The Ever Virginity of Mary

[James the Persian]

Also, the tradition you refer to, ... did not come into existence until the 4 th. Century asd is just a self-justification for believing in a myth or tradition, but not reality.

Iris,

I'm afraid that you are showing your ignorance here. You are ignorant not only of what Holy Tradition is (which is why you can make strange statements to the effect that it is not evidence at all!) but you are also ignorant of its contents, part of which (and the most important part) is the Scriptures, so if you wish to throw out our whole Tradition you will have no Bible at all. With respect to the part of your post to Scott quoted above, your ignorance is particularly telling. The Tradition of the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos did not come into existence in the 4th century. It is altready well attested by the second century, being mentioned by Origen (late 2nd century) and in the Protoevangelion of James (c. 120-150 AD).

As you persist in ignoring any evidence supplied that does not concur with your personal interpretation of Scripture, further discussion with you is futile and as you have refused to curb the tone of your posts to make them less combative it is also extremely disagreeable. I would suggest that you learn how to discuss your views with others without attacking them, but experience shows you would ignore this advice also. As of now, then, I have no wish to further discuss the topic with you, though I certainly will discuss it with anyone else who wishes to contribute to a good-natured discussion. That is all I asked for in the opening post on this thread and most people, yourself excepted, have abided by my request. If you wish to continue ignorantly preaching your personal opinion as self-evident truth then you will have to find another audience.

James

 

[joeboonda]

12:46 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.
12:47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
12:48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? 12:49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! 12:50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

(King James Bible, Matthew)

8:19 Then came to him his mother and his brethren, and could not come at him for the press.
8:20 And it was told him by certain which said, Thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to see thee.
8:21 And he answered and said unto them, My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God, and do it.
(Luke)

In these verses, in my Strong's concordance, the word for brethren means brothers, I dunno, seems clear to me, or they would have used another word. And why, when it says that Joseph knew her not until she had brought forth her firstborn son, in Matt 1:25, would one argue with the Bible? It strongly infers that he knew her, but not until after Jesus was born. I have always been taught that Jesus had brothers (half, technically), from Mary and Joseph. It is clear to me from scripture. If Joseph 'knew her not' EVER, the Bible would have said, but it said He knew her not UNTIL she had brought forth her firstborn son. EVER is far different than UNTIL, it means what it says, He DID 'know" her after Jesus was born. Argue all ya want, it is right there in black and white in God's Word. I don't think Mary would want all this attention drawn to her and away from Our Saviour, Jesus, which is the only name given by which we may be saved. Again, I would say, trust alone, in Christ alone, as a free gift for salvation, tell others the good news, and don't worry about such things as this.

 

[Quiddity]

In these verses, in my Strong's concordance, the word for brethren means brothers, I dunno, seems clear to me, or they would have used another word. And why, when it says that Joseph knew her not until she had brought forth her firstborn son, in Matt 1:25, would one argue with the Bible? It strongly infers that he knew her, but not until after Jesus was born. I have always been taught that Jesus had brothers (half, technically), from Mary and Joseph. It is clear to me from scripture. If Joseph 'knew her not' EVER, the Bible would have said, but it said He knew her not UNTIL she had brought forth her firstborn son. EVER is far different than UNTIL, it means what it says, He DID 'know" her after Jesus was born. Argue all ya want, it is right there in black and white in God's Word. I don't think Mary would want all this attention drawn to her and away from Our Saviour, Jesus, which is the only name given by which we may be saved. Again, I would say, trust alone, in Christ alone, as a free gift for salvation, tell others the good news, and don't worry about such things as this.

CATHOLIC ANSWERS
The Greek word for "until" (heos) does not imply that Mary had marital relations after the birth of Christ. In 2 Samuel 6:23, we read that Michal, the daughter of Saul, had no child "until" the day of her death. (Rest assured that she didn’t have any children after that day, either.) Hebrews 1:13 and 1 Timothy 4:13 are similar examples.

When we interpret any passage, we must consider what the author was trying to say. Matthew’s intent here is not to explain what happened after the birth of Christ. He is only concerned with the fact that Joseph and Mary had no relations before then. It is the virgin birth, not later siblings, that Matthew is concerned with.

