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.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Seems like the whole intertoobs hates Fr. Longenecker this month The Remnant went after him earlier this month.
You're a regular hoot, this made my day, thanks!
From your profile page: “This is the CATHOLIC faith. Everyone must believe it, firmly and steadfastly; otherwise He cannot be saved.” We see where you’re coming from, dewd.
And I don’t care.
Actually my comment as to being apostate was as regards him being a former evangelical, as he claims, and some other RCs trumpet such as catches and who suddenly become good intellectuals because they succumbed to Catholic deception.
It is actually sad and pitiful to see him having to defend the unScriptural neoplatonic fantasy of transubstantiation, and I am confident many RCs would dispute his RC explanation of transubstantiation. Meanwhile traditional type RCs, while correct in moral doctrine, insist that their interpretation of their church is correct, based upon their judgment of historical documents, over that of leadership, yet which church they trumpet as providing leadership to follow, disparaging ascertaining the veracity of truth claims by Scripture. Yet as they must dissent from leadership, they are called Protestants by some V2 RCs, and are a minority in a church which makes them brethren with Ted Kennedy-type RCs, and as leadership goes South then they must live in dissent, but cannot leave.
That is, unless they want to be in SSPV-type schism, who actually argue that RCs are to obey most every public papal teaching such as Pius X taught them to do. And thus to be consistent they simply deny that modern pope are real popes. The chair has been empty before in history for years, so they make it to be so for decades now.
And they want us conservative evangelicals to join them, versus trying to obey 2 Cor. 6:14-18 . Which is not a "hoot" but Hell.
Well, if you want to assert that you actually fit the definition in the negative aspect which Longenecker describes from the link that you invoke, then so you are:
Where the religion calls for charity we see hatred. Where the religion calls for an open and enquiring attitude we see intellectual shut down. Where the religion calls for humor and humility we see sour self righteousness. Where the religion calls for faith and risk we see a fortress mentality and retreat to the comfort zone. Where the religion calls for reaching out and welcome of the stranger we see suspicion, exclusion and fear. Where the religion calls for forgiveness and a non judgmental attitude we see shunning and condemnation. Where the religion calls for freedom and joy we see legalism and misery. - http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/what-is-fundamentalism
Yes I got that, I was pointing out that the "radical right" holds him in disdain whether they're Catholic or Evangelical.
I bought three of his books a couple weeks ago when he led a Lenten retreat at the cathedral...
The Romance of Religion: Fighting for Goodness, Truth, and Beauty
More Christianity: Finding the Fullness of the Faith
Of course I'm still reading God or Nothing by Cardinal Sarah.
It's ironic that your Scripture reference in "Two Corinthians" is regularly used by the hardcore to dismiss everyone outside the visible boundaries of the Church as doomed to Hell. I don't know anymore, it's in God's hands after all.
Praised be Jesus Christ, Now and FOREVER!
That the bread and wine are somehow really the body and blood of Christ is an ancient Christian belief
This is my basic contention, that it is an ancient Christian belief. That somehow, the Holy Spirit transforms the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. Transubstantiation is a futile attempt by humans to understand what we can only partially know.
No, as is often the case around here, you have the wrong end of the stick.
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.
Peter would disagree with you:
18 For Christ also suffered[b] once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, 19 in which[c] he went and proclaimed[d] to the spirits in prison, 20 because[e] they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. 21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.
Do you believe the body Jesus occupies now has its life in the blood?
Did you miss this part?
Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
NOT water baptism.
Lest we forget, the spiritual things are discerned by the spirit, not the carnal mind. The carnal mind puts the power for forgiveness in the hands of priests and such, whereas The Spirit is the one Who cleanses us by the blood of Christ which was sacrificed for us. Wetting babies cannot in any way enjoin their spirit for they are not yet aware. But those watching the priest do his thing get a carnal kick out of it.
Peter did not disagree with me in the least.
Did you miss this part?
Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
NOT water baptism.
Absolutely “water” baptism (a redundant phrase). There is no other baptism: “There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— 5 one Lord, one faith, ONE BAPTISM, 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.”
Peter is simply making clear that there’s nothing magical about the water. The water doesn’t save you because it washes dirt off of you. Baptism saves you through the death and resurrection of Jesus. If he wasn’t talking about “water” baptism, why would he need to clarify anything about washing dirt off?
Or as requiring one to be outside the the visible boundaries of the church, while Scripture does teach disfellowshipping those who willfully impenitently practice sins such as 1 Co. 5:11 speaks of, while there is far more things, many of which are like the side bar in news sites, which we should not gaze at.
Praised be Jesus Christ, Now and FOREVER!
To that all should concur. It is such things as Mary basically being made a demigoddess that much parallels Christ that is a problem.
The devil is too much in the "somehow" details.
Noah and his family were saved out of the water, not in it. The water did not save them. It was God Who saved them, by interposing the vehicle, which by faith in Christ Noah built according to Jehovah’s instruction. Those who did not trust in God died by drowning in the water.
OK, so then we get to the thief on the cross and the fact that he was not baptized, but simply believed. That was enough for Jesus.
Then the Catholics introduce the *baptism of desire*, a second baptism, into the mix, and not one that is ever even alluded to in Scripture, but is one of their own making.
Scripture addresses several baptisms. One is the baptism of John, there is the baptism of the Holy Spirit, the baptism of fire, and a baptism of water.
If there is indeed only ONE baptism, and it is water baptism, then is completely nullifies the baptism of desire they teach.
I believe that God is the source of all life, with Jesus seated at the right hand of the Father in His glorified body, and with the Holy Spirit, three persons in one God.
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.