It was a pretty safe bet that once the notion of Mary as the Mother of God developed the Church Fathers would attempt to distance her from any notion of icky sexual intercourse, even to the extent of assigning her mother a virgin birth also (the Immaculate Conception).
The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception has nothing to do with virgin birth!
The doctrine goes like this. As a result of the sins of Adam and Eve (note that the RCC considers that story to be a parable or metaphor rather than literal truth), every human being is born with the stain of original sin on its soul. This stain is wiped away by Christian baptism. However, Mary was chosen before birth to be the mother of Jesus, and as such had to be completely pure. Therefore God allowed her to be conceived without original sin on her soul. Right from conception she was “immaculate”, completely clean and without sin on her soul. That has nothing to do with the biological circumstances of her conception - her parents had sex and the sex resulted in babies.
Many of the early Church Fathers clearly did find the whole sex idea a bit ooky, but they didn’t go that far.
Incidentally, the story that Jesus’ brothers and sisters were Joseph’s children from a previous marriage has another element to it - those who believe that, also use it to explain why Joseph was willing to go along with a sexless marriage. He was older, and wanted a companion, a helpmate, and a stepmother for his children - but didn’t necessarily want or need a lover. I suspect many older gentlemen would be peeved by the notion that old guys are finished in the bedroom, of course!
At the least, it is found in the Greek Fathers.
I don’t know exactly what the legal situation was in 1st-century Judea, but impotence is normally regarded as an impediment to marriage. “Unwillingness on either part” is too vague to address.
This is a non-issue.
…especially since there are certain Jewish religious rites applying to a “first-born” son that most certainly do not wait for a second child.
It is most assuredly not “medieval”. As I said above, it is at least as old as the 2nd century.
True, it’s mentioned by Origen and denied by Tertullian. I guess the belief existed in the 2nd century but didn’t really become accepted church doctrine until the 4th Century.
Having said that, I suppose it must have reflected something about Hellenistic thinking before it reflected medieval thinking. Either way, it assuredly wasn’t Jewish. Even a Virgin Birth for the Messiah was an un-Jewish notion.
Maybe Matthew was just bragging? Trying to start a fight with Jesus? You know “oh yeah - well I had sex with YOUR MOTHER!” 
(I hope you meant “Matthew 1:24 even implies that Joseph did have sex with Mary after Jesus was born.” That’s how I would read it.)
They were Jews who chose to translate “almah” as “parthenos” in LXX.
Um…yeah…Joseph, not Matthew, although it would have been kind of funny if Matthew had bragged about doing her.
Probably because their Hebrew wasn’t that great anymore, but the verse you’re talking about, Isaiah 7:14, was not about the Messiah anyway.
Thank you for that valuable correction, flodnak. That piece of misinformation has been lodged in my head for years.
It would have been dislodged, had you read Cecil’s column. Just saying is all.
So it’s sorta like the Green Lantern Corps.
In brightest day, in blackest night, I am the Way, the Truth, and the Light
Hmm, it works.
As far as I know, Mormons do not believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity.
Yeah, but they are Mormons, this side of Scientologists, or even MILLERITES!!! Easily dismissed.
And may I welcome JohnTheEVangelist to the board? Sure, he never returned after his first post, like a common Evangelist, but his OP is less stoopid. And he wrote off Cecil as Catholic, which is accurate, as far as I can tell, not knowing the gent.
I don’t know about that. Apparently, it can spread bacteria. :eek: