Some questions about Catholic teaching

[seekerofanswers]

Hello all,

I recently have discovered my faith and have begun reading the Bible. As I went, I have noticed some things that seem contradictory to Catholic teaching, and was wondering if someone could explain.

Was Mary a perpetual virgin?

“And Joseph rising up from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and took unto him his wife. And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.” - Matthew 1:24-25 (DRA)

Joseph knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son. This implies that he knew her after she did so.

“Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joseph, and Jude, and Simon? are not also his sisters here with us? And they were scandalized in regard of him.” - Mark 6:3 (DRA)

“But other of the apostles I saw none, saving James the brother of the Lord.” -Galatians 1:19 (DRA)

Some have argued that the word for “brother” here actually means brother or cousin, which would indicate that Jesus’ “brothers” simply refer to His disciples. If this was true, why would the Galatians 1:19 specify that James is the Lord’s brother?

“And behold thy cousin Elizabeth, she also hath conceived a son in her old age; and this is the sixth month with her that is called barren:” - Luke 1:36 (DRA)

This passage would indicate that the word “cousin” is found in the Bible, supporting the idea that Mary was not a perpetual virgin.

Do the Ten Commandments tell us not to make graven images of things in Heaven?

“Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth.” - Exodus 20:4 (DRA)

Yes. Then why do Catholics do it? It does not matter if we are worshiping the graven things or not, God commanded us not to make them.

Must we confess our sins to a priest?

Basis for Catholic teaching on this comes from two points:

• Jesus gave his disciples the authority to forgive sins
• we are to confess our sins to one another

Nowhere, however, does the Bible say that sins must be confessed to a priest, even if priests today do have the ability to forgive sins by apostolic succession. In the Bible, people confessed in front of many people:

“Fight the good fight of faith: lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art called, and hast confessed a good confession before many witnesses.” - 1 Tim. 6:12 (DRA)

Must priests be celibate?

1 A faithful saying: if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.2 It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher,3 Not given to wine, no striker, but modest, not quarrelsome, not covetous, but 4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all chastity. 5 But if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God? - 1 Timothy 3:1-5 (DRA)

It behoveth a bishop to be the husband of one wife? This is the opposite of what the Church teaches.

“And when Jesus was come into Peter’s house, he saw his wife’s mother lying, and sick of a fever:” - Matthew 8:14-15(DRA)

His wife’s mother? So Peter had a wife then.

Transubstantiation

“And Jesus said to them: I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall not hunger: and he that believeth in me shall never thirst.” - John 6:35(DRA)

Here we know that Jesus is not literally bread, He is the bread of life. We can safely assume that this metaphor is continued.

“Who needeth not daily (as the other priests) to offer sacrifices first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, in offering himself.” - Hebrews 7:27(DRA)

This passage tells us that Christ does not need to be re-sacrificed.

The counter-argument to this is that many of Jesus’ disciples stopped following Him after they heard Him say that they had to eat His flesh and blood, and the only reason that they would have turned away is that they were taking Him literally. This is not true, however, because they stopped following after He said this:

“And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given Him by my Father. After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him.” - John 6:66-67(DRA)

On a more logical level, shouldn’t the bread and wine taste like flesh and blood if it is transformed into flesh and blood? I have had a bloody lip before, and I can tell you that the wine does not taste like blood.

I do have more questions, but this post is already very long so I will leave it here. Thank you VERY much to anyone who takes the time to respond, either to each question I have or just one. May God bless all of you!

 

[ConstantineTG]

Joseph knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son. This implies that he knew her after she did so.

No, it does not imply that. Certainly from the statement one can make such a conclusion, but in no way, shape or form did that statement imply that Joseph “knew” Mary after. The point of that statement was that Jesus is not the son of Joseph in a biological sense. Mary did not concieve because she had sex with Joseph. That was the point. It did not make any pressumptions or assumptions about after. It is not what the passage is addressing.

