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

[banjo]

…always checking what is taught against the Scriptures to be sure I am not being taught something false

It puzzles me when people make the Bible their sole source of information about God and salvation, making themselves its trusted interpreter and ignoring, it seems, the fact that Christ established a visible, teaching Church which they can’t recognize or which they believe, in spite of the fact that Christ Himself founded it, somehow disappeared or became corrupted.
Without an accepted authority one is forced into a place of fractionalization where, as Martin Luther put it, “There are as many opinions as there are heads.”

 

[David_Zampino]

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.

Cachonga should know the difference between Christian sub-canonical material and spurious writings by heretics.

Even secular scholars know the difference.

The deliberate and repeated use of an historically and factually incorrect term is, I believe, disingenuous. And that’s unfortunate.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

I think Cachonga has already bowed out of this thread…a pity since there is no biblical “evidence” that Mary and Joseph had sexual relations and all of the references to alleged “brothers” and “sisters” can be explained convincingly.

However, for those interested in studying the issue of heos hou, the Protestant argument (advanced by Eric Svendsen and James White) in the early 90’s was thoroughly demolished by John Pacheco, and his work may be found here:

catholic-legate.com/articles/heosindex.html

The key article is: “Heõs Hou and the Protestant Polemic”, and I encourage all to read it.

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.

The angel was not obligated to tell Joseph something that he already knew. Mary had taken a vow of celibacy, and Joseph married her to protect her virginity.

It comes as no surprise that your believe that Mary lost her virginity as a result of giving birth. This reveals the continuation of the “protesting” that your forebears began for you are not in agreement with the teaching of the so-called reformers on this matter.

Early Protestants on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

Martin Luther (1483-1546)****

“Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb…This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.”

“Christ…was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him…I am inclined to agree with those who declare that ‘brothers’ really mean ‘cousins’ here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.”

“A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ…Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity.”

“Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity…When Matthew says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her…This babble…is without justification…he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.”

John Calvin (1509-1564)****

“Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s ‘brothers’ are sometimes mentioned.”

“The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband…No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words…as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called ‘first-born’; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin…What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us…No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.”

“Under the word ‘brethren’ the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity.”

Huldreich Zwingli (1484-1531)****

“I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonourable, impious, unworthy or evil…I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity.”

“I speak of this in the holy Church of Zurich and in all my writings: I recognize MARY AS EVER VIRGIN AND HOLY.” (January 1528 in Berne)

Heinrich Bullinger (1504-1575)****

“The Virgin Mary…completely sanctified by the grace and blood of her only Son and abundantly endowed by the gift of the Holy Spirit and preferred to all…now lives happily with Christ in heaven and is called and remains ever-Virgin and Mother of God.”

John Wesley (1703-1791)****

“I believe…he [Jesus Christ] was born of the blessed Virgin, who, as well after as she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.”

 

[Peter_Dawson]

I think Cachonga has already bowed out of this thread…a pity since there is no biblical “evidence” that Mary and Joseph had sexual relations and all of the references to alleged “brothers” and “sisters” can be explained convincingly.

However, for those interested in studying the issue of heos hou, the Protestant argument (advanced by Eric Svendsen and James White) in the early 90’s was thoroughly demolished by John Pacheco, and his work may be found here:

catholic-legate.com/articles/heosindex.html

The key article is: “Heõs Hou and the Protestant Polemic”, and I encourage all to read it.

The angel was not obligated to tell Joseph something that he already knew. Mary had taken a vow of celibacy, and Joseph married her to protect her virginity.

It comes as no surprise that your believe that Mary lost her virginity as a result of giving birth. This reveals the continuation of the “protesting” that your forebears began for you are not in agreement with the teaching of the so-called reformers on this matter.

Early Protestants on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

Martin Luther (1483-1546)****

“Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb…This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.”

“Christ…was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him…I am inclined to agree with those who declare that ‘brothers’ really mean ‘cousins’ here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.”

“A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ…Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity.”

“Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity…When Matthew says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her…This babble…is without justification…he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.”

