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

[panevino]

posted by ianGE
… 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…

Heos

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.

 

[panevino]

posted by ianGE…joseph did NOT know Mary UNTIL Jesus was born. Not “did not ever know Mary even after Jesus was born.” …

No body is claiming mat1:25 says what you accuse of here.
We simply are saying the context and the verse are focused on the period upto the birth for fulfillment of isa7:14.
we are saying the context and the verse have nothing at all to say about events after the birth.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9872297&postcount=139

 

[panevino]

posted by ianGE…OK, there are instances of abstinence in the OT: how does that prove Mary’s perpetual virginity?..

OT examples revolve around a presence of God, ie exo19:14-15
Mary was pregnant with God the son and gave birth to Him and raised him

 

[BroomWagon]

Erich;9883085:

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.

Sorry, but this is your logic and you are applying the King’s English to your understanding.

Also, the quotes used really are directly from Catholic apologetics.

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!!!

I think we are talking about nuances of the language, just the way English has nuances about it. Do you know any other languages? Since I can, I understand differences in language besides some of the Bible apparently being written in ancient Greek and Hebrew languages.

 

[adrift]

Heos

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.

I don’t think he will read this anymore than he read it when I posted it. I posted the Strong’s Concordance and he ignored it.

I wonder about his Yome as the only reference I could find in Strong’s was 3118 yowm yome
(Aramaic) corresponding to 3117; a day:–day (by day), time.
see SH3117.

Maybe he didn’t’ think we would check?

 

[Erich]

BTW What has the Ark to do with Mary?

Plenty

 

[Mark121359]

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.

This is perfectly worded! Fr. Mitch Pacwa said exactly the same thing on EWTN radio on Wednesday!

 

[Mark121359]

Plenty

Amen!

 

[JerryZ]

Whether Dogma or tradition, does it matter? 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!!!

These things that we call Marion dogmas are nothing more than interpretations on her life and status as the Mother of God by the fathers of the Church. They are not based on historical fact but rather creative interpretations and statements of her life and role in the life of her son.

WHOAAAA! How can any one declare they are not based in historical fact?
That is ludicrous.

The Catholic church does not come to establish Dogmas without first pondering and evaluating all the facts and to say the contrary flyes on the evidence of 2000 years of tradition that has never contradicted itself.
Quite an achievement in human history fraught with many examples of the opposite.
Also it’s quite interesting the way you reason, GOD must have stopped revealing himself and his truths a long ago or perhaps never.
When the reality is that GOD talks to us every day and it’s up to us to perk the ear and learn.
Dogma and revelation of many doctrines continues to be refined as we learn better ways to express ourselves. Do not misunderstand me, the Dogma did not change but we are able to better explain and understand it.
When the Trinity was promulgated as Dogma some could not understand it fully and yet the faithfull accepted it trusting the Church, we accepted it on faith. There are some Catholics that even today don’t fully grasp that Dogma. Many doctrines require a very deep understanding of scripture that the average Christian simply does not have. And yet all he really needs is to have a grain of mustard worth of Faith, Jesus told us.
The Marian doctrines are steeped not only in the Old Testament as well as the New Testament as well as the Traditions handed down by the Church not as you stated in “creative reinterpretations” and those are historical.

 

[JerryZ]

Plenty

GOD made a covenant with Moses and the 12 tribes
He commanded Mosed to build an Ark
In it there were deposited the Tables with 10 commandments written by the finger of GOD on mount Sinai.
Also a Cup of Manna the bread from Heaven that fed them while they roamed the desert for 40 years
The Staff of Moses (The staff represent authority given by GOD to Moses and his successors)
This is the Ark of the Covenant

Mary is the Ark of the new covenant.
She carried in her womb Jesus
Through whom GOD made a new covenant forgiving our sins.
He is also the new manna except that his flesh is truly divine and gives us spiritual food.
Jesus is the new Priest he has all authority in Heaven and Earth

She is referred to in both the Old and New Testaments…

 

[Richca]

The Gospel reading today Mt 12:46-50 says Jesus was speaking to the crowds when someone came and told Him that his mother and brothers are standing outside to see you. Some use this passage to argue that Jesus had siblings which implies that the Blessed Mother had other children thus compromising her eternal virginity. But I ask, if Jesus had brothers where were they when He was crucified. Why was only his Mother, Mary Magdalene, Mary the wife Clopas and John at the foot of the cross? If he had brothers why did he entrust the care of his mother to John.

