Mt. 1:25 No Relations Until She Bore a Son?

[wbarquez]

Rather than try and explain myself again in an area outside the topic, I will just say “Thanks for the admission that Joseph and Mary could have had normal relations” (I realize that, as a Catholic, this is not an easy thing to admit). Just a quick comment on scripture vs tradition - Scripture is readily available to anyone to look to for verification of what is being taught. Paul indicated that all the Thessolonians had heard the “traditions” he was referring to. If the Church has never made a declaration like “St. Paul spoke these words …”, how can I know that the “sacred tradition” the Church is passing on is really sacred tradition and not a tradition of men? To put it another way, we know there are textual variants in the written word; what assurance do we have that the spoken word hasn’t been even more corrupted?

I would not have any problem with that simply because sex is a beautiful gift of God to humanity. However, there are higher reasons for not having marital relations.

How can I know that the “sacred tradition” the Church is passing on is really sacred tradition and not a tradition of men? You cannot know it or have an assurance of it if you are separated from the Church.

 

[MarkInOregon]

I will look into this, however (as I mentioned before), even if heos hou isn’t different from the simple heos, you still haven’t disproven the other points. Joseph and Mary DID have normal, marital relations!

Maybe you do so later in this thread–but in what way have you proven that they “Did have normal, marital relations”? All you have done thus far is state your belief that the word “till” or “until” tells us what happened after she gave birth–and that is hardly proof. Indeed you have seen a logical opinion that it only tells us what occured up to the time of her giving birth. The Bible seems to be silent about afterwards. And doesnt this make sense? I think the Biblical authors (inspired by the Holy Spirit) were only interested in showing that Jesus was born of a virgin.

Peace in Christ
Mark

 

[MarkInOregon]

Don’t get it confused my friend. Unfortunately, what you believe or have been taught may or not be true. So you believe that Jesus left us no way to know the truth?
And I imagine you are think the same of “Protestants” and honestly, regardless of the church I attend, which is just a building where believers are, the true church are the people, the body, I am first and foremost a “Christian” a follower of Christ. If you can’t know that what you believe is the truth how can you truly follow Christ? or even know that you are following Christ and not some corruption?
Now that that is out of the way, the Holy Spirit is not lying to anyone, I would agree but then I am not claiming every Tom, Dick and Harry reading the Bible is getting their guidance from the Holy Spirit. The question is how do you expain all the people claiming inspiration from the Holy Spirit who interpret the same passage of scripture differently–they can’t all be right. How do you know who to follow? How do you know who is right? Don’t you care? Isn’t that important?
For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. Doesn’t this sound like what most “Christians” do today? Haven’t we seen protestant churches/demoninations one by one capitulate to secular society and change their moral teaching? Don’t we see “Christians” church shopping to find a church that teaches in conformity with their beliefs? Shouldn’t it be the other way around–shouldn’t a Christian seek first the truth and then once the truth is found and no matter how hard it is–attempt to conform their life to the truth–even in the face of persecution and scorn and ridicule? Isn’ that what we are called to?

Also, in 1 Corinth 1:19-21, For it is written:
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”[c]
Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.
But aren’t most “Christians” today substituting their personal wisdom and the wisdom of the world for what was the traditional teachings of the Christian churches for the first 1900 years. Divorce is ok now in most, contraception – ok today and the list goes on. We see more and more Churches adopting secular wisdom and corrupting Christian morality.

But I believe that the Bible is God’s word and that it absolutely does not contradict it self. When I talk about the Word being infallible, I mean there are no contradictions. Throughout the entire conversation about this topic, where are your scriptures to prove that I or Chaconga are wrong???Why do you believe the Bible is the Word of God? On who’s authority? You do know where you got Sacred Scripture from don’t you? In a nut shell you got the Bible from the Catholic Church. "The Church existed before the Bible; she selected its books, and she preserved it. She handed it down. Through her we know what is the word of God, and what is the word of man; and hence to try at this time of day, as many do, to overthrow the Church by means of this very Bible, and to put it above the Church and to revile her for destroying and corrupting it–what is that but to strike the mother that reared them; to curse the hand that fed them; to turn against their best friend and benefactor and to repay with ingratitude and slander the very guide and protector who has led them to drink of the water out of the Savior’s fountains…What follows from this is self-evident. The same authority which made and collected and preserved these books, alone has the right to claim them as her own and to say what the meaning of them is…she and she alone can tell us what the meaning of it is…Therefore I say that for people to step in, 1500 years after the Catholic Church had had pocession of the Bible, and to pretend that it is theirs, and that they alone know what the meaning of it is, and that the scriptures alone, without the voice of the Catholic Church explaining them, are intended by God to be the guide and rule of faith–this is an absurd and groundless claim. Only those who are ignorant of the true history of the Sacred Scriptures–their orgin and authorship and preservation–could pretend that there is any logic or common sense in such a mode of acting. (Where we Got the Bible by Rev Henry G Graham)

