Perpetual Virginity alluded to at Annunciation

[repo_man]

What would the word “until” a time limiting word be doing in the passage if Mary remained a virgin after Jesus was born? Would the verse have other meanings as to Joseph “knowing” his wife after Jesus was born other than having a sex with her?

it’s because it’s not intended to infer anything happened afterwards, just that nothing happened before.

2 samuel 6:23
Michal the daughter of Saul had not children until the day of her death.

in some translations it says something like “had no child to the day of her death” but the greek new testament uses the same word for 2 samuel and matt 1:25: ἕως (heos)

in greek it does not necessarily imply a change of the state following the event.

 

[adam_in_ohio]

Mat 1:24 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took his wife,
Mat 1:25 but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus.

Hi to everyone…

What would the word “until” a time limiting word be doing in the passage if Mary remained a virgin after Jesus was born? Would the verse have other meanings as to Joseph “knowing” his wife after Jesus was born other than having a sex with her?

."

So are you saying Christ will stop reigning after he puts his enemies under his feet? With this line of logic of the word “untill” meaning a change afterward.
“For he must reign UNTIL he has put all his enemies under his feet.” 1Cor 15:25
I’m not really implying that you believe Christ will stop regning.

 

[Good_Fella]

Mat 1:24 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took his wife,
Mat 1:25 but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus.

Hi to everyone…

What would the word “until” a time limiting word be doing in the passage if Mary remained a virgin after Jesus was born? Would the verse have other meanings as to Joseph “knowing” his wife after Jesus was born other than having a sex with her?

Gen 4:1 Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, “I have acquired a man from the LORD.”
Gen 4:17 And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. And he built a city, and called the name of the city after the name of his son–Enoch.
Gen 4:25 And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and named him Seth, “For God has appointed another seed for me instead of Abel, whom Cain killed.”

You may have missed my reply above. Matthew 1,25 must be taken in context with v23. Church doctrines are not made or broken simply on the basis of one grammatical exponent in a verse which can be taken in one way or another contextually. Matthew is assuring us here that Mary was a virgin before Christ was born to fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah - nothing more, unless you wish to engage in wild speculation.

Observe this passage from the same Gospel: “Lo, I am with you always until the end of time.” (28,20). Let us not suggest that Jesus will no longer be with us after the end of time and the resurrection of the dead. Jesus is telling us that he will be with us after his ascension into heaven and before time comes to an end. But this does not necessarily mean that things will be different after the end of time.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[adam_in_ohio]

This is from the Catholic.com tract “Brethren of the Lord”
"Fundamentalists insist that “brethren of the Lord” must be interpreted in the strict sense. They most commonly make two arguments based on Matthew 1:25: “[A]nd he did not know her until (Greek: heos, also translated into English as “till”) she brought forth her firstborn son.” They first argue that the natural inference from “till” is that Joseph and Mary afterward lived together as husband and wife, in the usual sense, and had several children. Otherwise, why would Jesus be called “first-born”? Doesn’t that mean there must have been at least a “second-born,” perhaps a “third-born,” and so on? But they are using a narrow, modern meaning of “until,” instead of the meaning it had when the Bible was written. In the Bible, it means only that some action did not happen up to a certain point; it does not imply that the action did happen later, which is the modern sense of the term. In fact, if the modern sense is forced on the Bible, some ridiculous meanings result.

Consider this line: “Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death” (2 Sam. 6:23). Are we to assume she had children after her death? "
The complete tract
catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp

 

[Ginger2]

I’m sorry, this does not support your claim at all. We are not discussing promiscuous vs non-promiscuous Isrelites:

Golly gee…you are the one who brought it up to prove your point. Now you claim it is irrelevant?

Jews considered it promiscuous behavior to have sexual relations before cohabitation, but some Judeans became lax in followiing proper behavior. The Galileans however, maintained the high standard of moral conduct.

the fact is sexual relatinoships were COMMON to betrothed couples before the bride moved with the husband

Not according to the article you cited.

Judeans were considered promiscuous because they had sex after betrothal, But sometimes before they cohabitated.

While the Galileans held to the standard of chastity that was considered proper.

Therefore my original statement is supported by the document referenced.

 

[agangbern]

So are you saying Christ will stop reigning after he puts his enemies under his feet? With this line of logic of the word “untill” meaning a change afterward.
“For he must reign UNTIL he has put all his enemies under his feet.” 1Cor 15:25
I’m not really implying that you believe Christ will stop regning.

Yes, Adam, you made it clear. The word “until” does not mean the end of an existing fact. It simply means the fact reached to a certain point in time and the fact could still continue even after the particular point in time was reached. Praise the Lord!

