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.
So you’re saying God had to “dumb it down” rather than say what really happened? I haven’t seen His modern reformulated version yet since we are all so much smarter now and everything, have you?
Funny how quick y’all are to accuse others of not believing Jesus’ words over the Lord’s Supper yet have no compunction at all to assert Almighty God couldn’t have done exactly what He said He did when He created everything.
Surely you can't be serious.
Myself and others showed you many times that the Holy Spirit wrote the Bible through those he chose [scripture verses available upon request], including Luke in this instance.
The whole Bible is God breathed [scripture verses available upon request.]
Catholicism takes credit for "writing" the Bible (you have said the many many times) which I am sure grieves the Holy Spirit deeply.
When you experience the Biblical "fear and trembling" call on God...quickly!
All the modern versions are vulcanized from the Westcott/Hort synthetic Greekized text . . . they're all recaps. Not like the original OEM version.
>>>>If Joseph had other older children, why didn’t they go with him and Mary to the mandatory census in Bethlehem?<<<<
>>>>They were of age, or married (they married very young in those days) lived in another place, whatever.<<<<
Any older kids would have claim to the throne of David and would invalidate Jesus’ rightful claim to the throne, and title - King of the Jews. The regal line united in both Joseph and Mary, and then to Jesus, their firstborn according to the flesh. Any religious tradition of Joseph having kids from a prior marriage would undermine God’s Word.
See post 444.
I quoted you in the post above, but forgot to address you.
I apologize for the oversight.
Did God REALLY say.....?????
“There’s something seriously wrong with a man who does not want sex.”
You mean like Jesus?
Love,
O2
Which is not the same as the PERPETUAL virginity of Mary, which is what is under discussion.
We don't accept it on the authority of the church, or any church.
We accept it on the authority of the Word of God, which stands independent of any church and does not rise and fall on the Catholic church giving Scripture its stamp of approval.
Accepting the authority of Scripture does not by default mean accepting the authority of any one particular denomination.
If you reject Christ's guarantees to His Church in principle, you've rejected what He constituted as the pillar and foundation of the Truth.
The *church* is comprised of believers and is not an independent entity that can or does exist without people.
Nor has anyone ever proved that the CATHOLIC church is what Christ promised He'd build. The Truth is NOT Catholicism, it's Jesus, the WORD. Jesus is Truth, His WORD is truth.
The Holy Spirit gave to the church gifts of teaching but that does not establish the church as authoritative over all believers.
Whether one can be "saved" while rejecting the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, is another question. If one is in the mortal sin of heresy, no.
Thanks for your candid honesty.
However, I don't think most theological dissenters are formal heretics. This is because they lack --- I think --- either the degree of knowledge or the degree of intentionality which would have to be there, to constitute a mortal sin. Denial of Mary's virginity is a material heresy ----an error --- but most who have fallen into this error don't reject the foundation of Truth formally, knowingly and contumaciously.
Going out on a limb here, after having read most of the discussions over the years of the non-Catholic side, I'd have to say that we know fully well what we are rejecting and WHY we are rejecting it.
I am NOT rejecting the clear teaching of Scripture. I am rejecting the doctrines of men taught as truth. I am rejecting the rationalizations and justifications of the Catholic church on a teaching that has no clear basis in Scripture.
There is no reason whatsoever that Mary needed to remain a virgin after the birth of Christ. The prophecy was only that a virgin conceive and bear a son. There is NO prophecy that she would continue in that state. Nor was it necessary.
There is simply no Scriptural basis for presuming that was the case, no matter how many people believed it, no matter how early on in the church the teaching began.
Even in Paul's day heresies were creeping in. Many of his epistles address them. Simply because a teaching is ancient and close to the time of the actual events does not guarantee their integrity.
That is, they are not willfully and obstinately disobedient to Christ.
No, I (we) are not disobedient to Christ but I am "disobedient" to a church that claims to represent God and have authority over me.
JESUS never demanded that we adhere to either the perpetual virginity of Mary, NOR to submit to an ecclesiastical authority that claims authority over all mankind.
I do not disobey Christ, but I do disobey those who do not adhere to clear Scriptural teaching. They are then identified as false teachers, wolves in sheep's clothing.
My authority is the Lord Jesus Christ, not the pope, a priest, or anyone else who CLAIMS they have it over me.
A believer's relationship with God is direct, through the Holy spirit, not through an ecclesiastical organization.
I recognize the authority of God over me, not the claimed authority of a man established organization that CLAIMS authority over me. And that goes for any church that claims to have the power to damn me to hell. No man or church has that power.
Jesus promised that He would BUILD His body. He did not say He would establish an organization that throws its weight around, threatening with damnation those who refuse to submit to its teachings and to come under its authority.
I realize in your eyes and the eyes of most Catholics, that in effect damns me. Y'all are entitled to your opinion.
2 Timothy 1:12 But I am not ashamed, for I know whom I have believed, and I am convinced that he is able to guard until that Day what has been entrusted to me.
