Matthew 1:24-25

[Chrysostom324]

This is one of those things that is totally unprovable either way. Most scholars, I think, acknowledge that the famous “heos hou” clause does not necessarily imply cessation of the action of the verb, although it usually does. For anyone with the stamina of a marathon runner who is super interested in this subject, I would recommend peering into the acrimonious Svendsen v. Sungenis tome.

 

[NotWorthy]

I would point to the Protevangelium of James, which is a Gnostic work dating back to the middle of the second century. Since the Gnostics deny Jesus actually came in the flesh, it is no wonder that Mary supposedly remained physically intact during and after the birth (according to this writing Jesus “beamed out” of Mary, which was also a painless process).

What makes you claim that this work is gnostic. I’ve heard that it represents early Catholic tradition, but I’ve never heard of it being gnostic.

 

[po18guy]

Mary is unquestionably the most blessed among women. And yet, the Church denies she had a normal family life.

Which church? Certainly not the Catholic Church. Where did you get this? Absolutely untrue!

Personally, I believe that, since we are not told otherwise, it is not at all unreasonable to believe that Joseph and Mary had normal, marital relations.

So, the whole Angel Gabriel appearance, Joseph’s vision, “Son of the Most High”, “conceived of the Holy Spirit” stuff wouldn’t deter Joseph from defiling the womb of the Holy Spirit? Amazing!

Since the subject of the New Testament is Jesus, why does not specifically mentioning Mary as the mother of someone else come as a surprise? BTW – I would contest such a claim (Matt 13:55-56, Mark 6:3)

Well, again using your logic, it does not specifically say that she mothered anyone else, so why not assume she did not - unless you just want to oppose Catholic teaching.

Joseph was a righteous man, but he was not specifically told NOT to have normal marital relations with his wife!

So, a double negative must equal a positive?

I suggest that, since Jesus was a man like us…

So, still following your line of reasoning, he naturally had the same desires of Joseph, and likely married and had children, right? Well the bible doesn’t say he didn’t, right? See where you can be lead by such reasoning?

Your sole point seems to be opposition to Catholic teaching. Other than personal opinion, what is your authority?

 

[guanophore]

A eunuch is someone *incapable *of having sex.

I don’t believe this is correct. A eunuch “made by man” is a male who has been castrated. It is possible to have sex, but not to impregnate, as there are no more testicles, and therefore, no sperm. These men were placed in charge of the king’s harem, to ensure that any offspring would be royal.

A person who “chooses” to be a eunuch for the Kingdom is certainly still capable of having sex, but chooses not to do so for higher reasons (service to the Kingdom).

So Jesus considers the highest form of devotion to Him the kind of devotion that will forgo the earthly marital pleasures to which we’re entitled, just to focus more on the Kingdom of Heaven.

I don’t think this can be supported either. There is nothing in scripture or church teaching that states the sacrament of marriage is a form of devotion is any “less” than celibacy. What He does say is that, to those whom it is given, they should receive it.

if not for a vow of celibacy, how do you explain the strange question Mary asks, and her and Joseph’s refusal to engage in marital sex even prior to the birth of Christ?

I agree. I cannot understand how those who reject the Apostolic Teaching about Mary can render this.

 

[guanophore]

Hey-great responses. But I am not convinced. Mary was Joseph’s betrothed wife, and so, until he took her to himself, she was going to be a virgin according to the custom. So thereis nothing out of the ordinary in her response to the angel.

Yes, there is. As a young Jewish woman of marriagable age, she would have been instructed by the older women in her community about the “birds and the bees” and what her responsibilities are in the marital embrace. If she intended to be found in this marital embrace, she would not be asking how she was going to conceive a son. A betrothed woman knows what happens in the marriage bed. The question clearly demonstrates that Mary had no intention of being in that bed.

Joseph took her to be his wife accepting that he would not be having normal conjugal relations with her.

