Joseph was actually married to Mary, right?

[Randy_Carson]

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

All true.

But to be sure, you do know that the Catholic Church has infallibly defined the dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary to mean that Mary was a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus and remained a virgin until her death, right?

 

[Doolin]

All true.

But to be sure, you do know that the Catholic Church has infallibly defined the dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary to mean that Mary was a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus and remained a virgin until her death, right?

Yes… I do… The verse in question does not make a statement for or against is my take.
Many Blessings,
Doolin

 

[mmmcounts]

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!”?

There were.

What could I have learned?

That.

 

[CWBetts]

There were.

That.

Source please. You cannot make an assertion with no evidence. I really don’t hink I just want to take you at your word.

 

[mmmcounts]

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 did. I was quite clear.

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

That’s exactly what I did. I laid out a method for discriminating between more relevant passages and less relevant passages. I repeated myself a lot.

rather than doing a cursory browsing on some parts and chucking the rest with a mere blanket statement

Looks like you completely ignored me when I did that, and now you’re telling me it didn’t happen.

I’m counting on you.

I very much doubt it. Your actions suggest otherwise. They strongly imply that you’re intending to challenge me to do something, ignore me when I do it, and go on with telling me I didn’t do anything. If that’s what you’re going to continue doing, please stop. If you’d like to discontinue this course of action, by all means look back at my earlier posts and see if you can find the list of criteria for choosing between less relevant passages and more relevant ones. Once you find this list, re-post it, and acknowledge its existence instead of obstinately denying that I’ve done anything of the sort, we can continue this conversation.

 

[CWBetts]

I did. I was quite clear.

That’s exactly what I did. I laid out a method for discriminating between more relevant passages and less relevant passages. I repeated myself a lot.
Looks like you completely ignored me when I did that, and now you’re telling me it didn’t happen.

I very much doubt it. Your actions suggest otherwise. They strongly imply that you’re intending to challenge me to do something, ignore me when I do it, and go on with telling me I didn’t do anything. If that’s what you’re going to continue doing, please stop. If you’d like to discontinue this course of action, by all means look back at my earlier posts and see if you can find the list of criteria for choosing between less relevant passages and more relevant ones. Once you find this list, re-post it, and acknowledge its existence instead of obstinately denying that I’ve done anything of the sort, we can continue this conversation.

Why can’t you just admit the Chirch is right. This simple fact has been run into the ground.

 

[mmmcounts]

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

I’ll answer your question this way: Based on what you told him, he certainly should have expected to. If not, you either owe him a movie or you were being dishonest.

 

[mmmcounts]

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.

You insist on this because of a Catholic doctrine that is inappropriate. But you’re unable to rightly admit its status because Catholic doctrine doesn’t allow you to do that. You’re caught in a vicious circle. It’s kind of sad.

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

Exactly why Catholics weren’t allowed to read it for quite awhile. The very thought of it was- for a period of time- just as offensive as the notion that Mary had sex with Joseph after Jesus was born.

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

But it does use her sexual union with Joseph as a reference point. Now, assuming they weren’t using contraception (a safe assumption if there ever was one), the fruits of such activities pretty well go without saying.

In contemplating the verse in question, ask…what is Matthew trying to convey.

An excellent question. That is, indeed, the proper starting point.

Why is it important to make the statement that he does.

If it’s verse 18 you’re talking about, that is exactly the question that Randy Carson is steadfastly ignoring. What was the purpose of saying Mary conceived before they came together? Right after this, it talks about how Mary fulfills the prophecy of the virgin conceiving and bearing a son. Therefore, in verse 18, we must conclude that its purpose is to demonstrate that Mary was a virgin when she conceived. The awkward part of this comes up when you notice it says she conceived BEFORE they came together. With their “coming together” established as a reference point, Randy runs out of real estate in his quest to avoid the implications of this statement. He’s forced to revert to the conclusion that “come together” doesn’t have anything to do with sex- and he immediately loses sight of the importance of the statement in the first place. The point of the statement is to establish Mary’s virginity, so of course it’s talking about sex.

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?

The main point is that Mary conceived as a virgin. The fact that she and Joseph had sex after Jesus was born is a secondary point.

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.

The problem has to do with the prophecy: The mother of the Messiah will be a virgin who conceives and bears a son.

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.

It’s implied and understood pretty clearly. It’s also stated unambiguously in verse 18 where we are told that Mary conceived before she and Joseph had sex. Does that mean they had sex? Yes it does- but she conceived before that.

