Evangelical/Catholic dialogue about Mary?

Question

Please treat this as what it is. A question. I'm not calling catholics demoniacs.

In the first chapter of the Gospel of Matthew, verses 24-25 it states:

"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 til she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And she called his name Jesus."

A plain reading of the text, to me, indicates that once Mary had delivered Jesus she and Joseph began a normal husband/wife relationship..that is, he "knew her" as in carnal knowledge. They had sex from that point on, ending Mary's virginity.

Catholic response? Again, it's a only a question!

To "The Cub": that's an impressive amount of info, but you didn't address the question that was posed.

To "Somewhat Enlightened" : I'm not an expert on Aramaic, but I aslo read that verse from many modern translations of the bible. Not one of them interpreted the word they way you did. For God's word to be very specific regarding jesus' lineage, place of birth, events surrounding his birth, to turn the whole story upside down on the real meaning of the word 'til' seems strange. but I'll take the time to investigate your assertion and see if it has merit.

Also, to "the Cub": The pharisees made the same argument about their traditions, and Jesus was pretty plain in telling them their traditions had become stumbling blocks. Like the catholic claim of Peter as their father, the pharisees based their authority on Abraham as their father. As Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, I AM." God's timing is his own, and the reformation shone a bright light on many abuses of scripture that had infiltrated Christendom, namely religious tradition supplanting the revealed word of God. If the Catholic Church wants to claim gathering the cannon of scripture, then they should be open to learning fom it. Why would God replace one sustem with it's stumbling blocks (Pharasaical law) with another system that placed the same stumbling blocks in place again (papal authority). The reformation is not a pleasant topic for the catholic church. Howver, many protestants wonder why God tore the temple curtain in two only to put the Papacy in the doorway! Your opinion?

To Imacatholic: If i did manage to find an Aramaic translation of the verse, i wouldn't read it. I searched the verse online and read it from more than 15 translations going back to the 1300's to make as sure as possible I was on some firm ground.

GRANNYOF5: I'm not sure that makes sense to me. Even if they had only been cousins...instead of brothers, as the text says...they still would have been her kinsman-redeemers. If the familial relationships were such that the word brother and cousin are virtually the same, it seems just as strange that jesus didn't put her with bllod kin. So whether they were brothers or cousins doesn't seem to add to that argument.

To Iguana: You must give me the souce you have for saying that joeseph was too old for sex. Simply saying it as fact doesn't make it so. Give me the reference point so I can check that for myself,please.

Aliohope: Here's a website for you! From looking at the wordseaches on the internet, it's pretty much split evenly about jesus having blood brothers. try not to make too many smug remarks when answering,okay?
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2318

Aliohope: After checking out the passage you described earlier about james the just, I can tell you thant it does nothing to answer the question of Mary's eternal virginity. Even if....if....James was an older step=brother, this does not pre-clude Mary and Joseph having children together. This insistance on Mary having remained virgin seems obtuse, at best.

Answer 1

Mary is not a virgin anymore. After the miracle birth of Jesus, she and Joseph had many chilldren together through sexual intercourse. She's also dead, so she can't hear those asking for her "intercession". Such "intercession" is against Jesus Christ anyway.

Answer 2

The problem is the English language, basically. And it does center on the interpretation of "'til/until" -- which can be done in two different ways. And because this is the case, one cannot base the assertion that Mary had other children -- or that she and Joseph had a physical marital relationship, for that matter -- on this verse alone.

Consider 2 Samuel 6:23: "Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death". Obviously she didn't give birth thereafter. This is just one example. There are, of course, as many other verses where "until" means a fixed point before which a thing does not happen but after that point it does. All the more reason one cannot use just this one verse to prove or disprove Mary's perpetual virginity.

Another consideration often brought up is the fact that Jesus had brothers. Again ... English language translation. It is cumbersome in English to say "Jesus' male relatives, including cousins", but that is the meaning in the original texts. If some take it to mean that "brothers" meant siblings born of Mary, they are making an assumption; the references do not make it clear. What I find telling is that, if Jesus had male siblings, why then did He put His mother into the care of John just before He died?

It's also often brought up that because Jesus is called the "firstborn", that proves He wasn't Mary's only child. It's a rather thin argument; I didn't have to wait until my second child's birth for the older to be considered my firstborn. She would have been so even if I had had no other children. That the more modern term is "only child" doesn't change this.

