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.
WHAT?! That is absurd! Where do you see these newborn novices (contra 1Tim. 3:6) being referred to as pastors?
Taking them out of order, Acts 8, Philip is being a missionary to Samaria. And what would you need if you’re a missionary to a place when you leave? You’ll need to leave behind pastors.
And so this is support to making them pastors?! If that was the case then if anyone needed to be made a pastor then it was the Ethiopian Eunuch, but upon whom no hands were laid, and the Spirit even whisked Phillip away!
So he Peter and John come up from Jerusalem, lay hands on them, and the Holy Spirit falls on them (the group) - and they received the ability to do signs and wonders. Laying on of hands was (and is) ordination. Notice Philip, who was just a deacon, didn’t do it.
Which is more error, as Phillip himself had hands laid upon him as did deacon Stephen, (Acts 6:5,6) and who did do signs and wonders, but neither were pastors. Nor did only have to be an apostle to convey the Spirit, as Ananias is simply said to be "a certain disciple" "a devout man" (Acts 9:10; 22:12) but who laid hands on Paul "to receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost." (Acts 9:17)
Acts 19, same deal. Paul was doing missions work in Ephasus. Same deal. He baptizes the believers, and when then (doesn’t say how long after) he lays hands on them, and they begin to speak in tongues and prophesy. i.e., they were preaching.
Which is more error, as Acts 19:4-6 is reported as one event, after which Paul moves on. In addition, tongues and prophesying does mean such are pastors or preaching as such, as all the Corinthians were encouraged to do so, one by one. "If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret." (1 Corinthians 14:27) "For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted." (1 Corinthians 14:31)
Acts 10-11, a little different. Here God makes an apparent exception to the norm
No, it explains Acts 2:38, as before the Spirit even came then Peter simply said that "To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins," (Acts 10:43) and later affirmed that God purified their hearts by faith, which is consistent with my explanation provided by the grace of God.
What you and your YouTube contortionists are doing is reading into Scripture what you want in order to support your erroneous doctrine, and which impugns the Spirit who as said, characteristically mentions when ordination is taking place, and requires that pastors be "Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil," and if even a deacon must "first be proved" (1 Timothy 3:10) then that would certainly be the case for pastors as well.
Your reasoning is specious and is a conclusion that is utterly without support (and which certainly is not even official RC or Lutheran - which it seems you are?), and is so ludicrous that it impugns any teaching by those who teach it.
Why not?
Quite similar DNA...
That's IT!
I am now CONVINCED!!!
At this time?
Lemme think on that one ...
Your reasoning is specious and is a conclusion that is utterly without support (and which certainly is not even official RC or Lutheran - which it seems you are?), and is so ludicrous that it impugns any teaching by those who teach it.
I don’t find it specious at all. Is there a little reading into the context? Sure. But it makes perfect logical sense to me. Are they referred to as pastors? No. How often in the new testament is any individual referred to with the title of pastor? Correct me if I’m wrong... but I think it’s zero.
Though I will grant you that deacons are also commissioned by the laying on of hands - so they could have been being made pastors and/or deacons. And though it can also be for healing - but there was no healing occurring in these passages, so that usage is ruled out.
Anyway, a blessed Easter to you!
Here's why I recommend to start thinking about walking this back:
"And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name
was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.
And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were
accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;" (Lk. 2:21-22 AV).
On the eighth day from His birth, Mary brought Jesus to the Temple for the brit milah, then went back home to Bethlehem to stay sequestered to complete 33 more days of cleansing, according to law. Forty days after Jesus' birth, she again appeared at the Temple to offer two turtldoves (or pigeons):
"(As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be
called holy to the Lord;)" (Lk. 2:22 AV).
If a woman's firstborn is a male child, he is the LORD's possession (cf 1 Sam. 2:27-29), to serve Him. If Mary and Joseph want Him to grow up in their house, they must purchase Him back with an acceptable offering.
And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair
of turtledoves, or two young pigeons" (Lk. 2:24 AV).
Mary brought two birds, one as a sin offering for herself, according to the Law, and one as an offering to redeem Jesus back to serve her and Joseph and live as their son under their rule as parents.
