What's the Significance of Mary's Perpetual Virginity

[Randy_Carson]

The OT passages you refer to were in Hebrew. There are translations for some words such as wine. OT uses three words depending whether it’s fermented or unfermented, the NT uses one word. But what is the literal translations of the verses?

u·iqch abrm ath - shri ashth·u u·ath - lut bn - achi·u (only the first half)
Literally: and·he-is-taking Abram Sarai woman-of·him and Lot son-of brother-of·him

u·iamr abrm al - lut al - na thei mribe bin·i u·bini·k u·bin ro·i u·bin roi·k ki - anshim **achim **anchnu
Literally: and·he-is-saying Abram to Lot must-not-be please ! she-is-becoming contention between·me and·between·you and·between ones-being-shepherds-of·me and·between ones-being-shepherds-of·you that mortals brothers we

u·iqchu ath - lut u·ath - rksh·u **bn - achi **abrm
Litterally: and·they-are-taking Lot and goods-of·him **son-of brother-**of Abram

Right. This is the awkward circumlocution mentioned in my previous post.

In Hebrew and Aramaic, there was no word for cousin, so the Jews used a word which is translated as “brother” even when the literal sibling relationship did not exist.

Thus, citing scriptures which refer to the “brothers” of the Lord cannot be used to PROVE that Mary had other children.

 

[ufamtobie]

Whether you chose to believe Mary remained a Virgin or not, why is it so significant to Catholics that Mary had remained a Virgin after the birth of Christ? It would not have been sinful for her to have relations with her husband and beget other children.

Salvation is through Chris alone! Mary is not a saviour and she recognized who is the saviour (Luke 1:47 greek - “theO tO sOtEri mou,” “God THE SAViour OF-ME.”

Shawn,

First of all, lets say you were St. Joseph, a good man, God fearing and Looking forward for the Coming of Jesus Christ his Savior. You Shwan, being “St. Joseph” would know your role as a caregiver “ONLY” to Virgin Mary and the Child Jesus, it end there! St. Jopseph was a caregiver only, and nothing more.

Shwan, do you TRULY BELIEVE that Joseph would want to have children with Mary after she concieved a Son, his Savior, by the power of the Holy Spirit, the TRUE SPOUSE of Virgin Mary? Do you really believe that Joseph would touch Virgin Mary in that way? Shawn, I am sorry to to disapoint you, but, this Holy Family, you will find on a Jerry Springer show.

Regarding Virgin Mary being Born without sin: By the simple fact that is was Virgin Mary who gave Him his Body, proves that Virgin Mary was created very special (GREAT THINGS) for she was to carry the Son Of God who is without sin therefore Virgin Mary is without sin, Virgin Mary was the Living Ark that carried Our Savior.

Virgin Mary guided by the Holy Spirit says in: (Luke 1: 49) For the Almighty has done GREAT THINGS for Me.

Shawn, the above bible verse states that Virgin Mary filled with the Holy Spirit says The Almighty has done"GREAT THINGS" for me. Note: Not (thing), but THING(S) For Her, and one of those GREAT THINGS that the ALMIGHTY has done for Her, is that she was to be born without sin, in order for Her, to have Jesus Christ our Savior, who also was born witout sin.

Shwan, if you have a Holy common sense you would know that St. Joseph, knew his Role, and that role was only be a holy caregiver to Jesus and Mary.

Shawn, please, the Catholic Church never said nor teaches that Virgin Mary is our Savior, but a vessel a pure vessle, a spotless vessle for the Almighty has Done Great Things for her.

Shawn, I warn you, do not try to attack the True Church of Jesus Christ by attacking His Mother, you will not win, and at the end you will find yourself to be very ashamed and lonely and very very regretful.

Ufam Tobie

 

[Randy_Carson]

you are Sancho to his Don Quixote?

ahhh….imitation, the sincerest form of flattery

Thanks for the compliment…btw, who do you think types out the editorial review for Amazon?

I guess you would be missing that you have assumed that the novelties that became the “Catholic doctrines of Mary” would necessarily fall into the sort of novelties that the ECFs would “jump all over”.

Wow. Moving on…

Kidding aside, I think this question of yours reveals the difference between our two views. Regarding the beliefs about Mary that you hold and that I reject (the Marian beliefs) there is an undeniable silence in the historical record wrt those beliefs. The silence starts at the beginning and the silence is the shortest wrt to the PV. We look at that silence and come to two different conclusions.

