Matthew 1 25

[thetazlord]

But not the point made by the second one. There is no Scriptural implication of the cessation of that state of Jesus being at God’s right hand.

Yes, Scripture does. Throughout the NT, Scripture states that Jesus will eventually leave Heaven & return to earth, where he will rule for 1,000 years on earth (Revelation Ch.19-20). When Stephen looked up to Heaven, He saw Jesus at the right hand of God (the Father). If Stephen had looked up to Heaven while Jesus was still alive on earth, he wouldn’t have said that because wouldn’t have been there, but on earth.

 

[thetazlord]

The issue of perpetuity is irrelevant. The claim which you made about 'εως is that Matthew always uses it to indicate a state which changes. He does indicate that the name changes. Therefore, he does not always use it to indicate a state which changes.

The fact that after the “days” of Peter, there is nowhere in Scripture where it’s called “The Field of Blood” isn’t evidence that it was called that “after” the “days” of Peter. So, I’m afraid the issue of perpetuity is completely relevant, since the use of “heos” to mean that is what we’re discussing, which Matthew does not use it that way in his Gospel TWO DOZEN times in his Gospel alone, but never to mean the activity continues “perpetually.”

I would suggest that “not being convinced” is a far more accurate description, and not only for P R Merger.

Not being convinced would imply that there isn’t any Scriptural evidence, which isn’t the case here. For example, she believes that God can contradict Himself even in His Own Inspired Word, & when I showed her Scripture that stated “God does not change,” she didn’t believe it. That isn’t “not being convinced.” (Edited)

Actually, no, we don’t. All that we need to do is read the text and consider what it says. It never says that she had sex.

Actually, yes, you do. Remember, “you” are the making the claim that Mary refrained from having sexual intercourse with her husband after she gave birth to Jesus. Since you are the one making an affirmative declaration, the burden of proof is on you to prove that from Scripture. I don’t have to prove that she didn’t have sex with her husband, because there is no Scriptural reason for me to conclude that she refrained from having sex with him. Mary & Joseph were a normal first century Jewish couple. Without Scriptural support, there is no reason to “impute” the belief that they refrained from having marital intercourse.

It does not say, “multiply until you run out of money to feed your children”. She did already have a child. He apparently already had a few. The requirements of that commandment had thus been met.

No, Scripture does not state, nor imply, that Joseph “already had a few” children prior to marrying Mary. Again, you are basing your “belief” on a false “gospel” falsely attributed to someone who had been DEAD for 150 years, not Scripture. Also, God’s command is for married couples to be fruitful & multiply, not just the mother. Remember, Jesus was Mary’s son, not Joseph, and - Scripturally - Joseph did not have children prior to marrying Mary. So, no, the “requirements” were not met for Mary with Joseph - her husband.

Which is not a considerable length of time for events that long ago. The earliest complete Bible shows up 300 years after the events which it describes.

Under one cover, yes. But the NT was Inspired the moment it was penned, & NONE of it contradicts each other. So, when you compare the NT canon to the false “gospel” of Proto-James, the only place you find Mary being a “perpetual” virgin is in Proto-James, not Scripture. Plus, unlike Scripture, the author of Proto-James is false attributed to James the Just. This is one reason why we can’t trust what it “claims” about Mary & Joseph that isn’t backed up by Inspired Scripture.

The Protoevangelium remains the nearest historical source to the events which it describes.

As “historical” as the gnostic “gospels,” but not Scripture.

 

[thetazlord]

That’s exactly what Matthew was saying when he said “until she gave birth to a son”, Joseph kept Mary a virgin. I find it amazing how some people are so bold to have no problem telling God that his words were’nt sufficient to get His point across, and that instead God should have used their own words which clarify things much better.

Again, “if” that is what Matthew was saying, there would have been no need for him to add “until the birth of Jesus.” By “adding” that last phrase, Matthew is saying that he kept Mary a virgin DURING her pregnancy & AT the birth of Jesus. But not AFTER His birth. Don’t you find it odd that both Matthew & Isaiah explicitly state that Mary was a virgin DURING her pregnancy & AT Jesus’ birth, but is completely silent about her virginal status AFTER His birth? Why would they both be so explicit about it DURING & AT, but not AFTER?

