catholic Church taught, nevertheless held that Mary was ever-virgin - even to the point of ridiculing Helvidius who first questioned the belief.
   
   At the end of the day, you have no verse to prove that Mary and Joseph EVER had sexual intercourse or that Mary ever bore other children.
   
   Scripture, history, reason, and the opinion of learned scholars from diverse denominations are all against you.
   
   It’s over. Your position has been found wanting. Get over it and move on.

 

[mmmcounts]

Aha. Now we get to the heart of the matter. You believe that the doctrine was simply invented.

Of course it was. I can’t tell you who it was invented by, but the earliest surviving example of its invention is in the Gospel of James, written in the early to mid 2nd century. The author claims to be James and also claims that James was born to Joseph from a previous marriage- for a period of time, that landed this gospel on the list of banned books for Catholics. (That story was more typical of the Orthodox, and Catholics tended toward the “cousin” theory instead). Anyway, we know it wasn’t really written by James because the author displays an ignorance of contemporary Jewish customs that the real James would have been aware of. This characteristic is quite plain and clearly sets this gospel apart from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, which all consistently portray contemporary Jewish life in an accurate manner. Since the author was clearly not even a contemporary of the general population about which he is writing, I think it’s safe to say he’s not relaying first- or second-hand knowledge about the family life of Mary and Joseph. Yes, it is invented.

The Gospel of Peter is a similar, though slightly less dated source that echoes much of what the Gospel of James says. It was written in the mid- to late 2nd century. Tertullian, who was born in about 160, is the earliest example of a church father who rejected the claims of these texts. There are other individual examples of church fathers who went one way or the other during this period of time, but it wasn’t until the 5th century that the stories were accepted more or less universally. That obviously doesn’t mean they were right in doing so, though.

Now, more on Matthew 1:18. The New American Bible translates the passage as follows:

I don’t care what the New American Bible says. It’s a translation whose primary concern is to conform the Bible’s translation to Roman Catholic doctrine. The creators of this translation were not the least bit interested in being objective and getting it right. This is a bit like quoting Michael Moore on gun control issues and expecting people to accept him as an unbiased source.

As can be seen from this translation

Exactly what I’m saying.

“before they came together” simply refers to the time AFTER THEIR BETROTHAL but BEFORE CO-HABITATION. There is no implication that they had sex - EVER.

This is simply your presupposition required by your theology. And, of course, supported by a translation that attempts to “make it official.”

Now, regarding Mt. 1:25: “But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son.”

If Joseph was entitled to sexual relations with his young bride, why would he wait until after the birth of the child before consummating the marriage?

I don’t care why. The issue is that the Bible says they did.

Your entire argument is built NOT upon black-letter evidence from the text but from your “understanding” of human nature

Wrong. It is built on black-letter evidence. You just don’t like what the letters are saying. In Matthew 1:18, it says Mary conceived before they “came together.” The purpose of this is to establish the fact that Mary was a virgin when she conceived. The reason you know this is because of what we see in verses 22-23:

All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: “The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”—which means, “God with us.”

If you refuse to acknowledge the sexual implications of verse 18, there no longer exists any basis for declaring Mary’s virginity at any point leading up to verses 22-23. This is a serious problem for you that you really don’t have an answer for.

Would YOU have waited six months if you were in Joseph’s position? With hormones raging due to pregnancy, would MARY have wanted to wait? C’mon, they were just another couple with all the normal desires of youngsters in love. You KNOW they were in the sack the moment the last of the moving crew left after dropping off her furniture.

Well, if I were Hosea I probably wouldn’t have married a prostitute. But the Bible says he did, and that means he did. Likewise, the Bible says Mary and Joseph waited to have sex until after Jesus was born. It also says Mary conceived before they had sex, and I believe both of these statements are true because the Bible says so. If anyone says otherwise, I am forced to disagree with them.

Really now, Randy, we’re talking about a virgin conceiving and having a child. Don’t you think that’s a little more difficult to swallow than the notion that Mary and Joseph didn’t have sex while Mary was pregnant? Based on the fact that I have absolutely no problem with a virgin birth, it shouldn’t surprise you that I’ll also be ok with this.

