Mary ever-virgin?

[Zooey]

Oh, dear…Mike, you really have:yawn:* got* to stop proof texting…

OK, let’s look at the 69th Psalm. My KJV says ‘a psalm of David’. And v.5 is “O God, thou knowest my foolishness; & my sins are ever before Thee”. Now, following your thought, this would be Jesus’ sins & foolishness. I believe that that is called blasphemy.

David was a “stranger to[his] mother’s children”.
The disciples knew the Bible. They remembered a part of it in reference to the Lord. That does not mean that Mary had other children.
You know, the links that others have given you are :yup: excellent. Why not try reading them?
God bless.

 

[Axion]

mikeabele:

To answer the above posts,

Psalm 69:8-9

8 I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother’s children. 9 For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me.

If you want to argue that “brethren” are not children of Mary, but some other relation or some other Mary, fine. But they are His mother’s children. So either Mary is a virgin and never bore Jesus, or she isn’t ever-virgin. I agree with you that she was a virgin when she gave birth to Christ, that blessed event is unmistaken. If you think I’m misquoting this prophetic psalm, read John 2:17. Scripture is clear, Mary was not ever-virgin.

just making srtatements on your own authority is no answer to the facts posted

 

[aimekuelmc]

Hmmm…

There once was a group of people, Sarah, Nathan, and Paul. Nathan and Paul were very close, and were very loyal friends. Paul would do anything for Nathan. And both men cared greatly for Sarah, but it was Nathan whom Sarah loved deeply. And Nathan loved Sarah.
One day, Nathan had to move away. Sarah was sad, as was Paul.

Eventually, Paul decided to marry Sarah, though he was sure his love wasn’t as great as Nathan’s love for Sarah. But it didn’t look like Nathan would ever return.
One night, Nathan did return. Because their love was so great, he and Sarah came together.
Through this great love, Sarah became pregnant.

Nathan was unable marry Sarah. Though if it were possible, he would. He had to leave that night, and wouldn’t be able to come back. Due to circumstances, Sarah was unable to go with him. And she was already engaged to Paul.

Eventually Paul found out that Sarah was pregnant. He knew he wasn’t the father, and was about to call off the marriage. But then he found out that Nathan was the father. Paul knew how much Sarah loved him. And Paul also cared deeply for Nathan. This was so hard for Paul.

There was a big problem. Nathan didn’t want the child to be known as a bastard, and he didn’t want Sarah to be called a slut or whore. He had great plans for this child.
He wrote a letter to Paul, and asked him to marry Sarah, and to raise the child as his own. He said he planned to come back again and claim Sarah and the child.
Paul had to think long and hard about this. He cared about Sarah, but didn’t love her as deeply as Nathan. He also cared greatly for his friend, and was very loyal.

Finally, he decided that since this child was Nathan’s, he would do as his friend requested. He would care for Sarah and her child.
The child was born, and Paul was enthralled at the beauty of this child - the one conceived through a love greater than any known on earth.
Because he knew of the love Sarah and Nathan had for each other, and since he was also very loyal to Nathan, he refused to consumate the marriage.

A very poor human view, but I believe Joseph didn’t consumate the marriage with Mary because of his great love for God. He knew the child in Mary’s womb was God. At that time in history, people knew God, and His great holiness. People also had a great love for God. Sadly, that isn’t the case today.

If the woman you were about to marry was pregnant
with God (since Jesus is FULLY God),
the Great I AM, :bowdown:
the Eternal Word, :bowdown:
the King of Kings, :bowdown:
and Lord of Lords, :bowdown:
the Creator of Heaven and Earth, :bowdown:
and Creator of YOU, :bowdown:

how would you react?

Everything above is my OPINION.

 

[Pax]

Mike,

I mean no disrespect, but nothing you have quoted or stated in anyway shape or form refutes the Catholic position on Mary. In order for you to refute the Catholic position you must logically, exegetically, and linguistically refute posts # 7 and 8. Moreover, you are compelled to historically refute the teachings on the perpetual virginity of Mary which have been clearly held from the earliest centuries of the Church. You have not been able to do any of these things.

At best you have presented an interpretation of scripture that does not stand up to the linguistic and exegetical standards of scholarship that are required for you to “prove” your point.

I would like to know why you believe that your interpretation is superior to the constant teaching of the Church, to that of Wesley, Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli. And please address the issue of St. Jerome’s refutation of Hellvidius in the 4th century.

