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.
Luke 9:58
"The foxes have holes," said Jesus, "and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head."
Douay-Rheims
[21] And when his friends had heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him. For they said: He is become mad.
[31] And his mother and his brethren came; and standing without, sent unto him, calling him.
King James:
21 And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself.
31 There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him
So the people who thought He was mad may not have even been family at all, but they were definitely not His mother and brothers, who arrived 10 verses later even in your translation.
So we still don’t know why His mother and brothers were there.
And again:
35 Whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother. Jesus Himself uses these words to describe people who are NOT his brothers or sisters or mother, so they cannot always be taken literally.
Love,
O2
Surely you jest by quoting just the opening verse of a paragraph of thought?
Here is the entire paragraph...
I Corinthians 7:1-7 Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband. 3The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 But this I say by way of concession, not of command. 7 Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that.
Married couples are instructed in God's inspired Word, via the Apostle Paul, to have sex. It is a command that "the husband must fulfill his duty to his wife." Likewise, the wife must do the same.
The only exception is for "a time" in order to devote yourselves to prayer and then to come together again in order to not be subject to Satan's temptation.
Ah Goulash interpretation... an old recipe to "find" anything you predecide.
Why stop at the ‘but’???
2 But for fear of fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
3 Let the husband render the debt to his wife, and the wife also in like manner to the husband.
4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband.
To think he would NOT have ‘wanted’ her after the time of waiting was over is beyond MY comprehension.
4 Then she shall remain in the blood of her purification for thirty-three days; she shall not touch any consecrated thing, nor enter the sanctuary until the days of her purification are completed.
5 But if she bears a female child, then she shall be unclean for two weeks, as in her menstruation; and she shall remain in the blood of her purification for sixty-six days.
6 When the days of her purification are completed, for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring to the priest at the doorway of the tent of meeting a one year old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering.
Pure(?) speculation.
Where on Earth did you get a reading from Genesis other than the Catholic Bible which is the only true and accurate Bible EVER.
In 1 Cor. 7:1-6 Paul gives counsel. It is godly counsel, and does not override, but remains within God's first commandment to humankind which after creation is pronounced "very good," God said, "Be fruitful and multiply." He then reiterated that commandmevtto Noah and his sons: When did Abraham and Sarah cease to cohabit in marriage? When she died. Even then, Abraham remarried and kept fulfilling the commandment.
What other purpose does physical relationship in marriage have" Comforting one's marriage partner. Rebekah comforted Isaac after his mother's death, David comforted Bathsheba after their son's death. There is a joy of body, soul, and spirit in union with one's mate. Denying this is a form of rejection, as physical denial, seed-spilling, or contraception is as murder of the generation to replace us, and a reproof to God for giving us the responsibility of having and raising a godly generation.
In Hebrews, Paul warns not to defile the marriage bed, one defilement of which would be refusal to enjoy, and/or comfort, and/or reproduce.
Paul says celibacy without marriage is OK. Willful celibacy in the marriage bond is not, although it could be that subsequent to confirming the lifetime vows, some physical or medical exigency might require it.
That's how I read the context of the Bible, not just Paul guided by the Holy Spirit.
God was talking to the serpent and talking about her seed (Jesus).
Genesis 3
14 The LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, cursed are you above all cattle, and above all wild animals; upon your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life. 15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel."
True, Paul does address fellow believers as brothers but he also uses specific words from time to time.
As I've said before...context is your key to understanding the Word.
Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him for fifteen days. But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord's brother. Galatians 1:18-19 NASB
The Greek would render it this way if we put it into English, "James, brother of the Lord." In the Greek of the Lord is in the genitive case. Generally, the genitive case indicates one of possession. In this particular instance it is indicating a family relationship due to the structure of the Greek.
James is being identified as the brother of the Lord.
The Septuagint, old man. That leads naturally to the Hebrew Torah. The correct rendering of Genesis is right near the beginning.
Want to try again, more honestly?
Bad translations always lead to bad theology.
I don't believe that Mary was ever virgin, but I agree with Catholics that the original word translated as "until" does not make any statement about the future.
As an example, consider this statement. "He never ate chocolate again until the day he died." Not a perfect example, but that's the idea.
You left off the note about the translation:
http://drbo.org/chapter/01003.htm
It refers to her seed (Jesus) and the serpent’s seed (evil)
[15] I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.
[15] She shall crush: Ipsa, the woman; so divers of the fathers read this place, conformably to the Latin: others read it ipsum, viz., the seed. The sense is the same: for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent’s head.
In this case we are seeing not ‘bad translation’ but purposed manipulation of the Scriptures to support a specious demigoddess status for Mary the Mother of Jesus.
Gen 3:15 And I will put eivah (enmity,personal hostility [see Ezekiel 35:5]) between thee and HaIsha (see HaAlmah, Yeshayah 7:14), and between thy zera and her Zera; it shall bruise thy rosh, and thou shalt crush his akev (heel). [Orthodox Jewish Bible]
How utterly deceitful, institutional scale deception!
The Old Testament is the written progressive revelation og God's Word to prophets no sooner than four hundred years before Jesus' birth. So that part is not written by "Catholic" authors.
Furthermore, the separate components were set down by Christ-followers before 100 A. D., long before the (false) concept of catholicity occurred to any of the post-Apostolic innovators, so that segment of yhe Bible is not "Catholic" either.
Though Jerome's Latin translation was closer to the original texts, still it was not--and could not be--perfect (not being Holy Ghost inspired); so the coexistent copies of the original texts were authentic, and always better than the Vulgate.
In fact, the Vulgate was so bad that in the 1500s the great Dutch scholar Desiderus Erasmus selected the most faithful Greek texts, rejecting the Alexandrian and Vatican texts; and compiled the faithful Byzantine/Majority Greek Textform, called "the Received Text" from which the English translations of tht day were secured, hence better then, and still better now, thasn any other English translation.
Your "Catholic" translations are rather poorer then and now, my FRiend, and the original Bible contents were/are not Catholic at all.
By it is Jesus who battles Satan. Not Mary. Catholics have to make it all about her. In either case the DR translates it as she crushes.....not he.
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.