Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: spunkets; blue-duncan
[in view of Matt 1:25] it makes no sense that Mary became infertile.

No sense to whom, you?

Matthew 1 says nothing about Mary's relations with Joseph after Christ was born. The firstborn is a firstborn even if he remains the only male child, it is a legal status. "Till", Greek "eos", is often used in the sence that refers strictly to the past without reference to the future, like in "the field was called Haceldama, that is, The field of blood, [eos] this day" (Mt 27:8).

In the economy of salvation, Mary giving birth to others would give a dubious status of Brother of God to the putative sibling; it would also signal that with mothering Jesus her work was somehow not gloriously complete. It would also conflict with her adoption of, and by, St. John (John 19).

766 posted on 12/08/2006 7:29:39 AM PST by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 720 | View Replies ]


To: annalex
Mary giving birth to others would give a dubious status of Brother of God to the putative sibling;

Which would have created a de facto royalty that could have very possibly continued to this day with people claiming to be direct descendants of God's siblings.

768 posted on 12/08/2006 7:34:25 AM PST by wagglebee ("We are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom." -- President Bush, 1/20/05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 766 | View Replies ]

To: annalex
Till", Greek "eos", is often used in the sence that refers strictly to the past without reference to the future

Correct. And here we have another English-language bible only misunderstanding. The Greek term is really closer to until.

There are numerous biblical examples that show this beyond any doubt. It would also conflict with her adoption of, and by, St. John

In fact, it would have been illegal.

772 posted on 12/08/2006 7:43:26 AM PST by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 766 | View Replies ]

To: annalex; blue-duncan
""Till", Greek "eos", is often used in the sence that refers strictly to the past without reference to the future, like in "the field was called Haceldama, that is, The field of blood, [eos] this day" (Mt 27:8)."

Matthew knew them both. Had he meant the viginity was permanent, he would have indicated that. He would have extended the "till" beyond the birth, as he did with the field of blood. As it stands, Matthew simply noted the birth as the limit, not some future event. Matthew never noted "perpetual virginity" even though he knew them both well.

"In the economy of salvation, Mary giving birth to others would give a dubious status of Brother of God to the putative sibling;

Not in the least. Unless Mary was God's wife, which she wasn't.

it would also signal that with mothering Jesus her work was somehow not gloriously complete.

Not gloriously complete? Mary was Joseph's husband. Luke 2:48-50
When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, "Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you."

"Why were you searching for me?" he asked. "Didn't you know I had to be in my Father's house?" But they did not understand what he was saying to them.

"It would also conflict with her adoption of, and by, St. John (John 19).

Not really. Joseph was dead. Maybe any bros and sisters were too, or being with John was better. It really never mattered to me if He had bros, or sisters and I can't say at this point if he did. The light through the window thing, I don't believe at all.

878 posted on 12/08/2006 7:05:33 PM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 766 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson