Basic Questions on Catholicism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Valke2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That is just bad logic, and incorrect use of the language. Words need to be understood in their context. In the above example, “until” clearly means “never,” because it is understood that no one can have children after they are dead. But in the case of Joseph and Mary, the use of the word would be, grammatically and lexically, utterly meaningless, inappropriate, and unnecessary, if the intention was to convey the idea that he “did not know her” at all.

I am not what you are referring to here. You need to give references so I know what you are talking about.

That is just wrong. The context implies precisely that. The context determines the meaning. I did a computer search, and found that the word “until” occurs 350 times in the Bible—far too many to quote as examples! So I will just pick out a couple:

Genesis 24:

33 And there was set meat before him to eat: but he said, I will not eat, until I have told mine errand. And he said, Speak on.So does that mean that he did not intend to eat after he had “told his errand”? “Until” implies the opposite, that his “not eating” was to last only for the duration it took him to “tell his errand,” after which he should eat. Here is another:

Genesis 27:

44 And tarry with him a few days, until thy brother’s fury turn away;Does that mean that he should “tarry with him” forever? Obviously not. The “tarrying with him” was to last for the duration of his “brother’s fury,” after which it should come to an end—as in fact it did.

The word “until” implies a restriction in time or space for a limited duration, after which the restriction should come to an end. that is the correct lexical meaning of it.

That is moot. She obviously understood the angel to be saying that she should become pregnant immediately, before her marriage was consummated with Joseph, therefore she raises that question.

zerinus
I would think that an LDS would have a different view or what a Catholic bible says.

Search the Scriptures all you want, and **you will not find Mary identified as the mother of anyone but Jesus. **Her perpetual virginity has been taught by the Christian faith from the beginning. St. Augustine in the fifth century described Mary as “a virgin who conceives, a virgin who gives birth, a virgin with child, a virgin delivered of child - a virgin ever virgin.”
 
“*And she gave birth to her first-born son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths, and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn.” (Luke 2:7). The term “first-born” has great significance in Jewish history, going back to the covenant God made with Moses after leading the Israelites out of Egypt. The Jewish feast of Passover recalls the night the Lord struck down the first-born of the Egyptians, but “passed over” the homes of the Jews who marked their doors with the “blood of the lamb.” (Exodus 12:7). Because of this favor, “The Lord told Moses, ‘Consecrate to me all the first-born; whatever is the first to open the womb among the people of Israel, both of man and of beast, is mine.’” (Exodus 13:1-2). The Jewish meaning of “first-born”, therefore, does not imply the existence of other children. St. Paul writes, “For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the first-born among many brethren.” (Romans 8:29). St. Paul, who was a zealous Jew prior to his miraculous conversion, was well aware of the significance of the term “first-born” and used it to indicate Jesus as our brother, through whose merits we become adopted sons of God. “And his mother and his brethren came; and standing outside they sent to him and called him. And a crowd was sitting about him; and they said to him, ‘Your mother and your brethren are outside, asking for you.’ And he replied, ‘Who are my mother and my brethren?’ And looking around on those who sat about him, he said, ‘Here are my mother and my brethren! Whoever does the will of God is my brother, and sister, and mother.’” (Mark 3:31-35). The Jews regarded cousins as brothers and sisters. In fact they did not have a separate word for “cousin” as we do. The brethren referred to here were Jesus’ cousins, James and Judas of Alpheus, the brother of St. Joseph (see Matthew 13:55 and 27:56). Even Protestants will admit that there is no historical evidence that Mary had other children. Surely this information would have survived history, at least within the tradition of the Catholic Church, and yet no such evidence exists. If indeed Mary did have other children, why did Jesus choose to give her to John from the Cross instead of one of his “brothers”? “When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took his wife, but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus.” (Matthew 1:24-25). The Greek word translated until does not imply anything about what happened after the incident described. Another example of the use of this word is 1 Corinthians 15:25: “For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.” Obviously Jesus will still reign after he has subjected his enemies, so we cannot infer anything about Mary and Joseph’s relationship from the passage in Matthew. “For she is a breath of the power of God, and a pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty; therefore nothing defiled gains entrance into her. For she is a reflection of eternal light, a spotless mirror of the working of God, and an image of his goodness” (Wisdom of Solomon 7:25). “The Church has always professed her belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary. The most ancient texts, when referring to the conception of Jesus, call Mary simply ‘virgin’, inferring that they considered this quality a permanent fact with regard to her whole life. The early Christians expressed this conviction of faith in the Greek term aeiparthenos-‘ever virgin’-created to describe Mary’s person in a unique and effective manner, and to express in a single word the Church’s belief in her perpetual virginity” (Pope John Paul II, General Audience, August 28, 1996). (Exodus 12:7; Exodus 13:1-2; Numbers 3:11-13; Wisdom of Solomon 7:25; Ezekiel 44:2; Romans 8:29; Matthew 1:24-25 with 1 Corinthians 15:25; Mark 3:31-35 with Matthew 13:55 and 27:56; Luke 2:7) *
 
