Proof of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity in John 19

[hope]

That doesn’t negate the full meaning of what Matthew describes in Matthew 1:25, and elsewhere we Jesus brothers and sisters are mentioned.

The full meaning is your interpretation that is not supported by the whole of scripture. It has been shown that the brothers do not mean uterine brothers. It has been shown that Mary had no other sons otherwise she would not have been told the One Jesus loved would be her son, nor would younger siblings talk to an older sibling the way they do in scripture which shows the brother were older than Jesus. Scripture also shows that these were not Mary’s children but had other parent. We also have Mary saying she knows not man, not that she and Joseph had not come together yet but she did not know any man even thought she was married. It is a strange comment she made in that she was married and she doesn’t even mentions Joseph. When you say that Mary had other children you are adding to scripture.
Again you added to scripture when you said

We also know that Jesus himself describes his brothers and sisters as brothers and sisters,

You made incorrect statements

This prompted Joseph to consider annulling the engagement, when Gabriel appears in Joseph’s annunciation.You have absolutely no evidence that this is even the case. Show me one statement in Matthew or any of the canonical gospels where James or any of his brothers directly address Jesus, or that they are ever referred to as firstborn of anyone.

This also qualifies as adding to scripture. It never says that Gabriel appeared to Joseph nor do they call it “Joseph’s annunciation” Nor does scripture say they were engaged.

 

[Good_Fella]

Right, the lasted a period of time, which is the function of the imperfect tense. Doesn’t change the meaning of until she gave birth to a son. And no, you are absolutely wrong about the aorist. The aorist doesn’t tell you whether something is a one and done event. Aorist literally means undefined. You have to derive whether it is a one and done event or an ongoing process from the context of the sentence. So, you aren’t even correct on your tense usage.

Actually, you are the one who doesn’t know how the aorist functions. The phrase “knew her not” (as it is in the original koine greek) is in the imperfect tense; so it represents continuous action in the past time up to the birth of Jesus. The preposition heos, albeit its conjunctive adverbial use, leaves the future totally aside. It does not infer that the situation has changed afterward.

The aorist is an unqualified past tense of a verb without reference to duration or completion of the main action. Thus, the future isn’t left aside. The possibility of the couple having marital relations after the birth of Jesus isn’t excluded and can be implied. So, Matthew isn’t implying that Mary and Joseph had no conjugal relations until after the birth of Jesus. Rather, his intention is that the couple had no conjugal relations before Jesus was born to reiterate what he wrote in the preceding verses (1:22-23): ‘Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the LORD by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.” This is the gist of verse 25.

No one said he constructed the sentence for that reason. I actually agree with your colleague was that it demonstrates that Mary was kept a virgin until Jesus was born, thus fulfilling the prophecy in Isaiah 7.

Perhaps not. But if Matthew knew Mary and Joseph had children of their own after the birth of Jesus, and this was common knowledge, he could have implied they did in his statement. But since he knew that Jesus was Mary’s only child, he didn’t imply anything. Moreover, the gospel doesn’t mention any male and female siblings elsewhere. You are begging the question by drawing your premise from what you have already concluded and wish to believe. Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew for a Jewish audience, and so, the brothers and sisters of Jesus are referred to in the wider Semitic sense.

No one said it does. What was said is that you trying to parse only one word and leaving out the rest of the prepositional phrase along;

Kindly stop quibbling. You’ve argued that heos doesn’t mean “before” or “up to the time of” because of heos hou. I am not parsing the conjunctive adverb, nor can I, because it joins the main clause with the subordinate clause. Now I’m adding that the meaning of the preposition (up to the time of) doesn’t change because we don’t have the aorist.

 

[Good_Fella]

Your theory is an argument from silence when you assume that Joseph had children from a previous marriage absent evidence from the apostolic writers, and is contradicted by the fact that Joseph was already engaged to be married when the Archangel Gabriel appeared.

