Joseph was actually married to Mary, right?

[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.

This is kind of a double-edged sword, isn’t it? How much Tertullian can you stomach?

Tertullian on Apostolic Succession

“[The apostles] founded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches. Every sort of thing must necessarily revert to its original for its classification. Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive Church, [founded] by the apostles, from which they all [spring]. In this way, all are primitive, and all are apostolic, while they are all proved to be one in unity” (*Demurrer Against the Heretics *20 [A.D. 200]).

“[W]hat it was which Christ revealed to them [the apostles] can, as I must here likewise prescribe, properly be proved in no other way than by those very churches which the apostles founded in person, by declaring the gospel to them directly themselves . . . If then these things are so, it is in the same degree manifest that all doctrine which agrees with the apostolic churches—those molds and original sources of the faith must be reckoned for truth, as undoubtedly containing that which the churches received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, [and] Christ from God. Whereas all doctrine must be prejudged as false which savors of contrariety to the truth of the churches and apostles of Christ and God. It remains, then, that we demonstrate whether this doctrine of ours, of which we have now given the rule, has its origin in the tradition of the apostles, and whether all other doctrines do not ipso facto proceed from falsehood” (ibid., 21).

“But if there be any [heresies] which are bold enough to plant [their origin] in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [their first] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men—a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter” (ibid., 32).

“But should they even effect the contrivance [of composing a succession list for themselves], they will not advance a step. For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles [as contained in other churches], will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the apostles would never have taught things which were self-contradictory” (ibid.).

“Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic Church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith” (ibid.).

Tertullian on the Real Presence in the Eucharist

“[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God” (*The Resurrection of the Dead *8 [A.D. 210]).

Tertullian on Auricular Confession

“[Regarding confession, some] flee from this work as being an exposure of themselves, or they put it off from day to day. I presume they are more mindful of modesty than of salvation, like those who contract a disease in the more shameful parts of the body and shun making themselves known to the physicians; and thus they perish along with their own bashfulness” (Repentance 10:1 [A.D. 203]).

 

[Randy_Carson]

Tertullian on Purgatory and Praying for the Dead

“[T]hat allegory of the Lord which is extremely clear and simple in its meaning, and ought to be from the first understood in its plain and natural sense…Then, again, should you be disposed to apply the term ‘adversary’ to the devil, you are advised by the (Lord’s) injunction, while you are in the way with him, 'to make even with him such a compact as may be deemed compatible with the requirements of your true faith. Now the compact you have made respecting him is to renounce him, and his pomp, and his angels. Such is your agreement in this matter. Now the friendly understanding you will have to carry out must arise from your observance of the compact: you must never think of getting back any of the things which you have abjured, and have restored to him, lest he should summon you as a fraudulent man, and a transgressor of your agreement, before God the Judge (for in this light do we read of him, in another passage, as ‘the accuser of the brethren,’ or saints, where reference is made to the actual practice of legal prosecution); and lest this Judge deliver you over to the angel who is to execute the sentence, and he commit you to the prison of hell, out of which there will be no dismissal until the smallest even of your delinquencies be paid off in the period before the resurrection. What can be a more fitting sense than this? What a truer interpretation?” *Tertullian, A Treatise on the Soul, 35 (A.D. 210). *

“All souls, therefore; are shut up within Hades: do you admit this? It is true, whether you say yes or no: moreover, there are already experienced there punishments and consolations; and there you have a poor man and a rich…Moreover, the soul executes not all its operations with the ministration of the flesh; for the judgment of God pursues even simple cogitations and the merest volitions. ‘Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.’ Therefore, even for this cause it is most fitting that the soul, without at all waiting for the flesh, should be punished for what it has done without the partnership of the flesh. So, on the same principle, in return for the pious and kindly thoughts in which it shared not the help of the flesh, shall it without the flesh receive its consolation. In short, inasmuch as we understand ‘the prison’ pointed out in the Gospel to be Hades, and as we also interpret ‘the uttermost farthing’ to mean the very smallest offence which has to be recompensed there before the resurrection, no one will hesitate to believe that the soul undergoes in Hades some compensatory discipline, without prejudice to the full process of the resurrection, when the recompense will be administered through the flesh besides.” *Tertullian, A Treatise on the Soul, 58 (A.D. 210). *

“As often as the anniversary comes round, we make offerings for the dead as birthday honours.” *Tertullian, The Chaplut, 3 (A.D. 211). *

“[A] woman is more bound when her husband is dead…Indeed, she prays for his soul, and requests refreshment for him meanwhile, and fellowship (with him) in the first resurrection; and she offers (her sacrifice) on the anniversary of his falling asleep.” *Tertullian, On Monogamy, 10 (A.D. 216). *

Tertullian on the Necessity of Baptism for Salvation (and the role of Bishops)

[N]o one can attain salvation without baptism, especially in view of the declaration of the Lord, who says, “Unless a man shall be born of water, he shall not have life” (On Baptism 12:1 A.D. 203]).

