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.
"Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him" (Mk. 6:3 AV)
Two witnesses, both agreed. Same in DRB.
You’re jumping up and down insisting that I disprove a negative.
Not playing.
Prove that Mary the Mother of Christ had other children.
For instance: if she did have other children, perhaps you could begin by listing their names?
And if she did have other children, why did Christ declare from the cross that St John would be her son? What was the point?
It’s kind of endearing that you believe that the New Testament was written in modern English.
Why would one be betrothed and also have a vow of perpetual virginity? That doesn’t make sense.
Pretty clear to all who read the Word without “tradition” clouding their judgment.
“Not really. At this point none of His brothers and sisters were believers”
None, really?
And them not believing in Him would mean they would abandon their own widowed mother, requiring a non-family member to take care of her?
Where is this found in scripture?
Love,
O2
The family -His Mother and siblings- came to try and stop Him from openly preaching the things He was teaching, that were being twisted by the devout Pharisees and Sadducees, alarming the Roman occupiers. When the Romans turned Jesus over to the Sanhedrin to be tried as a criminal, this would taint the family and this in turn would cause the siblings to do much as Peter did, deny The Lord as their brother. Mary the Mother of Jesus came to the execution but it is not likely that her other children would risk that in that time, given the rustling of tensions between Rome and the Jews in Palestine.
By assigning John to be the son of Mary and Mary to live in his home thereafter was a sort of rebuke to the unbelieving siblings. It was only later that the brothers of Jesus believed and were born from above. James even presided over the first great Ekklesia council as portrayed in Acts 15.
Jesus did indeed have siblings. It’s clear unless you’re grasping at straws trying to cling to a religious cult.
see his post 67
The Greek only further reinforces the understanding Joseph and Mary had children.
Perhaps if the Msgr knew more of the Greek he'd come to this understanding.
Perhaps if roman catholics would ditch learning Latin in their seminaries and focused on the Greek a lot of these questions would be resolved.
"Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him" (Mk. 6:3 AV)
Same as in DRB. Your rationalization of these passages didn't come from your own thoughts. It came from someone else's, didn't it, eh? This wild conjecture had to be manufactured, because the Holy Scripture from God proves that the false extra-biblical teaching of perpetual virginity crumbles under its own weight when faced with eyewitnesses who say otherwise.
No sense at all. Joseph would have been one frustrated guy, right Elsie?
Like Mary, are you awake?
That's just another misreading of adelphos, adelphe and/or adelphoi
These terms appear throughout scripture and are usually used in the sense of kinsman or relative.
Lot, for example, is called Abraham’s 'brother' (Genesis 14:14), even though he's the son of Haran, Abraham’s brother. He was actually Abraham’s nephew.
The term "brother" (Greek: adelphos) has a wide meaning in the Bible. It's not restricted to the literal meaning of a full brother or half-brother. The same goes for "sister" (adelphe) and the plural form "brothers" (adelphoi).
The Old Testament shows that "brother" had a wide semantic range of meaning and could refer to
* any male relative from whom you are not descended
* kinsmen such as cousins
* those who are members of the family by marriage or by law rather than by blood
* friends or mere political allies - for instance:
2 Samuel. 1:26
How I weep for you, my brother Jonathan! Oh, how much I loved you!
and in Amos 1:9
The people of Tyre have sinned again and again, and I will not let them go unpunished! They broke their treaty of brotherhood with Israel, selling whole villages as slaves to Edom.
Many marriages in those days were arranged when the participants were very young...would they necessarily be called off should one or the other wish to devote themselves to God? A single woman would have difficulty supporting herself, a older man would need a helpmate. Not every marriage in those days resulted in children for a variety of reasons. Not to mention the fact that men were allowed multiple wives.
Celibacy was also embraced by the Jews, either temporarily or permanently, as an adjunct to devotion to God. “And Moses came down from the mount to the people, and sanctified them. And when they had washed their garments, [15] He said to them: Be ready against the third day, and come not near your wives.”
Paul says: Now concerning the thing whereof you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. [2] But for fear of fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
Of course we don’t know the details of the marriage arranged between Mary and Joseph, except that they did abstain at least until after Jesus was born, but I do believe an agreed celibate marriage is a reasonable possibility.
Love,
O2
You’ve got freepmail ...
And of His sisters, what fantasy dismissal do you peddle for them?
And throughout scripture these words are also used for relationships which have nothing to do with literal brotherhood.
You've allowed yourself to be blinded by 'context', otherwise known as 'your own agenda'.
Now who is making stuff up?
Mary and His siblings tried to stop Him from preaching?
His siblings denied Him?
Jesus rebuked His siblings from the cross?
His siblings were saved later?
Really?
Love,
O2
Not found in Scripture.
She carried the Second Person of the Holy Trinity for nine months.
She carried God with us for nine months.
She was not the source of the Second person of the Trinity. He always existed.
Her soul and her body were - and remain - holy and united to God in an intimate way.
Christ dwells in the heart of every believer in a far more intimate way than simple physical contact does. The body of the believer is the Temple of the Holy Spirit. That's far more intimate than just carrying a child.
In the Old Testament the Ark of the Covenant was so holy that men were struck down for simply touching it.
Then why didn't people drop dead when Jesus touched them or they touched Jesus?
Understand that Mary brought Christ to mankind. She was set aside by God almighty.
Nope, bringing Jesus to mankind was GOD's work not Mary's.
She was a Jewish virgin of the correct lineage to fulfill prophecy.
Since God is no respecter of persons, He did not choose her for any redeeming virtue she had.
People (and things) that are devoted to holy purposes are not suitable for natural purposes.
Sure they are. All believers, the born again, saved by Christ, are holy, set apart for God. Does that mean that none of them can have sex?
The sacrament of marriage is good and so is the procreation of children. Yet Mary’s condition and office as the Mother of the Son of God set her apart so that she and Joseph would not and did not enjoy the natural good of conjugal relations.
Unadulterated, not supported by Scripture in the least, nonsense. A complete fabrication of man's imagination.
She was set aside for God. Joseph understood that. Other Christians have understood that for two millennia.
No, Joseph did not understand that. God had to tell him to not be afraid to take Mary as his WIFE.
That includes sex.
Why do Catholics think so low of sex that it's wrong for Mary to have had it with Joseph?
Believing that 'Mary and Joseph must have had sex' - with no evidence! - simply reveals a colossal lack of understanding of what the Incarnation is.
With plenty of Scriptural substantiation. The Incarnation has nothing to do with whether Mary and Joseph had sex after Jesus was born. And Mary and Joseph having sex after Jesus was born has nothing to do with the Incarnation. The Incarnation does not hang on Mary's perpetual virginity.
Roll on to Glory, Bro!
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.