Matthew 1:25? Mary not a virgin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JD27076
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
One group insists on infant baptism. Another denies it, etc., and both are, uh, powered by the Holy Spirit. I like where my denomination is that, and that it is not an essential but there is room in charity for both views, and so we both baptize and dedicate infants, and baptize adults.
This reminds me of a quote by Chesterton: Tolerance is the virtue of a man with no convictions.

It’s easy to say you tolerate both views, when you are not convicted of either.

However, would you say the same of this belief: I believe that Jesus is the Son of God and my fellow Christian sitting in the pew right beside me says that Jesus was NOT the Son of God and we both claim the Holy Spirit’s guidance. My church has room for both views.

Of course that would be :whacky:

And speaking of essentials, what are these essentials and what verses in the Bible tell you that they are essential?

(NB: each and every time I ask a non-Catholic this I receive a list of (disparate) verses–verses the individual has deemed to be essential, but NEVER ever a single verse that says how they know it’s an essential.)
 
Can the Holy Spirit speak two completely and ultimately contradictory things in the context of one Scripture? Is that the question? Hmmm… We have one God, but three persons in that one God.
This sounds like a Muslim’s argument, no? The Muslim posits that the dogma of the Trinity contradicts the dogma of monotheism.
Some would argue that is an ultimate contradiction, but it is also a reality, and a unity.
-Tina “This is getting deep” G
Perhaps you are misunderstanding the term “contradictory”, Tina.

For something to be contradictory, it would have to be "The HS tells me " and "The HS tells me not ".

In the example you give, the contradictory understanding would be: “We have One God” vs “We do not have One God”.

And of course the HS cannot bring us to contradictory understandings of Scripture.

However, the Trinity is not a contradiction to the dogma that there is only One God. Muslims do not buy it, but it’s a truth that stands on its own, using faith and reason.
 
That was my answer. I gave the cardinal example of an inherent contradiction that is also true: the Trinity.
Nope, not a contradiction, Tina. The contradiction would be that Scripture states that we have One God and that Scripture says that we have many Gods. As this is not a claim any Christian makes, we can rest on the fact that there are no contradictions in Scripture and that the HS does not lead us to contradictory beliefs.
also said that Scripture describes things that go beyond human comprehension. In that sense we may apprehend certain portions of a Scripture without getting the full picture, and that also by the help of the Holy Spirit.
Amen!
 
Well I am no expert but doesnt the bible say what the duties of a husband and a wife are? And with what the things they should do are? Then Mary and Joseph both broke every rule of what marriage is suppose to be between man and woman if they did not follow these duties. And if they were not husband and wife performing their duties to one another then why bother getting married to begin with and not live as brother and sister?
For a marriage to be valid, all that’s required is that
-both individuals are free to marry
-an exchange of vows
-an exchange of valid matrimonial consent, which involves the exchange of a right to marital congress with the spouse. However, the intent to consummate is not required.
 
New International Version (©1984)
I am a stranger to my brothers, an alien to my own mother’s sons;
New Living Translation (©2007)
Even my own brothers pretend they don’t know me; they treat me like a stranger.

English Standard Version (©2001)
I have become a stranger to my brothers, an alien to my mother’s sons.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
I have become estranged from my brothers And an alien to my mother’s sons.

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother’s children.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
I have been a stranger to my brothers and a foreigner to the children of my mother.

GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995)
I have become a stranger to my [own] brothers, a foreigner to my mother’s sons.

King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
I have become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother’s children.

American King James Version
I am become a stranger to my brothers, and an alien to my mother’s children.

American Standard Version
I am become a stranger unto my brethren, And an alien unto my mother’s children.

Douay-Rheims Bible
I am become a stranger to my brethren, and an alien to the sons of my mother.

Darby Bible Translation
I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother’s sons;

English Revised Version
I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother’s children.

Webster’s Bible Translation
I am become a stranger to my brethren, and an alien to my mother’s children.