When we are about to enter the water — no, just a little before — In the church and under the hand of the bishop, we solemnly profess that we renounce the devil and his pomps and his angels. Thereupon we are immersed three times (The Crown 3:2 A.D. 211]).

Tertullian on Baptismal Regeneration

“A treatise on our sacrament of water, by which the sins of our earlier blindness are washed away and we are released for eternal life will not be superfluous… Taking away death by the washing away of sins. The guilt being removed, the penalty, of course, is also removed… Baptism itself is a corporal act by which we are plunged into the water, while its effect is spiritual, in that we are freed from our sins” (On Baptism 1:1, 5:6, 7:2 [inter A.D. 200-206]).

 

[YADA]

I am still confused over the idea of forcing the meaning of until onto a future event - at best it term leaves open the possibility but it does not force the change [as Randy and others have illustrated so well with scripture quotes ]

The use of the word until is focused on the events leading up to the eent … it is not and leaves unlimited future events [actions] … that is the nature of the word - no more - no less …

Because the use of ‘until’ does not 100% force action into future events the the most that can be said of the passage RE Mary and Joseph not comming together until Jesus was born is that it is possible … but not certain …

So we are left with why MMMCounts believes a novelty and ignores historical Christianity that even includes the early reformers?

And then I am left pondering the question protestants always ask …

“What difference does it really make whether Mary & Joseph engaged in arital relations or not?” …

This begs the question … “Why do protestants feel the need to change [rewrite] 1900 years +/- of Christian belief to sexualize the relationship between Mary and Joseph - if it does not matter?” …

They want to bring [impose upon] our societal everyone does it [sex for the sake of sex] morality upon first century Judaism … That was a society that controled itself … people entered into arranged marriages - they did not engage in serial un-married sex for the sake of pleasure encounters … they did not tell their teenagers to employ safe sex techniques and abort the accidents …

But because we live in a society that sees sexual activity as the GOAL … so must Joseph …

I have always wondered how Joseph must have been awed by living with the woman chosen to bring the Incarnate God into human flesh … and being responsible to care for the Infant/Child/Adolescent ManGod … but our friends think all he did was count the days to copulation, making Mary [Once overshadowed by God’s Intimacy] his very own intimate object …

 

[mmmcounts]

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.

In post 31, you say this:

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.

What you’re ignoring is the reason why it has to refer to sexual activity: The purpose of giving us this information is to establish the fact that Mary conceived while she was a virgin, in order to fulfill the prophecy.

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.

Again, Matthew 1:18 tells us Mary conceived before she and Joseph came together. The purpose of this verse is to demonstrate the fact that Mary was a virgin at this time, as we can see in the verses immediately following it. You know the rest.

Your response in post 45 amounts to providing a Catholic interpretation of the Bible posing as a “translation.” The word in question is sunerxomai, and it means “to be coming together.” The translation of your choice renders it as “to be physically living together under the same roof” or some nonsense very similar to that. This is not an honest translation of the Bible. It is an interpretation. What the Bible says is what should be written in its translation. If you’re going to quote from the Bible, please do use a translation that presents a properly translated text and leaves the interpretive notes in their proper place.

If there were a Protestant translation that claimed the proper translation of sunerxomai as “to be having knowledge of each other,” I would assent to that as far as a proper interpretation, but I would be just as opposed to its inclusion as a false translation. The word “sunerxomai” has a particular meaning, and that meaning is “to be coming together.” Any translation that inserts interpretive bias and semantically alters the correct translation is dishonest. Fortunately, to my knowledge, there aren’t any Protestant translations that do what you’ve recently put on display- at least not in Matthew 1:18.

If you don’t believe me in what I say about the NAB, don’t take my word for it. In some places, it gets things right. In others- like in Matthew 1:18- it fits the description given by Jimmy Akin: “The third problem is that I just think the NAB is a lousy translation. There was a period in which I would tense up at Mass every day, worried about what the NAB would get wrong today. There are so many squishy, tone-deaf, and way-beyond-the-text translations in the NAB that anyone with a knowledge of the Greek and Hebrew has to cringe when it’s read at Mass.”

I don’t have any knowledge of Hebrew, but it hasn’t been so long since I took Greek. This is one of those places where the NAB “translation” goes way beyond the text and gives you something that just isn’t there. Jimmy does qualify this statement, though:

“That’s not to say that it never gets it right. In fact, I’m using the NAB as the Bible translation I’m quoting in a booklet I’m writing for Catholic Answers right now. The reason is that, in this case, the NAB happens to better render the passages I most need to quote. But this is an exceptional situation. In general, I can’t recommend it.”

So to summarize: Be wary of what you take from the NAB. At least double-check the important stuff against a literal translation. In this case, it’s easy enough to see what went wrong: The NAB team went ahead and made something up that isn’t actually there. This is where I got the Akin stuff. jimmyakin.org/2005/01/the_new_america.html

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.

Not as consistent as you’d like, and when confronted with a difference of opinion among the early church fathers, you counter with an enormous red herring.

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?

There is something you need to know about Protestants, my friend. Let me tell you a story.

