Questions for sola Scripturas
- Thread starter neophyte
- 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!
lol. Not tons of specifics. Tons of (unsubstantiated) opinions.
You can't point to one single solitary thing in your cut and paste that is more than opinion.
You can't point to one single solitary thing in your cut and paste that is more than opinion.
Try actually reading it.
It also contains scripture quotes/references. Something lacking in your posts.
And that is your problem, I have read it from start to finish. Just like Neophyt's post.
If YOU had actually read it yourself you would realize that only be the grandest stretch could you possibly find that the scriptures included supports your position, and even just a couple of them.
If you wish to reply, give specifics as to how Matt 1:24-25 is being taken out of context by non-Catholics.
Otherwise, I think we're done here.
If YOU had actually read it yourself you would realize that only be the grandest stretch could you possibly find that the scriptures included supports your position, and even just a couple of them.
If you wish to reply, give specifics as to how Matt 1:24-25 is being taken out of context by non-Catholics.
Otherwise, I think we're done here.
The scriptures are clear. Many Catholics are engaging in voluntary delusion while others are just ignorant.and the ignorant ones are usually open to the truth of God's Word. The "apologists" are the ones engaging in voluntary delusion. Please have a look at these scriptures and tell me that you don't know what "knew her not", means.
Gen_4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
SUS.
Gen_4:17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.
1Sa_1:19 And they rose up in the morning early, and worshipped before the LORD, and returned, and came to their house to Ramah: and Elkanah knew Hannah his wife; and the LORD remembered her.
1Ki_1:4 And the damsel was very fair, and cherished the king, and ministered to him: but the king knew her not.
Gen_4:25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.
Jdg_19:25 But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go.
Jdg_11:39 And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she knew no man. And it was a custom in Israel,
Mat_1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
What that means is that Joseph knew Mary after Jesus was born. Let me spell it out. Joseph made more babies with Mary. Do you understand what this phrase means now? Do you see how the rest of the Scriptures help us to understand Bible language?
Here we see that Jesus was Mary and Joseph's FIRSTBORN son. Firstborn, means the first of other children.
Luk 2:7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.
So, if Jesus was the firstborn, who are the other siblings? Notice the context is physical family. Carpenter's son, mother called Mary? Do you see? Therefore James, Joses, Simon and Judas are his earthly brothers. That means Mary did not stay a virgin and the Catholic doctrine about the Virgin Mary is a false.
Mat 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
Even Paul knew that Jesus had earthly brothers.
Gal 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.
To look at this and deny it is the height of self-deception.
Axehead
Foreigner, here is another cut and paste ,this is from a 19th century convert, once a member of the hierarchy of the Anglican Church of England.
While the apostle John was exiled on the island of Patmos, he wrote something that would have shocked any first-century Jew. The ark of the Old Covenant had been lost for centuries—no one had seen it for about 600 years. But in Revelation 11:19, John makes a surprising announcement: "Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple."
At this point chapter 11 ends and chapter 12 begins. But the Bible was not written with chapter divisions—they were added in the 12th century. When John penned these words, there was no division between chapters 11 and 12; it was a continuing narrative.
What did John say immediately after seeing the Ark of the Covenant in heaven? "And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; she was with child" (Rv 12:1-2). The woman is Mary, the Ark of the Covenant, revealed by God to John. She was seen bearing the child who would rule the world with a rod of iron (Rv 12:5). Mary was seen as the ark and as a queen.
But does this passage really refer to Mary? Some say the woman represents Israel or the Church, and certainly she does. John’s use of rich symbolism is well known, but it is obvious from the Bible itself that the woman is Mary. The Bible begins with a real man (Adam), a real woman (Eve), and a real serpent (the devil)—and it also ends with a real man (Jesus, the Last Adam [1 Cor 15:45]), a real woman (Mary, the New Eve [Rv 11:19-12:2]), and a real serpent (the devil of old). All of this was foretold in Genesis 3:15.
John Henry Cardinal Newman wrote about this passage in Revelation:
What I would maintain is this, that the Holy Apostle would not have spoken of the Church under this particular image unless there had existed a Blessed Virgin Mary, who was exalted on high and the object of veneration to all the faithful. No one doubts that the "man-child" spoken of is an allusion to our Lord; why then is not "the Woman" an allusion to his mother? (On the Blessed Virgin Mary)Later in the same chapter we read that the devil went out to persecute the woman’s other offspring—Christians—which certainly seems to indicate that Mary is somehow the mother of the Church (Rv 12:17).
