Before and after are two totally different things. I’m confused what you were confused about. I’ve quoted the verse over and over that Joseph did not know Mary UNTIL Jesus was born. I’ve maintained there were most probably other children and that Mary did not remain celebate. We haven’t gained one thing in this discussion that I can see.
This being the human element, it is certainly subject to error. However, the failure of the individuals to exercise pastoral judgement and discipline does not negate their authority to do so. We can clearly identify whose responsibility it was (and is) to address such misconduct. That is because all authority comes from God, and He was clear in assigning it and indicating how it should be exercised.
I think you and Jars ought to visit the other thread for the extensive treatment of this topic.
PRMerger - I think we’re going in a circle. I think we have agreed all along that there was no sex between Joseph and Mary prior to the conception of Jesus. As far as we know there was no sex between Joseph and Mary during her pregnancy. Then we come to the sticking point here - what about sex between Mary and Joseph after Jesus’ birth? It’s been said here on this forum that Mary took a vow that she’d remain a virgin, but I don’t see that claim in the bible or in the references that were given to me.
This is a good example of the Reformation thinking. If the authority does not act appropriately, then God must have failed to appoint the right people, or we are at liberty to disregard them.
I have no problem with what you say above…it still doesn’t mean Mary and Joseph didn’t have sex after Jesus was born.
It is strange because you don’t have the Jewish context that gives meaning to the word:
Yes, I think this is a normal reaction from a human point of view. However, consider Jesus’ response to the Pharisees, who misused their position of authority.
Some of the oldest art we have from the Eastern Church depicts a young adult James with his elderly father, Joseph, accompanying Jesus and Mary to Egypt.
Not at all. Firstborn animals were brought to the temple for sacrifice–whether they were the one and only, or first of many.
Guanophore, I’m not questioning the meaning of first born. First born, even in what you’ve quoted above doesn’t at all mean only born or even once the first born has arrived a married couple no longer has relations to try for a second born or third born. It doesn’t mean a child will be born, but it means sexual relations will take place.
Oy!
That’s the one and only reason for that little word “until”–to tell us that Mary and Joseph did not have sex during her pregnancy.
The Catholic Church is held to a higher standard becasue she claims to be infallible.
It seems strange to us because we use the word “until” most often with implications about what will happen after that. However, it was not used that way in the ancient Jewish culture.
Ok, if you must, let’s get into it here.
Huh? I’m not really even sure what your point is here, but I don’t question the meaning of first born. First born, doesn’t mean only born (not even in your references above). Can a first born be the only born. Absolutely. Does it mean the firstborn’s parents didn’t try to conceive more children, absolutely not. I didn’t even remotely touch on what your referencing above.
Exactly!
Yes. However, Catholics are able to “see” now, because we have the Revelation of God to the Church, preserved by the power of His HS.
Yes! :extrahappy:
The Luke 1:34 and Ezekiel verses cover that one.
We don’t see it as God “denying” Mary and Joseph anything. The One Flesh Union is really only a* foretaste* of the One Flesh Union we share with God. Mary (and possibly Joseph) was already One with the Holy Spirit–so what need would she have for the “foretaste”?
Once you understand the meaning of the title “firstborn” it will make more sense. The title applies as much to only children as to those with any number of children.