I agree. You see that silence as a problem; I see it as irrelevant. You assume that the “silence” means that much later, someone simply made up the whole thing and that (for some strange reason) everyone just went along with the fables which eventually became accepted as fact and then as dogma.

Now, this probably seems perfectly logical to you, but I can assure you (as one who spends many long hours discussing doctrinal differences with my separated brethren in these forums) that written evidence alone is insufficient to convince someone of something he or she has chosen to reject. IOW, there are doctrines for which AMPLE evidence from the earliest days of Christianity exist, and people still seek to explain them away because they do not fit their presuppositions nor their theology.

So, what evidence would be sufficient to convince you? I’m not sure that anything would suffice. I could present quotes from every DECADE between AD 100 and AD 200, and you would still seek to explain why the ECFs did not mean what they actually wrote. John 6 and numerous other passages of scripture come to mind here.

For my part, I assume that silence simply means that no one had any specific reason to comment on something prior to the first recorded discussion of that topic. I also happen to think that theological understanding develops, and that many years may pass before someone combines truths in a new way to derive a new truth. For example, how long did it take before someone constructed the following:

1. Mary is the Mother of Jesus.
2. Jesus is God.
3. Therefore, Mary is the Mother of God.

Refutation of the Nestorian heresy occurred long ago, but simply follow a few Marian threads in this forum for awhile to see how many of your brothers in arms are unwitting Nestorians!

So, if a doctrine concerning Mary’s Perpetual Virginity or Assumption did not spring forth from the pens of the Apostles themselves, that’s okay. I doubt Paul could have adequately described the hypostatic union on an open-book quiz. Doctrine develops…the truth was there all along…waiting to be discovered in and developed from the faith delivered once for all to the saints.

Finally, I also accept that an infallible Church led by the Holy Spirit is incapable of teaching error with regard to these matters. If you had not placed the cart before the horse, then your own path to understanding might have been easier.

I reserve the right to extend and revise my remarks, and I yield back the balance of my time.

 

[Randy_Carson]

One more point…

Although I wrote previously concerning the writings of the ECFs, I do not concede that scripture itself is silent on the Marian dogmas. You made much of the “gap” in a previous exchange with Aspirant. My opinion is this:

1. “Mother of God” is easily supported from scripture.
2. “Perpetual Virginity” is supported by Mary’s question to the angel and the “circumstantial” evidence that EVERY single argument non-Catholics make from scripture has a solid Catholic explanation. The preponderance of the evidence is simply too significant to deny, IMO. I note, btw, that you are not even bothering to make these arguments since you know that every verse you could offer in support of your position has a plausible, Catholic explanation. This, I feel, is why you’ve chosen to attack along the line of the “silence” of the ECF’s instead. Fair enough. You play your side of the board and we’ll play ours.
3. “Immaculate Conception” is supported by kecharitomene and the New Ark of the Covenant typology. We’ve been down that road already, and I believe my argument remains sufficiently intact. I would be fascinated to see Aspirant’s treatment of your objections.
4. “Assumption” is probably the only Marian dogma that I would concede regarding direct scriptural support. Revelation 12 is an option, but not a defense that I personally would want to make with other choices that are far superior available to me.

So, in light of all this, I would point out that none of the Marian dogmas are anti-biblical, and I think you have nothing but your own skepticism to offer in the way of objection.

If, however, you feel you can offer scripture verses that conclusively deny any of these dogmas, I’m happy to consider them.

Finally, I would like to point out the obvious with regard to this discussion; namely, that this is a Catholic forum and you are seeking to disprove Catholic dogma that has been taught formally or informally for the better part of two millennia. This means that we have home court advantage, and the burden of proof is on you.

State the affirmative position you wish to defend and have at it.

 

[shawn38]

To determine what “brethren” or “brother” or “sister” means in any one verse, we have to look at the context. When we do that, we see that insuperable problems arise if we assume that Mary had children other than Jesus.

Agreed! But not only for the one verse, but all verses including the messianic psalm 69 which is referred to in the gospel of John.

When the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary and told her that she would conceive a son, she asked, “How can this be since I have no relations with a man?” (Luke 1:34). From the Church’s earliest days, as the Fathers interpreted this Bible passage, Mary’s question was taken to mean that she had made a vow of lifelong virginity, even in marriage. (This was not common, but neither was it unheard of.) If she had not taken such a vow, the question would make no sense.