My theory? Give me a break. I have about 2000 years of Apostolic Tradition to support me. It’s you who are theorizing being severed from historical Christianity. Also, as a Roman Catholic, I don’t subscribe to the early Eastern oral tradition of Joseph having children from a previous marriage. The Eastern Orthodox do.

Anyway, various translations of Luke 1:27 have Mary “betrothed” or “espoused” to Joseph at the time of the Annunciation. Either term means that the couple was legally married, although their marriage hadn’t been consummated yet. Mosaic law provided a two-part marriage ceremony. It began with the betrothal or espousal ( Kiddushin ) in which Joseph would have given Mary a marriage document and a token of monetary value, usually a ring. The Hebrew word for “betrothed” is kiddush , which is derived from meaning “holy, consecrated, and set apart” as Israel is described to be in her marital relationship with God. In Jewish practice, this is the central moment of the initial wedding ceremony at which time a contract is signed making the couple legally married.

Now the second part of their marriage would have followed a year after the first wedding ceremony. By this time, Joseph was expected to be able to provide for Mary. And if both were happy with each other and remained faithful to each other, the second and final wedding ceremony ( Nisuin ) would solemnly take place. The ketubah (contract) was the focal point of the second wedding ceremony. Here Joseph would have formally accepted the responsibilities of providing food and shelter, clothing for his wife, and attending to her emotional needs. After the ketubah was signed by Joseph and the two witnesses and presented to Mary, the marriage was solemnized. Assured of her marital rights, Mary could now move into her husband’s home and consummate their marriage.

The angel Gabriel spoke to Joseph in a dream after he discovered Mary was with child to reassure him that his wife hadn’t done anything unfaithful, but that the child she was carrying was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit (Mt 1:18-25). Until then, Joseph had the legal right to file for divorce on the ground of his wife’s apparent promiscuity. In fact, he had the right to publicly condemn her and have her stoned to death for having committed adultery (Deut 22:22-29). Engaged couples, in the western sense, don’t file for a divorce.

 

[Good_Fella]

I do read the scriptures for what the Holy Spirit inspired it to say. I don’t add to it and eisegete the text by claiming it is allegorical or that the Holy Spirit was incapable of communicating the gospel message so that it could be understood by the audience.

Show me the pre-existing Aramaic text from which the Greek manuscript was derived. Another argument based on speculation and not evidence because the text doesn’t say what you are implying that it says.

Both Catholic and Protestant biblical scholars have written books on the use of allegory in the Gospel of John. Try looking for some at Amazon. You accuse me of eisegesis, but without any proof. An accusation isn’t an argument or a rebuttal.

John’s audience understood what they were hearing at Mass on Sundays in the Liturgy of the Word since the Gospel was written for them after they had already heard the word of God being preached. The NT books were written to be heard at Mass and to confirm sacred Tradition. It wasn’t written for Protestants to glean and debate over 1500+ years later. So, if anyone commits eisegesis, it’s a Protestant with a Catholic book in their hand. Your literal interpretation of “the brothers and sisters” of Jesus is a fine sample of eisegesis and poor hermeneutics to boot since you are solely relying on your own private judgment and utilizing only one sense of Scripture.

Why don’t you show me the original manuscript that was penned in Greek by John with his autograph? All you can do is speculate.

 

[hope]

hough I’m not sure that I agree with everything suggested as Homeric borrowings, beginning with the Iliad, Acts and Mark seem to have imitated the earliest Greek epic. The following are a few examples cited: Jesus dies like Hector (from the divine point of view), walks on water like Hermes, and is courageous like Achilles. He heals two women who are too similar to Sarpedon and Glaucus to be coincidence. The casting of lots for Judas’ successor in Acts is like the casting of lots for someone to fight Hector, the list goes on.

This list is manipulated to fit a preconceived narrative but falls apart upon examination.