 

[joeboonda]

I agree that the virgin birth was the most important thing to emphasize, I will agree to disagree, that Joseph never knew his wife, and still believe 'He knew her not until she brought forth her firstborn son" can and does mean that once she had Jesus, he knew her. I don't see how that would detract any bit from Mary's character, being married to Joseph and not consumating it or ever having Joseph's children would detract, to me. Most of what I have always known as simple, Bible-believing Christians believe in the Virgin Birth, but we do not put Mary on such a high plane as do catholics, choosing to emphasize Jesus, praying to God through our one mediator, Jesus as the Bible says, and not through a mediatrix or a Father, but simply through Jesus straight to God. But I am moving off topic, just wanted to share my beliefs. And I respect your beliefs as well.

 

[James the Persian]

I agree that the virgin birth was the most important thing to emphasize, I will agree to disagree, that Joseph never knew his wife, and still believe 'He knew her not until she brought forth her firstborn son" can and does mean that once she had Jesus, he knew her. I don't see how that would detract any bit from Mary's character, being married to Joseph and not consumating it or ever having Joseph's children would detract, to me. Most of what I have always known as simple, Bible-believing Christians believe in the Virgin Birth, but we do not put Mary on such a high plane as do catholics, choosing to emphasize Jesus, praying to God through our one mediator, Jesus as the Bible says, and not through a mediatrix or a Father, but simply through Jesus straight to God. But I am moving off topic, just wanted to share my beliefs. And I respect your beliefs as well.

Whilst I disagree (obviously) with your interpretation of the text - and the Greek use of until really does imply nothing about what happened afterwards: it simply works differently to English - I would just like to thank you for posting a good-natured and courteous disagreement with Victor in this thread. Certain others who believe as you do have recently chosen to disregard my request for a civil debate and it's good to see that not everybody feels they have to lace their posts with disrespect and vitriol. Thank you again.

James

 

[joeboonda]

Thanks, James, I suppose that word 'until' can be different from Greek to English, I understand your point on the grammar. It is good to debate in a nice way, huh? I am learning to be kinder in my posts the longer I am here. I love my Catholic friends, my whole family was Catholic when I was young. Although we have some differences, it reminds me of what my mother told me. She said when she was little, the nuns told her to believe that Jesus paid for her sins on the cross, and she would go to Heaven. She actually came close to becoming a nun, and then I suppose I would not be typing this, lol. I think we believe in the 'basics' of the faith, and that is important. I still have my disagreements on other things, but, if we can focus on Jesus as Saviour, that is a great accomplishment.

Mike

 

[DTrent]

Holy Tradition fills in these blanks, but I accept that not everyone accepts it.

Christ's siblings must be Joseph's children by another wife. This is exactly what Holy Tradition tells us.

The purpose of this thread was to defend our beliefs as completely consistent with Scripture .
This thread was meant as a defense of the Catholic (in its broadest meaning) faith, not proselytism.

James

Thank U for accepting that not everyone accepts that Holy Tradition 'fills in blanks'.
For 'tis better to trust in the Scriptures than in man-made traditions that do not support the Scriptures, yes?

Again, Holy Tradition teaches Joseph had children by another wife, NOT God's Word.

But how can one defend their beliefs as "completely consistent with Scripture" if the Bible is silent on certain matters OR if said tradition is not in harmony with Scripture?? :bonk:

Yes, it is clear that this thread was meant as a defense of the Catholic faith...

 

[Quiddity]

Thank U for accepting that not everyone accepts that Holy Tradition 'fills in blanks'.
For 'tis better to trust in the Scriptures than in man-made traditions that do not support the Scriptures, yes?

Dtrent, do not sound the trumpet of victory. He did not intend to say that we should trust Holy Tradition above Scripture. To both Roman Catholics and Orthodox Catholics it is a distinction without a difference. The Bible is written Tradition. But the deposit of faith came in oral and written form. This was undesputible until Luther came along. If anything "The Bible Alone" is a true traditions of men. No where does God restrict His Word to a book. If you can't see past this then you will continue to submit to your personal interpretations.

