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.
One could also ask:
Why must Mormon women be perpetually pregnant?
Sounds reasonable.
Old wive’s tales have to start SOMEWHERE!
1 Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. For me to write the same things to you is not tedious, but for you it is safe.
2 Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the mutilation! 3 For we are the circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit, rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh, 4 though I also might have confidence in the flesh. If anyone else thinks he may have confidence in the flesh, I more so: 5 circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee; 6 concerning zeal, persecuting the church; concerning the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
7 But what things were gain to me, these I have counted loss for Christ. 8 Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God byfaith; 10 that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death, 11 if, by any means, I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.
I think it was not intended to be unscriptural. I think they intended it for good.
Most all of human intentions are for good; it’s just sometimes they have unintended consequences.
We’ve heard about that road...
Not discerning the body ijn 1 Cor. 11 is contextually referring to not recognizing other believers as members of the body that Christ purchased with His own blood, (Acts 20:28) by eating independently and even to the full in the communal feat that the Lord's supper was, ignoring others hungry and shaming them that have not. Therefore while they came together to eat the LS, in fact,
When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. (1 Corinthians 11:20-22)
For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. (1 Corinthians 11:26)
To eat together in a religious feast signified communal unity with the one it was to honor, and thus Paul warns them against having fellowship with devils by taking part in their pagan feasts - but not because such food became the flesh of devils. (1 Corinthians 10:20) And Paul treats "remember" as to act that out (cf. 1Co. 15:1,2) and thus they were to show/declare the Lord's death by showing communal unity with and love for Christ and each other who were bought with His blood, they being the ones who effectually realized what Christ was bruised/broken and pouring out his soul for. (Isaiah 53:10,12). And as Paul learned, how you treated His body, the church, was how you treated Christ. (Acts 1:4)
However, the Corinthians were acting exactly contrary to what they were supposed to be showing, selfishly ignoring others, not discerning the church as the Lord's body which Christ bought with His own blood, and which body is the focus both here and in the next chapter.
While the often seen practice of Catholics receiving the wafer and sip of wine and then leaving is understandable in the light of their false doctrine with its emphasis upon the elements consumed, even in many Prot churches the LS is that of (hopefully) repenting from personal sins from solemnly consuming a bit of bread and juice in abstractly thinking about the Lord's death, but with little understanding and consciousnesses of the communal unity that is sppsd to be showing by sharing bread as members of the body which Christ bought with His blood.
Could be a double meaning there.
John 6...Matthew 26...Mark 14...Luke 22...1 Corinthians 11
But which simply does not teach what Catholicism professes, as instead the gospel accounts obviously require interpretation, else they be thought to mean such things as the disciples were eating the actual, literal bloody flesh of Christ, and whether the LS was sacrifice itself itself, and whether it required a sacerdotal priesthood to effects, and whether John 6 is even referring to the LS, or whether it and the language in the LS was figurative. And the rest of the NT is interpretive of what the gospels state and as shown and briefly above, by the grace of God, it simply does not support what Catholicism professes, including 1Cor. 11:19-34.
As said, rather than being "the source and summit of the Christian life" "in which our redemption is accomplished," as really being the Lord's body and blood, the "bread of angels," and around which sacrament all else revolves, and a sacrifice for sins at the hands of a class of clergy distinctively titled "priests," the latter is non-existent and the LS is only mentioned in two letters written to the church, and briefly as a "feast of charity" (which some RCs deny was the LS) and the other being 1Co. 10 and 11, which are not teaching what Catholicism professes.
Instead of partaking in the LS being exhorted as the primary means of grace in the life of the church, and failure to regularly do so being criticized, instead, apart from the abuse of it when it was being practiced, it is entirely absent in the NT from Acts thru Revelation, including in the Lord's censure and commendations of the representative churches of Rv. 2+3.
But which is only one of the many contrasts btwn the NT church and that of Rome, which basically renders the latter to be an invisible church in Scripture.
Do you really want to stick with that belief? We are discussing God Almighty's Word here, you don't want to be in error on this so simple of a biblical fact. Scholars and churches for millennia have taught and believed Mary and Joseph had sex after Christ's birth and had other children.
Sometimes it really helps if you understand Greek or Hebrew and Jewish traditions. Most couples had arranged marriages and when married, they had to wait to "know" each other until the elders of the Synagogue said so. Mary and Joseph were married at the time of Christs birth, but had not consummated the marriage.