John Calvin (1509-1564)****

“Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s ‘brothers’ are sometimes mentioned.”

“The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband…No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words…as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called ‘first-born’; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin…What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us…No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.”

“Under the word ‘brethren’ the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity.”

Huldreich Zwingli (1484-1531)****

“I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonourable, impious, unworthy or evil…I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity.”

“I speak of this in the holy Church of Zurich and in all my writings: I recognize MARY AS EVER VIRGIN AND HOLY.” (January 1528 in Berne)

Heinrich Bullinger (1504-1575)****

“The Virgin Mary…completely sanctified by the grace and blood of her only Son and abundantly endowed by the gift of the Holy Spirit and preferred to all…now lives happily with Christ in heaven and is called and remains ever-Virgin and Mother of God.”

John Wesley (1703-1791)****

“I believe…he [Jesus Christ] was born of the blessed Virgin, who, as well after as she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.”

Good work here, Randy.

 

[David_Zampino]

Good work here, Randy.

I had presented links to much of this material to Cachonga some pages past – and was utterly blown off. Unless Cachonga PERSONALLY could find it in Scripture (self-interpretation, of course) Cachonga was not interested.

 

[NotWorthy]

Cachonga should know the difference between Christian sub-canonical material and spurious writings by heretics.

Even secular scholars know the difference.

The deliberate and repeated use of an historically and factually incorrect term is, I believe, disingenuous. And that’s unfortunate.

I’m sorry, but I would prefer to give Cachonga the benefit of the doubt and assume that he has proof for making the claim that the ProtoEvangelium of James is false and spurious.

 

[steve_b]

I’m sorry, but I would prefer to give Cachonga the benefit of the doubt

Cachonga said (a few posts up the page)

:

Originally Posted by Cachonga forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif

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.

to which I asked

:
Plenty of Evidence?

Please just put the evidence in bullet points…with references

to which he responded

:
steve b, I’ve already answered these questions.

Which by the way he didn’t provide any evidence at all. And THAT’S the point. NO evidence was given, and I asked for the evidence. Does such evidence exist? Then present it!!! And as you can see from his last post, he’s left the forum. Just when he was asked to present his proof…

Give him the benefit of the doubt? No way.

I like president Reagan’s motto. He said this to Gorby… Trust but verify

It got an immediate laugh from Gorby. And Gorby knew to his bones the wisdom of Reagan’s statement.

 

[David_Zampino]

I tend to agree with Steve here.

When the questions started getting tough, all Cachonga had was his opinion. And “this is my opinion” is nothing more than that – an opinion. Not a cogent argument. He had no desire to consider a Patristic argument – or, for that matter, even an argument from a Protestant Reformer.

Only his own “personal interpretation”. When that could not be sustained – he disappeared.

 

[jamil_joseph02]

Am I too late for the discussion?

Did Joseph and Mary had sex , which is a normal relation between husband and wife?

Matthew’s context about 1:25 is clear, Joseph ‘knew’ Mary after Jesus was born.

Matthew proves in this writing:

1. That Christ was miraculously conceived, not by the will of man or from a man’s seed but from above.
2. That Joseph was an honorable and humble man
3. That he accepted Mary even though she bears not a child of her own, and so she would not be put to shame by the community
4. That he took Mary as his wife, and had sexual relations with her after Christ was born. Note the emphasis on the word ‘until’ ]

18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit; 19 and her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to send her away quietly. 20 But as he considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit; 21 she will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” 22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: 23 “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son,
and his name shall be called Emmanuel” (which means, God with us). 24 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took his wife, 25 but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus.

Catholic Biblical Association (Great Britian). (1997, c1994). The Holy Bible : Revised Standard Version, Catholic edition, translated from the original tongues, being the version set forth A.D. 1611, Old and New Testament revised A.D. 1881-1885 and A.D. 1901 (Apocrypha revised A.D. 1894), compared with the most ancient authories and revised A.D. 1952 (Apocrypha revised A.D. 1957) (Mt 1:18). New York: National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA.