Peace In Christ
~Victor

 

[iris89]

Hi D Trent

FIRST, The Bible tells what we need to know; not what we might like to know. Because of this many groups try and mislead through 'tradition' which of course is what Jesus (Yeshua) thoroughly condemned as I have shown in an earlier post. The Bible puts it this way with respect to those who wrongly attempt to fill in details left blank in the Bible in order to gain followers and/or power at 2 Corinthians 4:4, " In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." (AV).

SECOND, As you said,

For 'tis better to trust in the Scriptures than in man-made traditions that do not support the Scriptures, yes?

and this definitely applies to those who falsely teach Joseph had been married before and had had children by another wife, but this is of course NOT supported by the Bible. Also, all indicators are that his half brothers and half sisters were younger than him.

THIRD, You ask,

Again, Holy Tradition teaches Joseph had children by another wife, NOT God's Word. But how can one defend their beliefs as "completely consistent with Scripture" if the Bible is silent on certain matters OR if said tradition is not in harmony with Scripture??

They do this by lying which is not in keeping with John 8:44, " Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." (AV).

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

 

[iris89]

Hi Victor

FIRST, The Bible is NOT written tradition. You are obviously NOT knowledgable of the fact that the Bible is NOT the product of one committee or strongman. It has over 40 individual writers who wrote under divine inspiration/guidance putting the thoughts of God (YHWH) into the words of men much as transcribing secretaries today taking transcription and then later typing it out. In other words one real author, God (YHWH), and many scribes each of whom wrote in his own style over a period of approximately 1,600 years. All of what people call or consider inconsistencies are really not such, but most often just a problem of translation and/or understanding, i.e., lack of understanding of what the original writer writing in his own language and culture meant/said in his original writing. What is remarkable, is the writers over such a period of time all wrote in harmony when even most posters on threads on this forum can not even stay on track or subject over a period of a few days and/or weeks at most with the original subject of the thread. This fact of harmony over a period so great as to almost stagger the imagination shows that it had one guiding force or author who divinely inspired its writers as humans of their own volition can not keep on track over short periods of time.



To wit, the Bible is the ONLY book God (YHWH) ever inspired men to write as his scribes. In other words, God is its author and men only put his thoughts given to them by divine inspiration into their own words, the words of men. Not only that, all the other writers of later so called religious guidance books borrowed from it and made changes in accord with their strong man or so called prophet. Therefore, the Bible can in no way be said to be written tradition.

SECOND, Let's look at what tradition is so you can understand how different it is from the Bible:

Dictionary definition:

1. The passing down of elements of a culture from generation to generation, especially by oral communication. 2a. A mode of thought or behavior followed by a people continuously from generation to generation; a custom or usage. b. A set of such customs and usages viewed as a coherent body of precedents influencing the present: followed family tradition in dress and manners. See synonyms at heritage. 3. A body of unwritten religious precepts. 4. A time-honored practice or set of such practices. 5. Law Transfer of property to another.[source - The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000]

THIRD, Jesus (Yeshua) was strongly against tradition as shown at Matthew 15:2-6, " Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.

3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.

5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;

1. And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition." (Authorized King James Bible; AV)

And, Mark 7:1-9, " Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem.

2 And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault.

3 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.

4 And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.

5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?

6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.(AV).

And, Colossians 2:8, " Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." (AV).

FOURTH, Your presumptuous comment,

No where does God restrict His Word to a book. If you can't see past this then you will continue to submit to your personal interpretations.

Now you have wrongly attempted to smear the word-of-God (YHWH) and this is in keeping with 2 Corinthians 4:4, " In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." (AV).

Now putting personal and group traditions on an equal with God's (YHWH's) written word, the Bible, definitely show you are putting personal interpretations on a par with God's (YHWH's) word which of course is blasphemy prima facia. Let's look at what 2 Peter 1:19-21, " We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" (AV).

So it is clear that you are substituting your personal interpretations in place of the word-of-God (YHWH) and not D Trent.