Are you familiar with the Daily Show? Jon Stewart is the host. A little less than a month ago, he spent some time mocking Jim Cramer, the host of “Mad Money” on MSNBC.

I’m not usually in favor of mocking people for the sake of humor, but in this case it wasn’t entirely without merit. Cramer’s show is a little ridiculous as far as discourse on finance goes. One recurring theme that Stewart brought up more than once was the tagline in an advertisement for the show: “In Cramer We Trust.”

Stewart throws this tagline up on our TV screens, reads it, snickers and says, “They replaced God’s name with Cramer’s.” I fully understand that he wasn’t really claiming divine authority, but still- when someone is predicting things about the futures market and fails in an epic sort of way, this kind of thing does not help. Normally I’d say “leave him alone,” but he did replace God’s name with his own. He deserved to get taken down a peg.

A few days later, reporters on another outlet of the NBC family were commenting on Jon Stewart’s criticism of Jim Cramer. One of them wanted to know this: “So Jon, are YOU planning on predicting the futures market for the next few months?” Stewart addressed this by saying “NooOOOoo. You see, we don’t have a slogan saying In Stewart We Trust.”

The same could be said of Protestants. We are different from you when it comes to church authority and the source of what we believe about the Bible. Sure, we think some of it is right. But it’s not right because the early fathers said so. It’s right because it’s right. Some of the fathers got some stuff wrong, and that’s OK. We don’t have a slogan saying “In these fathers we trust.”

You do, though. Because of this kind of mentality, you are compelled to believe in a very high level of consistency and conformity among church fathers down through the ages. That is why I brought up Tertullian- in order to make it clear that the early fathers did not consistently conform to these sorts of beliefs. Sure, there’s some very basic stuff they all agreed on (from which the present topic is excluded), but aside from the extreme basics like Jesus is God, there is precious little that every church father conformed in as you would like them to. This is a problem for you because you can’t place the “appropriate” amount of trust in them in this scenario.

I have news for you, though: I don’t place my trust in any of the church fathers in the same way you do. You have this “In the church fathers I trust” mentality. I give their beliefs strong consideration, but I certainly do not have such a slogan that compels me to pretend at their unanimity on something and then place my full faith in what they say. This also allows me to search for the truth instead of stopping at what a few of the fathers said, and by doing this I can find out the answer to two questions: One, what did they believe (this is where you’d like to stop) and Two, were they right/who was right in what they believed?

As for my slogan, I’ll stick with “In God I Trust.” I acknowledge your invitation to put Calvin’s name in there along with Luther, Zwingli, and a few others. But I’m going to have to decline. No thanks, Randy. I’m not like you. It doesn’t work that way. You’re making the same mistake as the people responding to Stewart’s criticism. You’re thinking this: If he’s not going to put his trust in the beliefs of the Catholic fathers, then shouldn’t he give the same kind of “full assent” to the early Protestant fathers? It’s not a matter of who I give it to, Randy. It’s a matter of not giving it at all.

Moving on: Matthew 1:18. Mary conceived before she and Joseph came together. The purpose of this verse is to demonstrate that Mary was a virgin when she conceived, as stated in the prophecy. Once you see that this is true (which it certainly is), the interpretive reading must look something like this: Mary conceived before she lost her virginity. That this resulted in more pregnancies is supported strongly by Scripture, and it only makes sense- after all, she was having unprotected sex. With Joseph, her husband. And there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. That much we know for sure.

To this point, you’ve countered this argument by saying “before they came together” only refers to living in the same house. You must explain how you integrate this interpretation with the purpose of the verse, which is to demonstrate that Mary was a virgin at the time of the conception. Don’t ignore it this time.

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…

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.”

 

[CWBetts]

So basically what you are saying is you afre right beacuse you said so…pretty convincing

 

[Randy_Carson]

In post 31, you say this:

What you’re ignoring is the reason why it has to refer to sexual activity: The purpose of giving us this information is to establish the fact that Mary conceived while she was a virgin, in order to fulfill the prophecy.

I think we agree that the purpose of the text is to say that Mary was a Virgin when she conceived. However, we disagree on what occurred or did not occur later. And, no, it doesn’t HAVE to imply that they had sex later. You want and need it to mean that (why I cannot fathom), but it simply isn’t there.

So to summarize: Be wary of what you take from the NAB. At least double-check the important stuff against a literal translation. In this case, it’s easy enough to see what went wrong: The NAB team went ahead and made something up that isn’t actually there. This is where I got the Akin stuff.

Actually, you, Akin and I are all in agreement here. I’m leery of the NAB - though not because I’m a scholar, of course. I’ve simply heard too many criticisms. One point, however, Patrick Madrid, speaks highly of the translation - but not of the notes and introductions. I’m not going to press beyond this in support of the NAB, and I will concede the point. However, that doesn’t suddenly carry the day for you, so don’t get too excited.

Not as consistent as you’d like

But far more consistent than you obviously care to admit.

There is something you need to know about Protestants, my friend. Let me tell you a story.

