Would it really matter or change anything if Joseph & Mary had other children?

[Irishgal49]

Sorry my “ignorance” offends you.
PPS WHEN did Mary’s “perpetual virginity” become infallble dogma? And ppcontributers to this forum are STILL confusing “virgin BIRTH” with “PERPETUAL virginity”.

I agree–I think people who see some of us questioning the perpetual virginity think we are denying the virgin birth or that she remained a virgin UNTIL after Jesus was born. I haven’t seen anyone denying the virgin birth. I will go back and read though. I’m a few behind.

 

[Irishgal49]

According to my ex-husband’s rabbi there is no way a consecrated virgin would get married. They lived in the Temple and served there.

Now I will go ahead and say it…God being the one who is said to have instituted marriage can certainly call the shots but wanted to dispel that with a quick call to the Rabbi. He said, “Keep me posted on how that conversation goes.”

 

[Irishgal49]

You’ve already been shown – TWICE – that “until” doesn’t mean what you think it means. Looks like Jesus was taling about you when He said (in Mark 8:18), “Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear?”

This is so “cult-like” sounding. What you heard isn’t what you heard. What is says isn’t what it means. I think I would rather believe what it says and go with that. They didn’t have sex until after Jesus was born…there it is…flat out, clear, direct, concise.

 

[adrift]

When you point one finger at someone you have THREE fingers pointing back at you!

What ELSE can “until” (heos) possibly mean then? If Joseph CONTINUED to refrain from God-given marital joy with Mary, Matthew would have INSPIRED to say so. But he used “UNTIL”, meaning he “knew” Mary after Jesus’ birth. Just as his INSPIRED words in Chapter 1: “…but BEFORE they (Joseph and Mary) came together…” That clearly indicates they DID come together later. Why the big deal lumbering poor old (sorry, (young) Mary with perpetual celibacy?

You are again promoting the Antidicomarites Heresy.
There are many usages of the word until that were inspired.

Michal the daughter of Saul had no children until the day of her death. Inspired the author must have than meant that she had a baby after death because according to you the Author would have been inspired to have said that she didn’t.
“no one knew the location of [Moses’] grave until this present day” (Deut. 34:6). You must use your tortured reasoning once again.

You have been told what UNTIL means. It only refers to the period of time before. What Matthew was concerned about was the time before Jesus’ birth.

Heos is of uncertain affinity conj 1) till, until. I don’t see anything there that states that it foretells a change:nope:

heós: till, until
Original Word: ἕως
Part of Speech: Adverb
Transliteration: heós
Phonetic Spelling: (heh’-oce)
Short Definition: until, as far as
Definition: (a) conj: until, (b) prep: as far as, up to, as much as, until.
nope:
Not in Strong’s either.
The Greek word is translated as until what does until mean in English

definition of UNTIL
1chiefly Scottish : to
2—used as a function word to indicate continuance (as of an action or condition) to a specified time
3: before 2 <we don’t open until ten>

Origin of UNTIL
Middle English, from un- (probably from Old Norse *und up to; akin to Old Norse unz up to, until, Old High German unt, Old English ende end) + til, till till
First Known Use: 13th century

None of the definitions would allow you to conclude that Joseph knew her after Jesus was born.
Matthew was inspired to say exactly what was meant. He was specifying a period of time up to the birth of Jesus. Applying your meaning would make many bible versus nonsense.

I cannot imagine that Joseph being an upright man would invade where God had resided for nine months. A man died just because he touched the Holy of Holies in trying to stop it from falling.

 

[adrift]

This is so “cult-like” sounding. What you heard isn’t what you heard. What is says isn’t what it means. I think I would rather believe what it says and go with that. They didn’t have sex until after Jesus was born…there it is…flat out, clear, direct, concise.

That however isn’t what was said. More accuretly is that they didn’t have sex. Your adding the after is not supported by the text. It is like saying

Michal the daughter of Saul had no children until after the day of her death.

 

[Elsa1]

Starting in the 5th century?

150 Protoevangelium of James although not accepted as inspired it does demonstrate the belief of the time
Origen 248

As I already have documented, the Gospels themselves show that she never had any other children than Jesus.

The doctrine that she was ever virgin did not start in the 5th century. It was there from the beginning.