No. The nature of the elements was never described as being an issue, nor in Pauline theology is the nature of such ever expounded upon, which it would be if understanding it was important as a means of grace for the body, let alone if having Cath importance, and in which even individual "communion" (an oxymoron) is critical if not able to make it to "Mass."
Instead, it is the hearing of the word of God that is said to "nourish" believers (1Tim. 4:6) and build them up," (Acts 20:32) with Peter also teaching that the sincere milk of the word is what one grows by, (1Pt. 2:2) and which Paul fed the Corinthians with, and lamenting that believers were not yet ready for "meat," (1Co. 3:2). and with the writer of Hebrews exhorting receiving the "meat" of the word. (Heb. 5:13-6:2) And which Scripture being the wholly inspired, assured transcendent substantive body of Truth, which instrumentally is used to make one "perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Timothy 3:16,17) Glory to God, and what the oral preaching of the word is subject to testing by. (Acts 17:11)
And with the preaching of it (and prayer) being the primary ordained function of NT pastors, (Acts 6:4; 2Tim. 4:2) not dispensing anything which was physically eaten, which nowhere in Scripture provided spiritual life.
AND which Jesus Himself told the true disicples regarding the ‘profitting’ and Peter affirmed that he understood with his proclamation that it is Jesus Who has the Words of Life.
... 67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will you also go away?
68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? you have the words of eternal life.
69 And we believe and are sure that you are that Christ, the Son of the living God.
A theology which is based on an allergy to something (in your case, the Catholic/Orthodox idea of Mass) can itself be tendentious in the wrong direction. I’d look for all meanings of body that make sense in the context rather than knee jerking against one because somebody misused it for something else.
The blood can be implied in the body just like the resurrection can be implied in the cross.
Willfully reject the gift of God’s sacrifice and you will end up with the devil instead. Don’t ever make your theologies bigger than what God has actually done.
As Christians, we are called to oppose heresies and promote and defend The Gospel of Grace. Catholicism is 'another gospel' and as such utilizes rituals and oaths that are not Christian and are in some cases drawn from pagan rites incorporated into their rituals and dates.
I have been posting information on the conflict between the disciple of John (Polycar), and the bishops in Rome (chiefly Anicetus, but Marcion was thriving under Anicetus) who changed the day of the Lords Table to always be on the Sunday date of the pagan rites, from the Passover Seder Jesus celebrated on Nisan 14.
The bodies of believers across Asian Minor were celebrating The Passover as the Lord's Table, always on Nisan 14. Rome changed that, under stern objection from Polycarp who left Rome in disgust and was murdered a year later (I think in Smyrna, being burned alive since the games had wound down and there was not time to have the animals kill him in the arena).
Invalidating contextual exegesis that refutes Rome by desperately ascribing it to being the result of knee-jerking bias (rather than actually engaging with the argument) is what is invalid, as the besides mind-reading of causal motive, the argument stands upon its own merits. And both the immediate context of 1 Co. 11:19-34 as well as the broader context of the NT and that of all Scripture is what soundly supports the metaphorical understanding and disallows the literalistic neoPlatonic imagination of Rome. And which much relies on restricting the gospel accounts of the LS to the immediate context, while we will not even her distinctive sacerdotal priesthood.
But for your information, my conclusion is not determined by bias against Rome, but rather that which Scripture warrants, as it does the beliefs we both concur on. And which objectively ascertaining of Truth i am free to engage in, as i am not beholden to support any one church, but am to go wherever the Truth leads. As in a jury, one can suspend his convictions in order to weigh the merits of a case, or at least not allow his convictions to overrule what the evidence warrants. And thus i disagree on some things most others here hold to, such as the rapture or OSAS.
In contrast, it is faithful RCs who are not to seek to ascertain the veracity of RC official binding teaching by objectively examining the Scriptures and evidence, as to do so would be to act as evangelicals, and not trust the claims of Rome as to her ensured veracity, and thus render the assent she requires.
The Baptism of Violent Death (Mt. 20:22-23; 3:8-12; Mk. 10:38,39; Lk. 12:49,50.)
The Baptism of The Holy Spirit (Mt. 3:11; Jn. 1:33; 7:39; Acts 1:5; 2:1-18; 10:44-47; 1 Cor. 12:13).
