Understanding Mary - Ever Virgin

[Mungo]

Understanding Mary - Ever Virgin

Although the Perpetual Virginity of Mary has never been formally proclaimed as a Marian Dogma of the Catholic Church, because of its universal acceptance and continued reference to it in Papal documents throughout the history of the Catholic Church (and at the 5th Ecumenical council), it has come to be accepted as a Marian Dogma. Consequently, it can be said that the perpetual virginity of Mary is a Catholic Dogma by virtue of the ordinary and universal Magisterium.

It was also accepted by the Orthodox and by the early "reformers".

Martin Luther:
"It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin....Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact." (Weimer, The Works of Luther, English Transl. by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v.11,pp. 319-320; v. 6 p. 510.)

"Christ...was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him..."brothers" really means "cousins" here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers. (Sermons on John, chapters 1-4, 1537-39.)

"He, Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb...This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that." (Ibid.)

John Calvin:
"There have been certain folk who have wished to suggest that from this passage (Matt 1:25) that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph's obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company....And besides this Our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or not there was any question of the second." (Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25, published 1562.)

Ulrich Zwingli:
"I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary....Christ...was born of a most undefiled Virgin." (Stakemeier, E. in De Mariologia et Oecumenismo, Balic, K., ed., Rome, 1962, p. 456.)

"I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin." (Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, in Evang. Luc., v. 1, p. 424.)

The next post will start the arguments for Mary's perpetual virginity. There are 6 of them.

 

[God Is My Judge]

So you just conjecture - "indicate", "most likely" "probably". You have to try and infer it from the context.
That is the point - until doesn't tell you.

Lol! Ok pretext. I know when I have won. I don't need your conceding to tell me. You enjoy playing 'running around the mulberry bush. I know what's coming and I will remain standing on the promise from Mother Mary concerning that "certain time of peace". Go ahead, have at it, tear it up......dogs will be dogs as swine will be swine.......bye!

 

[Mungo]

Lol! Ok pretext. I know when I have won. I don't need your conceding to tell me. You enjoy playing 'running around the mulberry bush. I know what's coming and I will remain standing on the promise from Mother Mary concerning that "certain time of peace". Go ahead, have at it, tear it up......dogs will be dogs as swine will be swine.......bye!

Sorry you cannot address my points.
But goodbye.

 

[God Is My Judge]

No it doesn't. mean a point in which another action will follow or a change commences as the example s I gave show, and which the dictionary definitions sho

UNTIL
The word until (or till) denotes a point in time up to which some action occurred. Neither it, nor (I'm told by a Greek Orthodox) the Greek heos from which is translated, 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.

The word until (or till) is used to mark a period of time. Until, nor (I'm told by a Greek Orthodox) the Greek heos from which is translated, 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

Here is proof from dictionaries

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)

You see - no assumptions can be made about what happens after the until point.

Here are some proofs from scripture
“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"(Lk 2:36-37).
Did she have children after he death? We assume not because it is unknown for dead women to have children. But that is an assumption based on the context.

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

Here are some more
but to [until] this day no one knows the place of his [Moses] burial (Deut 34:6)
Do we know the place of Moses burial? 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

Until I arrive, attend to the reading, exhortation, and teaching.(1Tim 4:13)
After Paul arrives will Timothy stop reading, exhortation and teaching? NO

And I could give you several more.

Therefore Mt 1:25 is NOT evidence that Mary and Joseph had sexual intercourse after Jesus' birth.

Now are you going to address the six points I gave in posts #2, #3, #4, #7?

GOD IS MY JUDGE SAYS : From your dictionary reference Oxford Dictionary -until​

conjunction, preposition


/ənˈtɪl/

/ənˈtɪl/
(also informal till, til, ’til)

1. up to the point in time or the event mentioned
   • Let's wait until the rain stops.
   • Until she spoke I hadn't realized she wasn't English.
   • You're not going out until you've finished this.
   • Until now I have always lived alone.
   • They moved here in 2009. Until then they'd always been in the London area.
   • He continued working up until his death.
   • The street is full of traffic from morning till night.
   • You can stay on the bus until London (= until you reach London).

 

[God Is My Judge]

Sorry you cannot address my points.
But goodbye

Redundant.......

 

[Mungo]

Redundant.......

Bye!

