Posted on 04/15/2016 7:25:23 AM PDT by verga
Your statement is bordering on false witness, fabricating a lie which you think is 'a last word' to be ridiculed. Someone once wrote that you are a catholic priest. You sure don't act like the catholic priests I have known during my seventy years sojourn on this planet. ... Why would I wrote 'the Blessed Mary, Mother of Jesus' if I hated His Mother? Shame on you!
I was only calling your hand for trying to slip in your kind of Judaizing, not trying to hijack this thread. This thread has nothing to do with what we are talking about. I’ve made my point, have a good day.
Eze 44:9 Thus says YHWH (the Lord): No son of a foreigner, uncircumcised in heart or uncircumcised in flesh, comes into My set-apart place, even any son of a foreigner who is among the children of Israel.
Circumcision of the heart as well as the flesh... Jer 31, Heb 8, they are the SAME covenant. It is not the terms of the covenant that the belief in Christ changes, it is where the terms of the covenant are written, no longer in stone, but now in the flesh of our hearts as Moses taught it would be...
Rom 10:5 For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them. 6 But the righteousness based on faith says, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down) 7 or “’Who will descend into the abyss?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim);
PAUL WAS QUOTING FROM MOSES...
Deu 30:9 YHWH (the LORD) your Elohim (God) will make you abundantly prosperous in all the work of your hand, in the fruit of your womb and in the fruit of your cattle and in the fruit of your ground. For YHWH (the LORD) will again take delight in prospering you, as he took delight in your fathers, 10 when you obey the voice of YHWH (the LORD) your God, to keep his commandments and his statutes that are written in this Book of the Torah (Law), when you turn to YHWH (the LORD) your Elohim (God) with all your heart and with all your soul. 11 For this commandment that I command you today is not too hard for you, neither is it far off. 12 It is not in heaven, that you should say, Who will ascend to heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it? 13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it? 14 But the word is very near you. It is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it.
Faith isn't just confessing that Jesus is the Christ, it is as Peter instructed us, following the example that Christ left us to follow, who was obedient to the Father unto death and His commandments are not burdensome, however, those of men are and that is why I chose to purge the leaven of men from by walk as Christ instructed us to, so to walk as Christ walked. Not that I am perfect, for He is my perfection when I stumble and without Him, there is no salvation for anyone for ALL mankind has fallen short of the glory of Elohim (God) and in need of a Savior.
Therefore, we must be careful no to confuse the Torah (Law) of God with the laws of men that corrupt the Torah (Law) of Elohim (God). At least, that is what my Bible teaches from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21.
And so as I sit and reflect upon the many weekends I sat in Catholic mass with my grandparents of another religion, I never could understand this doctrine that Mary died a virgin when the Bible is clear that she didn't.
Shalom!
Three year olds are perfectly capable of making a commitment to God.
What three year old knows enough about sex to take a perpetual vow of virginity?
Seems that you missed that point.
Or ignored it.
But Mary remaining a perpetual virgin, or becoming a mediatrix, or any other Roman Catholic tripe, will NOT be found recorded there.
Hoss
You might want to actually read what I wrote, instead of your usual knee jerk reaction, ALL of your usual objections were dealt with.
Like I said, actually read the article.
I will note that the proper way to understand the Word is context. Context is the key to proper Biblical exegesis (the exposition or explanation of a text based on a careful, objective analysis. The word exegesis literally means “to lead out of.” That means that the interpreter is led to his conclusions by following the text gotquestions.org). Eisegesis is the opposite meaning “to lead into,” which means the interpreter injects his own ideas into the text, making it mean whatever he wants (gotquestions.org).
Mary’s response is very telling Luke 1:34 “εἶπεν δὲ Μαριὰμ πρὸς τὸν ἄγγελον Πῶς ἔσται τοῦτο, ἐπεὶ ἄνδρα οὐ γινώσκω;” Luke 1:34 “And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?” In both the Douay-Rheims and the King James version ἔσται is correctly translated as “shall” From Strong’s concordance 1510 εἰμί eimí (the basic Greek verb which expresses being, i.e. "to be"). Ἔσται is the future tense or “will be.”
Mary is not a 21st century city girl, She is a 1st century farm girl who understands the mechanics of procreation. Her response only makes sense if she had no intention of having a conjugal relation with the man she was already betrothed to. In the usual state of affairs a woman would expect to have children, but Mary is expressing amazement. Remember the angel has not yet told her that the child will be the literal Son of God only that he would be called the son of the most high and sit on the throne of David.