The same could be said of Protestants. We are different from you when it comes to church authority and the source of what we believe about the Bible. Sure, we think some of it is right. But it’s not right because the early fathers said so. It’s right because it’s right. Some of the fathers got some stuff wrong, and that’s OK. We don’t have a slogan saying “In these fathers we trust.”

You do, though. Because of this kind of mentality, you are compelled to believe in a very high level of consistency and conformity among church fathers down through the ages. That is why I brought up Tertullian- in order to make it clear that the early fathers did not consistently conform to these sorts of beliefs. Sure, there’s some very basic stuff they all agreed on (from which the present topic is excluded), but aside from the extreme basics like Jesus is God, there is precious little that every church father conformed in as you would like them to. This is a problem for you because you can’t place the “appropriate” amount of trust in them in this scenario.

I have news for you, though: I don’t place my trust in any of the church fathers in the same way you do. You have this “In the church fathers I trust” mentality. I give their beliefs strong consideration, but I certainly do not have such a slogan that compels me to pretend at their unanimity on something and then place my full faith in what they say. This also allows me to search for the truth instead of stopping at what a few of the fathers said, and by doing this I can find out the answer to two questions: One, what did they believe (this is where you’d like to stop) and Two, were they right/who was right in what they believed?

Now who’s erecting a straw man? Your entire characterization of my opinion could not be further from the truth. The ECF’s provide evidence of what the early Church believed and documentation of the antiquity of certain ideas, but it is truly absurd to say that I hold the position that “Father said it, I believe it, and that settles it.”

In fact, my “red herring” who is also your proto-Protestant Poster Boy, Tertullian, proves this point. Tertullian was right about some things, wrong about others. This might be said of many if not all of the ECF’s. They didn’t have a three-volume set of systematic theology handed to them; they were working this out, doing the heavy lifting, in real time. If you and I see farther (and that is highly debatable) it is because we stand on the shoulders of giants.

However, you’re simply cherry-picking from Tertullian since you deny practically everything else the man believed. Ironically, you probably deny everything else that Helvidius believed, also, but you don’t hesitate to “proof-text” from their writings to suit your needs.

I, on the other hand, do not have the same dilemma that you face, for there is no question that the ECF’s were Catholic, and if they were alive today, they would be Catholic still. They would NOT be worshipping down at the local Bible Fellowship…they’d seek out the nearest Catholic Bishop and submit themselves to his authority. Those who WERE bishops, would do the same with the pope, of course. If the ECFs discovered that the Church was teaching today something with which they had not agreed during their own lifetimes long past, THEY WOULD SUBMIT TO THE CHURCH IN A NEW YORK MINUTE. This, I believe, is beyond comprehension for the typical, independent-minded PROTESTant.

As for my slogan, I’ll stick with “In God I Trust.” I acknowledge your invitation to put Calvin’s name in there along with Luther, Zwingli, and a few others. But I’m going to have to decline. No thanks, Randy. I’m not like you. It doesn’t work that way. You’re making the same mistake as the people responding to Stewart’s criticism. You’re thinking this: If he’s not going to put his trust in the beliefs of the Catholic fathers, then shouldn’t he give the same kind of “full assent” to the early Protestant fathers? It’s not a matter of who I give it to, Randy. It’s a matter of not giving it at all.

Again, you completely miss the point. I’m not asking you to trust in Calvin, et al. Truly, I wish you had LESS confidence in their false theology. What I AM asking you to consider and answer is:

Why did these men who most definitelty rejected Catholicism to the core accept wholeheartedly the Perpetual Virginity of Mary?

How did they get this SO COMPLETELY WRONG?

Don’t ignore it this time.

Moving on: Matthew 1:18. Mary conceived before she and Joseph came together. The purpose of this verse is to demonstrate that Mary was a virgin when she conceived, as stated in the prophecy.

True.

Once you see that this is true (which it certainly is), the interpretive reading must look something like this: Mary conceived before she lost her virginity. That this resulted in more pregnancies is supported strongly by Scripture, and it only makes sense- after all, she was having unprotected sex. With Joseph, her husband. And there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. That much we know for sure.

There would be nothing wrong with a husband and wife having sex. The challenge for you is that you cannot prove that they did from the text itself. Thus, you are reading into the text what you personally want to see there. The text “must look something like this”…why? Who says so? You? Well, I hate to break it to you, but a lot of REALLY smart people have examined this passage for the past two milennia, and they did not conclude that Mary and Joseph MUST have had sex. This is your personal hang-up, I think.

To this point, you’ve countered this argument by saying “before they came together” only refers to living in the same house. You must explain how you integrate this interpretation with the purpose of the verse, which is to demonstrate that Mary was a virgin at the time of the conception. Don’t ignore it this time.

Gee, I think this should be obvious enough, and it has been presented repeatedly. Once more, with feeling:

Mary and Joseph were betrothed (legally husband and wife under Jewish law) but they had not yet finished the time of their betrothal. This is different from engagement today. Fiances are not legally married under our system. Mary and Joseph were; that is why Joseph “had in mind to divorce her quietly.” Before they came together (whether you want to say “sexually” or “under one roof”), Mary was found to be with child. That’s all you can say from the text. PERIOD.

