T
- Status
T
thetazlord
Guest
Again, I said Matthew uses this Greek word in his Gospel. These verses are not in Matthew’s Gospel. In fact, Psalm 57:10 isn’t even in Greek, it’s in Hebrew.
Addressed with already.
Yet, Matthew uses “heos” two dozen times in his Gospel 100% of the time to mean this. So, are you arguing by exception?
That’s because “adelphos” has numerous different meanings, just as “brother” does in English. Therefore, it requires meticulous search through the Scripture, examining Jesus’ family - included extended family, such as His cousins & other relatives - to come to the conclusion what Jesus means by “brothers,” which in context with these other passages, mean literal younger half-brothers. Matthew 1:25 just backs this up, & how you can know “until” means that once an event ends, so does the activity. Matthew 1:25 reinforces all these other verses to mean half-brothers, & vice versa.
There is no Scriptural evidence that Mary violated God’s command to be fruitful & multiply with her legally married husband, nor any Scriptural evidence from God, nor an angel, for her to do so. Forgive me, but since you are the making the affirmative claim that she did this, then the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that she did. I don’t need to prove a negative.
I was merely quoting what she admitted - that God can contradict Himself in His Own written, Inspired Word. Do you agree with her conclusion?
I’m merely saying that there is no Scriptural evidence that Mary “remained” a virgin, nor God or an angel or anyone else, commanding her to. I’m not the one “affirming” or “adding” anything to Scripture. Since you are, “you” are making the claim that she did.
Are you affirming, just as CA Jimmy Akin does, that “this” is your earliest source for believing in the PVM? If so, are you stating that you are placing your faith in this earliest source, which is a false “gospel” attributed to a false author - James the Just who had been DEAD for around 150 years?
T
thetazlord
Guest
Based on the writings of early Christians - who as another Catholic poster wrote they didn’t all agree that she was - I wondered the same thing. I would think that “if” it was passed down by the apostles to their time, & “if” she was a perpetual virgin, then the consensus, rather than just a “majority” would have believed her virginity was perpetual.
J
JMM1957
Guest
And the point being? It seems the way you interpret Scripture changes continuously depending of what you are trying to get out of it to back up your position. One minute you take an absolute literal view, and the next minute a metaphorical or allegorical view. Its getting hard keeping up with the way you are thinking.
I am also beginning to see in some of the things you say, a theology of Jesus in general that I’m not quite sure I agree with either, which adds even more confusion to your defense of your position, at least from where I sit.There are way too many things that I need to address in your last couple posts, but unfortunately I’ll have to get back to them later because of a lack of time right now to do it justice.
M
Mousey
Guest
Reread I didn’t say it did what I asked was what did scripture say then I pointed out what it did say. Widows were pretty destitute
Jesus didn’t violate what? All that scripture addresses is the reaping of fields and the only way Jesus could violate it would be to reap and not leave anything.
If Jesus had a brother, by the ten commandments he would be obligated to take care of his mother. Jesus would not have had to provide for her.
You are putting a modern day twist on this not what the society was in Jesus time. It is called an anachronism.
The society back then lived in what was a family group. Meaning cousins, aunts, uncles
lived together as a family unit.
Those named can be shown to be Jesus’ cousins “Brethren of the Lord” is but one that does
I know you hate to consider the society they lived in but you must to be able to understand. The custom even if they thought a brother to be crazy was not to give advice to an older brother as is done in John 7 3. They would not have done it unless Jesus was younger. That they did shows that they were older than Jesus but we know that Jesus was Mary’s first born.
These verses have nothing to do with this topic. Genesis 6:6 is about God’s sorrow for the willful sinfulness of mankind that He created. Job 3:10 has do to with Job lamenting that because of the anguish God allowed him to endure, that he felt it would have been better if he had not been born. But neither of these verses have anything to do with whether or not Mary was a perpetual virgin based on Matthew 1:25, nor whether or not Jesus had younger half-siblings or not. So, I’m not sure why you included these verses.