Context. She was betrothed, but not married. So being a virgin would be expected until the consummation. Being unmarried, was it acceptible to be a fornicator?

Matt 1:18 Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. 19 Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

What was the public disgrace? Not married and being pregnant. Also getting married and found not to be a virgin.

Deutoronomy 22:13 If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her 14and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” 15then the girl’s father and mother shall bring proof that she was a virgin to the town elders at the gate. 16The girl’s father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18and the elders shall take the man and punish him…19…She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives. 20If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, 21she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.

Mary knew how babies are made (otherwise she wouldn’t have asked the question she did). If she had anticipated having children in the normal way and did not intend to maintain a vow of virginity, she would hardly have to ask “how” she was to have a child, since conceiving a child in the “normal” way would be expected by a newlywed wife. Her question makes sense only if there was an apparent (but not a real) conflict between keeping a vow of virginity and acceding to the angel’s request. A careful look at the New Testament shows that Mary kept her vow of virginity and never had any children other than Jesus.
​

This assumption could have merit if she was married, but she was not! She was betrothed. All the difference in the world.

The root (“to betroth”), from which the Talmudic abstract (“betrothal”) is derived, must be taken in this sense; i.e., to contract an actual though incomplete marriage. This arrangement was binding with exception. The bride had the right of refusal. A man may not “take” or “acquire” a wife against her will. It must be done with her consent. This is the reason for the two witnesses at the betrothal and wedding. The witnesses assure that the bride is not agreeing under duress or coercion. After the betrothal a period of twelve months was allowed to pass before the marriage was completed by the formal home-taking. The bride lived with her parents until the actual marriage ceremony (nissuin), which would take place in a room or tent that the groom had set up for her. No physical contact whatsoever until the wedding; betrothal period is for spiritual and emotional preparation (falling in love), not physical affection

Sorry that this post is so long already!​

 

[shawn38]

[/INDENT]When Jesus was found in the Temple at age twelve, the context suggests that he was the only son of Mary and Joseph. There is no hint in this episode of any other children in the family (Luke 2:41–51). Jesus grew up in Nazareth, and the people of Nazareth referred to him as “the son of Mary” (Mark 6:3), not as “a son of Mary.” In fact, others in the Gospels are never referred to as Mary’s sons, not even when they are called Jesus’ “brethren.” If they were in fact her sons, this would be strange usage.

Luke 2:44 But they, supposing him to have been in the company, went a day’s journey; and they (anezEtoun = they-up-sought) sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance (suggenesin=TOGETHER-generateds, relatives). This indicates that there were other relatives there. Jesus was not there so He could not be included in the “they”. Who exactly they were (brothers, sisters), it doesn’t say other then relatives.

Mark 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

Apparently they knew the family well enough to be able to identify the mother by name, the father by trade, and His brothers (adelphos) and sisters (adelphai). Now adelphai and adelphos come from the root adelpus meaning “womb.” They shouldn’t be cousons for there’s the Greek word “anepsios” for that. Could they be spiritual brothers and sisters that the Galileans spoke of since the apostles had been chosen? This was the first year of Jesus’ ministry. Mark 6 and Luke 4, Jesus went into the synogogue to teach. It does not mention the apostles are with Him. However in Mark 6:7 He called them to Himself before sending them out.

Point is: They’re from Jesus’ hometown. They know His mother and father. To throw non-family members into the verse isn’t logical considering they knew the brothers and sisters by name. If they were disciples, considering this was the first year of His ministry and most of that was spent outside Nazareth, most likely they knew James, Joseph, Judas and Simon.

Also, the attitude taken by the “brethren of the Lord” implies they are his elders. In ancient and, particularly, in Eastern societies (remember, Palestine is in Asia), older sons gave advice to younger, but younger seldom gave advice to older—it was considered disrespectful to do so. But we find Jesus’ “brethren” saying to him that Galilee was no place for him and that he should go to Judea so he could make a name for himself (John 7:3–4).
​

John7:3 Jesus’ brothers said to him, “You ought to leave here and go to Judea, so that your disciples may see the miracles you do.
Why would He do that considering He 1:…purposely staying away from Judea because the Jews there were waiting to take his life.
5 For even his own brothers did not believe in him.

Why would His apostles or disciples, who believed in Him, want Jesus to go into Judea if He were going to be killed? Jealous brothers perhaps. Look what happen to Joseph, Jacob’s son.​

 

[aspirant]

Where does Paul mention Mary? My first thought was 1 Cor 15, but he doesn’t.