World English Bible
I have become a stranger to my brothers, an alien to my mother’s children.

Young’s Literal Translation
A stranger I have been to my brother, And a foreigner to sons of my mother.

And finally

I have become an outcast to my kindred,
a stranger to my mother’s children.
usccb.org/bible/psalms/69/

In preparing your defense see also catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2011/12/does-psalm-698-proves-that-mary-had.html. IMHO he is working overtime to draw his conclusion on this to show it is a draw.

-Tina “:D” G
it was my understanding that Psalms was a book of songs
 
[bibledrb]Matthew 1:25[/bibledrb]

This says, Joseph didn’t have relations with Mary, UNTIL they bore a son. Would this mean that Joseph did have relations, but after Mary gave birth to Jesus?

Well, the Catholic Bible, New American Bible, says this: He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus.
Matthew 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Well, “knew her not”, can’t mean not knowing someone in a general sense, because Joseph did actually know Mary. So, what can it mean ? Let’s have a look at some other scriptures which use the same expression.

**Genesis 38:
**25 When she was brought forth, she sent to her father in law, saying, By the man, whose these are, am I with child: and she said, Discern, I pray thee, whose are these, the signet, and bracelets, and staff.
26 And Judah acknowledged them, and said, She hath been more righteous than I; because that I gave her not to Shelah my son. And he knew her again no more.
27
And it came to pass in the time of her travail, that, behold, twins were in her womb.

Judges 19:
23
And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly.
24 Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing.
25 But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go.

Clearl, “they knew her” in the above passage, refers to sexual relations, as does Genesis 38:26.

1 Kings 1:
3 So they sought for a fair damsel throughout all the coasts of Israel, and found Abishag a Shunammite, and brought her to the king.
4 And the damsel was very fair, and cherished the king, and ministered to him:
but the king knew her not.

Clearly, 1 Kings 1 is not talking about general knowledge about two people. It is referring to sexual relations.

Conclusion
Therefore, as Matthew 1:25 uses the same phrase, one can only conclude that Joseph had sexual relations with Mary after Jesus birth. Now, I am not aware that there were any contraceptives in those days. So, as Joseph “knew” Mary, children would have been the inevitable result ! And, this fits several other scriptures which refer to Jesus brothers and sisters. Hence Matthew 13:

55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
56
And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?
 
For a marriage to be valid, all that’s required is that
-both individuals are free to marry
-an exchange of vows
-an exchange of valid matrimonial consent, which involves the exchange of a right to marital congress with the spouse. However, the intent to consummate is not required.
Indeed! But non-consumation is grounds for annulment, meaning the marriage never existd in the first place.
 
40.png
TinaG:
You make it sound like the Scriptures would drive the Holy Spirit’s leading. He Who inspired them does not necessarily guide everyone reading them. A professor I knew in college knew the NT inside and out yet remained a fierce atheist, blind to the things of God. I cannot say he was guided.
Again there is a problem with your reply. You admit that not everyone that picks up the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit. Yet you placed this inspiration in opposition to the infallible Church. When I said that Catholics had an infallible Church to guide us, you said you had the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. But now your answer is well… not necessarily. Further your examples were not applicable showing how contradictory opinions could all be leading to the Truth. In effect, you are advocating that Truth is relative (to the individual) one of the most insidious forms of liberalism extant in the world today.

If everyone is being led by the Holy Spirit in opposite ways to contradictory truths, then you have what we see in modern Protestantism. Thousands of sects all claiming to be correct and teaching opposing and contradictory doctrines. Do you really see this as the Divine plan? Is this really the fulfillment of Jesus’ prayer that we would all be one?

Doesn’t it make more sense that His Church would safeguard the Truth? An Infallible Church where He is the Head?
 
