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.
That is a keeper!
Thanks for the humor.
THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION
Ineffabilis Deus
Apostolic Constitution issued by Pope Pius IX on December 8, 1854.
...
“Hence, just as Christ, the Mediator between God and man, assumed human nature, blotted the handwriting of the decree that stood against us, and fastened it triumphantly to the cross, so the most holy Virgin, united with him by a most intimate and indissoluble bond, was, with him and through him, eternally at enmity with the evil serpent, and most completely triumphed over him, and thus crushed his head with her immaculate foot.[14] “
14. Quo circa sicut Christus Dei hominumque mediator, humana assumpta natura, delens quod adversus nos erat chirographum decretia, illud cruci triumphator affixit; sic Sanctissima Virgo, Arctissimo et indissolubili vinculo cum eo conjuncta, una cum illo et per illum, sempiternas contra venenosum serpentem inimicitias exercens, ac de ipso plenissime triumphans, illus caput immaculato pede contrivit.
“Our soul overflows with joy and our tongue with exultation. We give, and we shall continue to give, the humblest and deepest thanks to Jesus Christ, our Lord, because through his singular grace he has granted to us, unworthy though we be, to decree and offer this honor and glory and praise to his most holy Mother. All our hope do we repose in the most Blessed Virgin — in the all fair and immaculate one who has crushed the poisonous head of the most cruel serpent and brought salvation to the world: in her who is the glory of the prophets and apostles, the honor of the martyrs, the crown and joy of all the saints; in her who is the safest refuge and the most trustworthy helper of all who are in danger; in her who, with her only-begotten Son, is the most powerful Mediatrix and Conciliatrix in the whole world; in her who is the most excellent glory, ornament, and impregnable stronghold of the holy Church; in her who has destroyed all heresies and snatched the faithful people and nations from all kinds of direst calamities; in her do we hope who has delivered us from so many threatening dangers. We have, therefore, a very certain hope and complete confidence that the most Blessed Virgin will ensure by her most powerful patronage that all difficulties be removed and all errors dissipated, so that our Holy Mother the Catholic Church may flourish daily more and more throughout all the nations and countries, and may reign “from sea to sea and from the river to the ends of the earth,” and may enjoy genuine peace, tranquility and liberty. We are firm in our confidence that she will obtain pardon for the sinner, health for the sick, strength of heart for the weak, consolation for the afflicted, help for those in danger; that she will remove spiritual blindness from all who are in error, so that they may return to the path of truth and justice, and that here may be one flock and one shepherd.” [Emphasis mine.]
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm
Rom 16:20 And the God of peace crush Satan under your feet speedily. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. - DRB
The first edition of the DR Bible (1532?) has that change to the Genesis narrative in it. So the first English translation out of the Vatican contains the great lie upon which they have planted their Maridolatry. That is one of the glaring exhibits which shout ‘cult’!
O2,
Fair enough, but it is not I, but you, who is dogmatic on one’s interpretation.
Grace and peace,
K51
But we are told we are to look to so-called church fathers for what Scripture means, while no less than Augustine taught that marital relations "cannot be effected without the ardour of lust," Heb. 13:4 notwithstanding, and which "carnal concupiscence" is the "daughter sin, and thus "whatever comes into being by natural birth is bound by original sin" " but which carnal concupiscence is "no longer accounted sin in the regenerate"(“On Marriage and Concupiscence: Book I, cp. 27; http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15071.htm
Even more extreme is Jerome, who asserts on First Corinthians 7:
It is good, he says, for a man not to touch a woman. If it is good not to touch a woman, it is bad to touch one: for there is no opposite to goodness but badness. But if it be bad and the evil is pardoned, the reason for the concession is to prevent worse evil. (Against Jovinianus (Book I, v. 7)
And is another RC who compels Scripture to support his false doctrine:
this too we must observe, at least if we would faithfully follow the Hebrew, that while Scripture on the first, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth days relates that, having finished the works of each, “God saw that it was good,” on the second day it omitted this altogether, leaving us to understand that two is not a good number because it destroys unity, and prefigures the marriage compact. Hence it was that all the animals which Noah took into the ark by pairs were unclean. Odd numbers denote cleanness. St. Jerome, Against Jovinianus Book 1 http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.vi.vi.I.html
So much for 2 x 2 evangelism!
Then we have Tertullian, who argued that second marriage, having been freed from the first by death, "will have to be termed no other than a species of fornication,'' partly based on the reasoning that such involves desiring to marry a women out of sexual ardor. ''An Exhortation to Chastity,'' Chapter IX.—Second Marriage a Species of Adultery, Marriage Itself Impugned, as Akin to Adultery, ANF, v. 4, p. 84.]
Jesus always had a way of getting to the heart of the matter, not arguing details. I think the following speaks to the topic:
Joh 6:31 After all, our ancestors ate manna while they journeyed through the wilderness! The Scriptures say, ‘Moses gave them bread from heaven to eat.’”
Joh 6:32 Jesus said, “I tell you the truth, Moses didn’t give you bread from heaven. My Father did. And now He offers you the true bread from heaven.
Ears to hear..........................
There are carnal ears, and there are spiritual ears. Catholiciism prefers the carnal ears since they hear the empowerment scheme without realizing the man-made scheme is not spiritual. The carnal mind is at enmity with God, is not subject to God, neither can be.
Ahh, too much truth coming out about the cult that is catholiciism, so the workers come to try and get the thread pulled ... Id est quod id est.
OK, I did read the post #24. Here is my feedback.
James was a relative of Jesus - a more or less distant cousin.
If I remember the truth claim correctly, it was claimed that Jesus had no siblings. I am not seeing how this idea in post #24, even if were true, advances the idea that Jesus had no siblings. If you found that convincing, perhaps you can elaborate.
It's important to realize that the Bible wasn't written in modern English.
I think we an agree on that.'Brother' is often used as a translation of adelphos but adelphos does not mean 'brother'. A better translation - following the actual use of the word in scripture - would be 'kinsman' or perhaps 'close relative'.
Again, without getting into the languages, I do not see how this demonstrates that Christ had no other siblings by Mary? I am guessing that you are seeing things I am not, so please elaborate, if you do.
I believe that Jesus likely had siblings, which are referred to in Scripture, but obviously, I would not be willing to be martyred for that opinion. That said, in this situation, the original poster claimed there were no siblings. She saw this as the only possible reason for Jesus' words to John at the cross. I asked her to demonstrate evidence that her truth claim was true. She couldn't or wouldn't do it. We had to put it in the category of opinion.
kind regards
Mark 3:21
When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.”
It doesnt say "He never ate chocolate again until the day he died.".
It says, "He never ate chocolate until after he ate it the first time".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.......and knew her not until she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.
Aw man! Now you’ve blown another gapping hole in the Maridolatry catholiciism depends upon! This thread will join the other undead threads, as apologists seek to get the thread pulled while posting all manner of dissonance.
4 So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. 5 He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. 6 While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, 7 and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no guest room available for them.
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.