1. Jesus dies on a Cross. Hector dies on the battlefield. Their deaths are not alike.
2. Hermes is the messenger of the god who has winged feet. He did not walk on water as Jesus did.
3. Courageous like Achilles? Good grief that describes many people.
4. Sarpedon and Glaucus are soldiers although Sarpedon is healed of a wound there is no similarities to Jesus healing of any women much less being too similar to be a coincidence.
5. Casting lots was a common thing. It is like saying they ate so it is similar. It is a reach to try to make it sound as if it was. The list goes on and fails to substantiate that there was any borrowing.
   You forgot an important similarity. They are both men, case close they must have drawn on the Greek epic. :crazy_face: No it was drawn from the life of Jesus.

 

[Hodos]

Actually, you are the one who doesn’t know how the aorist functions. The phrase “knew her not” (as it is in the original koine greek) is in the imperfect tense; so it represents continuous action in the past time up to the birth of Jesus.

I didn’t claim it was in the aorist tense. Your buddy did. I just corrected him on the usage of the aorist tense.

The preposition heos , albeit its conjunctive adverbial use, leaves the future totally aside.

No, it serves as a connector between the two clauses, ending the previous state and beginning the next.

The aorist is an unqualified past tense of a verb without reference to duration or completion of the main action.

I already stated that the aorist tense means the verb is undefined in duration. This aspect of the verb’s usage has to be determined from specific context.

So, Matthew isn’t implying that Mary and Joseph had no conjugal relations until after the birth of Jesus.

Again, no one has made the argument. Matthew 1:25 doesn’t stand alone. What it tells us is that that Joseph didn’t have sex with Mary until she gave birth to a son. We are later told that Jesus had brothers and sisters in a familial sense.

But if Matthew knew Mary and Joseph had children of their own after the birth of Jesus, and this was common knowledge, he could have implied they did in his statement.

He could have. But again, he later states that Jesus had brothers and sisters in a familial sense.

You are begging the question by drawing your premise from what you have already concluded and wish to believe.

No, I am reading the relevant statements in their most natural sense. I am not having to redefine what the phrase until when means, or redefine the relationship between Jesus and his siblings.

Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew for a Jewish audience, and so, the brothers and sisters of Jesus are referred to in the wider Semitic sense.

Show me the Aramaic texts that predate the Greek text. Again, this is a theory without evidence.

Now I’m adding that the meaning of the preposition (up to the time of) doesn’t change because we don’t have the aorist.

The presence of the aorist would not make a difference because the aorist simply means the duration of the activity is undefined. Also, you are ignoring the fact that the imperfect tense is a continuous action in the past. This doesn’t mean that the process that is being described by the verb never ceased, particularly when the rest of the sentence gives a hard stop to the action.

 

[Hodos]

I have about 2000 years of Apostolic Tradition to support me.

This theory has no tie to any apostolic author you can name. If you allege otherwise, please demonstrate which apostle, and which manuscript you are referring to.

You accuse me of eisegesis, but without any proof. An accusation isn’t an argument or a rebuttal.

Again, we examined the text and John makes no mention of the application you are applying, either before the passage, in the text of the passage, or after the passage. Neither does he make this application in his other surviving works (John’s epistles, Revelation). Neither do any of the other apostolic authors of the New Testament. In order to make this application you have to take tradition that the text nowhere states, and shoehorn it into the text. This is the definition of eisegesis - reading one’s suppositions into the text.

John’s audience understood what they were hearing at Mass on Sundays in the Liturgy of the Word since the Gospel was written for them after they had already heard the word of God being preached.

I agree. Which is why this application doesn’t appear for centuries later.

The NT books were written to be heard at Mass and to confirm sacred Tradition. It wasn’t written for Protestants to glean and debate over 1500+ years later.

That’s funny, because these works contain the tradition that was handed down and became the means by which sacred tradition was faithfully handed down. This is why we could reject works such as the Gnostic gospels. The early Fathers did so on the basis of what the true gospels said, and quote them extensively to refute gnostic errors, and other heretical movements. So it is clear that these scriptures were meant for us to glean to reject heretical errors and errant teachings.