Here's the actual Greek: καθως γεγραπται εν νομω κυριου οτι παν αρσεν διανοιγον μητραν αγιον τω κυριω κληθησεται (Lk. 2:23 TR)
Let's look here at the words διανοιγον = "open" and μητραν = "womb/matrix" as to their meaning in English.
========
Strong's Number G1272
διανοίγω
dianoigō
dee-an-oy'-go
From G1223 and G455; to open thoroughly, literally (as a first born) or figuratively (to expound): - open.
Thayer Definition:
1) to open by dividing or drawing asunder, to open thoroughly
. . 1a) a male opening the womb (the closed matrix), i.e. the first-born
. . 1b) of the eyes and the earsG1272
. . 1c) to open the mind of one, i.e. to cause to understand a thing
. . . . 1c1) to open one’s soul, i.e. to rouse in one the faculty of understanding or the desire of learning
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G1223 δια and G455
-------
Strong's Number G1223
διά
dia
dee-ah'
A primary preposition denoting the channel of an act; through (in very wide applications,
local, causal or occasional). In composition it retains the same general import: - after,
always, among, at, to avoid, because of (that), briefly, by, for (cause) . . . fore, from, in,
by occasion of, of, by reason of, for sake, that, thereby, therefore, X though, through (-out),
to, wherefore, with (-in). In composition it retains the same general import.
Thayer Definition:
1) through
. . 1a) of place
. . . . 1a1) with
. . . . 1a2) in
. . 1b) of time
. . . . 1b1) throughout
. . . . b2) during
. . 1c) of means
. . . . 1c1) by
. . . . 1c2) by the means of
2) through
. . 2a) the ground or reason by which something is or is not done
Thayer Definition:
1) through
. . 1a) of place
. . . . 1a1) with
. . . . 1a2) in
. . 1b) of time
. . . . 1b1) throughout
. . . . b2) during
. . 1c) of means
. . . . 1c1) by
. . . . 1c2) by the means of
2) through
. . 2a) the ground or reason by which something is or is not done
. . . . 2a1) by reason of
. . . . 2a2) on account of
. . . . 2a3) because of for this reason
. . . . 2a4) therefore
. . . . 2a5) on this account
Part of Speech: preposition
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: a primary preposition denoting the channel of an act
=======
Strong's Number G455
ἀνοίγω
anoigō
an-oy'-go
Strong's Definition:
From G303 and οἴγω oigō (to open); to open up (literally or figuratively, in various applications): - open.
Thayer Definition:
1) to open
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G303 and oigo (to open)
------
Strong's Number G303
ἀνά
ana
an-ah'
Strong's Definition:
A primary preposition and adverb; properly up; but (by extension) used (distributively) severally, or (locally) at (etc.): - and, apiece, by, each, every (man), in, through. In compounds (as a prefix) it often means (by implication) repetition, intensity, reversal, etc.
Thayer Definition:
1) into the midst, in the midst, amidst, among, between
Part of Speech: preposition
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: a primary prep and adv
=========
Strong's Number G3388
μήτρα
mētra
may'-trah
From G3384; the matrix: - womb.
Thayer Definition:
1) the womb
Part of Speech: noun feminine
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G3384
========
The above refers to the Law, the first and definitive mention of which is in Exodus 13:2, as follows:
"Sanctify unto me all the firstborn, whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and of beast: it is mine" (Ex. 13:2 AV).
The Greek translation of the Septuagint renders it thus:
Ἁγίασόν μοι πᾶν πρωτότοκον πρωτογενὲς διανοῖγον πᾶσαν μήτραν ἐν τοῖς υἱοῖς Ισραηλ ἀπὸ ἀνθρώπου ἕως κτήνους· ἐμοί ἐστιν. (Exo 13:2 LXX).
Strong's Number G4416
πρωτοτόκος
prōtotokos
pro-tot-ok'-os
Strong's Definition:
From G4413 and the alternate of G5088; first born (usually as noun, literally or figuratively): - firstbegotten (-born).