And, concerning the use of the word “virgin” in the Prophets, that is incorrect. In the hebrew, the word is not “virgin”, but “young woman”. It’s an improper translation, that’s all.

No, it is not an improper translation. In that day and time, all young women who were marriagable were virgins. If they were not virgins, they were “harlots” or they had been “spoiled” by rape or incest, and were not marriagable. This concept seems to be lost in today’s society, where pre-marital sex is so common.

I take this verse at its face value-Joseph “knew not” Mary until she had given birth. That could well be possible. Then after she had given birth to Jesus, she had a normal marriage relationship with Joseph, giving birth to Jesus’ brothers and sisters.

I can see how you would arrive at this, separated from the Apostolic Tradition as you are. However, be assurred, if Jesus had any siblings from Mary, the Apostles would have known about it, and they would not have taught that he was an only child of His mother.

 

[guanophore]

Personally, I believe that when Jesus was born, the seal of Mary’s virginity was stuck to His forehead (sealing the covenant in blood, and confirming beyond doubt that Jesus is the Promised Savior), despite the myth of her perpetual virginity.

So, you think the plug that sealed Mary’s uterus came out as a knot on the forehead of Jesus?

I hear something new very day around here!

What possible purpose would God have in destroying the virginity of Mary when her Divine Son was born?

Joseph and Mary didn’t have to be told to have sex; they were already engaged (BEFORE the angel came to Mary), and there is NOTHING in the text that would indicate this was anything other than a normal marriage they were entering into.

Such a statement boggles the mind. If there were not something horribly wrong, God would have no need to send an angel to give guidance to Joseph!

The idea of Mary taking a vow is ludicrous. Why would someone with such a vow get engaged? Who COULD marry someone with such a vow?

It seems you need some study on the nature of vows of chastity and marriage in the book of numbers. Males dedicated to the temple, such as Samuel, grew up and served in the temple. Girls so dedicated, when they reached puberty, were placed in the custody of a man who was willing to honor their vows of chastity. When their husband or guardian relative died, they might return to the temple as a widow, if they were after the age of marriage (ability to reproduce).

Anna, who prophesied about Jesus, was such a widow:

Luke 2:36-38

36 And there was a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phan’u-el, of the tribe of Asher; she was of a great age, having lived with her husband seven years from her virginity, 37 and as a widow till she was eighty-four. She did not depart from the temple, worshiping with fasting and prayer night and day.

Females of reproductive age were not permitted to hang in the temple unaccompanied by a male guardian.

I suppose, though, if the vow hypothesis is the best reason the Church can come up with to explain Luke 1:34, then that means nothing else could possibly explain it.

It is obvious from the many explanations posited by our separated brethren that there are many hypothesis to explain the meaning.

However, we hold to this view because we have received the Teaching of the Apostles that Jesus was the only Son of His mother. This deposit of faith was made to the Church before the NT was written, and several centuries before it was canonized.

But, just to give a different perspective, I will point out that we do not know where Mary was or what she was doing when the angel appeared to her.  A brief look through scriptures at other angelic visitations will show that they generally appear as men.  Imagine, if you will, a young woman, engaged to be married, living in a small town where everybody knows everybody else.  You’re alone, probably doing some chore (like laundry), and a good-looking stranger comes along and greets you with “Hail, full of grace!”  What would you do?  Not being a woman, I can’t say for sure, but I imagine she was probably wondering who this was, and maybe even glancing around to see if anyone was around that could help her if she screamed.  Now this person tells you you’re going to have a son!  I can imagine her answering EXACTLY as she did!

If you would answer this way, then it is clear that you did not understand her mindset at all. A young woman about to be married has been well informed about how babies happen.

This would clearly indicate that she was a virgin, and intended to stay that way until she was married! How about that! A plausible explanation that doesn’t require a mythical vow of celibacy!

A woman about to be married, and expecting to do the things that married people do, that result in babies, would not be asking “how can this be, since I do not know man”. She meant that she had made a commitment to a lifestyle that did not include this kind of knowing men.

Mary is unquestionably the most blessed among women.  And yet, the Church denies she had a normal family life.

No, we do not. Certainly there were aspects of life in the Holy Family that were not “normal”. Most families don’t have a child that the King is trying to assassinate, and don’t have to flee the country to survive. However, other than this, Joseph, Mary, and Jesus had a very normal family life.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

I don’t believe this is correct. A eunuch “made by man” is a male who has been castrated. It is possible to have sex, but not to impregnate, as there are no more testicles, and therefore, no sperm. These men were placed in charge of the king’s harem, to ensure that any offspring would be royal.

A person who “chooses” to be a eunuch for the Kingdom is certainly still capable of having sex, but chooses not to do so for higher reasons (service to the Kingdom).

Point well taken.

I don’t think this can be supported either. There is nothing in scripture or church teaching that states the sacrament of marriage is a form of devotion is any “less” than celibacy. What He does say is that, to those whom it is given, they should receive it.

Paul seems to view it as higher (the greater of two goods, though), and I know the Church condemns any condemnation of marriage. I’ll readily admit that I may be wrong on this point, too. I suppose what I should have been saying is simply that Jesus and Paul make it clear that there are some God calls to be celibate to better monopolize their time (if you will). Most of us will serve God indirectly, by serving each other in daily things - the sort of service that leaves us asking, “When did I feed/clothe/etc. you?” while a select few are called to a more radical and direct ministry.

 

[guanophore]

1.Doesn’t affect Jesus one way or the other.
2.Personally, I believe that, since we are not told otherwise, it is not at all unreasonable to believe that Joseph and Mary had normal, marital relations.

You are being told otherwise by the successors of the Apostles. You are just not noble like the Bereans. You are not accepting the Apostolic message with eself agerness.

It does affect Jesus. If Mary had other children, she would not have been able to devote herself to him as completely as she did. She would not have been able to follow him throughout His ministry, take care of His needs, and stand with Him at the foot of the cross. She would have had other children to care for.

Since the subject of the New Testament is Jesus, why does not specifically mentioning Mary as the mother of someone else come as a surprise?  BTW – I would contest such a claim (Matt 13:55-56, Mark 6:3)

You have misunderstood the scriptures. These people are the children of another Mary.

4.Context in Acts 1:14-16 is NOT the same as Matt 13:55-56 or Mark 6:3.

So you say…

Joseph was a righteous man, but he was not specifically told NOT to have normal marital relations with his wife!

Not that was recorded in the NT. However, he, being a righteous Jew, would know what happened to a person who touched the Arc of the Covenant that was not authorized to do so.

I would also point out that Mary gave birth to a normal, healthy baby boy (human) who also happened to be the creator of all things (God the Son). I suggest that, since Jesus was a man like us in all points except sin, then there would have been no problem with Joseph and Mary having normal marital relations.

The “problem” was that vessels that have been consecrated to Holy use are not then reverted to every day use. This is considered a sacrilge.

I would point out that 1. His biological brothers weren’t there, 2. John was a “brother” of the Lord, as Jesus outlined in Matt 12:50 and Mark 3:35.
Cachonga;5182589:

I suggest it is the Catholic Church that is reading things that aren’t there.

This suggestion would have no merit since the Catholic Church is responsible for the entire contents of the NT. There is nothing in it that contradicts what the Catholic Church teaches. Any writings that had content contrary to Catholic teaching were not included when the Catholic Church formed the NT.

I would point out here that the angel told Joseph “fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife”. No mention that she is to be kept a virgin throughout her life.

No mention that they are not to have relations until she gives birth, either.
Did you know it is possible to have sex with a pregnant woman?

Again, since there is nothing specifically denying Joseph and Mary from engaging in normal marital relations, then I have no problem believing they enjoyed marital union.

