A
adrift
Guest
I am wondering if in your bible study they said that whether she had other children was uncertain? Because the Church has declared and I am quite certain that she did not.
- Status
K
kkollwitz
Guest
N.T. untils that don’t seem to imply a change:
He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now.
Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:
And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.
And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: 21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
But the Jews did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind, and received his sight, until they called the parents of him that had received his sight. (they still continued to disbelieve.)
And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied **until **John.
He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now.
Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:
And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.
And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: 21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
But the Jews did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind, and received his sight, until they called the parents of him that had received his sight. (they still continued to disbelieve.)
And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied **until **John.
A
Alen
Guest
Unless I’m mistaken, I believe the ‘possibility’ to consider is in the bible, and the circumstances were described in tonight’s gospel reading. I don’t know the pros and cons of this, but it seems unresolved. (Of course, most Catholics are understandably loathe to talk about the how, when, and where of Mary, the Blessed Mother’s virginity or possible normal married life.) On the one hand, I’ve heard the adjective of “Mary, ever-virgin” spoken, but… in the bible it says something like: ‘Mary did not have normal marital relations until after the virgin birth,’ and also Jesus is called (in at least 2 places) ‘the brother of James’ (and someone else, I believe). The latter possibility is not outrageous, as Joseph would by the Law have marital rights: he may have in chastity declined them (it is possible, though not understood by many), or he may not have (and a wife, under the Law, could not refuse). But these two things are inconsistent, and ought to be authoritatively elaborated on. Was the ‘ever-virgin’ a pious adjective (Edited) Or, probably, was the latter (quoted in tonight’s reading) the case? (Edited)
P
philv
Guest
The deacon (assuming I heard him right) said there’s 3 things the church bases her ever-virginity so they declared it as such, and one had to do with the culture’s impurity rule of having another child with a second man, even though Joseph was technically her first husband (prior was the holy spirit). Considering she was still respected at the the time of Christ’s death, chances are she remained pure. That’s only one reason of three. I forget the other two he mentioned of why the church declared her as ever-virgin. It’s expected culture-wise that she would remain pure.
Saying she could now have relations with Joseph is just Matthew’s way of saying she was conceived by the holy spirit prior. It doesn’t means she had other children or had relations. It could, but in a traditional sense in cultural rules to stay pure she wouldn’t have had relations. In today’s world, in contrast, and at least in the USA, we wouldn’t call a woman impure if they had another child with another man. If one did understand Mary’s culture, we would say - knowing her - she would have stayed pure and devoted her life to her son.
G
Gorgias
Guest
heos is the conjunction; the subordinate clause (“until she bore a son”) acts adverbially, modifying the verb “he did not know”, since it answers the question “when?”. So, from a grammatical perspective, the phrase “until she bore a son” only modifies Matthew’s claim that Joseph had no carnal knowledge of Mary. It doesn’t make any claim about what happened after the Nativity; it only makes a claim about the time leading up to Jesus’ birth.
See Boyer’s Adverbial Clauses: Statistical Studies, (Grace Theological Journal, 1991), especially pp 88-90. He states, with respect to the use of the conjunction heos, “[t]he basic meaning seems to refer to a period of time up to a designated point.”
A
Alen
Guest
Some of this is ok, but you’re brushing off the fact (mentioned at least twice in the gospels, and at least once in the epistles) that Jesus had at least one half-brother, James.
A
Alen
Guest
The above was a commentary on ‘Philv’ post, not ‘Gorgias.’ -Alen
G
gntlmnr
Guest
(Edited)
If you do not consider the Catholic Church an authority on the subject, then who are you going to consider as an authority? Would you consider Martin Luther an authority, but he still considered Mary a perpetual virgin. Would you consider John Calvin an authority, but he still considered Mary a perpetual virgin. Would you consider Ulrich Zwingli an authority, but he still considered Mary a perpetual virgin. Would you consider the Anglican Church an authority, (Edited) but the Anglicans still consider Mary a perpetual virgin. Would you consider the Eastern Orthodox Churches an authority (Edited), but they still consider Mary a perpetual virgin.
Please tell me if all the above do not have enough authority for you. (Edited)
A
Alen
Guest
Exactly the kind of answer which doesn’t help. You’re preaching to the choir, and no, it’s not enough for me: your answer lacks the ‘authority’ I was asking for, as it’s just a ‘come to the defense of Mary, and the church.’ Also, your righteousness overlooked that I was just asking for an elaboration. I was not issuing a challenge. Also, you did not address the issue of the biblical references to ‘the brother of Jesus.’ Your controlled outburst achieved little, but probably got approval from other like-minded readers. Is anyone out there a bona fide authority of the church, who can dispassionately answer my questions? (No?)
N
nmgauss
Guest
In all four of these quotes only a son is mentioned. Why don’t they say first born child?
The first born could have been a daughter.
Also, since the term “first born” is used, there is implication that there is a second born. Otherwise I should think that “single child” would be a better term, since there is no hint of a second child in the future. Of course translation from the original Greek could have led to uncertainties similar to use of the word “parthenos”.
Also, it implies that Mary had no relations with Joseph, but no mention is given of relations with another man. Isn’t it possible that Mary had a child by another man before Joseph came into the picture? She may even have been married before.
G
gntlmnr
Guest
What kind of authority do you have to tell me that all the authorities I mentioned above lack the authority?
These issues have been discussed an endless number of times. If you’re not convinced by now, I seriously doubt that you are going to be convinced; besides, if you’re not satisfied with the authority of the Catholic Church, you have the complete freedom to go elsewhere. I am sure you’re not waiting for me to tell you that, but it just makes me wonder why you continue to claim that you are Catholic. It makes just as much sense for me to claim that I am a communist then turn around and attack communism.