 

[Pax]

Mike,

I have another question for you. Did you go to the link I posted earlier and read the article? If so what is your take and or refutation? Here is the link again: ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/TALMUD.htm

 

[Pax]

mikeabele:

To answer the above posts,

Psalm 69:8-9

8 I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother’s children. 9 For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me.

If you want to argue that “brethren” are not children of Mary, but some other relation or some other Mary, fine. But they are His mother’s children. So either Mary is a virgin and never bore Jesus, or she isn’t ever-virgin. I agree with you that she was a virgin when she gave birth to Christ, that blessed event is unmistaken. If you think I’m misquoting this prophetic psalm, read John 2:17. Scripture is clear, Mary was not ever-virgin.

This simply isn’t true and has been refuted already. I challenge you to find a statement in the NT that says and identifies a person other than Jesus as “the son or daughter of Mary and Joseph.” No such verse exists. Verses that refer to brothers and sisters of Jesus fail the test because of the range of meaning in the original languages. The example of Elizabeth as Mary’s cousin in the NT should be translated as “kinswoman.” The original languages were not specific enough in referring to relatives to be absolute, and cousin may or may not be perfectly accurate.

In the OT the problem of the brother/sister translation is best illustrated by looking at Gen 13:8. Lot is referred to using the same language as a brother or kinsmen of Abraham. We know by other passages in Genesis that Abraham and Lot are not brothers. Abraham is Lot’s uncle and this is only made clear to translators by other passages of scripture that indicate that Lot is the son of Haran who is the blood brother of Abraham[Gen 11:27].
The same logic and method of determining kinship must be used in dealing with the brothers and sisters of the Lord. Posts 7 & 8 demonstrate that Jesus had no brothers and sisters and there is no scriptural way around this.

 

[mikeabele]

Pax:

I challenge you to find a statement in the NT that says and identifies a person other than Jesus as “the son or daughter of Mary and Joseph.”

Hey Pax,

You challenge? Shall we duel? Well I’ll accept your challenge if you can find a verse that calls Mary a “virgin” after Jesus is born. Don’t bother looking, there isn’t one. In fact Scripture clearly states the exact opposite, that Joseph being a just and righteous man took Mary as his wife(in her pregnant state) publically so as not to shame her for being with child unwed, but privately did not know her(have sex with) until after Jesus was born. I’d say Joseph is quite man, a man of God to be sure. It is quite sad that his name is run through the mud claiming he had children from another marriage.

It is intellectually dishonest for you to require the exact phrase “the son of daughter of Mary and Joseph”. How bout just one word? “Virgin”, or how bout the wording “ever-virgin”? You see you cannot produce proof by lesser than your own standard. It ranks up there with Catholics demanding to be shown the verses that say word for word “trinity” or “sola Scriptura”…

There is an attitude that is not Scriptural toward Joseph and Mary being a normal married couple engaging in the God-blessed union with all the rights and privileges there. Paul instructs a married couple to not engage in “marital relations” for a short time to devote oneself to prayer, then to come together again so as not to be tempted. Also in Hebrews it is quite clear that the marriage bed is undefiled. So the very idea that Mary or Jospeh engaging in a sexual union is defiling is not a Biblical one. It is highly influenced by Aquinas, who had been very lustful before his conversion and had a distorted view of sexuality within a marriage. I seem to wondered into a tangent and could post more but will get back on track.

I gave you a multitude of verses, a great many cannot be explained away by your “scholarly” standards. These were not children of “another” Mary a disciple of Christ. They were not mere cousins or kinfolk.

The reasoning I hear over and over again is that if they were Jesus’ younger half-brothers they would not have refuted Him. Well guess what they weren’t alone, the RELIGIOUS LEADERS had the same reaction.

Not to mention it fulfilled SCRIPTURE, in the verses I posted last. Read them again if you please.

Psalm 69:8
8 I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother’s children.

John 7:3-5
3 His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest. 4 For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world. 5 For neither did his brethren believe in him.

Mark 6:3-6
3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him. 4 But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house. 5 And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them. 6 And he marvelled because of their unbelief. And he went round about the villages, teaching.