So, if anyone commits eisegesis, it’s a Protestant with a Catholic book in their hand.

Given that you can’t substantiate what you are saying in the actual Catholic books being discussed, it appears the catholicity of the topic at hand is at question.

Why don’t you show me the original manuscript that was penned in Greek by John with his autograph? All you can do is speculate.

My speculation is based on evidence. I can point to the Greek manuscripts of John and to their dating. You have no Aramaic manuscript which doesn’t bear the hallmarks of a later translation or can be dated earlier than the Greek manuscripts to substantiate your claim.

 

[Good_Fella]

I didn’t claim it was in the aorist tense. Your buddy did. I just corrected him on the usage of the aorist tense.

I never said you made this claim. The Aorist is ‘undefined’ in that this secondary verb expresses action without indicating its completion or continuation. So, if Matthew had chosen to use this verb instead of the primary present imperfect, he couldn’t have been emphasizing the duration of time leading up to the birth of Jesus. As I said, the verb used for “know” ( eginosken ) is in the imperfect tense, not in the aorist ( egno -) which means that the emphasis is placed on the duration of time in which Mary and Joseph had no marital relations during the time that preceded the birth of Jesus. The context pertains to the incarnation of Christ. What might come after our Lord’s birth has no connection with what comes before it. Thus, there’s no reason for Matthew to imply Joseph and Mary had conjugal relations after Jesus was born. If they did have marital relations after this event, the truth of the incarnation would still stand.

No, it serves as a connector between the two clauses, ending the previous state and beginning the next.

Kindly pay attention to what I say or don’t bother replying. You’re arguing in a circle. Again, the conjunctive adjective isn’t a logical connector but only serves to join the main clause with the subordinate clause. What it doesn’t do, as you’re doing, is draw a connection between the main clause and what might happen after the subordinate clause. You’re bending the entire statement out of shape.

 

[Good_Fella]

Again, no one has made the argument. Matthew 1:25 doesn’t stand alone. What it tells us is that that Joseph didn’t have sex with Mary until she gave birth to a son. We are later told that Jesus had brothers and sisters in a familial sense.

You’ve been contending all along that heos hou means Joseph did not know Mary “until after” Jesus was born. I’ve been arguing and have provided an example that heos hou can be used interchangeably so that the preposition heos retains its meaning which is “up to the time of” or “before” the birth of Jesus. And, it has been pointed out that the “brothers and sisters” of Jesus are referred to in the wider Semitic sense. We must read the verse through Jewish lenses.

I own that Matthew 13:55-56 is somewhat ambiguous and has created a difficulty of interpretation, so to make sense of this passage, we must find another one that is clear by comparison (analogy of Scripture). We read in Mark 6:3-4: ‘Is he not the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him. Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his native place and among his own kin and in his own house.”’ The word “kin” refers back to “brother” and “sisters.” The Greek word used for “kin” is (συγγενής, ές / suggenes ). We find the same word in Luke 1:36: ‘“And, behold, thy cousin (συγγενίς / syngenis ) Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.”’. Thus, these brothers and Jesus in Matthew are, in fact, the cousins of Jesus which St. Jerome asserted in his contention with the heretic Helvidius.

Also, we have one definitive scriptural proof-text that Mary remained a virgin after Jesus was born. This is Luke 1:34: And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not (a) man? (DRB/KJV). The original Greek text reads andra ou ginosko (ἄνδρα οὐ γινώσκω) which literally is “man not I know” or in English “I know not man.” The Greek verb ginosko (Present Indicative Active) is in the continuous present which shows a permanent disposition to not know man. The original Greek translates what Mary says to the angel in her native tongue of Aramaic: 'ki enneni yodaat ish .’ The Greek present tense used for Mary’s words in Luke 1:34 corresponds to the Aramaic active participle ( yodaat ) indicating a permanent condition (cf. Manuel Miguens, The Virgin Birth: An Evaluation of Scriptural Evidence ). In this verse, we have the logical connector epei, meaning “because”.