 

[catholicsuffer]

Hello, this is my first post under this alias. I very much like to debate and thus here I go:

Saint Mary was like a dove that dwelt in the temple, after her dedication to God was coming towards an end she was offer as a wife to Saint Joseph .If anyone does not read other historical readings of The Church, I surly would suggest they did under the guidance of the Church(this being because one could easily be mislead–think Da Vinci -code, etc.). It was during this time that she was found to be pregnant, thus the bible story continues.

Now, this was not at all unusual at that time of man-kind history for a Jewish lady to be offer up to the church when a baby and dedicated to God and serving the temple. At the age of about 12 or 13 (puberty-woman period) a female was consider unclean and must therefore leave the church(temple-synagogue-whatever). This is just the beginning of Saint Mary beautiful life and most definitely desires some attention.

On a personal note: I think that it should not be to hard to believe that Saint Mary was and still is a Virgin considering that one is to believe that someone would come down to earth and suffer such a dreadful death as Christ did. All one need is for the scriptures to be open up to them and they will become believers in the One Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Chrurch.

 

[mmmcounts]

Source please. You cannot make an assertion with no evidence. I really don’t hink I just want to take you at your word.

Sure thing. Tertullian, who spent his adult life during the time immediately following the creation of the Gospel of James. He among the church fathers had something like a “first pass” at this apocryphal book and denied the veracity of its statements of Mary being ever-virgin and of Jesus’ brothers being born of another woman.

Tertullian is orthodox on the virgin birth. He does not maintain the later ideas of Mary ever-virgin, but believes that Christ had a normal birth, and that his brothers were his brothers, and not his cousins as later Fathers were to maintain.

 

[LittleDeb]

I’ll answer your question this way: Based on what you told him, he certainly should have expected to. If not, you either owe him a movie or you were being dishonest.

With as much as you are harping on people missing things…you missed the point. You, personally, have no way of knowing from that ‘until’ whether he did his duty in the potty or not.

The ‘until’ in Mathew references the birth of Christ, not as you are trying to promote, their “coming together.” The ONLY thing being made clear with that ‘until’ is that they did not have sex before the birth of Christ. Nothing else is implied.

Here is where your interpretation of ‘until’ goes off the rails: Your misinterpretation makes a stronger statement than you realize. Your interpretation of ‘until’ erroneously says that the birth was the catalyst for sex. “…until she gave birth…” I ask you further, “if my son did his business in the potty, did I haul the T.V. in there with him?” Your interpretation of ‘until’ in your context says that I would have. Your examples of ‘until’ all show events where the next act was immediate or *very *soon after. All of the examples given by Catholics show ‘until’ meaning something unending.

Look back through your posts. In nearly every example of ‘until’ you add the words “after” or “soon after.” That isn’t what Scripture says. It merely says ‘until.’ The trouble with your misinterpretation of that verse lies in your own projection onto what you read. They did not have relations ‘until’ she gave birth. No one (in their right mind) has relations immediately or even “soon” after giving birth. By all of your other examples, that is what they did. Just because ‘until’ can mean “until after” (like in my son’s case) doesn’t mean it always means that.

“Woman behold your son” single-handedly shows she had no other children. There is no other (earthly) reason for Christ to have given care of His mother over to someone else. Leave ‘until’ alone. You can’t make it say what you want it to say. It just plain doesn’t.

 

[catholicsuffer]

Sure thing. Tertullian, who spent his adult life during the time immediately following the creation of the Gospel of James. He among the church fathers had something like a “first pass” at this apocryphal book and denied the veracity of its statements of Mary being ever-virgin and of Jesus’ brothers being born of another woman.

Tertullian is orthodox on the virgin birth. He does not maintain the later ideas of Mary ever-virgin, but believes that Christ had a normal birth, and that his brothers were his brothers, and not his cousins as later Fathers were to maintain.

True, but we must remember that Tertullian was not exactly in good-standing with the church.
“Tertullian fell into errors of a very serious kind by joining himself to the heretic Montanus; still on his mind is discoverable the working of that spirit which animated the early converts of Christianity; and his whole soul seems to have been filled with a desire to promote the practical influence of the Gospel.”

That being said, of course leds one to believe that his opinion was something other then what the Spiriti of God directed.

 

[Mike_Dye]

Joseph was betrothed to Mary, but before they “came together” she was found to be “with child.” Nevertheless, it certainly appears to be the case that Joseph stuck around and acted as Jesus’ stepfather, in a way, though he wasn’t Jesus’ biological dad.

