Posted on 03/12/2016 9:36:07 AM PST by Salvation
Perpetual virginity
3/9/2016
Question: I am a lifelong and devout Catholic and have always considered Mary to be ever virgin. But recently, I read in my Bible that Joseph had no relations with Mary “before” she bore a son (Mt 1:25). Now, I wonder if our belief does not contradict the Bible.— Eugene DeClue, Festus, Missouri
Answer: The Greek word “heos,” which your citation renders “before,” is more accurately translated “until,” which can be ambiguous without a wider context of time. It is true, in English, the usual sense of “until” is that I am doing or not doing something now “until” something changes, and then I start doing or not doing it. However, this is not always the case, even in Scripture.
If I say to you, “God bless you until we meet again.” I do not mean that after we meet again God’s blessing will cease or turn to curses. In this case, “until” is merely being used to refer to an indefinite period of time which may or may not ever occur. Surely, I hope we meet again, but it is possible we will not, so go with God’s blessings, whatever the case.
|
|
In Scripture, too, we encounter “until” being used merely to indicate an indefinite period whose conditions may or may not be met. Thus, we read, “And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death” (2 Sam 6:23). Of course, this should not be taken to mean that she started having children after she died. If I say to you in English that Christ “must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet” (1 Cor 15:25), I do not mean his everlasting kingdom will actually end thereafter.
While “until” often suggests a future change of state, it does not necessarily mean that the change happens — or even can happen. Context is important. It is the same in Greek, where heos, or heos hou, require context to more fully understand what is being affirmed.
The teaching of the perpetual virginity of Mary does not rise or fall on one word, rather, a body of evidence from other sources such as: Mary’s question to the angel as to how a betrothed virgin would conceive; Jesus entrusting Mary to the care of a non-blood relative at this death; and also the long witness of ancient Tradition.
You first, since from your previous response, I assume you are for personal interpretation.
HaHa...You're the one who doesn't have the evidence...We have the evidence in God's inspired words...
The sacrament of marriage is good and so is the procreation of children. Yet Mary’s condition and office as the Mother of the Son of God set her apart so that she and Joseph would not and did not enjoy the natural good of conjugal relations.
Where's the evidence for this??? Again you are the one without evidence...The idea that dupes believed this for 1600 years is meaningless...Yours is just a fable that God has proven wrong ever since he had his disciples write it down...Just because your religion does not want to believe God in this (or many, many other doctrines and truths) doesn't at all mean the scriptures don't mean what they clearly tell us...
And so again, ours is the Christianity of the bible...Your religion is the religion of fables you call holy tradition...
They abandoned HIM, not her.
They were not at the cross OR Jesus knew that they would not be the best person to take care of her.
Him discharging His responsibility to someone He knew would be responsible does NOT mean that He didn't have brothers and sisters.
Again, what's the big deal if Mary had sex after Jesus was born? Why does the thought of it send Catholics into a rabid frenzy?
Do Catholics really deep down inside think that sex is dirty or sinful?
Cause that's about the only conclusion one can reach for their irrational defense of a clearly unScriptural doctrine.
Thanks.
Great observations.
The thread eagerly awaits their names, and your evidence. I really hope that your evidence doesn't rely on a simplistic English translation of adelphos.
From the Bible that Catholics claim their church wrote, and used the Greek word for *brothers* instead of the Greek word for *relative*.
Matthew 13:55 “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?”
Mark 6:2-3 And when the Sabbath had come, He began to teach in the synagogue; and the many listeners were astonished, saying, “Where did this man get these things, and what is this wisdom given to Him, and such miracles as these performed by His hands?”... “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?”
Why is it so important that Mary be perpetually virgin?
How does that affect our salvation?
How does that affect our relationship with God in Christ?
Does it affect the atonement and the work of redemption that Jesus worked on the cross?
So how would it affect the salvation of Catholics who do not believe in Mary's perpetual virginity?
So what? It proves nothing.
Is the fact that those guys agreed with you supposed to be significant or relevant?
Don't forget, we don't follow men.
And them not believing in Him would mean they would abandon their own widowed mother, requiring a non-family member to take care of her?
Where is this found in scripture?
John 7:1-5
1After these things Jesus was walking in Galilee, for He was unwilling to walk in Judea because the Jews were seeking to kill Him. 2Now the feast of the Jews, the Feast of Booths, was near. 3Therefore His brothers said to Him, “Leave here and go into Judea, so that Your disciples also may see Your works which You are doing. 4“For no one does anything in secret when he himself seeks to be known publicly. If You do these things, show Yourself to the world.”
