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.
Well, there's a big part of their problem.
Relying on someone else to do your thinking for you never ends well.
The poster originally answered ‘No he didn’t’ to the sentence I wrote that you quoted, that Jesus left the tomb without rolling away the stone. The poster cannot help his confusion with that coat of magicsteeringthem draped over his eyes.
You accept context in one place but not the other only because it agrees with catholic teaching.
Well, I've offered example after example from the NT that indicates He did indeed have brothers and sisters. It has been supported in the Greek and within context.
If you, and other catholics, want to persist in believing non-Biblical writings regarding Mary as a perpetual virgin, in contradiction of what the NT shows, I cannot help you.
Keep poking the dragon...
You don't like Prots posting Scripture.
You don't like being TOLD; by a Higher Power than yourself; what to do.
Is there ANYTHING that makes you happy?
Nonsense and blasphemy.
Mary did NOT sacrifice Him for us. He wasn't hers to offer. Honestly, the nonsense Catholics believe to deify Mary is appalling.
When I found De Montfort I thought I found the pinnacle of such thinking. I was wrong. There have been many others who believe write the same things.
(Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutley.)
"One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved, in which the priest himself is the sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the species of bread and wine; the bread (changed) into His body by the divine power of transubstantiation, and the wine into the blood, so that to accomplish the mystery of unity we ourselves receive from His (nature) what He Himself received from ours."
--Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV (A.D. 1215)
Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.
--Vatican 1, Ses. 4, Cp. 1
Thanks, I soon discovered that wiki was not satisfactory.
That's because we can READ it in English; NOT Latin!
Poor Verga. Everbody picks on him...
Not much mention of Mary either; but THAT little fact hasn't stopped Rome from ALLOWING all sorts of FANTASIES to spring up about her!
Notice the position of the idol of Semiramis and Tammuz, er, I mean Mary (the larger figure) holding the baby?
Romans 3:25
God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood--to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished--
There you have it folks!
Good morning to all you folks in Tennessee!
Have y’all been soaked the last couple of days?
My place is a vast, muddy plain!
The goats HATE it, but the ducks LOVE it!
How does the catholic Bible present that passage from Romans ... is there wiggle room?
Very wet here, but this morning the Sun is shining brightly ... before the evening T-storms arrive.
HMMMmmm...
Genesis Chapter 10
8 And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth.
9 He was a mighty hunter before the LORD: wherefore it is said, Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the LORD.
10 And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar.
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.