Catholicism claims this passage in Luke is Mary's pledge of remaining a virgin her whole life.
There is nothing in this passage to indicate that.
Let’s be sure we have the events in order.
Gabriel comes to Mary’s house and tells her she has found favor with God (Luke 1:26-30). She is engaged to Joseph (Matthew 1:18).
Gabriel tells Mary she will have a child (Luke 1:31-33).
Mary asks Gabriel how this will happen as she hasn’t “known” a man (Luke 1:34).
Gabriel explains to her how this will happen (Luke 1:35).
As Verga notes, she understands how babies are made. Mary's a good girl and has not engaged in sex with anyone at this point as per her statement in Luke 1:34. If we put the Greek into English it would read as this: “How will be/shall be this, since a man not I know?”
Verga goes on to note….” Mary is not a 21st century city girl, She is a 1st century farm girl who understands the mechanics of procreation. Her response only makes sense if she had no intention of having a conjugal relation with the man she was already betrothed to.
However, as we are about to see, her statement says nothing of the kind.
The two bolded words in my post are the verbs in her statement. The first, will be, is in the future indicative. The future is always future from the speaker’s perspective (Wallace, Greek Grammer Beyond the Basics, p567), in this case Mary’s.
The indicative mood is routinely used to present an assertion as an unqualified statement. It is the presentation of certainty (Wallace, 448-449). It can be translated as either will or shall”. In either case Mary’s question is one of mechanics. How will/shall be this….” and she’s going to explain why she’s asking this question in the second half of this verse.
The verb I know is present indicative active. The Greek is ginosko meaning properly, to know, especially through personal experience (first-hand acquaintance) HELPS Word-studies.
Wallace notes this verb could be considered a perfective present. This may be used to emphasize the results of a past action that are still continuing (Wallace 532-533; Wallace footnotes this referring to Fanning, Verbal Aspect 239-40. According to Fanning, the following verbs also occasionally function as perfective presents. Γινώσκω being among these). Wallace notes this is a very rare usage in the NT. He does not indicate this has any force into the future. In other words, there is no indication on Mary’s part she will remain a virgin.
Mary is emphasizing she has not had relations with a man in the past and that statement remains true as she is talking to Gabriel. The text does not say, “I have not had relations with a man and shall not/will not.” If that were the case Luke, being a doctor who has investigated all of this, would have so noted. Luke was very precise in his use of the Greek as we will see in another passage.
Of the major translations I will address the ones Verga cited plus the NASB. The NASB is considered to be the most literal of the English translations available. As Verga did not provide those translations I post them for your consideration.
Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I am a virgin?" NASB
And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man? Douay-Rheims
Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? KJV
Do any of these indicate that Mary is saying she will not have relations with a man?
Gabriel answers her question as to the “how” this will happen in the next verse. In Luke 1:38 Mary says to let it happen.
Let’s turn our attention to Matthew’s side of the story to complete the context.
Verga does correctly note Joseph and Mary are engaged and in Hebrew culture are considered for all intents and purposes to be married…..save consummation.
The Greek in Matthew 1:25 as rendered in English ; and not knew her until that she had brought forth a son; and he called the name of him Jesus.
Matthew 1: 25 also uses Γινώσκω, except in his usage the form is ἐγίνωσκεν; imperfect indicative active. The imperfect tense describes a continuous action usually occurring in the past (Wallace, Basics of Biblical Greek. 182).
Matthew is saying Joseph kept Mary a virgin until Jesus was born. I know the catholic will claim until has a lot of meanings and it does. However, context is the key in understanding the word.
From a contextual perspective which makes more since?
Matthew did not know (have sexual relations) with her until Jesus was born?
Or
as Arthur Mcgowan has attempted to put it, “it does not imply that Joseph ever ceased “not having relations” with Mary.”
In this context, Matthew is saying Joseph kept Mary a virgin until Jesus was born.
After that they consummated the marriage.
Did Joseph and Mary have other children?
The context of the NT says yes. Good Dr. Luke helps us understand this.
Luke 2:7 tells us Mary gave birth to her first born Son.
The Greek for first born is prototokos. It has the meaning of first-born, eldest, first in time (Strongs and HELPS Word Studies). We derive our English word prototype from this word. It allows for others to follow.