Your friend in Christ Iris89

 

[iris89]

Hi James the Persian

FIRST, I am attacking no one, but you are attacking me here as shown by your statement,

I'm afraid that you are showing your ignorance here.

Here you are attacking me and then falsely accusing me of attacking you, I find this hypocritical.

SECOND, Your statement,

You are ignorant not only of what Holy Tradition is (which is why you can make strange statements to the effect that it is not evidence at all!) but you are also ignorant of its contents, part of which (and the most important part) is the Scriptures, so if you wish to throw out our whole Tradition you will have no Bible at all. With respect to the part of your post to Scott quoted above, your ignorance is particularly telling. The Tradition of the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos did not come into existence in the 4th century. It is altready well attested by the second century, being mentioned by Origen (late 2nd century) and in the Protoevangelion of James (c. 120-150 AD).

Now I have already answered another on basically the same thing as follows:

The Bible is NOT written tradition. You are obviously NOT knowledgable of the fact that the Bible is NOT the product of one committee or strongman. It has over 40 individual writers who wrote under divine inspiration/guidance putting the thoughts of God (YHWH) into the words of men much as transcribing secretaries today taking transcription and then later typing it out. In other words one real author, God (YHWH), and many scribes each of whom wrote in his own style over a period of approximately 1,600 years. All of what people call or consider inconsistencies are really not such, but most often just a problem of translation and/or understanding, i.e., lack of understanding of what the original writer writing in his own language and culture meant/said in his original writing. What is remarkable, is the writers over such a period of time all wrote in harmony when even most posters on threads on this forum can not even stay on track or subject over a period of a few days and/or weeks at most with the original subject of the thread. This fact of harmony over a period so great as to almost stagger the imagination shows that it had one guiding force or author who divinely inspired its writers as humans of their own volition can not keep on track over short periods of time.



To wit, the Bible is the ONLY book God (YHWH) ever inspired men to write as his scribes. In other words, God is its author and men only put his thoughts given to them by divine inspiration into their own words, the words of men. Not only that, all the other writers of later so called religious guidance books borrowed from it and made changes in accord with their strong man or so called prophet. Therefore, the Bible can in no way be said to be written tradition.

And,

Let's look at what tradition is so you can understand how different it is from the Bible:

Dictionary definition:

1. The passing down of elements of a culture from generation to generation, especially by oral communication. 2a. A mode of thought or behavior followed by a people continuously from generation to generation; a custom or usage. b. A set of such customs and usages viewed as a coherent body of precedents influencing the present: followed family tradition in dress and manners. See synonyms at heritage. 3. A body of unwritten religious precepts. 4. A time-honored practice or set of such practices. 5. Law Transfer of property to another.[source - The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000]

And,

Jesus (Yeshua) was strongly against tradition as shown at Matthew 15:2-6, " Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.

3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.

5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;

1. And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition." (Authorized King James Bible; AV)

And, Mark 7:1-9, " Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem.

2 And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault.

3 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.

4 And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.

5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?

6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.(AV).

And, Colossians 2:8, " Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." (AV).

THIRD, Your false accusation,

you have refused to curb the tone of your posts to make them less combative it is also extremely disagreeable.

Whereas, it is you who need to curb the tone of your post since the post I have made are just fact filled research post consisting mainly of references to renown writers and historical works and very little of my own composition. Probably you do not like that as you well know I have the facts and am simply presenting them, and nothing more.

Now here is another historical account for you to grapple with:

The inaccuracy of the information furnished by the Gospels as to the material circumstances of the life of Jesus, the dubiety of the traditions of the first century, collected by Hegesippus, the frequent homonyms which occasion so much embarrassment in the history of the Jews at all epochs, render the questions relating to the family of Jesus almost insoluble. If we hold by a passage from the synoptic Gospels, Matt. xiii. 55, 56; Mark vi. 3, Jesus should have four highlightbrothers and several sisters. His four brothers were called James, Joseph or Jose, Simon, and Jude, respectively. Two of these names figure, in fact, in all the ecclesiastical and apostolic traditions as being "brothers of the Lord." The personage of "James, brother of the Lord," is, after that of St Paul, the most perfectly sketched of any of the first Christian generation. The Epistle of St Paul to the Galatians, the Acts of the Apostles, the superscriptions of the authentic epistles, or those not ascribed to James and Jude, the historian Josephus, the Ebionite legend of Peter, the old Judeo-Christian historian Hegesippus, are agreed in making him the chief of the old Judeo-Christian Church. The most authentic of these proofs, the passage in the Epistle to the Galatians, gives him distinctly the title of ?de?f?? t?? ??????.[source - The History of the Origins of Christianity. Book V. The Gospels., by Ernest Renan]

FOURTH, My post are neither good natured and/or bad natured; they are just factual as should post by an honest independent researcher who is NOT swayed by personal opinion, interpretation, or tradition, but completely open minded and without preconceived 'mental blinders.'

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

 

[Quiddity]

iris89, when do you think the Bible was compiled? If you to continue this topic please do so in the one vs. one debate. You can answer my question there.

~Victor

 

[iris89]

Hi Victor

FIRST, I am an independent researcher who post facts, I am not a debater and detest debates. The concept of debates which is to better your opponent is completely contrary to what Jesus (Yeshua) said at Matthew 22:37-40, "Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." (Authorized King James Bible; AV). I, on the other hand, am concerned strictly with facts and reality and posting facts so all will know the truth as my last post clearly shows so if you are interested in debating and the nastiness that go with it, you will need to find someone else who is disposed the that type of nonsense. I am only interested in assisting all to know the truth, and exposing wrong thinking, and nothing more as that is the way of an honest independent researcher who has an open mind and no 'mental blinders.' I enjoy discussions and learning, but you learn not from debates.

SECOND, With respect to when the Bible was compiled, it was composed over a period of approximately 1,600 years by faithful men who under divine inspiration put the thoughts of God (YHWH) into the words of men who were acting as his scribes. In other words, it has only one author and over 40 scribes. The first five books, except for the last part of Deuteronomy were written by Moses starting around 1513 BCE and ending about 1473 BCE, and the last books were four by the Apostle Johb approximately 96-98 AD. In fact, I have written an article specifically dealing with the Book of Matthew since it was the first Gospel written that you can read at:

http://preacher.proboards7.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1133758355

THIRD, You failed to comment on the facts I showed you with respect tradition. Why????????????

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

 

[iris89]

Hi Everyone

I can see this subject is getting contentious when I get falsely accused of being ignorant, and in addition, get wrongly challenged to a useless debate instead of a discussion that all can learn from, so here are the technical facts on Matthew 1:25 that I hope will put this to "bed."

Matthew 1:25, An Explanation

INTRODUCTION:

Many do not comprehend Matthew 1:18-25 which is as follows:

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.

20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.(Authorized King James Bible; Av)

And argue with respect the meaning of "not till" found in the Authorized King James Bible or "until" found in the New American Bible (Catholic). They try to argue in error for other meanings for "not till" or "until" so as to maintain their tradition that Mary remained forever a virgin; instead of accepting the Bible fact that she did not. To resolve this issue we will look at Paraller scriptures in a number of Bibles, some of which are Catholic Bibles such as the NAB and the DRCB, some of which are Protestant and/or Bibles translated by independent scholars or committees, and one which is Jewish so as to eliminate any possible accusation of bias by these scholars.

PARALLEL BIBLES ON MATTHEW 1:25:

And he knew her not till she brought forth her first born son: and he called his name Jesus.{Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible; DRCB)

He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus. (New American Bible; NAB)

but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus. (Revised Standard Bible; RSV).

but she remained a virgin until her son was born. And Joseph named him Jesus.(New Living Translation; NLT)

and knew her not until she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name JESUS.(Third Millennium Bible; TMB)

but he did not know her intimately until she gave birth to a son. And he named Him Jesus.(Holman Standard Christian Bible; HSCB)

but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.(English Standard Bible; ESB)

but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus. (New American Standard Bible; NASB)

but he did not have sexual relations with her until she had given birth to a son, and he named him Yeshua. (The Complete Jewish Bible, Copyright 1998 by David H. Stern. Published by Jewish New Testament Publications, Inc. ; CJB)

and didn't know her sexually until she had brought forth her firstborn son. He named him Yeshua. (Hebrew Names Version of the New English Bible)