And when you talk about authority, yes, maybe, it depends on who you or anyone else puts above Jesus. But yes, that very well could be a whole different discussion. Come on now be honest–we do not put anything ahead of Jesus and it is dishonest to imply or insinuate that we do. Jesus founded the Catholic Church and promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. The authority of the Church comes from Jesus and the Church is the bride of Christ and worships Jesus and Jesus gave the Church the Holy Spirit to protect its teaching and guide it to all truth. That is why the Churches teachings are unchanging.
Many today put their personal interpretation of Scripture and their personal beliefs above everything and that is why so many other Churches have changed their moral teachings.

The Peace of Christ
Mark

 

[MarkInOregon]

Just a quick comment on scripture vs tradition - Scripture is readily available to anyone to look to for verification of what is being taught. Paul indicated that all the Thessolonians had heard the “traditions” he was referring to. If the Church has never made a declaration like “St. Paul spoke these words …”, how can I know that the “sacred tradition” the Church is passing on is really sacred tradition and not a tradition of men? To put it another way, we know there are textual variants in the written word; what assurance do we have that the spoken word hasn’t been even more corrupted?

The Bible you have (though probably in an abbreviated/incomplete form) is a Sacred Tradition of the Church. Without the authority of the Church you would have no Bible. “Under the guidance of the Holy Ghost the Council declared ‘this is genuine, that this is false’; ‘this is Apostolic, this is not Apostolic’. She sifted, weighed, discussed, selected, rejected and finally decided what was what. Here she rejected a writing that was once very popular and reckoned by many as inspired and was actually read as scripture at public service; there again she accepted another that was very much disputed and viewed with suspicion, and said; ‘This is to go into the New Testament’. She had her evidence before her; she had Tradition to help her; and above all she had the assistance of the Holy Spirit, to enable her to come to a right conclusion on so momentous a matter. And in fact, her conclusion was received by all Christendom until the sixteenth century, when as we shall see, men arose rebelling against her decision and altering the Sacred Volume…” (Where we Got the Bible by Rev Henry G Graham)

I find it ironic that you take one Sacred Tradition of the Church and use it but totally dismiss all other Sacred Tradition. Your assurance that Sacred Tradition is really Sacred Tradition is the same assurance that you have that the Bible is really the inspired Word of God–the authority of the Catholic Church–founded by Jesus Christ who proclaimed that the gates of hell would not prevail against it and who sent the Holy Spirit to protect its teaching and guide it to all truth. I don’t see how you can accept the Bible and dismiss the rest of Sacred Tradition. If the Holy Spirit is not guiding and protecting the Church always–as promised by Christ–how can you be sure it guided the Church to correctly identify the inspired books of the Bible?

The Peace of Christ
Mark

 

[steve_b]

Rather than try and explain myself again in an area outside the topic, I will just say “Thanks for the admission that Joseph and Mary could have had normal relations” (I realize that, as a Catholic, this is not an easy thing to admit).

until doesn’t mean anything changed between Mary and Joseph

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5507219&postcount=42
c:

Just a quick comment on scripture vs tradition - Scripture is readily available to anyone to look to for verification of what is being taught. Paul indicated that all the Thessolonians had heard the “traditions” he was referring to. If the Church has never made a declaration like “St. Paul spoke these words …”, how can I know that the “sacred tradition” the Church is passing on is really sacred tradition and not a tradition of men?

Taking your points

• The Catholic Church is NOT a tradition of men. Jesus established the Catholic Church and put Peter as the chief shepherd.[Mt 16:16…], [Jn 21:20…]
• The Catholic Church is the pillar and foundation of truth [1 Tim 3:15]. Not you.
• You divided from the Church of Rome. The one Paul wrote to. He clearly condemed division. He said watch out for those who do it. They don’t serve Our Lord but themselves and their own appetites. He says they do evil stay away from them.[Rm 16:17-20]

How evil is divisionto Paul and what are the consequences for the individual who divides?

