Why would Mary remain a virgin...after marriage?

[benhur]

The idea that the oral preaching of the Apostles is equal to scripture is totally unbiblical?

That is not what I meant. CC Sacred Tradition** today** does not equal Sacred Scripture (even CC Sacred Scripture), nor what the apostles orally preached.

 

[benhur]

Also, the Catechism para. #83 says:

The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus’ teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.

The Catechism picks up the point of Scripture itself coming from the living Tradition. There was no NT scripture, not the 27 books we have today in the first or second century Church. The forth century Church? For sure: 27 books of the NT and 46 books of the OT, discerned by Catholic Bishops and affirmed multiple times. You compilation of scripture is missing 7 books that was affirmed in the living Tradition of that early Church.

Without a living Tradition, you would have no bible. :nope:

The church had all books written well before end of first century, save Revelations (96 AD). Ignatius just after that (110AD) quotes a gospel and 13 epistles with knowledge of the other three gospels. That is possible 17 books. The Muratorian fragment (170 AD) lists 23 out of the 27 books. Origen had all 27 (240AD).

It must be remembered that all the books were in circulation since first century, just that some of them were not in all regional churches, or if they were, still did not have universal approval.

No where does it state that written tradition does not begin till you have all twenty seven books. it is clear that the written and oral tradition were hand in hand twenty five years after the church’s start. basically as soon as the first writing.

 

[benhur]

Sorry, I missed your post. Yes, one can defile holy objects when one is not authorized to. Therefore the intention is bad. This is a strange way of arguing a point since God is the creator of all things. All things are created good but improper usage and disobedience is the downfall.

Yes, so where is the marriage bed deemed improper or disobedient. The only instruction I saw was for Joseph to leave Mary alone until His birth. No instruction to obey thereafter except those within Jewish marriage which is consummation and to replenish the earth, to have your quiver full.

 

[benhur]

Y
[Some things are either/or. Some things are not.

Agreed. Will have to remember this next time a P argument is negatively suggested to be restrictively either /or or a too liberal “and/both”.

In this case, what vsedriver has posited is very, very logical. If the Church is wrong about this, how do you know she got it right in discerning the 27 book canon of the NT?

[/QUOTE]

 

[Porknpie]

The church had all books written well before end of first century, save Revelations (96 AD). Ignatius just after that (110AD) quotes a gospel and 13 epistles with knowledge of the other three gospels. That is possible 17 books. The Muratorian fragment (170 AD) lists 23 out of the 27 books. Origen had all 27 (240AD).

It must be remembered that all the books were in circulation since first century, just that some of them were not in all regional churches, or if they were, still did not have universal approval.

No where does it state that written tradition does not begin till you have all twenty seven books. it is clear that the written and oral tradition were hand in hand twenty five years after the church’s start. basically as soon as the first writing.

Benhur, your note above points to a Living Tradition at work, affirming 73 books in the bible in 393 and 397 ad (do you have a reference to Origen’s list of 27 books).

Of course your know this: that same Living Tradition, affirmed 27 books of the NT and 46 books of the OT. Universally in ~400 ad.

Curious, do you believe that the Pauline pastoral epistles were actually written by St. Paul (1, 2 Tim. and Titus)? Not a trick question. Just curious. I’ve read that the majority of protestant scholars reject these as written by Paul.

 

[Porknpie]

Of course, because the Promise of “infallibility”, making the Promiser defaulting. Very restrictively either/or. Very strong , like the Titanic hull. But weak (brittle) in not being pliable to withstand an obstacle.-( as per other poster)

Benhur, you are arguing with management on this one.
When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth;
And the gates of Hell shall not prevail.

Yes, I agree 100%… a very strong Titanic like hull.

This is very Catholic.

Actually, I can see you being a great CCD teacher someday.

 

[Porknpie]

The church had all books written well before end of first century, save Revelations (96 AD). Ignatius just after that (110AD) quotes a gospel and 13 epistles with knowledge of the other three gospels. That is possible 17 books. The Muratorian fragment (170 AD) lists 23 out of the 27 books. Origen had all 27 (240AD).

Me also thinks.

If you have trust in Ignatius and Origen on the canon …

Perhaps you’d reflect on what they also believed. Examples only. I bolded the words related to this thread.

Origen
“In addition to these there is also a seventh, albeit hard and laborious: the remission of sins through penance…when he does not shrink from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord.” Origen, Homilies on Leviticus, 2:4 (A.D. 248).

“And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail…” Origen, Commentary on John, 5:3 (A.D. 232).

