Matthew 1:25

[elizabethdraper]

Eagle1937,

There are several languages which do not have a word for “cousin,” but instead use the word “brother.” I just read about one the other day, but unfortunately my memory escapes me at this moment so I will say that probably a Google search would reveal the answer. (possibly Hindi? – don’t remember)

Now, for a language with which I am fully familiar: Spanish. I will tell you that in Spanish, there are many, many words which in the plural form are only masculine, even if one or more of the people being referred to are women.

The best example I can give you is the word “padres,” meaning “parents.” If you say “I am going to my parents’ house,” you use “padres,” a masculine word meaning “fathers.” Well, in English we can’t do that. We never say “I’m going to the house of my fathers.” Kinda weird, right? Not weird in Spanish. In Spanish you go to the house of your fathers, where usually there lives both a father and a mother. You don’t go to the house of your “mother and father.” That would be weird in Spanish.

If you’d prefer to say “I am going to my folks’ house,” in Spanish you would use the word “papás,” an even more masculine word than “padres,” because “papá” only has one meaning: daddy. So a literal translation of that sentence in English would be “I am going to the house of my daddies.” Totally odd in English, but in Spanish that’s the way it is.

My point is, Eagle, that there are many languages like this, with idiosyncrasies which appear very strange to those who speak English. If I’m not mistaken, Hebrew and Greek might be two such languages. There are plenty more.

To insist that Jesus had brothers and sisters because that’s the literal English translation is just a touch ignorant.

 

[adrift]

“

And in my eagerness to relate to Jesus Christ as the “Man”, and Mary and Joseph as earthly parents, I misunderstood Mathew 1:23-25.
.

Please note that Eagle 1937 says he misunderstood

Also he said

Mary had relations with Joseph afterwards. Was this a sexual relation? I do not think so. This relations could be non sexual in nature. But, still based on Love.

 

[Faith1960]

To Adrift and Randy Carson:

What about the part of Randy’s article in Heos Hou and the Protestant Polemic, under the portion heading ‘The Greek Particle Hou,’ where the author writes:

<<<<<<<<< English equivalents of heos Hou might be translated as “until which,” “until which time” or until such time as." In fact heos Hou is simply a shorthand for the phrase heos Hou chronou en Hoi – literally "until the time when.>>>>>>>>>>

Doesn’t that portion of the article sound like a contradiction of the rest of the article, like he’s saying that Mary didn’t remain a virgin forever but was only a virgin until after Jesus’ birth, or am I misunderstanding what he wrote?

 

[elizabethdraper]

Please note that Eagle 1937 says he misunderstood.

Thank you, Adrift. Apparently I did not read that. I apologize to Eagle and wish him continued enlightenment.

 

[adrift]

To Adrift and Randy Carson:

What about the part of Randy’s article in Heos Hou and the Protestant Polemic, under the portion heading ‘The Greek Particle Hou,’ where the author writes:

<<<<<<<<< English equivalents of heos Hou might be translated as “until which,” “until which time” or until such time as." In fact heos Hou is simply a shorthand for the phrase heos Hou chronou en Hoi – literally "until the time when.>>>>>>>>>>

Doesn’t that portion of the article sound like a contradiction of the rest of the article, like he’s saying that Mary didn’t remain a virgin forever but was only a virgin until after Jesus’ birth, or am I misunderstanding what he wrote?

I am not certain where you go this? Was it in a link that Randy provided? I didn’t read them. From what you have posted it would be hard to conclude that Mary didn’t remain a virgin.

 

[adrift]

Please note that Eagle 1937 says he misunderstood.

Thank you, Adrift. Apparently I did not read that. I apologize to Eagle and wish him continued enlightenment.

It is easy to overlook a post. You weren’t the only one. What you said in your post was relevant . I am glad you posted.

 

[Faith1960]

I am not certain where you go this? Was it in a link that Randy provided? I didn’t read them. From what you have posted it would be hard to conclude that Mary didn’t remain a virgin.

Yeah, it was in one of his links.

 

[Faith1960]

I am not certain where you go this? Was it in a link that Randy provided? I didn’t read them. From what you have posted it would be hard to conclude that Mary didn’t remain a virgin.

Would you mind looking at that part of the article and tell me what you think?

It was in the first article he posted, Heos Hou and the Protestant Polemic, under the portion that’s titled The Greek Particle Hou.

 

[adrift]

Would you mind looking at that part of the article and tell me what you think?

It was in the first article he posted, Heos Hou and the Protestant Polemic, under the portion that’s titled The Greek Particle Hou.

I will look but it will be later in the day as I have an appointment that I must get ready for.

 

[Faith1960]

I will look but it will be later in the day as I have an appointment that I must get ready for.

