R
rev_kevin
Guest
Ok prove it.
- Status
C
ClamDigger
Guest
There’s also no scriptural evidence that she DIDN’T remain a virgin. In face, there is scriptural evidence that, at the very least, she had no other children. Otherwise Jesus would not have entrusted her to St. John’s care and she wouldn’t have gone to live with him in John 19.27. She also wouldn’t have inquired as to how a child would be conceived in Luke 1.34 when she was only a few months away from being married had she intended to have sexual relations with Joseph.
So now you are questioning Sacred Scripture as well as tradition? Her exact words are, “How can this be, for I know not man?” If an angel came to me when I was engaged and told me, “You will have a child.” (not, “you’ve already created a child.”), I would just think he meant when I was going to have the child after I got married. That is, unless I had previously decided to vow myself to God and made myself a celibate for the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 19.12) and forgone the pleasures of earthly life for God (Luke 14.26).
“Until” does not mean that anything happened afterwards. In Greek the word is “eos” and it doesn’t imply conduct after the period mentioned. We have no direct translation of the word in English, therefore it is translated in the imperfect form of “until”. For example, in Hebrews 10.12-13, we read, “But this man offering one sacrifice for sins, for ever sitteth on the right hand of God, from henceforth expecting, until (eos) his enemies be made his footstool.” Obviously, Jesus will still sit at the right hand of God after his enemies are made his footstool, because the word in question (eos) is only used to imply what will happen up to a certain point in time without guessing what will happen afterwards. It is the same with Mary’s virginity in Matthew 1.25. The word is used so that everyone can be certain that Joseph definitely was not the father of Jesus without implying his later conduct (or lack thereof) with Mary.
C
ClamDigger
Guest
Okay, there’s nothing in the Bible that says that she didn’t and the most ancient tradition says that she did. Now, you prove your position.
Yes. Luther said that Mary is the “highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ . . . She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified. We can never honor her enough. Still honor and praise must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures.”
I would observe that sometimes some Catholics seem to portray Mariology in a way that appears to non-Catholics as honoring her for her sake. It seems that those of us (Catholic and non-Catholic) who do believe things such as the perpetual virginity could possibly do a better job of presenting the belief as Christ-centered.
Jon
C
ClamDigger
Guest
Agreed. Mary best defines Mariology in the Gospel of Luke when she says, “My soul doth magnify the Lord.” God’s purpose in creating Mary was to help us to understand him better. Mary’s glories and triumphs are just as much God’s as her own, so when we give her honor, we are really giving honor to God.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Actually Kev from the footnotes of the first edition NAB Bible 1:25 states: He had no relations at any time before, the evangelist emphasizes the virginity of the Mother of Jesus for the moment of His conception till His birth. He does not concern himself here with the period that followed the Birth of Jesus, but merely wishes to show that Joseph respected the legal character of the paternity imposed on him by the Divine will. Moreover the New Testament makes no mention anywhere of children of Joseph and Mary.
IMHO this also coincides with scripture and makes perfect sense. I doubt for you are I to place ourself in Josephs shoes, sex would have been a non-issue. When the reality of God strikes you like it obviously must have Mary/Joseph and you fully understand your life is in Gods hands moment by moment then. I honestly don’t see anyone doing anything but giving total respect to the situation and it total awe.
Realistically I’ve had a couple close calls with death that profoundly affected me to this day in the supernatural will of God. I couldn’t even imagine how affected these Souls were. And then your Son is God? And the Grace and Blessing surrounds you daily? You really have think about this and grasp the magnitude of this situation. I don’t know maybe others feel different. I’m in awe and I wasn’t there. What a Blessing, what a responsibility.
Anyway how you been Kev? Haven’t heard from you in a minute.
God Bless, Gary
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
True John, I’ve witnessed these Souls through my life with my Mother, Grandmother. My mother is 90 and has prayed the Rosary daily since Catholic Grammer School.
Really these are souls who are deep on their spiritual path and just don’t think to take the time to explain how they view intercession. They see it as a great Blessing from the Lord. And that in truth is exactly how they view it. A Grace that not all receive. Well you know the Catholic Mass itself , its totally centered around Christ.