One of my favorite passages: “…But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman…” Galatians 4.

 

[aspirant]

The OT passages you refer to were in Hebrew.

Originally (they have also been translated into many other languages). Semitic languages like Hebrew use “brother” to refer to cousins and some other relatives of close relation.

And the New Testament, though written in Greek, contains many Semitic idioms because most of the sources (Jesus & his Apostles) come from a Jewish and therefore Semitic background. Romans 9:13, for example, was written in Greek but employs Semitic idiom: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” This passage can be very misleading to one who doesn’t understand the Semitic background of the phrase.

But what is the literal translations of the verses?

The formal equivalent of adelphoi is “brothers.” The literal sense of the term in the gospels depends a lot on whether the background idiom is Semitic or Greek, as well as some other factors. That is a debatable point. Regardless, even the Greek idiom does not make them Mary’s children, which is the real point of our conversation here.

 

[aspirant]

She was betrothed, but not married.

Yes. And under normal circumstances, a betrothed or engaged person anticipates consummation of marriage in the near future. Mary reacts as if she anticipates no consummation. That’s a problem for the Helvidian position.

Being unmarried, was it acceptible to be a fornicator?

Sex between the betrothed could have been a problem in Nazareth, which is in the Galilee. In Judea, on the other hand, cohabitation during betrothal was normal. (Remember that betrothal, unlike modern engagement, is a stage of marriage.)

Matt 1:19 Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

What was the public disgrace?

Actually, there is no “public disgrace” in the original language. It just says “Yet Joseph her husband, being righteous, and not willing to expose her, intended to loose her privately.”

It is very common (among Christians of all kinds-- Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox) to interpret this passage to mean Joseph presumed his wife was pregnant by another man and didn’t want to shame her, which is why so many translations add terms like “public disgrace.”

Other interpreters, putting more emphasis on verse 18 and making no addition to verse 19, interpret the passage to mean that Joseph knew his wife was pregnant by the Holy Spirit and, unwilling to expose this secret but afraid to interfere uninvited in the divine plan, intended to divorce her privately.

The first group interprets the angel’s message with emphasis on divine as opposed to human paternity (“conceived… of the Holy Spirit”). The second group interprets the angel’s message with emphasis on Joseph’s vocation in the divine plan (“fear not accepting Mary as your wife”).

Regardless which reading one prefers, I think it is valuable to know there is no “public disgrace” in verse 19.

Deutoronomy 22:20If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, 21she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.

Some people among the second group of interpreters actually use this verse against the idea that Joseph thought Mary committed adultery. If Joseph really believed Mary committed adultery and wanted to let her off the hook, they argue, he would not really be a “righteous man.”

This assumption could have merit if she was married, but she was not! She was betrothed. All the difference in the world.

Actually, no. Betrothal, unlike modern engagement, was a stage of marriage. The man and woman were legally considered husband and wife, and the only way to end a betrothal was divorce. Among some Jews, as I mentioned above, sex between the betrothed was acceptable.

Now adelphai and adelphos come from the root adelpus meaning “womb.” They shouldn’t be cousons for there’s the Greek word “anepsios” for that.

Semitic languages, however, do not. The question whether the gospels are following a Greek or Semitic idiom here is debatable, since Semitic idioms are frequently used in NT Greek. And regardless which idiom is being used, no passage in the New Testament identifies Jesus’ brothers as Mary’s children, making it entirely plausible that they could Joseph’s children by other means (e.g. previous wife, adoption).

Point is: They’re from Jesus’ hometown. They know His mother and father. To throw non-family members into the verse isn’t logical

No one here has suggested that these “brothers and sisters” are “non-family.”

 

[Randy_Carson]

Why would His apostles or disciples, who believed in Him, want Jesus to go into Judea if He were going to be killed? Jealous brothers perhaps. Look what happen to Joseph, Jacob’s son.

John 7:1-5
1After this, Jesus went around in Galilee, purposely staying away from Judea because the Jews there were waiting to take his life. 2But when the Jewish Feast of Tabernacles was near, 3Jesus’ brothers said to him, “You ought to leave here and go to Judea, so that your disciples may see the miracles you do. 4No one who wants to become a public figure acts in secret. Since you are doing these things, show yourself to the world.” 5For even his own brothers did not believe in him.