"For if Mary, as those declare who with sound mind extol her, had no other son but Jesus, and yet Jesus says to His mother, Woman, behold thy son,’ and not Behold you have this son also,’ then He virtually said to her, Lo, this is Jesus, whom thou didst bear.’ Is it not the case that every one who is perfect lives himself no longer, but Christ lives in him; and if Christ lives in him, then it is said of him to Mary, Behold thy son Christ.’ What a mind, then, must we have to enable us to interpret in a worthy manner this work, though it be committed to the earthly treasure-house of common speech, of writing which any passer-by can read, and which can be heard when read aloud by any one who lends to it his bodily ears?" Origen, Commentary on John, I:6 (A.D. 232).

St Ignatius
“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).

That Living Tradition is present as the Church discerned the canon of scripture. That same Living Tradition, also reflects Mary being a perpetual virgin, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, Sacramental Confession, and that Christ established a visible Church and that he would protect it and lead it to all Truth on faith and morals.

 

[thetazlord]

We are stating that there IS NO VERSE in Scripture that says that Mary birthed any other children.

As such, you are creating tradition that is not founded in Scripture.

That’s a very tenuous position for you to espouse, given the paradigm you embrace as the Bible (not the Church) being the pillar and foundation of truth.

My point was that the “THE son of Mary” argument as being somehow “proof” that Mary didn’t have any other children is faulty, in that even a reputable Catholic source, like NewAdvent explicitly states that Andrew was also “a son” of John, along with Peter who is described as “THE son of John.” And even if you reject this reputable Catholic source, Scripture explicitly states that Peter & Andrew are “adelphos” despite Scripture never explicitly states “if” they shared the same two parents, just as Scripture never explicitly states that the “adelphos” of Jesus shared the same mother. Plus, James is referred to as “THE son of Alphaeus,” even though we know from Scripture, that James “THE son” of Alphaeus had a uterine brother - Joses (Mark 15:40), even though elsewhere, James is referred to as “THE son of Alphaeus” (Acts 1:13). So, again, the “THE son” of Mary is a poor argument for Jesus being the “only” Son of Mary.

I haven’t been presenting that argument.

Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else?

No, it was you. I think you’ve forgotten the original post:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12670731&postcount=486

 

[thetazlord]

What is it you believe? Did Mary conceive a child with someone not her husband? Or is Joseph her husband?

Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit. “Borrowing” Mary’s egg to fertilize it by the Holy Spirit to conceive Jesus doesn’t equate with Mary being the “spouse” of the Holy Spirit. If it is, they you are saying that Joseph AND the Holy Spirit are Mary’s husbands. Is that what “you” are believing? Scripture STATES that Joseph is Mary’s husband, & that Mary is Joseph’s wife. There is no confusion about this in Scripture.

 

[thetazlord]

The Bereans, on the other hand, were not adherents of sola scriptura, for they were willing to accept Paul’s new oral teaching as the word of God (as Paul claimed his oral teaching was; see 1 Thess. 2:13). The Bereans, before accepting the oral word of God from Paul, a tradition as even Paul himself refers to it (see 2 Thess. 2:15), examined the Scriptures to see if these things were so. They were noble-minded precisely because they “received the word with all eagerness.” **Were the Bereans commended primarily for searching the Scriptures? No. Their open-minded willingness to listen was the primary reason they are referred to as noble-minded—not that they searched the Scriptures. A perusal of grammars and commentaries makes it clear that they were “noble-minded” not for studying Scripture, but for treating Paul more civilly than did the Thessalonians—with an open mind and generous courtesy (see I. Howard Marshall, “The Acts of the Apostles” in the Tyndale New Testament Commentaries [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1981], 5:280). **

This “oral tradition” often cited in 2 Thess. 2:15 as Scriptural “proof” for extra-scriptural “oral tradition” being on par with written, Inspired Scripture (along with 1 Corinth 11:2 & 2 Thess 3:6) is based on misunderstanding that the “tradition” that Paul had been “orally” communicating was that Jesus was the “fulfillment” of OT written prophecies about the coming Messiah. And, the ‘traditions’ which Paul says that were to be received ‘by word of mouth or by letter from us’ aren’t different traditions (ie: one tradition by mouth & a separate tradition by letter), but rather the same traditions that would ‘either’ be ‘taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.’ These ‘traditions’ were what Paul had just written, because he begins this verse with ‘So then’ or ‘Therefore,’ indicating that the ‘traditions’ he was talking about were what he had just communicated to them in writing, which were about the Second Coming of Jesus (v.1-14).