 

[jaybo]

Understanding Mary - Ever Virgin

Although the Perpetual Virginity of Mary has never been formally proclaimed as a Marian Dogma of the Catholic Church, because of its universal acceptance and continued reference to it in Papal documents throughout the history of the Catholic Church (and at the 5th Ecumenical council), it has come to be accepted as a Marian Dogma. Consequently, it can be said that the perpetual virginity of Mary is a Catholic Dogma by virtue of the ordinary and universal Magisterium.

It was also accepted by the Orthodox and by the early "reformers".

Martin Luther:
"It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin....Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact." (Weimer, The Works of Luther, English Transl. by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v.11,pp. 319-320; v. 6 p. 510.)

"Christ...was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him..."brothers" really means "cousins" here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers. (Sermons on John, chapters 1-4, 1537-39.)

"He, Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb...This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that." (Ibid.)

John Calvin:
"There have been certain folk who have wished to suggest that from this passage (Matt 1:25) that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph's obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company....And besides this Our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or not there was any question of the second." (Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25, published 1562.)

Ulrich Zwingli:
"I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary....Christ...was born of a most undefiled Virgin." (Stakemeier, E. in De Mariologia et Oecumenismo, Balic, K., ed., Rome, 1962, p. 456.)

"I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin." (Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, in Evang. Luc., v. 1, p. 424.)

The next post will start the arguments for Mary's perpetual virginity. There are 6 of them.

As the Bible clearly states, Jesus had brothers. How were they born? Mary and Joseph had intercourse. She was not a "perpetual virgin" unless His siblings were also miraculously born via the Holy Spirit.

 

[Mungo]

As the Bible clearly states, Jesus had brothers. How were they born? Mary and Joseph had intercourse. She was not a "perpetual virgin" unless His siblings were also miraculously born via the Holy Spirit.

Hi Jaybo,

Whilst the Bible does refer to the brothers of Jesus it does not state that they are children of Mary, nor that they had any genetic relationship to Mary.

BTW, which of the six points I raised in posts #2,#3, #4, #7 do you think are wrong?

 

[jaybo]

Hi Jaybo,

Whilst the Bible does refer to the brothers of Jesus it does not state that they are children of Mary, nor that they had any genetic relationship to Mary.

BTW, which of the six points I raised in posts #2,#3, #4, #7 do you think are wrong?

It says that they were Jesus' brothers. "Brothers" means only one thing: brothers. Not half-brothers.

I believe what the Bible clearly says. Jesus never said he had half-brothers. They were Mary's children, as the Bible never says otherwise.

I didn't bother to read through your posts #2, #3, #4, and #7, although I did skim over them. They're just Catholic propaganda. For example, "Denying the ever-virginity of Mary subtly denies the divinity of Christ in the womb" does no such thing. She was a virgin only when she gave birth to Jesus. Saying that "It would not be fitting that the womb that was made so holy by the actual presence of God could be used to bring sinners into the world as other children would have been" is absurd. The Bible says He had brothers!

"In a typological sense Mary is also a Temple of God since she bore Christ who is the sacrifice" is rationalization. If she is the temple of God, then she was also destined for destruction. "Now as Jesus was going out of the temple courts, one of his disciples said to him, “Teacher, look at these tremendous stones and buildings!” Jesus said to him, “Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left on another. All will be torn down!” Mark 13:1-2

When Mary said “yes” to God she entered into full communion with God, body and soul. She becomes “one flesh” with God because she bears God in her womb, just as man and wife become “one flesh”. Therefore to give herself to another would be a form of adultery. Then, according to the Bible, she was an adulteress, since Jesus had siblings! (Joseph was her husband and their father).

Your pints #5 and #6 are unScriptural rationalizations.

I believe what the Bible says, period. Catholicism is a religion built on all kinds of mythology that don't agree with what God's word clearly states. Sola scriptura.

 

[jaybo]

Since the Bible says that a) Mary was a virgin and b) Jesus had brothers, why do Catholics believe one and not the other. Either the Bible -- the words of God -- are true or they're not.

"Let God be proven true, and every human being shown up as a liar" Romans 3:4a

 

[Mungo]

It says that they were Jesus' brothers. "Brothers" means only one thing: brothers. Not half-brothers.

I believe what the Bible clearly says. Jesus never said he had half-brothers. They were Mary's children, as the Bible never says otherwise.

