Proof of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity in John 19

[Maximian]

Ultimately it’s because the Church said it, like all received truths.

Hear hear! There is an uncatholic trend towards Sola Scriptura among Catholics which needs to be resisted

 

[FiveLinden]

No scripture ‘proves’ anything unless you 1) believe that scripture is divinely inspired and 2) that your interpretation, personal or through Church teaching, is correct.

The first of these cannot be ‘proved’ and neither can the second. It’s all a matter of faith.

 

[Pons]

Nobody has addressed the OP. But it’s an ancient argument and the one that “clinched” the issue for the Anglican Bishop Lightfoot, who concluded that the stepbrother was the most likely.

 

[hope]

This prompted Joseph to consider annulling the engagement, when Gabriel appears in Joseph’s annunciation.

It was not an engagement. They were married but in that part of their marriage where they were not living together. Mary would have been waiting for her husband to come and take her to her new home. This comes from the misunderstanding of what betrothed meant.
Matthew states
Such was his intention when, behold, the angel of appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary your wife into your home. For it is through the holy Spirit that this child has been conceived in her. They were not engaged but married. Second the idea that until meant that they had relations after goes against the meaning of the word until which only means up to a certain point. Matthew was emphasizing the point that Joseph did not father Jesus nothing more.

We also know that Jesus himself describes his brothers and sisters as brothers and sisters, and uses it in a familial way to show a contrast to those who would be “brothers and sisters” by virtue of the fact that they obey his word

.This is new to me please quote chapter and verse?

 

[hope]

Nope they were cousins.

 

[Hodos]

It was not an engagement.

Yes it was. The term used in Matthew’s gospel is μνηστευω which means to be engaged or betrothed. It literally comes means to give a gift in exchange for the promised to marriage. Also, we see in verse 19 that Joseph was going to break off the engagement quietly due to her status as being pregnant. In Jewish custom of that day, the marriage was not consummated until the couple had sex, and there were witnesses to prove that the marriage was consummated.

This is new to me please quote chapter and verse?

That would be Matthew 12:46-50.

 

[hope]

hope:

It was not an engagement.

Yes it was. The term used in Matthew’s gospel is μνηστευω which means to be engaged or betrothed. It literally comes means to give a gift in exchange for the promised to marriage. Also, we see in verse 19 that Joseph was going to break off the engagement quietly due to her status as being pregnant. In Jewish custom of that day, the marriage was not consummated until the couple had sex, and there were witnesses to prove that the marriage was consummated.

What you are missing is what the Jews meant by betrothal. When a marriage took place it took place in two parts.
The first part was the agreement. At this point, they are married but not living together. The husband prepares a place for his wife. This period is the betrothal. It is not an engagement as a promise to marry but the actual marriage. During this part the Groom/husband is preparing a home for his wife while she remains at her parents house preparing to be a wife. This period could last up to two years. They were husband and wife.
The second part of marriage is when the groom/husband takes his wife into his home

This is borne out by scripture.
Matthew Chapter 1

And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.

The Angel tells Joseph to complete the second part of marriage by taking his Wife it to his home.

Jesus also refers to the second part of marriage in the parable of the wise Virgins.

 

[hope]

. We also know that Jesus himself describes his brothers and sisters as brothers and sisters, and uses it in a familial way to show a contrast to those who would be “brothers and sisters” by virtue of the fact that they obey his word. In other words, Jesus is not contradicting what Matthew has already described.

I didn’t understand what you wrote before. This does not mean that Jesus was using the term brothers to mean siblings. Jesus would have been speaking in Aramaic not Greek. In Aramaic there is no word for cousin, relatives were all called brothers and sisters.

 

[Hodos]

I didn’t understand what you wrote before. This does not mean that Jesus was using the term brothers to mean siblings. Jesus would have been speaking in Aramaic not Greek. In Aramaic there is no word for cousin, relatives were all called brothers and sisters.

Yes, but you assume that the person who wrote down this incident didn’t understand Greek, the language Matthew was written in, and chose the vocabulary consistent with the meaning he was conveying, or that the Gospel of Matthew wasn’t inspired by the Holy Spirit. Pretty sure the Holy Spirit knows the difference between adelphos and anepsios (Greek does have terms that differentiate). Lastly, you are assuming that Aramaic was the language being spoken. It could have been, but it might not have been. Given that the disciples nearly always cite the Septuagint, I think you are making a pretty big assumption not supported by the text.

 

[Hodos]

The Angel tells Joseph to complete the second part of marriage by taking his Wife it to his home.