Those who followed the doctrine of sola scriptura, the Thessalonians, rejected Paul’s oral preaching and the long awaited Messiah. Those who accepted oral teaching AND scripture, the Bereans, accepted the Gospel and the Messiah.

Not at all when you properly understand what Paul is talking about by “traditions by word or by letter.”

Additionally, although both groups searched the scriptures, they came to contradictory conclusions about the Messiah. Clearly, scripture alone is insufficient to ensure proper interpretation.

Now that we’ve nixed that, can we PLEASE avoid these purposeful Red Herrings & return to the subject of the OP???

 

[thetazlord]

You are right. Catholics cannot prove from scripture that Mary remained ever virgin. We know this to be a fact because it is Sacred Tradition - the part of the Word of God which you now reject and because an infallible Church has declared the Perpetual Virginity of Mary to be a dogma of the Church.

Where in the Bible does it say that “tradition” is “part of the Word of God”? Saying the Church “says it is” - even if it’s true - is just circular reasoning. And if it’s taught by the “infallible Church” has “declared” so, then why hasn’t a single pope throughout history declared with “papal infallibility” that Mary was a perpetual virgin “ex cathedra” like others have with the other Marian dogmas (immaculate conception, bodily assumption)?

Not a single verse of scripture proves beyond all doubt that Mary had other children. Each and every verse that you twist to squeeze your modern interpretation out of it can be explained in a very logical manner.

Why am I “twisting” it & you’re not? You said earlier that it can’t be “proven” from Scripture that Mary was a perpetual virgin. Therefore, how can I be twisting it?

The Early Church Fathers held Mary to be ever-virgin, the Early Protestant Reformers hedl Mary to be ever-virgin, the Orthodox hold Mary to be ever-virgin and even many Anglicans and others hold Mary to be ever-virgin. It is a tiny, tiny fraction of all Christians throughout the past 2,000 years that have held your position, and most of those have only appeared in the last two centuries or so.

With all due respect to the ECF’s, the EOC, & the Reformers, their writings & “traditions” aren’t Inspired either. And in fact, not “all” of the ECF’s & Reformers held to the belief in the PVM. Even Eusebius who quotes EARLIER ECF’s doesn’t support they she was. So, you can’t say it’s been the “universal” belief for “the past 2,000 years.” And, yes, Scripture does support that Mary had other children without “twisting” Scripture & examining the original Greek. It also helps to realize that Mary’s parents didn’t have two daughters named “Mary” - which is what you have to believe if you believe that the “other” Mary is Mary’s sister, rather than Salome. When you realize the latter is supported by Scripture, you also realize that the “adelphos” of Jesus aren’t these “other” Mary’s sons, but His MOTHER’S sons.

I agree. If Mary had other children, that would not have violated a single verse of scripture. However, what is known to be true is that she did not. And what you can’t seem to accept despite overwhelming evidence, is that her perpetual virginity does not violate a single verse of scripture, either. :nope:

Yes, it does. See above.

The problem, thetaz, is that you have embraced an anti-Catholic position because you have left the Church and need to continue telling yourself that you made the right decision. You didn’t.

No, I’m not “anti-catholic.” And please don’t call me that - that’s insulting! In order for me to be “anti-catholic,” I’d have to reject ALL of the beliefs of the RCC, which I DON’T! because most of them are solidly supported by Scripture. Are you “anti-protestant”? I just don’t agree with the beliefs that aren’t supported by Scripture, that’s all.

But unless you acknowledge Mary as Queen of Heaven, then you are not really honoring her as fully as the Bible suggests you should.

Where in Scripture does it state that Mary is “Queen of Heaven.” Sorry, but Scripture describes a pagan goddess of prostitution as “Queen of Heaven” (Jeremiah 7:18; 44:17-25), not Mary. “Queen of Heaven” was also one of the titles of the pagan goddess of the cult of Isis, along with “Mother of God” & “Theotokos” - ALL THREE terms that were later used as titles of Mary. Sorry, I call that being “respectful” of the mother of our Lord.

 

[thetazlord]

Yes, John does describe four women being there. This still indicates nothing about Jesus’ “brothers”.