“And the Lord said to me: This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it, because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it, and it shall be shut for the prince.” (Ezechiel 44:2)

 

[epostle]

A bogus Greek argument against Mary’s perpetual virginity is making the rounds:

envoymagazine.com/backissues/1.3/mayjune_story2.html

According to Mosaic law, the penalty for having sex with someone who was not the father of one’s child is stoning to death. The claim that Mary had other children is theologically absurd, and reveals a complete ignorance or denial of Mosaic law. The Holy Spirit is Mary’s spouse, but St. Joseph is her spouse and protector on this earth for at least two obvious reasons.

First, as St. Matthew points out in his genealogy (see Mt. chapter 1), St. Joseph was of the line of David. Jesus had to be of the line of David in order to fulfill prophecy. He was to be the true ‘son of David’ and king of Israel (see 2 Sam. 7:14; Heb. 1:5, Rev. 19:16, 22:16). As the only Son, even though adopted, He would have been in line for the throne. Remember: The Herodian family had usurped the throne. The sons of David were the rightful heirs.

“Second, Jesus needed an earthly father and Mary needed a spouse, especially in a culture that didn’t take too kindly to sex outside of marriage. No doubt, Mary would otherwise have been in danger.”

Mary having other children is a post-reformist invention that was never taught by the reformers, but showed its ugly head some 100 years after them. That man made theory, and Mary being a sinner are doctrines of demons. These heresies are insults to the spouse of the Holy Spirit and a blasphemy to the Incarnation.

In John 19:26, Jesus gave his Mother to the care of St. John, even though by law the next eldest brother and his brothers and sisters would have the responsibility to care for her. It’s unthinkable to believe that Jesus would take His mother away from His family in disobedience to the law.” http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/4.3/nandb.htm

These recent “theories” make Jesus and his mother disobedient, rebellious and sinful. That is one reason why I say they are doctrines of demons.

 

[Ginger2]

The Holy Spirit is Mary’s spouse, but St. Joseph is her spouse and protector on this earth for at least two obvious reasons.

So, God took a human wife, and allowed her to commit bigamy (as long as she didn’t have sexual relations with her first husband) because God needed the assistance of a HUMAN BEING to protect Mary???

Mary was already **legally married **to Joseph before the Holy Spirit came upon her. That makes Joseph the first husband.

 

[agangbern]

So, God took a human wife, and allowed her to commit bigamy (as long as she didn’t have sexual relations with her first husband) because God needed the assistance of a HUMAN BEING to protect Mary???

Mary was already **legally married **to Joseph before the Holy Spirit came upon her. That makes Joseph the first husband.

“God took a human wife”! Where is that in the Bible? What I read in the bible is this, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.” It does not say God took a human wife! Imagination is strolling somewhere…

 

[epostle]

So, God took a human wife, and allowed her to commit bigamy (as long as she didn’t have sexual relations with her first husband) because God needed the assistance of a HUMAN BEING to protect Mary???

Yes. Mary is the one that needed a Hhusband. I thought I was clear on that. The Holy Spirit needed a woman, a human being. Did Mary need Joseph to protect her? Well, certainly not if you are a feminist. hmm, who told Joseph to marry his pregnant betrothed??

So, God took a human wife, and allowed her to commit bigamy (as long as she didn’t have sexual relations with her first husband) because God needed the assistance of a HUMAN BEING to protect Mary???

First, as St. Matthew points out in his genealogy (see Mt. chapter 1), St. Joseph was of the line of David. Jesus had to be of the line of David in order to fulfill prophecy. He was to be the true ‘son of David’ and king of Israel (see 2 Sam. 7:14; Heb. 1:5, Rev. 19:16, 22:16). As the only Son, even though adopted, He would have been in line for the throne. Remember: The Herodian family had usurped the throne. The sons of David were the rightful heirs.

“Second, Jesus needed an earthly father and Mary needed a spouse, especially in a culture that didn’t take too kindly to sex outside of marriage. No doubt, Mary would otherwise have been in danger.”

So, God took a human wife, and allowed her to commit bigamy (as long as she didn’t have sexual relations with her first husband) because God needed the assistance of a HUMAN BEING to protect Mary???

Those who oppose the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity accuse her of bigamy by logical default. It’s as unthinkable as the Jews throwing dung on the Ark of the Covenant, and equally as repulsive.

Mary was already legally married to Joseph before the Holy Spirit came upon her. That makes Joseph the first husband.

"Did God take a number? The only human husband Mary had was Joseph, no one is disputing this. What bothers me is this sick idea that God would hand over his sacred vessel as if she was some kind divine rent-a-womb to be desecrated sexually. It’s a doctrine of demons.

. But who do you say that I am?" Mathew 16:15

Oh yea, “Mary only gave birth to the human part.” :banghead:

 

[boppaid]

Everyone else seems to be stating the case for Mary’s virginity well. So, I will address your comment about God making His children sinless… He did! Adam and Eve were created directly by God in a sinless, immortal state. When they chose to disobey God, they committed the first sin. (The eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil… remember that?) We have been living with that first (or “original”) sin ever since. God took special care to remove that taint at Mary’s conception so that she could be a pure vessel for the Son of God.