Even if someone rejects Catholic teaching regarding Mary, he cannot deny that Catholics have scriptural foundations for it. And it is a teaching that has been taught by Christians from ancient times. Foreigier, there are quite a number of writings from the first early centuries that are representative quotations from the early Church—some written well before the completion of the NT.
While the apostle John was exiled on the island of Patmos, he wrote something that would have shocked any first-century Jew. The ark of the Old Covenant had been lost for centuries—no one had seen it for about 600 years. But in Revelation 11:19, John makes a surprising announcement: "Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple."
At this point chapter 11 ends and chapter 12 begins. But the Bible was not written with chapter divisions—they were added in the 12th century. When John penned these words, there was no division between chapters 11 and 12; it was a continuing narrative.
What did John say immediately after seeing the Ark of the Covenant in heaven? "And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; she was with child" (Rv 12:1-2). The woman is Mary, the Ark of the Covenant, revealed by God to John. She was seen bearing the child who would rule the world with a rod of iron (Rv 12:5). Mary was seen as the ark and as a queen.
But does this passage really refer to Mary? Some say the woman represents Israel or the Church, and certainly she does. John’s use of rich symbolism is well known, but it is obvious from the Bible itself that the woman is Mary. The Bible begins with a real man (Adam), a real woman (Eve), and a real serpent (the devil)—and it also ends with a real man (Jesus, the Last Adam [1 Cor 15:45]), a real woman (Mary, the New Eve [Rv 11:19-12:2]), and a real serpent (the devil of old). All of this was foretold in Genesis 3:15.
John Henry Cardinal Newman wrote about this passage in Revelation:
What I would maintain is this, that the Holy Apostle would not have spoken of the Church under this particular image unless there had existed a Blessed Virgin Mary, who was exalted on high and the object of veneration to all the faithful. No one doubts that the "man-child" spoken of is an allusion to our Lord; why then is not "the Woman" an allusion to his mother? (On the Blessed Virgin Mary)
Even if someone rejects Catholic teaching regarding Mary, he cannot deny that Catholics have scriptural foundations for it. And it is a teaching that has been taught by Christians from ancient times. Foreigier, there are quite a number of writings from the first early centuries that are representative quotations from the early Church—some written well before the completion of the NT.
Again, Neophyte, you have provided an opinion. An opinion. And you don't even provide the authority of the person giving the opinion.
Honestly....
Axehead, that is a good post.
Unfortunately, those who make huge cut-and-paste postings that have scripture in them that does not even come close to supporting what the post claims, are going to balk at scripture that further re-enforces that the Catholic position on Mary's virginity is flat wrong.
.
Honestly....
Axehead, that is a good post.
Unfortunately, those who make huge cut-and-paste postings that have scripture in them that does not even come close to supporting what the post claims, are going to balk at scripture that further re-enforces that the Catholic position on Mary's virginity is flat wrong.
.
In your opinion.
Where did I say it was taken out of context? You keep making things up and implying I said things I didn’t.
I said you misinterpret scripture
"When Joseph woke up, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded and took Mary as his wife. But he did not have sexual relations with her until her son was born. And Joseph named him Jesus." - Matt 1:24-25
You interpret until to imply that something changed after Jesus was born. But the text does not say that.
The Greek word that we translate as until (or till or even to) is heos. It implies nothing about what happened after the “heos” point, nothing at all. And that is according to a Greek speaking Orthodox.
Even in English the word until (or till) denotes a point in time up to which some action occurred. It does not mean that the action changed, only that there was something significant about that point in time. That point in time may be significant for reason other than a change in the action. What happened after that may be explicitly stated or may be inferred from the context. To claim it always means the action changes is not valid and leads to absurdities.
“There was also a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was advanced in years, having lived seven years with her husband after her marriage, and then as a widow until (heos) she was eighty-four.” Lk 2:36-37).
Does that imply she got married at the age of 84? NO
Jesus said to the Apostles “And remember, I am with you always, to (heos) the end of the age.” (Mt 28:20).