" 25 καὶ οὐκ ἐγίνωσκεν αὐτὴν ἕως οὗ] ἔτεκεν υἱόν, lit. “and he did not know her until she had given birth to a son,” i.e. Joseph did not have sexual relations with Mary before the son was born. Matthew records this obviously as a guarantee that Jesus was virgin born. It is most natural to assume that the verse implies that after the birth of Jesus, Joseph and Mary had sexual relations as did any other husband and wife; Brown is surely correct that the later question of Mary’s perpetual virginity is very far from Matthew’s mind."
lit. literally

i.e. id est, that is

Hagner, D. A. (2002). Vol. 33A: Word Biblical Commentary : Matthew 1-13. Word Biblical Commentary (21). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

καὶ οὐκ ἐγίνωσκεν αὐτὴν ἕως οὗ] ἔτεκεν υἱόν
if i would translate it “…and he knew her not until…”

this would imply sexual relations as this phrase is typically Greek Hebraism…

in Hebrew the sexual relations is literally translated as “knowing” of a person (i.e. carnal or flesh knowledge).

ἐγίνωσκεν is also third person aorist or simple past tense implying that the action did happen.

… so yeah… it simply says… they had sexual relations, but only after her son was born (ἕως ἔτεκεν υἱόν)…

how do I refute this two statements? They are the statements raised by Protestants of whom I’m having a dialogue with. I’ve seen that the thread is related to our topic so I guess I don’t need to start a new thread, I’ll just post here.

So what’s the Church’s stand on that one?

 

[NotWorthy]

Am I too late for the discussion?

how do I refute this two statements? They are the statements raised by Protestants of whom I’m having a dialogue with. I’ve seen that the thread is related to our topic so I guess I don’t need to start a new thread, I’ll just post here.

So what’s the Church’s stand on that one?

Where do your friends get that “until” means that they had sex after the birth of Jesus? “Until” is silent after the event mentioned. No implication, no hint, no nothing.

 

[Randy_Carson]

So what’s the Church’s stand on that one?

catholic-legate.com/articles/heosindex.html

The key article is: “Heõs Hou and the Protestant Polemic”, and I encourage all to read it.

 

[Canto]

how do I refute this two statements? They are the statements raised by Protestants of whom I’m having a dialogue with. I’ve seen that the thread is related to our topic so I guess I don’t need to start a new thread, I’ll just post here.

So what’s the Church’s stand on that one?

Before they came together…
Took to him his wife…

This means that they started living together not that they started having sex. There is no implication of sex in the Greek.

He knew her not unitl…

Knew her means sex but Matthew adds the word not, but what about until? Reading the NASB you’d think once Christ was born Mary and Joseph had sex

but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son;

In the Greek however until (heos hou) deals with the time up to the birth of Christ but not after. Matthew is simply restating that Joseph played no role in the conception of Jesus hence his earlier quote of Isaiah 7:14.

Here are some examples I posted earlier…

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 heos 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? Hint: they stayed and fell asleep

Lk 24:49 And I send the promise of my Father upon you: but stay you in the city heos hou 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?

 

[LakeFever]

While I agree with Cachonga about a lot in this thread, (and I know that puts me in the minority) I wouldn’t definitively say either that Mary was or was not a perpetual virgin. I do agree that the belief is certainly not found in the scriptures, and as such I cannot accept it. To a Lutheran, it isn’t a major concern because we do not believe in the immaculate conception of Mary. I don’t think that is a slanderous thing to say, or disrespectful, or blasphemous. I know it is a touchy subject to Catholics because of the high regard for Mary; but the high regard for Mary is something we never really understood. The Bible does teach that she and Joseph clearly were pious, devout believers and excellent examples for us. So exemplary were they, that they were chosen by God to oversee His very Son. But I don’t think the immaculate conception is grounded in Scripture. To me, it isn’t very important to me what Mary did or didn’t do. It doesn’t seem to be very important to the Apostles, either, as they mention her only in relation to Jesus. She isn’t my Savior.

In Matthew 1:25 does it imply she had children after? Maybe, maybe not; there’s no conclusive evidence either way. Are the brothers mentioned blood-related? Maybe, maybe not. However, why doesn’t Jesus use the opportunity to praise his Mother when given the golden opportunity of being informed that his mother and brothers are here? Why didn’t the Holy Spirit inspire any of the Gospel writers to mention Mary’s immaculate conception, if it was to become such an important point of ‘doctrine’ within the church?
Lastly, why did this tradition to pray to Mary arise? Jesus instructs in Matthew 6 how we are to pray, directly to the Father. Furthermore, he says to not, ‘keep on babbling,’ or maybe more accurately, ‘to use the same words over and over again’ (as the heathens do).

Anyway, the answer I usually get for this question (which once more places reason above what Scripture says) is it follows logically that Mary had to be perfect for Jesus to be perfect. Wouldn’t Mary’s mother have had to be perfect, then? And if not, if God made Mary perfect, why couldn’t he have simply made Jesus perfect? Is the Lord’s arm too short?

I also don’t think it’s fair to say Cachonga left because he doesn’t have ground to stand on. He’s basically going 1 against all on this forum, as I am, and that’s not easy to do. He posted at least twice as much as anyone else did, and I don’t think I’m willing to go that long

Good discussion though, and very interesting topic

 

[NotWorthy]

While I agree with Cachonga about a lot in this thread, (and I know that puts me in the minority) I wouldn’t definitively say either that Mary was or was not a perpetual virgin. I do agree that the belief is certainly not found in the scriptures, and as such I cannot accept it. To a Lutheran, it isn’t a major concern because we do not believe in the immaculate conception of Mary. I don’t think that is a slanderous thing to say, or disrespectful, or blasphemous. I know it is a touchy subject to Catholics because of the high regard for Mary; but the high regard for Mary is something we never really understood.

I think as a Lutheran, nobody can fault you for that. We can argue who is right (hence, the thread), but your believing it will be a part of a bigger conversion, in my opinion.

The Bible does teach that she and Joseph clearly were pious, devout believers and excellent examples for us. So exemplary were they, that they were chosen by God to oversee His very Son. But I don’t think the immaculate conception is grounded in Scripture. To me, it isn’t very important to me what Mary did or didn’t do. It doesn’t seem to be very important to the Apostles, either, as they mention her only in relation to Jesus. She isn’t my Savior.

In Matthew 1:25 does it imply she had children after? Maybe, maybe not; there’s no conclusive evidence either way. Are the brothers mentioned blood-related? Maybe, maybe not. However, why doesn’t Jesus use the opportunity to praise his Mother when given the golden opportunity of being informed that his mother and brothers are here? Why didn’t the Holy Spirit inspire any of the Gospel writers to mention Mary’s immaculate conception, if it was to become such an important point of ‘doctrine’ within the church?
Lastly, why did this tradition to pray to Mary arise? Jesus instructs in Matthew 6 how we are to pray, directly to the Father. Furthermore, he says to not, ‘keep on babbling,’ or maybe more accurately, ‘to use the same words over and over again’ (as the heathens do).

Two things. Jesus is showing that “what we do” makes us who we are in the eyes of God. It’s not “who we are related to”. Children of God are Children of God because of our Faith, not because we happen to be Jewish, or from Sour Lake, or what-not.

Your question about “praying to Mary” and “babbling over and over again” implies that you don’t understand the Rosary. First of all, the “babbling over and over” was chastised by Jesus not for the "over and over’, but for the “trying to impress others”. Jesus repeated the same prayer 3 times “over and over” at Gethsemane. The 3 Jews in Daniel (chapter 3) who were thrown into the furnace; they repeated the prayer, “…bless the Lord; praise and exalt him above all forever” over 40 times!!! Were they babbling? No, Jesus is trying to teach us that our prayers are directed by what’s in our hearts.

The Rosary, rather than “praying to Mary” is a contemplative prayer on the Life of Jesus.

Anyway, the answer I usually get for this question (which once more places reason above what Scripture says) is it follows logically that Mary had to be perfect for Jesus to be perfect. Wouldn’t Mary’s mother have had to be perfect, then? And if not, if God made Mary perfect, why couldn’t he have simply made Jesus perfect? Is the Lord’s arm too short?

I’m going to answer the Mary’s mother has to be perfect by copying a post made earlier today by another poster on another thread. But I think its appropriate.

Well, and I am shooting from the hip here, if Mary is the new Ark then SHE had to be clean, not the ground the metal was mined, not the tree the wood was taken from, etc. Just the VESSEL needed to be clean, not the entire line of things which made the vessel. Kind of like the sacred vessels used in the Temple services required sanctity, but the mines the gold was taken from were not sacred. The one stipulation was that nothing which was used to prepare these vessels had ever been profaned through idol worship, worship of false gods, or used for any profane (ordinary) purpose.

Again, just shooting from the hip.

FSC

I also don’t think it’s fair to say Cachonga left because he doesn’t have ground to stand on. He’s basically going 1 against all on this forum, as I am, and that’s not easy to do. He posted at least twice as much as anyone else did, and I don’t think I’m willing to go that long

Good discussion though, and very interesting topic

I agree. Cachonga is, for the most part, very easy to talk to and open with his answers.

 

[Canto]

I do agree that the belief is certainly not found in the scriptures, and as such I cannot accept it.

1 Thess 2:15

c.f. also Samuel and Luke and you might find the Mary is the ark of the New Covenant. Would God’s ark not be immaculate?

To me, it isn’t very important to me what Mary did or didn’t do. It doesn’t seem to be very important to the Apostles, either, as they mention her only in relation to Jesus. She isn’t my Savior.

-So if Mary didn’t birth Jesus?
-The Apostles don’t mention lots of things like how many books should be in the Bible
-She may not be your Saviour but she did watch her son be brutally killed for you and me.

why doesn’t Jesus use the opportunity to praise his Mother when given the golden opportunity of being informed that his mother and brothers are here?

-He does essentially.
-This reading is actually used as a reading for one of the Marian feasts from memory!
-Those who hear the word of God and keep it, those who do God’s will are the brothers of Christ
-Mary heard the word of God and kept it and did his will
-Mary is blessed for being Jesus’ mother, but she is more blessed for hearing his word and keeping it and doing God’s will

Why didn’t the Holy Spirit inspire any of the Gospel writers to mention Mary’s immaculate conception, if it was to become such an important point of ‘doctrine’ within the church?

If the Bible was to become our sole rule of faith, why didn’t the Holy Spirit inspire the contents page to the Bible? Nowhere in the Bible does it say how many books there should be? 73? 66? It doesn’t say.

Lastly, why did this tradition to pray to Mary arise? Jesus instructs in Matthew 6 how we are to pray, directly to the Father.

-So do you pray only to the Father and not Jesus?
-Intercession is seen throughout the OT and NT
-St Paul asks Christians to interceede
-God is not a God of the dead but of the living
-People in heaven are alive
-The Sub Tuum Praesidium prayer to Mary dates to at least the 3rd century
-There are references to the saints on the early tombs and in the writings of the fathers

Furthermore, he says to not, ‘keep on babbling,’ or maybe more accurately, ‘to use the same words over and over again’ (as the heathens do).

-repetition or vain repetition?
-Jesus prayed the same prayer 3 times in the garden before he was arrested
-The anglels pray “holy, holy, holy” day and night without ceasing according to the book of Revelation
-Psalm 136 tells us ‘his mercy endures forever’ a zillion times
-four chapter litany in Job 38-41

Anyway, the answer I usually get for this question (which once more places reason above what Scripture says) is it follows logically that Mary had to be perfect for Jesus to be perfect. Wouldn’t Mary’s mother have had to be perfect, then? And if not, if God made Mary perfect, why couldn’t he have simply made Jesus perfect? Is the Lord’s arm too short?