 

[Good_Fella]

He could have. But again, he later states that Jesus had brothers and sisters in a familial sense.

But I doubt Matthew would have implied Joseph knew Mary after the birth of Jesus to underscore the truth of the incarnation, since this event came before his birth. He is strictly concerned with the time before it without having to imply anything even if the couple did have marital relations after our Lord’s birth. What might have come after the birth of our Lord wouldn’t contradict what Matthew is proposing in the main clause to get his primary point across.

No, I am reading the relevant statements in their most natural sense. I am not having to redefine what the phrase until when means, or redefine the relationship between Jesus and his siblings.

It might appear natural to you. But this is being subjective. Try being objective for a change.

Show me the Aramaic texts that predate the Greek text. Again, this is a theory without evidence.

The historical literary evidence indicates that the early Church understood Matthew originally wrote his gospel in Hebrew and then a Greek translation followed. Still, the Greek translation retains the unique Semitic idiomatic usage in the original text.

Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp, who was a student of the Apostle John. Around 170 A.D., Irenaeus confirms and elaborates upon Papias’ report:

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon his breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.” ( Against Heresies , 3:1)

Origen wrote:

“Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism and published in the Hebrew language.” (Recorded by Eusebius in Church History , 6:25)

Matthew first made disciples out of his fellow Jews. He later fulfilled the Great Commission by serving the Gentiles. This makes sense given that Matthew has the greatest Jewish emphasis among the Gospels. The historical evidence and the tradition of the Catholic Church indicate that Matthew’s Gospel was, in fact, first written in Hebrew.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon his breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.” ( Against Heresies , 3:1)

Origen wrote:

“Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism and published in the Hebrew language.” (Recorded by Eusebius in Church History , 6:25)

Or they’re saying that Matthew wrote his Gospel in the Hebrew style. Not necessarily a document in Hebrew but a document in Greek with Hebraic influence.

 

[Good_Fella]

Or they’re saying that Matthew wrote his Gospel in the Hebrew style. Not necessarily a document in Hebrew but a document in Greek with Hebraic influence.

There’s no either/or. “Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect (or language).” "I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism and published in the Hebrew language.”

 

[Julius_Caesar]

There’s no either/or. “Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect (or language).” "I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism and published in the Hebrew language.”

There’s clearly room for an or when Matthew’s supposed Hebrew copy hasn’t turned up.

 

[Good_Fella]

There’s clearly room for an or when Matthew’s supposed Hebrew copy hasn’t turned up.

Give me a break. Non Christians and agnostics argue just like you do, from silence, while ignoring the oral tradition that accompanies written documents. They claim that, since we don’t have the original autographed gospels, we can’t be sure that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote theirs, but that other Christians possibly did after their deaths. So, how do we know that John, for instance, actually wrote his own gospel, even though we don’t have the original autographed manuscript of his? By tradition.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

They claim that, since we don’t have the original autographed gospels, we can’t be sure that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote theirs, but that other Christians possibly did after their deaths. So, how do we know that John, for instance, actually wrote his own gospel, even though we don’t have the original autographed manuscript of his? By tradition.

There are many Christians who are in good standing who ascribe to the anonymous Gospels.

And John didn’t write anything, most likely. A scribe wrote it for him.

As to tradition, there are many traditions on various subjects in Scripture. Just something is a tradition doesn’t make it accurate, like what you’d say of Jesus’s brothers being stepbrothers and probably not of the Twelve.

 

[Good_Fella]

There are many Christians who are in good standing who ascribe to the anonymous Gospels.

And John didn’t write anything, most likely. A scribe wrote it for him.