If I said, “to this day it has never flooded inside my house,” does that mean that tomorrow it will flood in my house?

 

[seekerofanswers]

If I said, “to this day it has never flooded inside my house,” does that mean that tomorrow it will flood in my house?

The passage is in the past tense: “**knew **her not until” . This means that, although it is not necessarily the purpose of the passage, Joseph knew her afterwards. If I said, “my house **didn’t **flood until …” it would imply that my house flooded after something, because of the use of the past tense.

 

[thistle]

Hello all,

I recently have discovered my faith and have begun reading the Bible. As I went, I have noticed some things that seem contradictory to Catholic teaching, and was wondering if someone could explain.

Was Mary a perpetual virgin?

Joseph knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son. This implies that he knew her after she did so.

Some have argued that the word for “brother” here actually means brother or cousin, which would indicate that Jesus’ “brothers” simply refer to His disciples. If this was true, why would the Galatians 1:19 specify that James is the Lord’s brother?

This passage would indicate that the word “cousin” is found in the Bible, supporting the idea that Mary was not a perpetual virgin.

Do the Ten Commandments tell us not to make graven images of things in Heaven?

Yes. Then why do Catholics do it? It does not matter if we are worshiping the graven things or not, God commanded us not to make them.

Must we confess our sins to a priest?

Basis for Catholic teaching on this comes from two points:

• Jesus gave his disciples the authority to forgive sins
• we are to confess our sins to one another

Nowhere, however, does the Bible say that sins must be confessed to a priest, even if priests today do have the ability to forgive sins by apostolic succession. In the Bible, people confessed in front of many people:

Must priests be celibate?

It behoveth a bishop to be the husband of one wife? This is the opposite of what the Church teaches.

His wife’s mother? So Peter had a wife then.

Transubstantiation

Here we know that Jesus is not literally bread, He is the bread of life. We can safely assume that this metaphor is continued.

This passage tells us that Christ does not need to be re-sacrificed.

The counter-argument to this is that many of Jesus’ disciples stopped following Him after they heard Him say that they had to eat His flesh and blood, and the only reason that they would have turned away is that they were taking Him literally. This is not true, however, because they stopped following after He said this:

On a more logical level, shouldn’t the bread and wine taste like flesh and blood if it is transformed into flesh and blood? I have had a bloody lip before, and I can tell you that the wine does not taste like blood.

I do have more questions, but this post is already very long so I will leave it here. Thank you VERY much to anyone who takes the time to respond, either to each question I have or just one. May God bless all of you!

If you believe Christ established the Catholic Church and gave it authority in matters of faith and morals then you know it cannot be in error. Therefore anything you interpret to mean something different from a Church teaching means your interpretation is wrong.

 

[Dorothy]

Seeker,

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?)

It helps when one understands the grammar used in many biblical verses.

For every one of your questions there is an answer. Ask the Holy Spirit for the grace to understand the answers.

 

[seekerofanswers]

If you believe Christ established the Catholic Church and gave it authority in matters of faith and morals then you know it cannot be in error. Therefore anything you interpret to mean something different from a Church teaching means your interpretation is wrong.

Ok. My question was more along the lines of: “In what way does the Church interpret these passages that seem to oppose Church teachings?”

I also have my doubts about Christ establishing the Catholic Church, rather than the church as the invisible body of believers in Christ. This is based on Christ’s teaching to the pharisees (“And in vain to they worship me, teaching doctrines and precepts of men.” - Mark 7:7) and the fact that 2 Thessalonians 2:14 - “Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.” tells Christ’s followers to hold to the traditions taught to them by the Apostles, not modify them and create new ones as the Church does. I have heard both sides of this debate, however, and am much more interested in hearing how the Church interprets what I originally posted.

