Matthew 1:25

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sum_Fidelis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thistle…
According to the Protoevangelium, Joseph was required to regard Mary’s vow of virginity with the utmost respect. The gravity of his responsibility as the guardian of a virgin was indicated by the fact that, when she was discovered to be with child, he had to answer to the Temple authorities, who thought him guilty of defiling a virgin of the Lord. Mary was also accused of having forsaken the Lord by breaking her vow. Keeping this in mind, it is an incredible** insult to the Blessed Virgin to say that she broke her vow by bearing children other than her Lord and God, who was conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit**.
Okay - 2 things…1st - If Joseph swore to protect the Virgin Mary, why would he have sought to divorce her - before they were even married - after he discovered she was with child? Seems to me like that if Joseph was aware of the plan from the beginning he would have sought a divorce, stopping only after the Lord assured him that the child was the long awaited Savior.

2nd - the OP is only questioning a statement in the Gospel that implies that Mary and Joseph had relations, not that Mary had other children. It is quite possible that the Lord made her barren after the Birth of Jesus.

I accept the Churches teachings that Mary remained Virginal throughout her life, but the OP does bring up a vaild question.
 
Originally Posted by Sum Fidelis
Good answers,and all make you think. Personally,as I have said earlier,it does not matter if Virgin Mary was a Virgin all Her life,and it is not my place to say anything against what the Church teaches,I have one more question that I would like to,if I may ask,to get a simple “yes” or “no” answer. What would it mean if our Blessed Virgin did not remain a virgin all Her life? Would that change your way of thinking? (The last sentence was the question.) God bless.
This is not true. Note in Sum Fidelis’ quote that he does not ask, “If the church declared he ever virgin but she was not…” This conflict is an assumption on your part.
The question is - would it matter if she did not remain a virgin all her life…If she had not, then the church would not have taught it so there is no conflict…
See what I mean?

Peace
James
 
This is not true. Note in Sum Fidelis’ quote that he does not ask, “If the church declared he ever virgin but she was not…” This conflict is an assumption on your part.
The question is - would it matter if she did not remain a virgin all her life…If she had not, then the church would not have taught it so there is no conflict…
See what I mean?

Peace
James
I went to bed late and now you are forcing me to think early. Ouch! Maybe it needs to be a two-part question? I saw it as a “what if”, that implied that Church teaching would then be wrong. My bad. Therefore, I gave a “Then…” response. I see now that what Sum Fidelis might be asking is: if her perpetual virginity did not occur (AND the Church did not teach it), would it matter? Is this how you see it?

Honestly, to me it would matter if she had other children. Mary’s declaration of being the “handmaid of the Lord” (for the singular blessing of bearing and raising His Son) would be violated by diverting her service from the raising of Jesus to the raising of her own children. How can the “handmaid of the Lord” be simultaneously devoted to Him and to others? We cannot serve two masters - God and mammon (family).

I see her perpetual virginity as being consistent with her admitted status of “handmaid of the Lord”. Now, if she never claimed to be the Lord’s handmaid, that would be different - but that didn’t happen.
 
I once was asked this question,“was it really so important that She did remain a virgin also after She gave birth to Christ” and I did not know what to answer.
Honestly, to me it would matter if she had other children.
Yes it was really so important that Mary did remain a virgin after she gave birth to Christ. Yes it would matter if she had other children.

Mary’s Perpetual Virginity is closely intertwined with Mary’s status as the Ark of the New Covenant. This link explains that relationship very well.
 
Yes it was really so important that Mary did remain a virgin after she gave birth to Christ. Yes it would matter if she had other children.
I restricted my response to that which is in the bible, since most disbelief in the doctrine comes from “bible” Christians.
 