You’re referring to the “form critics” of the 20th century. But the first and biggest problem for the theory of the anonymous gospels is that no anonymous copies of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John have ever been found. They don’t exist, and probably never did, since we have early Greek manuscript evidence for the authors of the gospels: The Gospel of Matthew Papyrus 4 & Papyrus 62 (2nd century); Codex Sinaiticus (4th century) five more manuscripts up to Codex Bezae (5th century). The Gospel of John: Papyrus 66 (late 2nd century); Papyrus 75 (2nd-3rd century); five more manuscripts up to Codex Bezae (5th century). These ancient manuscripts are unanimous in attributing the gospels to the authors who go by their titles.

As to tradition, there are many traditions on various subjects in Scripture. Just something is a tradition doesn’t make it accurate, like what you’d say of Jesus’s brothers being stepbrothers and probably not of the Twelve.

The oral tradition (not to be confused with sacred Tradition) apparently contains inaccuracies and fabrications, but not everything is inaccurate or fabricated. We must consider the sources of information to assess their credibility. Irenaeus claims that Matthew originally wrote his gospel for the Hebrews in their own dialect, meaning the regional language used in Palestine. There would be no reason for Matthew to write his gospel in Greek while still there. Bishop Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp when he was much younger, who in turn was a disciple of the Apostle John. So, I think the traditions he followed were reliable. Irenaeus appealed to the Apostolic Tradition when he contended with the Gnostics.

The objection against the traditional claim was first raised in the 16th century by the Dutch theologian Desiderius Erasmus. He, too, simply argued from silence while ignoring the perennial tradition of the Catholic Church. Anyway, an argument from silence can just as easily be used against the assumption that Matthew’s gospel was originally written by him in Greek, since we don’t have an extant original but only copies. But, as I have shown, the Church hasn’t been silent as to who wrote the Gospel of Matthew. Bishop Irenaeus spoke for the Church in his Against Heresies.

 

[Good_Fella]

. Also, you are ignoring the fact that the imperfect tense is a continuous action in the past. This doesn’t mean that the process that is being described by the verb never ceased, particularly when the rest of the sentence gives a hard stop to the action.

I haven’t ignored anything. The problem is you aren’t paying attention. The customary imperfect verb tense emphasizes the regularity of an action over a period of time in the past, viz., the duration of time preceding the birth of Jesus. The future – the time following the birth of Jesus – is left aside. With the aorist, there’s no emphasis placed on what was not happening in the main clause, before the birth of Jesus, so the possibility of Mary and Joseph having conjugal relations after the birth of Jesus isn’t excluded. What gives a “hard stop” to the action in the main clause is the birth of Jesus, not what might come after it. Thus, Matthew is saying or stressing that Joseph did not know Mary “up to the time of” ( heos ) Jesus’ birth to underscore the revealed truth of the Incarnation. Here are three Bible versions taken from Bible hub which are multi-denominational Protestant productions. These scholars themselves disagree with you.

But they did not sleep together before her baby was born. Then Joseph named him Jesus. – Contemporary English Version

But he had no sexual relations with her before she gave birth to her son. And Joseph named him Jesus. – Good News Translation

He did not have marital relations with her before she gave birth to a son. Joseph named the child Jesus. – God’s Word Translation

 

[Good_Fella]

This theory has no tie to any apostolic author you can name. If you allege otherwise, please demonstrate which apostle, and which manuscript you are referring to.

Two millennia of sacred Tradition isn’t a theory but a historical fact. The Gospels and all the NT books were written to confirm traditions of the Church (cf. Lk: 1:1-4).

The Wedding Feast at Cana is an allegorical narrative in which Mary is presented as the New Eve and Mother of the Church. John presents the servants at the wedding feast as types of disciples. We read: His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you” (Jn 2:5). Dr. Edward Sri points out, that instead of using the Greek word duolois for “servants” in the ordinary sense, the Evangelist uses diakonois , the Greek word used for Jesus’ true disciples in the NT. For instance: “If anyone serves ( diakonei ) me, he must follow me; and where I am, there shall my servant ( diakonoi ) be also” (Jn. 12:26). Hence, John is presenting Mary as the mother of all her Son’s disciples (the bride of Christ) who faithfully follow and serve him. And the first thing she must say to all her children as Mother of the Church is, “Do whatever he tells you" (cf. Rev. 12:17).

