working4christtwo – dummies -The Blessed Virgin Mary IS sinless (the Holy Spirit ALSO teaches that). And “ALL” have indeed sinned and fall short of the glory of God, as Scripture says.


Thread Tools
Search Thread Display
  #16

Jan 16, ’15, 8:56 am

ready

Forum Elder

Prayer Warrior
Book Club Member

Join Date: November 23, 2008

Posts: 20,077

Religion: Roman Catholic

Re: Was Mary a sinner or not?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peace2u2

If you could have created your mother – would you have created her perfect?

I hope people understand this good point made by several Saints.

God created Mary sinless because He did not want Satan to have the least dominionship over her. Nobody but God has ever been over and above Mary, as she was created to be the Immaculate Mother of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, of God Himself. God bless you.

__________________
Seek ye therefore first the kingdom of God, and his justice, and all these things shall be added unto you. (Mt. 6:33)

  #17

Jan 17, ’15, 11:46 am

PJM

Veteran Member

Join Date: August 31, 2008

Posts: 10,453

Religion: Informed, practicing RomanCatholic

Re: Was Mary a sinner or not?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ignatius

Did Jesus sinl?.
Did the i]nnocent children (all 2 years old and younger) slaughtered by Herod sin?
Hass a child who dies at birth sinned?

So, you see, there are some exceptions.

Nicely done, Thanks,

But don’t forget Original Sin which all of the above except Christ inherited.

Patrick

__________________
Irish2: PJM

http://working4christtwo.wordpress.com

A.B. Fulton Sheen: “The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it, and a lie is still a lie, even if everybody believes it.”

  #18

Jan 17, ’15, 12:25 pm

Vico

Senior Member

Join Date: November 27, 2008

Posts: 7,899

Religion: Catholic

Re: Was Mary a sinner or not?

Quote:

Originally Posted by padslvr

If we are to believe that Mary the Mother of God was completely sinless in her lifetime from conception to death, how does that reconcile with Romans 3:23 : “All have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God”. This scripture, if interpreted and understood correctly, is saying that all of humanity, including Mary, has sinned. So why does Catholic Doctrine teach that Mary was sinless? Is there a problem with Greek-to-English translation which obscures or consolidates the actual teaching into fewer words?

PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR PROMOTING CHRISTIAN UNITY59 Roman Catholics are also bound to believe that “the most blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and in view of the merits of Christ Jesus the Saviour of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin” (Dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, defined by Pope Pius IX, 1854).[11]The definition teaches that Mary, like all other human beings, has need of Christ as her Saviour and Redeemer (cf. Lumen Gentium 53; Catechism of the Catholic Church 491).[12] The assertion of Paul at Romans 3:23 – “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” – might appear to allow for no exceptions, not even for Mary. However, it is important to note the rhetorical-apologetic context of the general argument of Romans 1 – 3, which is concerned to show the equal sinfulness of Jews and Gentiles (3:9). Romans 3:23 has a quite specific purpose in context which is unrelated to the issue of the “sinlessness” or otherwise of Mary.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/po…christ_en.html

There is another teaching that is a doctrine proximal to the faith:

  • In consequence of a Special Privilege of Grace from God, Mary was free from every personal sin during her whole life: immune from all sin mortal and venial.

A doctrine proximal to the faith (sententia fidei proxima) is regarded by theologians generally as a truth of Revelation but not finally promulgated as such by the Catholic Church.

The Virgin recognized God as her Saviour. Luke 1:46 And Mary said: My soul doth magnify the Lord.
47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
48 Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
49 Because he that is mighty, hath done great things to me; and holy is his name.
The Marian Chaplet of Ten Virtues has this:Let us pray.
Father, You prepared the virgin Mary to be the worthy mother of Your Son. You let her share beforehand in the salvation Christ would bring by His death, and kept her sinless from the first moment of her conception.

__________________

  #19

Jan 17, ’15, 7:19 pm

epostle

Junior Member

Join Date: January 30, 2007

Posts: 400

Religion: Catholic

Re: Was Mary a sinner or not?

None of the early reformers taught that Mary was a sinner. This demonic lie came about much later, in the 17th or 18th century, and popularized among certain evangelical groups only recently. Clearly, it is a man made belief based on eisegesis of a few verses. You can point out that “all” does not necessarily mean “every single one” in all cases, as done repeatedly, so it boils down to blindness.

  #20

Jan 18, ’15, 10:16 am

PJM

Veteran Member

Join Date: August 31, 2008

Posts: 10,453

Religion: Informed, practicing RomanCatholic

Re: Was Mary a sinner or not?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vico

PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR PROMOTING CHRISTIAN UNITY
59 Roman Catholics are also bound to believe that “the most blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and in view of the merits of Christ Jesus the Saviour of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin” (Dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, defined by Pope Pius IX, 1854).[11] The definition teaches that Mary, like all other human beings, has need of Christ as her Saviour and Redeemer (cf.

Lumen Gentium 53;

Catechism of the Catholic Church 491).[12] The assertion of Paul at Romans 3:23 – “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” – might appear to allow for no exceptions, not even for Mary. However, it is important to note the rhetorical-apologetic context of the general argument of Romans 1 – 3, which is concerned to show the equal sinfulness of Jews and Gentiles (3:9). Romans 3:23 has a quite specific purpose in context which is unrelated to the issue of the “sinlessness” or otherwise of Mary.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/po…christ_en.html

There is another teaching that is a doctrine proximal to the faith:

  • In consequence of a Special Privilege of Grace from God, Mary was free from every personal sin during her whole life: immune from all sin mortal and venial.

A doctrine proximal to the faith (sententia fidei proxima) is regarded by theologians generally as a truth of Revelation but not finally promulgated as such by the Catholic Church.

The Virgin recognized God as her Saviour. Luke 1:46 And Mary said: My soul doth magnify the Lord.
47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
48 Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
49 Because he that is mighty, hath done great things to me; and holy is his name.
The Marian Chaplet of Ten Virtues has this:Let us pray.
Father, You prepared the virgin Mary to be the worthy mother of Your Son. You let her share beforehand in the salvation Christ would bring by His death, and kept her sinless from the first moment of her conception.

Thank you!

You have a couple of really great resources here!

Continued Blessings,

Pat

__________________
Irish2: PJM

http://working4christtwo.wordpress.com

A.B. Fulton Sheen: “The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it, and a lie is still a lie, even if everybody believes it.”

  #21

Jan 18, ’15, 7:14 pm

Tommy555

New Member

Join Date: June 18, 2010

Posts: 90

Religion: Catholic

Re: Was Mary a sinner or not?

Quote:

Originally Posted by padslvr

If we are to believe that Mary the Mother of God was completely sinless in her lifetime from conception to death, how does that reconcile with Romans 3:23 : “All have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God”. This scripture, if interpreted and understood correctly, is saying that all of humanity, including Mary, has sinned. So why does Catholic Doctrine teach that Mary was sinless? Is there a problem with Greek-to-English translation which obscures or consolidates the actual teaching into fewer words?

If you read her magnificat, she refers to “my Savior.” Although she was without sin, it was because of the grace of God. She was human and needed a Savior. Although she was without sin by the grace of God, she was not like Adam and Eve before they sinned. Therefore, Romans 3:23 applied to her also–although she had not sinned. I hope that helps.

  #22

Jan 18, ’15, 7:16 pm

Randy Carson

Forum Elder

Join Date: September 22, 2006

Posts: 15,241

Religion: Protestant Convert to Catholicism

Re: Was Mary a sinner or not?

Quote:

Originally Posted by padslvr

If we are to believe that Mary the Mother of God was completely sinless in her lifetime from conception to death, how does that reconcile with Romans 3:23 : “All have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God”. This scripture, if interpreted and understood correctly, is saying that all of humanity, including Mary, has sinned. So why does Catholic Doctrine teach that Mary was sinless? Is there a problem with Greek-to-English translation which obscures or consolidates the actual teaching into fewer words?

For All Have Sinned
A Refutation of the Attack on the Immaculate Conception of Mary from Romans 3:23
(Based on a talk by Karlo Broussard on Catholic Answers Live on 2/11/08)

Many people reject the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and argue that Mary was not born sinless and that she did not remain sinless all of her life. In support of their position, they often quote a passage from Paul’s Letter to the Romans which declares, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23)

However, does this passage really prove that Mary could not have been without sin? And is this really what Paul intended to teach in this passage? Let’s take a closer look.

The primary question to be asked concerning Romans 3:23 is this: When the Bible uses the word “all”, does it necessarily exclude exceptions? The answer is “no” as several scripture passages suggest.

For example, Matthew 3:5 tells us, “People went out to him from Jerusalem and all Judea and the whole region of the Jordan.” Does this mean that there were no places from which people did not go out to see Jesus? This is not likely. The author attempted to convey an idea that a large number of people went out to see Jesus by using hyperbole.

Similarly, 1 Corinthians 15:22 says, “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.” Does this mean that every single person ever born will die? Well, the Bible tells us that Enoch and Elijah were taken up into heaven without dying, so we know that obviously not all die because these two exceptions exist. From this, we know that the Bible does not necessarily exclude exceptions when it uses the word, “all”.

Returning to Romans 3:23, we should ask further whether Paul intended to exclude exceptions when he used the word, “all”, or is he using it in a non-absolute way? To understand the context of Paul’s thought, we should look at Romans 3:10-12 wherein he quotes Psalm 14:2-3: “As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away; they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.”

Does Paul really believe that there no righteous people? Of course not! The Bible tells us that Joseph was a just man (Mt 1:19), John the Baptist’s parents, Zechariah and Elizabeth, were declared righteous (Luke 1:19), and Psalm 14 goes on to speak of “the company of the righteous” in verse 5 while Psalm 15 references those who walk blamelessly and do what is right. So, if Paul is using the word “all” to mean “absolutely no exceptions”, then he is using the word very differently from the verses he quoted from Psalm 14 and from other passages of scripture.

Finally, it is also reasonable for us to assume that Paul would agree that infants and those who are mentally deficient cannot sin personally—two additional exceptions to the concept of “all” having sinned.

Therefore, when Paul uses the word, “all”, it is obvious that he is not attempting to declare that every single individual who ever lives will be guilty of committing personal sin; rather, he is attempting to communicate with clarity the universality of sin and the idea that both Jews and Gentiles alike are sinners before God. He is not attempting to exclude the possibility of exceptions.

Thus, the word “all” in Romans 3:23 cannot be used to disprove the doctrine of sinlessness of Mary.

__________________
Randy + † +
Tiber Swim Team – Class of ’79

“Since, for all sorts of reasons, there are countless millions of Christians who will not accept anything – even Christ – from the Catholic Church, it is a great thing that He is being brought to them by churches they are willing to listen to.” — Frank Sheed

Currently reading:

  • Theology and Sanity by Frank Sheed
  • Here I Stand by Roland H. Bainton
  • Jesus of Nazareth by Pope Benedict XVI
  #23

Yesterday, 1:25 am

Cathoholic

Regular Member

Forum Supporter

Join Date: June 8, 2005

Posts: 1,304

Religion: Catholic

Re: Was Mary a sinner or not?

padslvr? You still around?

Below is something from our local men’s Catholic Bible study that may be of help to you or other readers.

– – – –

Objection: “ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God!” Yet you Catholics try to take “Mary” as being “sinless”. How un-Biblical! “ALL” have sinned! St. Paul through the Holy Spirit says so.

Answer: The Blessed Virgin Mary IS sinless (the Holy Spirit ALSO teaches that). And “ALL” have indeed sinned and fall short of the glory of God, as Scripture says. But the real issue here is WHAT sense does St. Paul mean by “ALL” in Romans 3:23?

ROMANS 3:23 . . . all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God . . .
As a preface to this study, we will look at Romans 3:23 as it concerns COMMITTED sins.

In THIS study, we’ll only deal with the Romans 3:23 aspect which concerns “sinning” or committing a sin (of “disobedience”) as that’s part of what Romans 3:23 involves (CCC 2809 footnotes Rom. 3:23 ).

CCC 2809c . . . . but by sinning, man fell “short of the glory of God.”
The Greek root word for “all” in Romans 3:23 is “pas” (or paz).

