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.
Where, in post 675, was the Pope even mentioned....and as far as Being smarter than the Pope is concerned....many people are smarter than he is in various different fields...he has a physician, legal counsel, advisers on many topics, he is just a man. I have several skills that he can't possibly have so in these areas...yes, I am smarter than the Pope....and probably you too.
Before.
And over a longer period.
The people of Salem had to learn it from somebody!
pingaling to 596
Did they learn it from the Catholic Church?
Indeed, as she had no power over this decision, and instead of the Lord's mission awaiting the consent of Mary, what we see is some lack of comprehension of this on her part and thus the Lord reminding her that He had a higher allegiance, and had more than one mother and brethren:
And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business? (Luke 2:49)
Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come. (John 2:4)
While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. (Matthew 12:46-47)
But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother. (Matthew 12:48-50)
Even the consent of Mary to bear Christ was an affirmation of what was already decreed, though God know she would consider herself blessed to be that mother, but her assent was not asked for the the crucifixion nor did it await it, nor would any protest by her have prevented it, and likely Mary did not expect the crucifixion. To liken it to Abraham offering Isaac in sacrifice to God is perverse, as that act itself required his obedience, and thus it was a test. All Mary could do was affirm the will of God and Her Son's own decision, over which she had no power.
You have done this before, quoting Mary worship without any critique, as if you were a Cath affirming the same thing as they. Unless you want responses that treat you as a Cath devotee then you need to provide the kind of censure that you finally gave after being rebuked.
imardmd1: I guess that means Jesus is going to be alone in heaven.
Tao Yin: I think you read too much into simple statements...
Yeah, I shouls have added a "/sarc" to the above, shouldn't I? Someone read too little into it.
"For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be
conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the
firstborn among many brethren" (Rom. 8:29 AV).
"While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and
his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.
Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren
stand without, desiring to speak with thee. But he answered
and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who
are my brethren?" (Mt. 12:46-48 AV).
Jesus compares literal language to figurative-literal language in the above and draws a parallel between the two..
"And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the
beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all
things he might have the preeminence" (Col. 1:18 AV).
God gives James and Jude the presence of mind to draw back from emphasizing their family relationship to Jesus lest it cause less spirityally sensitive observers to try to attach more "holiness by association" than the situation warrants.
"James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting" (James 1:1 AV)
James avoids presuming upon the family aspect, of pressing upon the reader any advantage that might be thought arising from it, claiming only that which is permitted, the blood-bought right of Jesus to be his Master.
"These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage" (Jude, verse 1 AV).
Jude, drother of James, both broyjers of Jesus, not prsuming on the special circumstance their biths afford, nor upon Mary the mother of Jesus and theirs, warns all Christians of being awed by persons who would trade on their advantage.
Salvation is by faith alone in the Lord Jesus Christ and His Blood, and not because of any other reason.
(no salvation outside the Latin-based mumbo-jumbo church)
Mom, its all a part of the marketing strategy and profitablity of the business model of making little images, ripped off from the Ephesian silversmiths. By knocking out the Diana competition, the field of making millions of these little images, generation by generation, instead of “Great is Diana of Ephesus!” now we have the replacement, “Great is Mary of Rome.” IMHO.
Hanging heretics is just reformed “Auto da fe.” The Perpetual virginity thing just adds to the cachet and profitability.
Heh, and thanks for the translation so your post can not cause problems.
It’s so simple, if a foreign phrase or word is not understood by just about everyone in the world, then it needs translating in order to be posted in the RF.
It’s like the difference, which is apparently not understood by some posters, between anti-Catholic—anti an individual Catholic, and anti-Catholicism—posting about errors in Catholicism.
RM rules are clear no anti-Catholic (or anti any other faith adherent) posts will be tolerated, but anti-Any-Faith-System-That-Exists posts are OK.
But . . . but . . . but "never" does it much better if they are to be forever celibate. "Until" is just too iffy to build a dogma on.