…Neither the Gospels nor any other New Testament writings tell us when Mary decided to remain a virgin. …
Some years back I read somewhere that Mary had decided to remain a virgin all her life and this was also made known to Joseph before betrothal and he had agreed after knowing
 
Indeed! But non-consumation is grounds for annulment, meaning the marriage never existd in the first place.
That is not true. Non-consummation makes the marriage not indissoluble; it does however, not make it “non-existent”.

IOW, said in the positive (without the double negatives): a marriage that has never been consummated is still considered to be valid.
 
Psalm 69:8 is certainly worthy of mention.

-Tina “Not that I would Mention It” G
"*I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother’s children. *
Psalm 69, 8

Psalm 69 is not alluding to the siblings you allege Jesus had. Certainly the psalm is a veiled Messianic prophecy, but in its original primary context King David is referring to himself. What we read about David in this psalm does foretell what our Lord experienced in his Passion, but when taken in its secondary context, the psalm is not alluding to any uterine brothers of Jesus. The original context and its primary fulfillment concerns only David’s relationship with his brothers.

This verse finds its secondary fulfillment in the Gospel of John: He came to his own, but his own people did not receive him (1:11). These people that are mentioned are not the offspring of Mary and our Lord’s siblings. In the gospel we have “his own” [neuter: literally his own possession] and “his own people” [the Israelites, who belonged to God as his own chosen possession, but rejected his Only-begotten Son]. Meanwhile Israel serves as a type of David’s mother. Figuratively speaking, it was Israel which gave birth to the Messiah, and our salvation does come from the Jews. Indeed, the true Israel in the spirit prefigures the universal Church of which Christ is the head. We read in Psalm 87 (86): And Zion shall be called mother, for all shall be her children.

All the OT Messianic prophecies are concerned with the salvation of humankind. So even if Jesus did have uterine brothers who rejected him, there would be no reason to prophesy any rivalry between them, for it wouldn’t have resulted in our Lord’s Passion and Death and thus have had any bearing on God’s plan of salvation. Psalm 69:8 finds its secondary fulfillment in the rejection of Christ by the Jews. In the same Gospel we read: And he said to the Jews, “Behold your king!” They cried out, “Take him away! Take him away! Crucify him!” Pilate said to them, “Shall I crucify your king?” The chief priests answered, “We have no king but Caesar.” Then he handed him over to be crucified (Jn 19:14-16). Our Lord was consumed as a sacrifice by the blind religious zeal of the elders of the temple.

For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me.
Psalm 69, 9

PAX

:heaven:
 
It has always been my thought that if Mary and Joseph had other children after Jesus, then the claim could be made that Joseph was the real father of Jesus because he had other children by Mary, suggesting that it was Joseph who actually fathered Jesus and not the Holy Spirit. One other interesting thought; when Jesus was in the Temple at the age of 12 and was left behind by his parents when they left Jerusalem, there is no mention made of other children being with them. When they went searching for Jesus no mention is made of other children. One last comment; if Jesus did indeed have other brothers and sisters by his mother, Mary, then it seems likely to me that they would have had some level of prestige in the early church and their descendants would have openly laid claim to the fact.
 
It has always been my thought that if Mary and Joseph had other children after Jesus, then the claim could be made that Joseph was the real father of Jesus because he had other children by Mary, suggesting that it was Joseph who actually fathered Jesus and not the Holy Spirit. One other interesting thought; when Jesus was in the Temple at the age of 12 and was left behind by his parents when they left Jerusalem, there is no mention made of other children being with them. When they went searching for Jesus no mention is made of other children. One last comment; if Jesus did indeed have other brothers and sisters by his mother, Mary, then it seems likely to me that they would have had some level of prestige in the early church and their descendants would have openly laid claim to the fact.
An argument from silence carries no weight for a positive proof.

If I recall correctly, James, “the brother of the Lord”, had a prominent role in the early church until executed as described in the Book of Acts. I don’t have time to check the reference.

-Tina “In a hurry” G
 
If I recall correctly, James, “the brother of the Lord”, had a prominent role in the early church until executed as described in the Book of Acts. I don’t have time to check the reference.