M
Mousey
Guest
Reread I didn’t say it did what I asked was what did scripture say then I pointed out what it did say. Widows were pretty destitute
Jesus didn’t violate what? All that scripture addresses is the reaping of fields and the only way Jesus could violate it would be to reap and not leave anything.
If Jesus had a brother, by the ten commandments he would be obligated to take care of his mother. Jesus would not have had to provide for her.
You are putting a modern day twist on this not what the society was in Jesus time. It is called an anachronism.
The society back then lived in what was a family group. Meaning cousins, aunts, uncles
lived together as a family unit.
Those named can be shown to be Jesus’ cousins “Brethren of the Lord” is but one that does
I know you hate to consider the society they lived in but you must to be able to understand. The custom even if they thought a brother to be crazy was not to give advice to an older brother as is done in John 7 3. They would not have done it unless Jesus was younger. That they did shows that they were older than Jesus but we know that Jesus was Mary’s first born.
.
You said Jesus couldn’t change His mind because He is God well one versus I quoted showed God changing His mind. I did not mean to quote job but Jonah where God decided not to destroy Nineveh a change of mind.
M
Mousey
Guest
Either you missed my post or you ignored it.
Until is defined as only up to a certain point. You are using your own definition therefore the exception is to your definition not to the standard definition. I don’t accept your definition. Get a dictionary definition. That is why we have dictionaries so that we all start off with the same understanding of a word. The Scripture only proves she was virgin at the time of Jesus birth,
J
JMM1957
Guest
Not necessarily. When you or anyone, including myself, use the phrase “I would think” this or that, it is merely giving our own opinion on something. It doesn’t reflect the truth of the matter in some cases, but we all do it quite frequently, don’t we? Personally, I don’t know why everyone back in the day wouldn’t have been in agreement on this issue, certainly in the first century or two. But, there must be reasons for it that we are not aware of, or at least not given much thought to. I do one thing for certain though, and that is the NT is full of warnings about people who were going to infiltrate the church with teachings that are not of the Lord and the Apostles. Some of these illegitimate teachings no doubt were going to arise from peoples speculation about Biblical teachings that were unclear or difficult to understand, and even possibly people who deliberately wanted to lead people away by intentional distortion of the truth (doctrines of demons) of the Gospel. Whatever the case, we can’t be sure about the motives of these same people who are 2000 years removed from today, their writings don’t necessarily indicate their motives, just their teachings or statements on a particular matter, and in some cases, it may be only their opinions.Based on the writings of early Christians - who as another Catholic poster wrote they didn’t all agree that she was - I wondered the same thing. I would think that “if” it was passed down by the apostles to their time, & “if” she was a perpetual virgin, then the consensus, rather than just a “majority” would have believed her virginity was perpetual.
J
JMM1957
Guest
Correct, as I have been saying also. Maybe he thinks that the modern day definition is different from the ancient definition, I don’t know. If that was the case, we would really be confused as to what the Bible teaches, wouldn’t we?
I think taz is letting all the other verses about Jesus “brothers” come into play here also, in his interpretation of Matt. 1:25, which is understandable considering his overall position on the matter. I hesitate to open a new thread on the subject of those “brothers” because I already know what his response will be. But all is not lost, I came across an article online the other day in which the author methodically went through NT Scripture and composed a “family tree” type of chart which shows how the “brothers” of Jesus are explained to be other family members, not actual other biological children of Mary. Unfortunately, I don’t know why, I did not save it for future reference, so now I have to go back and try to locate it again. Maybe someone else has seen the same thing and can provide a link to it before I can. It would be a valuable resource to use here right now.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Where did the ECFs get “what they had been taught” if not from the Apostles and their successors.
In fact, many of the ECFs were the first generation successors of the Apostles.
P
PRmerger
Guest
They weren’t children of Mary. Of that we are certain.
You can search the entirety of the NT and you will never find a single verse that speaks of Mary’s other children.
She birthed just one child. A womb that was made for Him Who Could Not Be Contained, and no other.
The Word Incarnate dwelled intimately for 9 months in her womb.
