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.
1 John 5:7 For there are three witnessesc — 8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood—and these three are one.
Your comment here anticipates a continuation of the rather lengthy summary that I have been making, but have not yet posted.
One matter worthy of further emphasis is that the "opening of the womb/matrix" refers only to the inauguration of child-bearing, not any successive births; and when it yields a male, the law demands the offering of a lamb yearling: not for sin, but as the price for redeeming the firstborn by a substitutional blood-sacrifice. The law permits a dove or pigeon instead of the lamb for someone who is very poor.
That is why Mary needed two doves, one culminating the purification, and the other as the redemption price for her firstborn, a male.
The Bible does tell. Under the Law, the marriage is already contracted, but not consummated until the elapse of a proof-positive non-conjugal period to ensure the bride's virginal status. See Deuteronomy 22.
Without it; we'd probably not know of the middle criminal's name that was crucified that day in Jerusalem.
the marriage is already contracted, but not consummated until the elapse of a proof-positive non-conjugal period to ensure the bride's virginal status.
That's not a proven. One evidence is that the face napkin was neatly folded apart from the shroud.
The I noticed that the stone was rolled away by the Angel so the women would see the empty tomb.
If I recall correctly, you have insisted that the body of Jesus left the tomb while it was still sealed. The reason I reject that interpretation is as follows:
"And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?
And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great" (Mk. 16:3-4 AV).
When the women got there, the stone had already been rolled away. The verb is in the perfect tense, meaning the act of removing the stone was finished earlier, and perhaps nowhere around.
"Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre,
bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.
And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre.
And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus" (Lk. 24:1-3 AV).
"Rolled away" is in the perfect tense: the tomb was already opened when they got there, with continuing results that it would not close if they walked inside.
"The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the
sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.
Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved,
and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not
where they have laid him" (Jn. 20:1-2 AV),
"Taken away" is also in the perfect tense, but the stone not merely rolled away to the side, but taken away; it was gone.
"And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it" (Mt. 28:2 AV).
In this verse, the verb is in the aorist tense, active voice, meaning that at some point the stone was removed by the angel being. If this was the sole verse describing the event, it could be supposed that the stone was removed in the presence of the women. But the tense of the verb precludes the interpreter from absolutely confirming that view. In fact, the three other gospels show that the stone was removed before they got there, so it cannot be that the grave was opened in their presence. And that means there is no reason to suppose that the Risen Jesus did not just walk out of the tomb, rather than work some kind of unnatural migration of His reassembled Person through solid rock.
So that theory is more than doubtful--it is very unrealistic, as well as being a completely unnecessary offense to common sense.
Nowhere in the gospels is it shown that Jesus dematerialized or rematerialized His pre-resurrection natural body of flesh, bone, and blood. There is simply no reason that we should think that the processes bestowed by God on humans were not operating throughout Jesus' inhabitayion of the human body as well.
But there is a deeper problem with these innovative conjectures about the body of Jesus that are unsupported directly or indirectly. In fact, they are being manufactured after the same way that not only do the Catholics wrongly handle the Word of God, but they claim post-Apostolic works and wonders that smack of an extension of special revelation and prophetic sayings even into our time.
Ya know, there comes a point when this obsessive effort you're putting forth takes on the appearance of, well, obsessive compulsive.