When it comes to a specific devotion Mass such as Monday which is dedicated to the Miraculous Medal and Marys intercession worldwide. Her you see Souls who truly believe the Blessed Mother has interceeded in their life, and there life becomes the example. I don’t go every Monday but a 2-3 times a month, to get my mother down there, and its War Vets from all the wars, and many church elders with a small influx of the newer members of the church.
They believe through Mary’s intercession there’s a faster awakening in acknowledgement by Jesus Christ. By the thinking that Mary or Joseph for that matter are rarely denied what they ask for from their Son, our Lord. If it pertains to the betterment of the Soul or Souls according to scripture. Then they are convinced its a Grace from God not all come to understand or become blessed with.
Or for example the Reparation of sinners on the First Five Saturadays of the Church year is a devotion in prayer for sinners who are lost and have no-one to pray from them, non-believers. Then most likely without the intercession by Mary on their behave they would no doubt be condenned for eternity. So in essense Mary through Christ is also using the Prayer to interceed for lost Souls. All pretty much basic Christian teaching with Christ as the redeemer, then Chirstians redeeming through Christ.
Through generations of documented accounts of the elect and the Saints and Mystics this is also confirmed.
The CC doesn’t hold it as a requirement to follow the path the BVM in veneration or Devotions, but they do insist you accept the reality which is Doctrine. And thus like myself who when I was younger, I didn’t pray to Mary, so I just left it alone and didn’t speak on it. Life and time has changed my thinking. But I remember being to lazy to pray the Rosary and believeing I can go straight to God. And I did for years. Theres another aspect of awareness the BVM brings to the Spiritual realm, and it apparent when you indulge yourself into prayer to Her. Its like another room of total unknowns in Gods Kingdom suddenly becomes clear to you. And you know immediatly why it happened.
God Bless, Gary
P
pablope
Guest
Hi, Jon…thanks, you have a very insightful post. I will give your last sentence a lot of thinking on how to present the perpetual viginity to think in terms of glorifying Christ.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Yes Jon I agree, and do hope you know my brother my post wasn’t contrary to your post but in helps that it may clarify the CC undertsanding of the CC is relation to Jesus Christ and the BVM.Hi, Jon…thanks, you have a very insightful post. I will give your last sentence a lot of thinking on how to present the perpetual viginity to think in terms of glorifying Christ.
I hope you know you are one the soldiers of God we as Catholics here have all agained a deep repect for.
Much Love in Christ. I hope we all as Christain may take part in ushering it the Kingdom of Jesus Chrsit here in America, where a greater effort of love and understaning is the only key.
What was once started in the USA and based on a Christian lifestyle in Democracy and gave way to a capitalistic way of life which is incompatible with a Christian life which our forefathers never indended to be. Nor was never defined as such. Here we must all merge together as Chistians to halt the demise of a great Christian Country which was bought about by large by Protestants.
God Bless, Gary
Gary,
No worries, I took it as you meant it.
Thanks for your kind words, both you and pablope.
Jon
A
adrift
Guest
I have shortened your response since the rest does not concern my comment.
I would say that the translation of “I have no husband” is inaccurate. Joseph was her husband. It says that they were engaged which is not the same as today’s engagements. It meant that they were in the first part of the marriage where they were not living together yet. The completion of the marriage would be when Joseph took Mary into his home as we see the angel telling him to do. "Take your** WIFE** into your home. If they weren’t married, the angel would not have called her Joseph’s wife.
The word that is used is
She was not saying she had no husband as that would have been untrue but that she did not have relations with any man not just Joseph. Odd that she says with any man not that she and Joseph were not living together yet. It is an odd statement for a married women to make.
Are you saying we can’t trust the bible?
It does no such thing. Definitions are made in order for people not to use a unique definition and that we may understand what others say.
You do not use the dictionary definition which defines it as a period of time that something happens. It is because you try to make it mean something it doesn’t that we have the attempt to explain other uses that make little and no sense. “She had no children until the day she died”. It isn’t making any comment on what happened after she died only up to the point that she died.