BTW, “I’m” not the one “telling God that His words weren’t sufficient,” because “I’m” not one “ADDING TO” what Scripture says. If you go strictly by what God states in His Word, there is no reason to believe - even in the Greek - that Mary “remained” a “perpetual” virgin after the birth of Jesus.

 

[thetazlord]

You’re doing it again. This amounts to nothing but your own opinion that Mary had normal sexual relations after the birth of Jesus. Both those texts do not require that Mary had relations after Jesus birth. The point trying to be made is that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born, the Bible prophesied the Messiah would be born of a virgin, period. If you use scripture to try to prove beyond a doubt that Mary did not remain a virgin the rest of her life, you will have a very difficult time doing it. This is why the Catholic church has the fullness of truth, handed down by Apostolic succession and guided and protected from error by the Holy Spirit. I know you don’t want to hear that.

Again, “I’m” not the one doing the “assuming” - you are. You are the “adding” to God’s Word, because God’s Word doesn’t support your “assumption,” which is why you have to rely on much LATER extra-biblical sources & falsely authored “gospels,” like Proto-James.

 

[Mystophilus]

Yes, Scripture does. Throughout the NT, Scripture states that Jesus will eventually leave Heaven & return to earth, where he will rule for 1,000 years on earth (Revelation Ch.19-20). When Stephen looked up to Heaven, He saw Jesus at the right hand of God (the Father). If Stephen had looked up to Heaven while Jesus was still alive on earth, he wouldn’t have said that because wouldn’t have been there, but on earth.

Er, did you miss the whole part about “at someone’s right hand” being a metaphor for a position of honour, especially when applied to someone who, being spirit, does not have a physical “right side”? Jesus shall never lose that place of honour, and so he shall always be “at God’s right hand”.

 

[thetazlord]

Er, did you miss the whole part about “at someone’s right hand” being a metaphor for a position of honour, especially when applied to someone who, being spirit, does not have a physical “right side”? Jesus shall never lose that place of honour, and so he shall always be “at God’s right hand”.

No, I didn’t miss that. Did you miss the part that when Stephen looked up to Heaven & saw Jesus at God the Father’s right hand, it was “after” Jesus ascended into Heaven. And did you miss the part that if Stephen had done that when Jesus was still alive, Stephen wouldn’t have declared that he saw Jesus at God the Father’s right hand, because Jesus woudn’t have been there in Heaven? And did you miss the part, when I was addressing Matthew’s use of “heos” in his Gospel EXCLUSIVELY to mean once an event ends, so does the activity? There are other Greek words for “until” that Matthew used in his Gospel, where “until” doesn’t mean this. If Matthew meant that Mary’s virginal status extended beyond Jesus’ birth, rather than Joseph keeping Mary a virgin “until” she gave birth to Jesus, Matthew would have used any of these other Greek words for “until.” But instead Matthew used “heos” instead, and he used it EXCLUSIVELY to mean that once Mary’s pregnancy ended & Jesus was born, Joseph no longer kept Mary - his WIFE - a virgin. Again, if he did, Matthew would not have needed to add “until she gave birth to a son.” That added phrase would be redundant & unnecessary to get that point across. In fact, if you read it without your preconceived personal “belief” (like I have), & strictly read the verse from the most natural reading of the verse, it doesn’t naturally flow that Matthew intended it to mean Joseph kept Mary a virgin “beyond” the “birth of a son,” which is why Matthew uses “until.”

 

[eamonnroma]

Two dozen times Matthew uses the Greek word for “until” (heos) in his Gospel to mean that once an event ends, so does the activity. In fact 100% of the time in his Gospel he uses it this way. So, to believe that Matthew is using it in 1:25 to refer to Mary’s virginity to continue after the birth of Jesus is arguing by exception. Plus, this belief is forced into the text, which if it were true, Matthew wouldn’t have needed to add “until she gave birth to a son.” All Matthew would have had to say is “Joseph kept her [Mary a virgin]”…period. Also, in the OT, when Isaiah prophecies about the mother of the future Messiah, he explicitly states in 7:14 that she would be a virgin DURING her pregnancy & AT His birth. But Isaiah says nothing about the future mother of the Messiah “remaining” a virgin after His birth. This is why Matthew writes “until she gave birth to a son” which implies completion of the event & activity of being a virgin. Plus, there is no command from God (or an angel or anyone else) in Scripture for the mother of the Messiah to “remain” a virgin her entire life. And with no command from God or anyone else for her to “remain” a virgin, there would be no reason for Mary to refrain from having sexual relations with her husband Joseph (which is what Scripture calls him), nor violate God’s command to married couples to “be fruitful & multiply” (Genesis Ch.1). So, when Mary tells Gabriel “I know not man,” all she’s declaring is that she’s a virgin, because she has not had sexual relations with a man…up to that point, since she was in the non-sexual period of betrothal to Joseph that lasted a year. “Know not man” is in the Present Indicative Active form, just as when John the Baptist “saw Jesus coming.” John didn’t “perpetually” “see” Jesus - meaning John didn’t continually keep his eyes on Jesus forever, since John was placed in prison out of sight of Jesus. Also, using 2 Samuel 6:23 to use “until” to mean an ongoing action (or inaction) doesn’t work, because 2 Samuel was originally written in Hebrew. Matthew was written in Greek, & only the original language Scripture was written in are Inspired, not the translations, because translations can be translated differently, even in English translated Catholic & Protestant Bibles.

Hope this helps.

Thank you for this. It certainly does help. I had already understood that we need to appeal to the original Greek and not the translations. What had struck me as strange was that so many translations had strayed from the original meaning. Why?

You have confirmed that this text does not exclude the possibility that Mary could have had marital relations after the birth of Christ. The perpetual virginity of Mary is not scriptual, so it come from the Tradition of the Church. Is that accurate?

 

[eamonnroma]

The word “until” has no other meaning than to emphasize Mary’s virginity right up till the time she gave birth to Jesus. That was to prove by scripture that Joseph had nothing to do with Jesus conception, just in case there were any doubters. There is no scriptural evidence that Mary had other children after Jesus. The passages that refer to his brothers and sisters cannot be shown by any other scripture to prove that they were from Mary. Some people also claim that any other children in Mary and Joseph’s house were children of Joseph’s from a previous marriage, that is total speculation. In my opinion, the scene at the cross carries the most weight in showing Mary had no other children. She was given to John the Apostle for him to take her into his home, which the scripture say’s he did so from that hour. If Mary had other children, one of them would have taken her into their home, whether sons or daughters. Doesn’t matter if none of them were believers yet, which some people claim was the reason Mary didn’t go with them instead of John. Jesus didn’t tell John to take her into his home, he said “behold your mother”, and John understood what Jesus meant for him to do and he did it immediately. Scripture says to “honor your father and mother”, so being good Jewish children, one of them surely would have taken their own mother into their home. The Catholic church has always taught Mary’s perpetual virginity because they understand the truth of the matter. The churches who teach otherwise have an agenda, as they do in other disagreements with the Catholic church.

So you are confirming that there is nothing explicit in Scripture which says that Mary remained a virgin. We suppose such, or as you said, it is in your opinion.

This does not deny Mary’s perpetual virginity, neither does it prove it.

 

[thetazlord]

Thank you for this. It certainly does help. I had already understood that we need to appeal to the original Greek and not the translations. What had struck me as strange was that so many translations had strayed from the original meaning. Why?

You have confirmed that this text does not exclude the possibility that Mary could have had marital relations after the birth of Christ. The perpetual virginity of Mary is not scriptual, so it come from the Tradition of the Church. Is that accurate?

Thanks! All I can tell you is that I have not been able to find an explicit reference in the Word of God - either in the OT nor the NT - for Mary’s virginity being perpetual. What I have heard from other posters (as well as CA Jimmy Akin) is that the earliest source for Mary’s perpetual virginity is from the Protoevangelium of James, which is a pseudoepigraphical text, written during the mid-second century, which is falsely authored by James the Just, who had been dead for about 150 years. I can’t speak for the Catholic church. All I can tell you is that when I was Catholic, I have not been able to find a tradition about Mary’s virginity being perpetual prior to this time. I am usually skeptical by nature when I read things found in falsely authored texts that claim things that aren’t found in the Word of God…but that’s just me.