-Tina “In a hurry” G
'kay. And then how is it that this fulfills the prophesy in Psalm 69? Was James alienated from Jesus, or one of his disciples? :confused:
 
All the OT Messianic prophecies are concerned with the salvation of humankind. So even if Jesus did have uterine brothers who rejected him, there would be no reason to prophesy any rivalry between them, for it wouldn’t have resulted in our Lord’s Passion and Death and thus have had any bearing on God’s plan of salvation.
Trenchant point.

But I’m still looking for a verse that says Jesus’ brothers rejected him and were alienating.
 
An argument from silence carries no weight for a positive proof.

If I recall correctly, James, “the brother of the Lord”, had a prominent role in the early church until executed as described in the Book of Acts. I don’t have time to check the reference.

-Tina “In a hurry” G
By “brother” Luke means “disciple”. James was both an apostle and cousin of Jesus. He was the son of Mary’s elder sister (the other Mary) and Cleopas. Some scholars believe his younger brother was Jude who wrote the letter that goes by his name.

PAX
:heaven:
 
That is not true. Non-consummation makes the marriage not indissoluble; it does however, not make it “non-existent”.

IOW, said in the positive (without the double negatives): a marriage that has never been consummated is still considered to be valid.
I think the full theory is that the graces of marriage do not become available until consummation takes place, so while the marriage is ‘vaild’ as far as it goes, it is not complete as a sacrament. therefore it can be annulled. As a non-believer I find it hard to keep track of all this.
 
I think the full theory is that the graces of marriage do not become available until consummation takes place, so while the marriage is ‘vaild’ as far as it goes, it is not complete as a sacrament. therefore it can be annulled. As a non-believer I find it hard to keep track of all this.
Exactly. So it’s incorrect to say that non-consummation means the “marriage never existed in the first place.”
Indeed! But non-consumation is grounds for annulment, meaning the marriage never existd in the first place.
 
I think the full theory is that the graces of marriage do not become available until consummation takes place, so while the marriage is ‘vaild’ as far as it goes, it is not complete as a sacrament. therefore it can be annulled. As a non-believer I find it hard to keep track of all this.
There are no cases in which a declaration of nullity has been granted to couples who have ‘mutually’ arranged a celibate marriage. but an annulment may be granted to couples who are not open to having children and prevent giving birth to them by the use of contraception. The Church honours those couples who arrange a celibate marriage for the sake of chastity provided they have acted in proper judgment and no coercion has taken place between them.
*
PAX*
:heaven:
 
This reminds me of a quote by Chesterton: Tolerance is the virtue of a man with no convictions.

It’s easy to say you tolerate both views, when you are not convicted of either.
Rather we are convinced both views are sincerely held by Christians. The Catholic Church also has room for divergent views - Molinists and Thomists, for one. By your standard you have the same thing, and there are many issues the CC has simply not ruled on. It is apparently ok for you to do it but not for others.
However, would you say the same of this belief: I believe that Jesus is the Son of God and my fellow Christian sitting in the pew right beside me says that Jesus was NOT the Son of God and we both claim the Holy Spirit’s guidance. My church has room for both views.
Of course that would be :whacky:
And speaking of essentials, what are these essentials and what verses in the Bible tell you that they are essential?
(NB: each and every time I ask a non-Catholic this I receive a list of (disparate) verses–verses the individual has deemed to be essential, but NEVER ever a single verse that says how they know it’s an essential.)
My denomination is a Confessional church, with its beliefs set out in the Westminster Confession of Faith. I recently witnessed an ordination in which the man being ordained affirmed that he believed the WCF contains (or maybe represents) the (not a) system of doctrine laid out in the Scriptures. Members are required to affirm fewer statements, down to the “Essentials of the Faith” for regular members. These were established by the denomination at some point as Scriptural requirements for believers. If you cannot affirm them you cannot be a member. It’s said better here

-Tina “Presbyterian” G
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top