Going on to say, "Well, ‘before’ implies ‘after’ is simply your personal interpretation. Forget Catholic v. Protestant, okay? Not all PROTESTANTS buy what you’re selling. Not now, not any time in history. Therefore, you simply cannot conclude from the text that your slant is obvious or definitive.

Forget that you’re arguing with a Catholic on a Catholic apologetics site, okay?

Take off your Protestant-colored glasses for a minute and recognize that you won’t even be able to convince many non-Catholics of this position based upon such flimsy evidence.

 

[mmmcounts]

I am still confused over the idea of forcing the meaning of until onto a future event - at best it term leaves open the possibility but it does not force the change [as Randy and others have illustrated so well with scripture quotes

Actually, what I’ve seen is a consistent effort to display all the passages containing “until” that least resemble Matthew 1:25 in all other ways. I’ve made the effort to put up all passages that DO conform pretty well to what Matthew 1:25 looks like and it’s gone pretty much unnoticed.

So we are left with why MMMCounts believes a novelty and ignores historical Christianity that even includes the early reformers?

[/QUOTE]

 

[Randy_Carson]

Jesus is sinless. Mary was not.

Prove it.

Otherwise, this is simply another assertion.

A new thread would be appropriate. I’ll be looking for it.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I am still confused over the idea of forcing the meaning of until onto a future event - at best it term leaves open the possibility but it does not force the change [as Randy and others have illustrated so well with scripture quotes ]

The use of the word until is focused on the events leading up to the eent … it is not and leaves unlimited future events [actions] … that is the nature of the word - no more - no less …

Because the use of ‘until’ does not 100% force action into future events the the most that can be said of the passage RE Mary and Joseph not comming together until Jesus was born is that it is possible … but not certain …

So we are left with why MMMCounts believes a novelty and ignores historical Christianity that even includes the early reformers?

And then I am left pondering the question protestants always ask …

“What difference does it really make whether Mary & Joseph engaged in arital relations or not?” …

This begs the question … “Why do protestants feel the need to change [rewrite] 1900 years +/- of Christian belief to sexualize the relationship between Mary and Joseph - if it does not matter?” …

They want to bring [impose upon] our societal everyone does it [sex for the sake of sex] morality upon first century Judaism … That was a society that controled itself … people entered into arranged marriages - they did not engage in serial un-married sex for the sake of pleasure encounters … they did not tell their teenagers to employ safe sex techniques and abort the accidents …

But because we live in a society that sees sexual activity as the GOAL … so must Joseph …

I have always wondered how Joseph must have been awed by living with the woman chosen to bring the Incarnate God into human flesh … and being responsible to care for the Infant/Child/Adolescent ManGod … but our friends think all he did was count the days to copulation, making Mary [Once overshadowed by God’s Intimacy] his very own intimate object …

Despite mmmcounts objections, this is a good post.

I would not have written the very last bit, “his very own intimate object” since mmmcounts’ objection is fair. IF, and I do say IF, Joseph and Mary were like any other couple (as some Protestants maintain), then there would have been nothing wrong with them enjoying sexual intimacy. There’s no need to degrade or belittle that.

But beyond that point, the post is spot on. Our mores should not be applied to other societies lightly, and this does seem to be at the center of much Protestant ojection to Mary’s Perpetual Virginity.

 

[Church_Militant]

** The Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.**

 According to the Word of God...

If Jesus had been the eldest among children then the others would have been responsible for taking care of their mother. This was not true of step children, who would not have had that responsibility.

If, as some ancient sources say, Joseph was a much older man and a widower with children by his previous wife, then this passage makes perfect sense.
Why then was one of the last things that Our Lord did from the cross the act of assigning his mother to the care of a non-family member?

If He had blood siblings instead of step siblings (who were not responsible for their step mother), why would he have done that?

John 19:26 When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son. 27 After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own.

 

[YADA]

Despite mmmcounts objections, this is a good post.

I would not have written the very last bit, “his very own intimate object” since mmmcounts’ objection is fair. IF, and I do say IF, Joseph and Mary were like any other couple (as some Protestants maintain), then there would have been nothing wrong with them enjoying sexual intimacy. There’s no need to degrade or belittle that.

But beyond that point, the post is spot on. Our mores should not be applied to other societies lightly, and this does seem to be at the center of much Protestant ojection to Mary’s Perpetual Virginity.