 

[Ignatius]

Some texts read (such as the RSV and NRSV) ‘that he (Joseph) did not know Mary until she bore him a son and called his name Jesus’.

You are adding an implication to the work ‘until’ that is not there. The use of the work ‘until’ certainly does not prove or even imply that anything happened afterwards.

For example, I once knew someone who was a profligate womanizer, completely amoral. Then he met a wonderful woman and became totally devoted to her. After they married, he remained faithful until he died.

Clearly, to any sensible person, this does not imply that he was unfaithful after he died.

One of the many scriptural examples is Matthew 28:20 when Jesus said “I will with you always, until the end of the world.” We know that Jesus will clearly be with His followers for all Eternity so because He said until the end of the world does Not imply any change after the end of the world.

 

[JMM1957]

Again, “I’m” not the one doing the “assuming” - you are. You are the “adding” to God’s Word, because God’s Word doesn’t support your “assumption,” which is why you have to rely on much LATER extra-biblical sources & falsely authored “gospels,” like Proto-James.

I’m not relying on any extra-biblical sources to prove Mary’s perpetual virginity, why do you bring it up? The difference between your view and my view is that you see Mary as only remaining a virgin up “until” the time of Jesus birth. I see her as remaining a virgin her entire life. If someone is looking for an exact quote from Scripture that specifically states that Mary had sexual relations after Jesus birth, you won’t find it. Just as you won’t find an exact quote from Scripture that Mary didn’t have sexual relations after Jesus birth. Looking at the text of Matthew 1:25 itself does not say explicitly one way or the other, you could interpret it either way if you looked at no other verse of Scripture but that particular one. Fortunately, we have other accounts in Scripture which help us come to a clearer knowledge of whether or not Mary had other children born to her besides Jesus. I have already listed some of them in my earlier posts, so I won’t do it again here.

There are many, many other cases in the Bible where we must come to a knowledge of a certain biblical truth by using the whole context of Scripture, not just one or two obscure verses, I’m sure you are aware of that and will not say otherwise.

The Catholic church has always taught Mary’s perpetual virginity based on the evidence of Sacred Scripture and Tradition. Think about it for just a minute, seeing as how the true church of Jesus Christ took on the name “Catholic” back around 100 AD, and that being quite possibly (we don’t know exactly) only about 50 or so years after the death of Mary herself, don’t you think that the early church knew precisely whether or not Mary had any other children? Information like that doesn’t get completely lost to history in that short of time. Even today, we know in great detail intricate facts of historical events that go back thousands and thousands of years, so what’s so hard to believe facts that are only maybe fifty years old or less?

It all goes back to the “authority” of the church and them being entrusted with all truth so that each successive generation of Christians can get edified by it. The NT clearly states the importance of passing on the truth to others down the line, you cannot argue against that. When you don’t have the ultimate authority of the “church” to go by on a biblical question, and all you have is individual interpretation, then you have division and splintered ideas.

 

[JMM1957]

You are adding an implication to the work ‘until’ that is not there. The use of the work ‘until’ certainly does not prove or even imply that anything happened afterwards.

For example, I once knew someone who was a profligate womanizer, completely amoral. Then he met a wonderful woman and became totally devoted to her. After they married, he remained faithful until he died.

Clearly, to any sensible person, this does not imply that he was unfaithful after he died.

One of the many scriptural examples is Matthew 28:20 when Jesus said “I will with you always, until the end of the world.” We know that Jesus will clearly be with His followers for all Eternity so because He said until the end of the world does Not imply any change after the end of the world.

Good examples of how “until” cannot be assumed to mean anything in particular happened afterwards. It amazes me how blind some can be about something so simple. Even when presented with multiple examples to show that they are wrong in how they understand the word “until”, they continue to be obstinate.

 

[JMM1957]

Yes, Scripture does. Throughout the NT, Scripture states that Jesus will eventually leave Heaven & return to earth, where he will rule for 1,000 years on earth (Revelation Ch.19-20). When Stephen looked up to Heaven, He saw Jesus at the right hand of God (the Father). If Stephen had looked up to Heaven while Jesus was still alive on earth, he wouldn’t have said that because wouldn’t have been there, but on earth.

