Posted on 05/31/2011 11:34:50 AM PDT by sigzero
The main problem with this whole thing is it is a bit like a court case. Mary being a married Jewish woman, it is assumed she had sexual relations with her husband unless the body of evidence can convince someone otherwise. The burden of proof is on the “ever virgin” side. If all the evidence presented from both sides were offered in a court of law, this would be decided by a jury in minutes. And the case is simply not made that Mary was, or needed to be ever virgin.
I can understand people believing that if they have not studied the issue, as I was a pre-tribulationist when I would listen to other “experts”, but when I started studying the word I abandoned that belief. I believe many Christians have done the same with this, but many others cling to it for whatever personal reasons they may have.
Completely false etymology.
First, the Celebes are an island chain in Indonesia, wholly unknown to the ancient Romans.
Second, you are probably mistakenly thinking of Cybele - the Phrygian goddess.
(3) The Latin word caelebs, meaning "unmarried" is an old Roman legal term that existed centuries before the foreign cult of Cybele was important to Rome.
(4) The word caelebs and Cybele have no etymological relation to each other - they have radically different pronunciations in Latin: "kye-leps" versus "koo-buh-lay".
(5) It should be obvious, but "not being married" and "being castrated" are two very different things.
(6) Cybele's self-castrating followers were called "Galli" in Latin, which is likely a reference to capons.
After a while, a stubbornly unwilling woman can wear down even the best of us.
I never smoked TILL the day I was married.
That does not mean, imply, or indicate ANYTHING about what has happened since.
By the way, I have not smoked since I was married either.
Those who use the "TILL" proof text prove nothing but their ignorance.
I guarantee you, if I was St. Joesph, I would also have refrained from relations with the Mother of My Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Anyone who argues otherwise cannot comprehend the immensity of the Incarnation and all it entails, or is simply being disingenuous.
If Mary was then ‘stubbornly unwilling’ then, according to the Catholics, Joseph had solid grounds for an annulment which then made Mary a sh*tty wife.
Again, I can only logically conclude that Mary was a good wife and a blessing to her husband after the birth of Jesus.
>>Then why are so many Catholic rituals and traditions unbiblical? Is it because they evolved and developed a life of their own?<<
That is what I think happened. I’ve seen stuff creep into protestant churches as well. Take that powder blue “christan flag” complete with pledge. ;)
I’m sure those that started it meant well, nevertheless...
from your post #19 above:
And Joseph knew her not TILL she brought forth a son. He knew her ever since.
______________________________________________________________
No, that is not stated, nor does it necessarily follow from the text. Again, I will copy and paste the relevant response:
1. The conjunction “until” in Scriptural usage expresses what has occurred up to a certain point, and leaves the future aside. Thus God says in the book of Isaias: “I am till you grow old” (Isaias 46:4). Are we to infer that God would then cease to be? Again, God says to His Divine Son: “Sit Thou on My right hand until I make Thy enemies Thy foot-stool” (Psalm 109:1). Will the Messias, once His enemies are subdued, relinquish His place of honor? St. Matthew’s principal aim was to tell his readers that Christ’s birth was miraculous and that Joseph had no part in the conception of Mary’s child. His statement is confined to this point.
In itself the statement, “He knew her not till she brought forth her first-born Son,” neither proves Mary’s subsequent virginity nor contains an argument against it. Speaking as he does, the Evangelist in no wise affirms that the abstention mentioned by him ceased after the expiration of the time indicated.
http://www.cathtruth.com/catholicbible/evervirg.htm
No Jack Chick links permitted on FR.
>>LOL. Well, have fun going your own way. I guess Scripture and the Church Fathers are wrong on this, and sigzero got it right. <<
Actually, the scripture speaks for itself. The interpretations of it by church “fathers” is what I have a problem with.
Amen!
The plain use of language would say that on the day you were married that you did smoke UNLESS you clarify that you haven’t smoked since then either. Your examples was ridiculous. I never used it as proof of anything. I was pointing out your error.
Mary wasn’t an ark of the covenant. She was the mother of Jesus. She was blessed among all women but she was still a woman. The immensity of the incarnation is comprehended by many that believe it had more to do with Jesus than it did with Mary. There was nothing superspiritual about the physical body of Mary. Once her pregnancy was complete, there was no physical reason or spiritual one that she could not have sex with her husband. If you were Joseph you would have been negligent in your marital vows.
Back when I was in my early 20’s (I’m now past 77) we used to discuss whether man would ever get to the moon.
That was just as just at the beginning of space flights.
Two of us turned and asked a man (a godly man)if he thought man would get to the moon.
He answered: “Whether they do are not will not effect my destiny.”
I do not believe in the eternal virginity of Mary, the mother of our Lord and Saviour, but I do believe she was a virgin when she concieved Christ.
But above all else, Savation is in Jesus Christ, and no other. Let us focus not which church, or on any of which saves, but upon the only name given among men whereby we must be saved! (Acts 4:12)
Again please I do not want to read your scripture twisting. I was pointing out the illogical statement of another.
The simple fact that you must perform such intellectual gymnastics causes a reasonable person to question not only your conclusion, but your motive.
It is like reading the conspiracy theories regarding 9/11.
It's interesting how few people realize that the only way we know which books of the New Testament belong in the New Testament is due to the testimony of the Church Fathers - the same Church Fathers whose opinions are regarded as valueless.
Really? You take a woman who is engaged to be married and tell her "you will have a child" and she answers "how can this be?"
Wouldn't a woman about to be married expect to have children in the future?
Would she act surprised?
It opens up all sorts of doors that they desperately need to keep closed.
LOL! Yeah, riiiigghhtt.
The mental gymnastics (or sheer willful ignorance) on this thread are impressive.
The fact that she was suprised testifies that she knew she was going to be pregnant before she was married and before she knew a man. The angel was giving her news about current events not future ones.
I know! I can’t believe the mental gymnastics it takes to support the perpetual virginity of Mary.
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.