• Paul warns, “multiple times” If one divides and continues to live divided from the Church, and won’t return to unity, they won’t inherit heaven. [Gal 5:19-21]

That’s what Paul taught in scripture. That’s what sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church teaches continuously from the 1st century.
C:

To put it another way, we know there are textual variants in the written word; what assurance do we have that the spoken word hasn’t been even more corrupted?

The written word was written in, by, and for the Catholic Church. Therefore, the Catholic Church decides on the assurances of interpretation, just as she decided and gives assurance to what books made it into the canon of scripture.

 

[steve_b]

Rather than try and explain myself again in an area outside the topic, I will just say “Thanks for the admission that Joseph and Mary could have had normal relations” (I realize that, as a Catholic, this is not an easy thing to admit).

I think wbarquez was saying something different. Regardless, until doesn’t mean anything changed between Mary and Joseph After Jesus was born

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5507219&postcount=42

 

[Canto]

Joining in here a bit late but here are some answers to some common questions I often get asked and some answers I often give in relation the the perpetual virginty of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

The brothers of Christ
Literally the Greek could mean they were kids of Jospeh from a prior marriage, or vise-versa Mary, or that they were both of Mary and Joseph. Thus such verses do not definitivley prove Mary had other blood children.

John 19:27 Behold your mother
If Jesus had younger brothers under the law the next oldest would have taken care of Mary.

John 7:3 His ‘brothers’ give him advice
It was unthinkable at the time for younger brothers to give the older one advice.

Luke 2:42 when he was twelve years old they went to Jerusalem
No mention of his ‘brothers,’ why the wait to get pregnant again if it was so natural for Mary and Joseph to have sex?

Psalm 69:8 the sons of my mother
In verse 5 the same speaker talks of his foolishness and wrongs, so cleary this is not Jesus and so the woman isn’t Mary.

Luke 1:42 the mother of my Lord
The Word [who is God] was made flesh says St John, born of the Virgin. If your wife carried God in her womb, would you have sex with her?

There is no mention of Mary giving birth to anyone else in the written or oral tradition we are commanded to stand fast and hold onto (2 Thes 2:15).

Luke 2:7 her firstborn son
A legal term with no implcation of other children.

Matt 1:25 He knew her not heos hou she brought forth her son
If this proves they later had sex then it would cause all sorts of problems

2 Samuel 6:23: Michal the daughter of Saul had no child heos hou the day of her death.

Did she have a child afterwards?

Psalm 72:7 In his days may the righteous flourish, And abundance of peace heos hou the moon is no more.

When the moon is no more will peace no longer be in abundance?

Mt 18:34 And his lord being angry, delivered him to the torturers heou hou he paid all the debt.

Was he able to pay the debt while with the torturers?

Mt 26:36 Then Jesus came with them into a country place which is called Gethsemani. And he said to his disciples: Sit you here heos hou I go yonder and pray.

Once he went yonder did they then leave?

Lk 24:49 And I send the promise of my Father upon you: but stay you in the city till you be clothed with power from on high.

Once they were clothed did they leave right away?

2 Peter 1:19 And we have the more firm prophetical word: whereunto you do well to attend, as to a light that shineth in a dark place, heos hou the day dawn and the day star arise in your hearts.

When the day star arises will we no longer need to attend?

 

[hansard]

Interesting thread, which seems to be based around:

1. The validity or otherwise of tradition where scripture is silent;
2. The translation and context of the words “brother” and “until”
3. The veracity or otherwise of the “perpetual virginity” dogma.

It’s unlikely, on such an open yet Catholic-oriented website, that there’ll be anything other than disagreement.

My own view, which has been expressed numerous times on the forum, is that it does not matter one bit whether or not Mary was perpetually a virgin. Had she engaged in marital sex (after Jesus’ birth), it would not alter anything to do with Jesus; it would not necessarily mean that she had other children; it would not alter her status in the Church (which I have problems with, but… the less said, the better) and would, perhaps, even make her more representative, or something, of the typical woman.

 

[Cachonga]

Canto:

The brothers of Christ
Literally the Greek could mean they were kids of Jospeh from a prior marriage, or vise-versa Mary, or that they were both of Mary and Joseph. Thus such verses do not definitivley prove Mary had other blood children.

