How is mary a virgin?


#1

I was reading the bible and i came to this little verse.

"24When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25But he had no union with her UNTIL she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus. "
NASB matthew 1:24-25

it basiclly says joseph waited until mary had Jesus to have union with her.what the heck?


#2

it’s already been answered. check Catholic Answers. i think it’s under “mary and the saints” category, her perpetual virginity


#3

[quote=bloodwater]I was reading the bible and i came to this little verse.

"24When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25But he had no union with her UNTIL she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus. "
NASB matthew 1:24-25

it basiclly says joseph waited until mary had Jesus to have union with her.what the heck?
[/quote]

Hi
You are correct, it even says that in the Catholic Bible. However you, according to many Catholics that have told me, are not qualified to interpret the scriptures. That is to be left up to the priest, he is to tell you what to believe. So please forget that you read this scripture because you have probably misinterpreted it anyway.
Dave.http://forums.catholic.com/images/icons/icon10.gif


#4

[quote=oudave]Hi
You are correct, it even says that in the Catholic Bible. However you, according to many Catholics that have told me, are not qualified to interpret the scriptures. That is to be left up to the priest, he is to tell you what to believe. So please forget that you read this scripture because you have probably misinterpreted it anyway.
Dave.http://forums.catholic.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
[/quote]

Dave

that is a very dishonest answer.


#5

[quote=MaggieOH]Dave

that is a very dishonest answer.
[/quote]

Hi Maggie
How is it dishonest, many people have told me that I’m not qualified to interpret scripture. That only a priest should.
Dave.


#6

Until does not imply that there was something that happened after. It just means that nothing happened to that point.

In 2 Sam 6:23 it says
’Michal the daughter of Saul had no children until the day of her death’

So with the above reasoning, she gave birth to children AFTER she had died…?

The main problem is that people read the Bible with modern English in mind…we’re not very conversant with the alternate meanings of words.

A good example is the word ‘Abstinance’. Whenever I tell a non-Catholic that Fridays during Lent are days of Fasting & Abstinance they assume that it means that you can’t have marital relations. The word has taken on a modern definition that is not the same as the traditional.

This is a problem.


#7

[quote=oudave]Hi Maggie
How is it dishonest, many people have told me that I’m not qualified to interpret scripture. That only a priest should.
Dave.
[/quote]

YOU are not authorized by God to interpret scripture, but HIS Church IS. The Church wrote the New Testament and decided by the guidance of the Holy Spirit what books were inspired. MEN decided many centuries later that they didn’t like that and removed parts of the Canon and then concocted religions around what THEY THOUGHT the Bible says…or more accurately, what they WANTED it to say.
“Remember man that thou art dust and unto dust thou shalt return”

Pax vobiscum, :smiley:


#8

[quote=oudave]Hi Maggie
How is it dishonest, many people have told me that I’m not qualified to interpret scripture. That only a priest should.
Dave.
[/quote]

Dave,

you have been asked by what authority do you interpret the Scripture. The response that you gave is not very clever.

Maggie


#9

nobody told you I have to ask a priest to interpret scripture for me. If they were correctly stating Catholic teaching, they told you all Scripture is to be interpreted in the Spirit in which it was written, by those to whom Jesus Christ gave authority to do so: the Catholic Church He established to interpret and protect Divine Revelation and to whom He sent to Holy Spirit to guide, protect and counsel in that task. To hold one’s personal interpretation against 2000 years of magesterial teaching is arrogance of an incredible degree.


#10

Look into the word origin of until, there are other good examples in the bible of it in that way, as well. I’m sure some of the other posters know the verses, because I’m afraid I do not.

This is the same kind of until a teacher might use- “Be good until I get back” That doesn’t mean stop being bad the minute she arrives, it means be good- and continue being good- upon her return.


#11

[quote=alyssa]Look into the word origin of until, there are other good examples in the bible of it in that way, as well. I’m sure some of the other posters know the verses, because I’m afraid I do not.

This is the same kind of until a teacher might use- “Be good until I get back” That doesn’t mean stop being bad the minute she arrives, it means be good- and continue being good- upon her return.
[/quote]

Thank you - excellent example!


#12

[quote=alyssa]Look into the word origin of until, there are other good examples in the bible of it in that way, as well. I’m sure some of the other posters know the verses, because I’m afraid I do not.

This is the same kind of until a teacher might use- “Be good until I get back” That doesn’t mean stop being bad the minute she arrives, it means be good- and continue being good- upon her return.
[/quote]

Exactly, here are other examples where until does NOT mean that a certain activity stops once a particular event happens.