Thanks, actually I have an eye doctor appointment I’ll be off to soon, too. I’ll be looking forward to your reply later.

 

[Mr_Clean]

I gotta say after reading some of the articles posted arguing for and against the verse in question to explicitly mean Mary’s perpetual virginity I don’t see it. To say St Joe knew her not until she gave birth explicitly means Jesus was not born of man’s seed - I get that. How you get perpetual virgin is obviously from Tradition and comparisons between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant. I have also seen the argument (cant recall the vs) where the Lord enters a specific gate and after it is closed. Also, throwing out apocryphal books saying Mary vowed a life of chastity wont be useful with arguments because all one has to say is the Church didn’t include that in the Bible.

I did see a reference to a newer version of this that totally replaced “until” with words that make the CC stance on this plainly spelled out. I looked thru various protestant bibles and many spell out they had sexual relations. I would not personally use Matthew 1:25 to argue this with my protestant family - I need something foolproof (me being the fool of course).

 

[Tom_Baum]

Of course we know because Jesus didn’t leave us orphans He gave us His Church.
There was no argument in 200 AD.

The disrespect is calling it an invention.

The scripture shows that this is not an normal marriage. Married women don’t ask how they can have a baby since they don’t have sex. You are not reading the New Testament I have pointed out that the named brothers have other parents. You can’t counter it so you ignore it and continue to spew your nonsense. A normal marriage. Nothing about it was normal. How would a man dare to approach where God had been. The guard was killed for trying to stop the fall of the Ark how much more important was where God physically was.

You wrote, “The scripture shows that this is not an normal marriage.”, just where does it show that?

What scripture speaks of that is not “normal” is the conception of Jesus.

You wrote, “Married women don’t ask how they can have a baby since they don’t have sex.”

When Mary asked, "“How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?”, she was not yet married, she was betrothed and in those times, I believe, a betrothal wasn’t consummated, a marriage was.

And it was a perfectly legitimate question to ask, it seems to suggest that Mary knew how human beings were conceived.

You then wrote, “A normal marriage. Nothing about it was normal. How would a man dare to approach where God had been. The guard was killed for trying to stop the fall of the Ark how much more important was where God physically was.”

Do you really think that the conception of Jesus was carried out just as other conceptions with a man and woman are but with God in place of the man?

Seems to me that they had quite a “normal” marriage, of what we know of it, except for the conception of God-Incarnate in Mary’s womb.

 

[Cathoholic]

MATTHEW 1:25a (Knox version) he had not known her when she bore a son.

Eagle1937. You said:

And in my eagerness to relate to Jesus Christ as the “Man”, and Mary and Joseph as earthly parents, I misunderstood Mathew 1:23-25.

Fair enough.

Mr Clean.

You said:

I would not personally use Matthew 1:25 to argue this with my protestant family - I need something foolproof . . . .

I think you are right. I wouldn’t use Matthew 1:25 to argue for the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary either.

But the point is, that this verse cannot be used to argue against the Perpetual Virginity of Mary either.

Your Protestant family likely eventually WILL try to use Matthew 1:25 to argue against the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

And you can then point out that the Greek-speaking fathers themselves did not think Matthew 1:25 argued against Mary as “ever-virgin”. (So why should we?)

St. Epiphanius, St. Basil, St. John Chrysostom, St. Athanasius and others.

The only early Greek speaking church leader that I am aware attempted to deny Mary’s Perpetual Virginity (Bonosus) was branded as a heretic by his fellow Greek-speaking Bishops.

**ST. EPIPHANIUS ** We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy **ever-virgin Mary **by the Holy Spirit.
—The Man Well-Anchored 120 [A.D. 374]

More on the invented heos hou objection:

Below is an excerpt from our local Bible study:

The “Original Greek” term “heos hou” argument denoting a necessary change in status, has recently been purported by some Protestant apologists to try to deny the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Some of the new-fangled Protestant apologists have invented the linguistic concept “until” in the sense of heos hou ALWAYS NECESSITATES a “change in status”.

But even more recently, we see this heos hou objection put forth by Protestants less and less frequently. Why?

Because it isn’t true that’s why; and now they know it (most of them).

The whole invention was an ipse dixit argument from the beginning and has served to discredit certain Protestant apologists who have used this bogus linguistic “law”.

Let’s begin by looking at an extended quote from Fr. Ronald Tacelli who knows Bible Greek (also called Koine’ Greek) and routinely reads the Bible in Greek. Let’s listen as he discusses this issue concerning **the Greek speaking **and Greek writing St. John Chrysostom who comments on the word “until” in Matthew 1:25 way back in the 300’s A.D.

“These men” that Fr. Tacelli criticizes below, are the current Protestant apologists who are attacking the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary based on their invented “heos hou” objection.