At the very least, the text suggests that Joseph and Mary waited even when they didn’t have to. That alone casts doubt upon your “they were just another normal couple sexually” theory.

My theory is that they did whatever the Bible says they did. Yours is that they did whatever your priest tells you they did, and you’re willing to make use of translations of the Bible that are specifically tailored to your doctrine regardless of their accuracy or validity.

The text does not suggest that Mary and Joseph ever had sex.

It sure does.

“Heos hoo” does not mean what you need it to mean.

And I have no idea what that means.

That’s pretty much the only issue I’ve fully gotten into. I’m not really sure if I want to spend the next couple of weeks going into the rest of the details or not. We’ll see.

At the end of the day, you have no verse to prove that Mary and Joseph EVER had sexual intercourse or that Mary ever bore other children.

Yes, I do. Apparently not to your satisfaction, though. But that is no concern of mine. This has been informative for me, and I understand the issue better now. I wish you could have learned something from it, too.

It’s over. Your position has been found wanting. Get over it and move on.

Wow, that’s not a very nice thing to say. Did you hesitate just a little bit before you decided to include that? It really doesn’t come across well at all. Just letting you know.

 

[bullfrog654]

i copied your faith as i inspired it. however that is the situation your in having a manipulated force deciding when you drink your faith or not (puppetry or slavery) your reflection actually is slowely by yourselves doing the same effect to each other i suspect in the apple eve choice theory. but i hold a key (still in the middle of a war with computers till the end of the month) several keys acually. great war if i dont use ‘truth’ as a form to battle. remember thou shall not kill and my moral never fool with someones pocket book or family.

 

[patrick457]

What I’ve done is searched for all the other places in the Bible that use the word “until.” After that, I select the ones that match with 1-4. (This process is called one selecting the most valid comparisons). Then we ask ourselves if it’s a situation where the people “abstained until” and then started up at that point, or if it’s a situation where they abstained and then continued to abstain.

For the sake of completion, let’s ALSO include the other passages which originally use 'ad (Hebrew) or heos or heos hou (Greek) as well which would be consisteny with the Catholic understading of “until” - note that the OT quotes in brackets are from the Septuagint:

THE OLD TESTAMENT

1.) Genesis 8:5 - “And the waters were going and lessening until ('ad) the tenth month. In the tenth month, on the first of the month, the tops of the mountains were seen.”
(Now the water, as it was proceeding, was diminishing until eōn] the tenth month. Then in the eleventh month, on the first of the month, the tops of the mountains were seen.)
Obviously, “until” does not intend to cease the action of the main clause; rather it allows that the water continued to decrease even after the tenth month.

2.) Deuteronomy 34:6 - “And He buried him in a valley in the land of Mo’av in front of Beth-peor; but no man knows his grave until ('ad) this day.”
(And they buried him in Gai, in the land of Moab near the house of Phogor, but no one knows his burial until eōn] this day.)
As far as I know, no one has still discovered the grave of Moses…

3.) 2 Samuel 6:23 - “Mikal daughter of Sha’ul had no child until ('ad) the day of her death.”
(And to Melchol daughter of Saoul there was no child until eōn] the day of her death.)
Did Michal get a post mortem pregnancy?

4.) Psalm 72 (71):7 - “In his days the righteous shall sprout up, and abundance of peace until ('ad) there is no more moon.”
(In his days righteousness shall sprout up, and abundance of peace until eōn ou] the moon be taken away.)
I sure hope that there would still be peace or righteousness even if the moon is gone…

5.) Psalm 90:2 - “Before the mountains were born, and you gave birth to the earth and the world, from age until ('ad) age you are God.”
(Before the mountains were born, and the earth and the world was formed, from age until eōn] age you are.)
Note that “until” does not put a limit to God’s existence here, or at least, I hope it doesn’t.

6.) Psalm 94 (93):12-13 - “Blessed is the man whom you instruct, O LORD, And teach out of your law, to give him rest from the days of trouble until ('ad) a pit is dug for the wicked.”
(Blessed the man whom you discipline, O Lord, and teach him out of your law, to calm him due to wicked days until eōn ou] a pit is dug for the sinner.)
Would the righteous man’s relief from adversity stop after a pit is dug for the wicked?