Read and believe:

Matthew 26:64 “You have said so,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

Jesus Christ’s act of redemption is completed, and He will forever be at the right hand of God.

Maybe you would like to dispute the meaning of “from now on” also?

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, Scripture does. Throughout the NT, Scripture states that Jesus will eventually leave Heaven & return to earth, where he will rule for 1,000 years on earth (Revelation Ch.19-20).

Surely you’re not saying that Jesus ceases to be at the right hand, simply in order to defend your modern day application of the word “until” into the Biblical text?

That’s astonishing that any Christian would declare Jesus will stop reigning from heaven!

 

[PRmerger]

For example, she believes that God can contradict Himself even in His Own Inspired Word

Please cite where I said God can contradict himself, taz.

And if you ever say that I said God can contradict himself again, ** I will report you.

I said God can rescind his commands. Right here: (and please note where I specifically assert that God cannot contradict himself)

NO. God cannot contradict himself.

But he can rescind his commands.

Remember, God abhors human sacrifice, but also had human sacrifice at the heart of his divine plan.

God condemns the worship of man, but also accepted the worship of a Man.

God declares that all men die once, but then also has men who died twice, and some will not die at all.

So it’s not a contradiction but rather God, as the Keeper of the Law, can certainly rescind.

And you believe this, too, taz. Unless you do not accept the atoning death on the cross? And also do not worship the Man?

So IF I believe God contradicts himself, then you do, too, taz…so I would be careful about making assertions which are heretical to Christianity, unless you want to include yourself in that group as well.

 

[JMM1957]

Two dozen times Matthew uses the Greek word for “until” (heos) in his Gospel to mean that once an event ends, so does the activity. In fact 100% of the time in his Gospel he uses it this way. So, to believe that Matthew is using it in 1:25 to refer to Mary’s virginity to continue after the birth of Jesus is arguing by exception. Plus, this belief is forced into the text, which if it were true, Matthew wouldn’t have needed to add “until she gave birth to a son.” All Matthew would have had to say is “Joseph kept her [Mary a virgin]”…period. Also, in the OT, when Isaiah prophecies about the mother of the future Messiah, he explicitly states in 7:14 that she would be a virgin DURING her pregnancy & AT His birth. But Isaiah says nothing about the future mother of the Messiah “remaining” a virgin after His birth. This is why Matthew writes “until she gave birth to a son” which implies completion of the event & activity of being a virgin. Plus, there is no command from God (or an angel or anyone else) in Scripture for the mother of the Messiah to “remain” a virgin her entire life. And with no command from God or anyone else for her to “remain” a virgin, there would be no reason for Mary to refrain from having sexual relations with her husband Joseph (which is what Scripture calls him), nor violate God’s command to married couples to “be fruitful & multiply” (Genesis Ch.1). ** So, when Mary tells Gabriel “I know not man,” all she’s declaring is that she’s a virgin, because she has not had sexual relations with a man…up to that point, since she was in the non-sexual period of betrothal to Joseph that lasted a year. ** “Know not man” is in the Present Indicative Active form, just as when John the Baptist “saw Jesus coming.” John didn’t “perpetually” “see” Jesus - meaning John didn’t continually keep his eyes on Jesus forever, since John was placed in prison out of sight of Jesus. Also, using 2 Samuel 6:23 to use “until” to mean an ongoing action (or inaction) doesn’t work, because 2 Samuel was originally written in Hebrew. Matthew was written in Greek, & only the original language Scripture was written in are Inspired, not the translations, because translations can be translated differently, even in English translated Catholic & Protestant Bibles.

Hope this helps.

Can I ask where you got the information about the betrothal period as being non-sexual? My information tells me that betrothal period was not equal to an engagement period back then, the betrothal was the initial marriage period, they were indeed married. And because of that, the man had the priviledge of sexual relations even at that point, even though they were not sharing the same home. It was considered adultery if one or the other engaged in relations with someone else during the betrothal period. The angel told Joseph to “take Mary your wife into your home.” She and Joseph were still betrothed when they went to Bethlehem to be enrolled (Luke 2:4-5). We know that Mary was a virgin during this whole time. Joseph never was told by God (through an angel) to abstain from relations with Mary during this time period, but he did. Why did he do so? Maybe because of Is. 7:14, it does not say the angel quoted this passage to Joseph in the dream, but possibly Joseph read it on his own. The fact is, Joseph kept Mary a virgin initially so that the Scripture would be fulfilled. Afterwards, Joseph being a righteous man and knowing the great work that God had done through Mary, kept her a virgin always. Just something to think about, if the Savior of the world was conceived in your wife (without having intercourse) through the power of the Holy Spirit, would you not at least consider respecting her virginity from that point on?

