There is zero Biblical evidence for anything but many children for Mary.
The cunningly devised fables of the RCC have led billions to eternal destruction.
How many more need be lost?
.
Similar language as 1 Corinthians 7:5 - Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent ... Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus. Matthew 1:24-25 NIV
v.25 KJV - And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
Matthew, who was a contemporary with Mary and may have received his info directly from both Joseph and Mary, in the same chapter twice makes it clear that Joseph and Mary were intimate after Jesus was born. Knew her - Hebrew idiom for sexual relations see Gen 4:1 and others.
Just on this evidence alone, the question should be settled. There are no special brownie points awarded for celibacy. In fact, to refrain from sexual intimacy within a marriage would go against Jewish custom, nature, and God's Word. It would force Joseph, who we are told was a just man, to remain a virgin too. Would that be possible? Yes, but for what possible purpose would God place such unwarranted stress on this couple for at least 12 years - the last mention of Joseph in scripture was Jesus' visit to the Temple at 12 years old.
There are a lot of shortcomings in this article, but one of the worst is that it just ignores a very important question. Suppose the New Testament writers really did mean Jesus’ actual brothers. What word, then, could they use to mean that? Is there some other word that meant that, and only that? Otherwise we seem to be left with two words, one usually meaning cousin or more distant kin folk like that, and the other used primarily but not exclusively for brother, but both must be interpreted in this case as “cousin,” according to Catholicism. Since this word for brother can be used for brother, and there is no other word for brother mentioned, the Catholic church can’t draw definite conclusions from this part of their argument, as this article tries to do. That would be like saying “brother” can’t mean one’s actual “brother.”
Who cares! doesn’t even matter!
The first question I would like to ask is why is the perpetual virginity of Blessed Mary a critical importance to Roman Catholic doctrine? I am sure the Roman Catholic church does not view conjugal marital relations as 'sinful.' Or a disqualifier for some reason to receive the adoration Roman Catholics offer to Mary.
From the article:
Moreover, no Scripture can be produced that absolutely, undeniably, compellingly defeats the perpetual virginity of Mary.
Unless we look at 'until' and wrestle with what the word actually means and what some want it to mean. Until is well Until:
Matthew 1:
24 And Joseph rising up from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and took unto him his wife. 25 And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
'til' (until) 'heos': (G2193): 'till' or 'until'.
Is there really any argument on what 'till' or 'until' means in both our language and the Greek. It means what it says---until which is "up to (the point in time or the event mentioned)."
Other uses of 'till' and 'until' in the Gospel of Matthew are:
So all the generations from Abraham to G2193 David are fourteen generations; and from David until G2193 the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto G2193 Christ are fourteen generations.
When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till G2193 it came and stood over where the young child was.
But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till G2193 the Son of man be come.
For all the prophets and the law prophesied until G2193 John.
Seems 'till' and 'until' are used consistently throughout this Gospel.
Wow this is very helpful for me. I’ve always had the instances of “sungenis” in Scripture in the back of my mind.
Thank you for posting. One less topic I need to eventually research.
PRE-Jesus' birth there is no argument.
POST-Jesus' birth requires a suspension of most all that is human nature.
Which is for the same reason car thieves cannot find a police station. The facts are that,
• Marriage is described as cleaving" and becoming one. (Gn. 2:24; Mt. 19:4-6)
• Israel knew nothing of a marriage that was not consummated between two persons who could procreate, nor does the NT.
• Under the New Covenant celibacy is only advocated in the context of being single. (Mt. 19:10-12; 1Cor. 7:8)
• Paul actually instructs the married to have sexual relations, and restricts abstinence in marriage to only a period of fasting, and then to come together again. (1Cor. 7:3-5)
•Thus a marriage in which their is no "cleaving" would be a very notable, and as far as Catholicism is concerned, very important. Yet while the Holy Spirit characteristically records extraordinary exceptions to the norm among its characters, from the age of Methuselah to the strength of Samson to the number of toes of Goliath, to the diet of John the Baptist, to the supernatural transport of Phillip, to the signs of an apostle, to the singleness of Paul and Barnabas, and uncharacteristic duplicity of Peter, to the prolonged celibacy of Anna, to the sinlessness of Christ, etc., He says nothing about Mary being a perpetual virgin. And instead what He does teach weighs toward the norm.
• Except in rare instances "heōs" ("And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS." Matthew 1:25) indicates a terminus and a change, or allowing for that..
• Instead of any teaching that Mary was a perpetual virgin, ,we have many texts which refer to Mary having other children. (Mat_12:46,48, Mat_27:56; Mar_15:40,47, Mar_16:1; Luk_24:10; Joh_19:25; Gal_1:19) Likewise Psalms 69:8 states, "I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children." Adelphos* (brethren) often refers to biological siblings, and while it need not do so, there is no justification for excluding it as meaning so.
• If "brothers" refers to Joseph's sons by an earlier marriage, not Jesus but Joseph's firstborn would have been legal heir to David's throne. The second theory — that "brothers" refers to sons of a sister of Mary also name "Mary" — faces the unlikelihood of two sisters having the same name. — D. A. Carson, Matthew in The Expositor's Bible Commentary, volume 8 (Zondervan, 1984).
Jason Engwer states , Luke uses the word "supposedly" to describe Jesus' relationship with Joseph (Luke 3:23), but doesn't use any such terminology to describe Jesus' relationship with His brothers and sisters, but repeatedly chooses the term "brother" to describe Jesus' siblings, even though he understood the difference between a "relative" and a "brother", even distinguishing between the two within a single sentence. (Luke 21:16).
• There is simply no need for Mary to be a perpetual virgin, unless martial relations are sinful or necessarily denoting inferior virtue, as some CFs erroneously held , contra. Heb. 13:4)
If there is any purely “human” tradition here, then, it is the denial of the perpetual virginity of Mary, since it originated (mostly) some 1700 years after the initial apostolic deposit: just as all heresies are much later corruptions. The earliest Church fathers know of no such thing. '
More propaganda. Besides the reality that it is estimated we only have a small portion of all that so-called church "fathers" wrote,
Basil stated that the view that Mary had other children after Jesus "was widely held and, though not accepted by himself, was not incompatible with orthodoxy" (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], p. 495).
As Engwer also notes, Irenaeus refers to Mary giving birth to Jesus when she was "as yet a virgin" (Against Heresies, 3:21:10). Irenaeus compares Mary's being a virgin at the time of Jesus' birth to the ground being "as yet virgin" before it was tilled by mankind. The ground thereafter ceased to be virgin, according to Irenaeus, when it was tilled. The implication is that Mary also ceased to be a virgin. Elsewhere, Irenaeus writes:
"To this effect they testify, saying, that before Joseph had come together with Mary, while she therefore remained in virginity, 'she was found with child of the Holy Ghost;'" (Against Heresies, 3:21:4)
Tertullian comments:
Tertullian: "...indeed it was a virgin, about to marry once for all after her delivery, who gave birth to Christ, in order that each title of sanctity might be fulfilled in Christ's parentage, by means of a mother who was both virgin, and wife of one husband." (On Monogamy, 8)
To marry after she brought forth Christ denotes consummation, the formal expression of marriage, (Mt. 19:5) as it is certain Joseph took Mary to wife before the Lord was born, but "knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son." (Mt. 1:24,25) And in so doing Tertullian sees Mary as representative of both ideals, of continence and monogamy.