I didn't bother to read through your posts #2, #3, #4, and #7, although I did skim over them. They're just Catholic propaganda. For example, "Denying the ever-virginity of Mary subtly denies the divinity of Christ in the womb" does no such thing. She was a virgin only when she gave birth to Jesus. Saying that "It would not be fitting that the womb that was made so holy by the actual presence of God could be used to bring sinners into the world as other children would have been" is absurd. The Bible says He had brothers!

"In a typological sense Mary is also a Temple of God since she bore Christ who is the sacrifice" is rationalization. If she is the temple of God, then she was also destined for destruction. "Now as Jesus was going out of the temple courts, one of his disciples said to him, “Teacher, look at these tremendous stones and buildings!” Jesus said to him, “Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left on another. All will be torn down!” Mark 13:1-2

When Mary said “yes” to God she entered into full communion with God, body and soul. She becomes “one flesh” with God because she bears God in her womb, just as man and wife become “one flesh”. Therefore to give herself to another would be a form of adultery. Then, according to the Bible, she was an adulteress, since Jesus had siblings! (Joseph was her husband and their father).

Your pints #5 and #6 are unScriptural rationalizations.

I believe what the Bible says, period. Catholicism is a religion built on all kinds of mythology that don't agree with what God's word clearly states. Sola scriptura.

You skimmed it and mainly ignored the points I made- just a few silly remarks.
Point 1 - ignored
Point 2 - trivial comment
Point 3 - trivial comment
Point 4 - claiming what you haven't proved
Point 5 - ignored
Point 6 - ignored

 

[Mungo]

It says that they were Jesus' brothers. "Brothers" means only one thing: brothers. Not half-brothers.

I believe what the Bible clearly says. Jesus never said he had half-brothers. They were Mary's children, as the Bible never says otherwise.

No it doesn't. There are many possibilities even in English
The first point is that there are different kinds of brothers (and sisters) - full blood brothers, half brothers, adoptive brothers. If a man and woman marry and both have children by a previous marriage they will be regarded as brothers and sisters even though they have no genetic relationship. The actual relationship of these “brothers” to Jesus cannot be established unless a genealogy is given, and it is not.

Secondly the word brother can be used in a very loose sense. In Aramaic there is no word for cousin and the word for brother (aha) would include cousin or even nephew. Whilst Greek does include a word for cousin but it is quite possible to translators/writers just used the Greek adelphos to replace the Aramaic aha. Moreover the Greek word for brother (adelphos) was also used very loosely for various degrees of kinship.

In the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the LXX) the word adelphos is used for Lot’s nephew (Gen 14:14). Other similar examples can be given.

Paul says in Col 4:7 & 9
“Tychicus, my beloved brother (adelphos)……..together with Onesimus, a trustworthy and beloved brother (adelphos)”. We know from the letter to Philemon that Onesimus was actually a runaway slave, not Paul’s brother (or cousin).

According to Dave Armstrong (a Catholic apologist), a Protestant work The Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words defines adelphos as follows:

Adelphos: denotes a brother, or near kinsmen; in the plural, a community based on identity of origin or life. It is used of:
1. male, children of the same parents….
2. male descendant of the same parents, Acts 7:23,26; Hebrews 7:5
4. people of the same nationality, Acts 3:17,22; Romans 9:3…
5. any man or neighbor, Luke 10:29; Matthew 5:22, 7:3;
6. persons united by a common interest, Matthew 5:47
7. persons united by a common calling, Revelation 22:9
8. mankind, Matthew 25:40; Hebrews 2:17
9. the disciples, and so, by implication, all believers Matthew 28;10, John 20;17
10. believers, apart from sex, Matthew 23:8, Acts 1:15; Romans 1:13; ! Thessalonians 1:4; Revelation 19:10 (the word sisters is used of believers only in 1Tim 5:2)… [/quote]

 

[Mungo]

Since the Bible says that a) Mary was a virgin and b) Jesus had brothers, why do Catholics believe one and not the other. Either the Bible -- the words of God -- are true or they're not.

Because there is scriptural evidence that Mary remained a virgin and no evidence that she had any children other than Jesus. Yes, the words of scripture are true - and they show that Mary remained a virgin.

There is scriptural and other evidence as to who the "brothers" were (at least those mentioned in Mt 13:55). But it's long and if you only skim my posts then not worth posting.

 

[jaybo]

You skimmed it and mainly ignored the points I made- just a few silly remarks.
Point 1 - ignored
Point 2 - trivial comment
Point 3 - trivial comment
Point 4 - claiming what you haven't proved
Point 5 - ignored
Point 6 - ignored

They may be silly to you, but that's not my problem, it's yours. I follow Christ, not Catholic dogma.