Thayer Definition:
. . 1) the firstborn
. . . . 1a) of man or beast
. . . . 1b) of Christ, the first born of all creation
Part of Speech: adjective
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G4413 and the alternate of G5088
======
OK, The firstborn is born and "born" means to open the womb, the matrix; and that means to strtch the opening of the womb to the very widest, and the first time this will also be a bloody portal, bringing the Savior Who remits sins into the world of humans (without shedding of blood there is no remission of sins); the passage being one of agony, but the end being joyous. Under the Law, this brings the woman into a state of uncleanness, which has a lawful response of purification, the end of which is a visit to the mikvah, followed by the offering of birds, one as sin offering, the other as redemption price of the male that was born:
"And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man
child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her
infirmity shall she be unclean.
And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.
And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall
touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be
fulfilled.
But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and
she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.
And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a
lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, for a sin
offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest:
Who shall offer it before the LORD, and make an atonement for her; and she shall be
cleansed from the issue of her blood. This is the law for her that hath born a male or a female.
And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons;
the one for the burnt offering, and the other for a sin offering: and the priest shall make an
atonement for her, and she shall be clean" (Lev 12:1-8).
FRiends, either Jesus was born of Mary, or He was not. But if He was not "born", and Mary was still "virgin," why should Mary have to go through a period of purification from a very real birth process, and offer for both herself and the Babe to complete the obligations to the Law (which Jesus was in the process of fulfilling, whether passively or actively).
Eh, what? Inserting an escape from a normal, natural birth by passing out of the womb without being born does not make sense. It does great vilence to the promises of Scripture:
"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall
be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God,
The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace" (Is. 9:6; see 7:14)
"And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ" (Mt. 1:16)
"For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord" (Lk. 2:11). What more can be said?
Inserting an escape from a normal, natural birth by passing out of the womb without being born does not make sense.
Look Ma; no Blood!
No mess!!
No "My water's broke!!!"
The amniotic fluid is there in the amniotic sac due to the new life bringing in the fluid from the connection between the uterus/womb and the placental implantation connection.
Again, the placenta is made by the growing child not the mother. The fluid in the amniotic sac is there by the actions of the growing child process. So, both the amniotic fluid (the 'water' with effluent content) and the bloody discharge would require the offerings. The implantation pregnancy in the uterus OPENS the womb.
The cervix is an os, a portal. Jesus was not brought into Mary's uterus via this portal and it is just as likely that He did not exit her body via this portal. The offerings indicate the water and the blood exited the portal (requiring the offerings), but to assume this means the BIRTH of Jesus came through that same portal is not a necessary conclusion. Just like it is not necessary that Jesus leave the rock tomb by the portal obstructed by the large stone.
But she was still a virgin in that she did not know a man, IOW, she had never had sex. Telling them they are not virgins even when they maintained their moral integrity and waited until marriage for sex is an insult to them.
The classic definition of virginity does a disservice to women who, for some reason or other, have their hymen ruptured although they never had sex. It's not their choice that that happened cause no woman is going to do it intentionally.
Mary didn't have sex with anyone but Joseph and therefore he still had the privilege of being the first and only.
Then there's the ridiculous stories I've heard coming from muslim countries of women who have surgery to make them "virgins" again for a second husband, which is ludicrous. They've had sex before and surgically altering that does not change THAT fact.
Mary had several children after she carried Jesus. When the Angel told Joseph to not hesitate to take Mary as his wife though she carried the Holy On of God, he could not have known all the vagaries of the process. He would not have known the means by which God placed Jesus in Mary’s uterus, but if he believed God, and the indications are that he did, then he would have relied upon the INTEGRITY of God that Mary was still a virgin. The Bible tells us that he knew her not until after the brith of Jesus. Joseph had every expectation of Mary’s virginal status when he married her and I believe when he consummate their marriage vows. Hence, God di not defraud Joseph in the conception of Jesus nor the birth of Jesus. I choose to believe this because it fits the Character of My God who would not defraud Joseph, did not defraud Joseph in the conceptuion of Jesus, either.
The arrival of Jesus is not about sex. God did not —as Mormons teach, blasphemously— have sex with Mary to conceive Jesus in her womb. The arrival of God among us is miraculous, completely miraculous, for God became a man and dwelt among us. In such a sacred gift God would not defraud Joseph. Just as Jesus would not violate the Passover Seder on the night before the Cross by serving real blood to His disciples.
