Armour of God
Well-Known Member
Your the one making assumptions, inventing your own definitions, twisting facts, adding stuff to the bible.
It never says that Mary was a perpetual virgin. Ever
Last edited:
Does "Until" Mean What You Think It Means? (Matthew 1:25)
- 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!
Your the one making assumptions, inventing your own definitions, twisting facts, adding stuff to the bible.
It never says that Mary was a perpetual virgin. Ever
In both examples heos indicates there will be a change in the circumstances.
What circumstances concerning Mary & Joseph's marital relationship changed after the birth of Jesus?
That is certainly an aspect of Matthew 1 but it is a very narrow understanding of the chapter.
The whole chapter is primarily focused on Joseph and his genealogy which establishes Jesus' right to kingship through descent.
Joseph's marital relationship with Mary is explained to confirm the prophecy of the virgin birth and the divinity of Jesus, not to assert Mary's perpetual virginity.
A person has to forsake the obvious meaning for a convoluted, fanciful interpretation in order to justify this dogma.
Some useful references for those interested in the Marian dogma of "perpetual virginity"
relearn.org
Pt. 1: Refuting the Catholic Myths of Mary - Perpetual Virginity - Relearn.org
Here is the post I referenced, along with the specific claims made by Dr. Marshall, which, in this series, I will thoroughly examine and evaluate in light of both Scripture and church history, providing an …
relearn.org
Armour of God
Well-Known Member
You're changing the subject.
I never claimed the Bible explicitly says, "Mary remained a perpetual virgin."
My claim is much narrower: Matthew 1:25 does not prove that Joseph and Mary had sexual relations after Jesus' birth.
Those are two different claims.
You keep saying I'm adding to the Bible, but look at what you're doing with Matthew 1:25. The verse says:
"He did not know her until she had given birth to a son."
It does not say:
"Afterward Joseph knew her."
You're the one adding an event that the text never explicitly states.
And when I pointed out that Matthew's purpose is to establish that Joseph was not the father of Jesus, you never addressed that argument. Instead, you simply repeated your conclusion.
So let's keep it simple:
Where does Matthew 1:25 explicitly say that Joseph had sexual relations with Mary after Jesus was born?
Not where you think it implies it.
Not what you assume happened.
Not what you believe Matthew knew.
Where does the text actually say it?
Because my entire point has been that Matthew is ruling out Joseph as the source of Mary's pregnancy. That's what the passage is discussing. The verse tells us what did not happen before Jesus' birth. It does not tell us what happened afterward.
You're asserting more than the examples prove. The examples show that heos marks a point at which circumstances change. They do not show that the previous condition is reversed.
That's the very point under dispute in Matthew 1:25. Even if a change occurred after Jesus' birth, where does Matthew identify that change as Joseph and Mary beginning sexual relations?
That's the very point under dispute. You're assuming that the change Matthew has in mind concerns Joseph and Mary's sexual relationship.
Matthew never says that.
The context of Matthew 1 is the conception and birth of Jesus, not the future details of Joseph and Mary's marriage.
Before Jesus' birth, Joseph's abstinence is directly relevant because Matthew is establishing that Joseph was not the father of Jesus. After Jesus' birth, that question has been settled.
Therefore, a change in circumstances certainly occurred: Jesus had been born, and the issue Matthew was addressing had been resolved.
But where does Matthew say that the change was Joseph and Mary beginning sexual relations? The text never identifies that as the change.
In other words, your argument requires two steps:
- heos marks a boundary.
- Therefore Joseph and Mary began having sexual relations afterward.
The problem is step 2. Matthew never states it.
The whole chapter is about answering the question, "Who is Jesus' father?" The answer is that He was conceived by the Holy Spirit, not by Joseph. Matthew 1:25 fits that purpose perfectly.
So the issue isn't whether circumstances changed after Jesus was born. Of course they did. The issue is whether Matthew says the change was Joseph and Mary beginning marital relations. He doesn't.
I completely agree that Matthew 1 is not written to assert Mary's perpetual virginity.
In fact, that's essentially my point.
Matthew mentions Joseph's abstinence to confirm the Virgin Birth and to show that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit rather than by Joseph.
If that's Matthew's purpose, then Matthew 1:25 is functioning to establish what did not happen before Jesus' birth, namely that Joseph was not involved in the conception.
The difficulty for your position is that you're asking Matthew 1:25 to do something beyond its stated purpose. You're taking a verse whose purpose is to establish the Virgin Birth and using it as proof of what happened later in Joseph and Mary's marriage.
Yet Matthew never says, "and afterward Joseph knew her."
So I agree that Matthew is not trying to teach perpetual virginity. My point is simply that he is not trying to teach the opposite either.
Matthew tells us why Joseph was not Jesus' father. He does not tell us what happened afterward.
Therefore, whether one accepts or rejects perpetual virginity, the conclusion cannot be proven from Matthew 1:25 alone.
Taken
Well-Known Member
Agree “THAT text” does not “give an implication Mary and Joseph EVER had husband and wife sexual relations.