Point taken … I was just very frustrated by the whole argument that of course they had to have “sex” … and when most protestants say that they are not always taking bout it in its purest form …

The point I was trying to make … is at no other time has God so united himself with humanity then when Mary was selected to be the Mother of God … Mary was not just a plastic incubator … a useful tool for a 9 month gestation to be dispensed with … If there is a great msytery and joy in the marital union that results in naming a child 9 months later - and there is … this is the one aspect where God allows us to in a sence so-create with Him … a new human …

So what I was trying to say [and did poorly] is that Mary - having been so intimaetly united to God - such that Joseph had to name the Child would in any ordinary man create a reticense to enter into a similar intimacy - no matter how married you were and even if you had not already taken a vow to the Lord to life your life in service to Him and to Him alone … And Mary and Joseph lived that vow to serve God in a way no other humans could have … for days and days … far longer then the 9 months Jesus existed inthe womb …

Look at how much time an effort is being expended here … I believe that many people just can’t contemplate what knowing your wife to be is expecting the Messiah would mean to a man … how to even comprehend such a mystery …

There are many people in the world who do not believe that Jesus was born of a Virgin nor that he was in fact God … [far more then do] … but Joseph and Mary, we believe would just commence a “normal married life” …

And yet we live in a world where [for just one example] people believe it is possible for a child to grow up unable to have normal relations with a woman because he was spoken to harshly by his mother during potty training … …

Oedipus could only love his mother …

And for trhe Record … I do not place Mary as a a diety nor equal to Jesus … I do believe that she [like Enoch] walked all her days with the Lord [no personal sin] and due to being preserved from original sin by the merits of Jesus Christ [as we are at our baptism - born again from above] - her Saviour, Lord, God and Creator, who formed her and calld her by name and held her preserved - in the Womb, was sinless [she was as God intended for mankind to be from the beginning of time] … Mary a model for us to follow and who always points to God … telling us “Do whatever He tells you…”

And marital union is not sinful … sinfullenss of marital relations is not why Joseph and Mary did not have relations - I never said it was …

 

[Randy_Carson]

Actually, what I’ve seen is a consistent effort to display all the passages containing “until” that least resemble Matthew 1:25 in all other ways. I’ve made the effort to put up all passages that DO conform pretty well to what Matthew 1:25 looks like and it’s gone pretty much unnoticed.

Oh…still yammering about Mt 1:25, eh?

Well, as a former Protestant myself, I have lots of Protestant reference books on my shelf…Hebrew/Greek Study Bibles, Strong’s Concordance, commentaries, etc. One such text is Commentary on the Whole Bible by Jamieson, Fausset and Brown. Are you familiar with it? C. H. Spurgeon commented on Jamieson-Fausset-Brown, “It contains so great a variety of information that if a man had no other exposition he would find himself at no great loss if he possessed and used it diligently.”

Anyway, I’d like to quote Matthew 1:25 and the commentary directly from the text, page 882:

"And knew her not till she had brought fourth her first-born son: and he called his name JESUS.–The word “till” does not necessarily imply that they lived on a different footing afterwards (as will be evident from the use of the same word in 1 Sam, 15:35; 2 Sam. 6:23; Matt. 12:20); nor does the word “first-born” decide the much-disputed question, whether Mary had any children to Joseph afer the birth of Christ; for, as LIGHTFOOT says, “The law, in speaking of the first-born, regarded not whether nay were born after [original emphasis] or no, but only that none were born before.”

Wow.

The highly-regarded Jamison-Fausset-Brown Commentary seems pretty clear that we can conclude nothing from the text regarding the sexual relationship of Joseph and Mary, and it provides parallel examples of the use of “until” just as Catholics have been pointing out all along.

Alas, the single-volume text that I have is silent on “before they came together” found in Mt. 1:18, but I think it is reasonable for us to conclude that since these authors are so reticent to ascribe a loss of virginity in Mt. 1:25, there is nothing to be inferred from Mt. 1:18, either.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Point taken … I was just very frustrated by the whole argument that of course they had to have “sex” … and when most protestants say that they are not always taking bout it in its purest form …

The point I was trying to make … is at no other time has God so united himself with humanity then when Mary was selected to be the Mother of God … Mary was not just a plastic incubator … a useful tool for a 9 month gestation to be dispensed with … If there is a great msytery and joy in the marital union that results in naming a child 9 months later - and there is … this is the one aspect where God allows us to in a sence so-create with Him … a new human …

So what I was trying to say [and did poorly] is that Mary - having been so intimaetly united to God - such that Joseph had to name the Child would in any ordinary man create a reticense to enter into a similar intimacy - no matter how married you were and even if you had not already taken a vow to the Lord to life your life in service to Him and to Him alone … And Mary and Joseph lived that vow to serve God in a way no other humans could have … for days and days … far longer then the 9 months Jesus existed inthe womb …

Look at how much time an effort is being expended here … I believe that many people just can’t contemplate what knowing your wife to be is expecting the Messiah would mean to a man … how to even comprehend such a mystery …

There are many people in the world who do not believe that Jesus was born of a Virgin nor that he was in fact God … [far more then do] … but Joseph and Mary, we believe would just commence a “normal married life” …

And yet we live in a world where [for just one example] people believe it is possible for a child to grow up unable to have normal relations with a woman because he was spoken to harshly by his mother during potty training … …

Oedipus could only love his mother …

And for trhe Record … I do not place Mary as a a diety nor equal to Jesus … I do believe that she [like Enoch] walked all her days with the Lord [no personal sin] and due to being preserved from original sin by the merits of Jesus Christ [as we are at our baptism - born again from above] - her Saviour, Lord, God and Creator, who formed her and calld her by name and held her preserved - in the Womb, was sinless [she was as God intended for mankind to be from the beginning of time] … Mary a model for us to follow and who always points to God … telling us “Do whatever He tells you…”

And marital union is not sinful … sinfullenss of marital relations is not why Joseph and Mary did not have relations - I never said it was …

No worries. Ya “done good.”