It also appears to be the case that Mary and Joseph were actually husband and wife, and that they had “marital relations” as would be expected in a marriage where the husband and wife don’t hate each other. Is that an unreasonable expectation?

If that’s a credible assumption to make, and we also suppose that Mary and Joseph did not use contraception, it would be reasonable to assume that Jesus had half-brothers and half-sisters birthed by Mary after Jesus was born. Thus, it should not surprise us that the Bible talks about and names and numbers Jesus’ brothers (James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas), mentions his sisters, and has a tendency to talk about Jesus’ “mother and brothers” together (Acts 1:14, Mt. 12:46, Luke 8:19, Mark 3:31).

If you don’t think Mary and Joseph ever had marital relations, why is this? And one last question: Matthew 1:25 says of Joseph, “But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.” Obviously, the key word is “until.” Is it fair to characterize this as a verse that tells us when they had relations for the first time? If the Bible tells us when they had relations, can you possibly get away with saying they didn’t have relations at all?

I’m going to say this later, so I might as well say it now. Yes, Mary was the mother of Jesus. Yes, Jesus is God and was never at any point not God. Therefore, Mary was the mother of God.

She was more than that, though, and you shouldn’t be afraid of the more complete picture. She was also the wife of Joseph. It’s not good to dwell on it too excessively or in depth, but she had normal marital relations with him- try to think about it the same way you think about it with your parents. (ie., not that much- but at least you don’t deny that it happens). She was the mother of James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas, as well as at least two girls. That doesn’t make her any less the mother of Jesus, but there was more to her than that, too.

Do you have problems with any of that?

When Luther in all of his arrogance, decided to take the plunge and divorce himself from the Truth, he opened up the floodgates for all who would follow to “chart their own course”, If you disagree with your churches interperpration of Scripture no problem, just start your own church, simple as pie, now you are on the right track. Even Luther believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity. But of course You and YOUR CHURCH KNOWS BETTER. After all you have spent a few years figguring it all out.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Sure thing. Tertullian, who spent his adult life during the time immediately following the creation of the Gospel of James. He among the church fathers had something like a “first pass” at this apocryphal book and denied the veracity of its statements of Mary being ever-virgin and of Jesus’ brothers being born of another woman.

Tertullian is orthodox on the virgin birth. He does not maintain the later ideas of Mary ever-virgin, but believes that Christ had a normal birth, and that his brothers were his brothers, and not his cousins as later Fathers were to maintain.

You have not provided a quote in context nor a source. Without this, your assertion cannot be independently verified, and this is hearsay at best. If you have more to offer, please do so.

If you are doing your own research, then you should have the documentation requested. If you are simply regurgitating the work of another author, then please provide the name of the book or website from which you are drawing your material.

It appears that you have simply done a cut and paste from the following site: tertullian.org/theology.htm

Thus, you have plagiarized the work which states in context:

Tertullian is orthodox on the virgin birth. He does not maintain the later ideas of Mary ever-virgin, but believes that Christ had a normal birth, and that his brothers were his brothers, and not his cousins as later Fathers were to maintain. Helvidius later invoked this statement by Tertullian as an authority, but was denied by Jerome curtly in the words “As to Tertullian, I have nothing else to say except that he was not a man of the church”.

Could you confirm or deny this as the source of your previous posting? Thanks.

Finally, let’s assume for a moment that you are correct and that Tertullian did not believe that Mary remained a Virgin all of her life. This evidence should be examined carefully, but does his opinion necessarily discredit the Church’s position?

Was Tertullian infallible? Was he even an orthodox Christian? Do you accept Montanism as Tertullian did?

If the opinions of one man are equal to the opinion of the Church itself, then will you give fair hearing to the opinions of Nestorius and Pelagius, also? Or is it enough for you that the Church defeated these heretics long ago?

The Church listens to all of her sons, but she does not accept what all of them have to say on every matter.

 

[patrick457]

Sure thing. Tertullian, who spent his adult life during the time immediately following the creation of the Gospel of James. He among the church fathers had something like a “first pass” at this apocryphal book and denied the veracity of its statements of Mary being ever-virgin and of Jesus’ brothers being born of another woman.

Tertullian is orthodox on the virgin birth. He does not maintain the later ideas of Mary ever-virgin, but believes that Christ had a normal birth, and that his brothers were his brothers, and not his cousins as later Fathers were to maintain.