This “other” Mary, mother of James, Joses, Juda, and Simon, and unnamed daughters has already given birth to the one and only “Jesus Christ”. Interesting…Jesus obviously heard them but instead of telling them that His mother was a virgin, or that He was the only offspring of His mother. He states what is in red above. Very interesting…

I am still reading the link you sent me, if you wish I will reply once I’ve digested it. Also historically, I think the claims are quite empty, for in the first century during Christ’s lifetime, there are those within his own country that knew Mary’s sons and daughters. There have also been countless herisies, some within just months or years of an apostle’s teaching and having to be corrected. Although I respect Martin Luther, and other church fathers, they can make mistakes.

 

[Church_Militant]

Hey Mike,
Give it up, you’re wasting your time because there’s a very easy way to see if Jesus had blood brothers and sisters:

John 19:25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen.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. (emphasis mine)

Not withstanding the passage that I underlined as showing that Mary had a sister whose name was also Mary and who had a bunch of kids…

More telling still is the fact that the last thing that Jesus did before He dies is see that his mother has someone to take care of her. Now under Jewish custom of that time the children were responsible for the upkeep of their mother if the father passed away. Not the stepchildren, since history tells us that Joseph was a much older man & had been previously married and widowed. So the children “brethren” that the NT cites are not blood relatives at all but the children of the wife of Cleopas and of Joseph and his first wife, none of whom are responsible for Mary. Also, your passages cited do not conform with the Jewish customs that forbid younger siblings from rebuking or mocking the first-born and since we know that Jesus was the first-born, the “brethren” cited could not have been blood relatives or they wouldn’t’ve dared to pull that.

Finally the fact that Jesus calls upon St.John to take care of Mary means that they all knew that there was no one else to take her in and so Jesus (again perfectly fulfilling the 4th commandment to honor his parents) made his last act one that insured her care.

Sorry, but Jesus had no brothers and sisters. Mary remained a virgin all her life.

Here’s what the Early Church Fathers have to say about it:
catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp

and here’s the story on that “brethren” of the Lord thing:
catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp
Please don’t try to answer this until you have read both these very carefully.
Pax tecum,

 

[Pax]

Mike,

I have not been intellectually dishonest as you suggest. We have presented sufficient and compelling scriptural, linguistic, and historical evidence to make your “interpretation” at best doubtful. The Catholic position on the other hand does not fail under the standard biblical tests. Instead it is upheld. My request concerning scripture is a reasonable one. I am not requesting that you give me a word such as “Trinity” or “Virgin.” I am only asking for a clear statement. We have shown you the weaknesses in the “brothers and sisters” of the Lord interpretation. All other evidence points the other way.

At the very least you must concede that the Catholic position is in every way as reasonable if not more so than your own. Moreover, non-Catholics believe that you can pretty much interpret scripture on your own without the Church. This being the case, I see little reason why you would criticize our position. By now you should be considerably more circumspect in your criticisms.

 

[puzzleannie]

aimekuelmc:

Hmmm…

There once was a group of people, Sarah, Nathan, and Paul. Nathan and Paul were very close, and were very loyal friends. Paul would do anything for Nathan. And both men cared greatly for Sarah, but it was Nathan whom Sarah loved deeply. And Nathan loved Sarah.
One day, Nathan had to move away. Sarah was sad, as was Paul.

Eventually, Paul decided to marry Sarah, though he was sure his love wasn’t as great as Nathan’s love for Sarah. But it didn’t look like Nathan would ever return.
One night, Nathan did return. Because their love was so great, he and Sarah came together.
Through this great love, Sarah became pregnant.
.

this was the plot line of All My Children, with Phillip, Erika and Chuck, interesting, but do not see how it relates to this discussion.

 

[jimmy]

mikeabele:

It struck me reading about the prophecy of Mary in Isaiah. The Bible records Mary a virgin, until she gave birth to Jesus, then never calls her that again. Here are all the “virgin” Mary references in the Scriptures:

Isa 7:14
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son and his name shall be called Emmanuel.

Matt 1:23
Behold a virgin shall be with child, and bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Luke 1:27
To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David: and the virgin’s name was Mary.

Where does Scripture say she remained a virgin?

There is evidence from scripture that she took a vow of virginity. If you look at Luke 1 you can see the Angel comes to Mary. He says to her, "31 Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever. 33 And of his kingdom there shall be no end. "

This statement by the angel is in the future tense. So Mary will concieve in the future.

Mary responds, “34 And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?”

In this response there is a lot to be seen. When Mary says, “I know not man.” She uses a present tense verb in the Greek, “ginosko”, which is the first person, singular, present, active form of the verb meaning “to know”. This shows that Mary had no intent to lose her virginity. Augustine mentions this in his treatis on Holy Virgins.

