David in NJ
Well-Known Member
i hope your kidding!!!
Because you, again, just added to the very words of GOD
Quickly turn your heart back to the LORD Jesus Christ = Proverbs 30:5-6
A Textual Challenge to the “Mary and Joseph Had Later Relations” Position
- Thread starter Moonwood
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Because you, again, just added to the very words of GOD
Quickly turn your heart back to the LORD Jesus Christ = Proverbs 30:5-6
BillTaylor
New Member
That response doesn't explain how I'm reading Mary never consummated the marriage into Luke's narrative, nor address my argument for why Jesus's adelphoi weren't His siblings in this thread: Jesus’s Adelphoi: Scripture and Early Christian Testimony.
BillTaylor
New Member
Sorry, L must have mixed posters and thought you took the Catholic position of etemal virginity. Xin loi.
Shalom
No you didn't mix up posters. You said that I'm reading Mary never consummated the marriage into Luke's narrative, but you haven't shown how, nor addressed my argument for why Jesus's adelphoi weren't His siblings in this thread: Jesus’s Adelphoi: Scripture and Early Christian Testimony.
BillTaylor
New Member
You said you erred in mixing up posters, but you quoted my opening post and said that I'm reading Mary never consummated the marriage into Luke's narrative. That's why I said you didn't err in mixing up posters. Did you mean to say that you erred in asserting that I'm reading Mary never consummated the marriage into Luke's narrative?
And, did you read my argument for why Jesus's adelphoi weren't His siblings in this thread: Jesus’s Adelphoi: Scripture and Early Christian Testimony?
Ronald Nolette
Well-Known Member
They are! For until shows a change in event or thought or action from one position to another. but like all other hard fast rules, there are limited exceptions, like the exception of Michal. These are very very rare and do not upset the rule. You are grasping at straws to defend the undefensible.
You need to prove that Matt. 1:25 means Jospeh never engaged in sex with Mary.
YOu are the one proposing that until here does not mean its normal, natural, common and wide usage! So it is incumbent on you to show why!
Even you understand this:
The kids will not go outside to play until it stops raining. You knw it means once it stops raining, the kids will go outside to play. If you do not, you need to go back to primary grammar classes to learn basic English understanding.
From Cambridge dictionary: all similar constructs as Matt. something took place until something else happened then the new thing began.
not before a particular time or event:
We didn't eat until past midnight.
See more
Fewer examples
- She waited until her coffee had cooled down before taking a sip.
- We didn't arrive at our hotel until after midnight.
- The photographs will be on exhibition until the end of the month.
- You make wine by leaving grape juice to ferment until all the sugar has turned to alcohol.
- You'll have to wait until your next birthday for a new bike.
You're once again proving my point.
A few posts ago you argued that the definition of "until" settled the matter.
Now you're arguing that the context settles the matter.
Those are not the same argument.
I've never denied that "until" marks a boundary. Nor have I denied that the immediate action under discussion is Joseph not knowing Mary.
What I've challenged is your claim that Matthew 1:25, by itself, proves Joseph and Mary later had sexual relations.
The problem is that many of your examples either explicitly describe what happens after the boundary or the later action is necessarily implied by the context:
- The rain stops, then the children go outside.
- The coffee cools, then she drinks it.
- Midnight arrives, then we arrive at the hotel.
For example:
"The photographs will be on exhibition until the end of the month."
That sentence tells us what is true up to a particular point. It does not tell us what happens afterward.
Likewise, Matthew 1:25 tells us what did not happen before Jesus' birth:
"Joseph knew her not until she had brought forth her son."
And Matthew's concern in the immediate context is not Joseph and Mary's future marital relations. Matthew is explaining the virginal conception of Jesus.
So we're back to the same question:
"He knew her not until she had brought forth her son."
Where does Matthew then say:
"And afterward Joseph knew her"?
He doesn't.
Therefore the verse unquestionably tells us what did not happen before Jesus' birth. Whether marital relations occurred afterward is something you infer. It is not something Matthew explicitly states.
And since you're now appealing to context, perhaps you'll finally answer the question from Luke 1:
If Mary expected ordinary marital relations with Joseph and therefore ordinary conception in the future, why does She ask:
"How shall this occur, since I know not man?"