I try to read the readings for the day and post on FB with a meaningful reflection. This time I left it open. My brother ask, and hence the title of this thread - Would it really matter or change anything if Joseph & Mary had other children?

I am reading thru Chapters 14, 15 of The Essential Catholic Survival Guide and The Life of Christ - Chapter 10, pg 142 where Bishop Sheen is talking about “brethren of the Lord” in an effort to try and answer this question in a sound & meaningful manner.

The catholic faith is a unity. All the truths of the catholic faith interplay with each other and Mary’s perpetual virginity is a part of the unity of the faith. If you take out the truth of Mary’s perpetual virginity from the truths of the faith, the catholic faith would look very different than what it is now. How much different? Probably huge. It would take a very involved study to see how the truth of Mary’s perpetual virginity relates with other truths of the faith as well as with catholic life.

 

[Richca]

Whether Dogma or tradition, does it matter? 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!!!

These things that we call Marion dogmas are nothing more than interpretations on her life and status as the Mother of God by the fathers of the Church. They are not based on historical fact but rather creative interpretations and statements of her life and role in the life of her son.

Very limited knowledge here of the content of Holy Scripture as well as the catholic faith.

He who shows little esteem for Jesus’ mother, shows little esteem for Jesus himself.

 

[BroomWagon]

Very limited knowledge here of the content of Holy Scripture as well as the catholic faith.

He who shows little esteem for Jesus’ mother, shows little esteem for Jesus himself.

All generations… that…

 

[thesmiter1]

I don’t know if anyone has mentioned this yet, but the Protoevangelium of James, which was written around 140 AD, tells of Joseph being a widower and having children from another marriage. This is, by any standard, quite an early account of the perpetual virginity of Mary. It may not be canonical, but it is apocryphal, which means it is useful but not inspired.

The problem with the interpretation of many Protestants concerning the Bible is that they absolutely refuse to take into account history and Tradition in regards to both the interpretation of the Bible and the development of dogma. The perpetual virginity of Mary was Tradition since the earliest Church. The Protoevangelium of James was a widely distributed document, and was even translated into many different languages rather early on. The Church Fathers also spoke of these teachings. But, of course, none of that matters, because we’re not allowed to take history and Tradition into account when interpreting the Bible…

 

[BroomWagon]

I don’t know if anyone has mentioned this yet, but the Protoevangelium of James, which was written around 140 AD, tells of Joseph being a widower and having children from another marriage. This is, by any standard, quite an early account of the perpetual virginity of Mary. It may not be canonical, but it is apocryphal, which means it is useful but not inspired.

The problem with the interpretation of many Protestants concerning the Bible is that they absolutely refuse to take into account history and Tradition in regards to both the interpretation of the Bible and the development of dogma. The perpetual virginity of Mary was Tradition since the earliest Church. The Protoevangelium of James was a widely distributed document, and was even translated into many different languages rather early on. The Church Fathers also spoke of these teachings. But, of course, none of that matters, because we’re not allowed to take history and Tradition into account when interpreting the Bible…

Great post.

I know even there is a famous book on James, the brother of Christ… but again, the author lacks an understanding as you say.

The best we can hope for is that our Orthodox Brothers and Sisters have similar beliefs as well as the other Catholic Churches meaning Maronite, etc.

 

[Truthstalker]

I don’t know if anyone has mentioned this yet, but the Protoevangelium of James, which was written around 140 AD, tells of Joseph being a widower and having children from another marriage. This is, by any standard, quite an early account of the perpetual virginity of Mary. It may not be canonical, but it is apocryphal, which means it is useful but not inspired.

I mentioned it earlier on this thread. It was on Gelasius’s list of banned books. Aquinas also ridiculed it.

The problem with the interpretation of many Protestants concerning the Bible is that they absolutely refuse to take into account history and Tradition in regards to both the interpretation of the Bible and the development of dogma… But, of course, none of that matters, because we’re not allowed to take history and Tradition into account when interpreting the Bible…

Here is a strawman and an overgeneralization. And sarcasm, which is not fitting. “The problem many Protestants have”…Who? You would be surprised to discover how much Calvin, for example, referenced the early Church Fathers. Sola Scriptura (since we haven’t argued THAT on this thread) refers to final authority. Please do not confuse Solo Scriptura with Sola Scriptura. Thank you.

 

[BroomWagon]

I mentioned it earlier on this thread. It was on Gelasius’s list of banned books. Aquinas also ridiculed it.

Here is a strawman and an overgeneralization. And sarcasm, which is not fitting. “The problem many Protestants have”…Who? You would be surprised to discover how much Calvin, for example, referenced the early Church Fathers. Sola Scriptura (since we haven’t argued THAT on this thread) refers to final authority. Please do not confuse Solo Scriptura with Sola Scriptura. Thank you.

As to your 2nd paragraph, sure Calvin, Luther, Wesleyan probably understood that.

In this sense, I can relate that this was probably a reference to Fundamentalist-types here in the United States, somewhat removed from Europe. In fact, reading the originally quote, it certainly does fit them very well. That’s not to say that a number of our Brethren are not able to make contributions as to how we understand the Bible.

 

[Linda_Marie]

[BIBLEDRB]Ezekiel 43: 1 - 5[/BIBLEDRB]

[BIBLEDRB]Ezekiel 44: 1 - 2[/BIBLEDRB]

The Four Marian Dogmas

Although never explicated in detail, the Catholic Church holds as dogma that Mary was and is Virgin before, in and after Christ’s birth.

Dogmas of Our Lady

The four principal dogmas relating to the Blessed Virgin Mary are:

Her title as Mother of God
Her Perpetual Virginity
Her Immaculate Conception
Her Assumption into Heaven

THE PERPETUAL VIRGINITY OF MARY

We also have to take into consideration that when Mary was told by the archangel Gabriel “Behold, you shall conceive in your womb, and bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus” (Lk 1:31), he also added that this was to come about because “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the Holy one to be born shall be called the Son of God” (Lk 1:35). By stating it in those terms the archangel declared to Mary that God would enter into a marital relationship with her, causing her to conceive His Son in her womb, For “to lay one’s power <(reshuth)> over a woman” <(Targum to Dt> 21:4) was a euphemism for “to have a marital relationship with her.”
<…>
Having been enlightened by an angel in a dream regarding her pregnancy, and perhaps further by Mary concerning the words of the archangel Gabriel to her at the Annunciation, Joseph knew that God had conducted himself as a husband in regard to Mary. She was now prohibited to him for all time, and for the sake of the Child and Mary he could only live with her in an absolutely chaste relationship.

 

[thesmiter1]

I mentioned it earlier on this thread. It was on Gelasius’s list of banned books. Aquinas also ridiculed it.

Here is a strawman and an overgeneralization. And sarcasm, which is not fitting. “The problem many Protestants have”…Who? You would be surprised to discover how much Calvin, for example, referenced the early Church Fathers. Sola Scriptura (since we haven’t argued THAT on this thread) refers to final authority. Please do not confuse Solo Scriptura with Sola Scriptura. Thank you.

It is apocryphal, which means it is not inspired, but can still be useful as a historical document. It serves as an early instance of the belief that Mary was ever virgin. Obviuosly we also corroborate this with Tradition, the Church Fathers, and Scripture (as has been shown). The idea of her perpetual virginity is not merely an invention pulled into existence in the 400s or 500s. Not even close. The Protoevangelium serves to show this.

As for Sola Scriptura, many Protestants do, in fact, use Scripture as an argument to declare Mary had other children. If debunking it using documents and traditions from the Early Church is not licit, then what is? Perhaps I should just read a Bible and make my own Church, based on my own interpretation, and not take into account thousands of years of theology. Besides the apparent recent appearance of the attacks on the Blessed Mother, the Reformers did not contest the perpetual virginity of Mary.

It is a theological assertion that contains no hard evidence (it NEVER refers to another person as ‘THE SON OF MARY’ as it does Christ), and is based on a rather poor and recent interpretation (rather, a MISinterpretation) of Sacred Scripture.

Here is the definition of apocryphal en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament_apocrypha

Notice is the authorship is questioned in apocryphal works, and they are not considered inspired and perfectly true, but are not completely discounted as being entirely false. Your attack of it, and the fact is is not canonical, does nothing to discount that it is a document that showed this belief was in existence VERY long ago and, in conjunction with writings of the Church Fathers, was obviously held by Christians for a very long time.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Mary did not say in sacred scripture inspired by the Holy Spirit who is God “All generations shall called me depraved and infested with sin”.

Is she forever blessed and should be called forever blessed or is she forever depraved and infested with sin?

(Edited)

“Full of grace” equals SO MUCH grace that God wouldn’t give Mary anymore grace.

Tell me folks–with that much grace from God are you going to tell me that Mary would still fall to sin?

Are you going to tell me that after bearing the Son of God that Joseph would be keen on Mary begetting him natural children.

Mary and Joseph “got it”.

(Edited)