I went to bed late and now you are forcing me to think early. Ouch! Maybe it needs to be a two-part question? I saw it as a “what if”, that implied that Church teaching would then be wrong. My bad. Therefore, I gave a “Then…” response. I see now that what Sum Fidelis might be asking is: if her perpetual virginity did not occur (AND the Church did not teach it), would it matter? Is this how you see it?
Sorry to cause you pain so early in the morning…😛
To be truthful my first reaction was similar to yours, but I’ve delveoped a habit of looking at what is actually asked and working out from there.
In this case, since the question was (paraphrased) “What if Mary had not remained a Virgin?” So this is the "IF part that you refer to.
The “Then” aspect would be this.
If Mary had not remained a Virgin, then her PV would not be a part of the deposit of faith and the Church would have never issued such a teaching.
Honestly, to me it would matter if she had other children. Mary’s declaration of being the “handmaid of the Lord” (for the singular blessing of bearing and raising His Son) would be violated by diverting her service from the raising of Jesus to the raising of her own children. How can the “handmaid of the Lord” be simultaneously devoted to Him and to others? We cannot serve two masters - God and mammon (family).
I see her perpetual virginity as being consistent with her admitted status of “handmaid of the Lord”. Now, if she never claimed to be the Lord’s handmaid, that would be different - but that didn’t happen.
If Mary had not remained a Virgin (not part of God’s plan), then something like “I am the Handmaid of the Lord” would not have been uttered and recorded.

So this was my point. If we start at the biginning and work our way out, then we find there would be no contradition for , since it would unfold as God wished, The Church would properly teach it as such…Just as we believe she does in the doctrine of the PV.

Peace
James
 
Sorry to cause you pain so early in the morning…😛
To be truthful my first reaction was similar to yours, but I’ve delveoped a habit of looking at what is actually asked and working out from there.
In this case, since the question was (paraphrased) “What if Mary had not remained a Virgin?” So this is the "IF part that you refer to.
The “Then” aspect would be this.
If Mary had not remained a Virgin, then her PV would not be a part of the deposit of faith and the Church would have never issued such a teaching.

If Mary had not remained a Virgin (not part of God’s plan), then something like “I am the Handmaid of the Lord” would not have been uttered and recorded.

So this was my point. If we start at the biginning and work our way out, then we find there would be no contradition for , since it would unfold as God wished, The Church would properly teach it as such…Just as we believe she does in the doctrine of the PV.

Peace
James
First, thanks for the brotherly correction. This is also why I dislike hypothetical questions. I think that such questions arise because hard, gritty reality is difficult to accept. I can hear the disciples who left Jesus in John 6:66 mumbling to one another as they went: “Yeah, but what if He hadn’t said that? Would you go back?”

Christ’s peace.
 
I restricted my response to that which is in the bible, since most disbelief in the doctrine comes from “bible” Christians.
Guess you didn’t follow the link, then… it’s chock full of “that which is in the bible.”
 
Guess you didn’t follow the link, then… it’s chock full of “that which is in the bible.”
Here are the parallels that I have between 2 Samuel 6 and Luke 1. There are 3 additional, I believe:

2 Samuel 6:2 David went “to Baalah of Judah.”
  • with -
    Luke 1:39 Mary went “to a town of Judah.”
2 Samuel 6:9 David asks “How can the Ark of Yahweh come to be with me?”
  • with -
    Luke 1:43 Elizabeth asks: “How is it that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”
2 Samuel 6:10 David took the Ark aside to a house.
  • with -
    Luke 1:40 Mary went to the house of Zechariah and Elizabeth.
2 Samuel 6:11 The Ark stayed at the house three months.
  • with -
    Luke 1:56 Mary stayed with Elizabeth three months
2 Samuel 6:5 David and the people celebrated before the Ark.
  • with -
    Luke 1:47 Mary’s spirit rejoiced in God, her Savior
2 Samuel 6:15 David brought the Ark accompanied by shouting.
  • with -
    Luke 1:42 Elizabeth “Cried out in a loud voice”
2 Samuel 6:16 King David was “leaping and dancing”
  • with -
    Luke 1:41 The child in Elizabeth’s womb “leapt for joy”.
The trick is not to get me to follow that link, but to get bible only Christians to follow it. Even one non-biblical reference will turn many of them off immediately.
 
I am TILL you grow old…
Isaias: 46,4

After I grow old, does God cease to be?

The Lord said to my Lord "Sit on my right hand TILL I make thy enemies thy footstool…
Matthew 22,4
Psalm 110,1

Does Jesus cease to reign triumphantly from the right hand of the Father after his enemies have been subdued?..Nope…“And of his kingdom there shall be no end.” Luke 1:33

And they went up to Mount Sion with joy and gladness and offered holocausts, because not one of them was slain TILL they had returned in peace.
Machabees 5,54

So did they all fall to slaughtering one another to celebrate the peace? Nope.