'Joseph knew her not until she had brought forth her first born son" Only refers to the time up to the time of birth which was the intention of Luke. When you apply this meaning to the word until you don’t have to explain the uses of it like the mentioned above. If you use your implication, than you must conclude she had a baby after death.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Proto-evangelium of James
“And behold, an angel of the Lord stood by [St. Anne], saying, ‘Anne! Anne! The Lord has heard your prayer, and you shall conceive and shall bring forth, and your seed shall be spoken of in all the world.’ And Anne said, ‘As the Lord my God lives, if I beget either male or female, I will bring it as a gift to the Lord my God, and it shall minister to him in the holy things all the days of its life.’ . . . And [from the time she was three] Mary was in the temple of the Lord as if she were a dove that dwelt there” (Proto-evangelium of James 4, 7 [A.D. 120]).
“And when she was twelve years old there was held a council of priests, saying, ‘Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, lest perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord?’ And they said to the high priest, ‘You stand by the altar of the Lord; go in and pray concerning her, and whatever the Lord shall manifest to you, that also will we do.’ . . . [A]nd he prayed concerning her, and behold, an angel of the Lord stood by him saying, ‘Zechariah! Zechariah! Go out and assemble the widowers of the people and let them bring each his rod, and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. . . . And Joseph [was chosen]. . . . And the priest said to Joseph, ‘You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the Virgin of the Lord.’ But Joseph refused, saying, ‘I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl’” (ibid., 8–9).
“And Annas the scribe came to him [Joseph] . . . and saw that Mary was with child. And he ran away to the priest and said to him, ‘Joseph, whom you did vouch for, has committed a grievous crime.’ And the priest said, ‘How so?’ And he said, ‘He has defiled the virgin whom he received out of the temple of the Lord and has married her by stealth’” (ibid., 15).
“And the priest said, ‘Mary, why have you done this? And why have you brought your soul low and forgotten the Lord your God?’ . . . And she wept bitterly saying, ‘As the Lord my God lives, I am pure before him, and know not man’” (ibid.).
Origen
“The Book [the Proto-evangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the firstfruit of virginity” (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).
Hilary of Poitiers
“If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, ‘Woman, behold your son,’ and to John, ‘Behold your mother’ [John 19:26–27), as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate” (Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354]).
Athanasius
“Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary” (Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).
**Epiphanius **
“We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit” (The Man Well-Anchored 120 [A.D. 374]).
“And to holy Mary, [the title] ‘Virgin’ is invariably added, for that holy woman remains undefiled” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 78:6 [A.D. 375]).
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” (Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 19 [A.D. 383]).
“We believe that God was born of a virgin, because we read it. We do not believe that Mary was married after she brought forth her Son, because we do not read it. . . . You [Helvidius] say that Mary did not remain a virgin. As for myself, I claim that Joseph himself was a virgin, through Mary, so that a virgin Son might be born of a virginal wedlock” (ibid., 21).
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Why not?
History is history. The Protoevangelium does not have to be inspired in order to be accurate. It obviously suggests what people thought at the time it was written because we do not have any evidence of objections being raised to the ideas presented therein.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
So many Protestants, so little time.
Matthew 1:24-25: Until she brought forth a son
Matthew 1:24-25
24When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son.
The word *until *here just says what happened up to the time of Christ’s birth. It doesn’t imply anything about what happened after that, although our modern use of the word until seems to imply that. For an example of this, look at 2 Samuel 6:23, which says, “Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death.” We’re obviously not supposed to assume that she had children after she died.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Scholars on the Meaning of “Until” in Matthew 1:25
One of the most widely respected commentaries on Matthew’s gospel is written by W.D. Davies and Dale C. Allison Jr. in the very respectable ICC (International Critical Commentary) series. In this work, the contributors say this regarding Matthew 1:25:
“This retrospective observation does not necessarily imply that there were marital relations later on, for heõs (until) following a negative need not contain the idea of a limit which terminates the preceding action or state (cf. Gen. 49.10 Septuagint; Mt 10.23; Mk 9.1).”
While it is true that Davies and Allison go on to question the awkward construction of the verse if indeed Mary was perpetually virgin, the fact that they mention solely heõs instead of heõs hou is indicative of the opinion of many that, grammatically, there is no such special exception for the latter as opposed to the former as regards to the continuation of the action in the main clause.