If I could provide a historical background to this:

Tertullian, out of concern for realism, apparently thought that Mary had lost all signs of virginity when she gave birth to Jesus (On the Flesh of Christ, XXIII 2-5) and that the brethren of the Lord are Mary’s actual children (Against Marcion IV, 19, 7).

His reaction (that Jesus was born in “the normal manner” and that Mary lost her virginity in the process) is understandable: he, along with others that believed the same views as him - such as Jovinian - believed thus in an effort to distance themselves from the then-widespread heresy of Docetism, which taught that Jesus only “appeared” to be human. To them, saying that Mary kept her virginity in partu would imply that Jesus did not have an actual human body and that His birth is not a truly human one - and that would reek of heresy!
Therefore, in an attempt to emphasize the actual humanity of Jesus, they (from the ‘orthodox’ POV) went to the other extreme. Note that Tertullian makes the comments themselves in the context of attacking several Gnostic writers who held that Jesus is merely an apparition and that He never really took on a human body.

Apparently, Helvidius also used him as an authority in proving his point, prompting St. Jerome to dismiss his use of Tertullian thus:

…Feeling himself to be a smatterer, he there produces Tertullian as a witness and quotes the words of Victorinus bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proved from the Gospel - that he spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary, but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship not by nature. We are, however, spending our strength on trifles, and, leaving the fountain of truth, are following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views, and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man. But I think it better to reply briefly to each point than to linger any longer and extend my book to an undue length.

-The Perpetual Virginity of Mary (Against Helvidius), Chapter 19

Of course, the belief in the Perpetual Virginity seems to be still largely unknown to the Western churches by this time - many of its early proponents (such as Origen, St. Athanasius, St. Cyril, St. John Chrysostom, St. Gregory of Nyssa) mostly come from Eastern Christendom. The Protoevangelium of James itself is at times viewed with hostility in the West even after there are records of Western Church Fathers - such as Sts. Ambrose, Augustine, and Jerome - mentioning the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, such as during the time it was condemned in the Gelasian Decretals (ca. 500 AD) as an apocryphal work that the “Catholic and Apostolic Roman church does not in any way receive”.

 

[fix]

It also appears to be the case that Mary and Joseph were actually husband and wife,

This much is true. They were married.

Luke refers to Mary as “a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph” (Lk 1:27). Even before the “mystery hidden for ages” (Eph 3:9) began to be fulfilled, the Gospels set before us the image of husband and wife. According to Jewish custom, marriage took place in two stages: first, the legal, or true marriage was celebrated, and then, only after a certain period of time, the husband brought the wife into his own house. Thus, before he lived with Mary, Joseph was already her “husband.” Mary, however, preserved her deep desire to give herself exclusively to God. One may well ask how this desire of Mary’s could be reconciled with a “wedding.” The answer can only come from the saving events as they unfold, from the special action of God himself. From the moment of the Annunciation, Mary knew that she was to fulfill her virginal desire to give herself exclusively and fully to God precisely by becoming the Mother of God’s Son. Becoming a Mother by the power of the Holy Spirit was the form taken by her gift of self: a form which God himself expected of the Virgin Mary, who was “betrothed” to Joseph. Mary uttered her fiat. The fact that Mary was “betrothed” to Joseph was part of the very plan of God…

REDEMPTORIS CUSTOS
OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF
JOHN PAUL II
ON THE PERSON AND MISSION OF
SAINT JOSEPH
IN THE LIFE OF CHRIST AND OF THE CHURCH

 

[catholicsuffer]

You have not provided a quote in context nor a source. Without this, your assertion cannot be independently verified, and this is hearsay at best. If you have more to offer, please do so.

If you are doing your own research, then you should have the documentation requested. If you are simply regurgitating the work of another author, then please provide the name of the book or website from which you are drawing your material.

It appears that you have simply done a cut and paste from the following site: tertullian.org/theology.htm

Thus, you have plagiarized the work which states in context:

Tertullian is orthodox on the virgin birth. He does not maintain the later ideas of Mary ever-virgin, but believes that Christ had a normal birth, and that his brothers were his brothers, and not his cousins as later Fathers were to maintain. Helvidius later invoked this statement by Tertullian as an authority, but was denied by Jerome curtly in the words “As to Tertullian, I have nothing else to say except that he was not a man of the church”.

Could you confirm or deny this as the source of your previous posting? Thanks.

