Mary's Perpetual Virginity

[guanophore]

Regardless, we’re not discussing the virgin birth here. If you’re just trying to make a point that we’re wrong to doubt the church, then say that, but that only fits with my previous conclusion – you believe because the church tells you to.

This is too simplified. It does not take into account that the Church is representing the Divine Deposit of Faith, and is custodian to the Apostolic Teachings. We believe the Church because Jesus founded her, and gave His promise that she would not err. The ability to trust in the Teachings comes from Jesus. Therefore, it is more correct to say “you believe because Jesus tells you to believe”.

No person here has yet shown why it is at all important for Mary to have remained celibate.

Actually, many have been given, and rejected. However, I think the more salient point is that rejecting this Teaching means rejecting the Teaching Authority of the Church, and that is why I think rebelling against it has more to do with authority issues than theological issues.

Actually, it’s an entirely different subject. Your position is “the RCC has authority to interpret scripture and define these dogmas infallibly”. Mine is that the RCC does not have such authority. A discussion of which of those positions is right would not be within reasonable scope of this discussion, in my opinion.

I object to the use of the word “Roman” here.

However, I agree with you that it is an authority issue. The Catholic Church teaches that scripture is to be interpreted within context. the context of the NT is the Catholic Church. There is nothing in it that contradicts Church Teaching, and vice versa, because the NT came out of the Sacred Oral Tradition.

The only relevance the authority of the church has in this conversation is how it affects our beliefs. You believe, basically because the church says to. I do not believe, and the church saying to doesn’t matter to me.

16 “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” Luke 10:16

So, basically, what you are saying is that Catholics abandoned Jesus, or Jesus abandoned Catholics, but that Jesus is no longer found in the Catholic Church?

It’s that simple, and we might as well accept these premises and move on to other points or drop the discussion. If you’re going to condemn my belief as wrong simply on the basis of me rejecting church authority, and not on a basis of factual evidence, then the perpetual virginity of Mary is a matter of faith only, for you.

I think it is the rejection of the Church Authority that prevents people from seeing the preponderance of evidence. All sources non-biblical are rejected, and yet, these are where the bulk of the “evidence” resides.

 

[Mommyof02green]

That’s your whole defense? “…and took her as his wife and he kept her a virgin UNTIL she gave birth to a son…” To me, like Luther’s justification by faith “alone,” the text connotatively demands it. I do not agree with everyone on this thread that Matt. 1:25 is totally undefined on the issue, or that Matthew himself intended it to be so. I’m not forcing an interpretation out of it, nor, like others, am I imposing upon it an external dogma. When left alone the text clearly speaks for itself.

So if you saw the phrase “It’s raining cat’s and dog’s” you would leave it alone, because the text clearly speaks for itself.

Cats and Dogs are falling from the sky!

 

[Good_Fella]

One of my favorite defenses for this belief/dogma is Christ’s words from the cross to John: “Behold thy mother”. **

Perhaps the epistle to the Galatians 4:21-31 should be taken into consideration:

“(21) Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? (22) For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one (Ishmael) by a slave (Hagar) and one (Isaac) by a free ‘woman’ (Sarah). (23) But the one of the slave was born (Gen 16:15) according to the flesh, the son of the free ‘woman’ through promise (Gen 17:15-16; Isa 7:14; Lk 1:35). (24) NOW THIS IS AN ALLEGORY (typology): THESE WOMEN ARE TWO COVENANTS. One is from Mt.Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. (25) Now Hagar is Mt.Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. (26) BUT THE JERUSALEM ABOVE IS FREE, AND SHE IS OUR MOTHER. (27) For it is written, “Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear; break forth and shout, you who are not in travail; for the children of the desolate one are many more than the children of her that is married.” (28) NOW WE, BRETHREN, LIKE ISAAC ARE CHILDREN OF PROMISE. (29) But as at that time HE WHO WAS BORN ACCORDING TO THE FLESH PERSECUTED HIM WHO WAS BORN OF THE SPIRIT, so it is now. (30) But what does the scripture say? “Cast out the slave and her son; for the son of a slave shall not inherit with the son of the free ‘woman’.” (31) So, brethren, WE ARE NOT CHILDREN (sons) OF THE SLAVE BUT OF THE FREE WOMAN.”