Does that mean he won’t be with us after the end of the age? NO
For he [Christ] must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. (1Cor 15:25)
Will Christ stop reigning after he has put all his enemies under his feet? NO
keep the commandment without stain or reproach until the appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ (1Tim 6:14)
Could Timothy stop keeping the commandments when Jesus appeared? NO
From the Old Testament:
"Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death" (2 Sam. 6:23 - NRSV).
Are we to assume therefore she had children after her death? That would be absurd
I could give more examples but I will spare you.
You cannot use Mt 1:24-25 to prove that Mary had sexual intercourse with Joseph after Jesus was born.
Let me just post this again so it gets at least a little attention. Neophyte, why would you defend an organization that purposely corrupts and twists the plain speaking of Scripture? Is defending the RCC more important than your soul?
The scriptures are clear. Many Catholics are engaging in voluntary delusion while others are just ignorant.and the ignorant ones are usually open to the truth of God's Word. The "apologists" are the ones engaging in voluntary delusion. Please have a look at these scriptures and tell me that you don't know what "knew her not", means. And please don't engage in Greek-speak in order to change the plain meaning of the word.
Gen_4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
SUS.
Gen_4:17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.
1Sa_1:19 And they rose up in the morning early, and worshipped before the LORD, and returned, and came to their house to Ramah: and Elkanah knew Hannah his wife; and the LORD remembered her.
1Ki_1:4 And the damsel was very fair, and cherished the king, and ministered to him: but the king knew her not.
Gen_4:25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.
Jdg_19:25 But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go.
Jdg_11:39 And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she knew no man. And it was a custom in Israel,
Mat_1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
What that means is that Joseph knew Mary after Jesus was born. Let me spell it out. Joseph made more babies with Mary. Do you understand what this phrase means now? Do you see how the rest of the Scriptures help us to understand Bible language?
Here we see that Jesus was Mary and Joseph's FIRSTBORN son. Firstborn, means the first of other children.
Luk 2:7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.
So, if Jesus was the firstborn, who are the other siblings? Notice the context is physical family. Carpenter's son, mother called Mary? Do you see? Therefore James, Joses, Simon and Judas are his earthly brothers. That means Mary did not stay a virgin and the Catholic doctrine about the Virgin Mary is a false.
Mat 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
Even Paul knew that Jesus had earthly brothers.
Gal 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.
To look at this and deny it is the height of self-deception.
Axehead
The scriptures are clear. Many Catholics are engaging in voluntary delusion while others are just ignorant.and the ignorant ones are usually open to the truth of God's Word. The "apologists" are the ones engaging in voluntary delusion. Please have a look at these scriptures and tell me that you don't know what "knew her not", means. And please don't engage in Greek-speak in order to change the plain meaning of the word.
Gen_4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
SUS.
Gen_4:17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.
1Sa_1:19 And they rose up in the morning early, and worshipped before the LORD, and returned, and came to their house to Ramah: and Elkanah knew Hannah his wife; and the LORD remembered her.
1Ki_1:4 And the damsel was very fair, and cherished the king, and ministered to him: but the king knew her not.
Gen_4:25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.
Jdg_19:25 But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go.
Jdg_11:39 And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she knew no man. And it was a custom in Israel,
Mat_1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
What that means is that Joseph knew Mary after Jesus was born. Let me spell it out. Joseph made more babies with Mary. Do you understand what this phrase means now? Do you see how the rest of the Scriptures help us to understand Bible language?
Here we see that Jesus was Mary and Joseph's FIRSTBORN son. Firstborn, means the first of other children.
Luk 2:7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.
So, if Jesus was the firstborn, who are the other siblings? Notice the context is physical family. Carpenter's son, mother called Mary? Do you see? Therefore James, Joses, Simon and Judas are his earthly brothers. That means Mary did not stay a virgin and the Catholic doctrine about the Virgin Mary is a false.
Mat 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
Even Paul knew that Jesus had earthly brothers.
Gal 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.
To look at this and deny it is the height of self-deception.
Axehead
Axehead, you make excellent points. Mungo refuses to accept the standard he expects us to accept, though.
So I will give Mungo what he expects others to accept.
I am willing to bet that, even though it explains it instead of makes claimes and includes scripture that actually pertains to and supports the position, he will deem it unacceptable.