ROMANS 3:23 . . . “pantas” (from pas) have sinned and fall short of the glory of God . . .
The Biblical Greek (“Koine Greek”) word for “all” has different definitions/meanings. It may mean a collective sense, anapproximate sense, or distributive sense.

  • Collective sense of “all” = Every group or every category.
  • Approximate sense of “all” = “Most” or even “many”.
  • Distributive sense of “all” = Every single solitary individual one.

Concerning the commission of sins , the “all” here in Romans 3:23 MUST be being used in a COLLECTIVE sense.

All peoples have sinned—both Gentiles and Jews. That’s the immediate context here, and the larger Biblical context as well in Romans 3:23.

Why? . . . Let’s find out “WHY” . . .

Continued (next post) . . . .

  #24

Yesterday, 1:47 am

Cathoholic

Regular Member

Forum Supporter

Join Date: June 8, 2005

Posts: 1,304

Religion: Catholic

Re: Was Mary a sinner or not?

Continued from last post . . .

  • Collective sense of “all” = Every group or every category.
  • Approximative sense of “all” = “Most” or even “many”.
  • Distributive sense of “all” = Every single solitary individual one.

Concerning the commission of sins , the “all” here in Romans 3:23 MUST be being used in a COLLECTIVE sense.

All peoples have sinned—both Gentiles and Jews. That’s the immediate context here, and the larger Biblical context as well in Romans 3:23.

Why? . . . Let’s find out “WHY” . . .

Immediate Biblical Context

Contextually Romans 3:23 is talking about “ALL” have sinned in a collective sense. Both groups or categories of peoples, Jews and Gentiles are under the power of sin—ALL are. Not just Gentiles but Jews AND Gentiles are BOTH under the power of sin. That’s the correct context of “all” have sinned and fall short of the glory of God here—a collective sense and NOT a distributive sense!

ROMANS 3:9-11, 22, 29 9 What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all; for I have already charged that all men, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin, 10 as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; 11 no one understands, no one seeks for God. . . . . . . . 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction; 23 since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, . . . . 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentilesalso? Yes, of Gentiles also, . . . .
Larger Biblical Context

– – – – –

As TimothyH had already said (here).

This passage is drawing from the Old Testament (in the same contextual way—all peoples in a broad sense [in a collective sense]).

We did not detail the Old Testament aspects in this study for time saving purposes but TimothyH is absolutely correct on this point. Back to the study excerpt.

– – – – –

Larger Biblical Context

Also “ALL” cannot be being used in the distributive sense in Romans 3:23 because if it were, that would make Jesus a “committer” of sins.

Jesus is part of “all” but He is clearly NOT a committer of sins (Jesus is True God and True Man and thus cannot sin. Jesus was/is not a sinner—John 1:14, Hebrews 4:15, 2nd Corinthians 5:21, 1st Peter 2:22, Colossians 1:19 and 2:9, and elsewhere—Jesus is not a committer of sins ).

There are even other people who are not committers of sins!

Babies or life long profoundly mentally retarded people have never committed sins of disobedience (they do have Original Sin).

In Romans 5, St. Paul IS talking about Original Sin and tells us “death reigned” for all people because of it.

Yet St. Paul says something very curious here. He distinguishes people who did NOT SIN like “the transgression of Adam”.

People that did not have a sin of “disobedience” like Adam.

People who, as the Douay-Rheims translation says; “who have not sinned after the similitude of the transgression of Adam”!

But these people who are not committers of sin, are still stuck with effects (“death”) of Original Sin. Let’s look at another translation—the RSV-CE—and see the same thing.

ROMANS 5:14 (RSV-CE) 14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.
WHO could these people be, who have never “transgressed” like “Adam” did? WHO could they be, that never “transgressed” in disobedience? WHO are these NON-transgressors of Adam’s sin, yet death still somehow reigns over them anyway (Remember. Death does NOT “reign” over Christ)?

St. Paul is almost certainly discussing babies and (earthly) perpetually profoundly mentally retarded people here in Romans 5:14 as the people who never had sins like “the transgression of Adam”.

Probably

  • Babies
  • Profoundly mentally handicapped people

(But at least notice from Romans 5:14, there are SOME people who haven’t committed sins!).
Even a Protestant translation like the NIV can give us insight into this.

ROMANS 5:14 (NIV — A Protestant Bible Translation) 14. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
Can you think of any of “those” who die anyway, but never sinned by “breaking a command”?

Yes! Little infants and lifelong profoundly retarded people!

That is undoubtedly who St. Paul is referring to here in Romans 5:14 (again, at least notice there are SOME people who haven’t committed sins!).

Once we see this “all” concerning “all have sinned” is not of a distributive sense regarding committing sins, then you are left with. . . .

. . . .“Who are these people who are free from COMMITTING sins?” . . .

. . . . And NOT . . .

. . . . “NOBODY is free from COMMITTING sins, so Mary cannot be sinless!”
The sinlessness of Mary cannot honestly rationally be objected to, on the grounds of Romans 3:23.

An objector has to give other information to exclude the Blessed Virgin Mary from Her being sinless . . . . and as we will see in other studies . . . that is as impossible as it is untrue.

Advertisements

working4christtwo– catholic –Why would Mary remain a virgin…after marriage?

Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #616
Old Today, 1:04 am
New Member
Join Date: December 23, 2014
Posts: 298
Religion: Protestant
Default Re: Why would Mary remain a virgin…after marriage?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Erich View Post
Reread post #103 on this thread. Jesus did not have any siblings who were the children of Mary and Joseph.

The post confuses how many women were at the cross. There are FOUR (Mary Magdelene, Mary the wife of Clopas/Alphaeus, Salome the sister of Mary the mother of Jesus, & Mary the mother of Jesus). The confusion comes from the fact that in Matthew & Mark’s Gospels, they only list THREE women, but if you notice Mary the mother of Jesus is not listed in their Gospels. That’s because, unlike John’s Gospel, Jesus has already died in their Gospels & these THREE women had moved back from the cross. Mary was still there (presumably with John, her nephew & Jesus’ cousin). In John’s Gospel, John neither names Jesus’ mother, nor his (John’s) mother by name, like Matthew & Mark does with John’s mother. John also never names himself in his own Gospel. Yet, he names Mary wife of Clopas/Alphaeus by name, & Mary Magdelene by name. Ever wonder why that is? John was simply not naming the members of His own family – Jesus’ mother (his aunt) & Jesus’ mother’s sister (his mother) – just as he doesn’t namehimself in his own Gospel. So, the false assumption that there are only THREE women AT the cross, just because there are THREE women away from the cross refuses to acknowledge that if you “assume” only three women at the cross then Salome never gets accounted for, like she does in Matthew & Mark’s Gospels. It would be extremely unlike that John would mention these three other women, yet completely omit his own mother in his own Gospel, especially since John was there. That’s why that post you referenced is incorrect, because that “assumption” is wrong from the get-go, & unscripturally alters all of the family dynamics of those verses.