Now Abraham is a “type” of Jesus Christ. Both had perfect and sublime obedience to the will of God (Gen 22:18-19; Lk 22:42). Isaac was born to Sarah, the wife of Abraham. Sarah is the Old Testament “free woman through promise”. Isaac is also a “type” of Jesus Christ (Gen 17:19). So Sarah is a “type” of the Blessed Virgin Mary (Gen 17:15-16). Jesus Christ was born to Mary, who is the New Testament “free woman through promise” (Isa 7:14; Lk1:35-38). The “present Jerusalem” of v25 is equated to Hagar. The “Jerusalem above” of v26 is equated to Sarah, and by typical association to the Blessed Virgin Mary. In v26, the “Jerusalem above” is referred to as “she”, and she is our mother. In v29, “him who was born according to the spirit” can be none other than Jesus Christ (Lk 1:35-38). Verse 31 makes it clear that we are all children of the “free woman” who can be none other than Sarah of the OT and the Blessed Virgin Mary of the NT.

When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, “WOMAN, behold your son.” Then he said to his disciple, “Behold your MOTHER.”
(John 19:26-27)

Mary is the mother of the New Covenant and thus the mother of the entire Church - the people of God, not only John.

“I will put enmity between you and the WOMAN, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.” (Genesis 3:15)
And a great sign appeared in heaven, a WOMAN clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. (Revelation 12:1)

Eve is the ancestral biological mother of the human race. The Blessed Virgin Mary is the New Eve and the Mother of God, the divine person Jesus Christ. The Church is the Body of Christ and He is the head (Eph 1:22-23). And since each one of us is a member of the Body of Christ ( 1Cor 12:27), and the Blessed Virgin Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ, then naturally she is our mother too. (She is the neck that joins the Head and the Body with all its members.) The Son is the Church with all his brethren who form his Body. And so His mother is our Mother.


Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Axion]

In that case – was Mary 14 years old when she conceived Jesus? There is a true answer to the question, and believing any differently than the truth is obviously harmful in some way (though you’ve not told me how, exactly), so I really need to know.

There’s no comparability between the questions. The age Mary had Jesus is not something universally taught by the entire Church since the earliest times. Mary is NOT known as “the fourteen year-old mother Mary”, but as the VIRGIN Mary. But of course all these christians down through the ages got it wrong, and your pastor got it right…

And then, if Mary had more children after Jesus, then Jesus is not that unique. Only begotten Son of God, yes. But apparently not only begotten Son of Mary… God was satisfied with one Son, but Mary was not. We then start leaning into Da Vinci code territory of hidden bloodlines of Jesus. And most importantly if Mary and Joseph just carried on as “normal” after bearing the Son of God it would have been witness that neither of them actually BELIEVED that the Lord God had overshadowed Mary and been borne in her womb. No believing jew would defile such holiness

I also thionk the topic is raised a lot by evangelicals who want to attack the Catholic church. They read the words “brothers” of jesus in modern bibles and think. Ha! PROOF Catholicism contradicts the bible! So they keep bringing it up ad nauseam and refuse to accept the results

 

[guanophore]

Now, in comparison, what do I lose by not believing that Mary was ever-virgin? What doctrine of faith does it harm? None.

From your point of view, perhaps “none”. From mine, communion with the Apostolic Succession. Since Jesus designed His Church this way, it seems to me very harmful to lose it.

I take it you are trying to imply that we must adore him in spirit and in complete truth (that is, accuracy about what is true). While I agree this is a worthy goal, unfortunately, this is humanly impossible to do. Thus, it stands to reason that God would most prefer that we care about the important things first, with minutia coming later.

It seems difficult for me to think of Jesus’ mother as “minutia”.