I think you’re making my case. The “brothers” mentioned here are either jealous, older half-brothers who are acting like Joseph’s brothers, or they are simply cousins who are skeptical of Aunt Mary’s son.

 

[shawn38]

One of my favorite passages: “…But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman…” Galatians 4.

I appreciate that aspirant. I was searching by Paul and Mary, not for woman. Adding born of a woman shows that He was incarnate and not there’s any salvation through the woman. For the next verse says He came 5to redeem those under law.

Thanks again!

 

[shawn38]

John 7:1-5
I think you’re making my case. The “brothers” mentioned here are either jealous, older half-brothers who are acting like Joseph’s brothers, or they are simply cousins who are skeptical of Aunt Mary’s son.

Joseph did have a younger brother too. I believe he was the 11th of 12. We don’t know their motive for certain. But if jealousy were to lead them to sin (not loving their brother), do you think they’d be concerned about their age? Probably not.

 

[shawn38]

Yes. And under normal circumstances, a betrothed or engaged person anticipates consummation of marriage in the near future. Mary reacts as if she anticipates no consummation. That’s a problem for the Helvidian position.

No she doesn’t. She was betrothed and expected to be a virgin.

Sex between the betrothed could have been a problem in Nazareth, which is in the Galilee. In Judea, on the other hand, cohabitation during betrothal was normal. (Remember that betrothal, unlike modern engagement, is a stage of marriage.)

It was a problem under Jewish Law period. A commandment of God! Yes it’s a stage that takes place about one year before the actual wedding. The bride still lives with the mother during this period. But it’s not marriage.

Actually, there is no “public disgrace” in the original language. It just says “Yet Joseph her husband, being righteous, and not willing to expose her, intended to loose her privately.”

To expose what then is the question? The fact that she was unmarried and pregnant.
paradeigmatisai = literally translated TO-BESIDE-SHOWize

It is very common (among Christians of all kinds-- Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox) to interpret this passage to mean Joseph presumed his wife was pregnant by another man and didn’t want to shame her, which is why so many translations add terms like “public disgrace.”

Until the angel of the lord appeared to Joseph, he didn’t know that the baby was conceived by the Holy Spirit. What don’t know if Mary told him or what.

Other interpreters, putting more emphasis on verse 18 and making no addition to verse 19, interpret the passage to mean that Joseph knew his wife was pregnant by the Holy Spirit and, unwilling to expose this secret but afraid to interfere uninvited in the divine plan, intended to divorce her privately.

We don’t know how far along she was by the time he found out. He may not have believed her even if she told him. Perhaps one of the reasons why the angel appeared to Joseph. Jews are still awaiting the messiah today.

Some people among the second group of interpreters actually use this verse against the idea that Joseph thought Mary committed adultery. If Joseph really believed Mary committed adultery and wanted to let her off the hook, they argue, he would not really be a “righteous man.”

Had she committed adultery, he would still be a righteous man according to God’s commandments, the only one that counts. But it would have been up to Joseph.

Actually, no. Betrothal, unlike modern engagement, was a stage of marriage. The man and woman were legally considered husband and wife, and the only way to end a betrothal was divorce. Among some Jews, as I mentioned above, sex between the betrothed was acceptable.

There’s was a contract in place that would require a divorce, but they were not husband and wife. Negative on the second part. Marriage was not acceptable. Besides the bride still lived with her parents.

Semitic languages, however, do not. The question whether the gospels are following a Greek or Semitic idiom here is debatable, since Semitic idioms are frequently used in NT Greek. And regardless which idiom is being used, no passage in the New Testament identifies Jesus’ brothers as Mary’s children, making it entirely plausible that they could Joseph’s children by other means (e.g. previous wife, adoption).

Psalms 69:8 l·bni am·i = literally “to·sons-of mother-of·me” messianic psalm that’s also referred to in John 2 (i believe)

No one here has suggested that these “brothers and sisters” are “non-family.”

Point was that most likely they would be half-brothers (same mother-Mary) or half-brothers (Joseph in a previous marriage). Legally under Jewish law, Joseph had the same rights as a biological father. But this would mean that Joseph would have to have been previously married. Nothing in the Bible indicates this.

The biggest issue is that regardless of the amount of evidence, people will refuse to believe it. It’s like having a duck, but people don’t believe you. So you try to describe it to them. It have webbed feet. Well frogs have webbed feet. It has two wings. Well an eagle has two wings. It lays eggs. Well a chicken lays eggs. It quacks. Well a goose quacks. Everything is dismissed as being something else, but when all placed together it becomes clear.