 

[bzkoss236]

Maybe you should search for and read the Catholic argument before making assumptions based on your own personal interpretation of scripture, which is where many protestants err. Try reading these:

Was Mary a perpetual virgin?

catholic.com/tracts/brethren-of-the-lord

Do the Ten Commandments tell us not to make graven images of things in Heaven?

catholic.com/tracts/do-catholics-worship-statues

Must we confess our sins to a priest?

catholic.com/tracts/the-forgiveness-of-sins

Must priests be celibate?

catholic.com/tracts/celibacy-and-the-priesthood

Transubstantiation

catholic.com/tracts/christ-in-the-eucharist

 

[seekerofanswers]

Seeker,

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?)

It helps when one understands the grammar used in many biblical verses.

You simply replaced the word “to” with “until”.

Therefore Michol the daughter of Saul had no child to the day of her death. - 2 Samuel 6:23 (DRA)

You are right, saying, “had no child until the day of her death” doesn’t make sense, which is why “to” is used instead, which does make sense.

 

[jmcrae]

Ok. My question was more along the lines of: “In what way does the Church interpret these passages that seem to oppose Church teachings?”

These are very old questions, asked and answered thousands of times.

I also have my doubts about Christ establishing the Catholic Church, rather than the church as the invisible body of believers in Christ.

If Christ, who is the Way, the Life, and the Truth, died for His Church, then how does it make sense that His Church would be invisible, and divided on every single issue, with absolutely no way to discern what is true, or what is required for belief?

Did not this same Christ tell us to be like a city set on a hill, shining its light to the whole world? And what is Vatican City, if not a city set on a hill, proclaiming the Gospel to the entire world?

Jesus didn’t leave the disciples to fend for themselves. He set the Apostles in authority over the Church, and gave them successors to follow them, even until now.

 

[jmcrae]

You simply replaced the word “to” with “until”.

You are right, saying, “had no child until the day of her death” doesn’t make sense, which is why “to” is used instead, which does make sense.

The Bible was not originally written in English. In the original manuscripts, the same word is used in both of these verses - the word that meant that Michal didn’t have any children after she died also means that Joseph did not make any attempt to penetrate the Ark of the New Covenant with the most tender part of his body.

 

[liquidayno]

You may find this link helpful in your question about Mary’s virginity:

allstswwv.org/Orthodox%20Study%20Forum/Lessons/Virginity%20of%20Mary.htm

You are reading it in English; this will help you with the Greek to English translation and its meaning.

Here is the text from the above link:

The Virginity of Mary
A Short Orthodox Bible Study On Interpretation

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

MATTHEW 12:46-50 - While he (Jesus) was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. But he replied to the man who told him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, ``Here are my mother and my brothers! for whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother, and sister, and mother.’’

JAMES - Is often referred to as the brother of the Lord. (Galatians 1:19 - "I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother."See also, Matthew 13:55, Mark 6:3, Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18, 1 Corinthians 15:7, Galatians 2:99; 2:12, James 1:1.

        Did Mary have other children from Joseph besides Jesus? Scriptures seem to indicate so. How then can the Orthodox Church hold to the position that Mary was always a virgin, and call her the Virgin Mary? Doesn't this show that the Tradition of the Orthodox Church is contrary to the Bible, and therefore in error?

        Let us examine the biblical usage of the word UNTIL as found in Matthew 1:25. In Greek it is found as follows: <<EWS OTOU εως οτου>>, <<EWS TOU εως του>>, <<EWS OU εως ου >>, or <<EWS ON εως ον>>).

         What other passages in the Bible use these forms of UNTIL? (Note: Old Testament references are from the Greek Septuagint version, not the Hebrew)

GENESIS 8:7 - “And he sent forth a raven; and it went forth and returned not UNTIL <> the water was dried from off the earth.” We know that the raven never returned to Noah’s Ark. UNTIL means never or an indefinite period of time.

PSALM 72 - “In His days shall righteousness spring up; and abundance of peace TILL <> the moon be removed”. Again in this case, TILL is an expression meaning forever or eternity. If this expression is interpreted as modern-day scholarship would have it, in the sense of the opposite happening after the period of time has passed, then God’s righteousness will cease or turn to injustice after the passing of the moon. In other words we could ask the question, ``When do you think Fred will change his mind?’’ The answer,“Not till the moon turns blue!!” Not a chance.