John 4:21-24
21 Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. 22 You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for such the Father seeks to worship him. 24 God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”

Jesus says that the time “now is”. Why would Jesus call us to do something that is not possible? I agree, it is not possible without the HS.

Indeed, consecration to God, and pure spiritual worship is possible, and required of us:

Rom 12:1-2
2:1 I appeal to you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. 2 Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

We can’t know for certain (outside of having faith that the RCC got it right, which is something we’ll obviously not agree on) whether or not Mary remained a virgin.

I object to the word “Roman” used here.

What you are saying is that Jesus is a liar, or a weakling.

No -- it's not the same error. In the former, nothing of our worship of God is affected. In the latter, the virgin birth can be doubted, and thus, the divine nature of Christ.

nothing has affected worship of God more than departure from the Divine Deposit of Faith. It is this departure that has prevented people from pure spiritual worship.

.

You are the one who has a warped image of who she is, and the one who has an existing theology the Roman Catholic Church taught you. This may make things difficult for you to understand, because you are not in the truth. You are conducting your studies with materials authored by men, instead of materials authored by the king of kings, so I can understand why this might be difficult.

Glad you got the point!

Do you see how offensive that sounds? It’s borderline ad hominem, and certainly is unduly patronizing.

It is true, nonetheless. It was not my arguement, and if I had come up with it, I would not do so with the intention to be offensive. I am sure that, when the early fathers wrote against heresies, they were offensive too. I know I was offended when I was living as a Protestant. I am not sure I see the patronzing part.

 

[Good_Fella]

That’s your whole defense? “…and took her as his wife and he kept her a virgin UNTIL she gave birth to a son…” To me, like Luther’s justification by faith “alone,” the text connotatively demands it. I do not agree with everyone on this thread that Matt. 1:25 is totally undefined on the issue, or that Matthew himself intended it to be so. I’m not forcing an interpretation out of it, nor, like others, am I imposing upon it an external dogma. When left alone the text clearly speaks for itself.

Apo, you are imposing your personal wishful belief on the verse and creating your own dogma! :newidea:

The Council of Trent soundly refuted Luther’s false doctrine ‘sola fide’. :clapping:

But at least he believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity. Our Queen Mother (Gebirah) has surely remembered Luther as she sits at the right hand of her Son to intercede on his behalf for scattering His sheep. :yup:

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[JoeyWarren]

Good Fella said: And then, if Mary had more children after Jesus, then Jesus is not that unique. Only begotten Son of God, yes. But apparently not only begotten Son of Mary… God was satisfied with one Son, but Mary was not. We then start leaning into Da Vinci code territory of hidden bloodlines of Jesus. And most importantly if Mary and Joseph just carried on as “normal” after bearing the Son of God it would have been witness that neither of them actually BELIEVED that the Lord God had overshadowed Mary and been borne in her womb. No believing jew would defile such holiness

I think that is the first time, I have seen that argument. hmmmmmmmmmmm

Since Jesus got his blood and human nature from Mary, then it would fair to say that any true siblings would have the same blood and could make claims of having the same bloodline and lineage as Jesus. Is there anybody out there claiming to be of the bloodline of Mary? Is there anybody out there that can trace their lineage directly to Mary?

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

 

[JoeyWarren]

No believing jew would defile such holiness

You are so right in this matter.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Because the Apostles, Mary (Theotokos), Mary Magedelen, and others had witnessed the life of Jesus. His pomisies, His death, His empty tomb, His appearance to them after His resurection.

What had they to fear? To be absent from the body was to be united with The Almighty!

The early Christians were under no obligation to volunteer to be slaughtered for Nero’s entertainment.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hot off the presses…I just did some research and put the following together. Thoughts anyone?

Jerome on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

“[Helvidius] produces Tertullian as a witness [to his view] and quotes Victorinus, bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian, I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proven from the gospel—that he [Victorinus] spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship, not by nature. [By discussing such things we] are . . . following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against [the heretics] Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man.”

