[Cure of Ars]

I am having a discussion on Mary's perpetually virginity and someone said the following.

Quote

Common misunderstanding comes from this verse in Matthew

Matthew 1:25 And “knew” her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS

The word know (knew) is used in the context of having sexual intercourse. However each time the word “knew” is used in this fashion it refers to having sexual intercourse, which results in pregnancy, conception.

So my question: Does to "know" in the context of marriage in the Jewish culture during that era have to mean that conception was involved?

To read the entire post, go here:

http://www.christian...p=175654#175654

I have not looked much into this yet and I just wanted to see if you guys have heard this one before.

[Paphnutius]

I think the key to the misconception is the understanding of the word until. When it is used in that sense it speaks about from point X to point Y and does not imply anything about the future.

For instance: Anna was a widow until she was 84. Does that mean that she became married after she was 84? I do not think so. It means that up until that point she was a widow, not to imply a change in the future.

Christ promised to be with us until the end of the ages. Does that mean after the end of time Christ will no longer be with us? Once again it speaks up to one point stating that such is the case and does not imply change afterward. The word used I think is heos heu, which does not convey anything about future conditions.

So St. Joseph did not know her untill she had brought forth her firstborn. They stated this, as with Anna and Christ, that until this point this was the case. This does not mean that afterwards he "knew" her, but that she was a virgin at childbirth. It does not speak anything more about the situation after that.

They are reading their own conjectures into it to support their stance. If they would compare the usage of the word with other Scripture passages they would see the consistency.

Also, where does it list any child as the son/daughter of Mary, mother of Christ, explicitly? Umm never.

[phatcatholic]

correct...............if we understand "until" as we rightly should, in which there is no reason to assume that they had sex after Jesus was born, then it doesn't matter rather the "know" pertains to intercourse or not.

[Cure of Ars]

Ya you guys are right. He has my chasing things, that in the end, does matter even if he is right. Thanks for the help


But if he is right on the "knowing" only meaning procreation it could be a good argument against contraception. I don't know. I will have to think about it.

This post has been edited by Cure of Ars: 08 May 2005 - 08:28 AM

[phatcatholic]

its my understanding that, in the bible, to "know a man" usually means to have sex with him. its a popular biblical euphemism. however, i haven't done the research to see if there are any exceptions.