 

[jaybo]

No it doesn't. There are many possibilities even in English
The first point is that there are different kinds of brothers (and sisters) - full blood brothers, half brothers, adoptive brothers. If a man and woman marry and both have children by a previous marriage they will be regarded as brothers and sisters even though they have no genetic relationship. The actual relationship of these “brothers” to Jesus cannot be established unless a genealogy is given, and it is not.

Secondly the word brother can be used in a very loose sense. In Aramaic there is no word for cousin and the word for brother (aha) would include cousin or even nephew. Whilst Greek does include a word for cousin but it is quite possible to translators/writers just used the Greek adelphos to replace the Aramaic aha. Moreover the Greek word for brother (adelphos) was also used very loosely for various degrees of kinship.

In the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the LXX) the word adelphos is used for Lot’s nephew (Gen 14:14). Other similar examples can be given.

Paul says in Col 4:7 & 9
“Tychicus, my beloved brother (adelphos)……..together with Onesimus, a trustworthy and beloved brother (adelphos)”. We know from the letter to Philemon that Onesimus was actually a runaway slave, not Paul’s brother (or cousin).

According to Dave Armstrong (a Catholic apologist), a Protestant work The Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words defines adelphos as follows:

Adelphos: denotes a brother, or near kinsmen; in the plural, a community based on identity of origin or life. It is used of:
1. male, children of the same parents….
2. male descendant of the same parents, Acts 7:23,26; Hebrews 7:5
4. people of the same nationality, Acts 3:17,22; Romans 9:3…
5. any man or neighbor, Luke 10:29; Matthew 5:22, 7:3;
6. persons united by a common interest, Matthew 5:47
7. persons united by a common calling, Revelation 22:9
8. mankind, Matthew 25:40; Hebrews 2:17
9. the disciples, and so, by implication, all believers Matthew 28;10, John 20;17
10. believers, apart from sex, Matthew 23:8, Acts 1:15; Romans 1:13; ! Thessalonians 1:4; Revelation 19:10 (the word sisters is used of believers only in 1Tim 5:2)…

[/QUOTE]

The Bible says that Jesus had brothers. I believe the Bible, not your interpretation. Case closed.

 

[jaybo]

Because there is scriptural evidence that Mary remained a virgin and no evidence that she had any children other than Jesus. Yes, the words of scripture are true - and they show that Mary remained a virgin.

There is scriptural and other evidence as to who the "brothers" were (at least those mentioned in Mt 13:55). But it's long and if you only skim my posts then not worth posting.

See my previous message. The Bible says that Jesus had brothers, and even names them. Case closed.

There is nothing in Scripture (anywhere) that Mary remained a virgin. If there is, show me.

 

[T. E. Smith]

Mungo If perpetual virginity was such an important doctrine, it would be stated in the Bible. Never is it so. In fact, Mary's virginity is never mentioned outside of Matthew and Luke.

My stepmother insists on the importance of Mary's virginity, so I asked her why it was never mentioned in the NT outside of Matthew and Luke. She denied it and told me, "That's not true at all." So I asked her to tell me a verse, and after looking thoroughly, she admitted she was wrong.

Now, Mark 6:3 says,

"Is this not the carpenter, the Son of Mary, and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us?" So they were offended at Him.

If he meant cousins, he could have said anepsios. If he meant distant relatives, suggenes would have been more appropriate. He used adelphos and adelphe, brothers and sisters, and no one would have questioned their meaning. Matthew 1:24-25 says,

"Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn son. And he called His name Jesus."

So in this verse, "knew" was a modest euphemism to reference sex, and its meaning would not have been questioned. But if Joseph never "knew" Mary at all, then "till she had brought forth her firstborn son" seems to become meaningless. It would thus appear that Joseph did not have sex with Mary until she gave birth to Jesus. Then they proceeded to do so, which is the most natural explanation for where the brothers and sisters came from.

 

[jaybo]

Mungo If perpetual virginity was such an important doctrine, it would be stated in the Bible. Never is it so. In fact, Mary's virginity is never mentioned outside of Matthew and Luke.

My stepmother insists on the importance of Mary's virginity, so I asked her why it was never mentioned in the NT outside of Matthew and Luke. She denied it and told me, "That's not true at all." So I asked her to tell me a verse, and after looking thoroughly, she admitted she was wrong.

