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.
That event to which you allude occurs IN HEAVEN, as the Bema Seat of Christ, in preparation for/to the wedding.
At any rate, it is at the hands of a Friend. We know it is at the hands of a Friend because of this Friend’s complete sacrifice. It would be cathartic, but we’d be extremely surprised at the mercy. There will be a lot of “Glory be to God” going on there.
A church that thinks it has too large a hand in the fate of saved sinners will paint this as a miserable purgatory. God hates that idea.
Again, I take Jesus at His word. He said over and again that we must eat His body and drink His blood to have His life in us. I do not presume to understand how the bread and wine become His body and blood. But He took bread and said it was His body. Likewise, He took the cup and said it was His blood. And He told us to do the same. Paul tells us that anyone who does not discern it as His body eats and drinks unworthily.
I take it literally.
Common sense tells me that Polycarp, who adamantly argued in favor of keeping the 14 Nisan Passover meal, would not have celebrated the Eucharist in Rome if he did not discern the body and blood in the Eucharist.
Clearly we have different perspectives. So go ahead and believe based on your perspective and I will continue to believe based on my perspective.
May the peace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ be with you.
Rich
That sounds like the Jesus Seminar. They never saw a scripture that they didn’t hate.
And I would assert that such reasoning is not common sense, given the FACT that serving blood or human flesh at the Passover meal would profane the very celebration. The profaning of what Jesus established is precisely opposing heresies. Jesus Celebrated The Passover Seder, in all righteousness (not violating any yot or tittle of the laws), and He showed His disciples that in this celebration of the lamb at Passover HE is the Paschal Lamb of God, Whom HE would sacrifice the next day for our sins. He did this ONCE for ALL, Forever, not needing it be repeated countless times on a catholic altar by a priest claiming to have the power to command Jesus to submit continually.
Yet throughout the Gospel of John it was believe, believe, believe, believe. IIRC the word is used close to 70 times in conjunction with what one has to do to be saved.
Peter told the people on Pentecost to repent and be baptized.
Paul wrote extensively about believing as did the other writers of the NT.
What about all of the people Jesus encountered prior to John 6, and even afterwards, when He addressed salvation in terms of belief? He did not mention having to eat and drink His blood as claimed by roman catholicism. Did He change the means of salvation mid-stream and not tell the people He encountered about this??
Which, and for the umpteenth time, would have been a violation of the Law to drink the blood, yet that doesn't seem to matter to catholics. Never in the sacrifices of the Law do you find the blood being consumed nor the flesh eaten by the one making the sacrifice. Why would Jesus now be rewriting the Law?
How does the catholic address these two issues?
Polycarp opposed such profaning changes by the leaders of the Rome Church (not leaders of all Christian congregants, to be sure; the Asia Minor bodies of believers continue to follow the lead of Jesus, continuing the Passover celebration on Nisan 14, never violating The Law which shall not pass away until ...).
So pagan rites and practices got incorporated into the Catholic religion, as it slipped away from Christianity under the persecutions rising in Rome and some of the provinces, often connected to stamping out Judaism and in the process treating Christians as a sect of Judaism. When John penned what Jesus spoke to the Seven churches, the message contained a warning against slipping into paganism as a means to avoid persecution. Rome ignored the message since Jesus did not address them directly, apparently.
I am not quite sure what this means. Was your stte of belief a consequence of being baptized?
Or, if you already had developed a belief in Jesus, were you baptized as simply a person that professed a belief in Jesus, or were you baptized on the basis of having been taught about Jesus, and then professed a readiness to be discipled into spiritual maturity?
So then the women who do "that stuff" aren't holy, eh?
Only people who don't engage in sex are holy and if you engage in sex, you aren't or can't be holy?
That sends the message that sex is sin, wrong, base, carnal, unworthy of holy people, etc.
If that were the case, then it would work all the time every time, therefore anyone who ate and drank would have eternal life, even the mass murderer or serial killer.
There'a a reason God sent Adam and Eve out of the garden and blocked the way to the Tree of Life. So they would not eat and live eternally beyond any chance for redemption, in a state of sin.
Jesus, as the end of His discourse in John 6 says clearly and plainly that the flesh is no help at all, the SPIRIT gives life, and that the words He spoke were spirit and life.
The prohibition of eating blood was never lifted after Pentecost. It's still in effect, even in the church age.
God CANNOT violate His own Law and principles. He cannot violate Himself.
The blood was ALWAYS for the atonement, never for consumption.
We’re talking about the first and second century AD. Did you pick up on that?
Also, Jesus said it was a ceremony of remembrance and Paul said that it was to show the Lord's death. Jesus was not a human sacrifice sent to mankind for us to offer to God for our sins. He wasn't something for us to use in religious ceremonies as an animal would have been.
According to your interpretation of Scripture.
So sex was wrong for people then but not now?
No matter which way you turn, Catholicism denigrates sex and turns it into something less that worthy of a Christian.
They constantly sent the sex is evil message out, sometimes overtly, most of the time subtly.
It is the Spirit that gives life to the flesh.
Why does my body die then?
The Spirit gives SPIRITUAL life.
We were spiritually dead in our sin. Unable to connect with God, without His life in us. When we are born again, the Spirit imparts spiritual life to our spirits so although our bodies are outwardly wasting away, we are being renewed in the inner man.
Sometimes the Spirit gives physical life in the form of a miracle of healing, but if eating actually flesh and blood gave actually physical life to the body, then anyone who are and drank would physically live forever.
Spiritual life connects us to God in our spirit. When the body then dies, the spirit is still alive and goes to be in His presence.
They had some different ideas at the time, yes.
But, what do you call a woman who has a child by another man when the father of her first child is still living?
I think baby-momma is the current designation, isn’t it?
When the Spirit enters your body your flesh comes to life. At the time of your death, the Spirit leaves your body. But if you are born again in the Spirit, your spirit remains alive with God.
Anicetus believed he was partaking in the body and blood of Christ. If Polycarp believed this was profane, how could he possibly remain in communion with Anicetus.
What's sad is that Rome has taken symbolism and claimed; by it's Power and Authority; the symbolism was REALITY.
Isaiah 45:1
"This is what the LORD says to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I take hold of to subdue nations before him and to strip kings of their armor, to open doors before him so that gates will not be shut:
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.