 

[aspirant]

I appreciate that aspirant. I was searching by Paul and Mary, not for woman.

Glad to be of service.

 

[aspirant]

And under normal circumstances, a betrothed or engaged person anticipates consummation of marriage in the near future. Mary reacts as if she anticipates no consummation.

Yes, she does. If I say to an engaged friend, even a virgin, “You will have such beautiful children!,” she does not ask “How? I’m not having sex.” A woman about to be married, if she intends to consummate the marriage, does not ask how she will have children.

It was a problem under Jewish Law period.

First century Jews did not agree on this matter. Betrothal was a stage of marriage; legally the betrothed were already husband and wife. In Judea, sex between betrothed couples was common. In the Galilee, sex between the betrothed was not accepted. For this reason the Mishnah and Talmud say “one who eats at his father-in-law’s [home] in Judea without witnesses is not able [later] to make a claim [regarding his wife’s] virginity, because he was together with her. In Judea he cannot raise this claim, but in Galilee he can raise it.”

Yes [betrothal is] a stage that takes place about one year before the actual wedding.

The length of betrothals also varied.

[Re: Matthew 1:19] To expose what then is the question?

Exactly! There are two different interpretations, which differ on how they read verse 18 and subsequently the whole passage.

The first think verse 18 and 19 means something like “She was found to be with child. This pregnancy was from the Holy Spirit, but Joseph didn’t know that. Believing Mary had committed adultery, Joseph decided to divorce her quietly and not expose the adultery.” In this interpretation, the primary point of Joseph’s dream is the revelation that Mary is not an adulterer (“that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.”).

The second verse 18 and 19 means something like “She was found to be with child, and Joseph knew the pregnancy was from the Holy Spirit. Fearing he might be intruding uninvited in God’s work, Joseph decided to divorce her quietly and not expose the origin of Mary’s pregnancy.” In this interpretation, the primary point of Joseph’s dream is the revelation that Joseph is not intruding but has an important role to play in God’s plan (“do not fear to take Mary as your wife… she will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins”).

Whether one follows the first interpretation or the second depends a lot on how one interprets “she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit,” how one understands Joseph’s character, etc.

Whichever interpretation one favors, we must all remember that it is an interpretation. The text itself does not explicitly say what Joseph was unwilling to reveal about Mary, only that he was unwilling to reveal her secret.

Until the angel of the lord appeared to Joseph, he didn’t know that the baby was conceived by the Holy Spirit.

You interpret the passage this way, as do many people, but the text doesn’t actually say that. Verse 18 says “she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit.” That could mean either “she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit, and Joseph knew it” (e.g. because Mary told him and he believed her) or “she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit, but Joseph didn’t know it” (e.g. because she did not tell him or he did not believe her). The text does not explicitly tell us which. You may adopt either interpretation you choose, but you should recognize that it is an interpretation.

Some people among the second group of interpreters actually use this verse against the idea that Joseph thought Mary committed adultery. If Joseph really believed Mary committed adultery and wanted to let her off the hook, they argue, he would not really be a “righteous man.”

These interpreters question whether Joseph really would be righteous according to the commandments, if he truly believed his wife guilty of adultery but did not reveal it. After all, the Torah commanded: “If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death” and “if [a wife] has defiled herself and has broken faith with her husband… the woman shall become a curse among her people.”

Regardless what one thinks of that, I see another potential concern. If Joseph did not accuse Mary of adultery, the community would presume the child was his. Even if they thought he had grounds for divorce other than adultery, I question whether they would look kindly on the abandonment of his (presumed) child.

There’s was a contract in place that would require a divorce, but they were not husband and wife.

This is not correct. When the agreement had been entered into, the betrothed were considered husband and wife in all legal and religious aspects except cohabitation. (Among the Judeans, who allowed sex during betrothal, the wife still lived with her parents during the betrothal stage.)

 

[aspirant]

Psalms 69:8 l·bni am·i = literally “to·sons-of mother-of·me” messianic psalm that’s also referred to in John 2 (i believe)

Psalm 69:8 says לְאֶחָי. The same word for brother (ach) is also used in Genesis 13:8, where Abraham says he and Lot are “brothers” (achim). Hebrew lexicons (like this one) acknowledge that the word also means “relative, kinship, same tribe.” Your assertion that the term used in Psalm 69:8 can only refer to sons of the same mother is frankly erroneous.