Genesis 26:12-13 “And Isaac sowed in that land, and reaped in the same year a hundredfold. The LORD blessed him, and the man became rich, and gained more and more **until **he became very wealthy.” Does this mean that once Isaac became wealthy, he stopped gaining? Did the Lord stop blessing Isaac, even though Isaac kept sowing and reaping?

Genesis 41:49 “And Joseph stored up grain in great abundance, like the sand of the sea, until he ceased to measure it, for it could not be measured.” Does this mean that once Joseph stopped measuring the grain, he ceases to store it? What happens to all the unharvested grain once Joseph stops measuring it, does he let it die on the vine?

Genesis 46:34 “Your servants have been keepers of cattle from our youth even until now, both we and our fathers.” Did Jacob’s servants refuse to watch the cattle once Joseph’s brothers came of age?

1 Corinthians 15:25 “He (Jesus) must reign until He has put His enemies under His feet.” Does this mean than once Jesus has trampled His enemies, He will no longer reign? What will happen to Him, does He get demoted once He has won the final victory over Satan?


#13

As far as interpretation, this is a tough question. I think it’s ok to read scripture and get what you can out of it, but if you have a question about what something is supposed to mean, you are encouraged to ask a priest, or an apologist on the true meaning of a confusing part, rather than come up with your own meaning. Is this correct? This isn’t really ‘having someone to think for you’ in the sense that you may not know the meaning of dropshot fishing, but you will look it up on Google to see what it is.

Right?


#14

[left]"
[/left]
Mary. + Logic=Virgin

[left]I don’t think anything in Scripture is by chance, it all has a purpose. I’m not a quoter, I feel giving exact verses often results in taking things out of context, so I will only site chapter, read it all, it won’t hurt.
I find it interesting that, Mt and Lk approach the annunciation (of the birth of Jesus) from different perspectives. Mt, Chap 1 addresses the annunciation from Joseph’s side, while Lk Chap 1 addresses it from Mary’s. I think this is very significant when viewed from the OT book of Numbers.
We know Mary is a young teenager engaged to be married to Joseph. We know they are both good and pious Jews. We know Mary has knowledge of how children are conceived (I know not man). We know that at that time it was not unusual for engaged couples to have sexual relations, actually being engaged was considered a part of being married. We also know that Mary and Joseph did not yet have sexual relations. The question we must ask ourselves is, did Mary and Joseph intend to have sexual relations after their marriage? Now before you go ballistic, it was not uncommon to dedicate yourself to God, actually if we read Numbers chaps 27-30 we’ll find there were even laws concerning these vows. So the question we need to ask ourselves is, did Mary and Joseph intend to have normal sexual relations after their marriage?
First we’ll take the position of yes, they intended to have sexual relations. When we read the rendering in Lk, the angel greets her, and tells her she is to conceive in her womb and bare a son. Sounds simple enough doesn’t it? Put yourself in Mary’s place. So, I’m engaged to Joseph, we will marry, and have a child, it will be a son. Any question? Shouldn’t be “if” we intended to have sexual relations after marriage. “If” we didn’t intend to have sexual relations after our marriage then we’d ask “how can this be”? She asked the Archangle ,"How an this be?“
The question “how can this be”? makes absolutely no sense if they intended to have sexual relations, remember she knew “how”. So why did she ask “how can this be”?
Now we’ll take the position of no, they did not intend to have sexual relations, Mary was a consecrated virgin, under a vow of virginity. Read Lk again. The angel greets her, and tells her she is to conceive in her womb and bare a son. Wait a second!!! I’m a dedicated virgin, under a vow of virginity, “how can this be?” This question of her’s only makes sense if she did not intend to have normal sexual relation, if she were under a vow of virginity. Now read Numbers chap 30 about a man taking a woman into his house as his wife who is under a vow. This is the reason Mt talks about Joseph’s side, to insure he knows of the vow, to make sure he knows the true “Father” of the child, to make sure he knows the intimate relationship between Mary and God. You see Mary took a vow of chastity as a small girl in the Temple.

[/left]


#15

[quote=oudave]Hi Maggie
How is it dishonest, many people have told me that I’m not qualified to interpret scripture. That only a priest should.
Dave.
[/quote]

Because it’s a nasty, snide, slanted remark. You knew when you said it that you meant to slander someone else’s religion.

And it’s not true – the Church reserves the final authority to itself (not to every priest), but absent an issue of dogma, every Catholic is free to do his own exegesis.

So it’s not only snide, but a lie as well.


#16

Because it’s a nasty, snide, slanted remark. You knew when you said it that you meant to slander someone else’s religion.

And it’s not true – the Church reserves the final authority to itself (not to every priest), but absent an issue of dogma, every Catholic is free to do his own exegesis.