I've wondered myself. I know in some cases, humans have a problem of looking for answers where God doesn't give any.
Yet. That's what progressive revelation was about. Now it's progressive interpretation, made clear after time and the scientific method cut in. See Daniel 12:8,9,13
It seems pretty clear. Born of a virgin. David's heir. Is there something else I'm missing?
Yes. Mary needed to retain observably the tokens of her virginal appearance right up until birth. But she as no longer considered a virgin after the babe's exit through the birth canal. After that, no other proof is needed for Jesus' miraculous birth narrative.
But Joseph needs to be the husband of record when Jesus is born into Joseph's household. The royal pedigree by primogeniture of sonhood from a father tracing back to Solomon is where Jesus' right to the throne is transferred, once and for all time.
Jesus was credited as being Joseph's son by those familiar with the family (Luke 4:22), who were present at Jesus' reading from Isaiah when He announced Himself as the fulfillment of that passage.
. . . hypotheticals . . .
Occurrences fulfilling prophecies are not hypotheticals.
I always try to separate personal ideas from scriptural truths.
Not if the ideas are prompted by the Holy Spirit by a prophet giving a Word as from God, "Thus saith the LORD . . ." or a Spirit-given interpretation (1 Cor. 2:9-16).
Was Jesus Joseph's son genetically? There is no reason that the Holy Spirit couldn't have used Joseph's DNA as a template when Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit.
Joseph's flesh was DNA-derived cellular material, infected with sin, and able to transmit only soul-life, but not physical or Spiritual life. His heritage was condemnation--death of the body and disunity from fellowship with Jehovah Elohim.
I believe Scripture says that Jesus was the Second Adam, not a second Joseph cloned from Joseph's sin-stained tissue. Nor from any part of Mary's either.
Everyone knows that Jesus' body needed to be of sin-free, but human, genetic matter. If not from Joseph or Mary, then where? Speculating, why not of the very same never-dying perfect tissue of which the body of the First Adam was made, into which Elohim breathed?
"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul" (Gen 2:7 AV).
If, by a manner not yet known to us, God invested Himself into such a fragment of perfect flesh, then implanted that Being into the willing, trusting Mary (Heb. 11:6), what then? (Implanting a living zygote foreign to a host mother's womb, even a virginal one, is something we do now know how to accomplish, isn't it?)
Not willing to admit their ignorance--being unlike faithful Daniel who accepted the limits placed on himself--in their false pride and "infallible" logic they reasoned out their own plan for this. And now, unwilling to walk this unnatural concept back, they are saddled with a dogma that is just as insupportable as the ignorance that invented a figment of the imagination called "transubstantiation" to explain a statement that needed no explanation when given the proper linguistic framework.
Ponder on this for a while, eh? Jesus was/is yet fully God and fully human, as human as Adam was before his faith crumbled under the serpent's devious capture of Eve's trust, when she became perfidious.
Ah, doggone. At first, I thought you were talking about Popeye.
True; but 2000 years ago, normal folks had LOTS of children: it came with the territory.
Thus, if there is NO 'imperfection' found in Mary (after all; it's been proven that the system works on her side) Catholicism leaves us with two scenarios:
1. Mary purposefully denied Joseph his husbandly 'rights', or...
2. Joseph was shooting blanks.
Probably.
Why 'abstain' from something that you are not likely to do in the first place?
"I'm going to abstain from chocolate FOREVER!" says another thing.
Although...
"I'm going to abstain from mountain oysters until Lent is over.", does NOT mean that I've EVER had them or intend to after Lent!
Probably.
Why 'abstain' from something that you are not likely to do in the first place?
"I'm going to abstain from chocolate FOREVER!" says another thing.
Although...
"I'm going to abstain from mountain oysters until Lent is over.", does NOT mean that I've EVER had them or intend to after Lent!
Lent
Yet another man made ‘tradition’ not found in the bible.
Evidently; YOUR idea of appropriateness is a wee bit different than what the RM thinks it is.
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.