Furthermore, in a typological reading, not everything applies to the antitype in the same sense that it applies to the type. The literal sense of Psalm 69 is about King David (the type), in whose voice the poem is written (verse 1). The spiritual sense is about the Messiah (the antitype). Even in the literal sense of the poem, it seems doubtful that verse 8 is actually referring to Eliab, Abinadab, Shammah, and Jesse’s other sons. But even if it does, it does not follow that it applies to the Messiah in the same sense.

In order to better explain the point that when reading typologically not everything applies to the antitype in the same sense as the type, turn to Isaiah 53. All Christians, following the example of the New Testament, read this text spiritually to apply to Messiah, and it is not hard to see why. Verse 10 informs us that God’s servant will “see his offspring.” The word here is זֶרַע, seed or semen, which primarily refers to biological descendants. Do Christians believe Jesus has biological descendants, that he impregnated a woman or women with his semen? Some Mormons do, but no orthodox Christians do. We do not believe, when Isaiah 53 is applied to Jesus, that Isaiah teaches Jesus had biological children. If the passage applies to Jesus, it must mean something different for the antitype than for the type.

Unless you believe that Jesus has biological children, you cannot fault Catholics for thinking Psalm 69 can apply differently to Jesus than to David.

But truthfully, Genesis 13:8 was sufficient to completely undo your assertion.

Point was that most likely they would be half-brothers (same mother-Mary) or half-brothers (Joseph in a previous marriage).

Other options include close relatives (who are also called “brothers” in the Semitic idiom) and children adopted by Joseph, or both (close relatives adopted by Joseph).

But this would mean that Joseph would have to have been previously married. Nothing in the Bible indicates this.

Nor does the Bible exclude it, meaning you have no substantial case against it.

 

[Randy_Carson]

For the gap between Mary’s existence and the appearance (in the historical record) of the belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity in the 2nd century the belief you (seem to) want evidence that it was not taught. Contrary to your assertion, proving the negative is not a simple task….we can’t expect that Ignatius would mention Mary’s virginity and then go on to clarify that although they held to Mary’s virginity at conception, they hadn’t yet started to entertain the idea of Mary’s perpetual virginity.

I’d like to address this “gap”, if I may. I offer the following quotation from St. Jerome:
“[Helvidius] produces Tertullian as a witness [to his view] and quotes Victorinus, bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian, I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proven from the gospel—that he [Victorinus] spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship, not by nature. [By discussing such things we] are . . . following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against [the heretics] Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man.”
This quote is taken from chapter 19 of St. Jerome’s work, “Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary—a work written in A.D. 383 in response to the teaching of Helvidius who denied that Mary had remained a virgin throughout her life.

**In this passage, Jerome states that Ignatius of Antioch (d. AD 107), Polycarp of Smyrna (d. AD 155), Justin Martyr (d. AD 165) and Irenaeus of Lyons (d. AD 202) all held that Mary was ever-virgin. It is especially important to note that both Ignatius and Polycarp were disciples of the Apostles Peter and John—a fact which ties this discussion directly to the original Twelve Apostles of Jesus.

Although the works of these men with which Jerome was evidently familiar do not survive to this day, the fact that Jerome cites them in his refutation of Helvidius provides evidence that belief in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary existed from the earliest days of the Church.
**
It is interesting to note that Helvidius never responded to Jerome’s refutation. I doubt that I shall be so fortunate.

 

[aspirant]

Also regarding the secondary point that in a typological reading, not everything applies to the antitype in the same sense that it applies to the type: We do not believe that Psalm 69 teaches that Jesus sinned.

 

[Radical]

I’d like to address this “gap”, if I may. I offer the following quotation from St. Jerome:
“[Helvidius] produces Tertullian as a witness [to his view] and quotes Victorinus, bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian, I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proven from the gospel—that he [Victorinus] spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship, not by nature. [By discussing such things we] are . . . following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against [the heretics] Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man.”
This quote is taken from chapter 19 of St. Jerome’s work, “Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary—a work written in A.D. 383 in response to the teaching of Helvidius who denied that Mary had remained a virgin throughout her life.

In this passage, Jerome states that Ignatius of Antioch (d. AD 107), Polycarp of Smyrna (d. AD 155), Justin Martyr (d. AD 165) and Irenaeus of Lyons (d. AD 202) all held that Mary was ever-virgin.