It does, but you have to write out individual family units to realize that Salome, not the “other” Mary, is Mary’s sister. When you do this, you realize that the “James & Joseph” who are Alphaeus & the “other” Mary’s sons are not the same as the “James & Joseph” who are Jesus’ “adelphos” who are also paired with Simon & Judas, & at least two unnamed half-sisters. If you haven’t already, use ALL the Scripture verses I provided, including John’s passage that mentions the FOUR women at the cross. Those who oppose Mary having other children don’t realize there are FOUR, instead of THREE. It completely changes the family dynamics.

Actually, it says that they used the water test from Numbers 5 (sect. 16) and then that the midwife felt for the presence of Mary’s hymen, whereupon the midwife was struck down (sect. 20).

No, it would just remove one of the traditional forms of evidence.

LOL! And that would have broken it! In the OT, breaking of they hymen was more than a “sign” of virginity, it made a woman a virgin. The breaking of it “deflowers” them.

The Protoevangelium is the earliest extant source with details of the composition of Mary and Joseph’s family, particularly with its repeated references to his children from a previous marriage and to the enormous age gap between her and him. Origen also refers (Comm. Matt. 10.17) to the Gospel of Petter concurring with its claims, but we have lost the text to which he refers.

Origen referring to a gnostic source (which is also second half of the second century) isn’t anymore “proof” than the Protoevangelium of James is. Remember, Origen referenced this in the THIRD century. So, you’re getting FURTHER from the original events.

Inferred dates for the Protoevangelium’s composition vary between the early and late C2nd: as stated, within a lifetime of its subject, and thus easily a sufficiently-brief period to be challenged by living witnesses to its claims. As far as I am aware, no record of any such early-Church challenge to these claims exists.

So, why are you basing this on a pseudoepigraphical false “gospel” in the second century (allegedly written by someone who was DEAD) that teaches falsehoods about Mary’s virginity, instead of relying on Scripture that states the opposite?

Confirms this where, exactly? He describes ἀπογόνους ἑνὸς τῶν φερομένων ἀδελφῶν τοῦ σωτῆρος (3.32), which directly implies that he does not accept them simply as Jesus’ brothers. Thus far, I have not seen any point at which he says what you claim him to say.

Book 1 on pp.28-29; Book 2, pp. 35-36; Book 2, pp. 58-62; Book 3, p. 81; Book 4, p.134; Book 3, p.84; Book 3, p.97. But you have to do more than just read the passages. If you write out the individual family units, you’ll realize the difference between Jesus’ nuclear family vs. His extended family. If you don’t, you won’t see it.

According to Hegesippus (or, more precisely, to a παλαιὸς λόγος, says Eusebius, casting more doubt), they survived at least into the reign of Trajan, i.e. to the beginning of the C2nd. Thereafter, they seem to vanish. The same question applies: what happened to them? If Mary had had descendants, the early Church should have been venerating them, and yet where is the mention of Mary’s descendants?

That’s because Scripture is about Jesus, not Mary. And it was Jesus & the Gospel that the early Church was concerned about spreading & teaching, not developing Marian dogmas that wasn’t “universally” accepted until centuries later. Much of the early Church was martyred - including members of Jesus’ family. Plus, “venerating the saints” was also not an early Church practice. Spreading the Gospel & trying to stay alive was.

The Orthodox did not break away from the Catholic Church: the two split from each other, and that actually happened well before Photius. Further, as already mentioned in that link I gave you in one of my earliest comments, and repeated since, this is not dogma for the Orthodox: the Orthodox have no problem with disagreement on this matter, and thus some of their own theologians have said, at various points, that they believed that Mary had other children.

Then what was “The Great Schism” in the 11th Century about? Plus, you’re missing the point that YOU were the one who brought up the Orthodox as defense for your position on the PVM. I’m merely pointing out that using Christians who lived CENTURIES later who “agree” with you isn’t evidence that that belief is “necessarily” true. Using a MUCH later source neither helps nor refutes your belief. Therefore, why use it?

(continued…)

 

[thetazlord]

(continued…Part 2)

Their general consensus is not at all important as historical evidence, but it is crucial as linguistic proof that the English reading of “brothers” is far from necessary: the largest body of native users of biblical Greek have, for two millennia, consistently and without the constraint of dogma read the Greek of the Bible as not defining Jesus’ φερομενοι αδελφοι as συναιμοι.

So, majority = truth? Even if that “truth” conflicts with what Scripture actually supports?

You keep repeating this, but utterly failing to actually demonstrate it from the text.

Let me summarise this.

1. Linguistically, the Greek New Testament does not say that Mary had other children. At most, there is ambiguous phrasing which could be read as possibly suggesting that.

If it’s “ambiguous” then why have a dogma on it?