Now, Mark 6:3 says,

If he meant cousins, he could have said anepsios. If he meant distant relatives, suggenes would have been more appropriate. He used adelphos and adelphe, brothers and sisters, and no one would have questioned their meaning. Matthew 1:24-25 says,

So in this verse, "knew" was a modest euphemism to reference sex, and its meaning would not have been questioned. But if Joseph never "knew" Mary at all, then "till she had brought forth her firstborn son" seems to become meaningless. It would thus appear that Joseph did not have sex with Mary until she gave birth to Jesus. Then they proceeded to do so, which is the most natural explanation for where the brothers and sisters came from.

Great post, but I doubt Mungo will listen. 8^(

 

[God Is My Judge]

1. A vow of Virginity

The Annunciation
In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a town of Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin’s name was Mary. And coming to her, he said, “Hail, favoured one! The Lord is with you.” But she was greatly troubled at what was said and pondered what sort of greeting this might be. Then the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favour with God. Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus. He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father, and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.” But Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?” And the angel said to her in reply, “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. And behold, Elizabeth, your relative, has also conceived a son in her old age, and this is the sixth month for her who was called barren; for nothing will be impossible for God.” Mary said, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word.” Then the angel departed from her. (Lk 1:26-38)

Let’s look at this carefully, especially the phrases I have emboldened.

1. Mary is married to Joseph. The translation of “betrothed” is poor. Jewish marriage of the time was in two stages. After the first stage they are married, but later (usually a year) the second stage occurred; the bride entered the bridegroom’s house and the marriage was consummated.

In a normal marriage, during the first stage, the bride was not just hoping or expecting the second stage but was committed to it. She was committed to sexual intercourse and would have the expectation (or at least hope) that it would be followed by a child.

2. The angel tells her she will conceive - some unspecified time in the future He does not say you have conceived but will conceive. He is pointing to the future but gives no timescale. This would normally be good news, especially a son, but would be assumed to follow on from the second stage of marriage.

3. But Mary asks a strange question. “How can this be since I have no relations with a man?” In normal circumstances this would a silly question, so this indicates that this is not a normal marriage; that she has no expectation of sexual relations with Joseph. Note that at this stage the angel has not told Mary she will conceive by the Holy Spirit not Joseph.

Her question therefore only makes sense if she intended not to consummate the marriage; if she had committed her life to the Lord as a virgin.

An analogy is with someone who does not smoke. If someone prophesied they would die of lung cancer they might say “How can this be since I do not smoke?” The implication is clearly that this condition of not smoking (and in Mary’s case her virginity) is expected to remain unchanged.

Note Mary says I have no relations with a man (present tense). But I contend she is referring to the future as well. The angel has focussed on the future and so Mary’s reply must address the future as well.

Take the example above: someone says you will die of lung cancer. You reply “How can this be since I do not smoke.” Obviously if I expect to start smoking I can expect the possibility of contracting lung cancer at some time in the future. My question of “How can this be since I do not smoke.” Only makes sense if I do not expect to start smoking in the future. The “I do not smoke” is therefore not only something for the present but looks to the future as well; it implies something about the continuance of my not smoking. So too with Mary. Her reply only makes sense if it implies she intends to continue not to have a sexual relationship.

This use of the present tense implying the future is used in other places in the New Testament.
Mt 26:18 I shall celebrate the Passover with my disciples. The verb is actually in the present tense, literally “I am holding the Passover with the disciples of me.”

Blass and Debrunner in A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature say 'in confident assertions regarding the future a vivid realistic present may be used for the future’ (Blass & A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, translated and revised by R. W. Funk, Chicago and Longon, 1961, p. 168, & 323)

John McHugh in 'The Mother of Jesus in the New Testament' says I would suggest that in Lk 1:34 the present tense is employed with the force of a future……. Thus the most accurate translation of Lk 1:34 would be 'How shall this be since I am not to know a man?'

Greek expert J.Gresham Machen (Protestant) wrote "This solution [of a vow of virginity] certainly removes in the fullest possible way the difficulty…. No objection to it can be raised from a linguistic point of view; there seems to be no reason why the present indicative, "I know" , could not be taken as designating a fixed principle of Mary's life that would apply to the future as well as the present.

The Protoevangelium of James (not scriptural) tells how Mary was dedicated to God at an early age. This fits with Mary’s intention to remain a virgin.