JOHN 9:18 - Referring to the blind man, “the Jews did not believe concerning his sight, UNTIL <> they called the parents of him that had received his sight.” We know that the Jews never believed (John 9:24-41).

II SAMUEL 6:23 - “And Michal the daughter of Saul had no children UNTIL <<EWS TIS εως τις >> the day she died.” Did Michal have children after she died? Again, the meaning is indefinite time, forever, or never.

        What then can our conclusion be, according to the Scriptures, with regard to Joseph having relations with Mary ("he took his wife, but knew her not until she had borne a son")? All the above indications of the use of UNTIL indicate the sense of NEVER. If we then apply the same interpretation in Matthew 1:25, we are left with the conclusion that Joseph NEVER had relations with Mary, and thus she ever remained a virgin.

        What then about Jesus' brothers as referred to in the other verses mentioned? The word <<ADELPHOS>> as used in the biblical sense can mean brother, cousin, or male relative, unlike its Modern-Day usage. Unless we interpret correctly, we will always find conflict.

 

[liquidayno]

…continued,

ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM ON THIS MATTER (From Homily 5 on the Gospel of Matthew 1:23 & 25, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers)

"And when he had taken her, “he knew her not, till she had brought forth her first-born Son.”

He hath here used the word “till,” not that thou shouldest suspect that afterwards he did know her, but to inform thee that before the birth the Virgin was wholly untouched by man. But why then, it may be said, hath he used the word, “till”? Because it is usual in Scripture often to do this, and to use this expression without reference to limited times. For so with respect to the ark likewise, it is said, “The raven returned not till the earth was dried up.” And yet it did not return even after that time. And when discoursing also of God, the Scripture saith, “From age until age Thou art,” not as fixing limits in this case. And again when it is preaching the Gospel beforehand, and saying, “In his days shall righteousness flourish, and abundance of peace, till the moon be taken away,” it doth not set a limit to this fair part of creation. So then here likewise, it uses the word “till,” to make certain what was before the birth, but as to what follows, it leaves thee to make the inference. Thus, what it was necessary for thee to learn of Him, this He Himself hath said; that the Virgin was untouched by man until the birth; but that which both was seen to be a consequence of the former statement, and was acknowledged, this in its turn he leaves for thee to perceive; namely, that not even after this, she having so become a mother, and having been counted worthy of a new sort of travail, and a child-bearing so strange, could that righteous man ever have endured to know her. For if he had known her, and had kept her in the place of a wife, how is it that our Lord commits her, as unprotected, and having no one, to His disciple, and commands him to take her to his own home?

How then, one may say, are James and the others called His brethren? In the same kind of way as Joseph himself was supposed to be husband of Mary. For many were the veils provided, that the birth, being such as it was, might be for a time screened. Wherefore even John so called them, saying, “For neither did His brethren believe in Him.”

 

[dmar198]

You are right, saying, “had no child until the day of her death” doesn’t make sense, which is why “to” is used instead, which does make sense.

Check any other version. “Until” is a very common translation of that passage.

This means that, although it is not necessarily the purpose of the passage, Joseph knew her afterwards. If I said, “my house didn’t flood until …” it would imply that my house flooded after something, because of the use of the past tense.

The past tense doesn’t make a difference in these Scriptures:

Luke 2:37 - Anna was a widow until she was eighty-four years old. And she was still a widow after that.

Luke 1:80 - John was in the desert “until the point of his manifestation to Israel.” Read the book and you’ll find he was still in the desert for quite some time after that.

Deut. 34:6 - “until today” no one knew Moses’ burial place. This does not mean that they started knowing it on that day.