The word "virgin" in the New Testament is "parthenos" and it occurs 14 times. However, the word does not occur in Matt. 1:25. Instead, the literal Greek says, "and he knew her not until she gave birth to a son and called his name Jesus."
This would seem pretty straight forward that Joseph had no sexual relations with Mary until the birth of Christ and that after the birth of Jesus, they had relations. The word "until" is a preposition and means, "up to that time, before a specified time, to the extent that."
Of course, is just as easy to find verses that show a change in condition.
.
So I will give Mungo what he expects others to accept.
I am willing to bet that, even though it explains it instead of makes claimes and includes scripture that actually pertains to and supports the position, he will deem it unacceptable.
The word "virgin" in the New Testament is "parthenos" and it occurs 14 times. However, the word does not occur in Matt. 1:25. Instead, the literal Greek says, "and he knew her not until she gave birth to a son and called his name Jesus."
This would seem pretty straight forward that Joseph had no sexual relations with Mary until the birth of Christ and that after the birth of Jesus, they had relations. The word "until" is a preposition and means, "up to that time, before a specified time, to the extent that."
- Up to the time of: "I ate until I was stuffed." This means that I ate and stopped when I was full and designates a change of action. "I ate up to the time that I was stuffed."
- Before a specified time: "You can't go until you've paid the fine." This designates a condition required before a change can occur. "You can't go before you've paid the fine."
- To the extent that: I worked until I was exhausted. Signifying an effect or condition as a result. "I worked to the point that I was exhausted."
- 1 Cor. 15:25, "For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet."
- Phil. 1:10, "so that you may approve the things that are excellent, in order to be sincere and blameless until the day of Christ."
- 1 Tim. 6:14, "that you keep the commandment without stain or reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ."
Of course, is just as easy to find verses that show a change in condition.
- Acts 20:11, "And when he had gone back up, and had broken the bread and eaten, he talked with them a long while, until daybreak, and so departed."
- Acts 23:12, "And when it was day, the Jews formed a conspiracy and bound themselves under an oath, saying that they would neither eat nor drink until they had killed Paul."
- Rev. 7:3, "Do not harm the earth or the sea or the trees, until we have sealed the bond-servants of our God on their foreheads."
.
Here are a few more examples. Consider this line: "Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death" (2 Sam. 6:23). Are we to assume she had children "after' her death?
There is also the burial of Moses. The book of Deuteronomy says that no one knew the location of his grave "until this present day" (Deut. 34:6, Knox). But we know that no one has known since that day either.
The examples could be multiplied, but you get the idea—nothing can be proved from the use of the word "till" in Matthew 1:25. Recent translations give a better sense of the verse: "He had no relations with her at any time before she bore a son " [ New American Bible ]" He had not known her when she bore a son" (Knox).
Some of you Protestants claim Jesus could not be Mary’s "first-born" unless there were other children that followed him. But this shows ignorance of the way the ancient Jews used the term. For them it meant the child that opened the womb (Ex. 13:2; Num. 3:12). Under the Mosaic Law, it was the "first-born" son that was to be sanctified (Ex. 34:20). Did this mean the parents had to wait until a second son was born before they could call their first the "first-born"? Hardly. The first male child of a marriage was termed the "first-born" even if he turned out to be the only child of the marriage. Which Greek translation are you u
-- This is how ridiculous the Catholic position is ----> Joseph didn't have sex with Mary until Jesus was born....and then he still didn't have sex with her until he died.
To claim that the "until" in...
"But he did not have sexual relations with her until her son was born. And Joseph named him Jesus."
Is the same as the "until" in...
"Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death"
Shows intentional misunderstanding. Repeat: Intentional.
The linguistic ignorance that you are forced to resort to is staggering.
.
Matthew 1:24-25, and the claim Jesus was Mary’s "firstborn son" and that Joseph "knew her not until" Christ was born? Does Matthew here teach that Mary had other children?
Exodus 13:1-2 reveals something very important about the firstborn in Israel: "The Lord said to Moses, ‘Consecrate to me all the firstborn; whatever is the first to open the womb among the people of Israel, both of man and beast, is mine.’"
The "firstborn" were not given the title because there was a "second-born." They were called "firstborn" at birth. Jesus being "firstborn" does not require that more siblings be born after him.