 

[WIP]

Hi Jaybo,

Whilst the Bible does refer to the brothers of Jesus it does not state that they are children of Mary, nor that they had any genetic relationship to Mary.

BTW, which of the six points I raised in posts #2,#3, #4, #7 do you think are wrong?

Scripture does not say they weren't either and Scripture never indicates that either Mary or Joseph had children by other mates or through adoption.

 

[God Is My Judge]

1. Mary is married to Joseph. The translation of “betrothed” is poor. Jewish marriage of the time was in two stages. After the first stage they are married, but later (usually a year) the second stage occurred; the bride entered the bridegroom’s house and the marriage was consummated.

betrothed :the person to whom one is engaged

" The translation of “betrothed” is poor. Jewish marriage of the time was in two stages."

Yeah ok buddy. A contract was signed between the two families a Rabbi would oversee that. That is how it traditionally went. After some time, she would get married. Not complicated. So UNTIL the time of the wedding, a man could not "know" his bride to be. The contract of betrothal is just the agreement of marriage at the appointed time. A girl wasn't ready for marriage until 15 or 16 UNTIL then, the contract is still binding and to break it, by letting another man "know" you, would be a break in that signed and witnessed oath and considered adultery. A promise is a promise after all. That is why Joseph sought to put her away discreetly as to not bring her shame. Quite a nice guy.

The meaning of Betrothed is still betrothed- not married. Hence, " she was betrothed to a man named Joseph" not officially married because yes the wedding and celebration did not occur she was not brought to his home. That is why the angel said " Joseph, be not afraid to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit" and Joseph did as the angel said. He did not "know" or rather "knew "her not, until after she brought forth her son. Not complicated.

As I said the doctrine was developed by a 2nd century book.
The perpetual virginity of Mary is a Christian doctrine that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was a virgin before, during and after the birth of Christ. In Western Christianity, the Catholic Church and Anglican Church adhere to the doctrine, as do some Lutherans, Reformed, and other Protestants. Shenouda III, Pope of the Coptic Orthodox Church, affirmed the teaching, and Eastern Orthodox churches recognize Mary as Aeiparthenos, meaning "ever-virgin". It is one of the four Marian dogmas of the Catholic Church. Most modern Protestants reject the doctrine.

The tradition of the perpetual virginity of Mary first appears in a late 2nd century text called the Gospel of James. It was established as orthodoxy at the Council of Ephesus in 431,the Second Council of Constantinople in 553 gave her the title "Aeiparthenos", meaning Perpetual Virgin, and at the Lateran Synod of 649 Pope Martin I emphasized the threefold character of the perpetual virginity, before, during, and after the birth of Christ.

The doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity has been challenged on the basis that the New Testament explicitly affirms her virginity only prior to the conception .

The Gospel of James (or the Protoevangelium of James) is a 2nd-century infancy gospel telling of the miraculous conception of the Virgin Mary, her upbringing and marriage to Joseph, the journey of the couple to Bethlehem, the birth of Jesus, and events immediately following. It is the earliest surviving assertion of the perpetual virginity of Mary, meaning her virginity not just prior to the birth of Jesus, but during and afterwards, and despite being condemned by Pope Innocent I in 405 and rejected by the Gelasian Decree around 500, became a widely influential source for Mariology.

Which Pope is correct?

In 649, Pope Martin I emphasized the threefold character of the perpetual virginity, before, during, and after the birth of Christ. He did so from a book rejected by Pope Innocent I in 405. So, is wasn't UNTIL ( that word again) 649, that this false doctrine was in play as acceptable Dogma. That was after the fact Pope Innocent I said the book it was develop from was to be rejected. Why? because it was written in the 2nd century after the death of Christ and apostles.

This is not complicated. That is why Catholics who try to defend the physical Perpetual Virginity of Mary as it stands, have to jump through hoops and change word meaning and twist scripture. The doctrine is untrue and the most absurd thing against truth is, the refusal of the true meaning of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. It's actually revealed in the scriptures. As usual though, the dragon stands before the woman to devour her child. Like this false Pope Martin I and his false doctrine. There is some truth to the Perpetual Virginity thing, Satan has to malign a truth to discredit it before men. Just as he too has snatched away the true meaning of Immaculate Conception. He doesn't want an Immaculate Church to be born. Once all this is correctly understood it will be a game changer. He is seeking to prevent the end time church's Assumption into heaven. For all Titles and positions of mother Mary are a 'type' and 'example' of what will be for the end time Church.