I know what God has done in me, the new birth He has given me, the deposit of the Holy Spirit to seal me until the day of redemption. My conscience is clear before God.
So what? You believe that Scripture was given in English and then translated into Greek and Latin?
Just like the KJV only folks?
You have Scripture to back up that claim?
Dang!
Did I just see the goalpost uproot itself and move to a different part of the field?
According to the doctrine...
How many times does the Scripture have to be shown to you (and the jury) before it sinks in??
John 3:18
Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.
> Hello, I am Eliza.
* Because Sola Scriptura. What say you?
> Oh... ?
* Because Sola Scriptura. What say you?
> Do you expect a different answer by repeating yourself?
* Because Sola Scriptura. What say you?
> Come, come, elucidate your thoughts.
* Because Sola Scriptura. What say you?
> Do you expect a different answer by repeating yourself?
* So you believe it is necessary to believe in Sola Scriptura to be saved.
> Oh... believe it is necessary to believe in Sola Scriptura to be saved?
Jesus shared fully in our humanity. did He become hungry and thirsty? Was He tired and did He need to sleep?
Jesus did not sin therefore He could not have engaged in sex as He was not married.
Or are you going to say that natural human desires are sin? Does Catholicism teach that natural human desires are sin?
Seems to me that I recall a thread recently that said *No.*
Dang!
Ol’ Pete writes some pretty good stuff; don’t he!
I give Mrs. Don-o’s responses far more serious consideration than other Catholic posters.
However, I pay attention to the Holy Spirit and follow Him and HE guides me into all Truth, the Truth that is found in Scripture, not the opinion pieces of ECF’s or other religious leaders. So, yes, you are correct, it’s not hard to know the answer when you have the Truth, Scripture, on your side.
If the RCC followed Scripture, it too would have truth on its side and come to the correct answers as well.
Boys; whose petard IS that?
As regards the oft-quoted Mt. 16:18
• Augustine, sermon:
"Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter's confession. What is Peter's confession? 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' There's the rock for you, there's the foundation, there's where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer. — John Rotelle, O.S.A., Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine , © 1993 New City Press, Sermons, Vol III/6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327
Upon this rock, said the Lord, I will build my Church. Upon this confession, upon this that you said, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,' I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer her (Mt. 16:18). — John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City, 1993) Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 236A.3, p. 48.
• Augustine, sermon:
For petra (rock) is not derived from Peter, but Peter from petra; just as Christ is not called so from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. For on this very account the Lord said, 'On this rock will I build my Church,' because Peter had said, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed, I will build my Church. For the Rock (Petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself built. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus. The Church, therefore, which is founded in Christ received from Him the keys of the kingdom of heaven in the person of Peter, that is to say, the power of binding and loosing sins. For what the Church is essentially in Christ, such representatively is Peter in the rock (petra); and in this representation Christ is to be understood as the Rock, Peter as the Church. — Augustine Tractate CXXIV; Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: First Series, Volume VII Tractate CXXIV (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf107.iii.cxxv.html)
• Augustine, sermon:
And Peter, one speaking for the rest of them, one for all, said, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God (Mt 16:15-16)...And I tell you: you are Peter; because I am the rock, you are Rocky, Peter-I mean, rock doesn't come from Rocky, but Rocky from rock, just as Christ doesn't come from Christian, but Christian from Christ; and upon this rock I will build my Church (Mt 16:17-18); not upon Peter, or Rocky, which is what you are, but upon the rock which you have confessed. I will build my Church though; I will build you, because in this answer of yours you represent the Church. — John Rotelle, O.S.A. Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 270.2, p. 289
• Augustine, sermon:
Peter had already said to him, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' He had already heard, 'Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld shall not conquer her' (Mt 16:16-18)...Christ himself was the rock, while Peter, Rocky, was only named from the rock. That's why the rock rose again, to make Peter solid and strong; because Peter would have perished, if the rock hadn't lived. — John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City, 1993) Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 244.1, p. 95
• Augustine, sermon:
...because on this rock, he said, I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld shall not overcome it (Mt. 16:18). Now the rock was Christ (1 Cor. 10:4). Was it Paul that was crucified for you? Hold on to these texts, love these texts, repeat them in a fraternal and peaceful manner. — John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1995), Sermons, Volume III/10, Sermon 358.5, p. 193
• Augustine, Psalm LXI:
Let us call to mind the Gospel: 'Upon this Rock I will build My Church.' Therefore She crieth from the ends of the earth, whom He hath willed to build upon a Rock. But in order that the Church might be builded upon the Rock, who was made the Rock? Hear Paul saying: 'But the Rock was Christ.' On Him therefore builded we have been. — Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume VIII, Saint Augustin, Exposition on the Book of Psalms, Psalm LXI.3, p. 249. (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf108.ii.LXI.html)
• Augustine, in “Retractions,”
In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: 'On him as on a rock the Church was built.'...But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,' that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven.' For, 'Thou art Peter' and not 'Thou art the rock' was said to him. But 'the rock was Christ,' in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable. — The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1968), Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1:.
They either got it or they don't.
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.