Your argument seems sound. The response that follows it here doesn’t ring true to me. Sounds a little forced. But, the poster that said if Jesus had a brother, he would not have had to ask John to take care of Mary while he was on the cross, makes a lot of sense to me.

It is possible, I suppose that if Mary didn’t remain a virgin but she also didn’t have any children. Then Jesus would not have been able to rely on his step siblings, perhaps, and would still ask John to look after Mary. But if Mary didn’t have any children, then how would anyone know if she had relations with Joseph? Anyway, its obvious that many Catholics and the Church do not interpert the scripture the same way as some other branches of Christianity.
I agree that that is an interesting point. But remember that John was Jesus’ favourite disciple. He is known in the Bible as the “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (John 19:26; John 20:2; John 21:7; John 21:20). To Jesus, His true “brother” was not the one that had a blood relationship with Him, but the one who loved Him the most and kept His commandments:

Matthew 12:

50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

Mark 3:

35 For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.

zerinus
 
I agree that that is an interesting point. But remember that John was Jesus’ favourite disciple. He is known in the Bible as the “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (John 19:26; John 20:2; John 21:7; John 21:20). To Jesus, His true “brother” was not the one that had a blood relationship with Him, but the one who loved Him the most and kept His commandments:

Matthew 12:

50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

Mark 3:

35 For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.
zerinus
Jesus has NO blood brothers or sisters;)
 
Actually, IMHO the Bible makes it pretty clear that she did NOT temain a virgin throughout her life:

Matthew 1:

24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS."
“Knew her not till …” implies that he did “know her” after she gave birth to her “first born son”.

zerinus
This point may have been made already., if so I apologize.

I dsagree, for example I could say, “I loved my mother until the day she died”. This in no way implies I didn’t love her after.
 
Assuming that Mary did have children by Joseph after the birth of Jesus, which is my understanding of the case, then He did! 😃

zerinus
Nope your wrong…😉 Search the Scriptures all you want, and **you will not find Mary identified as the mother of anyone but Jesus. 😃 **
 
*An important historical document which supports the teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity is the Protoevangelium of James, which was written probably less than sixty years after the conclusion of Mary’s earthly life (around A.D. 120), when memories of her life were still vivid in the minds of many.

According to the world-renowned patristics scholar, Johannes Quasten: “The principal aim of the whole writing [Protoevangelium of James] is to prove the perpetual and inviolate virginity of Mary before, in, and after the birth of Christ” (Patrology, 1:120–1).

To begin with, the Protoevangelium records that when Mary’s birth was prophesied, her mother, St. Anne, vowed that she would devote the child to the service of the Lord, as Samuel had been by his mother (1 Sam. 1:11). Mary would thus serve the Lord at the Temple, as women had for centuries (1 Sam. 2:22), and as Anna the prophetess did at the time of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:36–37). A life of continual, devoted service to the Lord at the Temple meant that Mary would not be able to live the ordinary life of a child-rearing mother. Rather, she was vowed to a life of perpetual virginity.

However, due to considerations of ceremonial cleanliness, it was eventually necessary for Mary, a consecrated “virgin of the Lord,” to have a guardian or protector who would respect her vow of virginity. Thus, according to the Protoevangelium, Joseph, an elderly widower who already had children, was chosen to be her spouse. (This would also explain why Joseph was apparently dead by the time of Jesus’ adult ministry, since he does not appear during it in the gospels, and since Mary is entrusted to John, rather than to her husband Joseph, at the crucifixion).

According to the Protoevangelium, Joseph was required to regard Mary’s vow of virginity with the utmost respect. The gravity of his responsibility as the guardian of a virgin was indicated by the fact that, when she was discovered to be with child, he had to answer to the Temple authorities, who thought him guilty of defiling a virgin of the Lord. Mary was also accused of having forsaken the Lord by breaking her vow. Keeping this in mind, it is an incredible insult to the Blessed Virgin to say that she broke her vow by bearing children other than her Lord and God, who was conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit.