It was fitting that Mary be immaculate

 

[inkaneer]

While I agree with Cachonga about a lot in this thread, (and I know that puts me in the minority) I wouldn’t definitively say either that Mary was or was not a perpetual virgin. I do agree that the belief is certainly not found in the scriptures, and as such I cannot accept it. To a Lutheran, it isn’t a major concern because we do not believe in the immaculate conception of Mary. I don’t think that is a slanderous thing to say, or disrespectful, or blasphemous. I know it is a touchy subject to Catholics because of the high regard for Mary; but the high regard for Mary is something we never really understood. The Bible does teach that she and Joseph clearly were pious, devout believers and excellent examples for us. So exemplary were they, that they were chosen by God to oversee His very Son. But I don’t think the immaculate conception is grounded in Scripture. To me, it isn’t very important to me what Mary did or didn’t do. It doesn’t seem to be very important to the Apostles, either, as they mention her only in relation to Jesus. She isn’t my Savior.

In Matthew 1:25 does it imply she had children after? Maybe, maybe not; there’s no conclusive evidence either way. Are the brothers mentioned blood-related? Maybe, maybe not. However, why doesn’t Jesus use the opportunity to praise his Mother when given the golden opportunity of being informed that his mother and brothers are here? Why didn’t the Holy Spirit inspire any of the Gospel writers to mention Mary’s immaculate conception, if it was to become such an important point of ‘doctrine’ within the church?
Lastly, why did this tradition to pray to Mary arise? Jesus instructs in Matthew 6 how we are to pray, directly to the Father. Furthermore, he says to not, ‘keep on babbling,’ or maybe more accurately, ‘to use the same words over and over again’ (as the heathens do).

Anyway, the answer I usually get for this question (which once more places reason above what Scripture says) is it follows logically that Mary had to be perfect for Jesus to be perfect. Wouldn’t Mary’s mother have had to be perfect, then? And if not, if God made Mary perfect, why couldn’t he have simply made Jesus perfect? Is the Lord’s arm too short?

I also don’t think it’s fair to say Cachonga left because he doesn’t have ground to stand on. He’s basically going 1 against all on this forum, as I am, and that’s not easy to do. He posted at least twice as much as anyone else did, and I don’t think I’m willing to go that long

Good discussion though, and very interesting topic

So what you are saying is that Mary’s perpetual Virginity is irrelevant to Lutherans. In doing so are you aware of the implications of that position in other areas of faith? For instance at the cross when Jesus gives Mary to John. This isn’t some little ‘human interest’ tidbit thrown in just in case someone would ask the question, ''What happened to his mother?" The Holy Spirit inspired John to include that in the gospel for a definite reason. It is up to us to ask, what is it? Here is where sola scriptura not only fails but falls flat on its face. It is why protestantism is devoid of the mystery of faith. And by mystery I do not mean it in the terms of “who dunit” murder mystery.

Allow me to quote you. You said:

“Anyway, the answer I usually get for this question (which once more places reason above what Scripture says) is it follows logically that Mary had to be perfect for Jesus to be perfect. Wouldn’t Mary’s mother have had to be perfect, then? And if not, if God made Mary perfect, why couldn’t he have simply made Jesus perfect? Is the Lord’s arm too short?”

No it does not follow logically because it is a miracle and miracles cannot be explained logically. We call this miracle the Incarnation and that word means a lot more than the simplistic protestant response of “the word made flesh.” It is God’s plan of salvation and that includes Mary as the Mother of God. And I will say also that Scripture does say Mary was perfect. But protestants don’t interpret scripture the way the early church did. In fact they don’t interpret scripture the way Luther did either. That is why protestants are left to grope and feel their way along constantly interpreting and reinterpreting the scriptures. Compare what Luther said about Mary and what Lutherans today say. Are they the same? Today’s Lutheran would claim that Luther was too Catholic. That is the result of constantly reinterpreting scripture. There is an almost built in requirement that with each interpretation some change be made or else its the same old stuff. Here are some quotes from Luther on Mary. First her perpetual virginity:

“He, Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb…This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.” (Sermons on John, chapters 1-4, 1537-39).

