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.
I see
I have noticed that the more you talk, the less you actually say.
Yet another man made tradition not found in the bible.
There is nothing wrong with Lent. It's part of the church year. Sheesh.
There would be a problem if you are mandating behavior or treating Lent as a means of grace, but there is nothing wrong with observing Lent.
The church is allowed to create traditions and celebrations and observances. The problem comes when these traditions are given equal weight (or more) to scripture.
The knee jerk rejection of Lent is just as bad as all of the other instant rejections of anything perceived as Catholic.
ping
18 continued: The Holy Spirit could not leave such wonderful and inconceivable dependence of God unmentioned in the Gospel, though he concealed almost all the wonderful things that Wisdom Incarnate did during his hidden life in order to bring home to us its infinite value and glory. Jesus gave more glory to God his Father by submitting to his Mother for thirty years than he would have given him had he converted the whole world by working the greatest miracles. How highly then do we glorify God when to please him we submit ourselves to Mary, taking Jesus as our sole model.
19. If we examine closely the remainder of the life of Jesus Christ, we see that he chose to begin his miracles through Mary. It was by her word that he sanctified Saint John the Baptist in the womb of his mother, Saint Elizabeth; no sooner had Mary spoken than John was sanctified. This was his first and greatest miracle of grace. At the wedding in Cana he changed water into wine at her humble prayer, and this was his first miracle in the order of nature. He began and continued his miracles through Mary and he will continue them through her until the end of time.
Ah, apparently it was the tag line under question. Mine must have just slid under the wire. I guess y'all don't have a problem with "Fiat Lux"? I thought not, or I wouldn't have used it. There are some English words that I had to look up the first time /i heard them. Example:
"I have less problem with verga's tag line than I do with his intransigence in the FR Religious Forum."
Got that? How about syzygy? Or googolplex (the longest tag line written in one word)? Could I get away with "Honi soit qui mal y pense" as a tagline without an interpretation? or maybe Luther's "Eine feste burg ist unser Gott"? Hmm? How about demonstrating what the pigeons think of Rodin's "Le Penseur", especially if a forked limb with a roll of Charmin on it was stuck in the lawn beside it?
Says who? You really need to be careful adding to scripture and using human reasoning to understand the mysteries of God.
No, I do not accept the human rationalization that Mary's virginal status was changed because of birth. As a confessional Lutheran, I reject that idea.
Solid Declaration of the Book of Concord VIII: The Person of Christ: 24. On account of this personal union and communion of the natures, Mary, the most blessed Virgin, bore not a mere man, but, as the angel [Gabriel] testifies, such a man as is truly the Son of the most high God, who showed His divine majesty even in His mother's womb, inasmuch as He was born of a virgin, with her virginity inviolate. Therefore she is truly the mother of God, and nevertheless remained a virgin.
This declaration does not deal with Mary's perpetual virginity, but it does confess that she remained a virgin after the birth.
That’s Alice, not Elsie!
Where's that in the ordinances of the Bible? especially the colored egg hunt part? (Yummmm!)
Now yer gettin' with it!
Wal, you prob'ly underwrite paedobaptism, catholicity, reformism, etc. Born into a Methodist ministers family andraised under those beliefs, I understand what it means to reject them and stick with Newtestamentism as the original and final faith-based answer to rejecting the speculative and conjectural foundations of denominationalism, the Church above The Christ, rather than the Christ above the church(es).
Hop in, the water's fine, when one yields to Jesus alone as the Master of one's soul.
Stop with the reflex anti-catholic rejection. Traditions are fine, but they are not doctrine and they don't need to be universal.
There is nothing wrong with having a church year. The church year is used for good order within the church.
There is nothing wrong with not having a church year. Rites and ceremonies can be created or dropped as each church sees fit.
Every church has traditions. Do you meet on Saturday or Sunday? What time? Same every week? That's a tradition. Where's that in the Bible?
Not every detail of the life of the church is contained in the Bible. Doctrine is defined and does not change. All traditions are not defined and may change over time.
The Augsburg Confession, Article VII: Of the Church.
1] Also they teach that one holy Church is to continue forever. The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered.
2] And to the true unity of the Church it is enough to agree concerning the doctrine of the Gospel and 3] the administration of the Sacraments. Nor is it necessary that human traditions, that is, rites or ceremonies, instituted by men, should be everywhere alike.