This view is further supported by Raymond Brown in The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. In this work, Brown essentially concurs with the evidence adduced from all scholarly sources thus far:
“Leaving aside post-Reformation quarrels, we must seek to reconstruct Matthew’s intention, first from the immediate context and then from the whole Gospel. How does “not know her until” fit into the immediate context? In English when something is negated until a particular time, occurrence after that time is usually assumed. However, in discussing the Greek heõs hou after a negative…K. Beyer, Semitishce Syntax im Neuen Testament (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck, 1962), I, 132(1), points out that in Greek and Semitic such a negation often has no implication at all about what happened after the limit of the “until” was reached…The immediate context favors a lack of future implication here, for Matthew is concerned only with stressing Mary’s virginity before the child’s birth, so that the Isaian prophecy will be fulfilled: it is as a virgin that Mary will give birth to her son. As for the marital situation after the birth of the child, in itself this verse gives us no information whatsoever. In my judgment the question of Mary’s remaining a virgin for the rest of her life belongs to post-biblical theology, …] Besides the question of fact, one has to ask whether Matthew was in a position to know the facts. Did he think that the brothers were children of Mary born after Jesus; and if so, was this simply an assumption on his part?” (emphasis added)
In Mary In the New Testament, Brown et. al. further concede that it is only on the basis of other passages that one would be inclined to accept that Mary did not remain a virgin. They write: “It is only when this verse is combined with Matthew’s reference to Mary and the brothers of Jesus (12:46), along with the sisters (13:55-56), that a likelihood arises that (according to Matthew’s understanding) Joseph did come to know Mary after Jesus’ birth and that they begot children.” And, of course, these other references are by no means conclusive either. The adelphoi of Jesus are not necessarily uterine brothers and sisters, but might refer to close relatives who grew up with Jesus under the same roof.
Eric Svendsen acknowledges others who accept this position:
"Protestants scholars who take this view include Robert Gundry, Matthew,: A Commentary from His Handbook on a Mixed Church Under Persecution, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 25, who says, “By itself heõs hou, which belongs to Matthew’s preferred diction (4,2) does not necessarily imply that Joseph and Mary entered into normal sexual relations after Jesus’ birth”; Richard B. Gardner, Matthew (Believers Church Bible Commentary; Scottsdale, P.A.: Herald Press, 1991), 41,…states that “the language of the text leaves open the question of how Joseph and Mary related to each other after Jesus’ birth…”
In addition to these eminent scholars, both John Meier and Daniel Harrington also corroborate the judgment that indeed the text neither affirms nor denies Mary’s perpetual virginity.
Adapted from:
Heos Hou and the Protestant Polemic
By John Pacheco
catholic-legate.com/Apologetics/MaryAndTheSaints/HeosHouPolemic/HeosHouAndProtestantPolemic.aspx
C
chuckfrmvalyfrg
Guest
Re Kevin .
Please read my post # 367 and Randy Carson’s posts # 396, 397 , 398 & 399 ( thankfully Randy Carson did most of the heavy lifting ) . I think Protestants get the Perpetual Virginity of Mary wrong because they have cut themselves off from two of the three streams/sources of Truth . You have Sacred Scripture ( albeit an edited one ) but not Sacred Tradition or the Magisterium . You also don’t put much stock in the Early Church Fathers. Even the Reformers ( Luther , Calvin and Zwingli ) took the Perpetual Virginity of Mary as settled . Because Protestants ignore Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium , they don’t seem to know what Mary’s role was as a " Consecrated . Perpetual Virgin Serving in the Temple ". If Mary had NEVER been the mother of Jesus , she still would have married an older , honorable man , who would have been expected to honor Mary’s vow of perpetual virginity . Why do you think these Temple Virgins were married to older men in the first place , rather than younger , virile men in the prime of their lives ?
This denial of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity seems to be a recent Protestant position , even a Lutheran poster has noted that it is ( The Perpetual Virginity) their official stated position . Moses Maimonides ( sp . ) famously wrote , " Accept the truth , whatever the source ". The Catholic and Orthodox Churches have sources that Protestants refuse to accept .