Actually, Jerome doesn’t say that those fellows all held that Mary was ever-virgin. In C 15 Jerome deals with the identities of the Jameses and the Marys. In C 16 he starts dealing with the 4 kinds of “brethren” recognized by scripture. In C 17 he focuses on spiritual and general brethren. In C 18 Jerome has a bit of a rant and deals with Jesus being called the son of Joseph w/o actually being a son by blood. It is then at C 19 that he wrote:

We are, however, spending our strength on trifles, and, leaving the fountain of truth, are following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views, and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man.

a) Please note that he has said that he was dealing with trifles and tiny streams of opinion. As such, when he claims that “Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr,… held these same views” it would seem that he means that they shared his views wrt to the use of “brethren” in the Bible or such other trifling matter. In other words, he doesn’t go as far as to claim that those fellows held to the PV of M.
b) I do not doubt that if Jerome could actually demonstrate that these 4 fellows (or any one or more of them) actually held to the PV of M by quoting their works, he would have done so. Jerome was very determined to destroy Helvidius’s argument. he would have produced a quote if he could.
c) Further, these 4 fellows (or any one or more of them) actually held to the PV of M then it is highly unlikely that their statements in support of the PV of M would have been lost in absolutely every case.

It is especially important to note that both Ignatius and Polycarp were disciples of the Apostles Peter and John—a fact ….

I don’t think that their alleged direct link to an apostle is a fact…what is your support for the claim?

It is interesting to note that Helvidius never responded to Jerome’s refutation.

You know this, how?

I doubt that I shall be so fortunate.

Oh,… I would think it is safe to assume that Helvidius won’t be responding to your post.

 

[shawn38]

Shawn,
…Jopseph was a caregiver only, and nothing more.

Shwan, do you TRULY BELIEVE that Joseph would want to have children with Mary after she concieved a Son, his Savior, by the power of the Holy Spirit, the TRUE SPOUSE of Virgin Mary? …

Disciples New Testament, the Galilean edition Translated directly from Aramaic
Matt 1:25. And **he did not have intercourse with her until *she gave birth to the male son. And she called him Jesus.

Lamsa Aramaic Translation
And **he did not know her until **she gave birth to her first-born son. And she called his name Emmanuel.

Murdock Aramaic Translation
25 And **he knew her not, until **she had borne her firstborn son, and called is name Jesus.

Peshitta
24 the angel him commanded as he did his sleep from Yosip now rose until he did know her and not .25 his wife and he took of the LORD Yeshua his name and she called first-born to her son she had given birth.

Regarding Virgin Mary being Born without sin: By the simple fact that is was Virgin Mary who gave Him his Body, proves that Virgin Mary was created very special (GREAT THINGS) for she was to carry the Son Of God who is without sin therefore Virgin Mary is without sin…

Douay-Rheims Bible
Luke 1:47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour
Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and do need the glory of God

Aramaic
Luke 1:47. "And my spirit is overjoyed …through my Life-giving God.* *1:47 Lit. Ar. idiom retained: Or: My Savior God.
1:48 …Blessings of all the generations shall be upon me.1:48 Lit. Ar. idiom retained: Or: He blessed her Motherhood.
Romans 3:23 23. Because they all sinned and fell short of the glory of God.

Rom 5:12. For whereas through one human being, sin entered the universe, and through sin, death and this death entered humanity, as they all sinned.

We inherited a sinful nature from Adam, not Eve. Since Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, there was no sinful nature to be passed on.

Virgin Mary guided by the Holy Spirit says in: (Luke 1: 49) For the Almighty has done GREAT THINGS for Me.

We know one for certain

Luke 1:48 …Blessings of all the generations shall be upon me.1:48 Lit. Ar. idiom retained: Or: He blessed her Motherhood.

Shwan, if you have a Holy common sense you would know that St. Joseph, knew his Role, and that role was only be a holy caregiver to Jesus and Mary.

Matthew 1:24 And when Joseph rose from his sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took his wife.

I fail to see limitations placed on Joseph accept for the fact that Joseph did not know her until after the birth of Christ. There’s no proof that Josephs only role was as caregiver.

Shawn, please, the Catholic Church never said nor teaches that Virgin Mary is our Savior, but a vessel a pure vessle, a spotless vessle for the Almighty has Done Great Things for her.

I’m glad you realize that because Mary tells us in Luke 1:50 to “submit to Him.” Nowhere does it say to submit to her. There’s a push to make her co-redeemer by some.