They could not have been Josephs children from a prior marriage. The reason is simple - Joseph’s first born male child is the lawful heir to the Throne of David, and that is Jesus (there have been exceptions, but I believe Jesus has a claim that is irrefutable, and that cannot be the case if Joseph had other children from a previous marriage).

Canto:

John 19:27 Behold your mother
If Jesus had younger brothers under the law the next oldest would have taken care of Mary.

The siblings of Jesus were not at the crucifixion, and Jesus had a covenant relationship with John, so there is no problem with Him giving John charge of His mother, or of her accepting it, even if she had other children (you may want to do a study on covenants).

Canto:

John 7:3 His ‘brothers’ give him advice
It was unthinkable at the time for younger brothers to give the older one advice.

I would really like ot see some documentation to back up this claim. Where did you get this information?

Canto:

Luke 2:42 when he was twelve years old they went to JerusalemNo mention of his ‘brothers,’ why the wait to get pregnant again if it was so natural for Mary and Joseph to have sex?

This could be a good study (how did family and friends travel in large groups in Israel during the reign of the Herods). I won’t speculate on how they traveled, but I will point out the obvious, and that is - not every sexual encounter results in pregnancy. God has His time for everything.

Canto:

Psalm 69:8 the sons of my mother
In verse 5 the same speaker talks of his foolishness and wrongs, so cleary this is not Jesus and so the woman isn’t Mary.

Except that verse 9 DOES apply to Jesus (it is the verse the Disciples thought of when He cast the moneychangers out of the Temple), so why couldn’t this refer to Mary?

Canto:

Luke 1:42 the mother of my Lord
The Word [who is God] was made flesh says St John, born of the Virgin. If your wife carried God in her womb, would you have sex with her?

Unless God specifically told me not to - yes. I notice when the Angel informs Joseph that Mary is pregnant through the power of the Holy Spirit, he does not instruct Joseph to keep her a virgin her entire life.

Canto:

Luke 2:7 her firstborn son
A legal term with no implcation of other children.

Not an argument I would make anyway. I knew an only child who was the firstborn of his mother.

Canto:

Matt 1:25 He knew her not heos hou she brought forth her son
If this proves they later had sex then it would cause all sorts of problems

I think there is enough evidence that Joseph and Mary did have normal marital relations without getting into this (BTW - 2 Sam 6:23 in the LXX only uses heos, not heos hou).

hansard:

My own view, which has been expressed numerous times on the forum, is that it does not matter one bit whether or not Mary was perpetually a virgin. Had she engaged in marital sex (after Jesus’ birth), it would not alter anything to do with Jesus; it would not necessarily mean that she had other children; it would not alter her status in the Church (which I have problems with, but… the less said, the better) and would, perhaps, even make her more representative, or something, of the typical woman.

I agree it shouldn’t matter. Unfortunately, as I have pointed out before, the Church has this little thing called the Anathema which is pronounced against anyone who does not believe these dogmas. While I am under any anathema of the Church, I cannot be in right standing with the Church (fortunately, I am in right standing with my Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ!).

 

[steve_b]

Interesting thread, which seems to be based around:

1. The validity or otherwise of tradition where scripture is silent;
2. The translation and context of the words “brother” and “until”
3. The veracity or otherwise of the “perpetual virginity” dogma.

It’s unlikely, on such an open yet Catholic-oriented website, that there’ll be anything other than disagreement.

My own view, which has been expressed numerous times on the forum, is that it does not matter one bit whether or not Mary was perpetually a virgin.

It obviously mattered to the apostolic faith.

han:

Had she engaged in marital sex (after Jesus’ birth), it would not alter anything to do with Jesus; it would not necessarily mean that she had other children; it would not alter her status in the Church (which I have problems with, but… the less said, the better) and would, perhaps, even make her more representative, or something, of the typical woman.

Jerome responds to Helvidius about just such notions you hold.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.vi.v.html Jerome’s response to Helvidius. All commentary and footnotes are shaffe’s who is a Protestant.

Here are other defenses of the teaching

http://www.totustuus.com/virgin.htm

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0007sbs.asp

http://www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm

http://www.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=102

 

[steve_b]

I think there is enough evidence that Joseph and Mary did have normal marital relations without getting into this (BTW - 2 Sam 6:23 in the LXX only uses heos, not heos hou).

English equivalent
heos = until
heõs hou = “until which”, “until which time”, or “until such time as”.

IOW, adding hou to heõs doesn’t change heõs in the context we’re speaking of. until Jesus is born, or until which time Jesus is born, or until such time as Jesus is born, doesn’t change “until” and it does NOT mean absolutely, a change in Mary and Joseph’s status occurs, after Jesus is born.

From previous posts

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…9&postcount=42

I gave the following to hansard

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.vi.v.html Jerome’s response to Helvidius. All commentary and footnotes are shaffe’s who is a Protestant.

http://www.totustuus.com/virgin.htm

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0007sbs.asp

http://www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm

http://www.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=102

 

[Cachonga]

steve b:

IOW, adding hou to heõs doesn’t change heõs in the context we’re speaking of. until Jesus is born, or until which time Jesus is born, or until such time as Jesus is born, doesn’t change “until” and it does NOT mean absolutely, a change in Mary and Joseph’s status occurs, after Jesus is born.

I wasn’t arguing for or against heos huo. I was pointing out that I find plenty of evidence to support the idea that Joseph and Mary had normal marital relations AFTER Jesus was born. I also pointed out that Canto had used an incorrect reference to heos hou (2 Sam 6:23 does not have the word hou in the LXX), and so it was an invalid example for him to use.

In regard to your suggested reading list, I have seen these before, but remain unconvinced. Now if the Angel had told Joseph to keep Mary a virgin forever, then I would agree that she was a perpetual virgin (though I would still doubt that she maintained her virginal integrity during and after the birth of Jesus). But since the Angel never said any such thing to Joseph, then I see no reason to believe that Joseph and Mary didn’t have normal marital relations.

 

[banjo]

My own view, which has been expressed numerous times on the forum, is that it does not matter one bit whether or not Mary was perpetually a virgin.

Hello hansard,
Here is part of what the Lateran Council (649-653) wrote about Mary’s virginity in Canon 3. “If anyone does not properly and truly confess in accord with the holy Fathers, that the holy Mother of God and ever Virgin and immaculate Mary…etc.” The Sources of Catholic Dogma DE 256.

 

[David_Zampino]

Cachonga,

You keep referring to a “covenant relationship” between Jesus and John, and keep claiming that you have studied “covenant relationships” and that perhaps all the rest of us should – and that if we did, we would “understand” Jesus’ words to John on the cross.

I’m going to call your bluff.

What do YOU know about covenant relationships in Scripture?
.
What are YOUR credentials?

How can YOU defend your position here?

I HAVE studied covenant relationships – and have taught on the same. I have taught Scripture on both the lay and the University level. I’m a former Protestant clergyman who has accepted the truth of the Faith Once Delivered to the Saints.

And I think that you’re blowing smoke. I think that you’re blind in your hatred of Catholicism, to the extent that you pick and pick and pick, using half-formed unoriginal arguments to try to attack what you have rejected.

I think that you know what you’re doing, and that you’re doing it directly. (For other readers who may not understand what I am saying, I would ask that you view Cachonga’s posts on other threads.)

May the LORD rebuke you. The state of your soul is in my prayers – and has been for some time.

 

[steve_b]

I wasn’t arguing for or against heos huo. I was pointing out that I find plenty of evidence to support the idea that Joseph and Mary had normal marital relations AFTER Jesus was born.

Plenty of Evidence?

Please just put the evidence in bullet points…with references
C:

I also pointed out that Canto had used an incorrect reference to heos hou (2 Sam 6:23 does not have the word hou in the LXX), and so it was an invalid example for him to use.

Since hou doesn’t change the meaning of heos, the example used, is fine.
c:

Now if the Angel had told Joseph to keep Mary a virgin forever, then I would agree that she was a perpetual virgin

That argument goes both ways. The virgin Mary could have said she and Joseph had relations AFTER Jesus was born. But she didn’t say anything. Nor did Joseph say anything, nor did anyone else in scripture say they had relations, and that she was no longer a virgin. Angels didn’t say anything, nor did the HS say Mary and Joseph had relations.
c:

I see no reason to believe that Joseph and Mary didn’t have normal marital relations.

You’re merely choosing what to believe and not believe from source(s) that suit you. The common denominator of your source(s) is they contradict the Church.