And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. (American Standard Version; ASV)

Pero no la conoció hasta que ella dio a luz un hijo, y llamó su nombre Jesús.(1989 Reina-Valeria Acutualizada)

and did not know her till she brought forth her son—the first-born, and he called his name Jesus.(Young's Literal Translation; YLT)

As we can see, although they used different words, all the translators were in agreement, and the New American Bible (Catholic) made it quite clear with " He had no relations with her until she bore a son" as did the Complete Jewish Bible with " but he did not have sexual relations with her until she had given birth to a son," as did the Holmon Standard Christian Bible with "but he did not know her intimately until she gave birth to a son." So we can see those trying to perpetuate mythical traditions are just "blowing smoke" and "grasping at straws."

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS USING THE KJB AND STRONG NUMBERS:

One individual who was "grasping at straws said the following:

"

The Greek word for "until" (heos) does not imply that Mary had marital relations after the birth of Christ. In 2 Samuel 6:23, we read that Michal, the daughter of Saul, had no child "until" the day of her death."

But let's look as a technical analysis using the Authorized King James Bible (AV) as the frame work of the original Koine Greek here. " And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS."

Strong's Number: 3756 "not"

Original Word

Word Origin

ouj

a primary word, the absolute negative [cf (3361)] adverb

Transliterated Word

TDNT Entry

Ou

None

Phonetic Spelling

Parts of Speech

oo /cgi-bin/lexicon.pl?id=3756g/cgi-bin/lexicon.pl?id=3756g/cgi-bin/lexicon.pl?id=3756gb/cgi-bin/lexicon.pl?id=3756gb/cgi-bin/lexicon.pl?id=3756gc/cgi-bin/lexicon.pl?id=3756gc

Definition

1. no, not; in direct questions expecting an affirmative answer

</TD King James Word Usage - Total: 1453 not 1214, no 136, cannot + (1410)&version=kjv 55, miscellaneous 48

KJV Verse Count Matthew 159 Mark 105 Luke 141 John 238 Acts 101 Romans 98 1 Corinthians 108 2 Corinthians 77 Galatians 30 Ephesians 11 Philippians 13 Colossians 8 1 Thessalonians 16 2 Thessalonians 7 1 Timothy 9 2 Timothy 12 Titus 1 Hebrews 58 James 24 1 Peter 10 2 Peter 11 1 John 35 2 John 5 3 John 4 Jude 2 Revelation 45; Total 1328



The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon

Strong's Number: 3757 'till'

Original Word Word Origin

ou| genitive case of (3739) as adverb

Transliterated Word TDNT Entry

Hou None

Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech

hoo



Definition:

King James Word Usage - Total: 41

where 22, till 14, whither 2, when 1, wherein 1, whithersoever + (1437)&version=kjv 1

KJV Verse Count Matthew 7 Luke 8 John 1 Acts 12 Romans 3 1 Corinthians 2 2 Corinthians 1 Galatians 2 Colossians 1 Hebrews 1 2 Peter 1 Revelation 2 ; Total 41

[source - Greek lexicon based on Thayer's and Smith's Bible Dictionary plus others; this is keyed to the large Kittel and the "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament."]

CONCLUSION:

The truth is self evident based on the foregoing in the words of the Complete Jewish Bible, " but he did not have sexual relations with her until she had given birth to a son, and he named him Yeshua."

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

 

[Nimaj]

Remember that bone box we found a few years ago, didn't it say "James, Son of Joseph, Brother of Jesus"?

 

[Linus]

Remember that bone box we found a few years ago, didn't it say "James, Son of Joseph, Brother of Jesus"?

Joseph and Jesus were pretty common Jewish names back then. It's possible that they were completely different people.

Although I support the idea that Mary did not remain a virgin after the birth of Jesus, I do not think this very compelling evidence of that. Just some thoughts...

 

[DTrent]

Iris:
A researcher after my own heart!
Thanx for all the incite! :highfive:
I enjoy the info (not the "debate"!) :banghead3