G
gntlmnr
Guest
Yes, if we really want to speculate on what kind of possibilities there are out there, we can come up with an endless number of theories; but we really need to make a determination and decide whether scripture has any weight in our approach to the subject or not. According to the scripture angel Gabriel made his announcement to Mary that she was going to conceive from the Holy Spirit after she was betrothed to Joseph and not before. If this is not acceptable evidence to us, then we really should look no further into the Christian faith, because nothing else is going to be more convincing to us.
As far as the usage of the terminology “first-born”, again that does not necessarily mean that there has has to be a second-born. Please examine (Hebrews 1:6) ‘And again, when he leads the first-born into the world, he says: “Let all the angels of God worship him.”’ Here Saint Paul is referring to Jesus as the first-born of God the Father. I certainly hope that God the Father does not have a second-born.
G
Gorgias
Guest
No, actually it doesn’t. The term ‘first-born son’ (out of place in the Douay-Rheims), is a reference to a facet of Mosaic law. Take a look at Luke 2:23 – ‘first-born son’ is actually a rendering of ‘the son who opens the womb’; it speaks to the fact that this is Mary’s first child (so, sorry – your conjecture that this might not even have been Mary’s first child doesn’t make sense!), and that her first child was a son. This was important in the context of the Mosaic covenant – see Exodus 13:2, where God tells Moses, “Consecrate to me every firstborn; whatever opens the womb among the Israelites, whether of human being or beast, belongs to me.” And again, in Exodus 13:12-15, we see:
“you will dedicate to the LORD every newborn that opens the womb; and every firstborn male of your animals will belong to the LORD. Every firstborn of a donkey you will ransom with a sheep. If you do not ransom it, you will break its neck. Every human firstborn of your sons you must ransom. And when your son asks you later on, ‘What does this mean?’ you will tell him, ‘With a strong hand the LORD brought us out of Egypt, out of a house of slavery. When Pharaoh stubbornly refused to let us go, the LORD killed every firstborn in the land of Egypt, the firstborn of human being and beast alike. That is why I sacrifice to the LORD every male that opens the womb, and why I ransom every firstborn of my sons.’”
So, when in the NT we see that Jesus was Mary’s “first-born son”, this does not imply that there was a second-born! (Actually, it’s a pretty bad conjecture on its own – isn’t it true that every family that has only one child has a ‘first-born’ child?) Rather, this establishes that Jesus was a “son who opened the womb” of his mother, and therefore, was dedicated to God, and had to be ransomed with a ritual sacrifice.
It’s really important to understand the culture of 1st century Jews, if you hope to understand what’s going on in the New Testament. Otherwise, if you approach the Gospels as if they’d been written in 21st century America, you’re going to make a number of bad assumptions.
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
Another place where 21st century assumptions are being imported. If Mary had had a previous child, she would have been disowned by her family, cast out from society, and very likely put to death. (Indeed, this would have happened to her if Joseph had not been betrothed to her when she conceived Jesus). If she had had a previous marriage, she would not have been allowed to remarry.
Also, I believe Mary was 14 or so. Not exactly much time there for a previous marriage and pregnancy!
D
David_Zampino
Guest
(Edited)
I don’t know how you would define “authority” on this subject; I have Master’s Degrees in both Historical and Systematic Theology; the requisite hours for another in Biblical Theology; and the requisite hours for my PhD.
The belief in the Perpetual Virginity was codified in writing as early as the first part of the the 2nd century. Typically, something was not codified in writing before it had already circulated as an oral tradition.
Here’s what we know:
Item: The Church has always believed in the Perpetual Virginity – East and West.
Item: Two theories have been put forward (again by the early Church). The first is that the “brothers” of Jesus were, in fact, cousins. The Greek is unclear on this point, and there are certainly cultural indications that this was – and remains in some cultures – a viable answer. The second is that Joseph was much older, and that the “brothers” were half-brothers. This is the view expressed in the “Protevangelium Jacobi”, dated mid-2nd century. (I’ve written a graduate-level paper on it; I do know what I’m talking about!)
Item: If Jesus had biological brothers, they would have been responsible for Mary and Jesus would not have had to entrust her care to John.
Item: The Perpetual Virginity was assumed as a given in the Profession of Faith at the 7th Ecumenical Council, meaning that the mind of the Church on this matter was already determined – and had been determined.
Item: The Perpetual Virginity was accepted by all the major reformers at the time of the reformation.
Is this sufficient?(Edited)
C
Church_Militant
Guest
No it doesn’t, any more that the same phrase would mean that David’s wife Michael was barren until she died…and then had children.
G
gntlmnr
Guest
Hallelujah!!!It’s really important to understand the culture of 1st century Jews, if you hope to understand what’s going on in the New Testament. Otherwise, if you approach the Gospels as if they’d been written in 21st century America, you’re going to make a number of bad assumptions.
G
gntlmnr
Guest
Alen certainly doesn’t come across like a person who is sincerely looking for answers; and the fact that he brought up the “Inquisition” in a place that’s completely out of context demonstrates his ulterior motive. This is usually an intimidation tactic that’s generally used to stifle the conversation and suppress freedom of speech.
If Alen is sincerely looking for answers, let’s wish him luck, and let him pray that the Holy Spirit may lead him in the right direction.
D
David_Zampino
Guest
I am in full agreement with you. I also note that he has not responded to my post!
G
gus
Guest
Of all the arguments against the perpetual virginity of Mary this argument is perpetually ridicules. You would have to be extremely ignorant of the English language to even bring this up. I’m embarrassed for the OP .
- Status