Those who deny the perpetual virginity of Mary are Antidicomarites that is they are heretics.

Jesus was called a heretic by some.

In any event, the 5th century reference relates to when it became a dogma of the Chruch, not when it began to be discussed or believed.

 

[Irishgal49]

That however isn’t what was said. More accuretly is that they didn’t have sex. Your adding the after is not supported by the text. It is like saying

Michal the daughter of Saul had no children until after the day of her death.

I totally disagree but since I am not budging and neither is anyone else and the point is discussion I am moving on–I pretty much will always believe they had other children but to me it doesn’t change who or what our Mother is and will always be. Pax!

 

[TimothyH]

I totally disagree but since I am not budging and neither is anyone else and the point is discussion I am moving on–I pretty much will always believe they had other children but to me it doesn’t change who or what our Mother is and will always be. Pax!

It fundamentally changes everthing about our theology. Mary’s perpetual virginity is dogma.

If you don’t believe it then you should stop praying the confiteor at Mass.

I confess to almighty God
and to you, my brothers and sisters,
that I have greatly sinned,
in my thoughts and in my words,
in what I have done and in what I have failed to do,
through my fault, through my fault,
through my most grievous fault;
therefore I ask blessed Mary ever-Virgin,
all the Angels and Saints,
and you, my brothers and sisters,
to pray for me to the Lord our God.

-Tim-

 

[adrift]

According to my ex-husband’s rabbi there is no way a consecrated virgin would get married. They lived in the Temple and served there.

Now I will go ahead and say it…God being the one who is said to have instituted marriage can certainly call the shots but wanted to dispel that with a quick call to the Rabbi. He said, “Keep me posted on how that conversation goes.”

It is strange. There were Jews on this forum who said that there was no such thing as a virgin living in the Temple.

In viewing the Temple, where would they have lived. The priest didn’t even live there.

According to the Talmud, the Temple had an Ezrat Nashim (Women’s Court) to the east and main area to the west.[citation needed] The main area contained the butchering area for the sacrifices and the Outer Altar on which portions of most offerings were burned. An edifice contained the ulam (antechamber), the hekhal (the “sanctuary”, the main building), and the Holy of Holies. The sanctuary and the Holy of Holies were separated by a wall in the First Temple and by two curtains in the Second Temple. The sanctuary contained the seven branched candlestick, the table of showbread and the Incense Altar.

The main courtyard had thirteen gates. On the south side, beginning with the southwest corner, there were four gates:

Shaar Ha’Elyon (the Upper Gate)
Shaar HaDelek (the Kindling Gate), where wood was brought in
Shaar HaBechorot (the Gate of Firstborns), where people with first-born animal offerings entered.
Shaar HaMayim (the Water Gate), where the Water Libation entered on Sukkot.
On the north side, beginning with the northwest corner, there were four gates:

Shaar Yechonyah (The Gate of Jeconiah), where kings of the Davidic line enter and Jeconiah left for the last time to captivity
Shaar HaKorban (The gate of the Offering), where priests entered with kodshei kodashim offerings
Shaar HaNashim (The Women’s Gate), where women entered into the Azara or main courtyard to perform offerings[9]
Shaar Hashir (The Gate of Song), where the Levites entered with their musical instruments
On the east side was Shaar Nikanor, between the Women’s Courtyard and the main Temple Courtyard, which had two minor doorways, one on its right and one on its left. On the western wall, which was relatively unimportant, there were two gates that did not have any name.

 

[adrift]

Jesus was called a heretic by some.

Your point being:shrug:

In any event, the 5th century reference relates to when it became a dogma of the Church, not when it began to be discussed or believed.

The reality is that the beliefs of the Church regarding Mary were pronounced hundreds of years after she died, starting in the 5th century! The status of Mary as the Immaculate Conception did not become a dogma until 1854. The Assumption of Mary became thus not until 1950!!!

Again then what point were you making? Since it is only when there is doubt that the Church says you must believe, you point is lost on me.

If there was a major group who said “Hold it Jesus was a woman” in todays world. The Church would then have to declare no Jesus was a man. It wouldn’t be dogma until the present year but does that change that it was always true? No so I don’t get why you made the statement.