7.) Psalm 111 (112):8 - “His heart is established; he will not be afraid until ('ad) he looks upon his enemies.”
(His heart is steadfast, he will not be afraid until eōn ou] he looks upon his enemies.)
Obviously the man who delights in the Lord’s commands is going to continue to have a steadfast heart and to be unafraid even after he looks down upon his foes.

8.) Song of Songs 2:17 - “Until ('ad) the day breathes, and the shadows flee, turn, my lover, and be like a gazelle or a young stag on the mountains of Bethar.”
(Until Eōn ou] the day breathes and the shadows stir, turn, my brotherkin; be like the gazelle or a fawn of stags on mountains with glens.)
We could not say that the Beloved intends this sentence to mean, “when the day breaks and the shadows flee, then be like an old stag”; rather, she wishes her Lover to remain like a gazelle or a young stag, strong and energetic. It is very much like the expression “I’m going to love you until the cows come home.” We do not intend to stop loving even after the cows do come home, do we?

9.) Song of Songs 3:4 - “Like a little had I passed them until ('ad) I found him whom my soul loves. I held him and would not let him go, until ('ad) I had brought him to the house of my mother, and into the chamber of her who conceived me.”
(Scarcely had I passed from them until eōn ou] I found him whom my soul loved. I took hold of him and would not let him go until eōn ou] I brought him to the house of my mother, and into a chamber of her who conceived me.)
Here the second instance of “heos hou” shows continuation of the verb, in this case, “held.” The beloved clearly intends to say here that she held on to her lover, never to let him go. The verses preceding this instance (vv 1-3) show how the Beloved searches long and hard into the night to find her lover. In that context, it is clear that vs. 4 is not speaking of the beloved as some kind of taxi service, taking her lover to “my mother’s house” in order to leave him there alone. In the romantic and very sexual context of this book, it is certain that, once the couple arrives into the chamber, they will continue to hold each other for an indefinite period of time.

 

[patrick457]

THE OLD TESTAMENT, continued

10.) Isaiah 46:4 - “Until ('ad) your old age, I am He; and until ('ad) your gray hairs I will carry you. I have made, and I will lift up; I will carry and will save.”
(Until eōn] your old age, I am; and until eōn] you grow old, I am. I bear with you; I have made, and I will set free; I will take up and save you.)
Does this passage infer that God would cease to be and no longer support us in our old age?

THE NEW TESTAMENT

11.) Matthew 28:20 - “And behold, I am with you all the days, until (eōn) the consummation of the age.”
Would Jesus cease being with us at the very end of time?

12.) Acts 25:21 - “But when Paul appealed to be kept for the decision of the Sebastos, I commanded him to be kept until (eōn ou) I could send him to Caesar.”
When Paul was to be sent on, he was surely going to remain in custody; for his original request was to be kept in custody until the Emperor’s verdict. Hence the use of heos hou in this verse does not imply that Paul ceased to be kept in custody after he had been remanded to Caesar. It implies the very opposite.

13.) 1 Timothy 4:13 - “Until (eōn) I come, give attention to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.”
There would be no question here that Paul does not intend for Timothy to stop teaching the Faith when he does actually arrive or leave.

14.) 2 Peter 1:19 - “And we have the prophetic word confirmed, to which you do well to pay attention as a light that shines in a squalid place, until (eōn ou) the day dawns and the Lightbringer rises in your hearts.”
Clearly, Peter was not insinuating here that we should cease being attentive to the truths he was presenting after “the day dawns” and the morning star (Lightbringer) "rises in [our] hearts."

So, to sum, while there are instances where 'ad or heos (hou) does terminate the action (i.e. the examples you gave), there are also uses where it implies otherwise (i.e. the examples I gave).

 

[mmmcounts]

patrick457, you’ve intentionally chosen passages using the word “until” that do not adequately correspond to the way it’s used in Matthew 1:25. I outlined some guidelines that would help us narrow down the 400-plus examples to the most relevant ones, but you went ahead and chose some of the most irrelevant examples. Again, this is Matthew 1:25.