All of the quotes above prove that in the bible a particular state of being (Mary’s virginity) does not necessarily come to an end by dint of the modern day implications associated to the use of the word “til.”
 
Please consider that the Church teaches that Christ is our Savior, and that His mother remained ever a virgin. Which do we accept? Which do we reject? Both Joseph and Mary were told that this child was conceived by the Holy Spirit. What man would even think of touching that womb? Not thinkable. Desire for any other child would be an offense against God, no?
I don’t think so, no.

God also created man and woman. He created the institution of marriage. Man and woman are created in such way that they can be argued to complete each other in many ways, including sexually. By this I do not mean ONLY the external physical act per se, but also note that hormonally and chemically changes occur in males and females during sex that cause them to bond.

It is also taught that God did this so that man would have a partner; that it brings completeness to both.

Therefore, I see no sin in either Joseph or Mary desiring what God created as a blessing for all humankind.

One might argue that at one time the Genesis account of Creation was taken literally. We now know beyond all doubt that a literal interpretation is not true, although an allegorical interpretation is a very good one, and would serve as an excellent explanation of Creation to a people who had no scientific understanding of the universe. And yet the ancient Holy Leaders of our Belief, ordained by God, WROTE and believed exactly what we see in the Bible today. In other words, what God would have told them was true within THEIR LIMITS of understanding.

One might EQUALLY ARGUE that the same is true here - that there are spiritual qualities of Mary that we do not yet fully understand, and that a tradition of ongoing physical virginity may help us to understand the concept that is at work, WITHOUT ACTUALLY being the actual physical truth.

I believe in our God as taught; I also believe, however, in a God of ultimate will. He is a God that clearly shows that he believes in laws - both physical and moral. Yet our focus has seldom been on this. Why do we as Catholics believe that God chooses not to break moral laws, but routinely chooses to break physical laws (in how He performs miracles?) Personally, I DON’T believe that. I believe that all the acts that He performs as miracles somehow occur WITHIN the physical laws that He has created, but that we simply don’t yet understand all those laws. Understanding how He heals the sick or is omnitemporal is more difficult for me, than it would be for a man of Moses’ time to understand the lighting of a match - an act that surely would have been seen as a miracle.

To therefore argue that our understanding of what was told to us earlier is THE ONLY such understanding is short-sighted. I am always open to learning more about my God, as HE COMMANDED, and yes, I am therefore always willing to question what I believe I already know - and NO that isn’t insulting to anyone, fellow Catholic or Mary in particular. In fact, it honors what they went through in order to bring to me my belief today.

What is different from the sort of argument being presented about Mary, from, for example, the sort of argument that was presented about the requirement for circumcision?
 
that’s a lot of interesting theorizing about the nature of God and what he MIGHT have intended with the creation of sex, and what that MIGHT have meant for the relationship between Joseph and Mary after the birth of Jesus.

The problem with this kind of theorizing is that people can pose hypotheticals all day long with regard to a book like the bible, which is highly symbolic and sometimes ambiguous.

See snake handlers and drinkers of strychnine as a proof of having received the gift of the Holy Spirit, for example. Mark 16,18

When confronted with a situation in which uncertainty is apparently the case (i.e. Mary’s perpetual virginity), one must ask oneself, does there exist an objective and authoritative voice on the truth? The question to that answer is yes. The teaching authority of the Roman Catholic Church, which has inherited its understanding of Sacred Scripture and its authority from the apostles, Jesus’ preeminent authority on the doctrine of the Church he founded on earth:

The Apostles Creed:
He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.

It has been the tradition (another word for historical truth) of these self same apostles and the earliest Christian communities that the Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary was perpetual, and this idea is in perfect accordance with what we find in the Sacred Scriptures:

2 Samuel 6:6

Also, for what its worth, Mary of Agreda, a mystic who was priviledged to have witnessed the lives of Jesus, Mary and other saints in prophetic revelation, who lived and died in the 17th century, confirmed the perpetual virginity of Mary. Why should I care what this woman has to say on the subject you might ask?..Well, she happens to be an incorruptible, which is to say, that after her death her body never decomposed

*Dr. Medina told investigative journalist Javier Sierra in 1991: “What most surprised me about that case is that when we compared the state of the body, as it was described in the medical report from 1909, with how it appeared in 1989, we realized it had absolutely not deteriorated at all in the last eighty years.”[9] Purportedly, complete photographic and other evidence was obtained by investigators before her casket was re-sealed. Now, her incorrupt body can be visited in the Church of the Convent of Ágreda. *

Okay, talk to you later…
 
sorry, i’m new at this

the bible quote above should have 2 Samuel 6, 6-7 to get the reference
 
I am TILL you grow old…
Isaias: 46,4

After I grow old, does God cease to be?

