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.
Using your logic does the Bible ever specifically call Mary, the "Mother of God"?
If that's as far as the text goes with identifying Mary, that's as far as we all should go. She is the mother of Jesus.
The Bible does not accord her anything beyond that.
Using your logic does the Bible ever specifically call Mary, the “Mother of God”?
This doesn’t require logic. The words “mother of God” are not in Scripture.
Hence, the "title" should not be used in accord with Mary.
"Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them
which by nature are no gods. But now, after that ye have
known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to
the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to
be in bondage? Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.
I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain"
(Gal 4:8-11 AV;).
(I am not very keen on these watered-down, dynamic-equivalency modern versions
based on the eclectic text. I would thinkthat the last sentenve has need of a hortatory
exclamation point, eh?)
I understand your point.
Ah, I wouldn't go so far as to claim this.
I think it is perfectly clear that in the area of Galatia, as in other areas, Judaizing quasi-christfollowers were going out to try to get local assemblies to reincorporate circumcisions, Seders, hand-washing, and other little rituals back into practice thus clinging to the Jewish culture whilst claiming the New Covenant--sort of like "Messianic" congregations are attempting today. I believe that kind of "gospel" was really what Paul was condemning.
I will certainly agree that, on the other hand, the Gentile wannabe "evangelists" were influencing their rude adherents to also just "Christianize" their pagan feasts. And that slant would also be an illegitimate non-gospel approach to obtaining willing "converts."
This gets followers of a religion to focus on demonstrating to themselves and others that it is the religious observances that one does rather than placing the emphasis on what you are that identifies a "Christian."
But in the case of His first public appearance at Cana, was this so? No. In fact, His attitude toward any assistance was, "Woman, what have I to do with thee?" (Jn. 2:4b). Did He ask for her assistance at any time? I think not, though women related to the other disciples did accompany, and one would submit that they helped comfort and make meals and administer other assisting graces, while staying out of the limelight.
Never did He (as you and I might) say, "Hey, folks! I want you to meet My Mom! Stand up, Mom!" To which the crowd would applaud and say, "Amen!" Hmm?
For humans to insert her in any way outside of the initial role that God gave her, is to be very presumptuous, and treading upon His prerogatives as to the degree she is to be recognized in promoting The Faith.
Nobody is saved or sanctified by praying to her as an agent of grace, or as a gatekeeper of blessings experienced by the true believers.
By all means, to dwell on such an irrelevant and physically impossible matter as a "perpetual virginity" attribute is simply worthy of ridicule. Would she want it? If it actually existed, it would have been marked in Scripture. Such a state does not exist. And even if it did, it would not be important.
Perhaps the reason catholiciism elevates the Mother of Jesus to perpetual virginity is because Jesus remained ever virginal. In the cult of catholiciism there seems to be a sequestration tendency. Since I believe the author of the religion called Catholicism is none other than the same author of Ishtar cult, I am not surprised anymore by anything their apologists post.
Jesus had a job to do and His plan did not include subjecting a wife and children to His crucifixion.
Ah, that's an original insight and a thought-provoking observation. Thanks!
Or His Mom. If the forgiveness of sins requires blood, how if she is co-redemptrix could she forgive sins without paying the redemption price in her blood?
Well, they were all there, physically at the last supper , sitting around a physical table...there was bread and wine there...and JESUS PROCLAIMED ...TAKE AND EAT OF THIS....THIS IS MY BODY.... what the heck more do you want Him to do?????...you were Catholic educated and are trying your very best to justify your very questionable decision to leave Christ's church....you cannot POSSIBLY deny the truth.....can't be dome.
Well, yes they WERE all there physically in that room with the pre-crucified, pre-resurrected, pre-glorified Jesus Christ. That's why when he held up the bread and broke it he said it represented (because they saw he was holding real bread and not a hunk of his flesh) his body which WOULD BE broken for them the very next day. The same with the cup of wine representing his precious blood WHICH WOULD BE shed for them and all the world as payment for sin that very next day.
They understood perfectly what he was teaching them and is why this same reenactment is done in Christian churches throughout the world as a REMEMBRANCE of Him - as he said it should be. Nobody even thought about philosophical arguments concerning substance and accidents and transubstance until many centuries later. If it was good enough for the Apostles back then, it should be good enough for us today. Why deny that???
The only difference I can see; is that you've capitalized different letters than I have.
Me: Mary, Mother of GOD
You: Mary, mother of God
Does Hail vs Holy REALLY mean that much difference to a phrase?
NEITHER of them are found in the bible!
Does Rome do this intentionally?
More ADDITIONS to Scripture??
;^)
Probably some of them.
More accurately: the commonalities.
The congregation I attend had been a Pilgrim Holiness church prior to the two coming back together again.
Many of the local PH churches remained PH churches. Some did not.
It was already Wesleyan when I darkened their doors in '81.
you received the number of perfection...
This link explains fairly well, without much sectarian bias.
http://www.rayfowler.org/writings/articles/determining-the-dates-for-easter-and-passover/
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.