Until Then
Scripture’s statement that Joseph "knew [Mary] not until she brought forth her firstborn" would not necessarily mean they did "know" each other after she brought forth Jesus. Until is often used in Scripture as part of an idiomatic expression similar to our own usage in English. I may say to you, "Until we meet again, God bless you." Does that necessarily mean after we meet again, God curse you? By no means. A phrase like this is used to emphasize what is being described before the until is fulfilled. It is not intended to say anything about the future beyond that point. Here are some biblical examples:
The problems with this theory begin with the fact that no available scholarship concurs with it. In fact, the evidence proves the contrary. Heos hou and heos are used interchangeably and have the same meaning. Acts 25:21 should suffice to clear up the matter: "But when Paul had appealed to be kept in custody for the decision of the emperor, I commanded him to be held until (Gk. heos hou) I could send him to Caesar."
Does this text mean that Paul would not be held in custody after he was "sent" to Caesar? Not according to the biblical record. He would be held in custody while in transit (see Acts 27:1) and after he arrived in Rome for a time (see Acts 29:16). The action of the main clause did not cease with heos hou.
The Affirmative Argument
Now let’s look at some reasons to believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity. Among the many we could examine, we will briefly consider three:
1. In Luke 1:34, when Mary was told by the angel Gabriel that she was chosen to be the Mother of the Messiah, she asked the question, literally translated from the Greek, "How shall this be since I know not man?" This question makes no sense unless Mary had a vow of virginity.
When we consider that Mary and Joseph were already "espoused," according to verse 27 of this same chapter, we understand Mary and Joseph already have what would be akin to a ratified marriage in the New Covenant. They were married. That would mean Joseph would have had the right to the marriage bed. Normally, after the espousal the husband would go off and prepare a home for his new bride and then come and receive her into his home where the union would be consummated. This is precisely why Joseph intended to "divorce her quietly" (Mt 1:19) when he later discovered she was pregnant.
This background is significant because a newly married woman would not ask the question "How shall this be?" She would know—unless, of course, that woman had taken a vow of virginity. Mary believed the message, but wanted to know how this was going to be accomplished. This indicates she was not planning on the normal course of events for her future with Joseph.
2. In John 19:26, Jesus gave his Mother to the care of John even though by law the next eldest sibling would have the responsibility to care for her. It is unthinkable that Jesus would take his Mother away from his family in disobedience to the law.
Some claim Jesus did this because his brothers and sisters were not there. They had left him. Thus, Jesus committed his Mother to John, who was faithful and present at the foot of the cross. This claim betrays a very low and unbiblical Christology. As John tells us, Jesus "knew all men" (cf. Jn 2:25). If James were his uterine brother, Jesus would have known he would be faithful along with his "brother" Jude. The fact is Jesus had no brothers and sisters, so he had the responsibility, on a human level, to take care of his Mother.
3. Mary is depicted as the spouse of the Holy Spirit in Scripture. In Luke 1:34, when Mary asks the angel how she will conceive a child, the angel responds: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God."
This is nuptial language hearkening back to Ruth 3:8, where Ruth said to Boaz "spread your skirt over me" when she revealed to him his duty to marry her according to the law of Deuteronomy 25. When Mary became pregnant, Joseph would have been required to divorce her because she would then belong to another (see Dt 24:1-4; Jer 3:1). But when Joseph found out that "the other" was the Holy Spirit, the idea of his having conjugal relations with Mary was not a consideration.
Mary’s Protector
An obvious question remains: Why did St. Joseph then "take [Mary] his wife" according to Matthew 1:24 if she belonged to the Holy Spirit?
The Holy Spirit is Mary’s spouse, but Joseph was her spouse and protector on this earth for at least two obvious reasons. First, as Matthew points out in his genealogy in chapter 1, Joseph was in line to be a successor of David as King of Israel. Thus, if Jesus was to be the true "son of David" and king of Israel (see 2 Sm 7:14, Heb 1:5, Rv 19:16, 22:16), he needed to be the son of Joseph. As the only son of Joseph, even though adopted, he would have been in line for the throne.
Also, in a culture that did not take too kindly to espoused women getting pregnant by someone other than their spouse, Mary would have been in mortal danger. So Joseph became Mary’s earthly spouse and protector as well as the protector of the child Jesus.