The Lord said to my Lord "Sit on my right hand TILL I make thy enemies thy footstool…
Matthew 22,4
Psalm 110,1

Does Jesus cease to reign triumphantly from the right hand of the Father after his enemies have been subdued?..Nope…“And of his kingdom there shall be no end.” Luke 1:33

And they went up to Mount Sion with joy and gladness and offered holocausts, because not one of them was slain TILL they had returned in peace.
Machabees 5,54

So did they all fall to slaughtering one another to celebrate the peace? Nope.

All of the quotes above prove that in the bible a particular state of being (Mary’s virginity) does not necessarily come to an end by dint of the modern day implications associated to the use of the word “til.”
You’re responding to a two-year old thread. 🤷
 
that’s a lot of interesting theorizing about the nature of God and what he MIGHT have intended with the creation of sex, and what that MIGHT have meant for the relationship between Joseph and Mary after the birth of Jesus.

The problem with this kind of theorizing is that people can pose hypotheticals all day long with regard to a book like the bible, which is highly symbolic and sometimes ambiguous.

See snake handlers and drinkers of strychnine as a proof of having received the gift of the Holy Spirit, for example. Mark 16,18

When confronted with a situation in which uncertainty is apparently the case (i.e. Mary’s perpetual virginity), one must ask oneself, does there exist an objective and authoritative voice on the truth? The question to that answer is yes. The teaching authority of the Roman Catholic Church, which has inherited its understanding of Sacred Scripture and its authority from the apostles, Jesus’ preeminent authority on the doctrine of the Church he founded on earth:

The Apostles Creed:
He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.

It has been the tradition (another word for historical truth) of these self same apostles and the earliest Christian communities that the Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary was perpetual, and this idea is in perfect accordance with what we find in the Sacred Scriptures:

2 Samuel 6:6

Also, for what its worth, Mary of Agreda, a mystic who was priviledged to have witnessed the lives of Jesus, Mary and other saints in prophetic revelation, who lived and died in the 17th century, confirmed the perpetual virginity of Mary. Why should I care what this woman has to say on the subject you might ask?..Well, she happens to be an incorruptible, which is to say, that after her death her body never decomposed

*Dr. Medina told investigative journalist Javier Sierra in 1991: “What most surprised me about that case is that when we compared the state of the body, as it was described in the medical report from 1909, with how it appeared in 1989, we realized it had absolutely not deteriorated at all in the last eighty years.”[9] Purportedly, complete photographic and other evidence was obtained by investigators before her casket was re-sealed. Now, her incorrupt body can be visited in the Church of the Convent of Ágreda. *

Okay, talk to you later…
The problem is that it’s no less theorizing than the theorizing of the perpetual virginity because the plain text is not unambiguous, neither are the earlier teachings. I don’t think any major Christian belief questions whether Mary was a virgin at the time of Christ’s conception; the issue is solely the question of perpetual virginity, about which the text is not unambiguous.
 
What is not being grasped here is the fact that “theorizing” with regard to the perpetual virginity of Mary is not theorizing at all for those Christians who know that they don’t know better than the original and earliest Christians themselves. The Church Fathers are in agreement about the perpetual virginity of Mary. Reference Origin, Athanasius, Hilary of Potiers, Jerome…

The only theorizing going on with regard to the perpetual virginity of Mary is the needless theorizing of modern day academics who choose to interpret the Gospels through the false lens of modern interpretation wholly divorced from the context of the time period and beliefs with which they were written.

And you’re absolutely correct. The bible is crystal clear on the point. All of Jesus’s so- called “brothers” can be accounted for as actually being his cousins. And if Jesus had any actual blood relations that we would consider nowadays as “brothers,” then I’m pretty sure the bible would have apprised us of this fact, which it does not.

Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that in accordance with the long established tradition of the Church which has no less credibility than the original apostles themselves, coupled with the extraordinary testimony (to say the least) of the incorruptible Mary of Agreda, and the complete failure of Sacred Scripture to make mention of anything like what we would consider nowadays to be brothers of Jesus Christ, that the issue can in fact be said to be unambiguous, and conclusively decided in favor of the perpetual virginity of Mary, and not against…unless you want to argue with Apostolic tradition, Sacred Scripture, the Fathers of the Church, and a certain mystic who, to this day, remains incorrupt as a sign that the divine agency of God is at work in corroborating her witness with regard to the issue of the perpetual virginity of Mary, as well as many others.
 
The problem is that it’s no less theorizing than the theorizing of the perpetual virginity because the plain text is not unambiguous, neither are the earlier teachings. I don’t think any major Christian belief questions whether Mary was a virgin at the time of Christ’s conception; the issue is solely the question of perpetual virginity, about which the text is not unambiguous.
Let’s look at a true Catholic description of this actual event:

Matthew 1:25
Knox Bible (KNOX)
25 and he had not known her when she bore a son, her first-born, to whom he gave the name Jesus.

Consider the OT prophecy of Christ. Read the messianic prophecy of Zechariah, chapter 12. You have heard it at mass: “they will look upon the one they have pierced.” Zechariah prophesied that the Messiah would be an “only son” and the “firstborn.” (Zechariah 12:10) If Jesus was not an only son, and a firstborn, he did not fulfill the prophecy. Huge problem.

Mary declared herself, to Gabriel, to be the handmaid, even the bondslave of the Lord. Was she lying? Could she serve two masters? Remember that she was a bond slave to her own Son.

“James, the brother of the Lord” huh? Well, one James was the son of Zebedee, while the other James was the son of Alphaeus. This doesn’t work either.

Although it may not be, you seem to be motivated by two protestant issues here: bible alone, and the anti-Catholic post-reformation attack on Mary.
 
Let’s look at a true Catholic description of this actual event:

Matthew 1:25
Knox Bible (KNOX)
25 and he had not known her when she bore a son, her first-born, to whom he gave the name Jesus.

Consider the OT prophecy of Christ. Read the messianic prophecy of Zechariah, chapter 12. You have heard it at mass: “they will look upon the one they have pierced.” Zechariah prophesied that the Messiah would be an “only son” and the “firstborn.” (Zechariah 12:10) If Jesus was not an only son, and a firstborn, he did not fulfill the prophecy. Huge problem.
Not a problem at all. He is the only Son - of God. He is the firstborn, of God.

Even so, neither of these statements bears a relationship to the claim of Mary’s perpetual virginity.

There is no issue here.
Mary declared herself, to Gabriel, to be the handmaid, even the bondslave of the Lord. Was she lying? Could she serve two masters? Remember that she was a bond slave to her own Son.
Not at all. Christ also said that what God has joined together no man should put asunder. God joined Mary and Joseph. Would God put asunder a union that He created? God lives by His own rules - He does not break them.

Mary was also bound to her husband.
“James, the brother of the Lord” huh? Well, one James was the son of Zebedee, while the other James was the son of Alphaeus. This doesn’t work either.
Sigh - this is unclear text for reasons that have been given many times in many places. Do we need to rehash such things?
Although it may not be, you seem to be motivated by two protestant issues here: bible alone, and the anti-Catholic post-reformation attack on Mary.
Neither. Bible alone, the evidence for the claim of perpetual virginity is highly insufficient. One has greater evidence for the claim that the Earth was created in 7 days, based on the Bible alone. And we know that to be wrong.

We are commanded to love Him with all our mind; the evidence for perpetual virginity is at best unclear.

Perhaps even more importantly, the belief of perpetual virginity is unnecessary. It doesn’t do anything to change our perception of who Christ was/is or what He did.
 
Sigh - this is unclear text for reasons that have been given many times in many places. Do we need to rehash such things? Perhaps even more importantly, the belief of perpetual virginity is unnecessary. It doesn’t do anything to change our perception of who Christ was/is or what He did.
  1. You posted to this old thread and openly dissented from Church teaching - not me. I simply responded. Who is re-hashing this? I am trying to defend a teaching of the Church that I explicitly trust. 2. You do not appear to trust your own Church. Have you thought of looking for one that you do trust?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top