 

[Pax]

mikeabele:

Hey Pax,

You challenge? Shall we duel? Well I’ll accept your challenge if you can find a verse that calls Mary a “virgin” after Jesus is born. Don’t bother looking, there isn’t one. In fact Scripture clearly states the exact opposite, that Joseph being a just and righteous man took Mary as his wife(in her pregnant state) publically so as not to shame her for being with child unwed, but privately did not know her(have sex with) until after Jesus was born. I’d say Joseph is quite man, a man of God to be sure. It is quite sad that his name is run through the mud claiming he had children from another marriage.

It is intellectually dishonest for you to require the exact phrase “the son of daughter of Mary and Joseph”. How bout just one word? “Virgin”, or how bout the wording “ever-virgin”? You see you cannot produce proof by lesser than your own standard. It ranks up there with Catholics demanding to be shown the verses that say word for word “trinity” or “sola Scriptura”…
…

I gave you a multitude of verses, a great many cannot be explained away by your “scholarly” standards. These were not children of “another” Mary a disciple of Christ. They were not mere cousins or kinfolk.

The reasoning I hear over and over again is that if they were Jesus’ younger half-brothers they would not have refuted Him. Well guess what they weren’t alone, the RELIGIOUS LEADERS had the same reaction.

Not to mention it fulfilled SCRIPTURE, in the verses I posted last. Read them again if you please.
…

Mark 6:3-6
3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him. 4 But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house. 5 And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them. 6 And he marvelled because of their unbelief. And he went round about the villages, teaching.

This “other” Mary, mother of James, Joses, Juda, and Simon, and unnamed daughters has already given birth to the one and only “Jesus Christ”. Interesting…Jesus obviously heard them but instead of telling them that His mother was a virgin, or that He was the only offspring of His mother. He states what is in red above. Very interesting…

I am still reading the link you sent me, if you wish I will reply once I’ve digested it. Also historically, I think the claims are quite empty, for in the first century during Christ’s lifetime, there are those within his own country that knew Mary’s sons and daughters. There have also been countless herisies, some within just months or years of an apostle’s teaching and having to be corrected. Although I respect Martin Luther, and other church fathers, they can make mistakes.

Mike,

You’ve made an error in logic in your contention that Jesus supports your view concerning the perpetual virginity of his mother. You are assuming that Jesus misunderstands Aramaic as you do. Jesus fully understood the nuances of the language He spoke. Because of the flexibility of the language the verse could just as easily be translated as *“Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the kin of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his women kin here with us?” * We do not know precisely from this verse, with the exception of Mary, if these are close or distant family members. The use of Aramaic was such that sometimes even close friends would be referred to as brothers and sisters or kin.

If you really think that the Catholic teaching on Mary’s perpetual virginity is a heresy, and an early one at that, then you need to produce evidence to that effect. The early Christian Church was extremely conservative and protective of the truth just as the Catholic Church is today. Any heretical teaching would have immediately caused a huge controversy. The only controversy surrounding Mary’s perpetual virginity was very short lived and I have already referred to it twice. The controversy was based on the preaching of Hellvidius who followed the same lines of thinking you’ve presented. St. Jerome summarily dispatched Hellvidius’ errant views and it never surfaced again until sometime after the Reformation. That is historical fact and can be easily verified.

 

[RyanL]

Mike,

I have shown you how the Ark of the Covenant is a shadow of Mary. It was so important to God that the care be taken with the Ark, that He was explicit, twice, about the construction. He then killed those who dared to touch the Ark.

You still think Joseph was that dumb?!? You really think Joseph would sleep with the spouse of the Holy Spirit?!?

Can you see how we might interpret scripture this way? Since your theology holds that personal opinion determines the truth found in scripture, what makes your opinion better than ours (which carries the weight of history, tradition, grammer, linguistic study, and the full authority of the Church which Christ founded)?

Seriously, if you want to convince anyone, you need to use logic and citations. If you don’t use both, your credibility will wane.

RyanL

 

[jimmy]

mikeabele:

I was just shocked at how little the Bible had to say about virgin Mary, compared to how much the RCC says about it. The Douay-Rheims Bible says that she did not stay a virgin after Christ’s virgin birth:

Matt 1:24,25
24 And Joseph rising up from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and took unto him his wife. 25 And he knew her not till she brought forth her first born son: and he called his name Jesus.