This quote is taken from chapter 19 of St. Jerome’s work, “Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary—a work written in A.D. 383 in response to the teaching of Helvidius who denied that Mary had remained a virgin throughout her life.

In this passage, Jerome states that Ignatius of Antioch (d. A.D. 107), Polycarp of Smyrna (d. A.D, 155), Justin Martyr (d. A.D. 165) and Irenaeus of Lyons (d. A.D. 202) all held that Mary was ever-virgin. It is especially important to note that both Ignatius and Polycarp were disciples of the Apostles Peter and John—a fact which ties this discussion directly to the original Twelve Apostles of Jesus.

Although the works of these men with which Jerome was evidently familiar do not survive to this day, the fact that Jerome cites them in his refutation of Helvidius provides evidence that belief in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary existed from the earliest days of the Church.

It is interesting to note that Helvidius never responded to Jerome’s refutation.

Gee, no one seems to be responding to this refutation now either.

 

[YADA]

I think that is the first time, I have seen that argument. hmmmmmmmmmmm

Since Jesus got his blood and human nature from Mary, then it would fair to say that any true siblings would have the same blood and could make claims of having the same bloodline and lineage as Jesus. Is there anybody out there claiming to be of the bloodline of Mary? Is there anybody out there that can trace their lineage directly to Mary?

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Yes, there is a lady making this claim…saw it in the news sometime back…don’t recall her name…I will try to search for it…

And I think the points made are relevant…is there a Jesus line?

I say no, as I believe in the scriptures and the faith as handed down throught the ages by the first church of Christ [known very early on and to this day as the Catholic Church]

 

[YADA]

This woman claims to be a descendent of Mary Magdela and Jesus…

usatoday.com/life/books/news/2006-07-17-magdalene-book_x.htm

And if Jesus had other siblings, I am sure there are those who claim such a connection:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_of_Jesus

And here the claim that Linda Fliorentino is the descendent of one of the siblings of Jesus…

guardian.co.uk/notesandqueries/query/0,-11906,00.html

 

[apophasis]

So if you saw the phrase “It’s raining cat’s and dog’s” you would leave it alone, because the text clearly speaks for itself

I wouldn’t impose upon it. I would recognize the figure of speech and go with it.

 

[apophasis]

Apo, you are imposing your personal wishful belief on the verse and creating your own dogma! :newidea:

I’m not imposing my belief, I’m simply believing what Matthew wrote. What “dogma” am I creating?

Our Queen Mother (Gebirah) has surely remembered Luther as she sits at the right hand of her Son to intercede on his behalf for scattering His sheep.

Now this is “created” dogma.

 

[YADA]

That’s your whole defense? “…and took her as his wife and he kept her a virgin UNTIL she gave birth to a son…” To me, like Luther’s justification by faith “alone,” the text connotatively demands it. I do not agree with everyone on this thread that Matt. 1:25 is totally undefined on the issue, or that Matthew himself intended it to be so. I’m not forcing an interpretation out of it, nor, like others, am I imposing upon it an external dogma. When left alone the text clearly speaks for itself.

Funny, if it was so clear why do othrrs have a different understanding ? *

Funny, if it was so clear, why did you feel the need to add the word, forcing your interpretation on the text?

And appealing to Luther, well that is rich, as the only place found in scriptures that authentically discusses faith alone delares that faith alone is dead…as in “faith alone without works is dead”

Luther was wrong to add the word, like you he force his own meaning into the passage…the works discussed in Romans were works *of the law *like circumcision.

They were not “works” in general or the works that arise in faith…feeding the hungry, clothing the naked…

Luther was wrong and you are wrong…*

 

[PC_Master]

This is too simplified. It does not take into account that the Church is representing the Divine Deposit of Faith, and is custodian to the Apostolic Teachings. We believe the Church because Jesus founded her, and gave His promise that she would not err. The ability to trust in the Teachings comes from Jesus. Therefore, it is more correct to say “you believe because Jesus tells you to believe”.