*No other human creature ought to occupy what dwelt so intimately in that holy and sacred space. *
J
JMM1957
Guest
tazlord says:
Jesus being God also didn’t know the day nor hour of His return either (Mark 13:32). That’s because Scripture says Jesus “emptied Himself” (Philippians 2:7), meaning becoming incarnate (“in the flesh”), Jesus allowed Himself to have human limitations, while still maintaining being 100% God, as well as 100% Man, which would include not only having the ability to “not knowing” His return, as well as “not knowing” that His unbelieving half-brothers would eventually come to the faith. But even if Jesus did “know” they would, placing Mary in John’s custody, instead of His unbelieving half-brothers only reinforces that Jesus held His heavenly “brothers” in higher esteem & legitimacy than his earthy “brothers” & other family. Again, this is “why” Jesus entrusted Mary to not only His cousin (ie: earthly family), John, but also His heavenly “brother.”
Jesus in his humanity spoke these verses: Matt. 26:34, Mark 13:2, John 8:28-29, and there are many others. He did have human limitations in his humanity, but He also says in John 8:29 that He only does and says what the Father has taught Him. So, He would not know the time of His return unless the Father told Him, which He didn’t. As far as “not knowing” that His unbelieving half brothers (as you say) would come to the faith, that would be an assumption on your part. He clearly could know any future events as the Father revealed them to Him. So basically what you are saying is regardless of whether He knew they would come to the faith or not, Jesus did the right thing by putting His mother in the care of John? Hmmm.
Jesus being God also didn’t know the day nor hour of His return either (Mark 13:32). That’s because Scripture says Jesus “emptied Himself” (Philippians 2:7), meaning becoming incarnate (“in the flesh”), Jesus allowed Himself to have human limitations, while still maintaining being 100% God, as well as 100% Man, which would include not only having the ability to “not knowing” His return, as well as “not knowing” that His unbelieving half-brothers would eventually come to the faith. But even if Jesus did “know” they would, placing Mary in John’s custody, instead of His unbelieving half-brothers only reinforces that Jesus held His heavenly “brothers” in higher esteem & legitimacy than his earthy “brothers” & other family. Again, this is “why” Jesus entrusted Mary to not only His cousin (ie: earthly family), John, but also His heavenly “brother.”
Jesus in his humanity spoke these verses: Matt. 26:34, Mark 13:2, John 8:28-29, and there are many others. He did have human limitations in his humanity, but He also says in John 8:29 that He only does and says what the Father has taught Him. So, He would not know the time of His return unless the Father told Him, which He didn’t. As far as “not knowing” that His unbelieving half brothers (as you say) would come to the faith, that would be an assumption on your part. He clearly could know any future events as the Father revealed them to Him. So basically what you are saying is regardless of whether He knew they would come to the faith or not, Jesus did the right thing by putting His mother in the care of John? Hmmm.
M
Mystophilus
Guest
A/ the reference was to “demonstrable usage” of that word in that place at that time, b/ the whole of the OT is in Greek in the Septuagint, the source for about 90% of the OT quotations in the NT, c/ there are other examples of this in the LXX, including Jos 8:28 καὶ ἐνεπύρισεν Ἰησοῦς τὴν πόλιν ἐν πυρί· χῶμα ἀοίκητον εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ἔθηκεν αὐτὴν ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ταύτης, 2Sa 6:23 καὶ τῇ Μελχολ θυγατρὶ Σαουλ οὐκ ἐγένετο παιδίον ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας τοῦ ἀποθανεῖν αὐτήν, 2Chr 10:19 καὶ ἠθέτησεν Ισραηλ ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ Δαυιδ ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ταύτης (see also 10:5). This was the normal usage of the term in the period, and your claim that Matthew uses it differently to how everyone else uses it has not been demonstrated.
No, you haven’t.
- Mt 22:44, the Son does not cease to hold his place of honour once his enemies are placed under his feet; indeed, he never loses his place of honour.
- Mt 26:36, the disciples are not asked to cease to wait once Jesus leaves to pray; they eventually leave, but that departure is not connected with this sentence.