Tim Staples is Director of Apologetics and Evangelization here at Catholic Answers, but he was not always Catholic. Tim was raised a Southern Baptist. Although he fell away from the faith of his childhood, Tim came back to faith in Christ during his late teen years through the witness of...
more...
Exodus 13:1-2 reveals something very important about the firstborn in Israel: "The Lord said to Moses, ‘Consecrate to me all the firstborn; whatever is the first to open the womb among the people of Israel, both of man and beast, is mine.’"
The "firstborn" were not given the title because there was a "second-born." They were called "firstborn" at birth. Jesus being "firstborn" does not require that more siblings be born after him.
Until Then
Scripture’s statement that Joseph "knew [Mary] not until she brought forth her firstborn" would not necessarily mean they did "know" each other after she brought forth Jesus. Until is often used in Scripture as part of an idiomatic expression similar to our own usage in English. I may say to you, "Until we meet again, God bless you." Does that necessarily mean after we meet again, God curse you? By no means. A phrase like this is used to emphasize what is being described before the until is fulfilled. It is not intended to say anything about the future beyond that point. Here are some biblical examples:
- 2 Samuel 6:23: And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to (until) the day of her death. (Does this mean she had children after she died?)
- 1 Timothy 4:13: Until I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching. (Does this mean Timothy should stop teaching after Paul comes?)
- 1 Corinthians 15:25: For he (Christ) must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. (Does this mean Christ’s reign will end? By no means! Luke 1:33 says, "he will reign over the house of Jacob forever and of his kingdom there shall be no end.")
The problems with this theory begin with the fact that no available scholarship concurs with it. In fact, the evidence proves the contrary. Heos hou and heos are used interchangeably and have the same meaning. Acts 25:21 should suffice to clear up the matter: "But when Paul had appealed to be kept in custody for the decision of the emperor, I commanded him to be held until (Gk. heos hou) I could send him to Caesar."
Does this text mean that Paul would not be held in custody after he was "sent" to Caesar? Not according to the biblical record. He would be held in custody while in transit (see Acts 27:1) and after he arrived in Rome for a time (see Acts 29:16). The action of the main clause did not cease with heos hou.
The Affirmative Argument
Now let’s look at some reasons to believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity. Among the many we could examine, we will briefly consider three:
1. In Luke 1:34, when Mary was told by the angel Gabriel that she was chosen to be the Mother of the Messiah, she asked the question, literally translated from the Greek, "How shall this be since I know not man?" This question makes no sense unless Mary had a vow of virginity.
When we consider that Mary and Joseph were already "espoused," according to verse 27 of this same chapter, we understand Mary and Joseph already have what would be akin to a ratified marriage in the New Covenant. They were married. That would mean Joseph would have had the right to the marriage bed. Normally, after the espousal the husband would go off and prepare a home for his new bride and then come and receive her into his home where the union would be consummated. This is precisely why Joseph intended to "divorce her quietly" (Mt 1:19) when he later discovered she was pregnant.
This background is significant because a newly married woman would not ask the question "How shall this be?" She would know—unless, of course, that woman had taken a vow of virginity. Mary believed the message, but wanted to know how this was going to be accomplished. This indicates she was not planning on the normal course of events for her future with Joseph.
2. In John 19:26, Jesus gave his Mother to the care of John even though by law the next eldest sibling would have the responsibility to care for her. It is unthinkable that Jesus would take his Mother away from his family in disobedience to the law.
Some claim Jesus did this because his brothers and sisters were not there. They had left him. Thus, Jesus committed his Mother to John, who was faithful and present at the foot of the cross. This claim betrays a very low and unbiblical Christology. As John tells us, Jesus "knew all men" (cf. Jn 2:25). If James were his uterine brother, Jesus would have known he would be faithful along with his "brother" Jude. The fact is Jesus had no brothers and sisters, so he had the responsibility, on a human level, to take care of his Mother.
3. Mary is depicted as the spouse of the Holy Spirit in Scripture. In Luke 1:34, when Mary asks the angel how she will conceive a child, the angel responds: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God."
This is nuptial language hearkening back to Ruth 3:8, where Ruth said to Boaz "spread your skirt over me" when she revealed to him his duty to marry her according to the law of Deuteronomy 25. When Mary became pregnant, Joseph would have been required to divorce her because she would then belong to another (see Dt 24:1-4; Jer 3:1). But when Joseph found out that "the other" was the Holy Spirit, the idea of his having conjugal relations with Mary was not a consideration.