So if this is the case, why do you then interpret Matthew 1:25 in a way that ignores the natural reading of the text, namely that Joseph and Mary consummated the marriage after Jesus was born in accordance with the normal meaning of a Έως όυ clause?

 

[hope]

I did address this. What you ignore is the meaning of til or until which only means up to a certain point. It does not mean that a change occurs after. You have a lot of problems if you define it to mean that a change occurs.

The Case for Mary’s Virginity

• 2 Samuel 6:23: And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to ( until ) the day of her death. (Does this mean she had children after she died?)
• 1 Timothy 4:13: Until I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching. (Does this mean Timothy should stop teaching after Paul comes?)
• 1 Corinthians 15:25: For he (Christ) must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. (Does this mean Christ’s reign will end? By no means! Luke 1:33 says, “he will reign over the house of Jacob forever and of his kingdom there shall be no end.”)

 

[Hodos]

2 Samuel 6:23: And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to ( until ) the day of her death. (Does this mean she had children after she died?)

This used a Έως construction, not Έως όυ. So not the same meaning.

1 Timothy 4:13: Until I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching. (Does this mean Timothy should stop teaching after Paul comes?)

Again, a Έως not Έως όυ construction.

1 Corinthians 15:25: For he (Christ) must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. (Does this mean Christ’s reign will end? By no means! Luke 1:33 says, “he will reign over the house of Jacob forever and of his kingdom there shall be no end.”)

Doesn’t even use Έως, used the word αχρι.

 

[hope]

Your assumption are larger. You assume that the Holy Spirit dictates and the human writer merely writes it down. Nope. The Holy Spirit inspires a human being who writes according to his own experiences and knowledge. Your assumption that they spoke something else is not supported by scripture. Jesus is quoted speaking Aramaic your assumption is that because they quote the Septaugint they must have spoken Greek in their daily lives is unsupported.

 

[Hodos]

Your assumption are larger. You assume that the Holy Spirit dictates and the human writer merely writes it down. Nope. The Holy Spirit inspires a human being who writes according to his own experiences and knowledge.

So scripture is fallible? My assumption is that the Holy Spirit inspired the writer to write God’s word, and that while he uses the experience of the writer, the Holy Spirit is God and gets what He wills.

esus is quoted speaking Aramaic your assumption is that because they quote the Septaugint they must have spoken Greek in their daily lives is unsupported.

This is not my assumption. I merely stated you are making an assumption in saying this was spoken in Aramaic. Given that Caparnaum is located in a region where Gentiles are known to have lived in close proximity, and that this town was the commercial area along the Galilee, it is not unreasonable to believe that marketplace Greek may have been spoken regularly. Again, what did Matthew or his scribe write assuming he knew Greek, and why did he select that specific Greek verbiage as opposed to others that according to you conveys more precise meaning? And again, Jesus was doing so in the contrast of being his brother by blood as opposed to brother by obeying his teaching. Also, why did Jesus use the term mother if he was being nonliteral? Do we say Mary wasn’t his mother? Completely inconsistent interpretations in the same sentence is not a good hermeneutic to rest your position upon.

 

[hope]

You are incorrect and it doesn’t really matter. Until only means up to a certain point in time. If you have another definition by a reliable source please post it.

 

[Hodos]

You are incorrect and it doesn’t really matter. Until only means up to a certain point in time. If you have another definition by a reliable source please post it.

That would be the lexicon where it discusses a Έως όυ construction. Saying that the verbal and semantic meaning of a phrase doesn’t matter, then trying to use examples that don’t use that construction is kinda inconsistent don’t you think? If your interpretation is from outside the text, just say so. I can accept that. That was my original point to begin with.

 

[hope]

So scripture is fallible? My assumption is that the Holy Spirit inspired the writer to write God’s word, and that while he uses the experience of the writer, the Holy Spirit is God and gets what He wills.

No human interpretations are. Did Jesus speak other languages? I think He did. But did He speak other languages among a group of His people. Doubtful and we have Scripture where He uses Aramaic. Mother is not disputed. I don’t believe you could produce another Scripture where Mother means something other than Mother. Brother on the other hand is shown in Scripture to have numerous meanings other than a blood Brother.

 

[hope]

It is you who says the construction isn’t the same. But you demur where is your definition that defines it any other way than up to the time of it’s happening. You can’t.

 

[fide]

A good study on “The Brothers of Jesus”
The issue Discussed here before.

 

[hope]

This used a Έως construction, not Έως όυ. So not the same meaning.

Perhaps you would like to explain further of what the difference is? Why wouldhaving οὗ or not having it would change the meaning?