Finally, let’s assume for a moment that you are correct and that Tertullian did not believe that Mary remained a Virgin all of her life. This evidence should be examined carefully, but does his opinion necessarily discredit the Church’s position?

Was Tertullian infallible? Was he even an orthodox Christian? Do you accept Montanism as Tertullian did?

If the opinions of one man are equal to the opinion of the Church itself, then will you give fair hearing to the opinions of Nestorius and Pelagius, also? Or is it enough for you that the Church defeated these heretics long ago?

The Church listens to all of her sons, but she does not accept what all of them have to say on every matter.

Randy Carson you ask a lot of questions. Since most of them seems to be of a personal direct attack instead of on the subject itself, I do not feel a need to answer them. But this one did intrigue me:

Or is it enough for you that the Church defeated these heretics long ago?

No it is not enough but it is good that the Church did defeat them. The reason I say that it is not enough is because these heretics always emerge again in some form or another and must be continually defeated.

Oh, yes that was a cut and paste…sorry should have made reference.

 

[Doolin]

You insist on this because of a Catholic doctrine that is inappropriate. But you’re unable to rightly admit its status because Catholic doctrine doesn’t allow you to do that. You’re caught in a vicious circle. It’s kind of sad.

Exactly why Catholics weren’t allowed to read it for quite awhile. The very thought of it was- for a period of time- just as offensive as the notion that Mary had sex with Joseph after Jesus was born.

But it does use her sexual union with Joseph as a reference point. Now, assuming they weren’t using contraception (a safe assumption if there ever was one), the fruits of such activities pretty well go without saying.

An excellent question. That is, indeed, the proper starting point.

If it’s verse 18 you’re talking about, that is exactly the question that Randy Carson is steadfastly ignoring. What was the purpose of saying Mary conceived before they came together? Right after this, it talks about how Mary fulfills the prophecy of the virgin conceiving and bearing a son. Therefore, in verse 18, we must conclude that its purpose is to demonstrate that Mary was a virgin when she conceived. The awkward part of this comes up when you notice it says she conceived BEFORE they came together. With their “coming together” established as a reference point, Randy runs out of real estate in his quest to avoid the implications of this statement. He’s forced to revert to the conclusion that “come together” doesn’t have anything to do with sex- and he immediately loses sight of the importance of the statement in the first place. The point of the statement is to establish Mary’s virginity, so of course it’s talking about sex.

The main point is that Mary conceived as a virgin. The fact that she and Joseph had sex after Jesus was born is a secondary point.

The problem has to do with the prophecy: The mother of the Messiah will be a virgin who conceives and bears a son.

It’s implied and understood pretty clearly. It’s also stated unambiguously in verse 18 where we are told that Mary conceived before she and Joseph had sex. Does that mean they had sex? Yes it does- but she conceived before that.

Thanks for the response. I always enjoy a good dialogue.

A couple of things in response. First, once again there is " no mention of Mary giving birth to additional children". It is not stated in scripture. So my view is that if we decide to draw a conclusion that she did have additional children, it is based upon assumptions.

Second, scripture would be in complete harmony with the tradition Joseph dying early in Jesus life. It describes “his mother and his brothers”. This description would support the idea that the widow Mary is accompanied by Josephs’ sons from an earlier relationship.

I would suggest the we be careful in drawing from scripture what we would like to believe given no solid scripture verse supporting “Mary giving birth to additional children”.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy Carson you ask a lot of questions. Since most of them seems to be of a personal direct attack instead of on the subject itself, I do not feel a need to answer them. But this one did intrigue me:

No it is not enough but it is good that the Church did defeat them. The reason I say that it is not enough is because these heretics always emerge again in some form or another and must be continually defeated.

Oh, yes that was a cut and paste…sorry should have made reference.

Uh…hmmm.

If you’ll refer to post #74, you’ll see that I was not responding to you.

Therefore, unless you are mmmcounts, there is no need for you to respond to my questions at all.

 

[Randy_Carson]

If it’s verse 18 you’re talking about, that is exactly the question that Randy Carson is steadfastly ignoring.

Excuse me?

I wrote extensively on Matthew 1:18 in posts 29, 30 & 31 and again in post 44. You even quoted and responded to that last one in your own post 45. This proves that I have done anything but ignore the verse and that you are aware that I was not ignoring it.

Why this falsehood, Mike?

Are you ignoring my question as to why Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and Wesley all believed not just in the Virgin Birth but in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary as well?