Mary’s Protector
An obvious question remains: Why did St. Joseph then "take [Mary] his wife" according to Matthew 1:24 if she belonged to the Holy Spirit?
The Holy Spirit is Mary’s spouse, but Joseph was her spouse and protector on this earth for at least two obvious reasons. First, as Matthew points out in his genealogy in chapter 1, Joseph was in line to be a successor of David as King of Israel. Thus, if Jesus was to be the true "son of David" and king of Israel (see 2 Sm 7:14, Heb 1:5, Rv 19:16, 22:16), he needed to be the son of Joseph. As the only son of Joseph, even though adopted, he would have been in line for the throne.
Also, in a culture that did not take too kindly to espoused women getting pregnant by someone other than their spouse, Mary would have been in mortal danger. So Joseph became Mary’s earthly spouse and protector as well as the protector of the child Jesus.
Tim Staples is Director of Apologetics and Evangelization here at Catholic Answers, but he was not always Catholic. Tim was raised a Southern Baptist. Although he fell away from the faith of his childhood, Tim came back to faith in Christ during his late teen years through the witness of...
more...
Well Neo, you didn't let me down. I expected no other response from you.
What would you do without your commentaries?
Most Protestants believe these Scriptures when they say that Joseph knew her not until she had brought forth her firstborn son.
And you thought we did not agree on anything.
And regardless, perpetual virginity or bearing sons has nothing to do with being sinless. As if bearing children is one step below never being known by anyone.
No, that simply means that she had not had marital relations with Joseph, yet. Where does this guy get a "vow of virginity"? She just got married!
Eisegesis. Reading into the text. Again, she had just recently been espoused. Of course she will still be a virgin. No mention or hint of a vow.
But the idea of a Joseph having conjugal relations with Mary was a very good one after the birth of Jesus.
Uh, because God never said "She belonged to the Holy Spirit".
What would you do without your commentaries?
Most Protestants believe these Scriptures when they say that Joseph knew her not until she had brought forth her firstborn son.
And you thought we did not agree on anything.
And regardless, perpetual virginity or bearing sons has nothing to do with being sinless. As if bearing children is one step below never being known by anyone.
No, that simply means that she had not had marital relations with Joseph, yet. Where does this guy get a "vow of virginity"? She just got married!
Eisegesis. Reading into the text. Again, she had just recently been espoused. Of course she will still be a virgin. No mention or hint of a vow.
But the idea of a Joseph having conjugal relations with Mary was a very good one after the birth of Jesus.
Uh, because God never said "She belonged to the Holy Spirit".
It is what I believe Notice I only use the information gathered from apologists that were once Protestant . Of course you either can't or will simply not accept the truth as was in my last post.
Do you realize that Joseph was an orthodox Jew and that he knew better than to ever touch the tabernacle [ the blessed Womb of Mary , because it carried our Lord , ] Read what would happen to any Jew that was not a priest that touch the Tabernacle that contained our Lord during their wanderings after the Exodus. Anyways the article in my last post was clearly explained by Mr.Staples a former Baptist.And also answered adequately by Mungo in his posts.
-- Honestly...
Being espoused did not give license yet to consummate. That came after the official wedding ceremony. That is why Mary said "since I know not man."
Once again there is absolutely Nothing - NO THING - to support the idea that Mary had a vow of celebacy other than the one to remain celebate until her wedding night.
"Notice I only use the information gathered from apologists that were once Protestant." - Neophyte
-- lol So what? Guess this means that if I used apologist sources that at one time used to be Catholic but no longer are, that means what they say is right.
Either that is correct, or your post is nonsense. Which is it?
Every single time the word "until" is used, if you use it in the actual context instead of intentionally misreading it to support doctrine, it is incredibly easy to understand what the word is trying to say.
In order for Matt 1:25 to mean anything other than Joseph didn't have sex with Mary until after she gave birth to Jesus, you must try to assign a definition that simply doesn't fit in that verse.
In order for it to mean what Catholics wish it to mean, it would have had to have been phrased in a completely different way.
Or as one former Catholic and current apologist put it (Guess that means he should be listened to, right Neophyte?)
