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.
It would have disproved the Catholic teaching if the questions were:
Is not this the carpenter’s son? Are not His brothers called James and Joseph and Simon and Judas, and THEIR mother called Mary? And His sisters, HIS MOTHER’S DAUGHTERS, are they not all with us?
But as it is written, Mary is only identified as the mother of Jesus. Scripture alone can neither prove nor disprove the Catholic teaching.
The Word does not say Trinity anywhere yet we believe the Word teaches the Trinity. Why? Because of context.
The context of the passages involving the family of Christ tell us Joseph and Mary, much to the apparent chagrin and horror of catholicism, had other children.
I know that upsets the applecart in Rome but it is very clear from the Word they did.
It may lesson Mary in the eyes of Roman Catholicism, but not anywhere else.
It never ceases to amaze that catholics will not allow the Word to interpret itself.
Context is key to understanding the Word along with the original languages.
If it were founded in truth, with the importance catholiciism places in such fantasy, the Apostles would have made sure we knew of it or at the very least one of their direct students would have done so. Not one shred of teaching prior to the late 200's exists for this idolatry of Mary. NOTHING from the Apostles or their direct students who were taught by them exists to support this idolatry. So, it is not me who has a problem.
Until catholics stop purposely conflating the Spiritual Church Jesus is still building, from the man-made magicsteeringthem church , the spiritual things of God will not be discerned by such as yourself. But satan will tickle the ears repeatedly, to keep a person from awakening to the Truth of the Gospel of Grace not works. I cannot wish you good luck with that.
Actually, considering the Holy Spirit inspired Scripture, if HE thought there was anything more worth knowing about Mary that we needed to know, He would certainly have included it in Scripture instead of having someone *add* it later.
Either way, Catholics are indicted. Either it wasn’t important enough for the Holy spirit to include, or, if we accept the concept that their church wrote the Bible, THEY didn’t think it was important enough to include initially.
This *development of doctrine* concept is just a bunch of hogwash used to justify changing the church that allegedly never changes.
The catholic worship of Mary is indeed an error of great magnitude.
When I have written this to catholics at FR in the past, some have the ignorance to post in response what Paul states: 'Work out your own salvation in fear and trembling.' Once they post that, their mind snaps shut so tightly, with satan whispering something like 'you shut that one up', that they cannot even read the explanation for that passage! If one seeks to reason with them further, they appeal to James and the speciously applied notion of works as a means to earn salvation, rather than as James intended, to show one is already saved and the works are by the urging of the Holy Spirit. Today's catholiciism is demonically derived and maintained.
Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father but through Me." John 14:6
The way the Greek is structured with the I am statement indicates Jesus is speaking emphatically. In Greek, I am is rendered as εγω ειμι.
It also carries the authority of how God spoke to Moses when he asked who should he say sent them. The observant reader will note the connection.
God replied, "tell them I AM, sent you.." For context: God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM"; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'"Ex 3:14
εγω is the first person pronoun. ειμι is the verb "to be". In Greek, the verb can express gender without need of a pronoun.
The sentence could have been rendered with just the ειμι for I am.
When the pronoun is added to the verb it is for emphasis. This is used to express a means of comparison. Jesus is in essence saying, compared to all other ways you've heard of on how to get to Heaven, you only get there through Me.
It is through no one else.
This one statement completely negates all other ideas on how one achieves Heaven. ALL of them.
Further, this is in the present indicative. In Greek it can be either a continuous or undefined action. Ex: I am studying or I study. Context will determine the usage.
In this context, it would be a continuous action. Jesus has been and always will be the way to Heaven.
It is through no one else.
Catholics take for granted that the church which assembled the book is more capable of properly interpreting it than are the average 25 year old Christian followers.
Very interesting, but it didn't answer the question.
1,300,000,000 Ignorant Catholics...and you are correct??
Prots make up most of what they believe, I just thought they might have an interesting answer to this one....
One more quickie....when the Magi left the nativity area, they had a dream and returned to their country by a different route.....who told the Evangelist that??
probably not in 6 Earthly days...circuits around the sun..6 of His own days...(He was the only one there at the time)..and was certainly not restricted by the rotation of the Earth. Teaching early humans, however, required terminology that they could comprehend....who really knows what the term "days" meant before there were any languages.
It’s a two word answer. Extra credit if you figure it out.
Therefore Jesus did NOT roll back the stone....an angel did.
One more quickie....when the Magi left the nativity area, they had a dream and returned to their country by a different route.....who told the Evangelist that??
Being as Catholics teach for doctrine, the commandments of men, I have one more quickie....how are Catholics going to make it into Heaven? If they DON't make it, that's on them.
Nor, far more important to the conjecturist, there is not only no evidence that James (for instance) is not the son of Mary, but compelling evidence that he is, including not only Matthew's and Mark's gospels, but also Jude's own testimony in his NT letter of being brother to James (and therefore not to James bar Zebedee), who wrote the book of James. It is beyond imagination that if James and Jude were not the sons of Mary, one or more of the NT writers would have made that clear, when it could have been taken otherwise in their writings. If not otherwise explicit, it is implicit that Mary's other children are involved in the New Testament narrative.
And why would the Christian James, a ruling elder of the Jerusalem church (who was clearly not the James, brother of John, slain by Herod) be hypothetically the son of Alphaeus and not simply the son of Joseph?
And why then , if one of those at the synagogue where Jesus read Isaiah, introduced Himself, and was said not to believed of by those accompanying Mary, how could the James there be of the son of Alphaeus who was a believer, one of the Twelve, at the same time, eh?
What can be believed of the Scriptures and not up to controversy simple cannot cover the imaginations of a Magisterium who, a thousand years latere, impudently claims it to be the authority over the reputation of Mary of Nazareth, thus preempting it from the authority of eyewitnesses.
And one wonders what gave rise to Rodin's image of "The Thinker."
Until you stop posting comments that distort what the Catholic Church proclaims, your posts are of little or no value.
The context of the passages involving the family of Christ tell us Joseph and Mary, much to the apparent chagrin and horror of catholicism, had other children.
I came across a collection of over 20 verse by verse commentaries at: https://www.studylight.org/commentary/matthew/12-46.html
The opinions on whether Mary had other children are many and diverse.
Some commentaries, e.g., Adam Clarke and Coffman, support your assertion that Joseph and Mary had other children. Others, e.g., Gill and Wesley, support the belief that the brothers and sisters were not Mary’s sons and daughters. Still others either do not address the question or assert that the question of who the brothers and sisters were cannot be answered with any degree of certainty.
As one looks at the various commentaries, it becomes clear that arguments in favor of Mary having other children and arguments against Mary having other children are equally weak. They are all conjectures based on assumptions. As Ellicott stated in his commentary, “The facts in the Gospel records are scanty.” There just is not sufficient contextual evidence from Scripture to solidly support either position.
Regarding your comment about the Trinity, take a look at the commentaries on Matthew 28:19, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” The context is clear in this passage, and the commentaries are very much in agreement.
https://www.studylight.org/commentary/matthew/28-19.html
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.