Answer 3

About Jesus' brethren. One named in Mark 6:3 is James. We know that James the Just was a brother of the Lord. We also know that he was an apostle because Paul tells us so in Galatians 1:19 ("But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother" KJV) Here Paul is talking about his visit to the Church at Jerusalem and that he saw James, because James was the bishop of that community. From Epiphanius' Panarion, we know that James the Just, the brother of the Lord died when he was 96 years old,


("But James brother of the Lord and son of Joseph, died in Jerusalem, having lived twenty-four years, more or less, after the Savior's Ascension. He was ninety-six years old when he was struck on the head by a fuller with his club, flung from the pinnacle of the temple and cast down, he who had done no wrong "Epiphanius, Panarion, 78.14.5 )

and that he was not Mary's son and he was a Nazarite

( "For James was Joseph's son from Joseph's wife, not from Mary, as we have said in many places and treated of more clearly. 2. But we find as well that he is of David's stock through being Joseph's son, that he was a Nazarite (for he was Joseph's firstborn and consecrated)..." Epiphanius, Panarion, 29.3.4.1-2")

Since we know this information, thanks to Epiphanius, we know that James, the one called the brother of the Lord, was really Jesus' step-brother from Joseph's first marriage. If we know this and you interpret the Bible saying that the brethren of the Lord were his "blood brehtren" instead of kinsmen, either your interpretation is wrong or the Bible is.

P.S. I really don't think the Bible is wrong.

God Bless you!!!

Answer 4

Joseph was also a much older widower with children
( probably beyond sex active years). These are the "brothers" of Jesus talked about in the Bible. Why else would a Jewish man of that time take on a woman that Jews would have considered "damaged goods" except to have a servant and a nanny for his existing children? The community would have seen her delicate condition and rushed to get her farmed off to who better then a widower.
Jesus had a sister named Mary ( and one named Salome). It was custom for the mother to name the child but against Jewish custom for a mother to give a child her same name. So the sister Mary was a step daughter to Mother Mary. Jesus had only step brothers and sisters.

Answer 5

Thank you for calling this a "plain reading of the text"
there are two instances in the bible when the word "until" is translated like this. The original word in Aramaic was translated to Greek and then to Latin, but means more than "until". It actually means that he didn't know her at all. "Until" is a poor translation. I wish I were a biblical scholar, but I'm not. I'll go scare up a link for you to peruse.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4028.htm#3

A very strict law at the time was that if your wife was pregnant by another man, you had two options. You could "put her away quietly" or never have sexual relations with her ever.

Joseph knew that God was the Father, and that she belonged to Him. Joseph would not dare have any sexual relations with her once he did those two things: 1) he knew the child was not his and 2) he did not "put her away"

To have sexual relations with her after that would have made him unclean.

Answer 6

A plain reading in English maybe not not in the original Greek.

"Until she bore a son"

The evangelist is concerned to emphasize that Joseph was not responsible for the conception of Jesus.

The Greek word translated "until" does not imply normal marital conduct after Jesus' birth, nor does it exclude it.

With love in Christ.

Answer 7

Mary was the mother of Jesus. Joseph was his earthly Father.

They were both of mankind and in need of salvation as all mankind.

If God had not sent his Son, they would have been held in death just as all of mankind.


It is sad the catholic religion puts such an emphesis on Mary. Yet, they do and it is contrary to the Word of God.

It does not do any good to pray to Mose, Issac, Jacob, David, or Mary. Not one of these can save you from eternal damnation.

Only praying to God and believing in his Son can a man be saved from death.

Answer 8

Greg M,

I mean you know disrespect....but you are looking at the snake and not the Elephant:


Are You Looking at the Snake Or the Elephant?


Indeed, Jesus Christ started the Roman Catholic Church. He built it upon the Apostles. As a body on earth, He gave charge of His Church to St. Peter. He changed his name from Simon to Peter (which means 'rock'), and built His Catholic Church upon St. Peter.

"He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church [n.b. one singular church], and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind ON EARTH shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose ON EARTH shall be loosed in heaven." (Cf. Matthew 16:15-19).

St. Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, and the first Pope. His successors for 2,000 years have each been the bishops of Rome and the Pope, the head of the universal Church.