Other texts …
* Reveal a husband and wife’s Godly Behavior, including Relations to reproduce an increase.
* Reveal Mary’s willingness to be a Godly servant.
* Reveal Joseph’s willingness to be a Godly servant.
* Reveal Mary in the care of Jesus’ brothers when seeking to speak with Jesus.
* Reveal Mary’s “firstborn” was Jesus, indicating by reasoning she had more children, named sons and mention of the sons sister(s).
Agree, Matthew “Until” established up to a point…
Other scriptures, established “Until” resuming a husband / wife sexual relations AFTER the birth of a child…
Presuming Mary and Joseph were Godly people … they would have had sexual husband and wife relations …
Can’t be both ways… Godly husband wife relationship and Not.
Mary a married woman… Godly and a forever Virgin…is a Man made lie…projected by men, who failed to believe or have the wherewithall to Preach the mysteries of God, and for centuries relied on the ignorance and
Illiteracy of men, to this day promoting and encouraging the study of “side books”, rather than the Truth in Scripture.
Glory to God,
Taken
Exactly. That's all I've been arguing. Matthew 1:25 establishes the Virgin Birth by excluding Joseph from Jesus' conception. It does not tell us whether Joseph and Mary ever had marital relations afterward. That question has to be argued from somewhere other than Matthew 1:25.
If anyone believes there are other verses that demonstrate Joseph and Mary had marital relations, I'm happy to discuss those. But that's a different question and probably deserves its own thread so we don't go off topic from what Matthew 1:25 itself does or does not say.
We're not discussing modern English grammar. We're discussing how an ancient Greek text functions in its literary context.
Simply asserting "you don't have to be Einstein to understand it" doesn't address the actual argument. The question is whether Matthew 1:25, in context, was written to establish that Joseph later had marital relations with Mary, or to establish that Joseph was not the father of Jesus.
Repeating your conclusion isn't the same as demonstrating it.
@Taken, since we seem to be in agreement that Matthew 1:25 is concerned with excluding Joseph as the father of Jesus rather than commenting on what happened later in their marriage, perhaps you could share that reasoning with @Armour of God and @markalan as well. I've made the argument several times already, but you and I come from different traditions and have still reached the same conclusion about what this verse itself is addressing. That suggests this isn't really a Catholic-versus-Protestant disagreement, but a question of what Matthew 1:25 is actually trying to establish.
And if you or either of them believes there are other passages that prove Joseph and Mary had marital relations, I'm happy to discuss those as well. But that would probably be better suited for a separate thread, since the present discussion is specifically about what Matthew 1:25 does and does not say.
And if you or either of them believes there are other passages that prove Joseph and Mary had marital relations, I'm happy to discuss those as well. But that would probably be better suited for a separate thread, since the present discussion is specifically about what Matthew 1:25 does and does not say.
Ronald Nolette
Well-Known Member
And the context of the passage shows Joseph did not have sex with Mary until Jesus was born. If there is to be something that prevents it, it has to be shown!
Grammar
Before, by, till, untilIf you have to do something before a certain point in time, then when that point arrives, the action must already be completed: …
Until
Until is a preposition and a conjunction. Until is often shortened to till or ’til. Till and ’til are more informal and we don’t usually use them in formal writing. …
Until as a preposition
Until as a preposition means ‘up to (the time that)’: …
Until as a conjunction
We use until as a subordinating conjunction to connect an action or an event to a point in time: …
Until: typical errors
We don’t use until to talk about things that will happen before a particular time or deadline; we use by: …
(Definition of until from the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary & Thesaurus © Cambridge University Press)
And until in Matthew is a conjunction so it simply means that B did not happen until A was completed! To put the passage in modern English:
Joseph did not have sex with Mary until Jesus was born! Show me a definition that says until means an action does not happen.
Sorry but only stupid people would think that. It shows that Michal had no children while living. Only a dense person would think that a dead person can bear children.
Until in this sentence is part of a terminus- with death being that terminus. Now show me in the Matthew passage that there is a permanent terminus.
There is one terminus in the passage however. Joseph's celibacy! To put it in modern English the way the sentence is constructed is this:
Joseph ahd no sex with Mary until Jesus was born! Then sorry for your indoctrination but Jospeh and Mary were good Jewish people and they boinked each other often! SCripture shows that Joepsh and Mary had at least five children after Jesus.
Ronald Nolette
Well-Known Member
Sorry but your knowledge of basic grammar is atrocious! It is not that it "can" imply a change, but it "does" imply a change unless in the passage there is some kind of modifier like in the verse you use about Michal.
The context is havinbg children. She remained barren whhile alive! Only a dense one would think that until death implies her lack of children could end after death. You ise an improper example.
I think you've actually moved closer to my position than you realize.
Originally, you argued that the word "until" itself proves Joseph and Mary had sexual relations afterward because that is simply what "until" means.
But now you're arguing that the nature of the terminus matters. In Michal's case, death is the terminus, so childbearing cannot follow. In Matthew's case, Jesus' birth is the terminus, so you're arguing sexual relations could follow.
Once you start appealing to the nature of the terminus and the surrounding circumstances, you've already conceded my central point: the word "until" by itself does not settle what follows afterward.
The real question then becomes: what is Matthew trying to establish?
My contention has always been that Matthew's purpose is to establish that Joseph was not the father of Jesus. That's precisely why he tells us Joseph did not know Mary until She gave birth.
So the debate is no longer about the dictionary definition of "until." It's about whether Matthew intended verse 25 to comment on Joseph and Mary's future marital relations, or whether he intended it to safeguard the Virgin Birth.
Ronald Nolette
Well-Known Member
Please stop with the inane arguments!
If you are arguing about the virgin birth of Jesus, I agree 100%. If you are arguing the perpetual virginity of Mary- Scripture disagrees 100%
Reading text in its textual, historical, and grammatical context is hardly "inane."
Baldly asserting that "Scripture disagrees 100%" not only assumes the conclusion, but it's an astounding claim considering that *millennia* of Christians, going back to the very beginning, have read the same Scripture and affirmed the perpetual virginity. Meanwhile, the historical record indicates that the denial of this doctrine originates in heretical quarters of Christianity (with figures like Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, then echoed by Helvidius) and finds little quarter among others until *after* the Protestant Reformation. Count me with the orthodox Fathers and martyrs rather than these figures!
Martin Luther's own response on this issue seems appropriate here (from That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew):
I think you've actually conceded my central point.
Earlier you argued that the word "until" itself settles the matter. Now you're saying that factors such as a modifier, the terminus, and the surrounding context must be considered.
That's exactly what I've been arguing from the beginning: the word "until" alone does not tell us what follows afterward.
As for Michal, you're proving my point again. You say:
"Only a dense one would think that until death implies her lack of children could end after death."
Precisely.
Why?
Because you're appealing to the context and the nature of the terminus, not merely to the dictionary definition of the word until.
In other words, the word itself is not enough to determine what happens afterward.
Which brings us right back to Matthew 1:25.
My argument throughout this discussion has been that Matthew 1:25 establishes the Virgin Birth by excluding Joseph as the father of Jesus.
That's why I've repeatedly argued that Matthew's purpose in the passage is to show that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and not by Joseph.
What I've challenged is the claim that Matthew 1:25 itself proves Joseph and Mary had sexual relations afterward.
Those are two different questions.
You've spent much of this discussion arguing that the word "until" settles the matter, but we've now reached the point where you're appealing to the nature of the terminus, the surrounding circumstances, and your understanding of the broader biblical evidence.
That is precisely why I've maintained that the word until by itself does not settle the question.
So let's keep the issues separate:
1. What is Matthew 1:25 trying to establish?
I contend that it is establishing the Virgin Birth by excluding Joseph from Jesus' conception.
2. Did Joseph and Mary later have marital relations?
That is a separate question that would have to be argued from other evidence.
In fact, I've already said that if you believe there are other passages proving Joseph and Mary had marital relations, I'm happy to discuss those. But that discussion belongs in a separate thread.
The present discussion began over what Matthew 1:25 itself says, and on that point I still maintain that the verse tells us what did not happen before Jesus' birth, while remaining silent about what happened afterward.
Last edited:
The problem with your argument is that you're assuming the word "until" automatically means the opposite happened afterward. But that's not how "until" works in either ordinary language or Scripture.
Matthew 1:25 says Joseph "did not know her until she had given birth to a son." The verse clearly tells us what did not happen before Jesus' birth. It does not explicitly tell us what happened afterward.
We can see this from other biblical examples. In 2 Samuel 6:23, "Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death." Nobody concludes she started having children after she died. The word "until" marks a point in time, but it does not by itself require a reversal afterward.
The context of Matthew 1 is also important. Matthew's purpose is to establish the Virgin Birth, not to discuss Joseph and Mary's later married life. The whole passage focuses on showing that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and not by Joseph (Matthew 1:20-23). Verse 25 continues that point by emphasizing that Joseph had no marital relations with Mary before Jesus was born.
So the question is not whether "until" can sometimes be followed by a change. Of course it can. The question is whether Matthew 1:25 states that such a change occurred. It does not.
Therefore, Matthew 1:25 proves the Virgin Birth. It does not prove that Joseph and Mary had marital relations afterward. To reach that conclusion, you must appeal to evidence outside of this verse, because the verse itself is silent on what happened after Jesus' birth.
Ronald Nolette
Well-Known Member
Then you should try it! Cuz your reading is against literal, historic and grammatic rules.
Wrong again! The first written work procaliming the perpetual virginity of Mary was not until the late 2nd century in the work the Protoevangelium of James">
And they do not affirm the virginity from this passage but froma misreading of this passage. Once again, you have no biblical proof of Mary staying virgin.
How wonderful! You support Martin Luther here, but he was a fully branded heretic. Now biblically prove he was right.
Your appeal to authority carries no weight! the final authority we have is SCripture and it plainly denies this false teaching.
Similar threads