"If Joseph and Mary never had sexual relations, why didn't Matthew simply write, "He knew her not until the day of his death"? Rather he reported the limits of their unusual behaviour as a married couple: Joseph knew her not until the birth of Jesus. The assertion that Joseph never knew his wife is pure speculation and cannot be supported by this text.
And as far as Jesus having earthly brothers and sisters...
Catholics say this:
What about the verses of the brothers and sisters of Jesus? For instance, Matt 13: 55-56: "Is this not the carpenters son? Is not his mother called Mary? And his bretheren James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us?" Could Matthew be referring to Jesus' cousins? Although both Greek and English have a word for cousin, Aramaic, the language spoken by Jesus, does not. Hence the words brothers and sisters are used.
Rebuttal that proves Catholics wrong:
The New Testament was written in Greek, not Aramaic. In Greek there are words both for brother adelphos and for cousin anepsios (as in Colossians 4:10). The Holy Spirit who inspired the New Testament could have employed anepsios if James, Joses and the others were merely Jesus' cousins. He could have used the word suggenes (as in Luke 1:36) if they were relatives. But of course He didn't. The Holy Spirit chose the word adelphos that means brothers!"
This is where those Catholics who like to say things like, "But the ancient Greek actually says...." to claim amnesia.
But leaving all that aside, if sex within marraige is a gift of God, to be seen as something beautiful, why wouldn't God want both Mary and Joseph to experience it? Common sense and scripture dictate that God did.
If sex between a husband and wife is blessed by God, how would Mary be any less pure if she had sex with Joseph after Jesus was born?
Another question that the Catholics here don't seem to like is this: How would Matthew know if Mary and Joseph never had sex.
Did Jesus tell him? Why would He did, why wouldn't Matthew make it absolutely clear?
The most likely answer rests in Matt. 13: 55-56.....Matthew became aware of Jesus' earthly brothers and sisters.
.
There has been no additions to the NT since around 90 A.D., and for Rome or the E.O. to add to Scripture is a farce.God's Word comes to us through the Jews as I have stated previously...
What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.
(Rom 3:1-2)
Now show me in Scripture where this has been given to any other group.
Sorry, but your linguistic ignorance is staggering.
I pointed out (and you ignored) that the greek heos carries NO IMPLICATIONS passed the heos point.
And it is the same with English. Until is just a time marker.
until
n preposition & conjunction up to (the point in time or the event mentioned). (Concise OXford English Dictionary)
The Collins Concise Dictionary says a little more:
until
1. up to (a time}
2. (used with a negative) before (a time of event)
Until is used to mark a period of time and says nothing about what happens outside that period of time.
Something happens, or does not happen from time point "A" until time point "B"
What happens after time point "B" we either:
1. simply do not know
2. infer from something else in the text
3. assume from the general context
“There was also a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was advanced in years, having lived seven years with her husband after her marriage, and then as a widow until (heos) she was eighty-four.” Lk 2:36-37).
What happened afterwards? The text does not say. We may assume she did not marry because that seems unlikely in the circumstances.
"Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death"
Did she have children after he death? We assume not because it is unknown for dead women to have children. But that is an ssumption based on the context.
As you gave a made up example I will give you one.
At 7 p.m. my wife goes out. She retuns at 11 pm and asks "What did you do this evening?"
I reply "I watched television until the football started".
Now, did I carry on watching the television when the football started?
According to your theory the action changes after the "until" point. So I must have stopped watching television when the football started.
And if I don't like watching football that is what my wife would have assumed and she would be right.
But I didn't. My wife knows I always watch football if I can. So her question was really about what I did between her going out and me watching the football.
When I said "I watched television until the football started" I was saying what I did in the time period she was interested in.
What I did after the "until" point she could guess (assume) at depending on whether I liked watching football or not.
It had nothing to do with the usage of the word "until"
Until does not mean something changed. We deduce that from the rest of the text or the general context.
So you cannot prove that Mary and Joseph had sexual relations after Jesus was born from Mt 1:25.
You assume she did because that is what that normally happens in a marriage. But the marriage of Mary and Joseph was not a normal marriage. It was unique in all history. God chose Mary to be the mother of his incarnate son. That made her unique in all history.
There are many reasons why Catholics believe that Mary remained a virgin and they provide the context for our belief that nothing changed after the "until" point - when Jesus was born.
Similar threads