Below from: He’s an Only Child-- A bogus Greek argument against Mary’s perpetual virginity is making the rounds. By Ronald K. Tacelli, S.J. Envoy Magazine Envoy Magazine, May/June, 1997, p.54.

. . . . But regardless of how well or poorly these men (some Protestant apologists) know Greek, St. John Chrysostom, one of the greatest early Church Fathers, surely knew the Greek language immensely well (he wrote and spoke it fluently) and was sensitive to its every nuance. Let’s look at what he had to say on the subject of Mary’s perpetual virginity and the meaning of heos hou.

In his sermons on St. Matthew’s Gospel (cf. Patrologia Graeca, 7.58), St. John Chrysostom quotes Matthew 1:25 and then asks, “But why . . . did [St. Matthew] use the word ‘until’?” Note well here: In quoting the verse, Chrysostom had used heos hou; but in asking the question, the word he uses for “until” is heos all by itself - as if he were unaware of a difference in meaning between these two expressions.

He answers his question by saying that it is usual and frequent for Scripture to use the word “until” (heos) without reference to limited times. Then he gives three examples. The first is his own paraphrase of Genesis 8:7: “The raven did not return until the earth was dried up.” Here Chrysostom uses heos hou for “until.” (But the actual text of the Septuagint has heos alone.) The second example is from Psalm 90:2: “From everlasting to everlasting you are.” The verse quoted (correctly) by Chrysostom has heos all by itself. The third example is from Psalm 72:7: “In his days justice shall flourish and fullness of peace until the moon be taken away.” And here the word for “until,” as in the Septuagint text, is heos hou.

**It’s clear that for St. John Chrysostom, heos has exactly the same meaning as heos hou. That’s why he framed his question about “until” in terms of heos alone, even though the verse giving rise to the question, which he’d just finished quoting, had heos hou instead. **That’s why it was natural for him to use heos hou in his paraphrase of Genesis 8:7. And that is why, in his list of analogues to Matthew 1:25, he used both heos and heos hou without the slightest hesitation - his linguistically sensitive ear registered no difference in meaning between them. (But there is a syntactical difference: heos hou came normally to be used as a conjunction; heos by itself as a preposition.)

If an unbridgeable linguistic chasm separated these two expressions, how could it be that the greatest master of the Greek language in all Christendom was unaware of it? The plain answer is that there was no such chasm. The whole “heos hou vs. heos” argument is a bunch of hooey. And both Sophocles in his Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods and Stephanus in his Thesaurus Graecae Linguae agree; they state explicitly that heos and heos hou are equivalent in meaning . . . .

 

[Eagle1937]

You wrote, “The scripture shows that this is not an normal marriage.”, just where does it show that?

What scripture speaks of that is not “normal” is the conception of Jesus.

You wrote, “Married women don’t ask how they can have a baby since they don’t have sex.”

When Mary asked, "“How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?”, she was not yet married, she was betrothed and in those times, I believe, a betrothal wasn’t consummated, a marriage was.

And it was a perfectly legitimate question to ask, it seems to suggest that Mary knew how human beings were conceived.

You then wrote, “A normal marriage. Nothing about it was normal. How would a man dare to approach where God had been. The guard was killed for trying to stop the fall of the Ark how much more important was where God physically was.”

Do you really think that the conception of Jesus was carried out just as other conceptions with a man and woman are but with God in place of the man?

Seems to me that they had quite a “normal” marriage, of what we know of it, except for the conception of God-Incarnate in Mary’s womb.

That is my point. Husband and wife. Mary washes the dishes. Joseph the Carpenter. And child Jesus the savior. This is what I really meant by a ‘normal marriage’.

However, I do now understand this “Perpetual Virginity”. The idea that Mary did not bear any more children after the birth of Jesus. While there is no 100 percent solid physical proof, I just used a little logic.

If I had a wife who was miraculously conceived with a savior of mankind, and I had visits by Angels, I would be a different man…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11517231&postcount=39

 

[Randy_Carson]

“seem to be promoting the idea that Joseph and Mary had sexual relations after Jesus’ birth”

Eactly. Right there in the Bible. Simple! I go by what the New Testament says. Not some governing body. I never did. Ignore the Pope and the rest. But the Gospels remain as they are.

Joseph and Mary were husband and wife. And what do married couples do?

Jesus had brothers and sisters. But, because his birth was a Virgin one, his brothers and sisters were closer to half brothers and sisters.

What does this have to do with anything? - “Magisterium”

I say I am Traditional Roman Catholic. I did not know about a connection with a “Magisterium”. I always though Traditional Catholics follow the New Testament to the letter.

I am Baptized, Confirmed in a traditional way - hence “Traditional Roman Catholic”…

Just to be clear: The Catholic Church teaches as dogma that Mary remained ever virgin before, during and after Jesus’ birth. She abstained from sexual relations with Joseph for the entirety of their married life. This is traditional Catholic teaching and was defined in AD 553.