But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

The most relevant examples for comparison are the ones where people are abstaining from doing something until a punctiliar event rather than the completion of a process, and after this event the parties involved are still alive. Not that hard, right? Let’s look at your examples.

1. Waters receding. Is it really so hard to look for examples of people who abstain from something as a starting point? Start with that, OK?
2. “Until this day.” That does not closely represent what we see in Matthew 1:25. Try looking for relevant examples. The presence of the word “until” is not good enough. BE. MORE. RELEVANT.
3. “Until the day of her death.” Reason number three to pass over an example because it does not adequately correspond to the passage in question.
4. “Until there is no more moon.” Events that haven’t ever happened can’t be compared to the reference point seen in Mat. 1:25.
5. “From age until age” actually is an idiomatic expression. Earlier, Randy said the expression used in Matthew 1:25 was one of these, but he was wrong. This is a passage that actually contains one.
6. Again, you need to begin with step 1 and pick out relevant examples where someone is abstaining from something until a certain point. If you search for relevant examples instead of the least relevant ones, you’ll find that in every case, people who choose to refrain from doing something until a certain point commence with doing it after that point.

I’m done here. I’m not even going to look at the rest of your examples because it’s clear that you’ve intentionally selected the least relevant ones and made no effort to search out the more relevant ones.

Now as far as relevant examples go, I was up to 1 Kings. This was the last one I listed, so I’ll start there.

1 Kings 10:7, see also 2 Chronicles 9:6- But I did not believe these things until I came and saw with my own eyes.
Take note of why this can be compared in a relevant manner. He refrains from doing something, just as Mary and Joseph refrained from doing something. He did so until an event happened that is sufficiently comparable to childbirth- for example, it does not say “until the day he died,” “until now,” or something like that. (The reason I discriminate in this way is because Matthew 1:25 does not say “until the day they died” or “until now.” Does that sound reasonable to you?)
I really can’t believe I have to spell it out like this for you. Just in case, though, here’s what we’re looking at: Just as Mary and Joseph refrained from sex, this individual refrained from belief. He did not believe until a certain event happened, and that event involved seeing it with his own eyes. Once that happened, he believed.

2 Chronicles 15:19- There was no more war until the thirty-fifth year of Asa’s reign.
This is why this example is acceptable and the ones you gave are not acceptable: I actually selected a passage that’s similar to Matthew 1:25 in its most important aspects. You did not. These are the important aspects: Something was NOT happening UNTIL a particular date, just like Mary and Joseph were NOT doing something UNTIL Jesus’ date of birth. In this example, there was war in the thirty-sixth year of Asa’s reign and you can read all about it later in the chapter.

Ezra 2:63, see also Nehemiah 7:65- The governor ordered them not to eat any of the most sacred food until there was a priest ministering with the Urim and Thummim.
Again, we see a pattern of NOT doing something UNTIL either a particular point in time or a place in time that is marked by a punctiliar event. Once that time is reached and the event happens, “they” cease to abstain from the most sacred food and eat it. That is the whole point of saying “do not do this” (in other words, “wait”) until this happens. They waited, and it happened. At that point, they can stop waiting.

Ezra 4:21- Now issue an order to these men to stop work, so that this city will not be rebuilt until I so order.
Surely by this time I don’t have to walk you through the process of selecting a relevant verse. And by the way, once “he” gave the order, the people did start working.

Ezra 4:24- Thus the work on the house of God in Jerusalem came to a standstill until the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia.
This is talking about the same thing, and it merely restates that the course of inaction continued UNTIL an event happened, and this event happened at a particular time. Once that event happened, inaction gave way to action- just like with Mary and Joseph.

Nehemiah 8:17- From the days of Joshua son of Nun until that day, the Israelites had not celebrated it like this. And their joy was very great.
Until that day, they abstained from celebration. On that day, they did indeed celebrate.

Nehemiah 13:19- When evening shadows fell on the gates of Jerusalem before the Sabbath, I ordered the doors to be shut and not opened until the Sabbath was over.
The gates were not opened until morning. Once it was morning, though, they were opened. Likewise, once Mary birthed Jesus, the sexual relations were opened.