So it’s not only snide, but a lie as well.

:clapping:


#17
 Hi 

You are correct, it even says that in the Catholic Bible. However you, according to many Catholics that have told me, are not qualified to interpret the scriptures. That is to be left up to the priest, he is to tell you what to believe. So please forget that you read this scripture because you have probably misinterpreted it anyway.
Dave.

Many years ago I found myself in a rut. I had a job where I was going nowhere. It got to the point where I actually loathed going to work. I would get sick in my stomach each morning before going to work. I was not (nor am I now) a very educated person. I didn’t know what kind of job to get. I prayed to God to help me. But still I was doing nothing. Then one day when things were really bad I felt the Lord asking me if I trusted Him. I said “yes”. So he told me to quit my job. It was very, very clear that he was telling me that. I questioned God about “quit my job!!!” Yes he said. “Look at the birds in the sky. I take care of them. Don’t you think you are more important to me than the birds?” I answered “yes”. “So quit your job. I will take care of you”. This happened on a Saturday evening and on Monday I quit with nothing, absolutely nothing lined up. I had no idea what I would be doing. A month later I found a job, which was what I needed, and I retired from it after 25 years. Now, this is the thing. Did I interpret for myself what this scripture meant for me or did I have to go ask a priest? We are allowed to interpret scripture for ourselves as long as it does not go contrary to what the Church teaches. Now, does this mean that everybody, when they are having problems at work, should automatically quit their jobs? Of course not. So please don’t make the claim that Catholics cannot interpret scripture for themselves. We are encouraged to do so. But we must always do so with the mind of the Church. We can’t go off on different tangents and make claims that 2000 years of interpretation are false. Besides scripture says that there are many things that are hard to understand and some do so to their own ruin. This thing about “until” is hard to understand so we let the Church guided by the Holy Spirit to interpret for us.

So I guess to Protestants, their hero Martin Luther was wrong about Mary’s perpetual virginity. If he was wrong on that, could he then have been wrong on everything else? If some non-Catholics claim that Church has lied, then they readily follow ML who was also a liar?


#18

(a) The folks here are reading Matthew 1:25 like Americans, and you are imputing American content to a translation.

The answer to the question about Matthew 1:25 is not some kind of scary, risque, contra-Scriptural interpretation by Holy Mother the Church, but rather this: The Greek word heos translated “until” is probably most elegantly translated “up to the moment that.” It has nothing to say about the future. Matthew was not an American, and he would not have understood your addition of meaning about the future to the word *heos *(or the Aramaic equivalent).

(b) As far as respecting the Church’s role in interpreting Scripture, whereas the Church is the final arbiter of meaning, *the Church does not, philosophically, have a right to reverse or alter meaning, but rather only to perceive meaning. *Inspired Magisterial teaching should arrive at the same points as Scripture. The Church may not knowingly change Scripture’s meaning.

If one is too shy about reading Scripture and trying to determine meaning, to the point of saying things like, “However you, according to many Catholics that have told me, are not qualified to interpret the scriptures. That is to be left up to the priest, he is to tell you what to believe. So please forget that you read this scripture because you have probably misinterpreted it anyway.” Way, way, way, WAY too conservative. Heck, with that as our guideline we may as well burn our Bibles!

And I have heard many priests misinterpret Scripture.

The rule to follow is this: The Church’s infallibility is penumbral. While we are bound to bow to ex cathedra statements, the responsibility below that level is to bow to a teaching unless we can point to an articulable reason for disputing it.

Otherwise, Catholics were morally bound to accept every Lutheran teaching issuing from the mouth of every rebellious-but-still-nominally-Catholic German bishop in the Reformation, until Rome should contradict them, no matter how anti-Catholic the teaching.


#19

the only arguement i’ve heard so far is that we can’t understand our own bible and to look up what “until” means. but the context of the sentence points to joseph waiting to have union with her. the entire sentence would need to be changed.i think these excuses are kind of weak guys.


#20

Well, if you think that the argument is weak, despite all the evidence (which, BTW, is NOT <<

that we can’t understand our own bible

), then I guess that you just think that Michal had children after she died, that Jesus will no longer reign once all nations are subject to him, etc.

Imagine, for close to 2000 years nobody even questions the meaning of “until” to mean what you have postulated it to mean in this or any other Biblical text using it.

Of course, the word was never even the English “until”, since the original manuscripts in the O.T. used Hebrew, the N.T. Aramaic and Greek, and the very, very first Bible written used Latin. . .but, what the heck, obviously St. Luke used 21st century vernacular English in the opinions of some people. . .


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.