 

[mmmcounts]

Prove it.

Otherwise, this is simply another assertion.

A new thread would be appropriate. I’ll be looking for it.

If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.

Therefore, I conclude that if Mary ever said “I have no sin” (which she did not- I give her credit for being smarter than that), the truth would not have been in her.

Simple enough. I don’t think I need a whole new thread for that.

If Jesus had been the eldest among children then the others would have been responsible for taking care of their mother. This was not true of step children, who would not have had that responsibility.

If, as some ancient sources say, Joseph was a much older man and a widower with children by his previous wife, then this passage makes perfect sense.
Why then was one of the last things that Our Lord did from the cross the act of assigning his mother to the care of a non-family member?

If He had blood siblings instead of step siblings (who were not responsible for their step mother), why would he have done that?

John 19:26 When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son. 27 After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own.

This has come up quite a few times, but I’m holding off on addressing it in the interest of staying on one or two topics at a time. I don’t want to jump around too much, but I am almost ready to get to this one. First, though, I need to re-submit this to Randy one more time concerning Matthew 1:18.

To this point, you’ve countered this argument by saying “before they came together” only refers to living in the same house. You must explain how you integrate this interpretation with the purpose of the verse, which is to demonstrate that Mary was a virgin at the time of the conception. Don’t ignore it this time.

You didn’t ignore it this time. This is a summary of your response so far.

Before they came together (whether you want to say “sexually” or “under one roof”), Mary was found to be with child. That’s all you can say from the text. PERIOD.

You can also state the purpose of the verse and determine that “coming together” in a sexual sense is the only one that is consistent with the aforementioned purpose: To demonstrate that Mary was a virgin when she conceived, according to the prophecy. I am arguing that the “under one roof” translation does not establish her virginity because it’s not making any kind of statement about sexual activity. Your comments, please? I’m beginning to think you don’t have a good answer.

Going on to say, "Well, ‘before’ implies ‘after’ is simply your personal interpretation.

I don’t believe I ever said “before implies after.” I could check, but I’m reasonably confident that I don’t have to. Unlike the “until” example which establishes Jesus’ birth as the point of reference, the “before” example establishes Mary and Joseph “coming together” as the point of reference. It is something that happened, and the timing of another event is stated relative to it. The position stating that the “coming together” never happened at all is untenable. You are forced to choose some translation of “coming together” and cope with the reality that it really did happen. But what kind of argument can you make for the “under one roof” translation?

Alas, the single-volume text that I have is silent on “before they came together” found in Mt. 1:18, but I think it is reasonable for us to conclude that since these authors are so reticent to ascribe a loss of virginity in Mt. 1:25, there is nothing to be inferred from Mt. 1:18, either.

It’s funny how most Catholics are relatively silent on Mt. 1:18. You’re responding more fully than most, but it’s still not quite there. Like I said, for most Catholics it’s almost like an uncomfortable silence. May I lay it out once more?

*Before they came together (whether you want to say “sexually” or “under one roof”), Mary was found to be with child. That’s all you can say from the text. PERIOD.

You can also state the purpose of the verse and determine that “coming together” in a sexual sense is the only one that is consistent with the aforementioned purpose: To demonstrate that Mary was a virgin when she conceived, according to the prophecy. I am arguing that the “under one roof” translation does not establish her virginity because it’s not making any kind of statement about sexual activity. Your comments, please? I’m beginning to think you don’t have a good answer.*

This is the part I’d really like an answer to. There are a variety of options open to you. You could make a case for why the verse doesn’t need to be consistent with the prophecy. You could argue that the “under one roof” translation sufficiently states her virginity and it need not refer to anything sexual. Actually, those are the only two routes I can think of. (I hope you can come up with at least one more). I don’t know if either of them are good enough for your standards, but I find them lacking. Matthew 1:18 does have to be consistent with the prophecy, and the statement that she conceived before they “lived under one roof” does not adequately speak to her virginity. It speaks to the place where she resided, but it doesn’t tell us anything (beyond mere assumption) about her sexual activity. Is that consistent with the purpose of testifying to this truly one-of-a-kind miracle? This is, after all, one of only two explicit references to Mary’s virgin birth in the entire Bible. If you can come up with a better way of dealing with this, go for it. From what you’ve written so far, though, it sounds like you haven’t been able to find any assistance for this one- and I’m sure you’ve consulted a few commentaries as well as fellow Catholics on PatrickMadrid.com.

You know something, though? You might not be able to come up with one single “niche” source where it’s laid out all nice and neat for you, but considering how much time you’ve put into this, maybe you’ll be able to put something together that other Catholics would want to spend time reading. I must say I do like your method and your writing style, even if we tend to talk almost exclusively about things we disagree on. If we weren’t doing that, I think I’d very much enjoy talking to you. (I still do- but due to the argumentative content, not quite as much ) I like your persistence. Keep it up. The end result might help some other people out.

Like I said, I will wait for this reply and go on to John at the foot of the cross after that. I will have to wait until the weekend, though. I have a rather large paper to write, among other things.

See you in a few days.

 

[Church_Militant]

Hey Mike,

Can you address the stuff I offered in my post and in the link to my reasons for accepting the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin?

 

[po18guy]

Of course I have problems with it. It flies in the face of 2,000 years of Church teaching. Even the Protestant Reformers accepted the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

Absolutely. The problem with so many new Christian teachings is that they view all of history through the template of current culture, rather than studying the culture that was contemporaneous with the writing of the scripture. Can we today even grasp the concept of “temple virgins”, for instance? Our corrupt and vulgar culture pollutes the view of all that went before it.

 

[po18guy]

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?

Joseph was a “righteous man”, correct? (Matthew 1:19) Why then would he knowingly violate the womb of the Holy Spirit? (Matthew 1:20). Would you, who fear God, violate holy ground in such a manner? If you would not, why would Joseph? Nothing in scripture ever authorized Joseph to enter into marital relations with Mary - assuming he even had the desire or was capable.

Or, another example: How could you refuse to put off your sandals (obedience and denial of self) while standing on holy ground, as God commanded Moses to do?

Would not a vision of an Angel, Who stands in God’s presence, change your mind about how to conduct your married life?

 

[Randy_Carson]

If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.

Therefore, I conclude that if Mary ever said “I have no sin” (which she did not- I give her credit for being smarter than that), the truth would not have been in her.

Simple enough. I don’t think I need a whole new thread for that.

Thus far, all you’ve said is that those of us who have sinned are liars if we claim otherwise. Mary was not a sinner, but she made no such claim (as you noted). The verse you cite does not apply to her. Try again.

It’s funny how most Catholics are relatively silent on Mt. 1:18. You’re responding more fully than most, but it’s still not quite there. Like I said, for most Catholics it’s almost like an uncomfortable silence.

Guess you finally met some apologists who know what they’re talking about.

May I lay it out once more?

No need. You’re simply repeating yourself.

Now, I have cited scripture, ECF’s, Protestant reformers and now Protestant scholars who all reject your misguided opinion.

At this point, all you have is the exuberance of youth driving you forward.

I must say I do like your method and your writing style, even if we tend to talk almost exclusively about things we disagree on. If we weren’t doing that, I think I’d very much enjoy talking to you. (I still do- but due to the argumentative content, not quite as much ) I like your persistence. Keep it up. The end result might help some other people out.

I’m sure we’d enjoy a beer or two. My daughter swims year-round so, we have some common ground other than our keen interest in apologetics.

Good luck with your paper.

 

[mmmcounts]

Absolutely. The problem with so many new Christian teachings is that they view all of history through the template of current culture, rather than studying the culture that was contemporaneous with the writing of the scripture. Can we today even grasp the concept of “temple virgins”, for instance? Our corrupt and vulgar culture pollutes the view of all that went before it.

On the contrary, that is exactly how the idea of “temple virgins” was superimposed on Jewish temple practices in the first place. This is somewhat related to the topic, but this thread deals with it far more directly.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=216584

This is one of my favorite posts, which answers yours in a pretty direct manner.

The legends of Mary being a dedicated Temple virgin are simply well intentioned people applying a Roman concept to Jewish person…they knew nothing of Judaism, knew of the Vestal Virgins in Rome, and thought, hey, Mary was a Temple Virgin…

Like I’ve been saying throughout the course of this thread, the apocryphal documents from which the Marian myths originate were not written by people who had a clue about the contemporary Jewish culture on which they were superimposing their stories. Whoever the author of the Gospel of James was- certainly not James- he’s exhibit A.

The rest of that thread mostly explores the historical evidence and documentation concerning these alleged temple virgins, and there’s a couple of Jews who offer their perspectives. If you feel a pressing need to argue for the existence of temple virgins, by all means go give those Jews the business on Temple practices within Judaism at that time. Posts to look at first are 54 and 31. Also worth a look: 25 and, just for laughs, 33. Yo ho ho indeed. The end of page 2 deals briefly with “The Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary.” Hope that helps you find the most important stuff you’d want to respond to.

I’d encourage you to take it up on that thread if you’re interested in pursuing that particular topic further. I don’t have much of my own to offer on that, but I think I found you some people who do.

Sorry it took me an extra couple of days to get back to this, Church Militant. I didn’t forget you, though, and my next post will be for you.

 

[Gia_B]

This has come up quite a few times, but I’m holding off on addressing it in the interest of staying on one or two topics at a time. I don’t want to jump around too much, but I am almost ready to get to this one.

So basically, you don’t want to address this one because it doesn’t fit your point and you’d rather quibble over the meaning of ‘until’ which you think does support your point?