You examples of , “till” and "untill " that I see from Protestants was handled very nicely by Randy Carson .
"A man’s contemporaries always know him best " ( I forget the author ), well Mary’s contemporaries , the Apostles and Early Church Fathers proclaimed Her Perpetual Virginity , so why won’t you ?
Why do you think there is more evidence denying Mary’s Perpetual Virginity, obviously the Apostles and Early Church Fathers disagree with you .
R
rev_kevin
Guest
“Michal the daughter of Saul had no children unto the day of her death.” KJV
“Michal the daughter of Saul had no children to the day of her death.” The complete Bible
“Michal the daughter of Saul had no children to the day of her death.” NIV
“Michal the daughter of Saul remained childless throughout her life.” Life application study Bible New living translation.
Here are the verses from 4 different Bibles all saying she remained childless all her life
not that she had children after she died.
Now no where does it say that Mary and Joseph didn’t have a normal husband and wife relationship. The problem is that you can’t accept the fact that Mary was a normal woman. Sure she carried Jesus in her womb and gave birth to him but other than that she was no different than you or me. You can claim she was born sinnless but scripture contradicts that. It would not be wrong for Mary and Joseph to have had sex and had other children. After all didn’t God intent for a husband and wife to have children, to be fruitful and multiply. She was a virgin when Jesus was concieved and born but after that she and Joseph had marital relations and other children. Period
So many Catholics, so little time.
R
rev_kevin
Guest
I did and
C
ClamDigger
Guest
A better comparison to Matthew 1.25 would be Hebrews 10.12-13 because they were both written in the same form of Greek:
“And he knew her not till (eos) she brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.” --Matthew 1.25
“But this man offering one sacrifice for sins, for ever sitteth on the right hand of God, from henceforth expecting, until (eos) his enemies be made his footstool.” – Hebrews 10.12-13
“Until” (eos) in Greek makes no implication about what happened (will happen) after the time period in question. We have no direct translation of the word in English, therefore it is translated in the imperfect form of “until”.
Obviously, Jesus will still sit at the right hand of God after his enemies are made his footstool, because the word in question (eos) is only used to imply what will happen up to a certain point in time without guessing what will happen afterwards. It is the same with Mary’s virginity in Matthew 1.25. The word is used so that everyone can be certain that Joseph definitely was not the father of Jesus without implying his later conduct (or lack thereof) with Mary.
If you draw from Matthew 1.25 that Mary did not remain a virgin after giving birth to Jesus, you must also draw from Ephesians 10.12-13 that Jesus will not sit at the right hand of God the Father forever.
Now, no where does it say that Mary and Joseph DID have a normal husband and wife relationship. The problem is that you can’t accept the fact that Mary was NOT just any woman, but was Full of Grace and perfectly submitted herself to God’s will. Sure, God chose her from all women to be the blessed mother of his Only Begotten Son, but you still cannot accept that Mary is any different from you because you have delusions of grandeur. You can claim that she was NOT born sinless, but Scripture says that she is kecharitomene (made full of grace and persevering in her grace-filled state) and the most ancient tradition says that she was. She is a virgin forever and there is nothing in the Scriptures that implicates that she wasn’t. Period.
Also, why would Jesus leave Mary to John’s care in John 19 if Mary had other children?
That's probably because our religion has been around for 2000 years, whereas your private interpretation has only been around for... however long you've been alive.
C
chuckfrmvalyfrg
Guest
rev kevin ,I did and
Your response doesn’t cut the mustard ! How old are you ? We took the time to respond to you , and all you do is laugh ? Why should we take you seriously ? You didn’t engage me , present an argument , let alone refute me ! You gave 4 Bible references , how many were Catholic Bibles ? If you could have refuted me you would have , but you didn’t so I must assume you can’t !
Apparently you don’t know what you don’t know And You don’t want to know ! Immaturity doesn’t help your cause .
Why are you so averse to the truth, obstinance I assume , or more accurately willful ignorance ? Keep cutting yourself off from all sources of Truth , including your abridged Bible .
You do realize that rotfl does not illuminate , correct ? Or are you laughing at yourself ? That would at least be logical .
- Status