5 For not even His brothers were believing in Him.
His brothers did not believe in Him at this point. Nor is there any evidence they did at the cross. Hence the need to entrust Mary to John.
We do have evidence that they did come to believe in Him in Acts 1:14. His mother and brothers were there in the Upper Room.
Again...context is your friend.
What difference does that make?
It has nothing to do with what he stated, and that is that Catholics on one hand condemn YOPIOS when non-Catholics do it and support it when they do it.
That's called *hypocrisy.*
That is why when added with:
Matthew 13:55-56 Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?”
Matthew 28:10 Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid; go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee, and there they will see me.”
John 7:3 So his brothers said to him, “Leave here and go to Judea, that your disciples also may see the works you are doing. 4 For no one works in secret if he seeks to be known openly. If you do these things, show yourself to the world.” 5 For not even his brothers believed in him.
Poor Joseph, what a raw deal he got if it were true,
Jesus clearly had siblings and some did not believe until after the resurrection,
Its always bizarre to me how humans have this ability to make up irrelevant nonsense and if enough time passes they somehow elevate it to enlightened scripture,
“I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother’s children.” Psalm 69:8
. .then I restored that which I took not away.
Why is it so important that Mary be perpetually virgin?
I offer this as a possible explanation. Maybe the early Christians felt it was necessary for Mary to remain a virgin to fulfill the following prophecy from Ezekiel 44:2
This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the Lord, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut.
John Gill wrote:
“Some of the ancients interpreted it of the Virgin Mary, by whom Christ came into this world in human nature, being born of her, a virgin, who had never known man, and as is thought never did after the birth of Christ; nor were any afterwards born of her; no man might come into the world by her, by that self-same way the incarnate God did, and for that reason. This sense is approved of, not only by Papists, but by many Protestant writers.”
https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/geb/view.cgi?bk=25&ch=44#2
Interesting indeed!
Mary is mentioned one time in the analysis of v2. ONE time.
This is what I've see a lot of catholics do....take things completely out of context to establish their position.
I challenge you to post all of the quote.
Much to the catholic chagrin, Ezekiel 44:2 is not about Mary.
Why would Jesus need to name a different ‘responsible’ person to take care of Mary if she had other children? Why would their abandoning Him, if not her, require this? And how do you know they abandoned Him? Why would God choose to be born into a family where His siblings would do that? Where is all of this information found in scripture?
I stated in my post that I do not believe that sex between Mary and Joseph would have been a sin, and I do not believe I am in a frenzy. I simply believe that Mary and Joseph would have chosen to remain celibate out of respect to Mary’s role as a living tabernacle whose body held the body of Jesus. It is clear that the biblical use of the words brother and brethren are not exclusive to blood relatives, even by Jesus Himself, so I see no contradictions to this belief in my interpretation of scripture.
There are others here who insist that a celibate lifestyle within marriage would be by definition sinful, and that if it happened between Mary and Joseph it was by Mary depriving Joseph of sex against his wishes. I do not believe that. Why do you think Joseph and Mary did not have sex while she was pregnant?
Love,
O2
Could the Ezekial 44 passage refer to the wife of The Almighty, the Hebrew people? The interpretation you seem to favor is more carnal than the passage is teaching about. The Jews were ‘the wife of YHWH’ and she must have no other gods before her. She is to bring forth the Son of God, The Redeemer, The Messiah, God with us. That would not be so carnally focused but spiritually focused. To discover whioch perspective is more appropriate, look at the scene in which Ezek 44 is position and the verses which follow. Of course, the passage might be literal, speaking of the Temple of Israel must not be defiled.
I don’t condemn personal interpretation, I condemn discounting information and conclusions simply because they agree with the Catholic church, and that is what I see here continuously.
I believe in the Truth, and I believe honest, prayerful interpretations will bring you to that every time.
Love,
O2
FALSE assumption that Jesus "needed" to do it.
I simply believe that Mary and Joseph would have chosen to remain celibate out of respect to Mary’s role as a living tabernacle whose body held the body of Jesus.
Nothing wrong with holding a personal opinion. Just recognize it is not based on Scripture.There are others here who insist that a celibate lifestyle within marriage would be by definition sinful, and that if it happened between Mary and Joseph it was by Mary depriving Joseph of sex against his wishes. I do not believe that.
Christians have a high regard for blessed Mary. We believe she would have been obedient to the desires and commands of God.
‘to my mother’s children’ ... yet another passage (Psalm 69:8) of The Bible catholiciism must sweep aside in order to promote goddesshood for Mary the Mother of Jesus.
post #136
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.