Reply With Quote
  #617
Old Today, 1:26 am
New Member
Join Date: December 23, 2014
Posts: 298
Religion: Protestant
Default Re: Why would Mary remain a virgin…after marriage?

Quote:
Originally Posted by irenaeuslyons View Post
Jn. 19:27 – Mary had no other children. Jesus entrusted her to John where Jewish custom demands a biological son of Mary first.

There are ZERO verses in the OT that commands this. Therefore, Jesus was not “bound” by the “precepts the doctrines of men” (Matthew 15:9), & could entrust His earthly mother to His heavenly “brother” John (Matthew 12:48-50), who was also His cousin. Therefore, Jesus was entrusting her to close family.

Quote:
Mt. 1:25 – Joseph knew her “not until” which is heos in Greek. Heos references the past, never the future. So “not until” does not mean he “knew” her after.

BZZZT!!! Actually, whenever Matthew translates “heos” to “until” in his Gospel, he ALWAYS refers to the activity ceasing in the future once an event ends:

Matthew 2:9,13,15; 5:18,26; 10:11,23; 11:12,13; 12:20; 13:30,33; 16:28; 17:9; 18:30,34; 22:44; 23:39; 24:21,34,39; 26:29; 27:45,64; 28:20 – ‘even’

You are attempting to “argue by exception” in order to support your preconceived personal opinion. Matthew used “until” in Matthew 1:25 to mean “once the event ceased (the pregnancy of Mary with Jesus) so did the activity (the virginity of Mary),” just as he did TWO DOZEN OTHER TIMES in his Gospel alone. Why would he suddenly use “heos”inconsistently in this single verse when there were so many other Greek words for “until” that do not mean that that are available & used in the NT?

Reply With Quote
  #618
Old Today, 2:32 am
Regular Member
Forum Supporter
Join Date: June 8, 2005
Posts: 1,304
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Why would Mary remain a virgin…after marriage?

thetazlord.

irenaeuslyons correctly showed you

QUOTE:
Mt. 1:25 – Joseph knew her “not until” which is heos in Greek. Heos references the past, never the future. So “not until” does not mean he “knew” her after.

Then your rebuttal was:

QUOTE:
BZZZT!!! Actually, whenever Matthew translates “heos” to “until” in his Gospel, he ALWAYS refers to the activity ceasing in the future once an event ends:

This assumes the conclusion of what you are arguing and working backwards (fallacy of begging the question), instead of looking at the Greek language or early native Greek speaking Christians to see how they interpreted this.

And you do this Greek-routine frequently thetazlord (you’ve done it in other threads and others have called you on it).

You try to be the Greek scholar by virtue of a lexicon. And I really don’t have an issue with that per se if you were in UNION with the Greek speaking Fathers . . . but I am sorry to say . . . you are going it alone AND ignoring the Eastern native Greek-speaking Churches (as well as the other Eastern Churches and the Western Church for that matter).

Aside from you drawing the conclusion in St. Matthew, and arguing backwards; all the ancient Fathers that commented on it, tell us St. Matthew’s Gospel was originally written in Hebrew (Aramaic).

If you want I would be glad to show you several early historical quotes on St. Matthew’s Gospel being written in Hebrew . . . and you can invent some reasons why you won’t be able to find any quotes to the contrary.

Back to “The Greek”

Let’s look at an extended quote from Fr. Ronald Tacelli who knows Bible Greek (also called Koine’ Greek) and routinely reads the Bible in Greek.

Let’s listen as he discusses this issue concerning the Greek speaking and Greek writing St. John Chrysostom who comments on the word “until” in Matthew 1:25 way back in the 300’s A.D.

Incidentally, St. John Chrysostom (346 – 407 A.D.), Archbishop of Constantinople, didn’t have to go to Protestant Seminary to learn to read and write Greek. He was a native ancient Greek speaker and writer.

“These men” that Fr. Tacelli criticizes below, are some of the current Protestant apologists who are attacking the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary based on their invented “heos hou” objection.

. . . . But regardless of how well or poorly these men (some Protestant apologists) know Greek, St. John Chrysostom, one of the greatest early Church Fathers, surely knew the Greek language immensely well (he wrote and spoke it fluently) and was sensitive to its every nuance. Let’s look at what he had to say on the subject of Mary’s perpetual virginity and the meaning of heos hou.

In his sermons on St. Matthew’s Gospel (cf. Patrologia Graeca, 7.58), St. John Chrysostom quotes Matthew 1:25 and then asks, “But why . . . did St. Matthew] use the word ‘until’?” Note well here: In quoting the verse, Chrysostom had used heos hou; but in asking the question, the word he uses for “until” is heos all by itself – as if he were unaware of a difference in meaning between these two expressions.

He answers his question by saying that it is usual and frequent for Scripture to use the word “until” (heos) without reference to limited times. Then he gives three examples. The first is his own paraphrase of Genesis 8:7: “The raven did not return until the earth was dried up.” Here Chrysostom uses heos hou for “until.” (But the actual text of the Septuagint has heos alone.) The second example is from Psalm 90:2: “From everlasting to everlasting you are.” The verse quoted (correctly) by Chrysostom has heos all by itself. The third example is from Psalm 72:7: “In his days justice shall flourish and fullness of peace until the moon be taken away.” And here the word for “until,” as in the Septuagint text, is heos hou.

It’s clear that for St. John Chrysostom, heos has exactly the same meaning as heos hou. That’s why he framed his question about “until” in terms of heos alone, even though the verse giving rise to the question, which he’d just finished quoting, had heos hou instead. That’s why it was natural for him to use heos hou in his paraphrase of Genesis 8:7. And that is why, in his list of analogues to Matthew 1:25, he used both heos and heos hou without the slightest hesitation – his linguistically sensitive ear registered no difference in meaning between them. (But there is a syntactical difference: heos hou came normally to be used as a conjunction; heos by itself as a preposition.)

If an unbridgeable linguistic chasm separated these two expressions, how could it be that the greatest master of the Greek language in all Christendom was unaware of it? The plain answer is that there was no such chasm. The whole “heos hou vs. heos” argument is a bunch of hooey. And both Sophocles in his Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods and Stephanus in his Thesaurus Graecae Linguae agree; they state explicitly that heos and heos hou are equivalent in meaning . . . .

Above from He’s an Only Child– A bogus Greek argument against Mary’s perpetual virginity is making the rounds. By Ronald K. Tacelli, S.J. Envoy Magazine Envoy Magazine, May/June, 1997, p.54.

Naturally, St. John Chrysostom affirmed the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary thetazlord. Something you steadfastly refuse to do.

Why don’t you give a list of quotes from native Greek speaking early Church Fathers making the points you are or simply denying the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary thetazlord?

We both know the answer to this.

There aren’t any.

And you still have not even defined what you are denying!

As I said, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary has three aspects.

An ante-partum aspect
An intrapartum aspect
And a post partum aspect

I am still not even sure of what you are denying at this point.

Reply With Quote
  #619
Old Today, 3:19 am
Regular Member
Forum Supporter
Join Date: June 8, 2005
Posts: 1,304
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Why would Mary remain a virgin…after marriage?

I read your post 615 thetazlord.

It is like you didn’t even read my posts (545 here and 546 here) carefully.

You said:

Quote:
Scripture supports there are FOUR women at the cross, not THREE.

(I assume you mean four Marys)

Where?

Just bring up and quote the verses. Don’t merely say it. Show it.

Quote:
I brought up these early Christians, because of the false assumption that the ENTIRE Catholic church believed in the PVM.

You brought up NO early Christians denying the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary thetazlord.

The ENTIRE Church DID and DOES assert the Perpetual Virginity of Mary thetazlord and you still haven’t given one example of a denial. NOT ONE.

Unless as I said, you hold Helvidius and Tertullian as your “father” (your term — Helvidius as a “father” [“ECF”] not mine).

Quote:
And just because “some” of their theology was wrong in other areas doesn’t automatically mean that they were wrong in this “particular” area. That’s a poor assumption.

You go back and re-read my post thetazlord. I not only DIDN’T appeal to other errors of Helvidius, I showed that Helvidius has NO WRITINGS that survived (here) and how St. Jerome ripped Helvidius on this issue (here).

ST. AUGUSTINEHeretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband”
— St. Augustine Heresies section 56. A.D. 428.

I think you are grasping at straws.

Thetazlord just proclaiming something doesn’t make it so! I want citations.

None of the Scripture you cited denies the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary thetazlord.

None of the real fathers you cited denies the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary thetazlord.

You throwing out names like Eusebius and Hegesippus does nothing for your position. Especially since I appealed to them too (and gave the relevant quotes).

I want some evidence.

thetazlord. I want to see where all these phantom Church Fathers that allegedly deny the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary are?

You saying:

Quote:
Augustine disagreed with Jerome regarding the identity of “who” these “brothers” of Jesus were . . .

is pointless.

I already asserted that too. I am not trying to assert the identity of who these brothers “were” so much as trying to show who the identity of these brothers “were NOT“.

Who they “were” is irrelevant if they are not who you say they are.

That’s where the whole of orthodox Christianity is in agreement thetazlord.

Your idea is an invention that you picked up from your self-proclaimed, “father” Helvidius (unless as I said, you want to claim Tertullian).

You also said:

Quote:
Plus, “if” Mary was a perpetual virgin, passed down from the apostles, then “why” isn’t the RCC “universal” (“catholic”) about the actual identity of these “adelphos” of Jesus?

This is non-sense thetazlord.

In Acts 1:15 Peter stood up among the brethren (the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty), and said . . . (2:37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?”).

According to thetazlord motif the Church should list all of these people’s moms too? Or just the brothers in the verses YOU WANT listed?

And you accusing people of “red herrings” when they bring up the authority issue should be dealt with on this thread (here) thetazlord. They began a whole thread based on your false assertion of authority (here) concerning sola Scriptura thetazlord.

Why not join in on that thread that was began because of you thetazlord?

You should be able to deal with the authority issue (here) without the “red herring” aspect. I would be glad to join in on that too as the authority issue is relevant to so many areas (including the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary).

Reply With Quote
  #620
Old Today, 5:27 am
Randy Carson's Avatar
Forum Elder
Join Date: September 22, 2006
Posts: 15,241
Religion: Protestant Convert to Catholicism
Default Re: Why would Mary remain a virgin…after marriage?

Quote:
Originally Posted by benhur View Post
Still does not answer why a closer kin was not awarded as a half brother .

Are you really saying Jesus did not have an interface, an exchange, a union with his divine nature ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy Carson View Post
Luke 2:52
52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and in years, and in divine and human favor.

How can God grow in wisdom?

Quote:
Originally Posted by benhur View Post
God can’t but a man can. Do you think it would have been better to have the infant , even yet in a stable, to display wisdom of the ages ?

And so, the answer to your question is: I don’t know with certainty that Jesus did not have “an interface” between his human understanding and his divine understanding, but several passages suggest that Jesus, as a man, did not have infinite knowledge of the future, etc. A few others suggest that He did.

__________________
Randy + † +
Tiber Swim Team – Class of ’79

“Since, for all sorts of reasons, there are countless millions of Christians who will not accept anything – even Christ – from the Catholic Church, it is a great thing that He is being brought to them by churches they are willing to listen to.” — Frank Sheed

Currently reading:

  • Theology and Sanity by Frank Sheed
  • Here I Stand by Roland H. Bainton
  • Jesus of Nazareth by Pope Benedict XVI
Reply With Quote
  #621
Old Today, 5:29 am
Randy Carson's Avatar
Forum Elder
Join Date: September 22, 2006
Posts: 15,241
Religion: Protestant Convert to Catholicism
Default Re: Why would Mary remain a virgin…after marriage?

Quote:
Originally Posted by benhur View Post
That is not what I meant. CC Sacred Tradition today does not equal Sacred Scripture (even CC Sacred Scripture), nor what the apostles orally preached.

So, Sacred Tradition, as a genre or mode of the transmission of the Word of God WAS equal to the Sacred Scriptures way back when, but somewhere along the way, Sacred Tradition lost its authority.

Is that the logic?

__________________
Randy + † +
Tiber Swim Team – Class of ’79

“Since, for all sorts of reasons, there are countless millions of Christians who will not accept anything – even Christ – from the Catholic Church, it is a great thing that He is being brought to them by churches they are willing to listen to.” — Frank Sheed

Currently reading:

  • Theology and Sanity by Frank Sheed
  • Here I Stand by Roland H. Bainton
  • Jesus of Nazareth by Pope Benedict XVI
Reply With Quote
  #622
Old Today, 5:29 am
Porknpie's Avatar
Regular Member
Forum Supporter
Join Date: April 11, 2012
Posts: 2,880
Religion: Catholic n Catholic (pie is a convert)
Default Re: Why would Mary remain a virgin…after marriage?

Quote:
Originally Posted by thetazlord View Post
Actually, the Septuagint wasn’t accepted by ALL of the Jews. As CA apologist, Jimmy Akin, admits the OT canon was a little “fuzzy.” So even though the Septuagint was used (which also contained OTHER books in it that the RCC removed), it wasn’t “universally” accepted by ALL Jews. Jesus actually described the THREE fold division of the OT (the Law of Moses, and the Prophets, and the Psalms) that Protestants also recognize, rather than the FOUR fold division in Catholic Bibles. So, the “all” of Scripture that Paul was referring to excluded the 7 Apocrypha books & the “additions” to Daniel & Esther that were “added” to those books, which were written long AFTER those books were written. Also, when Paul states that ALL Scripture is Inspired (God-breathed), he’s saying that if anything that he, or Peter, or any of the other apostles refer to as “Scripture” it too is God-breathed, such as Luke’s Gospel (1 Timothy 5:18, cf. Luke 10:7), & ALL of Paul’s epistles (2 Peter 3:15-16). Revelation too is God-breathed since it’s self-authoritative (Revelation 1:1,19). Therefore, unlike the Bereans who only had the OT Scripture, we have the NT Scriptures which are also God-breathed.

Now, can we get off of the Red Herring of the canon of Scripture, & discuss the OP?

Agree 100% with Jimmy Akin. Per the bold above, where is the bible quote that has St. Paul excluding the deuterocanonicals?

And what were St. Paul’s letters, written by St. Paul? Per Michael Gorman, the majority of protestant scholars believe St. Paul did not write 1 Tim, 2 Tim, Titus and Ephesians. Thus, Protestantism appears to not know what Peter was referring to when he says all of Paul’s letters are scripture… and submits to the authority of the Catholic Church to have discerned that they were in fact scripture. To the point OP, the canon of scripture and authority is always relevant as it is also inconsistent to trust The Church on the canon but reject it on faith and morals. In the end, is always comes down to the promise Jesus made to lead his Church to all truth.

Can you image the howling that would have occurred if Catholics removed 7 books of the bible after 1,100 years of Universal Christian belief from the year 400 onward?

__________________

St. John baptizing Jesus by pouring of water (Catacomb of Callixus, ~250 a.d.)

My Favorite Jesuit – January 14th Homily – True God and True Man

Reply With Quote
  #623
Old Today, 5:44 am
Randy Carson's Avatar
Forum Elder
Join Date: September 22, 2006
Posts: 15,241
Religion: Protestant Convert to Catholicism
Default Re: Why would Mary remain a virgin…after marriage?

Quote:
Originally Posted by thetazlord View Post
This “oral tradition” often cited in 2 Thess. 2:15 as Scriptural “proof” for extra-scriptural “oral tradition” being on par with written, Inspired Scripture (along with 1 Corinth 11:2 & 2 Thess 3:6) is based on misunderstanding that the “tradition” that Paul had been “orally” communicating was that Jesus was the “fulfillment” of OT writtenprophecies about the coming Messiah. And, the ‘traditions’ which Paul says that were to be received ‘by word of mouth or by letter from us’ aren’t different traditions (ie: one tradition by mouth & a separate tradition by letter), but rather the same traditions that would ‘either’ be ‘taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.’ These ‘traditions’ were what Paul had just written, because he begins this verse with ‘So then’ or ‘Therefore,’ indicating that the ‘traditions’ he was talking about were what he had just communicated to them in writing, which were about the Second Coming of Jesus (v.1-14).

You’re right, Theta. Sacred Tradition is not different than Sacred Scripture.

Let’s let that sink in…

[quote]Not at all when you properly understand what Paul is talking about by “traditions by word or by letter.”

I appreciate your recognition that Sacred Tradition was equally authoritative to Sacred Scritpure – especially in light of the fact that Sacred Tradition came first. The Church taught initially, authoritatively and without error, by word of mouth.

Is there a verse that tells the Early Church to begin ignoring Sacred Tradition and the authority of oral teaching and to focus exclusively on written teachings only at some point in the future?

Or is this the extra-biblical tradition of (Protestant) men?

Quote:
Now that we’ve nixed that, can we PLEASE avoid these purposeful Red Herrings & return to the subject of the OP???

The authority of Sacred Tradition goes to the OP – especially in light of the fact that you cannot prove from Sacred Scripture that Mary had a second child.

Every verse you quote against the PPV of Mary can be explained by those who understand what is really being said and why it is being said in the manner it is said.

You can argue till the end of time, but you have NO PROOF. If you did, the Church never would have taught the doctrine to begin with. If you did have definitive proof, this argument would have been settled long ago.

__________________
Randy + † +
Tiber Swim Team – Class of ’79

“Since, for all sorts of reasons, there are countless millions of Christians who will not accept anything – even Christ – from the Catholic Church, it is a great thing that He is being brought to them by churches they are willing to listen to.” — Frank Sheed

Currently reading:

  • Theology and Sanity by Frank Sheed
  • Here I Stand by Roland H. Bainton
  • Jesus of Nazareth by Pope Benedict XVI
Reply With Quote
  #624
Old Today, 6:34 am
Regular Member
Join Date: February 29, 2012
Posts: 615
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Why would Mary remain a virgin…after marriage?