A little? There is absolutely no warrant for this absurdity, of making newborn novice souls into pastors at conversion! Having hands laid on souls necessarily makes one a pastor (your cousins the Orthodox do the former to every baptized soul) nor does it require an apostle to do so, as Paul found by the hands of a devout disciple, nor does speaking in tongues and prophesying make one a pastor, else all the Corinthians were, and the requirements for being pastors exclude newborns, nor are the events at issue ever referred as being ordinations. And your desperate rationale that they needed to leave pastors being is refuted by the example of the Ethiopian eunuch conversion. Which also indicate regeneration apart from a further endowment of grace via laying on of hands.
And the conversion of Gentiles of Acts 10 is not set forth as an exception, but a realization of what Peter had promised them, and which he affirms as being salvation by grace, (Acts 10:43; 15:11) God purifying their hearts by the faith that baptism expresses, thus clarifying Acts 2:38. And which defines being baptized with the Spirit. "Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost" (Acts 11:16) which the apostles realized after the Lord had commissioned them and "breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost." (John 20:22)
And in Acts 8:17 it is distinctly said of the Spirit that "yet he was fallen upon none of them," perhaps in power, versus not yet having been ordained as pastors as per your nonsense, which would have made all these Samaritans pastors, as it describes them as a whole. Meanwhile in Acts 19 this laying on of hands goes along with baptism, and is one event, not a later ordination.
And the practice of laying on of hands in ministering the Spirit conflate with Galatians 3:5, "He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit,...by the hearing of faith?." And in Acts 13:2-3 some non-apostles ("certain prophets and teachers") lay hands in Barnabas and Saul - souls who had the fulness of the Spirit - in conveying grace or formal sanction for a mission from the Spirit. Some souls realize the baptism with the Spirit as part of the conversion event, while for others it can be subsequent, or for commissioning, and which keeps God out of the box, being contrary to settling into a standard form with institutionalized religion examples. And thus, contrary to you, the Spirit clearly states that there is "the doctrine of baptisms," the plural baptismōn, and "of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment." (Hebrews 6:2)
Are they referred to as pastors? No. How often in the new testament is any individual referred to with the title of pastor? Correct me if I’m wrong... but I think it’s zero.
That is simply unlearned ignorance. Being referred to as pastors refers to these events at issue not being referred to as being ordinations, nor special commissions, of which the Spirit manifestly records instances, and usually with fasting and when laying on of hands was part of this, in contrast to all the Samaritans and others being ordained as pastors or deacons simply because they had hands laid on them. "Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business... Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them." (Acts 6:3,6) "As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away." (Acts 13:2-3) Note again that here Barnabas and Saul already had the Spirit. "And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed." (Acts 14:23) Thus the Spirit sees it as important to mention when ordinations or special commissions are taking place, versus when laying in of hands is conveying the baptism with the Spirit or this is realized apart form the former, and when speaking in tongues is one of the corporate gifts all may possess.
Again I say, “Why not?”
The Bible does NOT tell us when the wedding ceremony took place.
Before or After the birth of Jesus?
If before; could not Joseph (I'm gonna get in trouble here) have checked her out before the birth?
This is what I deserve for entering the rf on Easter Sunday... good grief but have you no shame whatsoever?
In the Jewish wedding system, the betrothal is the start of the whole wedding process. Mary was already betrothed to Joseph when she was ‘found with child’. The Angel visited Joseph after the conception and before the birth. Mary visited Elizabeth in Elizabeth’s sixth month. And you are correct, the Bible does not tell us when the ceremony took place, but says Joseph and his wife were going to be counted in the census, before Jesus was born ... that’s how they ended up in Bethlehem instead of at home for the delivery.
Matthew 1:24 And Joseph rising up from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and took unto him his wife. 25 And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
This ceremonial law is due to defilement by woman's blood and perhaps other secretions, (Lev_12:1-4 cf. 15:19,33; 20:18) and which indicates normal delivery. Christ coming by water and blood in 1 Jn. 5:6 - versus Gnostic ideas - likely refers to His human birth.
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.