 

[Canto]

They could not have been Josephs children from a prior marriage. The reason is simple - Joseph’s first born male child is the lawful heir to the Throne of David, and that is Jesus (there have been exceptions, but I believe Jesus has a claim that is irrefutable, and that cannot be the case if Joseph had other children from a previous marriage).

While I don’t believe it to be the case in this instance adelphos and the feminine form do allow for such a thing…

In Jn 19:25 we read that Mary is at the cross with her sister also called Mary. Now unless Mary’s parents had two daughters whom they both called Mary, a little strange, it would seem Mary of Cleophas (Clopas) is her sister-in-law or cousin and not her blood sister.

Using James and Joseph (Joses) as an example… Mary, the wife of Clopas is also the mother of James and Joseph. However, both men are described as the “brothers” (adelphoi) of Jesus in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3. How can this be? If Mary the wife of Clopas is the cousin (adelphe) *[or sister in law] *of Mary the mother of Jesus, and she is also the mother of James and Joseph, then clearly these men are not Jesus’ biological brothers. Rather, they are His cousins. In other words, in Matthew 13:55 adelphoi is being used in the Aramaic idiom (“cousins”) rather than its literal Greek meaning (“brothers”). In addition, because James and Joseph are grouped with Jesus’ other “brothers and sisters” in Matthew 13 and Mark 6, we can logically conclude that these other brothers and sisters are Jesus’ cousins [or kinsmen] too.laywitness.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=27

The siblings of Jesus were not at the crucifixion, and Jesus had a covenant relationship with John, so there is no problem with Him giving John charge of His mother, or of her accepting it, even if she had other children (you may want to do a study on covenants).

Have you a Bible verse for this, not heared of it before sorry, or having a mind-blank. The oldest child had to take care of Mary under the law.

I would really like ot see some documentation to back up this claim. Where did you get this information?

Catholic apolgetic sites are the source In Jewish tradition and near eastern socities, the younger brothers would not give advice to an elder brother

This could be a good study (how did family and friends travel in large groups in Israel during the reign of the Herods). I won’t speculate on how they traveled, but I will point out the obvious, and that is - not every sexual encounter results in pregnancy. God has His time for everything.

If Mary had other kids, wouldn’t they have gone to Jerusalem. No mention of them, not even in passing. If she had children later, why wait 12+ years.

Except that verse 9 DOES apply to Jesus (it is the verse the Disciples thought of when He cast the moneychangers out of the Temple), so why couldn’t this refer to Mary?

The man who says ‘the sons of my mother’ earlier says that God knows his wrongs and follys. So if the mother is Mary than the man must be Jesus - but what wrongs and follys did Jesus have?

Unless God specifically told me not to - yes. I notice when the Angel informs Joseph that Mary is pregnant through the power of the Holy Spirit, he does not instruct Joseph to keep her a virgin her entire life.

Perhpas Joseph was already aware of her vow

Not an argument I would make anyway. I knew an only child who was the firstborn of his mother.

Cool! But some sadly do use this argument.

I think there is enough evidence that Joseph and Mary did have normal marital relations without getting into this (BTW - 2 Sam 6:23 in the LXX only uses heos, not heos hou).

Well I disagree of course. I had read 2 Sam does say heos hou, but either way the other verses make my point. Out of intrest I believe the Vaticanus manuscript at Matt 1:25 simply says heos.

I agree it shouldn’t matter. Unfortunately, as I have pointed out before, the Church has this little thing called the Anathema which is pronounced against anyone who does not believe these dogmas. While I am under any anathema of the Church, I cannot be in right standing with the Church (fortunately, I am in right standing with my Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ!).

The Church views the perpetual virginity of Mary as the part of God’s word (2 Thes 2:14) so of course she is going to safeguard it.

Why does it does matter. catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=6956&CFID=4859796&CFTOKEN=36084250

Every doctrine about Mary tells us something about Christ or something about ourselves or the Church. Mary’s perpetual virginity demonstrates her purity of heart and total love for God. In 388, St. Ambrose of Milan wrote that Mary’s virginity was “so great an example of material virtue” because it demonstrated her total devotion to Jesus. In Mary, we see an example of the purity our own hearts must have in total dedication to God. Her virginity also tells us something about the Church, which, like Mary, is both mother to the faithful and “pure bride to her one husband” (2 Cor. 11:2)

 

[Cachonga]

David Zampino:

What do YOU know about covenant relationships in Scripture?
.
What are YOUR credentials?