4] As Paul says: One faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all, etc. Eph. 4:5-6.
I accepts the Bible as the infallible word of God. I accept the Book of Concord as an accurate exposition on those truths. The Bible is capitol T "Truth". The Book of Concord is lower-case t "truth".
The church is best symbolized as a boat. Inside the boat, when Christs speaks, the water is calm. When Christ is silent, the waters rage. If you go outside the boat, you will falter like Peter. Get back in the boat and you are safe.
The greatest boat in the Bible is Noah's ark. This boat took years to build.
I am currently in the Lutheran boat as part of the LCMS. It sounds like you are saying get out of the Lutheran boat and make my own. As a self proclaimed thinker, I can read the New Testament and create all kinds of wonderful and fanciful ideas. These may please my mind, but they are mostly delusions. I am not a proponent of "Your own personal interpretation of scripture."
I have decided to be part of a synod, a group of people who walk together in faith. I have never found a disagreement with the Lutheran confessions and the Bible. I have seen numerous errors in other denominations. Rejecting all denominations because of the errors of some is foolish.
Ephesians 2: 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord
As part of a Lutheran church, in the LCMS synod, we are building together. I have no interest in going on my own. Lashing my own raft together and creating my own lean-to.
Hop in, the water's fine, when one yields to Jesus alone as the Master of one's soul.
I hope you can see why that's the worst imagery every. The water is not fine (ask Peter). Get back in the boat, but make sure it is a boat where Jesus speaks.
Oh, come on! It is the idea of rejecting the consequences ofbearing a child and the accompanying ripping of the flesh that makes your position a rather piquing idiotic rationalization, not the plain sense, common sense position of the straight-forward interpreter of Scripture takes. This declaration does not deal with Mary's perpetual virginity, but it does confess that she remained a virgin after the birth.
Yep. Typical perpetual German bullheadism. I know. My great-great-great grossvater's name was Henry Smith (probably Heirich Schmidt, Anglicized) and his wifes name was Sarah Emerich. Good Pennsylvania Deutschers (pre-Amisch), their progeny moved to Revolutionary veteran's tracts, and pioneers of Western New York State, a hard, rocky, mountainous land that took bullheaded Germans to tame it.
Lutheranism = reformed Romanism to cure what they protested against. Never quite shedding the basic wrongs of catholicity arising from the state-subservient religion forms. IMHO. You don't have to continue with this diluted form of a passion for the Passion of Christ, do you? Don't yield yourself to the Martin Luther image as presented by his disciples; yield your heart to Jesus, and Him alone.
Catholicism can't save you; Lutheranism can't save you, Methodism can't save you; neither can they bring you to perfection in Christ. Only God can save you, through Jesus' Blood applied to the Mercyseat in faith; with spiritual maturity attending the digestion of His Word:
=========
All Your Anxiety
Is there a heart oerbound by sorrow?
Is there a life weighed down by care?
Come to the cross, each burden bearing;
All your anxietyleave it there.
No other friend so swift to help you,
No other friend so quick to hear,
No other place to leave your burden,
No other one to hear your prayer.
Come then at once; delay no longer!
Heed His entreaty kind and sweet,
You need not fear a disappointment;
You shall find peace at the mercy seat.
Refrain:
All your anxiety, all your care,
Bring to the mercy seat, leave it there,
Never a burden He cannot bear,
Never a friend like Jesus!
-- Edward Joy (1920)
. . Public Domain
(Matthew 11:28; 1 Peter 5:11)
==========
And, No One Understands Like Jesus, by John W. Peterson, still under copyright
Oh, come on! It is the idea of rejecting the consequences ofbearing a child and the accompanying ripping of the flesh that makes your position a rather piquing idiotic rationalization, not the plain sense, common sense position of the straight-forward interpreter of Scripture takes.
Straight-forward interpretation of scripture? What? Extrapolation is not interpretation. Where scripture is silent, you extrapolate with human reasoning. Folly.
Confessional Lutherans believe, teach, and confess based on Biblical Truths. In this case it is about The Person of Christ.
Don't yield yourself to the Martin Luther image as presented by his disciples; yield your heart to Jesus, and Him alone.
We do not worship or give Martin Luther our heart. He had many things right and he had some things wrong. As confessional Lutherans, we hold to the Book of Concord, which was not written exclusively by Martin Luther.
Lutheranism can't save you
Of course not. We are saved by grace, through faith, for works.