And to be clear on what dogma is:

A dogma is 1) a divinely revealed truth which 2) has been proclaimed as such by the infallible teaching authority of the Church.

1. A dogma must be found explicitly or implicitly in the deposit of faith given to the Church by Jesus in Sacred Scripture and/or Sacred Tradition.
2. A dogma must be infallibly taught by the Church as divinely revealed.
   All dogmas are infallibly taught as divinely revealed truths, but not all infallibly defined truths are taught as divinely revealed. In the latter case, the infallibly taught truth would not be considered a dogma.

When you read in scripture that Jesus had “brothers and sisters” you are reading English; however, the language used by the apostles was Aramaic, and that language contains no word for “cousin”, so EVERYONE is referred to as a brother or sister regardless of their actual relationship. Their word was more like our word, “kin”.

No one else in scripture is ever called Mary’s “son” or “daughter” because Jesus had no uterine siblings.

 

[Eagle1937]

Old news…Read my last post. I am now “corrected”…

 

[Faith1960]

Just to be clear: The Catholic Church teaches as dogma that Mary remained ever virgin before, during and after Jesus’ birth. She abstained from sexual relations with Joseph for the entirety of their married life. This is traditional Catholic teaching and was defined in AD 553.

And to be clear on what dogma is:

A dogma is 1) a divinely revealed truth which 2) has been proclaimed as such by the infallible teaching authority of the Church.

1. A dogma must be found explicitly or implicitly in the deposit of faith given to the Church by Jesus in Sacred Scripture and/or Sacred Tradition.
2. A dogma must be infallibly taught by the Church as divinely revealed.
   All dogmas are infallibly taught as divinely revealed truths, but not all infallibly defined truths are taught as divinely revealed. In the latter case, the infallibly taught truth would not be considered a dogma.

When you read in scripture that Jesus had “brothers and sisters” you are reading English; however, the language used by the apostles was Aramaic, and that language contains no word for “cousin”, so EVERYONE is referred to as a brother or sister regardless of their actual relationship. Their word was more like our word, “kin”.

No one else in scripture is ever called Mary’s “son” or “daughter” because Jesus had no uterine siblings.

Doesn’t Scripture refer to Elizabeth as Mary’s older cousin?

 

[adrift]

You wrote, “The scripture shows that this is not an normal marriage.”, just where does it show that?

I guess that I expect people to be reasonable. Having God as a son and foster son is not normal. To say that their marriage would not be impacted by this fact is unreasonable.

What scripture speaks of that is not “normal” is the conception of Jesus.

Yep and that would impact the marriage.

You wrote, “Married women don’t ask how they can have a baby since they don’t have sex.”

When Mary asked, "“How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?”, she was not yet married, she was betrothed and in those times, I believe, a betrothal wasn’t consummated, a marriage was.

Wrong. Mary and Joseph were married that is why Joseph sought to divorce her privately. The first part of marriage the couple didn’t live together. The second part of marriage was when the husband took the woman into his home.
Mary doesn’t say Joseph will be here soon. Nope she asks how? She doesn’t say Joe and I haven’t slept together but I know not “man” The angel punished Zachariah for doubting but Mary isn’t punished for what would on the surface be a doubt. Nope the angel explains because Mary wasn’t doubting but was asking about her vow of virginity. Even in your explanation that she was just betrothed it doesn’t make sense. If a woman at an engagement party is told she is going to have a baby. It would be strange for her to say but I don’t have sex yet. It isn’t a normal response for a woman like Mary who was married nor a woman who is about to be married.

And it was a perfectly legitimate question to ask, it seems to suggest that Mary knew how human beings were conceived.

Perfectly legitimate question if you have vowed to be a virgin for life.

You then wrote, “A normal marriage. Nothing about it was normal. How would a man dare to approach where God had been. The guard was killed for trying to stop the fall of the Ark how much more important was where God physically was.”

Do you really think that the conception of Jesus was carried out just as other conceptions with a man and woman are but with God in place of the man?

And I said this when? It seems like a non sequester to me.

Seems to me that they had quite a “normal” marriage, of what we know of it, except for the conception of God-Incarnate in Mary’s womb.

What we know of it? What do we know of it. That exception is huge exception.

 

[adrift]

Would you mind looking at that part of the article and tell me what you think?

It was in the first article he posted, Heos Hou and the Protestant Polemic, under the portion that’s titled The Greek Particle Hou.

That article is a debate about the Greek words. I do not know Greek so I cannot comment on the debate.

 

[Faith1960]

That article is a debate about the Greek words. I do not know Greek so I cannot comment on the debate.

Ok. Randy???