Then Luther on Mary’s Immaculate Conception:

“It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary’s soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God’s gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin” (Sermon: “On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God,” 1527).

Bear in mind, this was over 300 years before the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was declaed and Luther nailed it perfectly. Yet how many Lutherans today would agree with him?

 

[mangy_dog]

Matthew 1:25 has me confused. I believe that there will be an explanation, but I need help finding it.

In comparing four different versions, they all indicate that Joseph had no relations with Mary until she bore a son. This implies to me that he did after. Below is the verse in the translations I used:

Douay-Rheims
And he knew her not till she brought forth her first born son: and he called his name Jesus.
New American Bible
He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus.
Revised Standard Version
but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus.
New International Version
But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
Does anyone have a good explanation for this?

You are recieving the wrong [implication],

That passage is a clear attempt by the Gospel writer to indicate to the reader that the Conception and Birth of Jesus Christ was miraculous, it was of God and that no man had any part in it.
It does not imply that Saint Joseph was waiting in the bedroom to … I can’t even type the rest of it.

Saint Joseph knew his mission in the Holy Family. He knew about the divinity of Jesus and the divine maternity of Mary.

Please don’t bother to answer this reply. I’m not interested in the seared consciences of carnal speculators.

 

[inkaneer]

Matthew 1:25 has me confused. I believe that there will be an explanation, but I need help finding it.

In comparing four different versions, they all indicate that Joseph had no relations with Mary until she bore a son. This implies to me that he did after. Below is the verse in the translations I used:

Douay-Rheims
And he knew her not till she brought forth her first born son: and he called his name Jesus.
New American Bible
He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus.
Revised Standard Version
but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus.
New International Version
But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
Does anyone have a good explanation for this?

Because you are interpreting the gospel account incorrectly. But the early church, who were more attuned to the first century nuances and meanings saw it differently. When Mary replies to the angel and repeats herself to Elizabeth calling herself “the handmaid of the Lord”. What does that mean to you? Do you know what a handmaid is? Do you know what a handmaid is in first century parlance? I don’t think so or else you would have a different position on Mt 1:25. So here it is. A handmaid is a servant who is dedicated to serving one individual be they a woman or a man. In first century times handmaids were usually slaves. But be they slaves or free the handmaid was dedicated to serving one individual. So when Mary says she is the handmaid of the Lord she is saying she is dedicated to the Lord God. Now if she told this to the angel and she told this to her relative Elizabeth I would think she would tell this to Joseph too. The scriptures call Joseph a just man, some versions say a good man, some say an upright man. The idea is that Joseph is an law observing Jew. So what does a law abiding Jew do with something dedicated to God. Would the OT story of what happened to Uzzah in 2 Samuel 6:6 who touched the Ark of the Covenant to keep it from falling and was struck down for his efforts come to mind? For Jews the connection is indeed logical.

In addition, the early church writers often wrote of Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant for just as the Ark of the Old Covenant held the word of God [the stone tablets], the bread from Heaven [the manna] and the symbol of the priesthood of Aaron [Aaron’s staff] so too did Mary hold Jesus, the word of God, the bread from heaven and the eternal high priest. And notice that her cousin Elizabeth when she sees Mary says the same thing as did David when He saw the Ark. Elizabeth says, “43 And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” [Luke 1:43] while David says, “…How can the ark of the LORD come to me?” [2 Samuel 6:9] When the OT ark was completed, the glory cloud of the Lord (the Shekinah Glory) covered the tent of meeting, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle (Ex. 40:34-35; Num. 9:18, 22). The verb for “to cover” or “to overshadow” and the metaphor of a cloud are used in the Bible to represent the presence and glory of God. In the NT the angel tells Mary that She would be "overshadowed by the Holy Spirit. There are other parallels too:

•Mary arose and went to the hill country of Judea. Ein Kerem (where Elizabeth lived) and Abu Ghosh (where the ark resided) are only a short walk apart. Mary and the ark were both on a journey to the same hill country of Judea.