 

[Randy_Carson]

I recently read that this text indicates that Mary did not remain a virgin after the birth of Christ.

Can anyone help me here?

Matthew 1:25: Until she brought forth her firstborn son

The Catholic Church teaches that Mary remained a perpetual virgin and that Jesus did not have any brothers and sisters. Many non-Catholics doubt these claims, and they frequently cite Matthew 1:25 in support of their views that Mary and Joseph had normal sexual relations after they were married and that Jesus was only the first of many children that resulted from their union. Let’s examine this important verse more closely using two popular Protestant translations.

24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. (KJV)

24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife.25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus. (NIV)

“Until”

In verse 25, the Greek heôs, “until,” does not necessarily contrast “before” to “after.” It means that up to a certain moment, something happened or not, without considering what happened after that moment. For example, the Greek text of the Septuagint says, in 2 Samuel 6:23, that “Mikal, daughter of Saul, had no children until (heôs) the days of her death.” This obviously does not suggest that she had children after her death. Matthew is interested in underlining that Jesus’ birth and conception were carried out without the intervention of any man.

Remove the word “until” from the verse, and you have the following:

“Joseph had no relations with her…she brought forth her firstborn”

Two simple statements. Protestants really disagree with the first of these two; therefore, the word “until” is the whole argument. Either Joseph held off “until” and then proceeded to have relations (the Protestant position) OR Joseph had no relations with her. Period. (the Catholic position).

Naturally, Protestants argue for a simple reading of the text, but Catholics counter that “until” doesn’t actually imply the cessation of past action (namely, holding off). Although things look intuitively obvious for the Protestant point of view, in actual fact, the Catholic position is not harmed at all by the word “until” because that word implies nothing…and other verses in scripture PROVE that point.

Genesis 8:7
The raven “did not return TILL the waters were dried up…”
Did the raven ever return?

Deuteronomy 34:6 (Knox)
No one knew the location of his grave “until this present day”
But we know that no one has known it since that day either.

Luke 1:80
“And the child grew and became strong in spirit; and he lived in the desert until he appeared publicly to Israel.” The Greek word translated “until” in this passage is heos, the same word used in Matthew 1:25. The child spoken of is John the Baptist who also lived in the desert after he appeared in public (cf. Matt. 3:1, Mark 1:3,4; Luke 3:2).

1 Timothy 6:14
“…that you keep this commandment without spot, blameless UNTIL our Lord Jesus Christ’s appearing…”
May this commandment be disobeyed after Jesus returns?

Because “until” does not require a cessation of activity, Matthew 1:25 cannot be used to disprove the perpetual virginity of Mary.

“Firstborn”

Many non-Catholics assume that Mary had a second child because Jesus is referred to as her “firstborn son”. However, “firstborn” is merely a term applied to the first child that “opened the womb”. The term does not imply a “secondborn”. In ancient times, a woman who only had one child during the course of her lifetime still called that child the “firstborn”. Scripture also supports this understanding:

Numbers 3:40
And the LORD said unto Moses, Number all the firstborn of the males of the children of Israel from a month old and upward, and take the number of their names.

Note here that a child as young as one month old was called the “firstborn”. Given the length of the human gestation period, it is not possible for a month old infant to have a younger sibling. Thus, we see clearly that “firstborn” was a technical term that did not prove that additional children had been born.

 

[Mousey]

Two dozen times Matthew uses the Greek word for “until” (heos) in his Gospel to mean that once an event ends, so does the activity.

Heos which doe means till or until. The problem most people have is they do not use a dictionary meaning but make up there own. Your definition of what Matthew meant is an opinion not a real definition. Until only means up to the moment without indicating anything after

In fact 100% of the time in his Gospel he uses it this way.

Not fact but your opinion what is fact is that 100% of the time it means up to the moment.