Thanks for the discussion, but we are talking past one another.
You're speaking above your level in attributing my non-acceptance as a reflex, rather than as counsel from many years of experience with the dents left in humans by unscriptural doctrines, some of which, by the way, are patterns your ruminations are following.
Traditions are fine . . .
Jesus spoke directly to that matter, didn't he?
Rites and ceremonies can be created or dropped as each church sees fit.
Oh? Are you relying on Colossians 2:16 for this opinion? If so, bear down on the remainder of that chapter, my FRiend.
Do you meet on Saturday or Sunday? What time? Same every week? That's a tradition. Where's that in the Bible?
1 Corinthians 16:2 and Acts 20:7, in remembrance always of Resurrection Day, for openers. Were your holydays and seasons commanded by Jesus in the rubric of the Great Commission?
I don't think that the regular gathering of the assembly for breaking of bread and public indoctrination is tradition. I'm speaking of non-essential calendar-marking, or lectionary-driven preaching that ought not to prevail over a Christian congregation's body life.
But you didn't answer the issue of where these things are commanded or by default at least not forbidden under the New Covenant.
--------
Actually, I think this line of inquiry is picking at things yhat are not germane to the topic of Mary's-perpetual-virginification of the denominational churches that this article addresses.
Catholicism has formulated a complete anathema to the communion Jesus instituted the night before His sac4rifice for us, imbuing the catholiciism priesthood with powers to continuously sacrifice Jesus and feed Him in 'real presence' body, blood, SOUL and Divinity into the gastronomic tracts of sincere catholics, to get god-life into them. This is blasphemous. That so many cannot see it as blasphemous and seek to twist the clear meaning of Scriptures in order to support the blasphemy ought to alarm Christians.
That such blasphemies and heretical teachings such as on the veneration of Mary do not offend Christians is a symptom of ignorance among the true ekklesia. It is not a fault to be laid at the feet of true believers, it is merely a sign of the end times ... spiritual darkness is growing more and more pervasive.
Personally, I do not believe Jesus entered the world via the birth canal. This is my own speculation and as such is a mental gymnastic of my own reasoning. It does not go beyond that though and deny the strong hints in Scripture (The Word of God to us) that Mary fulfilled her marriage vows with Joseph after Jesus's birth. Catholiciism does go far beyond such mental gymnastics, fashioning a form of Nimrod and Samiramis cultic fantasy upon the life of Mary and the ministry of Jesus, imbuing the Mother of Jesus with status as 'mother of god, and lending to her powers of a goddess! If a Christian will not oppose such blasphemies when seen for what they are, it hints of serious immaturity in that new born-from-above.
There is a reason that God tells us through Paul to foresake not the gathering together of yourselves. But when that gathering falls into a man-made institutionalization and tracks off into fantasies which empower the men rather than The Gospel of Grace, well, we see what catholiciism has wrought!
Traditions are not forbidden by scripture. 1 Cor. 14:40 But all things should be done decently and in order.
Traditions which nullify scripture are clearly condemned. Traditions with support scripture are not.
Augsburg Confession: Article XXVIII: Of Ecclesiastical Power, 54 "it is lawful for bishops or pastors to make ordinances that things be done orderly in the Church, not that thereby we should merit grace or make satisfaction for sins, or that consciences be bound to judge them necessary services, and to think that it is a sin to break them."
If you disagree, you'll have to show me where in scripture.
There is also immaturity in rejecting everything just to be contrarian.
Mary as the Mother of God? True. The term theotokos is better translated as the God-bearer. This is properly understood as a statement about Jesus, rather than an honorific for Mary. Just as "Trinity" does not appear in the Bible, neither does "Mother of God". That does not make the term "Mother of God" wrong. This term acknowledges that Jesus was true God from conception. I myself still bristle as the term "Mother of God" and prefer the original theotokos or the better translation of "God-bearer".
Mary as a perpetual virgin? Debatable. Scripture is not clear and there has never been any consensus.
Mary as sinless? False. This is clearly against scripture. Romans 3:23
Mary as greater than the apostles and prophets? False. This is clearly against scripture. Ephesians 2:20
The assumption of Mary is just an assumption, so I wouldn't worry about it.
You wouldn’t worry about it? It is one of the most important bricks in the fantasy of maridolatry and you wouldn’t worry about it? ... the immortal souls of all those duped catholics means so little to you yet you count yourself a Christian?
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.