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.
Why are you parsing scripture trying to make the entire sentence means what one word in the sentence does without its modifiers?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I see the shotgun/claymore effect has taken place on this thread finally. It is now impossible to extract context or true meaning out of anything said.
My responses are concluded here.
I give you the last word.
The last word? I'll take it. Catholics are wrong to venerate/worship Mary.
Catholics say that Mary was ever virgin according to their tradition. Their tradition does uphold this idea. I disagree with the strength they give tradition though..
Those who disagree with Catholics need to be careful to avoid the reflex opposite just to be contrarian. Throughout history, among non-Catholics, there is not a consensus about the correct scriptural interpretation regarding Mary's ever virgin status. This is not a tenant of faith. Jesus was born of the virgin Mary. That is enough.
As a proponent of sola scriptura, I believe it is important that we do not go beyond what it written simply to strengthen our position/opinion. I believe it is important to go back to the original languages to help us understand scripture.
I caution those who reflexively take the opposite of the Catholic view just to be anti-catholic. That is all.
RM to verga:
“Foreign languages must be translated unless they are common enough for posters to know what they express in English”
Seems pretty clear.
Adios is known by just about everyone so it needs no translation.
That is probably what the RM wanted you to get from the post to you.
But then you would have to read the guidelines to find that.
“’it is what it is’ is a common enough phrase” true.
But not in Latin.
If everything on this website was posted in Latin it would be a different story.
Shirley you are just playing dumb, feigning ignorance.
But then reading comprehension doesn’t seem to be one of your strong suits.
The number is coming up soon.
Gonna go for it Elsie?
Good grief.
You accept context in one place but not the other only because it agrees with catholic teaching.
Well, I’ve offered example after example from the NT that indicates He did indeed have brothers and sisters. It has been supported in the Greek and within context.
If you, and other catholics, want to persist in believing non-Biblical writings regarding Mary as a perpetual virgin, in contradiction of what the NT shows, I cannot help you.
Good grief yourself, Charlie Brown. You are engaging in mind reading. My concern has nothing to do with Catholic teaching. What I question is whether the purported context is supported by Scripture.
Think about the word you used, ealgeone. You did not write “proves”; You did not write “clearly demonstrates.” You wrote “indicates.” This is the most that we can derive from Scripture alone.
I know that Scripture tells us that Jesus had brothers and sisters. But nowhere does Scripture identify Mary as the mother of any of those brothers or sisters.
And even in the Greek, the word itself does not fully reveal the relationship. For example, the Greek word that is used for James and John in Matthew 4:21 is the same Greek word that is used for Judah’s brothers in Matthew 1:2. We know from Matthew 20:20 that James and John are full brothers because it mentions the mother of the sons of Zebedee. And we know that Judah’s brothers had four different mothers among them.
My contention is based solely on Scripture. It neither proves that Mary remained a virgin nor does it disprove that Mary remained a virgin.
Selah!
Which gets back to the question again.
What is so important about Mary remaining a virgin that the Catholic church needs to make it a matter of faith, doctrine, dogma, whatever?
Why is it so critical that she did when after the birth of Christ, the prophesy about her was fulfilled?
Why does the thought that Mary had sex with her husband after the birth of Jesus send Catholics into such a tailspin? Do they really think that that would defile her?
Sorry Elsie. Better luck next time.
We do not have to dates and times they conceived these children nor do we need them.
We don't have their birth certificates nor do we need them as the NT is about Jesus.
We do however have numerous passages telling us these are the brothers and sisters of Jesus. The Greek, and context, make this clear to anyone who reads the Word.
Another way we know Mary had other children is through the Greek as used in Luke 2:7 describing Jesus as her firstborn...in the greek it is prototokon: first born, eldest.
That Jesus is not her only child is clear as Luke did not use monogene, meaning only, one of a kind, unique. Luke being a doctor and writing his account around 60AD would have known if she'd had other children or not. Same can be said for Acts written about a year later. The other Gospels were written in a time span that would enable them to determine if there were or were not other children.
Again....context is your key to understanding this topic. The plain, clear reading of the Word is there for anyone to see.
Paul identified James as the Lord's brother. I'm not going into the Greek again or what brother means.
Matthew kept her a virgin until Jesus was born.
After Jesus was born, Joseph and Mary engaged in marital relations...or SEX. We know this because he kept her a virgin until His birth. After that they had sex.
Matthew 12:46, Matthew 13:55-56; Luke 8:19; Mark 3:31; John 7:1-10, Acts 1:14; Galatians 1:19 make it crystal clear He had siblings.
These are not children from another marriage.
These are not Joseph's children from another marriage.
These are the children of Joseph and Mary.
The text is crystal clear Jesus had brothers and sisters and they are from Joseph and Mary.
it is curious that you have made a good case for inability to prove via scripture either way, yet you have dedicated yourself to supporting the assertion by your religion that Mary not only remained a virgin after giving support to the gestating Jesus, but that she has this long string of venerations (amounting to demi-goddess status) none of which are supported by scriptures even remotely! In the words of the bounty hunter on Serenity, ‘Does that make sense to you?’
»They call Jesus their ‘friend’ but how do you have a friend when your clergy tells you that you can not have a personal relationship with the person...«
Good point.
And why did Joseph take her as his wife even when he knew that her babe was not his? So God could pull a fast one on the watching community, that her babe would not be identified as a bastard for lack of a husband, or that her babe was not of fornication with Joseph before the year-long pre-nuptial betrothal had passed according to the custom of insuring that she was a virgin at the formal consummation?
No. God does not play lying games.
Joseph married Mary in order that Jesus could be counted as David's legitimate royal heir, though Joseph refrained while that time of proof of her virginity right up to the babes birth passed, and all could witness thereto.
You'd better think out what all this means, particularly in view of the cultural context.
We all know that...what's new??
The irony of the point you make about the titles given to Mary found no where in Scripture yet so vehemently supported by catholicism is not unnoticed.
Sorry, guys — the keyboard made me do it (double post) — mea apologea
Really??...I rely on my surgeon to cut in the right place, my physician to prescribe the proper medication, my attorney to give me legal advice...etc. etc. etc....when we try to make decisions and interpretations based on uneducated amateur opinions...they seldom work out right. Next time that you need new glasses, just go to Wal-Mart and pick out the pair off the rack that pleases you....see how that works out.
He didn't...you should have said that He didn't leave without HAVING THE STONE ROLLED AWAY He did NOT roll away the stone....he had staff to do it.
I see you’re still claiming to be smarter than the pope there TC.
Is that another protestant teaching????
Just this once, I will clear the issue for you. Jesus left the tomb without rolling away the stone. The stone was rolled away by an angel AFTER Jesus was gone. Angel rolled the stone away to show the women He was not there. Think before you make a fool of yourself: how did Jesus enter the locked and shuttered room?
Was that before nor after the Salem witch executions???
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.