Quote:
Originally Posted by benhur View Post
Yes, so where is the marriage bed deemed improper or disobedient. The only instruction I saw was for Joseph to leave Mary alone until His birth. No instruction to obey thereafter except those within Jewish marriage which is consummation and to replenish the earth, to have your quiver full.

I am not objecting to the objectives of marriage. I am highlighting appropriate behavior in the presence of God. Abstention from sex. I am highlighting that Mary’s womb is Holy being the abode of God. No right minded Jew will dare defile it.

You are assuming Joseph a righteous man will demand his right for sexual relations and that he doesn’t fear the Holy Spirit. If you are not God-fearing, obviously you will demand what you think is rightfully yours. But we know that all we have is given by God. The story of Lot tells you that God may permit all you have to be taken away. Joseph is very well aware of that. Joseph knew that Mary’s womb is his God’s dwelling place. It is a holy place prohibited to him for all times. Holy things are meant for the Lord, not for ordinary person. In Ex 30 you can see examples of holy oil and incense wholly for holy use. That God has set aside Mary to bore the Son of God is clear to Joseph that Mary has been made Holy.

Reply With Quote
  #625
Old Today, 7:24 am
Randy Carson's Avatar
Forum Elder
Join Date: September 22, 2006
Posts: 15,241
Religion: Protestant Convert to Catholicism
Default Re: Why would Mary remain a virgin…after marriage?

Quote:
Originally Posted by thetazlord View Post
Now, can we get off of the Red Herring of the canon of Scripture, & discuss the OP?

I posted a summation in posts #519-522.

__________________
Randy + † +
Tiber Swim Team – Class of ’79

“Since, for all sorts of reasons, there are countless millions of Christians who will not accept anything – even Christ – from the Catholic Church, it is a great thing that He is being brought to them by churches they are willing to listen to.” — Frank Sheed

Currently reading:

  • Theology and Sanity by Frank Sheed
  • Here I Stand by Roland H. Bainton
  • Jesus of Nazareth by Pope Benedict XVI
Reply With Quote
  #626
Old Today, 8:04 am
Regular Member
Join Date: February 29, 2012
Posts: 615
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Why would Mary remain a virgin…after marriage?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericc View Post
I am not objecting to the objectives of marriage. I am highlighting appropriate behavior in the presence of God. Abstention from sex. I am highlighting that Mary’s womb is Holy being the abode of God. No right minded Jew will dare defile it.

You are assuming Joseph a righteous man will demand his right for sexual relations and that he doesn’t fear the Holy Spirit. If you are not God-fearing, obviously you will demand what you think is rightfully yours. But we know that all we have is given by God. The story of Lot tells you that God may permit all you have to be taken away. Joseph is very well aware of that. Joseph knew that Mary’s womb is his God’s dwelling place. It is a holy place prohibited to him for all times. Holy things are meant for the Lord, not for ordinary person. In Ex 30 you can see examples of holy oil and incense wholly for holy use. That God has set aside Mary to bore the Son of God is clear to Joseph that Mary has been made Holy.

Sorry, I mean Job instead of Lot.

Reply With Quote
  #627
Old Today, 8:25 am
New Member
Join Date: December 23, 2014
Posts: 298
Religion: Protestant
Default Re: Why would Mary remain a virgin…after marriage?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cathoholic View Post

QUOTE:
Mt. 1:25 – Joseph knew her “not until” which is heos in Greek. Heos references the past, never the future. So “not until” does not mean he “knew” her after.

Then your rebuttal was:

QUOTE:
BZZZT!!! Actually, whenever Matthew translates “heos” to “until” in his Gospel, he ALWAYS refers to the activity ceasing in the future once an event ends:

I noticed how you “conveniently” ignored the fact that I listed TWO DOZEN uses by Matthew using “heos” where he uses it to mean “once an event ends, so does the activity” just in his Gospel alone, & ZERO times he uses it to mean “the activity continues.” So, I’m not “begging the question.” You are arguing by exception. So it doesn’t matter whether Matthew was originally written in Hebrew or not. Even “if” these “early sources” are correct, it doesn’t matter, because the Greek “translation” of Matthew would be Inspired as well, because it too would have been written by Matthew guided by the Holy Spirit. So, your argument is faulty & irrelevant. And using FOURTH & FIFTH century quotes to support a dogma that was already being firmly established by then is actually begging the question. I find it ironic that one of these “earliest sources” is quoted by Eusebius – the very same source who argues against the PVM.

Quote:
You try to be the Greek scholar by virtue of a lexicon. And I really don’t have an issue with that per se if you were in UNION with the Greek speaking Fathers . . . but I am sorry to say . . . you are going it alone AND ignoring the Eastern native Greek-speaking Churches (as well as the other Eastern Churches and the Western Church for that matter).

Saying that I’m “not in union with the Greek speaking Father…etc” as somehow “proof” that I’m incorrect is, again, circular reasoning. That’s like saying I’m wrong because I’m no longer Catholic. You can’t objectively use “A” to prove “B,” because “A” says so, even if “A” is correct. Circular reasoning. You still need to compare “A’s” interpretation of Scripture (“C”).

Quote:
If you want I would be glad to show you several early historical quotes on St. Matthew’s Gospel being written in Hebrew . . . and you can invent some reasons why you won’t be able to find any quotes to the contrary.[/b]

And I could show you “historical quotes” from even earlier “historical” sources, but because they disagree with yoursources “that” is what makes it wrong? That’s how you determine “truth”?

Quote:
Let’s look at an extended quote from Fr. Ronald Tacelli who knows Bible Greek (also called Koine’ Greek) and routinely reads the Bible in Greek.

Let’s listen as he discusses this issue concerning the Greek speaking and Greek writing St. John Chrysostom who comments on the word “until” in Matthew 1:25 way back in the 300’s A.D.

Again, his “scholarship” on the Greek is based on the beliefs of Chrysostom. So, with all due respect to this respected ECF (which I have read up on), this “resource” also ignores the fact that Matthew uses “heos” TWO DOZEN times to mean the exact opposite of your “interpretation” of the meaning of “heos.” Again, arguing by exception.

