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.
Yeah...
Sure...
The Walking Dead...
Polycarp was known as the oppose of heretics.
Valentinus came to Rome in the time of Hyginus, flourished under Pius, and remained until Anicetus. Cerdon, too…Marcion, then, succeeding him, flourished under Anicetus. But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna…always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time -- a man who was of much greater weight, and a more stedfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles... John, the disciple of the Lord…exclaiming, "Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within." And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, "Dost thou know me?" "I do know thee, the first-born of Satan" (Irenaeus. Adversus Haeres. Book III, Chapter 4, Verse 3 and Chapter 3, Verse 4).
Valentinus, Cerinthus, and Marcion are considered by Catholics and others to have been Gnostic heretics, while Hyginus, Pius, and Anicetus were claimed bishops of Rome.
These quotes show that the supposed Roman bishops did not have a higher leadership role than Polycarp of Smyrna had. It took the stature of the visiting Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, to turn Romans away from the Gnostic heretics who flourished under wishy washy leadership from the named bishops pf Rome.
Kind of like an ex-male....or an ex-caucasian???...
You cannot undo what's done....you cannot unring the bell.
Kind of like an ex-male....or an ex-caucasian???...
You cannot undo what's done....you cannot unring the bell.
LOL, watch me bro. You will find that bell in the Marianas trench.
Since you will not tell me how you will bluff your way into Heaven, I will assume...well, never mind what I assume. Just don't blame any true Christians for whatever happens.
I hope you don't find yourself sitting next to Charon, crossing the Styx, to Hades, but if you do, that's on you bro. You have been warned.
Now if you will excuse me, since I have assurance of salvation, I feel like committing the sin of presumption. I don't like other sins, but presumption is one sin I love to commit. Sheesh. 😆😀😃
Getting a baby wet does NOT leave any kind of mark on their soul.
The Catholic church does not own my soul and any alleged marks that Catholics claim were there, have been washed off with the blood of Jesus who washed away my sin and took me out of bondage into glorious freedom in Christ.
I belong to HIM, being sealed until the day of redemption with the promised Holy Spirit who is the guarantee of my inheritance.
You are correct...it does, however remove original sin from the soul and initiate you into the church which Christ, Himself Personally founded..the Catholic church....No-one in the world has ever been validly baptized that didn't become a member of Christ's church....impossible.
Yeah...Muslims think like that, too.
It does nothing of the sort.
It simply gets the child wet.
The only thing that removes sin is the blood of Jesus. Without the shedding of blood there is NO forgiveness of sins, which is why baptism does not and cannot work. It’s the wrong mechanism for removal of sin.
As promised, here is my response.
In post 844, you wrote: “There you go again; unable (or unwilling) to put a year on it!”
Go with unable. I had limited access to the internet and could only give a brief response, limited to providing links.
In post 831, you asked, “What year?” As with any of the early writings, including Holy Scripture, exact years cannot be given. The Gospels are said to have been written sometime after 70 AD, with John sometime between 90-100 AD. The Didache is thought to have been written late in the first century; Ignatius letters 80-110 AD, Justin in the mid second century.
The link from wikipedia provides a summary, as follows:
Early Christian sources [edit]
The Didache (Greek: teaching) is an early Church treatise that includes instructions for Baptism and the Eucharist. Most scholars date it to the late 1st century,[31] and distinguish in it two separate Eucharistic traditions, the earlier tradition in chapter 10 and the later one preceding it in chapter 9.[32][note 2] The Eucharist is mentioned again in chapter 14.[note 3]
Ignatius of Antioch (born c. 35 or 50, died between 98 and 117), one of the Apostolic Fathers,[note 4] mentions the Eucharist as “the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ”,[note 5] and Justin Martyr speaks of it as more than a meal: “the food over which the prayer of thanksgiving, the word received from Christ, has been said ... is the flesh and blood of this Jesus who became flesh ... and the deacons carry some to those who are absent.”[33]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharist
Details can be found in the other link:
THE DIDACHE
The Didache or “The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles” is a manuscript which was used by 2nd century bishops and priests for the instruction of catechumens. Many early Christian writers have referenced it making this document relatively easy to date.
“Let no one eat and drink of your Eucharist but those baptized in the name of the Lord; to this, too the saying of the Lord is applicable: ‘Do not give to dogs what is sacred’”.
-Ch. 9:5
“On the Lord’s own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks; but first confess your sins, so that your sacrifice may be pure. However, no one quarreling with his brother may join your meeting until they are reconciled; your sacrifice must not be defiled. For here we have the saying of the Lord: ‘In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice; for I am a mighty King, says the Lord; and my name spreads terror among the nations.’”
-Ch 14
ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH (Alt)
St. Ignatius became the third bishop of Antioch, succeeding St. Evodius, who was the immediate successor of St. Peter. He heard St. John preach when he was a boy and knew St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna. Seven of his letters written to various Christian communities have been preserved. Eventually, he received the martyr’s crown as he was thrown to wild beasts in the arena.
“Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.”
“Letter to the Smyrnaeans”, paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.
“Come together in common, one and all without exception in charity, in one faith and in one Jesus Christ, who is of the race of David according to the flesh, the son of man, and the Son of God, so that with undivided mind you may obey the bishop and the priests, and break one Bread which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote against death, enabling us to live forever in Jesus Christ.”
-”Letter to the Ephesians”, paragraph 20, c. 80-110 A.D.
“I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed.”
-”Letter to the Romans”, paragraph 7, circa 80-110 A.D.