The vow of chastity, accepte by Joseph, is one thing, and that would have been sufficient, even if she had not been overshadowed by the HS. Joseph understood that Mary was chosen to be the Spouse of the HS. He would not take the spouse of another to himself.

when does this teaching first appear in print?

How is that relevant? When does the word “Trinity” first appear in print? When does the contents of the New Testament first appear in print? This is a strawman.

What is your evidence Joseph’s age? What evidence do you have that Joseph took Mary as his wife in a guardianship role? What evidence do you have that Mary had taken any such vow of virginity?

Sacred Tradition is our evidence. Same “evidence” we have for what books belong in the Bible.
Cachonga;5182589:

 If he had other children from a previous marriage, Jesus could NOT have been the rightful heir to the throne of David (that would have gone to Joseph’s firstborn son).

This is absurd. God can give the throne to anyone He wants! David was the youngest of Jesse’s children!

 As far as what the reformers believed, what makes you think I consider them infallible?  They were born and raised Catholic (for the most part), and didn’t break with Rome because of the Marian teachings, so it is not unreasonable to acknowledge that they accept what Rome taught at that time.

Ok, so it seems that the other reasons they broke with Catholicism were valid, and the fact that they continued to embrace the Apostolic Teachings on Mary is because they had just not been sufficiently purged of their “Romanism”?

I would suggest that if the Council of Trent had declared the dogmas of Immaculate Conception and Bodily Assumption, there would have been an outcry from these reformers (this, admittedly, is mere speculation on part, so there is no need to respond to it).

It seems that most of what you write is mere speculation on your part. Why pull up now?

 

[Belloc_Fan]

Joseph and Mary didn’t have to be told to have sex; they were already engaged (BEFORE the angel came to Mary), and there is NOTHING in the text that would indicate this was anything other than a normal marriage they were entering into.

Except for Matthew 1:24-25 itself. The text is clear that Mary and Joseph married before the birth of Christ, and at least up until His birth, hadn’t consummated the marriage. That’s not normal.

And that’s just a bare textual reading.

The idea of Mary taking a vow is ludicrous. Why would someone with such a vow get engaged? Who COULD marry someone with such a vow?

A woman with a vow like that would need to be taken care of. 1 Timothy 5 deals with the care of widows, and in v. 11-12, he references what seems to be a celibacy pledge to God. As for who could marry someone with a vow, a man with self-respect and self-control, I imagine, who valued companionship without a need for sex. It’s been traditionally understood that St. Joseph was just such a man. Wives are good for things other than sex, I think.

I suppose, though, if the vow hypothesis is the best reason the Church can come up with to explain Luke 1:34, then that means nothing else could possibly explain it.

I don’t that logic could work in any context. If one hypothesis is normally advanced, there must be no other possibilities?

But, just to give a different perspective, I will point out that we do not know where Mary was or what she was doing when the angel appeared to her. A brief look through scriptures at other angelic visitations will show that they generally appear as men.

You’ll note that the Bible makes it clear when the angels are appearing in human form, and in contrast to that, the angel’s prior appearance to Zechariah (6 months earlier) was in angelic form (we know this from his anger at not being believed - that part wouldn’t make sense if he was disguised). Additionally, there was always a reason for the disguising: a test of some sort. And if you read the text, it often refers to the angels-disguised-as-men *as *men (see Genesis 32:28 for someone… God or perhaps an angel… being referred to as a “man,” because that was His form). Here, Gabriel is unfailingly described as “the angel.” Phrases like “Mary asked the angel” are used in Luke 1:34. I don’t think (I could be wrong here) that there’s anything like this phrasing in the angels-disguised passages.

In any case, if the angel were disguised as some weird stranger, then Mary’s obedience wouldn’t make any sense, unless you’re making a second assumption, that the angel revealed himself as an angel, and that Luke failed to mention this critical turning point in the conversation. If the text were silent, we would assume angelic form. But when the text actually suggests angelic form in the same chapter, I think we can go beyond just an assumption. If Mary was confused about who the visitor was, her obedience wouldn’t even be commendable. It would just be silly.

