Zobel said:

---

The traditional belief about the Theotokos is that she was a perpetual virgin, yes. And by traditional, I mean universal up to and including the Reformers. That she wasn't is more or less only a belief held in the past few centuries. If you look at iconography of Mary, you'll see three stars on her clothes (one on each shoulder and one on her head). These represent perpetual virginity - before, during, after. This is present in the iconographic tradition going back to the 4th century at least.

The scriptures never say that St Joseph married her. It can also be inferred that he died at some point before Christ Jesus' adult life, as he isn't in the stories at all from that point, Mary travels with the Apostles, and is given to St John at the cross.

Tradition holds that he was an elderly man, and a widower, who was betrothed to her as a guardian, not as a husband. The brothers of the Lord are his cousins or brothers from St Joseph's prior marriage. The Lord appointing St John as a caretaker of Mary also strongly implies she had no other children to care for her.

---

Completely agree with your first two paragraphs. I don't think there is good enough evidence to support the first sentence of your third paragraph. Greek words for "man" varied based on age and status. The word used to describe Joseph as a man was not the same word that would be used to describe an older man or a widower. It was used to describe an adult, virile man.

You are correct that the early Christians and early Church fathers universally held that Mary was ever virgin. But that doesn't imply Joseph was too old or otherwise incapable of marital relations. That he cared for Mary and for Jesus without ever consummating their marriage was a sign of his heroic virtue and sainthood. It's the reason that men throughout Church history struggling with unchastity consecrate themselves to St. Joseph.

St. Joseph, pray for us!
Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us!

What words are you thinking of there?

One more thing - and a bit of an etymology point. Catholics often claim that we don't worship Mary. And it is 100% correct that we do not worship Mary in the way that protestants (and most moderns) understand the word "worship."

But you don't have to go back far at all in history to see the word "worship" being used to refer to all sorts of people. Landed gentry would be called "your worship" by their subjects, just as one example. That's because the word "worship" really just derives from the English "worth-ship." Someone of worth. That's a very broad concept, and it means there are different types of worship. The Catholic Church breaks it into two broad categories: adoration and veneration. In the Catholic conception, adoration and veneration are two types of worship. The first, adoration, is reserved only for God. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are to be adored. No one else. Not Mary, not the saints. However, anyone who provides a virtuous witness may be venerated. That includes Mary and the other saints. And the Catholic Church holds that Mary is to be venerated above all other merely human people.

I bring this up mostly because I have seen protestants point to certain old books and publications that refer to the "worship" of the saints and say "Aha! I knew you papists were a bunch of idolaters!"

Unless you find some Church figure who claims we are to "adore" Mary, then it's all just a linguistic misunderstanding.

Zobel said:

---

What words are you thinking of there?

---

The word "presbytes" is used in scripture to refer to old men or widowers. The word "aner" is what is used to describe Joseph. This means a fully adult man who would still be of an age to father children. Not an old man.

Brant Pitre lays out the discussion really well in this video:

Joseph is referred to as "a man" ... it's the generic word for a male. I don't think you can infer anything from it one way or another. You might say the scripture does not specify him as an elderly man, but "aner" doesn't mean anything other than "man."

At any rate, the church tradition is that St Joseph the Betrothed is an older man. Aside from the Protoevangelium of James, the Church iconographic tradition is witness - he is near universally and prototypically depicted with white hair.

The "holy family" tradition is a difference between east and west. My personal opinion is that it is a latter innovation with some risk in how it is presented.

Quote:

---

No it doesn't, unless "I will be with you always until the end of the age" means that at the end of the age Jesus will no longer be with us.

---

Ever consider that context defines a words use.
Consider:
The peanuts are in the trunk of the car.
The peanuts are in the elephants trunk.

NASB
I am with you always, to the end of the age."
NKJV
I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.
ESV
And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age."

There's a lot of mystery here as to what the end of the age means, however it reads as reassurance or a qualifying phrase that helps them understand how long always is.

It way different context than he kept her a virgin until she gave birth.

24 And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, 25 but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he named Him Jesus.

I guess we can strike Romans 3 23 from the scriptures now. God is a liar it seems.

Again, proof-texting your way through Scripture/theology can be problematic. One verse seems to contradict another, or contradict a belief held and taught by even the earliest Christians.

When you look at the "context" of NT Scriptures through the lens of the OT (meaning the context is not limited to a few verses before and after) where the WHOLE Bible is your context through Biblical Typology the puzzle pieces really fall into place.

When you understand Jesus as the New Adam, and the True prophet, priest, lamb/bread/sacrifice, and King; and then you see Mary as the New Eve, the Woman and the Queen Mother, the Arc of the New Covanent, and the Mother of God; the Scriptures begin to open up in a deeply profound and beautiful way.

When the bigger picture begins to open up and become visible, the temptation to hold on tightly to this verse or that verse as a proof-text becomes less. Remember that for about a thousand years there were no chapters and verses to isolate and focus on - there was no such thing as quoting Romans 3:23 or John 3:16 or whatever. In some ways I'd like to think this may have helped early Christians avoid twisting the scriptures to their own destruction.

To address your point on Romans 3:23 I'd offer the following:

1. Jesus was fully man, is counted as being fully man, but was without sin. He would be an exception here.

2. Romans 3 is speaking of personal sin, which an infant or child prior to the age of reason, is not capable of committing. These would be an exception here.

3. The Scriptures speak and teach us about Christ and they are directed to us and given to us because they apply to us, the children of God with Mary as our mother. We should not expect the scriptures to give us disclaimers or exceptions about Mary. If you understand who Mary is, and you understand her role in salvation history beginning with Genesis and woven throughout the OT and perfectly fulfilled through her love, belief, obedience, and acceptance to be THE Theotokos: her being without sin is perfectly consistent.