So, to believe that Matthew is using it in 1:25 to refer to Mary’s virginity to continue after the birth of Jesus is arguing by exception.

Not an exception at all if the common definition is used.

Plus, this belief is forced into the text, which if it were true, Matthew wouldn’t have needed to add “until she gave birth to a son.”

opinion

All Matthew would have had to say is “Joseph kept her [Mary a virgin]”…period. Also, in the OT, when Isaiah prophecies about the mother of the future Messiah, he explicitly states in 7:14 that she would be a virgin DURING her pregnancy & AT His birth. But Isaiah says nothing about the future mother of the Messiah “remaining” a virgin after His birth.

Argument from silence is a fallacy.

This is why Matthew writes “until she gave birth to a son” which implies completion of the event & activity of being a virgin.

Opinion not based on the word which only means up to a certain time.

Plus, there is no command from God (or an angel or anyone else) in Scripture for the mother of the Messiah to “remain” a virgin her entire life. And with no command from God or anyone else for her to “remain” a virgin, there would be no reason for Mary to refrain from having sexual relations with her husband Joseph (which is what Scripture calls him), nor violate God’s command to married couples to “be fruitful & multiply” (Genesis Ch.1).

When a guard accidently put their hands on the ark of the covenant he were struck dead. What man would dare to approach where God had been?

So, when Mary tells Gabriel “I know not man,” all she’s declaring is that she’s a virgin, because she has not had sexual relations with a man…up to that point, since she was in the non-sexual period of betrothal to Joseph that lasted a year. “Know not man” is in the Present Indicative Active form, just as when John the Baptist “saw Jesus coming.” John didn’t “perpetually” “see” Jesus - meaning John didn’t continually keep his eyes on Jesus forever, since John was placed in prison out of sight of Jesus. Also, using 2 Samuel 6:23 to use “until” to mean an ongoing action (or inaction) doesn’t work, because 2 Samuel was originally written in Hebrew. Matthew was written in Greek, & only the original language Scripture was written in are Inspired, not the translations, because translations can be translated differently, even in English translated Catholic & Protestant Bibles.

Really a married woman would say I am a virgin when told she was to have a baby without mentioning anything about Joseph. Not Joseph and I aren’t living together yet or Praise God Joseph and I will have a baby? Strange answer for a married woman who we know was just waiting for her husband to come and take her into his home.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Again, “I’m” not the one doing the “assuming” - you are. You are the “adding” to God’s Word, because God’s Word doesn’t support your “assumption,” which is why you have to rely on much LATER extra-biblical sources & falsely authored “gospels,” like Proto-James.

Nope.

You cannot prove that Mary had other children; therefore, you continue to insist that “until” implies cessation of prior activity (in this case, chastity). IOW, for your position to hold, Mary and Joseph had to STOP being chaste and START having sex.

But you cannot *prove *this. You can only assert your beliefs.

Scriptures do not mention anyone being a son or daughter of Mary; only a “brother” or “sister” of Jesus. You already know that “brother” and “sister” do not have to mean uterine siblings. Consequently, you can argue for your position, but you cannot PROVE it.

Further, you can type till the cows come home regarding Matthew 1:25 and “firstborn” or “until”, but after all is said and done, you have not PROVED with 100% absolute certainty that Mary had sex with Joseph because the phrase “heos hou” does not imply cessation.

John Pacheco destroyed this argument years ago here:

Heos Hou and the Protestant Polemic
By John Pacheco
catholic-legate.com/Apologetics/MaryAndTheSaints/HeosHouPolemic/HeosHouAndProtestantPolemic.aspx

The Catholic Legate has at least a half dozen or more lengthy articles related to this matter which was a REALLY BIG DEAL when Eric Svendsen was making lots of anti-Catholic noise about it back in the day. Since Pacheco’s work was published, knowledgeable anti-Catholics have quietly let the matter drop.

Hear me well:

Knowledgeable anti-Catholics have quietly let this pathetic argument drop.

I hope ALL do so. Soon.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

Jn. 19:27 - On the cross, Jesus entrusted Mary to John where Jewish custom demands He entrust her to a blood relative of Mary first. Yet we absolutely know John was not a son of Mary. This is because Mary had no other children.