 

[adrift]

I agree–I think people who see some of us questioning the perpetual virginity think we are denying the virgin birth or that she remained a virgin UNTIL after Jesus was born. I haven’t seen anyone denying the virgin birth. I will go back and read though. I’m a few behind.

I haven’t seen what you “think”. I believe that posters are denying her being Ever Virgin. That as the Catechism says

499 The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary’s real and **perpetual virginity **even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man.154 In fact, Christ’s birth "did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it.“155 And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the "Ever-virgin”.

No one denies the virgin birth only her perpetual virginity.

 

[Elsa1]

Your point being:shrug:

Again then what point were you making? Since it is only when there is doubt that the Church says you must believe, you point is lost on me.

If there was a major group who said “Hold it Jesus was a woman” in todays world. The Church would then have to declare no Jesus was a man. It wouldn’t be dogma until the present year but does that change that it was always true? No so I don’t get why you made the statement.

My point on referencing the centuries in which these beliefs became official dogma is simply to point out how these “truths” wer never self-evident and therefore not part of official Church teaching starting with the early councils of the 4th century. The Church waited some 1500-1600 years before officiating two of the Marion dogmas we have today! 1600 years!!! Why the wait?

We have seen in recent years a further change, not in the Marion dogmas, but in others such as the definition of Purgatory and the notion of Limbo for unbaptised infants. A dogma that exists today may not necessarily be there tomorrow. An unaccepted, albeit popular, “belief” today, may indeed be an official dogma tomorrow.

For me this is both a bad and a good thing. Bad in that the Church over the centuries seems to have embraced as dogma things that have no basis in truth, fact, whatever you want to call it. Rather, I tend to believe that some of these dogmas have had other purposes. The good part is that the Church seems to be shifting away from these more inventive dogmas like Purgatory and Limbo which have really only served to create fear and worry in people for no reason. In slowly changing or even annulling these concepts, they are showing a positive spiritual evolution.

 

[adrift]

My point on referencing the centuries in which these beliefs became official dogma is simply to point out how these “truths” wer never self-evident and therefore not part of official Church teaching starting with the early councils of the 4th century. The Church waited some 1500-1600 years before officiating two of the Marion dogmas we have today! 1600 years!!! Why the wait?

.

This is where I disagree with you.

That you point out when they became"official" is not the same as saying that they were not believed. They were believed and taught from the beginning. I have explained in the previous post it isn’t until there is a disagreement that the Church defines. It wasn’t until Jesus divinity was questioned that it was defined. The official declaration does not make it when it was believed. The Trinity was forever a truth. When it was defined does not mean it wasn’t the truth before.

 

[Elsa1]

This is where I disagree with you.

That you point out when they became"official" is not the same as saying that they were not believed. They were believed and taught from the beginning. I have explained in the previous post it isn’t until there is a disagreement that the Church defines. It wasn’t until Jesus divinity was questioned that it was defined. The official declaration does not make it when it was believed. The Trinity was forever a truth. When it was defined does not mean it wasn’t the truth before.

Yes, I understand you. I never said they were not “believed”. I get it, they were believed. However, these are not small matters spiritually speaking. These are HUGE matters. And if the Church historically has only felt it necessary to “make it official” when people begin to question a certain issue, then what next can we expect to be dogma? What next can we expect to be annulled as dogma? Everything can be either embraced or rejected and we see the Pope in recent years gradually changing the dogmas on Purgatory and Limbo. These are just two examples and I imagine there are others. So, I do question the wisdom of the church fathers in the early 4th and 5th centuries up until today and it is why I question openly… well, outright reject, frankly…the notion of Church infallibility. It si also why I can not accept many of the interpretations os certain scripture that we have been told to accept. The fact is, they have never known more than you or me. They have struggled with the questions just as you and I. In the end, the majority vote of any given council won and then the Pope decreed it, but it has nothing to do with “infallibility”. Its policy making and policies change all the time because they are fallible as are the people who make them.

 

[Erich]

What ELSE can “until” (heos) possibly mean then? If Joseph CONTINUED to refrain from God-given marital joy with Mary, Matthew would have INSPIRED to say so. But he used “UNTIL”, meaning he “knew” Mary after Jesus’ birth. Just as his INSPIRED words in Chapter 1: “…but BEFORE they (Joseph and Mary) came together…” That clearly indicates they DID come together later.