Quote:
“These men” that Fr. Tacelli criticizes below, are some of the current Protestant apologists who are attacking the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary based on their invented “heos hou” objection.

I’ve heard this argument before, & it’s less than settled. And it still ignores what I wrote above. Even the “exceptions” you use from the Septuagint ignores this & argues from exception. It’s ignoring the elephant in the room.

Quote:
Why don’t you give a list of quotes from native Greek speaking early Church Fathers making the points you are or simply denying the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary thetazlord?

We both know the answer to this.

There aren’t any.

Why don’t you list quotes from native Greek speaking early Church fathers (1st & 2nd Century) making points that affirm the bodily assumption of Mary. We both know the answer to this. There aren’t any. I can do this too. And, again, I’ve listed early Christians in the Church from the first few centuries, as well as Eusebius, who do affirm that Mary had other children. But because they aren’t “technically” listed as ECF’s, that someone “disproves” their testimonies, because they don’t agree with these LATER ECFs. Hardly an objective criteria for determining truth.

BTW, here are some quotes since you asked:

St. Basil indicates for us that the view that Mary had other children during his era:
“was widely held and, though not accepted by himself, was not incompatible with orthodoxy” (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], p. 495).

Here is St. Basil (329-379 A.D.)(saint in RCC) commenting on the doctrine again:
“[The opinion that Mary bore several children after Christ]…does not run counter to faith; for, virginity was imposed on Mary as a necessity, only up to the time that she served as an instrument for the Incarnation, while, on the other hand, her subsequent virginity had no great importance with regard to the mystery of the Incarnation.” Homilia in sanctam Christi generationem, PG 31:1468.(See. fn 174 of Carol, Vol. 2, p. 277).

(continued………………………… .)

Reply With Quote
  #628
Old Today, 8:26 am
New Member
Join Date: December 23, 2014
Posts: 298
Religion: Protestant
Default Re: Why would Mary remain a virgin…after marriage?

(continued…………….Part 2)

And although Catholics love to quote Irenaeus, they overlook a significant quote by him:

Irenaeus (130-203 A.D.) refers to Mary giving birth to Jesus when she was “as yet a virgin” (Against Heresies, 3:21:10). The implication is that she didn’t remain a virgin. Irenaeus compares Mary’s being a virgin at the time of Jesus’ birth tothe ground being “as yet virgin” before it was tilled by mankind. The ground thereafter ceased to be virgin, according to Irenaeus, when it was tilled. The implication is that Mary also ceased to be a virgin. Elsewhere, Irenaeus writes:
“To this effect they testify, saying, that before Joseph had come together with Mary, while she therefore remained in virginity, ‘she was found with child of the Holy Ghost;'” (Against Heresies, 3:21:4)
Irenaeus associates “come together” with sexual intercourse. The implication is that Joseph and Mary had normal marital relations after Jesus was born.

Quote:
And you still have not even defined what you are denying!

As I said, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary has three aspects.

An ante-partum aspect
An intrapartum aspect
And a post partum aspect

I am still not even sure of what you are denying at this point.

I’m denying that Scripture supports the PVM, because Scripture supports that the “brothers” of Jesus were His half-brothers, not solely because of the “heos” argument, but also because when you cross-reference ALL of the verses that discuss Jesus’ “brothers” & extended family, you come to the conclusion – from Scripture – that the “brothers” are indeed Jesus’ half-brother, because Scripture eliminates all the other possibilities. And as far as using Origen as an “early resource” for the PVM, keep in mind his source for his “belief” that he uses is the Protoevangelium of James:

The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary” (Origen, A.D. 248).

Sorry, but “this” is the “earliest source” for “who” the “brothers” of Jesus are – not Scripture. Scripture doesn’t support this. If it did, either it would have mentioned Joseph being married before, or an ECF would have. Not a false ‘gospel.’

Reply With Quote
  #629
Old Today, 8:33 am
Regular Member
Forum Supporter
Join Date: July 3, 2011
Posts: 933
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Why would Mary remain a virgin…after marriage?

Quote:
Originally Posted by thetazlord View Post
Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit. “Borrowing” Mary’s egg to fertilize it by the Holy Spirit to conceive Jesus doesn’t equate with Mary being the “spouse” of the Holy Spirit. If it is, they you are saying that JosephAND the Holy Spirit are Mary’s husbands. Is that what “you” are believing? Scripture STATES that Joseph is Mary’s husband, & that Mary is Joseph’s wife. There is no confusion about this in Scripture.

If God asked you and your spouse to refrain from ‘marital’ relations, regardless of what society expected, would you do it?

You are suggesting that married people are unable to live a life of celibacy. There are many reasons why married people may decide to not have sex. Some may do it for religious reasons, some for financial reasons, some for health reasons. Have you not heard the phrase ‘marriage of convience’?

Historically, not all marriages were for the production of children. People might get married without ever meeting their spouse. This was often done to insure property transfers or for political reasons. It was often true for second marriages, when the purpose of the marriage might be to provide a ‘mother’ for the widower’s children or as a way to support a widow and her children.

So yes, being husband and wife did not always mean that sexual intercourse would result.

__________________
Do not be afraid or discouraged. Joshua 8:1
Reply With Quote
  #630
Old Today, 8:39 am
PRmerger's Avatar
Forum Elder
Forum Supporter
Join Date: March 19, 2006
Posts: 28,059
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Re: Why would Mary remain a virgin…after marriage?

Quote:
Originally Posted by thetazlord View Post
Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit.

Really? Mary didn’t conceive a child?

You are just playing antics with semantics.

The Bible is quite clear that Mary conceived a child. And that’s just how we talk. “I have conceived 5 children”. I suppose we (if we’re a woman, of course) could say, “Gracie was conceived in my womb” but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s also true that “I conceived a child”.

And just be thorough, look at what the Bible says:

http://biblehub.com/luke/1-31.htm

Notice that all of the translations indicate MARY conceiving. Not Jesus being conceived.

__________________

@DailyKeller: “If your god never disagrees with you, you might just be worshiping an idealized version of yourself. ~Tim Keller.

25 Random Things About Me

Visit my blog: 3 Minute Apologetics