Song of Solomon 2:7, see also 8:4- Daughters of Jerusalem, I charge you by the gazelles and by the does of the field: Do not arouse or awaken love until it so desires.
This is, after all, the Song of Solomon. Therefore, we know that when the time is right, you’d better stop abstaining and become aroused. For Mary and Joseph, the right time was after Jesus was born. They stopped abstaining and became quite aroused.

Jeremiah 23:20- The anger of the LORD will not turn back until he fully accomplishes the purposes of his heart.
The LORD abstains from turning back his anger until he’s accomplished what he wants to accomplish. Once that happens, he stops abstaining. If he did the opposite, that would be kind of evil and sadistic.

There’s a few more relevant examples. In the meantime, I will thank you to stop submitting irrelevant examples.

 

[CWBetts]

Why do you insist on clingign to a heresy that is less thn 300 years old?

 

[bullfrog654]

perhaps the clinging of an unboard child developing in the last two weeks of the whom is most important that in child birth might meen 7 hours of misery and pain but a lifetime of happiness sirta i KNOW ive been there at least when i was born

 

[Randy_Carson]

Of course it was. I can’t tell you who it was invented by, but the earliest surviving example of its invention is in the Gospel of James, written in the early to mid 2nd century. Yes, it is invented.

So, this invention predates the canon of scripture itself as well as much of the theology of the trinity. Hmmmm…

I don’t care what the New American Bible says. It’s a translation whose primary concern is to conform the Bible’s translation to Roman Catholic doctrine. The creators of this translation were not the least bit interested in being objective and getting it right. This is a bit like quoting Michael Moore on gun control issues and expecting people to accept him as an unbiased source.

Right. A bunch of scholars putting their professional reputations on the line by mistranslating the original languages.

My theory is that they did whatever the Bible says they did. Yours is that they did whatever your priest tells you they did, and you’re willing to make use of translations of the Bible that are specifically tailored to your doctrine regardless of their accuracy or validity.

Since the Bible does not say what they did, you cannot prove that they ever “came together” sexually, you can only see that they “came together under one roof” as man and wife. Sorry, but the Bible simply silent on their sexual relationship; we must go outside the Bible for additional information. Happily, an infallible Church has already spoken on this matter.

The text does not suggest that Mary and Joseph ever had sex

It sure does.

Oh. Then why did Martin Luther, John Calvin, and John Wesley among others say that it does not?

Why?

And I have no idea what that means.

Perhaps if you did, you would not be making this argument in the first place. Perhaps you need to spend less time typing and more time reading good books.

Yes, I do. Apparently not to your satisfaction, though. But that is no concern of mine. This has been informative for me, and I understand the issue better now. I wish you could have learned something from it, too.

What could I have learned? I already knew what has been infallibly declared. You, on the other hand, stand somewhat alone for even your Protestant forebears condemn your false belief.

Wow, that’s not a very nice thing to say. Did you hesitate just a little bit before you decided to include that? It really doesn’t come across well at all. Just letting you know.

Tough love can be like that.

 

[CWBetts]

perhaps the clinging of an unboard child developing in the last two weeks of the whom is most important that in child birth might meen 7 hours of misery and pain but a lifetime of happiness sirta i KNOW ive been there at least when i was born

Ummm this makes no sense whatsoever. Try using capital letters and puntuation.

 

[bullfrog654]

perhaps the clinging of an unboard child developing in the last two weeks of the whom is most important that in child birth might meen 7 hours of misery and pain but a lifetime of happiness sirta i KNOW ive been there at least when i was born

i forgot to add the lady my mom was about 20 years old when i was a year and a half and dropped me on my head

 

[Randy_Carson]

When the Protoevangelium of James appeared offering his work about Mary and Joseph suggesting that Mary had remained a Virgin all her life, why were there no cries of “Invention!” and “Novelty!”?

Throughout the course of Church history, when heretics came strutting their stuff and offering up their twisted interpretations of Sacred Scripture, orthodox defenders of the faith leapt into action, took up their quills, and fired off lengthy diatribes against the offending ideas and their proponents.

Athanasius contra mundi. Jerome v. Helvidius. And so forth.