Jesus baptized His first prototype local church at Jerusalem in the Holy Spirit. After Peter's sermon, the Spirit-baptized church added members into itself by water-baptizing individuals professing a belief in the Christ.
How about admitting that there are not only several different watre baptisms, but also some baptisms that do not involve water, eh? Come on, now, man up to your error.
That is Whoopie’s type of toon.
There is no other baptism:
The Baptism of Violent Death (Mt. 20:22-23; 3:8-12; Mk. 10:38,39; Lk. 12:49,50.)
The Baptism of The Holy Spirit (Mt. 3:11; Jn. 1:33; 7:39; Acts 1:5; 2:1-18; 10:44-47; 1 Cor. 12:13).
Jesus baptized His first prototype local church at Jerusalem in the Holy Spirit. After Peter’s sermon, the Spirit-baptized church added members into itself by water-baptizing individuals professing a belief in the Christ.
How about admitting that there are not only several different watre baptisms, but also some baptisms that do not involve water, eh? Come on, now, man up to your error.
Certainly not. I have made no error.
In Mark 10 et al, my understanding is that Jesus is speaking figuratively. He wasn’t literally going to be drinking from a cup, and he wasn’t literally going to be baptized. Christianity continues to occasionally use the term Baptism of Blood, but I don’t think it’s in particularly common parlance. I also don’t think anyone thinks it’s actually a baptism, indeed, it’s used to describe the “baptism” (or rather, baptismal substitute) of one martyred who has not actually been baptized. Perhaps someone Roman Catholic can explain better than I, I think they use the term more often.
Baptism of the Holy Spirit is much easier. Of course it exists - but it is simply “water” baptism. John 3:5, Acts 2:28-29, Titus 3:5-6 come to mind. “Water” baptism IS “Spirit” baptism. One baptism.
Now you may protest, what about John’s baptism? There, you could be correct. He offered a baptism of repentance in anticipation of Jesus’s coming. However, it no longer exists today, and did not exist when Paul wrote to the Ephesians (rendering his one baptism statement correct).
Finally, your timeline in Acts 2 is incorrect. Peter preached. The people believed his preaching. They asked what shall we do? THEN they were baptized and received the Holy Spirit.
I will trust Paul’s clear writing that says there is “one baptism” and attempt to make the less clear passages comport with that; rather than set the less clear passages and try to make this clear passage go away.
Well, when you can even imagine, "Ordinary food is consumed and becomes that which consumes it. In the Eucharist, we consume God and become that which we consume," "whatever our sins have done to us, the Holy Communion can repair; and whatever our sins have done to God, the Mass - which is part of the Eucharist - can restore," for "the Eucharist...contains Christ and the whole power of His Passion." (the Eucharist and Its Effects—The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, James H. Dobbins) then you are outside the realm of Scriptural exegesis and into the realm of pagan fantasy, if not identical.
Alpers and Lindenbaum’s research conclusively demonstrated that kuru [neurological disorder] spread easily and rapidly in the Fore people due to their endocannibalistic funeral practices, in which relatives consumed the bodies of the deceased to return the “life force” of the deceased to the hamlet, a Fore societal subunit. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_%...9#Transmission
The custom of eating bread sacramentally as the body of a god was practised by the Aztecs before the discovery and conquest of Mexico by the Spaniards." ...They believed that by consecrating bread their priests could turn it into the very body of their god, so that all who thereupon partook of the consecrated bread entered into a mystic communion with the deity by receiving a portion of his divine substance into themselves.
The doctrine of transubstantiation, or the magical conversion of bread into flesh, was also familiar to the Aryans of ancient India long before the spread and even the rise of Christianity. The Brahmans taught that the rice-cakes offered in sacrifice were substitutes for human beings, and that they were actually converted into the real bodies of men by the manipulation of the priest. We read that “when it (the rice-cake) still consists of rice-meal, it is the hair. When he pours water on it, it becomes skin. When he mixes it, it becomes flesh: for then it becomes consistent; and consistent also is the flesh.
...At the festival of the winter solstice in December the Aztecs killed their god Huitzilopochtli in effigy first and ate him afterwards....This was called “killing the god Huitzilopochtli so that his body might be eaten.” ...The ceremony was called teoqualo, that is, “god is eaten.” - The Golden Bough, Eating the God among the Aztecs (cp. 50:2), by Sir James George Frazer, Scottish social anthropologist, often considered one of the founding fathers of modern anthropology. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_George_Frazer
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.