•When David saw the ark he rejoiced and said, “How can the ark of the Lord come to me?” Elizabeth uses almost the same words: “Why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” Luke is telling us something — drawing our minds back to the Old Testament, showing us a parallel.

•When David approached the ark he shouted out and danced and leapt in front of the ark. He was wearing an ephod, the clothing of a priest. When Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant, approached Elizabeth, John the Baptist leapt in his mother’s womb — and John was from the priestly line of Aaron. Both leapt and danced in the presence of the ark. The Ark of the Old Covenant remained in the house of Obed-edom for three months, and Mary remained in the house of Elizabeth for three months. The place that housed the ark for three months was blessed, and in the short paragraph in Luke, Elizabeth uses the word blessed three times. Her home was certainly blessed by the presence of the ark and the Lord within.

•When the Old Testament ark arrived — as when Mary arrived — they were both greeted with shouts of joy. The word for the cry of Elizabeth’s greeting is a rare Greek word used in connection with Old Testament liturgical ceremonies that were centered around the ark and worship (cf. Word Biblical Commentary, 67). This word would flip on the light switch for any knowledgeable Jew.

•The ark returns to its home and ends up in Jerusalem, where God’s presence and glory is revealed in the temple (2 Sam. 6:12; 1 Kgs. 8:9-11). Mary returns home and eventually ends up in Jerusalem, where she presents God incarnate in the temple (Luke 1:56; 2:21-22). See: catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=6811&CFID=49422153&CFTOKEN=44863211

All of this was not lost on the early church who clearly understood Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant.

 

[Randy_Carson]

While I agree with Cachonga about a lot in this thread, (and I know that puts me in the minority) I wouldn’t definitively say either that Mary was or was not a perpetual virgin. I do agree that the belief is certainly not found in the scriptures, and as such I cannot accept it. To a Lutheran, it isn’t a major concern because we do not believe in the immaculate conception of Mary. I don’t think that is a slanderous thing to say, or disrespectful, or blasphemous. I know it is a touchy subject to Catholics because of the high regard for Mary; but the high regard for Mary is something we never really understood. The Bible does teach that she and Joseph clearly were pious, devout believers and excellent examples for us. So exemplary were they, that they were chosen by God to oversee His very Son. But I don’t think the immaculate conception is grounded in Scripture. To me, it isn’t very important to me what Mary did or didn’t do. It doesn’t seem to be very important to the Apostles, either, as they mention her only in relation to Jesus. She isn’t my Savior.

In Matthew 1:25 does it imply she had children after? Maybe, maybe not; there’s no conclusive evidence either way. Are the brothers mentioned blood-related? Maybe, maybe not. However, why doesn’t Jesus use the opportunity to praise his Mother when given the golden opportunity of being informed that his mother and brothers are here? Why didn’t the Holy Spirit inspire any of the Gospel writers to mention Mary’s immaculate conception, if it was to become such an important point of ‘doctrine’ within the church?
Lastly, why did this tradition to pray to Mary arise? Jesus instructs in Matthew 6 how we are to pray, directly to the Father. Furthermore, he says to not, ‘keep on babbling,’ or maybe more accurately, ‘to use the same words over and over again’ (as the heathens do).

Anyway, the answer I usually get for this question (which once more places reason above what Scripture says) is it follows logically that Mary had to be perfect for Jesus to be perfect. Wouldn’t Mary’s mother have had to be perfect, then? And if not, if God made Mary perfect, why couldn’t he have simply made Jesus perfect? Is the Lord’s arm too short?

I also don’t think it’s fair to say Cachonga left because he doesn’t have ground to stand on. He’s basically going 1 against all on this forum, as I am, and that’s not easy to do. He posted at least twice as much as anyone else did, and I don’t think I’m willing to go that long

Good discussion though, and very interesting topic

FWIW, this thread was a year old when it was revived.

 

[Canto]

1 Thess 2:15

That should be 2 Thes 2:15. Sorry for the typo.