I think the assumptions you have to make about the passage to arrive at your interpretation involve much bigger leaps in logic than assuming a guy can resist having sex with his wife because of a vow she made to God.

How about that! A plausible explanation that doesn’t require a mythical vow of celibacy!

But it does require two big leaps: that the angel was disguised, and that here, and only here in the Bible, the author forgot to mention this. And that the angel undisguised himself. By your earlier logic (if one hypothesis fails, all related hypotheses must be wrong as well), I think you’ve just ended Protestant opposition to Mary’s perpetual Virginity.

And remember, Jesus supports celibacy vows, like I mentioned before. So I don’t think it’s quite mythical. We know that they exist, and that they are used to encourage someone to focus fully upon God. Mary as Mother of God did this in a unique role as mother as well as handmaid. All of the reasons which would lead someone to take a celibacy pledge would serve as reasons for Mary to remain a perpetual Virgin. Additionally, she’s God’s in a very particular way. She’s the Mother of His Son. She’s not just a eunuch for the Kingdom. She’s a Virgin Mother for the Kingdom.

Mary is unquestionably the most blessed among women. And yet, the Church denies she had a normal family life.

It’s not "and yet, " it’s “and so.” We don’t look at Mary and say, “oh darn, she missed out on sex.” We say, "oh wow, her every waking moment could be spent doting on her Son, who was God Himself. She literally worshiped her Son. The idea of another child being raised in that environment seems bizarre to me. In all seriousness, the psychological issues of a younger sibling to Christ would be pretty overwhelming.

At His death, Jesus entrusted her to a non-relative, St. John, which is overwhelming evidence that there were no other male children, at the least.
I don’t see where you’ve explained why Mary and Joseph weren’t having marital sex prior to the birth of Christ. There’s nothing in the text that says that the angel told her not to (unless you’re adding a third assumption to the passage, of course). This is seeming to be the far more “mythical” interpretation, frankly.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

1. Since the subject of the New Testament is Jesus, why does not specifically mentioning Mary as the mother of someone else come as a surprise? BTW – I would contest such a claim (Matt 13:55-56, Mark 6:3)

I’m not sure if anyone else has pointed this out to you, but the “brothers” of Jesus have a different mom than Him.

**Matthew 13:55, KJV: **Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

Matthew 27:56 Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedees children.

Since, like you said, the subject of the New Testament is Jesus, why on earth would the writer refer to Mary as the mother of James and Joses if she was also His own mom? Why not say, “Mary the mother of Jesus”?

Note also that these are only two of the four people mentioned before. So the other two seem to have *another *mother. Unless Joseph was a polygamist (which incidentally, wouldn’t prevent Mary from being a perpetual Virgin, I suppose), I think the term used in Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56 is referring to Jesus’ male relatives.

It’s a Semitism. Lot is Abraham’s “brother” (Genesis 14:14-16), even though he’s the son of Abraham’s (actual) brother, Haran (Genesis 11:27; 12:5; 14:12).

 

[guanophore]

I’m not sure if anyone else has pointed this out to you, but the “brothers” of Jesus have a different mom than Him.

Since, like you said, the subject of the New Testament is Jesus, why on earth would the writer refer to Mary as the mother of James and Joses if she was also His own mom? Why not say, “Mary the mother of Jesus”?

Note also that these are only two of the four people mentioned before. So the other two seem to have *another *mother. Unless Joseph was a polygamist (which incidentally, wouldn’t prevent Mary from being a perpetual Virgin, I suppose), I think the term used in Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55-56 is referring to Jesus’ male relatives.

It’s a Semitism. Lot is Abraham’s “brother” (Genesis 14:14-16), even though he’s the son of Abraham’s (actual) brother, Haran (Genesis 11:27; 12:5; 14:12).