2 Sam. 6:23 - Saul’s daughter Micah was childless “until” her death. She was not with child after her death.

1 Macc. 5:54 - not one was slain “until” they returned in peace. They were not slain after they returned in peace.

 

[JRKH]

Ok. My question was more along the lines of: “In what way does the Church interpret these passages that seem to oppose Church teachings?”

I also have my doubts about Christ establishing the Catholic Church, rather than the church as the invisible body of believers in Christ. This is based on Christ’s teaching to the pharisees (“And in vain to they worship me, teaching doctrines and precepts of men.” - Mark 7:7) and the fact that 2 Thessalonians 2:14 - “Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.” tells Christ’s followers to hold to the traditions taught to them by the Apostles, not modify them and create new ones as the Church does. I have heard both sides of this debate, however, and am much more interested in hearing how the Church interprets what I originally posted.

I see that bzkoss has provided links so I’ll leave the OP alone for now and address this one…

Speaking primarily to the bolded section…The Bible speaks quite clearly that Jesus established a single visible and authoritative Church. The NT also contains an example of that Church acting authoritatively AND there are multiple exhortations for very close unity in the NT.
Below is sort of a “standard reply” that I use often in discussions over “Sola Scriptura”…But it provides the relevant passages and points…

After all of the trading back and forth of this and that verse, meaning, interpretation translation etc…the ultimate question will have to be - which of our personal, prayerful, “Spirit Guided” - and yet conflicting understandings is correct? How do we resolve this issue? Who has the authority to determine???

What does Scripture say???

Scripture says it is “The Church”

The Church is the pillar and bulwark of Truth (1 Tim 3:15)
The Church has authority to bind and loose - whatever (Mt 16:17-19) (Mt 18:15-18)
The Church settles arguments between distant church communities in a wonderful example of the instructions given in Mt 18…(Acts 15)
The Church is the vehicle by which God reveals His Wisdom to the world. (Eph 3:8-12)
Christ and the Apostles exhort the faithful to unity…to be of one mind

John 17:20-21
20 "I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

Rom 15:5-6
5 May the God of endurance and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus, 6 that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Cor 1:10
I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.

2 Cor 13:11
Finally, brothers, rejoice. Aim for restoration, comfort one another, agree with one another, live in peace; and the God of love and peace will be with you.

Php 1:27
Only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel,

1 Pet 3:8
Finally, all of you, have unity of mind, sympathy, brotherly love, a tender heart, and a humble mind.

All of these calls to unity, along with the instructions in the Gospel of Matthew and the example in Acts as well as Paul’s presenting his teachings to Peter and others to assure they are correct, the Church being the Pillar etc…All point clearly to doctrinal unity within a visible and authoritative Church.

Scripture Alone (Sola Scriptura) adherents can offer nothing scriptural in support of the (evangelical?) protestant view of “church” and “authority” that comes anywhere close to this preponderance of evidence for the RC/EO “Model” of Church structure and authority.

I say this with confidence because I have repeatedly asked protestant apologists to counter this evidence with “equally clear and compelling” evidence for what I call the “Protestant model” of locally independent church communities based on SS.
They just simply cannot do it…

Peace
James

 

[dmar198]

Do the Ten Commandments tell us not to make graven images of things in Heaven?

“Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth.” - Exodus 20:4 (DRA)

Do you seriously think that’s what it means? So, no drivers’ licenses (because they have pictures), and no cell phones (for the same reason), and no crosses (because that’s a likeness of something that was on earth)?

This is one of the most obvious cases in the whole Bible of taking a verse out of context. The verse before it and the verse after it both are talking about false gods. “Do not make a graven image” is the same thing as “Do not make an idol.” Normal imagery, not for worship, is not only approved in the Bible, it was commanded in the same book you got that from – see chapter 25 verse 18. Have you ever even read the Bible?

 

[tabycat]

Hello all,

Was Mary a perpetual virgin?

Joseph knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son. This implies that he knew her after she did so.

Until last year I did not run over anyone, does that mean I have run over somebody in the past year? hint: I haven’t.