1. Historically, our closest source to the events in question says that Joseph already had other children, and that he was more than old enough to be her father (he calls her a παις), which both explains the references in Scripture and gives natural cause for him not to bed her.

And this “closest source” is a false gospel. Are you seriously using this as “proof”??? There is ZERO evidence in Scripture, let alone ECF’s from the first two centuries, that Joseph was “more than old enough to be her father.”

1. Subsequently, the consensus of the Greek Fathers, not at all bound by dogma, has been that there is no evidence of any such descendants of Mary.

False! Eusebius cites otherwise. Sources EARLIER than the Protoevangelium of James, too.

Therefore, from a purely historical viewpoint, the idea of Mary having had other children is less probable than the idea of her having had same.

One, if it’s “less probable” & not “definite,” then why establish a dogma? Two, the “historical viewpoint” is a false ‘gospel.’ I’ll stick to Scripture which is safer, Inspired, & truthful (John 17:17),

 

[thetazlord]

So can you show us from Scripture where the Trinity is fully defined?

You really have to ask me this??? Have you ever READ the New Testament? Although the word “Trinity” doesn’t appear in Scripture, the concept of the Trinity is explicitly described in Scripture - especially based on the original Greek (Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14; etc). But that in no way violates sola scriptura, which we’re not even discussing.

Now, can we get off the Red Herrings, & discuss the OP? I find myself attempting to redirect people to the OP more than actually discussing it!

 

[thetazlord]

The reference to scripture in Acts 17:11 is the Old Testament, not the NT. And we know the apostles were using the Septuagint which included the deuterocanonicals. Scripture for them included 7 more books of the OT than what you are using. So when Catholic compare to scripture, we compare to all of scripture.

Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessaloni′ca, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the scriptures daily to see if these things were so.

Actually, the Septuagint wasn’t accepted by ALL of the Jews. As CA apologist, Jimmy Akin, admits the OT canon was a little “fuzzy.” So even though the Septuagint was used (which also contained OTHER books in it that the RCC removed), it wasn’t “universally” accepted by ALL Jews. Jesus actually described the THREE fold division of the OT (the Law of Moses, and the Prophets, and the Psalms) that Protestants also recognize, rather than the FOUR fold division in Catholic Bibles. So, the “all” of Scripture that Paul was referring to excluded the 7 Apocrypha books & the “additions” to Daniel & Esther that were “added” to those books, which were written long AFTER those books were written. Also, when Paul states that ALL Scripture is Inspired (God-breathed), he’s saying that if anything that he, or Peter, or any of the other apostles refer to as “Scripture” it too is God-breathed, such as Luke’s Gospel (1 Timothy 5:18, cf. Luke 10:7), & ALL of Paul’s epistles (2 Peter 3:15-16). Revelation too is God-breathed since it’s self-authoritative (Revelation 1:1,19). Therefore, unlike the Bereans who only had the OT Scripture, we have the NT Scriptures which are also God-breathed.

Now, can we get off of the Red Herring of the canon of Scripture, & discuss the OP?

 

[thetazlord]

that is only your opinion thetaxlord. Fact is the Catholic Church, both East and West, the Orthodox and all the major reformers believe the opposite of you.

On this subject, do you believe your judgment to be fallible or infallible?

No, I believe Scripture to be infallible. Not me, nor anybody else. And Scripture - approaching Scripture objectively, & without a preconceived personal or religious preconception - will not lead a person to believe that Mary did not have other children after the birth of Jesus. The fact that the East & the “major” Reformers agreed - centuries later - bears no weight on whether the PVM is true or not. Majority does not equate with truth. Scripture does.

 

[thetazlord]

No. To contradict scripture, scripture would have to say “Mary had children with Joseph” or something to that affect. Scripture does not say that. You are adding to the text…which scripture says not to do.

That is not the “only” way to contradict Scripture. It takes a lot of study, but with patience, Scripture - MULTIPLE verses of Scripture (collectively), and based on the Greek - support that Mary had other children. There is no “adding” to Scripture except “adding” to Scripture that Mary remained a perpetual virgin, which Scripture NEVER says.

No…no no. You trying to proof text out of context. Completely out of context. Scripture also says in Mt 19:12:

For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”
So we can see that some men were meant to be celibate, not married and never to have children.

Yes, like you said they were not married. But weren’t not talking about UNmarried eunuchs. We’re talking about Mary & Joseph who were betrothed to each other - legally MARRIED, but still in the year-long non-sexual engagement period. So, your eunuch example doesn’t support your claim. Since there were ZERO commands from God for this MARRIED couple to remain celibate, nor from the angel Gabriel, Mary & Joseph would have to violate God’s commands to married couples to “be fruitful & multiply.”