Yet, when “James” issued forth his account, no one seems to have batted an eye.

Why this silence? Would honest believers allow falsehoods about the Holy Family to go unchallenged?

Or could it be that there was no invention but mere recordation in the Protoevangelium?

 

[patrick457]

patrick457, you’ve intentionally chosen passages using the word “until” that do not adequately correspond to the way it’s used in Matthew 1:25. I outlined some guidelines that would help us narrow down the 400-plus examples to the most relevant ones, but you went ahead and chose some of the most irrelevant examples. Again, this is Matthew 1:25.

But I did choose passages where the word “until” ('ad, heos hou, heos) implies something as not terminating the action. I can’t see anything not relevant to the whole question on grammar, or I’m blind.

1. Waters receding. Is it really so hard to look for examples of people who abstain from something as a starting point? Start with that, OK?

Uh, I’m more concerned with the usage of the words for “until”. Nothing wrong with that, eh?

1. “Until this day.” That does not closely represent what we see in Matthew 1:25. Try looking for relevant examples. The presence of the word “until” is not good enough. BE. MORE. RELEVANT.

1. “Until the day of her death.” Reason number three to pass over an example because it does not adequately correspond to the passage in question.

Give specific reasons as to why they are not relevant. Try to defend your honor.

1. “Until there is no more moon.” Events that haven’t ever happened can’t be compared to the reference point seen in Mat. 1:25.

Again, why not?

1. “From age until age” actually is an idiomatic expression. Earlier, Randy said the expression used in Matthew 1:25 was one of these, but he was wrong. This is a passage that actually contains one.

Good then. But at least we can see that the use of the word “until” - notwithstanding its position as an idiom - does not set a limit to God’s existence!

1. Again, you need to begin with step 1 and pick out relevant examples where someone is abstaining from something until a certain point. If you search for relevant examples instead of the least relevant ones, you’ll find that in every case, people who choose to refrain from doing something until a certain point commence with doing it after that point.

IMO it would have been better if we scour the Bible for every usage of 'ad, heos hou, or heos, and see whether the word’s definition is as narrow as some make it out to be. So far, based on the examples you and I gave, we can see that while in certain contexts, those words could mean as they do in English (terminating the action of a verb), in other contexts they have a more broader meaning than our modern English word and clearly do not intend to terminate the action. That is my purpose for posting those passages.

I’m done here. I’m not even going to look at the rest of your examples because it’s clear that you’ve intentionally selected the least relevant ones and made no effort to search out the more relevant ones.

Fine, if that’s what you want. But I actually prefer it if you gave specific reasons as to why my examples (each and every one of them) are not relevant to the topic at hand. I think it is very polite to point out to someone SPECIFICALLY why and how his examples are irrelevant and give solid reasons to back up one’s point rather than doing a cursory browsing on some parts and chucking the rest with a mere blanket statement (or at least I think it should be; cultural differences coming into play?). I’m counting on you.

 

[patrick457]

When the Protoevangelium of James appeared offering his work about Mary and Joseph suggesting that Mary had remained a Virgin all her life, why were there no cries of “Invention!” and “Novelty!”?

A good point you got there. If the early Christians knew that Mary was not a virgin and that Jesus had actual blood brethren (which would be very likely), why do we not hear anything about any protests on the Gospel of James’ claims that Mary is aei-parthenos (ever-virgin)? Why do we not hear any Church Father saying to the effect of, “Wait a sec. This is not what our fathers have believed! What’s all this nonsense about the Mother of the Lord being ‘ever-virgin’?” Why all this silence in their part?

mmmcounts:

My theory is that they did whatever the Bible says they did. Yours is that they did whatever your priest tells you they did, and you’re willing to make use of translations of the Bible that are specifically tailored to your doctrine regardless of their accuracy or validity.

1.) I think that the phrase “they did whatever the Bible says they did” needs to be revised to “they did whatever I think the Bible says they did”. The Bible, being a “high-context” work, does not pretend to interpret itself. How can you be sure that your interpretation is correct, being removed from the culture, thinking, and language of the Bible?