Now, Protestants believe that their KJV represents 100% of the faith. It is apparent that Jesus did not emphasize the WRITTEN WORD while on earth. As a matter of fact, there is neither any evidence of Jesus picking up a pencil, pen or stylus, nor any evidence of Him telling His disciples to write anything down. Truly the Holy Spirit did later. My point is that the Faith for most of the last 2,000 years has been handed down ORALLY. Jesus traveled about preaching ORALLY. If He had wanted to emphasize that 100% of the Faith rested in the WRITTEN WORD, He would have sat down on day one and written the Bible Himself. At a minimum He would have directed the disciples to write things down. Further if He intended the WRITTEN WORD to represent 100% of the Faith, He would have seen that word processors, fax machines and photocopiers would have been invented and readily available during His public ministry, and He would have told His disciples to fax the Bible to all nations. Instead what He told them was:

"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age." (Mat 28:19-20).

Indeed the Apostles wrote things down i.e. the books of the New Testament, but they primarily taught by preaching the gospel ORALLY.

The Bible was not compiled as such until the end of the 4th century, and the general public was largely illiterate until the 20th century. Clearly, the ORAL WORD was the primary source of faith for many years. Indeed there was writing during such time, but the faith was generally being handed down ORALLY. We have evidence of this historical ORAL preaching in the writings of the Church Fathers and Doctors. Now, this handing down of the Faith ORALLY and reflected in the writings of the Fathers and Doctors is called Catholic Tradition. Traditio in Latin means "to hand down".

Imagine the value of studying the writings of St. Polycarp and Papias who were taught directly by St. John! They were EYEWITNESSES.

Now, the Catholic Church wrote the Holy Bible. Further, the Holy Bible is incomplete. How do we know this? Because Holy Scripture itself tells us so. Consider the following:

"Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name." (Cf. John 20:30-31)

"There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written." (Cf. John 21:25).

"I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you." (Cf. John 16:12-15)

So, where is the rest of the Deposit of Faith if Holy Scripture is incomplete? The answer is in Catholic Tradition and in the teachings of the Magisterium of the Church (you will recall that He told St. Peter, "whatever you bind ON EARTH shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose ON EARTH shall be loosed in heaven.").

Therefore to reiterate the Deposit of Faith is comprised of the following: Catholic Tradition, Holy Scripture, and the Teachings of the Magisterium of the Church.

Protestants do not recognize all of Holy Scripture. They have taken out 7 books called the deuterocanonicals. They have done this in spite of the fact that Holy Scripture says not to do so.

Now, the reason you see Catholics getting annoyed with the charges of Protestants against the Roman Catholic Faith, is largely due to fact that they attack the complete Deposit of Faith using only Holy Scripture (and only a fraction of that). Furthermore, many treat their KJV as their security blanket. They are governed by their feelings. They believe that if something makes them feel good then it is from the Holy Spirit; if it makes them feel uncomfortable then it is from the Evil One. Many verses in Holy Scripture (like those cited above) make them feel uncomfortable, so they deal with it by ignoring such verses, or twisting their meaning in such a way that they are comfortable once again. They do this in spite of the following:

"This is good and pleasing to God our savior, who wills everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth." (1 Timothy 2:3-4)

Consider the following story which I submit to illustrate their conclusions about the Faith based upon using only their KJV:

"Once upon a time, there was a man who was born blind. He spent all of his life in darkness. One day, his friend offered to take him to the zoo to introduce him to God's creatures, which the blind man had never encountered before. The blind man was very excited about this opportunity.

The day for their adventure arrived, and his friend picked up the blind man and took him to the zoo. They proceeded from animal to animal, and the blind man was bursting with excitement.

When they came to the elephant, the blind man seized the elephant's tail, and after having run his hand up and down his tail exclaimed, "Oh, I see, elephants are a lot like snakes!"


Now, the invalid conclusion reached by the blind man in the story above was due to his misfortunate handicap. Please understand that Catholics do not have any problem with Protestants believing in their KJV. The problem is that they have their eyes closed with only the tail in their hand, and are criticizing us and we have our eyes open to the whole elephant.

Scripture Alone? Is Half the Story Sufficient?
www.call2holiness.org/era-of-peace.html

How we know Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church:
http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/how.htm

The names of the men who founded the Protestant ecclesial Communities:
http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/reform.htm