Good Points, Fan.

Mark 6:3-4
3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him.

Matt 27:55-56
56 among whom were Mary Mag’dalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zeb’edee.

There are a lot of “Marys” mentioned, Mary, the mother of the Lord, Mary the mother of James and Joseph (Joses), Judas and Simon (and more sisters) and Mary the mother of the sons of Zebedee. Happy Mothers day to all!

I could see how someone separated from the Apostolic Succession would get confused.

 

[diggerdomer]

Hey-great responses. But I am not convinced. Mary was Joseph’s betrothed wife, and so, until he took her to himself, she was going to be a virgin according to the custom. So thereis nothing out of the ordinary in her response to the angel.

And, concerning the use of the word “virgin” in the Prophets, that is incorrect. In the hebrew, the word is not “virgin”, but “young woman”. It’s an improper translation, that’s all.

I take this verse at its face value-Joseph “knew not” Mary until she had given birth. That could well be possible. Then after she had given birth to Jesus, she had a normal marriage relationship with Joseph, giving birth to Jesus’ brothers and sisters.

Interesting to me that the OP has not contributed to this thread in 4+ days. I find this fairly common on this forum.

The points cited by the OP are legitimate and fair. Matthew, the Evangelist/author of the Gospel did indeed apparently translate the Hebrew of Isaiah 7 (“young woman”) as “virgin.”

In that sense, the observation about Mary’s response to the Angel being nothing out of the ordinary is of course correct (plausible).

Anyway…is there a point in continuing this thread? The OP has not contributed for a long time. Just wondering…a very interesting and important topic.

 

[YADA]

Interesting to me that the OP has not contributed to this thread in 4+ days. I find this fairly common on this forum.

The points cited by the OP are legitimate and fair. Matthew, the Evangelist/author of the Gospel did indeed apparently translate the Hebrew of Isaiah 7 (“young woman”) as “virgin.”

In that sense, the observation about Mary’s response to the Angel being nothing out of the ordinary is of course correct (plausible).

Anyway…is there a point in continuing this thread? The OP has not contributed for a long time. Just wondering…a very interesting and important topic.

Perhaps the OP is still rsearching their answers to my questions … Yes I am back I had told them the second time I asked the qestions that I would be back today from the land of “No TV, No Internet/Email and No Cell Service” …

Perhaps after researching … they decided to re-think their bias against Catholic teaching

Or perhaps ha

 

[YADA]

Perhaps the OP is still rsearching their answers to my questions … Yes I am back *

I am guessing that the OP has:

1] decided they can’t change our minds … or …

After researching the beliefs of the early reformers and reading the writings of the Early Christians …

2] decided we are correct … *

 

[po18guy]

Interesting to me that the OP has not contributed to this thread in 4+ days. I find this fairly common on this forum.

Well, God bless them! They have fulfilled their responsibility to put the “truth” out there. Since they cannot make us drink their water after leading us to it, they move on. All we can do is pray for them, that after the manner of Paul, the scales will fall from their eyes.

 

[Ichtus]

I take this verse at its face value-Joseph “knew not” Mary until she had given birth. That could well be possible. Then after she had given birth to Jesus, she had a normal marriage relationship with Joseph, giving birth to Jesus’ brothers and sisters.

The thing is, there are parts of the bible that should not be taken at face value. Like the word “brethren” which may also be used as cousin, or “son” may actually be son-in-law like in Luke 3:23 where Heli appears to be the father of Joseph (but is actually the father of Mary, Joachim). The term “until” means “even after” in the context of Mt 1:24-25. I mean, in Acts 8:40 it says:

“Philip, however, appeared at Azotus and traveled about, preaching the gospel in all the towns until he reached Caesarea” – it does not necessarily mean that Philip stopped preaching.

You cannot take simple words at face value as it merits a lot of study and analysis as to what context they are used considering the fact that the Gospels were not written in English.