Matthew 28:1 After the Sabbaths, around dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to take a look at the burial site. 2 Suddenly, there was a powerful earthquake, because an angel of the Lord had come down from heaven, approached the stone, rolled it away, and was sitting on top of it. 3 His appearance was bright as lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. 4Trembling from fear, even the guards themselves became catatonic. ISV1 And on the eve of the sabbaths, at the dawn, toward the first of the sabbaths, came Mary the Magdalene, and the other Mary, to see the sepulchre, 2 and lo, there came a great earthquake, for a messenger of the Lord, having come down out of heaven, having come, did roll away the stone from the door, and was sitting upon it, 3 and his countenance was as lightning, and his clothing white as snow, 4 and from the fear of him did the keepers shake, and they became as dead men. 5 And the messenger answering said to the women, ‘Fear not ye, for I have known that Jesus, who hath been crucified, ye seek; 6 he is not here, for he rose, as he said; come, see the place where the Lord was lying; 7 and having gone quickly, say ye to his disciples, that he rose from the dead; and lo, he doth go before you to Galilee, there ye shall see him; lo, I have told you.’ Young's Literal Translation
I am astonished at your desire to diminish the Lord. You asserted: "Nowhere in the gospels is it shown that Jesus dematerialized or rematerialized His pre-resurrection natural body of flesh, bone, and blood" And from your own assertion you draw the conclusion that He did not do this with the post resurrection body? Way back in Daniel 5 we see someone in a different where/when reaches forth to the where/when of palace party central and with only the hand showing writes upon the wall. Was that an Angel, or a Christophany? I don't know, perhaps you are more knowledgeable? The miraculous was not a hard thing with Jesus, pre-crucifixion. And after He was resurrected, He was still Jesus, the place, time, and person where The God of Creation intersected our where/when. Jesus taught that Physics lesson to the disciples, as shown in John 14.
Luke 24:30 While he was at the table with them, he took the bread, blessed it, broke it in pieces, and gave it to them. 31 Then their eyes were opened, and they knew who he was. And he vanished from them.John 20:26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”
And I will leave you one last point to feed your ego trip in trying to rebuke me:
John 20:6 the word κείμενα gives a sense of the linens lying yet, as if they lay there in the shape of Jesus but He is not in them any longer.
Actually, I don't believe that you've honestly dealt with the inconsistencies of your conjectures. I have a Bible, actually more than one, and know what it says and what it does not say.
I myself like to speculate, but it's easier to put one to rest when the Bible doesn't support it. It looks like you're trying to convince others of doctrinal innovations when they won't bear close examination.
And personally insulting remarks to others in your posts are not advancing your theories, either.
Forgive me for tardiness on this issue. Morning appts, but after.
On the insults, no problem. I consider the quality of the source. Were they from someone reliable and humble, I'd be troubled, but not re this spew.
I am definitely not claiming Jesus was not born. Don't try to put words in my posts, especially lying words. That Jesus was not born the way you demand He be born is on you. And you are trying to rebuke me for a belief I hold because of the way I read the Bible.
Your condescension is showing. You can take this little lie and place it where it will do you the most good: "It looks like you're trying to convince others of doctrinal innovations when they won't bear close examination."
And you might want to examine your posts to find your 'insulting little remarks' before you spittle out an accusation of same.
As I wrote earlier, I believe what I believe because I find it to fit the Character of My God. These are my opinions. I guess I'm glad you do not share my opinions, given your imperious tone in your assertive, accusatory posts. Your witness is a bit too imperial for my tastes. Go and try to bully someone else, I will not respond directly to your duplicitous posts further. But I will respond to other's questions, if they want to 'hear' my opinion.
Joh 20:17 Jesus saith to her: Do not touch me: for I am not yet ascended to my Father. But go to my brethren and say to them: I ascend to my Father and to your Father, to my God and to your God.
Joh 20:19 Now when it was late the same day, the first of the week, and the doors were shut, where the disciples were gathered together, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst and said to them: Peace be to you.
Joh 20:26 And after eight days, again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them. Jesus cometh, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst and said: Peace be to you.
Now I know that Matthew 28 directly contradicts the admonition in John about physical contact, consequently it raises a interesting point about the post resurrection glorified body's substance.
Indeed! Do we dare give an opinion? LOL
or...
Perpetual argumentation?
Jesus’s brother and sisters might have a say in that conundrum, if they were still walking the Earth. Maybe we can ask them, some where/when?
You sound you might be off your meds. I’ll pray for you re restoration to sensibility.
Here's a thread running at FR where you can expose yourself even more. I just know you'll enjoy being the spectacle: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3414727/posts?page=7
"And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables" (2 Tim. 4:4 AV).
Three Gospels contradict your opinion on Matthew 28:2, but not the correct rendering of the verse in the light of the other Gospels. Deal with your conjectures, one at a time.
The Gospels stand, your thesis fails.
Ping
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.