Catholic preists are celibate till death. Do they have sex after death? The word till, or untill, does not specify anything about what occured after that point. It only means that before that point, she was a virgin. Jerome, a great linguist who was fluent in Greek Latin and Hebrew defends this in his treatis against Helvidius.

Mary also had other children:
…
Matt 13:54-57
54 And coming into his own country, he taught them in their synagogues, so that they wondered and said: How came this man by this wisdom and miracles? 55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude: 56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence therefore hath he all these things? 57 And they were scandalized in his regard. But Jesus said to them: A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.

The word brother in the society Jesus lived in did not mean brother in the same sense it means now. Brother was a much brouder term that applied to cousins and even non-relitives. Lot was called Abrahams brother in Genesis, and Abraham was his uncle…

You obviously have not read the gospels too well. Read the story of the Passion again, in all the gospels. They mention who the mother of Jose, Simon, Jude, and James are. They are the other Mary at the cross.

40

And there were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joseph, and Salome: Mark15 *

Mark was either pretty disrespectfull of Jesus, or he proves your whole premise wrong. He mentions Mary the mother of James, Joseph, and Salome, yet does not mention Christ himself.

25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen. John19

Now we see who the real mother of James and Joseph and Salome and Jude is. Mary of Cleophas. Lets look at the gospel of Luke.

10 And it was Mary Magdalen, and Joanna, and Mary of James, and the other women that were with them, who told these things to the apostles. Luke24

He calls says, “Mary of James”. The question is, is that the mother of Christ. Proof agaiinst it is Acts1, which was also written by Luke.

14 All these were persevering with one mind in prayer with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren. Acts1

Here the same author says, “Mary the mother of Jesus”. Hmmm, that is kind of weird that he would all of a sudden change his way of refering to her. The proof is against them being the same woman.

I suggest you read Jerome against Helvidius at this link.

The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary%between%

 

[Pax]

mikeabele:

Hey Pax,

You challenge? Shall we duel? Well I’ll accept your challenge if you can find a verse that calls Mary a “virgin” after Jesus is born. Don’t bother looking, there isn’t one. In fact Scripture clearly states the exact opposite, that Joseph being a just and righteous man took Mary as his wife(in her pregnant state) publically so as not to shame her for being with child unwed, but privately did not know her(have sex with) until after Jesus was born. I’d say Joseph is quite man, a man of God to be sure. It is quite sad that his name is run through the mud claiming he had children from another marriage.

…

There is an attitude that is not Scriptural toward Joseph and Mary being a normal married couple engaging in the God-blessed union with all the rights and privileges there. Paul instructs a married couple to not engage in “marital relations” for a short time to devote oneself to prayer, then to come together again so as not to be tempted. Also in Hebrews it is quite clear that the marriage bed is undefiled. So the very idea that Mary or Jospeh engaging in a sexual union is defiling is not a Biblical one. It is highly influenced by Aquinas, who had been very lustful before his conversion and had a distorted view of sexuality within a marriage. I seem to wondered into a tangent and could post more but will get back on track.

Mike,

You could not be more wrong in what you have suggested here. First of all there is nothing typical or simply normal about the Holy Family and the relationship of Mary and Joseph. Mary and Joseph had the son of God in their midst. You wish to impose your own modern day standards on the situation rather than that of Jewish culture and religious practice.

Luke 1:34 says:

– Revised Standard
Luke 1:34 And Mary said to the angel, “How shall this be, since I have no husband?”
– King James
Luke 1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

Now please note that Mary was betrothed to Joseph and she clearly understood where babies came from. If she had anticipated having relations with Joseph she never would have responded to the angel the way that she did. She merely would have expected the fulfillment to made through Joseph.

It was rare but not unheard of for Jews to consecrate themselves to God and to remain celibate in what was otherwise a marital arrangement. Your view needs to take these kinds of things into account.

No one has “run the name of Joseph through the mud.” I personally took Joseph as my confirmation name. I did this because of the many wonderful things that scripture and the Church say about him. Catholics view Joseph with honor as we do all of the saints.