Further, as Dr. Scott Hahn points out, John draws a parallel between Genesis 1 and the first two chapters in his gospel (Gen 1:1-5 – Jn 1:1; Gen 1:6-8 – Jn 1:29-34; Gen 1:9-13 – Jn 1: 35-42); Gen 1:14-19 – Jn 1:43-51; Gen 1:20-23; 24-31; Gen 2: 2-13 – Jn 2:1). Both books begin with “In the beginning.” The author of Genesis uses ordinal numbers: “the second day” to the “seventh day.” John uses sequencing: “The next day” and “The following day.” But in chapter two, John uses the ordinal form: “On the third day” or three days later. The third day prefigures the resurrection of Christ that marks a new beginning and restoration of life. Jesus was journeying for three days by the time he arrived at the wedding feast.

In Chapter 2 of Genesis, we have the narrative of the creation and fall of humankind. It is in Chapter 2 of his gospel, that John introduces us to Mary. She is actually mentioned being present first at the wedding feast, followed by Jesus and his disciples. Obviously, he is drawing the reader’s attention to her. And it’s here that Jesus first calls his mother “Woman” (Jn 2:4). He refers to her by the name that Eve bore before the Fall, when she was free from all stain of original sin. It was Adam who called Eve “Woman” [Gen.2:23] and here in the gospel, it’s Jesus (New Adam) who calls his mother Mary “Woman.” By comparing these two events (the Fall and Restoration), John is confirming to his readers that Jesus is the New Adam and Mary is the New Eve. On only one other occasion does John have Jesus call Mary “Woman,” and that’s from the Cross where he redefines her motherhood in the biblical sense. We have proof from sacred Tradition in the documents of the Church Fathers in the first millennia.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

The oral tradition (not to be confused with sacred Tradition) apparently contains inaccuracies and fabrications, but not everything is inaccurate or fabricated. We must consider the sources of information to assess their credibility. Irenaeus claims that Matthew originally wrote his gospel for the Hebrews in their own dialect, meaning the regional language used in Palestine. There would be no reason for Matthew to write his gospel in Greek while still there.

You seem to forget that most Jews even in Judea would have known Greek and even be familiar with Greek texts like the Septuagint. So it’s kinda far fetched to say Matthew wouldn’t write in Greek in Judea.

 

[Hodos]

The Wedding Feast at Cana is an allegorical narrative in which Mary is presented as the New Eve and Mother of the Church. John presents the servants at the wedding feast as types of disciples. We read: His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you” (Jn 2:5). Dr. Edward Sri points out, that instead of using the Greek word duolois for “servants” in the ordinary sense, the Evangelist uses diakonois , the Greek word used for Jesus’ true disciples in the NT. For instance: “If anyone serves ( diakonei ) me, he must follow me; and where I am, there shall my servant ( diakonoi ) be also” (Jn. 12:26). Hence, John is presenting Mary as the mother of all her Son’s disciples (the bride of Christ) who faithfully follow and serve him. And the first thing she must say to all her children as Mother of the Church is, “Do whatever he tells you" (cf. Rev. 12:17).

Or conversely, not one iota of what you just said is stated explicitly in any of John’s gospel, nor in his letters, nor in the greater canon of the New Testament and you are making an entire doctrine whole cloth out of speculation and allegory that the New Testament authors never use. What we see in John 2 is a prescriptive narration of Jesus first miracle, pointing toward his divinity as already stated explicitly in John 1.

We have proof from sacred Tradition in the documents of the Church Fathers in the first millennia.

You realize a millennia is a 1000 years right? How about something explicitly taught by the apostles themselves since you are alleging that this is an apostolic doctrine.