The perpetual virginity of Mary has always been reconciled with the biblical references to Christ’s brethren through a proper understanding of the meaning of the term “brethren.” The understanding that the brethren of the Lord were Jesus’ stepbrothers (children of Joseph) rather than half-brothers (children of Mary) was the most common one until the time of Jerome (fourth century). It was Jerome who introduced the possibility that Christ’s brethren were actually his cousins, since in Jewish idiom cousins were also referred to as “brethren.” The Catholic Church allows the faithful to hold either view, since both are compatible with the reality of Mary’s perpetual virginity.
catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp
*
 
I would think that an LDS would have a different view or what a Catholic bible says.

Search the Scriptures all you want, and **you will not find Mary identified as the mother of anyone but Jesus. **Her perpetual virginity has been taught by the Christian faith from the beginning. St. Augustine in the fifth century described Mary as “a virgin who conceives, a virgin who gives birth, a virgin with child, a virgin delivered of child - a virgin ever virgin.”
That is not the only invention of Christianity after the church had apostatized. The doctrine of the immaculate conception of Mary is another. At the root of it all is the false, pagan idea that sex is inherently evil, therefore in order for Mary to be sufficiently holy to become the Mother of Jesus, she not only have had not to have any sex herself, she shouldn’t have even been born through sex. That is totally unbiblical. Neither in the Bible no in ancient Jewish culture sex is viewed as being inherently evil. From the biblical—and Jewish-cultural—point of view, it does not detract from Mary’s holiness in the slightest if she has legitimate sex with her own lawful and husband.

zerinus
 
*An important historical document which supports the teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity is the Protoevangelium of James, which was written probably less than sixty years after the conclusion of Mary’s earthly life (around A.D. 120), when memories of her life were still vivid in the minds of many.

According to the world-renowned patristics scholar, Johannes Quasten: “The principal aim of the whole writing [Protoevangelium of James] is to prove the perpetual and inviolate virginity of Mary before, in, and after the birth of Christ” (Patrology, 1:120–1).

To begin with, the Protoevangelium records that when Mary’s birth was prophesied, her mother, St. Anne, vowed that she would devote the child to the service of the Lord, as Samuel had been by his mother (1 Sam. 1:11). Mary would thus serve the Lord at the Temple, as women had for centuries (1 Sam. 2:22), and as Anna the prophetess did at the time of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:36–37). A life of continual, devoted service to the Lord at the Temple meant that Mary would not be able to live the ordinary life of a child-rearing mother. Rather, she was vowed to a life of perpetual virginity.

However, due to considerations of ceremonial cleanliness, it was eventually necessary for Mary, a consecrated “virgin of the Lord,” to have a guardian or protector who would respect her vow of virginity. Thus, according to the Protoevangelium, Joseph, an elderly widower who already had children, was chosen to be her spouse. (This would also explain why Joseph was apparently dead by the time of Jesus’ adult ministry, since he does not appear during it in the gospels, and since Mary is entrusted to John, rather than to her husband Joseph, at the crucifixion).

According to the Protoevangelium, Joseph was required to regard Mary’s vow of virginity with the utmost respect. The gravity of his responsibility as the guardian of a virgin was indicated by the fact that, when she was discovered to be with child, he had to answer to the Temple authorities, who thought him guilty of defiling a virgin of the Lord. Mary was also accused of having forsaken the Lord by breaking her vow. Keeping this in mind, it is an incredible insult to the Blessed Virgin to say that she broke her vow by bearing children other than her Lord and God, who was conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit.

The perpetual virginity of Mary has always been reconciled with the biblical references to Christ’s brethren through a proper understanding of the meaning of the term “brethren.” The understanding that the brethren of the Lord were Jesus’ stepbrothers (children of Joseph) rather than half-brothers (children of Mary) was the most common one until the time of Jerome (fourth century). It was Jerome who introduced the possibility that Christ’s brethren were actually his cousins, since in Jewish idiom cousins were also referred to as “brethren.” The Catholic Church allows the faithful to hold either view, since both are compatible with the reality of Mary’s perpetual virginity.
catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp*
That does not prove a thing. The word of God is more reliable; and that says Joseph “knew her not” until she gave birth to Jesus; the implication being that afterwards he did.

zerinus
 
I guess the saying "you can lead a donkey to water but cant make it drink" applies here:D
 
That is not the only invention of Christianity after the church had apostatized. The doctrine of the immaculate conception of Mary is another. At the root of it all is the false, pagan idea that sex is inherently evil, therefore in order for Mary to be sufficiently holy to become the Mother of Jesus, she not only have had not to have any sex herself, she shouldn’t have even been born through sex. That is totally unbiblical. Neither in the Bible no in ancient Jewish culture sex is viewed as being inherently evil. From the biblical—and Jewish-cultural—point of view, it does not detract from Mary’s holiness in the slightest if she has legitimate sex with her own lawful and husband.

zerinus
I believe you have a misunderstanding of the immaculate conception. It is the belief that Mary was concieved without original sin, not that she was concieved without sex.