Your statements concerning Aquinas are totally misplaced. You are probably refering to Augustine who did go through a conversion. Augustine did not teach anything that would give a skewed our view of the Holy Family, marriage, or marital relations.
The teaching on Mary’s perpetual viginity was established prior to Augustine’s conversion.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Mike,

It is intellectually dishonest for you to require the exact phrase “the son of daughter of Mary and Joseph”. How bout just one word? “Virgin”, or how bout the wording “ever-virgin”? You see you cannot produce proof by lesser than your own standard. It ranks up there with Catholics demanding to be shown the verses that say word for word “trinity” or “sola Scriptura”…

I am sure everyone here would look at what you said, even if it wasn’t one word – but it MUST at least meet the objection – not avoid it. What you are being asked for is proof that it actually happened, not for ambiguous statements which show it might have happened. You have the burden of proof here, for you are in a Catholic Forum.

2Sm6:23 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.

In the OT, the Septuagint greek states: 2 Regn 6:23
και τηι Μελχολ θυγατρι Σαουλ ουκ εγενετο παιδιον εως της ημερας του αποθανειν αυτην.

That word, `εως, is the Greek word which means unto / until / while.

It is the same word used of Mary and Joseph in Matt 1:25:

Mat1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Mat 1:25 και ουκ εγινωσκεν αυτην εως ου ετεκεν υιον και εχαλεσεν το ονομα αυτου Ιησουν.

The word isn’t exlusively a change marker, although often it is.

Mat14:22 And straightway Jesus constrained his disciples to get into a ship, and to go before him unto the other side, while he sent the multitudes away.

Και ευθεως ηναγκασεν τους μαθητας εμβηναι εις το πλοιου και προαγειν αυτον εις το περαν, `εως ου απολυσηι τους οχλους.

Here it is translated as while, but the apostles don’t come back after the crowds are dispersed, a reversal is not intended.

Why not understand Matthew 1:23 in the more literal way?

Mat 1:25 και ουκ εγινωσκεν αυτην εως ου-ετεκεν υιον και …
and he does not come-to-know her while un-born [is] a son.

That is just as valid a translation, and it hilights that the word does not necessarily mean a change after the birth. There are plenty of examples (in the KJV, and the NT) where until, till are used in a sense which does not change after the until – in the English interpretation (for it is not always a literal translation) of the Greek.

There is no implication of sex, until sex is proven.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Mark 6:3-6
3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him. 4 But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house. 5 And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them. 6 And he marvelled because of their unbelief. And he went round about the villages, teaching.

beth - lehem, house of bread. All those loosely related people in one house.

Oh, and the pillars found in the sand, Archalogically – claim that the house of David did battle. Yep, same house.

 

[Zooey]

mikeabele:

. I’d say Joseph is quite man, a man of God to be sure. It is quite sad that his name is run through the mud claiming he had children from another marriage.
.

*Ok…You are hereby assigned to explain to us all …***How in thunder ****is it running St Joseph’s **name through the mud to say that he may have been married before???

 

[mikeabele]

To answer the “third James” post…James—a form of Jacob

1. Son of Zebedee     Matt. 4:21

Fisherman Matt. 4:21

One of the Twelve Matt. 10:2

In business with Peter Luke 5:10

Called Boanerges Mark 3:17

Of fiery disposition Luke 9:52–55

Makes a contention Mark 10:35–45

One of inner circle Matt. 17:1

Sees the risen Lord John 21:1, 2

Awaits the Holy Spirit Acts 1:13

Slain by Herod Agrippa Acts 12:2

1. Son of Alphaeus; one of the Twelve     Matt. 10:3, 4

Identified usually as “the Less” Mark 15:40

Brother of Joses Matt. 27:56

1. Son of Joseph and Mary     Matt. 13:55, 56

Lord’s brother Gal. 1:19

Rejects Christ’s claim Mark 3:21

Becomes a believer Acts 1:13, 14

Sees the risen Lord 1 Cor. 15:7

Becomes moderator of Jerusalem Council Acts 15:13–23

Paul confers with him Gal. 2:9, 12

Wrote an epistle James 1:1

Brother of Jude

%between%%between%

 

[jimmy]

mikeabele:

1. Son of Joseph and Mary Matt. 13:55, 56

You are being dishonest and changing the scriptures. It says the Jesus is his brother. In the Jewish society, brother did not mean what it means now. Look in Genesis where it says, “14 Which when Abram had heard, to wit, that his brother Lot was taken, he numbered of the servants born in his house, three hundred and eighteen well appointed: and pursued them to Dan.” Gen.14

We know that Lot was Abrahams nephew, or in other words, Abrahams brothers son. Yet he is called Abrahams brothers.