“Take care, then who belong to God and to Jesus Christ - they are with the bishop. And those who repent and come to the unity of the Church - they too shall be of God, and will be living according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons.”
-Epistle to the Philadelphians, 3:2-4:1, 110 A.D.
ST. JUSTIN MARTYR (Alt)
St. Justin Martyr was born a pagan but converted to Christianity after studying philosophy. He was a prolific writer and many Church scholars consider him the greatest apologist or defender of the faith from the 2nd century. He was beheaded with six of his companions some time between 163 and 167 A.D.
“This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God’s Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.”
“First Apology”, Ch. 66, inter A.D. 148-155.
“God has therefore announced in advance that all the sacrifices offered in His name, which Jesus Christ offered, that is, in the Eucharist of the Bread and of the Chalice, which are offered by us Christians in every part of the world, are pleasing to Him.”
“Dialogue with Trypho”, Ch. 117, circa 130-160 A.D.
Moreover, as I said before, concerning the sacrifices which you at that time offered, God speaks through Malachias, one of the twelve, as follows: ‘I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord; and I will not accept your sacrifices from your hands; for from the rising of the sun until its setting, my name has been glorified among the gentiles; and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a clean offering: for great is my name among the gentiles, says the Lord; but you profane it.’ It is of the sacrifices offered to Him in every place by us, the gentiles, that is, of the Bread of the Eucharist and likewise of the cup of the Eucharist, that He speaks at that time; and He says that we glorify His name, while you profane it.”
-”Dialogue with Trypho”, [41: 8-10]
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html
Did Polycarp argue against changing the day of the Passover Seder from 14 Nisan to Sunday?
What did the body of believers across Asia Minor celebrate, following Jesus's lead, and Polycarp cite as something not to be changed to coincide with a pagan feast day?
The night before Jesus offered Himself on the Cross, He celebrated the Passover with His disciples. Would He, as a sinless Jew, have offered any blood, actual blood for His disciples to drink, violating the Levitical Law against such?
What did Jesus do to connect the Passover Seder to Him and what He was about to do for us, on that night before He went to the cross?
Would it be Passover Seder if in the service an act which violated the Levitical law from God was performed?
When Polycarp, as an old man, journeyed to Rome, He argued that throughout Asia Minor in the churches established there, the members of the Body of Christ celebrated the Passover on 14 Nisan, not on a Sunday. The Bishop in Rome sought to change the Passover celebration to always in every year on Sunday, which would cause that remembrance to happen only rarely on 14 Nisan. Polycarp opposed this, and as it happened several heresies coming from people who were thriving in Rome, like Marcion.
Polycarp's argument against changing the day to always be on the Sunday rather than 14 Nisan was that up until that time (around 155AD?) all the 'churches' in Asia Minor were celebrating the Passover Seder in remembrance of the Cross of Christ. Serving a cup of blood at the Passover Seder would profane that memorial. Jesus would not have violated the Law on the night before He went to the Cross as the sinless sacrifice for our sins.
You’ve done real good with your research.
Seems sad, though, that Rome failed to include this stuff in the bible when they LATER compiled it.
I don’t know his name; but his face sure rings a bell.
Not a jot or tittle was to pass from the Law “until all [was] accomplished.” Most point to Jesus’ “It is finished” as that point.
The context of how the Law even came to be imposed is significant here. The Hebrews had a chance to agree with Moses that it would be impossible for them to keep; but they insisted that it was not and said they would accept the Law, leading to a long long saga that proved Moses was right about that and that they weren’t.
One could make a case for greater freedom after that point, but there’s an excellent observation here that to bring blood in BEFORE it, would at the very BEST be too early.
No — this was a symbol. The Jewish Passover traditions that date almost as far back as gospel times are emphatic about the symbolic nature of the foods partaken of. Church tradition, desirous of control, claimed too much.
A very strong clue is that we are to be spiritually reconciled (confessing our sin to God for foregiveness) before partaking in the ciommunion. We are built up spiritually by partaking in the Remembrance in humility. By the same token, as Paul emphasized in the Corinthian letter, to partake unworthily is to get the opposite out of the communion Remembrance. That state is guilty of the body and blood of Jesus, as in violating the Levitical admonitions.
Did Polycarp argue against changing the day of the Passover Seder from 14 Nisan to Sunday?
Yes he did. There was disagreement regarding the Passover Seder, but the two bishops did not break off communion with each other, and Anicetus allowed Polycarp to celebrate the Eucharist in his church. Ponder that for a moment. Anicetus would not have allowed Polycarp to celebrate the Eucharist in his church if Polycarp did not agree that the body and blood of Christ were present in the Eucharist.
See:
According to Irenaeus, during the time his fellow Syrian, Anicetus, was the Bishop of Rome, in the 150s or 160, Polycarp visited Rome to discuss the differences that existed between Asia and Rome “with regard to certain things” and especially about the time of the Easter festivals. Irenaeus said that on certain things the two bishops speedily came to an understanding, while as to the time of Easter, each adhered to his own custom, without breaking off communion with the other. Polycarp followed the eastern practice of celebrating the feast on the 14th of Nisan, the day of the Jewish Passover, regardless of what day of the week it fell on. Anicetus followed the western practice of celebrating the feast on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the Spring equinox (March 21). Pope Anicetus—the Roman sources offering it as a mark of special honor—allowed Polycarp to celebrate the Eucharist in his own church.[12]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharist
Certainly we want our attitude to say good things about Jesus’ sacrifice — not bad things.
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.