 

[thetazlord]

.

You’re still confusing the fact that Scripture supports there are FOUR women at the cross, not THREE. Until you make that distinction, quoting the same NT verses I do won’t change the fact that you are misinterpreting “which” James & Joseph belongs to which family, & that there are TWO “James & Joseph” - not ONE. Plus, I brought up these early Christians, because of the false assumption that the ENTIRE Catholic church believed in the PVM. So, even if you dismiss the men I listed, that still doesn’t change the fact that they, along with Eusebius, didn’t believe in the PVM. And just because “some” of their theology was wrong in other areas doesn’t automatically mean that they were wrong in this “particular” area. That’s a poor assumption. Augustine disagreed with Jerome regarding the identity of “who” these “brothers” of Jesus were (older step-brothers vs. cousins). Since they disagree, then does that mean that since they BOTH agree with the PVM, then their belief is wrong also? Because that’s what you’re doing by pointing out the incorrect theologies of these other men, & because of that “assuming” that they are wrong about Mary’s post-birth virginal status.

Plus, “if” Mary was a perpetual virgin, passed down from the apostles, then “why” isn’t the RCC “universal” (“catholic”) about the actual identity of these “adelphos” of Jesus? Shouldn’t we be as “certain” as the PVM?

 

[thetazlord]

Reread post #103 on this thread. Jesus did not have any siblings who were the children of Mary and Joseph.

The post confuses how many women were at the cross. There are FOUR (Mary Magdelene, Mary the wife of Clopas/Alphaeus, Salome the sister of Mary the mother of Jesus, & Mary the mother of Jesus). The confusion comes from the fact that in Matthew & Mark’s Gospels, they only list THREE women, but if you notice Mary the mother of Jesus is not listed in their Gospels. That’s because, unlike John’s Gospel, Jesus has already died in their Gospels & these THREE women had moved back from the cross. Mary was still there (presumably with John, her nephew & Jesus’ cousin). In John’s Gospel, John neither names Jesus’ mother, nor his (John’s) mother by name, like Matthew & Mark does with John’s mother. John also never names himself in his own Gospel. Yet, he names Mary wife of Clopas/Alphaeus by name, & Mary Magdelene by name. Ever wonder why that is? John was simply not naming the members of His own family - Jesus’ mother (his aunt) & Jesus’ mother’s sister (his mother) - just as he doesn’t name himself in his own Gospel. So, the false assumption that there are only THREE women AT the cross, just because there are THREE women away from the cross refuses to acknowledge that if you “assume” only three women at the cross then Salome never gets accounted for, like she does in Matthew & Mark’s Gospels. It would be extremely unlike that John would mention these three other women, yet completely omit his own mother in his own Gospel, especially since John was there. That’s why that post you referenced is incorrect, because that “assumption” is wrong from the get-go, & unscripturally alters all of the family dynamics of those verses.

 

[thetazlord]

Jn. 19:27 - Mary had no other children. Jesus entrusted her to John where Jewish custom demands a biological son of Mary first.

There are ZERO verses in the OT that commands this. Therefore, Jesus was not “bound” by the “precepts the doctrines of men” (Matthew 15:9), & could entrust His earthly mother to His heavenly “brother” John (Matthew 12:48-50), who was also His cousin. Therefore, Jesus was entrusting her to close family.

Mt. 1:25 - Joseph knew her “not until” which is heos in Greek. Heos references the past, never the future. So “not until” does not mean he “knew” her after.

BZZZT!!! Actually, whenever Matthew translates “heos” to “until” in his Gospel, he ALWAYS refers to the activity ceasing in the future once an event ends:

Matthew 2:9,13,15; 5:18,26; 10:11,23; 11:12,13; 12:20; 13:30,33; 16:28; 17:9; 18:30,34; 22:44; 23:39; 24:21,34,39; 26:29; 27:45,64; 28:20 – ‘even’

You are attempting to “argue by exception” in order to support your preconceived personal opinion. Matthew used “until” in Matthew 1:25 to mean “once the event ceased (the pregnancy of Mary with Jesus) so did the activity (the virginity of Mary),” just as he did TWO DOZEN OTHER TIMES in his Gospel alone. Why would he suddenly use “heos” inconsistently in this single verse when there were so many other Greek words for “until” that do not mean that that are available & used in the NT?