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.
I believe you are correct sir. I am puzzled, however, why would anyone with half a brain, choose to land in Hell?
I would much rather land in Heaven. I will follow the ONLY mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus (1 Tim 2:5)
If others choose a different mediator, other than the only one God has designated, well then. I think there is no hope for them. No one can say they were not warned.
Which goes to show that anyone can read anything into anything if they really want to.
That’s such a stretch that I’m surprised someone didn’t sprain anything.
Stretch or not, Gill wrote that some ancients did read Mary into it.
Your question is one I’ve asked myself. Why is it so important that Mary remain a virgin? Why did the early Christians believe that it was necessary?
Their interpretation of Ezekiel 44:2, right or wrong, may have been the reason why.
I have a feeling many of them have different opinions about that. I know when I was a Catholic, I kind of thought it was dirty, but I don't know what others thought about it. It was just something we never discussed.
Yes, context is my friend.
John 6: 67-71
After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him. [68] Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away? [69] And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. [70] And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God.
[71] Jesus answered them: Have not I chosen you twelve; and one of you is a devil? [72] Now he meant Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon: for this same was about to betray him, whereas he was one of the twelve.
Here there is a clear distinction between Jesus’ disciples, many of whom left Him, and the chosen 12, whom I believe He is referring to in the immediate next verses as His brethren. We already know that Jesus Himself uses brethren at other times when He is clearly not referring to relatives at all.
In any event, why would the brothers not believing in Him yet mean someone else needed to take care of Mary? I don’t see these two events as related at all. Not one brother was willing to stay with Mary?
Also, Jesus must have known that they would soon come to believe in Him. Why would Jesus use His dying breath to have Mary taken care of temporarily when she would have been fine in the short term in the care of other relatives or friends? We see in the Lazarus story (today’s Gospel by the way) how communities rallied around those who lost a loved one.
And what about the sisters? Since you translate brethren to mean brothers, do you mean the sisters also did not believe in Him? Jesus was 30, there must have been some sisters of marrying age, wouldn’t the sons-in-law have taken care of Mary?
Wouldn’t denying Jesus have actually made them safer from persecution, as it did for Peter initially, so they would have been better able to take care of Mary?
Love,
O2
Who knows? I have a feeling, that if someone is confronted with the personal interpretation thing, they might say they don't interpret scripture, they just read it and tell us what it means. I might roll my eyes if I hear that. 😆😀😃😇😎😂
Yes, I think bearing and rearing the Son of God made Mary and Joseph more holy. And again, there is no sin in marital sex, but neither is there sin in remaining celibate out of reverence for the fact that Mary’s womb had held the Son of God.
I also believe that if those water jars from Cana had been mine, they would not ever have been used again out of respect for the miracle that occurred in them. Would it have been a sin to be so wasteful? Would that be considered jar-worship?
If Mary and Joseph had had sex while Mary was pregnant, would Jesus not have been the Messiah?
Love,
O2
One last possible point to ponder: Jesus was so fond of John and John's devotion that what Jesus did would have been such a tremendous blessing placed upon John: if there were no step siblings, the blessing is full; if there were step siblings who did not even come to His last moments alive, tragically confirming in their reasoning their worst fears about His preaching against Rome and the Jewish power structure, the fact that John was there and perhaps the youngest of His disciples, being given such a weighty responsibility would have been an enormous affirmation of Jesus's love and trust in John.
Please let me help you:
Thanks. So why did they believe that it was necessary?
The automatic thermostatic heretic detector has just fired up the deep fryer.
66As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore. 67So Jesus said to the twelve, “You do not want to go away also, do you?” 68Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life. 69“We have believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.” 70Jesus answered them, “Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is a devil?” 71Now He meant Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was going to betray Him.
1After these things Jesus was walking in Galilee, for He was unwilling to walk in Judea because the Jews were seeking to kill Him. 2Now the feast of the Jews, the Feast of Booths, was near. 3Therefore His brothers said to Him, “Leave here and go into Judea, so that Your disciples also may see Your works which You are doing. 4“For no one does anything in secret when he himself seeks to be known publicly. If You do these things, show Yourself to the world.” 5For not even His brothers were believing in Him.
John 6:66-7:5
These brothers are not his disciples. 7:5 notes they, the brothers, were not believing in Him whereas 6:69 indicates the disciples "have believed and come to know You are the Holy One of God."
John is clear in his terminology in these passages.
Paul calls all followers brothers and sisters.
Probably not.
I am not aware of any Apostle or student of one of the Apostles who addressed the issue to defend perpetual virginity. Can you point me to one or two prior to 170 -200AD?
I believe that if you state as indisputable fact that Mary DID remain a virgin, you have not reached the Truth.
Come; let us reason together.
Yours truly,
ELSIE
To remain a virgin is a violation of God’s expressed desire that married couples have sex.>>
1 Corinthians 7:1
Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman.
SURE there are!
One's found here; another's from over there.
A couple more are in the OT and a slight hint is observed in the penumbra of the NT.
Even with...
Get thee behind me Satan
and
I never knew the man!
Joseph might have had previous children...not Mary
I don't think they became true Christians until after the death and resurrection of Christ, and we don't even know for sure, if all of them got saved, or if only some of them, but I think Jesus' half brother James, was the leader of the Jerusalem church. If people disagree, that's on them.
Yeah, Christ came to Earth to save mankind and then condemned some of His family members to Hell....Now that's really merciful.....sheesh.
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.