No. You didn’t understand what I wrote, apparently. See, what it comes down to is that you have faith that the church is right in what it says about itself (that it is the church established by Jesus and that it cannot err). On the other hand, I don’t believe either of those things to be true. I don’t think the RCC represents the “Divine Deposit of Faith”.

If I actually thought Jesus instructed in a particular way on this matter, I wouldn’t argue against it at all.

Actually, many have been given, and rejected.

That they have been accepted by those who already hold the belief says little as to whether they’re “proof” or not. “Preaching to the choir” is the term I’d use here.

I object to the use of the word “Roman” here.

If you really are bothered with it, start another thread on the subject, but I’ve already explained my use of the term at least once, and no one proposed a suitable alternative given the criteria I have.

…because the NT came out of the Sacred Oral Tradition.

No one argues this. What is disputed is whether or not current church teaching is the same as the “Sacred Tradition”.

So, basically, what you are saying is that Catholics abandoned Jesus, or Jesus abandoned Catholics, but that Jesus is no longer found in the Catholic Church?

Sum it up to say that Roman Catholics do not possess the fullness of truth, as I understand them currently.

I think it is the rejection of the Church Authority that prevents people from seeing the preponderance of evidence.

Or, perhaps it is the acceptance of that authority that causes Roman Catholics to accept the supposed “evidence” without question.

There’s no comparability between the questions. The age Mary had Jesus is not something universally taught by the entire Church since the earliest times. Mary is NOT known as “the fourteen year-old mother Mary”, but as the VIRGIN Mary. But of course all these christians down through the ages got it wrong, and your pastor got it right…

I never said that the church did universally teach it. What the RCC teaches or does not teach is not the measuring rod I use.

I asked what difference it made if I didn’t believe. The only answer I got that wasn’t in relation to the authority of the RCC was that “it matters because it’s not the truth, and we’re supposed to worship in fullness of spirit and truth”. The belief of that poster is apparently that knowledge of truth is very, very important, even on details that do not affect my worship of God. To illustrate the silliness of that view, I pulled up a question which is equally trivial to me, yet which has a definitive “yes” or “no” answer.

And then, if Mary had more children after Jesus, then Jesus is not that unique. Only begotten Son of God, yes. But apparently not only begotten Son of Mary…

I don’t recall him being called “only begotten son of Mary” in scripture (or elsewhere in early church history).

We then start leaning into Da Vinci code territory of hidden bloodlines of Jesus.

This is an argument I thought of a couple of days ago, and it’s the only good argument I’ve been able to come up with so far.

However, there are other ways God could have protected us from this problem if he so chose (causing the records of lineage to be lost somewhere along the way, for instance). Since we have no seriously credible person making such a claim, it would seem that we may not ever know by which means God decided to protect us from this problem.

And aside from the descendants of these other children claiming some kind of divinity or whatever (which we do not have), I still don’t see how this affects my worship of God at all.

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

And most importantly if Mary and Joseph just carried on as “normal” after bearing the Son of God it would have been witness that neither of them actually BELIEVED that the Lord God had overshadowed Mary and been borne in her womb. No believing jew would defile such holiness

By the “Ark of the New Covenant” argument that Mary was so holy she couldn’t be touched, I again ask – are you suggesting she avoided all physical contact? Or perhaps just her womb was overshadowed by God, instead of her whole person?

If she was set apart, touching her at all would be unthinkable, if your assertions of Jewish mentality are correct.

I also thionk the topic is raised a lot by evangelicals who want to attack the Catholic church. They read the words “brothers” of jesus in modern bibles and think. Ha! PROOF Catholicism contradicts the bible! So they keep bringing it up ad nauseam and refuse to accept the results

Some do, no doubt. It’s just like how every conversation on these forums turns into a “authority of the Church magisterium” discussion at some point. I’m pretty sure every non-Roman-Catholic here has heard the arguments for that point, so bringing it up in here seems pointless…except as a fall back position when you have nothing else to point to.