2.) “[You’re] willing to make use of translations of the Bible that are specifically tailored to your doctrine regardless of their accuracy or validity.” I hope you’re not making that claim to Catholics alone. Catholics are not alone on this as you probably know; various Protestants have also been guilty of this offense. So, we’re all equal here. We’re all guilty of the same sin.

 

[LittleDeb]

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

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.

Hi again, mmmcounts. I see you have returned with your modern day misinterpretations yet again. Once again, I’ll bite.

Let’s say for the sake of argument that ‘until’ certainly does mean what you say it means, in this context. I certainly agree that we modernly use the phrase ‘until’ exactly as you say. Just last night I said to my toddler son, “You do not get to watch your new movie until you’ve pooped in the potty.”

My wording fits exactly with the analogy you are searching for. It is an event that he is capable of doing both before the potty and/or after the potty. It is also an act (using the toilet facilities) that one would expect a person to do. After all we know that he is a normal human being and has normal human urges.

So I ask you, “Did my son get to watch his movie last night or not?”

 

[Randy_Carson]

patrick457, you’ve intentionally chosen passages using the word “until” that do not adequately correspond to the way it’s used in Matthew 1:25. I outlined some guidelines that would help us narrow down the 400-plus examples to the most relevant ones, but you went ahead and chose some of the most irrelevant examples. Again, this is Matthew 1:25.

Matthew 1:25
5But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. Did Joseph ever have union with Mary? No.

Genesis 8:7
The raven “did not return TILL the waters were dried up…” Did the raven ever return? No.

2 Samuel 6:23
“Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death” Did Michal ever have children? No. Are we to assume she had children after her death?

Deuteronomy 34:6 (Knox)
No one knew the location of his grave “until this present day”. Did anyone ever know the location of Moses’ grave? No.

1 Maccabees 5:54
“…not one of them was slain TILL they had returned in peace.” Were Judas Maccabeus and his troops killed when they returned? No.

Luke 1:80
“And the child grew and became strong in spirit; and he lived in the desert until he appeared publicly to Israel.” The Greek word translated “until” in this passage is heos, the same word used in Matthew 1:25. The child spoken of is John the Baptist who, after as well as before he appeared in public, resided in the desert (cf. Matt. 3:1, Mark 1:3,4; Luke 3:2).

Romans 8:22
“…the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together UNTIL now.” Is it still groaning?

1 Corinthians 15:25
“For He must reign TILL He has put all enemies under His feet.” After all enemies are put away, will Christ be reigning?

Ephesians 4:12-13
“…for the equipping…for the work of ministry… for the edifying…TILL we all come to the unity of the faith…” Once we become unified, will equipping, ministry, and edification still be necessary?

Hebrews 1:13
To which of the angels did God ever say, ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet’”? After that time, the angels (or Jesus) could get up again?

1 Timothy 4:13
“Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching.” After Paul arrives they won’t need to do any of those things?

1 Timothy 6:14
“…that you keep this commandment without spot, blameless UNTIL our Lord Jesus Christ’s appearing…” When Jesus comes back, we should disobey these commandments?

Revelation 2:25-26
“But hold fast what you have TILL I come. And he who overcomes and keeps My works until the end, to him I will give power…” Should we stop holding fast and stop obeying when Jesus returns?

 

[Doolin]

Ok, I admit I have not read this whole thread. And yes I am always impressed with such a great knowledge of scripture and history that y’all demonstrate.

So here is my simple take.

The Bible never says that Mary gave birth to any other children. It just does not say that. No matter what a person may infer. It does not.

Yes the Proto of James does provide some reasoning for the idea that Jesus may have had non-blood brothers.

Again the bible never says Mary gave birth to any other children.

In contemplating the verse in question, ask…what is Matthew trying to convey. Why is it important to make the statement that he does. Is it because he wants us to know they had sex later? Is it because he want us to know they did not have sex before she gave birth to Jesus?
What would be the problem with Joseph having sex with Mary before the birth of Jesus. Is it because they care so much about what others might think.

My thought… They never had sex during her pregnancy.
I think the word until is to describe with clarity that no sex took place during this time. It does not make any statement about what happens after. It is silent about the future.

Many Blessings
Doolin