Are there anyone, other then the Lord Jesus, called a child of Mary?

Some have argued that the word for “brother” here actually means brother or cousin, which would indicate that Jesus’ “brothers” simply refer to His disciples. If this was true, why would the Galatians 1:19 specify that James is the Lord’s brother?

Do you mean that Paul, the writer of Galatians, could not be using the word brother in the sense of disciple? Have you never referted to a fellow church as brother or sister?

Do the Ten Commandments tell us not to make graven images of things in Heaven?

Yes. Then why do Catholics do it? It does not matter if we are worshiping the graven things or not, God commanded us not to make them.

Did God brake His own Law when He told the Isrealites to put two angles on the lid of the Ark and to put the Ark in the Holy of Holies?

Must priests be celibate?

Only if they are Monks. In Latin rite Catholic Church, in some cases a married man maybe ordained a deacon, in Eastern Rites Catholic Church and E.O. Churchs married men can be ordained deacons. In all Catholic Rites and E.O. churchs, if their wives die, the Preist can not remarry.

It behoveth a bishop to be the husband of one wife? This is the opposite of what the Church teaches.

No it is not, in AD 90 if a man’s first wife died and he remarried, he could not become a Bishop because he had two wives. In the Eastern Church, Monks are picked for Bishops.

His wife’s mother? So Peter had a wife then.

So what? Point being?

God Bless

 

[noobio]

Hello all,

Do the Ten Commandments tell us not to make graven images of things in Heaven?

Yes. Then why do Catholics do it? It does not matter if we are worshiping the graven things or not, God commanded us not to make them.

I’m not sure about the other stuff, but the commandments tell us not to build statues for the purpose of worship. Do not make an idol for yourself, whether in the shape of anything in the heavens above or on the earth below or in the waters under the earth. 5 You must not bow down to them or worship them. (Exodus 20:4-5) Catholics use statues to honor people, not worship.

Also, in the old testament, did God not command Moses to create a statue of a snake around a pole ? Or the ark of the covenant which has two figures on top of it.

You mentioned something about the bible not saying anything about confessing to priest. A better question is “why does it need to ?”.

 

[reagent6]

For me, one of the strongest arguments for Mary’s not having other children is the cross, or more specifically the foot of the cross. There we see the three Marys and John. Jesus gives his mother over to John’s care and from that day he took her into his house (John 19:25-27).

If Jesus had brothers or sisters, where were they? Given the culture and society of the day would Jesus have asked John the disciple to take his widowed mother into his house if she had other sons?

If you think about it it makes much more sense that James, the brother of the Lord, was a male relative, perhaps a cousin or step brother. Stories have been handed down that Joseph was older and a widower with children of his own when he married Mary.

 

[LilyM]

The passage is in the past tense: “**knew **her not until” . This means that, although it is not necessarily the purpose of the passage, Joseph knew her afterwards. If I said, “my house **didn’t **flood until …” it would imply that my house flooded after something, because of the use of the past tense.

No it doesn’t. There is an Old Testament passage ‘Michal (King David’s wife) had no children until the day she died’. There is absolutely no implication that she had children after she died - or ever. Similarly ‘I am with you always, until the end of the world’ contains no implication that Christ will cease to be with us after the world ends - or ever. Nor does ‘sit on my right until I make your enemies your footstool’ mean that the person concerned will cease to sit at God’s right hand after this is accomplished - or ever.

 

[JRKH]

I still say that the simplest way to convince yourself of the Perpetual Virginity is to put yourself in Joseph’s sandals…
Read Mt 1:18-22 and we see that he was a Just man - a Righteous man before God. When he found out that Mary was with child he sought to put her away quietly. But THEN he was visited in his sleep by and angel and told that the child Mary carried was conceived by the Holy Spirit of God…
If you were Joseph, knowing what he knew about Mary’s relationship to God - her consecration to God - would you choose to have sexual relations with her??

I know I would not…

Peace
James