If Luke had wanted to indicate this was Mary’s only childhe could have used the Greek word monogenes. It means one and only, one of a kind, one of a class unique (HELPS). That would have ended the discussion right there. But Luke did not use that word.
John uses this word to describe Jesus in John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18 in reference to Jesus being the only Son of God. I hope we all agree that God has no other Son.
Recall that Luke is a doctor and he has investigated everything so he will understand if there are additional children from Joseph and Mary. That Luke did not use monogenes is important to understanding the context of this passage and overall discussion.
Luke also noted in Acts 1:14 that, “…..Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers” were in the Upper Room.
I hope the catholic will not appeal to the various uses of brother in the NT a a disclaimer these could be His brothers. The word does allow a meaning of fellow believer, esp a fellow Christian, along with, well, a brother.
Again the context will determine the usage. As an example. Matthew 4:18 notes: Now as Jesus was walking by the Sea of Galilee, He saw two brothers, Simon who was called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishermen.” Are these blood brothers from the same family? Yes. The context tells us this.
An example of when brother is used as fellow believers in Christ is found in 2 Timothy 4:21….”Make every effort to come before winter. Eubulus greets you, also Pudens and Linus and Claudia and all the brethren.” Again, context is your key to understanding the usage of a word.
Some have said there is no passage in the NT that says, “Joseph and Mary had relations and so and so was born.” That would be an accurate statement. However, we do not need that statement due to the overall context of what Matthew, Luke, Mark, John and Paul have recorded regarding His family.
As I noted before Luke was a doctor. He was thorough. Luke 1:1-4 records the following:
1Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.
Luke has made every effort to provide as accurate an account as possible for Theophilus.
I’m not going to cover his other points as they reflect eisegesis and not exegesis.
It’s already been written....its’ called the Word!
That they didn't tells us the early church rejected it.
They weren't willing to include this nonsense because they knew it was, well....just that. Nonsense.
Please! How inane! The Catholic Church existed before Scripture. The teaching of the Church includes not only the strong scriptural passages cited in Verga’s post but also the sacred oral and liturgical tradition of the Catholic Church.
The narrative of St. Luke must ultimately be traced back to the testimony of Our Blessed Lady. The evangelist himself points to Mary as the source of his account of the infancy of Jesus, when he says that Mary kept all these words in her heart (2:19, 51)
Scriptura Sola folks wade in shallow theological waters and have no clue of the great and towering intellectual tradition of the Catholic Church that spans centuries of scholarship, theology, ritual, and teaching.
No She was BETROTHED. For all intents and purposes they were WED.
If they were not married but only “engaged” it would not have been necessary for Joseph to divorce her.
Matthew 1:19 “Ἰωσὴφ δὲ ὁ ἀνὴρ αὐτῆς, δίκαιος ὢν καὶ μὴ θέλων αὐτὴν δειγματίσαι, ἐβουλήθη λάθρᾳ ἀπολῦσαι αὐτήν.”
Matthew 1:19 “Whereupon Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing publicly to expose her, was minded to put her away privately”. The word ἀπολῦσαι from Strong’s concordance 630 /apolýō ("to release") is specifically used of divorcing a marital partner
We see the exact same term used when Jesus is discussing marriage and divorce in Mt 1:19, 5:31,32, 19:7-9.
On the way to Bethlehem the Scripture still refers to them as BETROTHED.
Luke 2:5 “to be enrolled with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child.”
If that is too daunting maybe you would consider quoting from Luther, Zwingli, Calvin about this heinous belief of those "pagan" Catholics.
No rush, I just be sitting here waiting.
It is irrelevant what the ecfs thought. The text says she wasn’t a perpetual virgin.
Moving the goal posts already?? Comical.
Joseph hung around for at least 12 years with that woman.
Catholics can brag on intellectual prowess all they want but as the intellect is not how we KNOW God but only know ABOUT God, it's meaningless.
Nor is intellect the means by which we discern spiritual truths. Spiritual truths are revealed to us solely by the Holy Spirit. You cannot intellectualize your way into the kingdom.
Here, found in the Bible that Catholics like to claim their church wrote.
SPIRITUAL TRUTHS ARE SPIRITUALLY DISCERNED
1 Corinthians 1:18-31 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written,“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”
Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”
1 Corinthians 2:1-16 And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.
Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But, as it is written,
“What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him”—
these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. “For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.
I can agree with THIS part.
But Mary's story?
I'll need a wee bit more EVIDENCE than Rome's say so on the matter.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.