And why does Gabriel answer by speaking of divine conception, Elizabeth's miraculous conception, and:
"For with God nothing shall be impossible."
If Mary's concern was simply that she had not yet had relations with Joseph, Gabriel's answer seems strangely elaborate. Why point to another miraculous conception at all?
That is the contextual question I've been asking. I don't think Matthew 1:25 settles it by itself.
Last edited:
BillTaylor
New Member
I do not recall now but perhaps I can show my cards? Jesus had half-brothers and sisters born of Mary and Joseph.
You don't need to in order to answer this: Do you think I'm reading Mary never consummated the marriage into Luke's narrative in the opening post?
You already told me that and then I referred you to my thread: Jesus’s Adelphoi: Scripture and Early Christian Testimony. Did you read its opening post?
Last edited:
Ronald Nolette
Well-Known Member
YOur lack of understanding even primary grammar is astounding! If Mary did not ever expect to have sex. she would not have asked in the present but would have said something like "How will this ever occur, sionce I will not ever know a man".
When until is used it directly and explicitly says a new action will take place except for those very rare exceptions. It is contingent upon you to show why Mary never had sex. It is your claim so it is your proof we await.
And please try to follow the rules of grammar that Gopd created so people can understand each other.
Please prove why ( I paraphrase) Joseph did not have sex with Mary until after Jesus was born. Please prove that this actually means Jospeh never had sex with Mary.
BillTaylor
New Member
I read it for the secnd time and I still do not find the Holy Spirit that resides in my heart giving me assurance that your position is correct. And thus, we have circled the wagons but I will discuss but you convey a fighting and immovable fortress attitude. I do believe in knives sharpening knives to better than razor sharpness but to fight over scripture is, to me, sin and I, once more, leave you to crack your own eggs.
Shalom
You made specific assertions:
- "You are reading into the text what is not there."
- "Mary's other sons and her daughters will be earthly blood kin."
I don't see how asking someone to support the claims they make constitutes "fighting" or an "immovable fortress attitude."
On a discussion forum, and especially in a thread presented as a textual challenge, it seems entirely reasonable to ask participants to provide evidence for their conclusions and to engage with the arguments being presented in return.
So I'm a bit confused by your criticism. If asking people to support their claims is "fighting," what kind of discussion are you hoping to have?
BillTaylor
New Member
You wish to act like the Lost , go ahead, beat that brick wall but I am choosing not too join you in being discurtious. bye, bye
Shalom
You're shifting the burden to a different question.
My challenge is not:
"Can you prove Mary never had marital relations?"
My challenge is:
"Can your interpretation explain Luke 1:34-37?"
Notice that nothing in my question requires you to accept perpetual virginity beforehand.
I asked:
- Why does Mary explain Her difficulty by saying, "I know not man"?
- Why does Gabriel answer by explaining divine conception?
- Why does he appeal to Elizabeth's otherwise impossible conception?
- Why does he conclude, "For with God nothing shall be impossible"?
But whether I ultimately prove perpetual virginity is a separate issue.
The immediate issue is whether your interpretation adequately accounts for Luke's narrative.
If Mary expected future marital relations with Joseph, and therefore expected future conception through Joseph, why does She present not knowing man as the obstacle to the announced conception when Gabriel never specifies when the conception will occur?
And why does Gabriel respond with divine conception, Elizabeth's miraculous conception, and God's power over impossibilities?
Those questions remain unanswered.
Simply repeating that "until" normally implies a later change does not explain Luke 1:34-37.
I'm sorry you feel that way.
Asking someone to support the claims they make is not discourteous. It is the normal expectation in any discussion of Scripture.
In any event, I wish you well. Shalom.
Ronald Nolette
Well-Known Member
UNTIL you can show fro Scripture that Joseph and Mary did not have sexual relations, then there is no point going on.
You cannot establish that Mary and Joseph had marital relations after Jesus’ birth until you reconcile your assertion with Luke’s narrative.
Ronald Nolette
Well-Known Member
It is you that needs to prove your hypothesis from Romanist doctrine. show me from the bible they did not.
Similar threads