True. But God could still CHOOSE to create us as sinless, right? After all, the Catholic Church believes that God CHOSE to create Mary as sinless, therefore, I would imagine he could choose to do the same with us.

 

[boppaid]

With this argument I have to ask. Would it have been wrong for them to have relations before Jesus was born? They were husband and wife but yet didn’t have any relations. But after 9 months of marriage they started to having relations. This seems seems not to make sense.

First, scripture says she was “pledged to be married” to him…they weren’t yet married. Second, I can buy into the fact that they didn’t have sex while she was pregnant because she was carrying God inside her. After he was born, though, is something I cannot see any reason she should remain a virgin. Sex is holy and pure when in the context of marriage. People say Joseph couldn’t touch her because the man that put his hand on the original arc of the covenant were struck dead. But I hardly believe that no one ever touched Mary. Gave her a hug. Helped her up after a fall, etc. Because, let’s face it…a simple touch is what got the man in the OT killed…not sex. If we’re trying to compare Joseph not having sex with Mary to a man putting his hands on the OT arc, we’re comparing apples and oranges.

 

[boppaid]

The point I was making is that they were married before the birth of Jesus. Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born. When people say thay had relations because they were married don’t take into acount they were married before Jesus was born and DIDN’T have relations. So there is no reasion to think they would have startede afterward. I believe betrothal is for the most part the same as engaged.

They obviously didn’t have relations while Jesus was in her womb. That’s why. But why couldn’t they afterward?

 

[Ginger2]

adam in ohio:

Would it have been wrong for them to have relations before Jesus was born? They were husband and wife but yet didn’t have any relations. But after 9 months of marriage they started to having relations. This seems not to make sense.

Yes it would have been wrong. It would have been viewed as promiscuous behavior.

When couple become betrothed, it was considered a legal marriage. However, the couple did not engage in a sexual relationship until they began living in the same house.

There was nothing unusual about their situation until Mary became pregnant.

SEE POST # 45

 

[Ginger2]

“God took a human wife”! Where is that in the Bible?

It’s not in the Bible - it’s in post #47.

God did not take a human wife.

 

[agangbern]

True. But God could still CHOOSE to create us as sinless, right? After all, the Catholic Church believes that God CHOSE to create Mary as sinless, therefore, I would imagine he could choose to do the same with us.

God did it to Mary because He foreknew that Mary would use her free will perfectly pleasing to Him. The angel said to Mary, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.” Finally Mary replied, “May it be to me as you have said.” That is Mama Mary. No dot of pride of intelligence about God within her, but full of humility and obedience to God’s will. Sure, it was easy for God to force His will on any woman if only to rush-up the salvation of man. But to do so would contradict His very nature. Love does not violate the free will of any human. So God patiently waited. Did God foresee in any of us that humility which Mary decided to be she? Even the saints could only look with awe to the Blessedness of Mary.

 

[Goth_Catholic]

It’s not in the Bible - it’s in post #47.

God did not take a human wife.

No, not the earthly sence.

But Mary is the Spouse of the Spirit because she is the Mother of the Son. Through the Spirit she concieved the Son, so she became the Spouse to God by the Conception of their son. She wasn’t exactly married to Joseph ethier, she was betrothed, which was only the first step in a Jewish marriage. They did not co-inhabit and therefore could not be husband and wife. Joseph was her husband in name only. Her true spouse is the holy spirit.

 

[Goth_Catholic]

God did it to Mary because He foreknew that Mary would use her free will perfectly pleasing to Him. The angel said to Mary, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.” Finally Mary replied, “May it be to me as you have said.” That is Mama Mary. No dot of pride of intelligence about God within her, but full of humility and obedience to God’s will. Sure, it was easy for God to force His will on any woman if only to rush-up the salvation of man. But to do so would contradict His very nature. Love does not violate the free will of any human. So God patiently waited. Did God foresee in any of us that humility which Mary decided to be she? Even the saints could only look with awe to the Blessedness of Mary.

:banghead: No, no, no, NO! The angel told her “Hail full of grace” more techinquely he said “Hail my queen, who has been and continues to be graced.”

This is why I through out my KJB.

 

[agangbern]

It’s not in the Bible - it’s in post #47.

God did not take a human wife.

Post #47 did not say that God took a human wife. It says “the Holy Spirit is Mary’s spouse”. You know that such phrase does not necessarily mean that God took a human wife. The latter is only a product of the imagination.

 

[agangbern]

:banghead: No, no, no, NO! The angel told her “Hail full of grace” more techinquely he said “Hail my queen, who has been and continues to be graced.”

This is why I through out my KJB.

Yes, that is even a more revealing translation. My quote was taken from NIV, and the translation seems weak.