Sorry, doesn’t wash. The Greek word for “until” (heos) does not imply that Mary had marital relations after the birth of Christ, only that up to a definite point in time the marriage was not consummated. “Not until” means “not up to the point that,” nothing more, nothing less.

2 Samuel 6:23 – "And Michal daughter of Saul had no children until the day of her death."

By your logic, that clearly indicates she had children after the day of her death.

Deut. 34:6 – "No one knew the location of his grave until this present day"

By your logic, that clearly indicates we now know where Moses was buried.

Luke 9:27 – "Truly I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God."

By your logic, that clearly indicates they would in fact taste death after seeing the kingdom of God (that is, they will die after being in Heaven). This goes against ETERNAL LIFE!

Hebrews 1:13 – "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet"

By your logic, verse 14 would have to say something like, “Once I’ve made your enemies a footstool for your feet, you have to switch sides.”

Matt. 28:29 -** I am with you “until the end of the world.”**

This does not mean Jesus is not with us after the end of the world.

Luke 1:80 - **John was in the desert “up to the point of his manifestation to Israel.” **

Not John “was in the desert until after” his manifestation.

Luke 2:37 - **Anna was a widow “up to the point that” she was eighty-four years old. **

She was not a widow after eighty-four years old.

Luke 20:43 - **Jesus says, “take your seat at my hand until I have made your enemies your footstool.” **

Here, too, Jesus is not going to require the apostles to sit at His left hand after their enemies are their footstool.

1 Tim. 4:13 -** “up to the point that I come,” attend to teaching and preaching. **

It does not mean do nothing “until after” I come.

Gen. 8:7 - **the raven flew back and forth “up to the point that” the waters dried from the earth. **

The raven did not start flying after the waters dried.

Gen. 28:15 - **the Lord won’t leave Jacob “up to the point that” he does His promise. **

This does not mean the Lord will leave Jacob afterward.

1 Macc. 5:54 - **not one was slain “up to the point that” they returned in peace. **
They were not slain after they returned in peace.

Even in the Old Testament, God asked married couples to refrain from intercourse for various reasons. For example, the priests of the temple had to refrain from intimacy with their wives during the time of their service. Likewise, Moses had the Israelites abstain from intercourse as he ascended Mount Sinai (Ex. 20:15). There is a theme here of refraining from marital rights because of the presence of something very holy.

The Church Fathers knew that there was something greater than the temple in Mary’s womb, comparing it to the Eastern Gate mentioned in Ezekiel 44: “This gate shall remain shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it; for the Lord, the God of Israel, has entered by it; therefore it shall remain shut.” Mary had become the dwelling place of the Almighty, like the Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament.

Now, if Uzzah was struck dead for touching the Ark (2 Sam. 6:6–8), should it be surprising that Joseph understood that Mary was a vessel consecrated to God alone? The idea that Joseph assumed normal marital relations with Mary after the birth of Christ is an irreverence that even the Protestant reformers rejected.

 

[panevino]

This is so “cult-like” sounding. What you heard isn’t what you heard. What is says isn’t what it means. I think I would rather believe what it says and go with that. They didn’t have sex until after Jesus was born…there it is…flat out, clear, direct, concise.

The word “after” is not in matt1:25

 

[panevino]

When you point one finger at someone you have THREE fingers pointing back at you!

What ELSE can “until” (heos) possibly mean then?

up to

If Joseph CONTINUED to refrain from God-given marital joy with Mary, Matthew would have INSPIRED to say so.

the context of the verse is prior to and including the birth to demonstrate the fulfillment of Isa7:14 he does not comment on what happens after, though I understand you disagree.

But he used “UNTIL”,

he used heos , refer post 139

meaning he “knew” Mary after Jesus’ birth.

i agree with your definition of “knew” no debate, however he uses “heos” to demonstrate , hammer home, that joseph played no part in the pregnancy.

Just as his INSPIRED words in Chapter 1: “…but BEFORE they (Joseph and Mary) came together…” That clearly indicates they DID come together later.

no it does not , read it slowly, again it is focused on a demonstration that Joseph is not the father, that is why the word "before " is used.