Also, When the gospel is stating that Joseph did not have relations with Mary until she gave birth to a Child, what is the gospel writer trying to say. Is he talking about Mary and Joseph’s sex life, or is he emphasizing that Mary was a virgin, and it was not by Joseph that this child was born. I would say that in that context, the author is not making any claims one way or another on MAry’s virginity after the birth of Christ, but before the birth of Christ.

A text should not be used to witness to something it was not meant to witness to.

A lone Raven
 
Comment on until.

The OP says the explanations seems forced. I would point out that they are not forced at all. We have examples in the OT of how the word “until” was used.

There has been a language shift. Today, until implies that something did happen after the “until”.

But clearly in OT scripture, we see that the word usage of until did not have the same implications.

The same with “first born son”. Some say that because Mary had a “first born” that implies that there was a second born. But again, the times are different and this argument does not take into account the cultural norms of the time.

There is an article here, Brethren of the Lord that covers much of this. Very short and easy read.

One can certainly apply today’s standards and culture when trying to interpret scripture, but one will not come up with an accurate interpretation if one does not consider how the human authors of God’s inspired word understood the language that was used.

God Bless,
Maria
 
Comment on until.

The OP says the explanations seems forced. I would point out that they are not forced at all. We have examples in the OT of how the word “until” was used.

There has been a language shift. Today, until implies that something did happen after the “until”.

But clearly in OT scripture, we see that the word usage of until did not have the same implications.

The same with “first born son”. Some say that because Mary had a “first born” that implies that there was a second born. But again, the times are different and this argument does not take into account the cultural norms of the time.

There is an article here, Brethren of the Lord that covers much of this. Very short and easy read.

One can certainly apply today’s standards and culture when trying to interpret scripture, but one will not come up with an accurate interpretation if one does not consider how the human authors of God’s inspired word understood the language that was used.

God Bless,
Maria
was the original text about mary written in Hebrew? If so, do we know what word was used for “until”? It still sounds like a weak defense to me. Not that it means she wasn’t a virigin. Just that I think it doesn’t prove it.
 
Comment on until.

The OP says the explanations seems forced. I would point out that they are not forced at all. We have examples in the OT of how the word “until” was used.

There has been a language shift. Today, until implies that something did happen after the “until”.

But clearly in OT scripture, we see that the word usage of until did not have the same implications.
But you are ignoring the other examples used by someone here to show that there are instances where unitl meant “until”. And his (or her) examples do seem compelling.
 
was the original text about mary written in Hebrew? If so, do we know what word was used for “until”? It still sounds like a weak defense to me. Not that it means she wasn’t a virigin. Just that I think it doesn’t prove it.
No, the New Testament was written in Greek.

from the article Brethren of the Lord

Greek:* heos*, also translated into English as “till”)

And you would be correct, it does not Prove she was a virgin for all time. But that was not the Catholic argument. The Catholic argument is that “until” does not prove she had children or marital relations after.

God Bless,
Maria
 
I believe you have a misunderstanding of the immaculate conception. It is the belief that Mary was concieved without original sin, not that she was concieved without sex.

Also, When the gospel is stating that Joseph did not have relations with Mary until she gave birth to a Child, what is the gospel writer trying to say. Is he talking about Mary and Joseph’s sex life, or is he emphasizing that Mary was a virgin, and it was not by Joseph that this child was born. I would say that in that context, the author is not making any claims one way or another on MAry’s virginity after the birth of Christ, but before the birth of Christ.

A text should not be used to witness to something it was not meant to witness to.

A lone Raven
Good points. Does the bible say how Mary was born without sin?
 
While there is scripture as I posted before about the foreshadowing and typology of Mary and the Ark that I find compelling, much of Catholic belief about Mary is based on Tradition.

In the New Testament, it tells us that we should which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle."traditions

Although another very good link was given, here is another source, Mary: Ever Virgin

God Bless,
Maria

In fact here is a link to all of the short and easy to read tracts from CA on Mary.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top