How can YOU defend your position here?

While this is not the topic of this thread, I will give a brief response. First, it should be noted that covenants were not entered into lightly. It is a serious matter, even if entered into under false pretense. An example of this would be when Joshua led Israel into the promised land. The Gibeonites were on Israel’s “hit list”, and were scared. They came up with an idea – make a treaty with Israel. They disguised their ambassadors to make it appear they had traveled a long distance, and they managed to trick Israel into making a covenant with them. Even when Israel discovered the deception, they did not break the covenant (Joshua 9). When David was king Israel had a famine. David enquired of the Lord and found that it was because Saul had tried to wipe them out (2 Sam 21:1-7). David and Jonathan had entered into a covenant (this was not a homosexual relationship! 1 Sam 18:3-4). Because of this covenant, Jonathan defied his father and protected David. Because of this covenant, David sought out Jonathan’s son after he became king and made him as one of his own sons (2 Sam 9:1-11). Jesus made it clear that He had a covenant relationship with “whosoever shall do the will of my Father” (Matt 12:46-50, Mark 3:31-35), and His mother and brothers were present when He said this. At the very latest, Jesus confirmed this covenant when He breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit” (John 20:22). Just as David made a covenant with Jonathan, so to Jesus entered into a covenant with John (and the other Apostles); thereby becoming closer than brothers. Because of this, there was no problem with Him giving John charge of His mother, even if He had sibling brothers.

As far as my qualifications, I have been reading and studying the Bible for well over 30 years. I served as an Associate Pastor and Youth Minister in my old church for 7 years. I listen and learn from others, always checking what is taught against the Scriptures to be sure I am not being taught something false, and I have been known to change my opinion when confronted with Scriptural evidence. As covenants are not the topic of this thread, I don’t believe we should continue this here, however, I would like to continue this by PM.

steve b, I’ve already answered these questions.

Canto, I think the fact that your source (catholicculture.org/cultu…TOKEN=36084250) relies heavily on a spurious work from about the middle of the 2nd century, is very telling of where some of the Church doctrines originate.

Overall, I’m beginning to feel like we’re going in circles here, and not much (if anything) is being accomplished. I have laid out my case, made my position clear, and given my sources. With that in mind, I will end my participation in this thread.

Pax!

 

[NotWorthy]

Canto, I think the fact that your source (catholicculture.org/cultu…TOKEN=36084250) relies heavily on a spurious work from about the middle of the 2nd century, is very telling of where some of the Church doctrines originate.

I’ve asked this before and I don’t recall an answer. What do you define as spurious? I assume you’re talking about the Proto-Evangelium of James. Although its not inspired work, that doesn’t make it false. From what I’ve always heard, the Proto (of James) drew its work from the prevailing Christian tradition. It didn’t dictate new tradition, but drew on what was already there.

Is there any proof otherwise?

 

[David_Zampino]

I’ve asked this before and I don’t recall an answer. What do you define as spurious? I assume you’re talking about the Proto-Evangelium of James. Although its not inspired work, that doesn’t make it false. From what I’ve always heard, the Proto (of James) drew its work from the prevailing Christian tradition. It didn’t dictate new tradition, but drew on what was already there.

Is there any proof otherwise?

There is a difference between “spurious” material and sub-New Testament non-canonical material.

Cachonga should know that.

The Proto-Evangelium of James is an example of a sub-New Testament non-canonical work of piety. It was recognized as such by the Early Church. The canonization status of sub-New Testament works of piety were debated by the Church for a couple of centuries, prior to their rejection as canon (NOT rejected for their worth).

Spurious material would include the Gnostic “gospels”, etc. A different category of text entirely.

Sub-New Testament non-canonical material can teach us quite a bit about what the Early Church taught and believed. They are Christian documents.

Spurious material came from heretical sects, and are not Christian documents.

It is historically and factually inaccurate to confuse or to conflate the two different genres of material.

 

[NotWorthy]

Sub-New Testament non-canonical material can teach us quite a bit about what the Early Church taught and believed. They are Christian documents.

Spurious material came from heretical sects, and are not Christian documents.

It is historically and factually inaccurate to confuse or to conflate the two different genres of material.

I know that. You know that. I’m just wondering if Cachonga knows that. And if he does, then where is he getting his information that the Proto is spurious. Although I’m only slightly familiar with the work, I don’t know of anyone claiming that it is false.