Why the big deal lumbering poor old (sorry, (young) Mary with perpetual celibacy?

because of who the Father is, ie God and the Son is God made incarnate, and fact that Mary is never referred to as the biological mother of any other than Jesus.

Is that to justify the dictat that Clergy shall be celibate?

no

God never ordered that (“go forth and multiply”; “the two shall become one flesh”). …

correct no order, however mat19:12 does demonstrate a view for those who can accept it for the sake of the kingdom.

 

[adrift]

Everything can be either embraced or rejected and we see the Pope in recent years gradually changing the dogmas on Purgatory and Limbo. .

Limbo was never a dogma but a speculation that gained popular belief but was never a dogma.

I don’t know what you are talking about purgatory. The catechism States

1030 All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.604 The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. the tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire

That is pretty much what has been taught. Development yes change no.

 

[adrift]

Now, if Uzzah was struck dead for touching the Ark (2 Sam. 6:6–8), should it be surprising that Joseph understood that Mary was a vessel consecrated to God alone? The idea that Joseph assumed normal marital relations with Mary after the birth of Christ is an irreverence that even the Protestant reformers rejected.

Well put:thumbsup:

 

[IanGE]

Sorry, doesn’t wash. The Greek word for “until” (heos) does not imply that Mary had marital relations after the birth of Christ, only that up to a definite point in time the marriage was not consummated. “Not until” means “not up to the point that,” nothing more, nothing less.

2 Samuel 6:23 – "And Michal daughter of Saul had no children until the day of her death."

By your logic, that clearly indicates she had children after the day of her death.

Deut. 34:6 – "No one knew the location of his grave until this present day"

By your logic, that clearly indicates we now know where Moses was buried.

Luke 9:27 – "Truly I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God."

By your logic, that clearly indicates they would in fact taste death after seeing the kingdom of God (that is, they will die after being in Heaven). This goes against ETERNAL LIFE!

Hebrews 1:13 – "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet"

By your logic, verse 14 would have to say something like, “Once I’ve made your enemies a footstool for your feet, you have to switch sides.”

Matt. 28:29 -** I am with you “until** the end of the world.”

This does not mean Jesus is not with us after the end of the world.

Luke 1:80 - John was in the desert "up to the point of his manifestation to Israel."

Not John “was in the desert until after” his manifestation.

Luke 2:37 - Anna was a widow "up to the point that" she was eighty-four years old.

She was not a widow after eighty-four years old.

Luke 20:43 - Jesus says, "take your seat at my hand until I have made your enemies your footstool."

Here, too, Jesus is not going to require the apostles to sit at His left hand after their enemies are their footstool.

1 Tim. 4:13 -** “up to the point that** I come,” attend to teaching and preaching.

It does not mean do nothing “until after” I come.

Gen. 8:7 - the raven flew back and forth "up to the point that" the waters dried from the earth.

The raven did not start flying after the waters dried.

Gen. 28:15 - the Lord won’t leave Jacob "up to the point that" he does His promise.

This does not mean the Lord will leave Jacob afterward.

1 Macc. 5:54 - not one was slain "up to the point that" they returned in peace.
They were not slain after they returned in peace.

QUOTE]

I don’t propose to go through your mistranslations one by one, Erich. I suggest you ( and others) look up Strongs Concordance. In Old Testament Hebrew/Chaldee, the word used is Yome: to this day, unTO; the New Testament word is heos: unTIL. Joseph did NOT know Mary UNTIL Jesus was born. Not “did not ever know Mary even after Jesus was born.” That is what is writ written: the word * ouk* negates the verb “knew” not “until”. I wonder what happens to apologists between reading a word like “until” and that word reaching the brain. Is there a Chinese whisper process that distorts the written word? Your retort that my logic “clearly indicates” that Michal had children AFTER her death (2 Sam 6:23) clearly indicates a chinese whisper between “UNTO the day of her death” and sarcasm.

BTW What has the Ark to do with Mary? Aaron’s priestly sons were struck dead at the dedication of the Temple tent for using the wrong incense. Are you guys going to compare Mary to an incense censer?
OK, there are instances of abstinence in the OT: how does that prove Mary’s perpetual virginity? I was really glad when I hit 60 and didn’t HAVE to fast and abstain anymore, but by then it was too late to enjoy the freedom of abstinence!!!