From your point of view, perhaps “none”. From mine, communion with the Apostolic Succession. Since Jesus designed His Church this way, it seems to me very harmful to lose it.

But that’s not specific to Mary’s perpetual virginity. That’s just a blanket “here’s why it’s bad to disagree with the RCC on anything”. I’d like something more specific to the issue we’re discussing here.

It seems difficult for me to think of Jesus’ mother as “minutia”.

I never said she was. I said that her perpetual virginity, or lack thereof, is minutia.

Jesus says that the time “now is”. Why would Jesus call us to do something that is not possible? I agree, it is not possible without the HS.

Well then, if the complete and total truth about everything is what he was referring to, then someone should be able to definitively answer my question about Mary’s age.

If it’s a matter of being truthful in our spiritual worship of God, rather than being in knowledge of all truth, then sincerity is the key.

What you are saying is that Jesus is a liar, or a weakling.

Nope – far more simply, I’m saying you are incorrect about your interpretation of what he said.

Well, that pretty much seems to wrap it up. Whether true or false, understanding Mary’s perpetual virginity does not change my faith, how I worship the creator of the universe, or anything else of importance, with the exception that denying it might allow for Da Vinci Code-esque claims of blood relations to Jesus.

The only other argument received is that it’s wrong to disbelieve in this because the RCC says so, but that argument is nothing unless one already accepts the authority of the RCC.

In other words, for almost all of you, it comes down to having faith in the church’s teachings, not in a substantiable bit of evidence of reasonable antiquity and credibility.

Thus, I choose to take no position on this issue. It’s of little consequence, and doesn’t affect anything of substance. Instead I’ll focus on things which actually matter to the true faith. See ya folks!

 

[Randy_Carson]

No. You didn’t understand what I wrote, apparently. See, what it comes down to is that you have faith that the church is right in what it says about itself (that it is the church established by Jesus and that it cannot err). On the other hand, I don’t believe either of those things to be true. I don’t think the RCC represents the “Divine Deposit of Faith”.

Actually, we have faith in what Jesus says about the Church.

That they have been accepted by those who already hold the belief says little as to whether they’re “proof” or not. “Preaching to the choir” is the term I’d use here.

That they have been rejected by those who have been taught their whole lives that the Catholic Church is wrong is not surprise, either.

If you really are bothered with it, start another thread on the subject, but I’ve already explained my use of the term at least once, and no one proposed a suitable alternative given the criteria I have.

Are you one of those people who still refers to Muhammad Ali as Cassius Clay? Or do you respect the man’s wishes concerning what he wants to be called? There is no organization that I’m aware of known formally as the “Roman Catholic Church”. The cover of the Catechism makes this clear enough…it is the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Like it or not, the Church does have a formal name by which it has been known for nearly 2,000 years.

No one argues this. What is disputed is whether or not current church teaching is the same as the “Sacred Tradition”.

By all means, start new, single-issue threads on each issue for which you think you can prove this.

Sum it up to say that Roman Catholics do not possess the fullness of truth, as I understand them currently.

The operative phrase being “as I understand them currently.”

Or, perhaps it is the acceptance of that authority that causes Roman Catholics to accept the supposed “evidence” without question.

Most likely. For those that understand that the Church cannot teach error, acceptance of the explanations is admittedly easier. For those that believe that the Catholic Church cannot be the true church founded by Christ, no explanation is possible.

I don’t recall him being called “only begotten son of Mary” in scripture (or elsewhere in early church history).

Apparently, you are just ignoring my post concerning Jerome against Helvidius…I realize that that bit of data is decidedly inconvenient for you.

 

[JoeyWarren]

I wouldn’t impose upon it. I would recognize the figure of speech and go with it.

And if you were reading that phrase for the very first time and never heard that phrase at all?

 

[Mommyof02green]

I wouldn’t impose upon it. I would recognize the figure of speech and go with it.

How do you know that it is a figure of speech?