- Mt 27:8; the field is not described as ceasing to hold that name once Matthew’s time of writing arrives; the name eventually changes, but that change is not connected with this sentence.
Your claim about Matthew always using 'εως for a state which terminates in the time of the sentence is simply false. Matthew uses 'εως in precisely the same way that the other writers of his time did: as a reference only to what was happening before a point in time, not to what was happening after it.
So, you admit that your argument is circular. That is a step forward.
You made a positive claim about the usage of a Greek word. You have singularly **failed **to prove that claim, and instead merely keep repeating it and claiming that you have addressed it.
Back up your accusation: show me the place where I have stated that she certainly remained a virgin.
Interesting arithmetic: 155-65 is traditionally 90, not 150. Still, the fact that the text is pseudepigraphal is irrelevant, since it demonstrate the existence of the belief in Mary’s continued virginity in around the middle of the second century, easily close enough to the events to have been contradicted by any surviving alleged descendants of Mary, or anyone who had known any alleged descendants. It is also earlier than the sources which claim that there were such descendants.
M
Mystophilus
Guest
Scripture is non-affirmative, true.
The history, on the other hand, is interesting:
Protoevangelium of James, c.155: “Mary remained virgin”
Origen, Commentary on Matthew 10.17, c.240: “brothers are children by earlier marriage” (citing Gospel of Peter, c.100-120, this fragment now lost)
Eusebius, History of the Church, c.310: “brothers are not blood brothers” (citing various sources from c.98 onwards).
Helvidius, c.380, “Mary had children” (citing Victorinus, c.300, whom Jerome describes c.383 as not saying this, and Tertullian, c.200, who does say it but makes that claim as speculation from philosophical principles, not with reference to any historical data).
The weight of this historical record is with Mary’s having had no other children. Your church does not just teach this because someone made it up. They teach it because tradition says it, and tradition is just a form of history.
J
JMM1957
Guest
No Scriptural reason, not likely. If you want to **“reason” **from the Scriptures, you could envision Mary and Joseph both deciding to remain without relations after Jesus birth, because of the great work of salvation that God had done by bringing the Messiah into the world through Mary’s womb. Can you imagine Mary and Joseph both reading the Scriptures after the angel’s announcement, and realizing that the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy of 800 years earlier involved the two of them? To me at least, it would have been mind blowing, and I’m sure they felt the same. I think being the “virgin” in that prophecy would have caused Mary to at least rethink how married life would be now, and Joseph the same. Obviously, just my opinion, but something worth considering I think. What’s your opinion on this?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Heos Hou and the Protestant Polemic
By John Pacheco
catholic-legate.com/Apologetics/MaryAndTheSaints/HeosHouPolemic/HeosHouAndProtestantPolemic.aspx
After 14 pages of very careful research, Pacheco writes:
Conclusion
The evidence presented here on heõs hou is decisively against the thesis proposed by Svendsen. We have examined the lexicons and we have conducted a survey of contemporary scholarly opinion on the matter. We have studied the usage of hou to determine if there was something intrinsic in the use of the word which would necessarily restrict the meaning of a phrase which used it. We have also examined the synonyms of heõs when used with hou. The textual issue surrounding the question were also considered. We have also discussed the statistical significance of the number of instances of heõs hou both in the Septuagint and in the New Testament. Finally, we have examined specific occurrences of heõs hou in the Greek Old and New Testaments and the literature outside of the New Testament but contemporaneous with it, including non-biblical and Greek patristic evidence.
All of these sources strongly reinforce the conclusion that this phrase does not imply a limit of duration, much less a cessation of the main clause. Some times the usage of the phrase in question is a cessation or continuation of the main clause; other times it is contemporaneous; and many other times it is unclear. The context of the passage is all-important in deciphering what is meant, but even then the context may not be a conclusive mechanism at times.
Indeed, no determination of the meaning of heõs, heõs hou, heõs hotou, or heõs an can be made without the context of the passage being involved. As heõs can be used either to terminate or to continue the action of the main verb (as its linguistic equivalent ‘until’ does in English and many other languages, including Hebrew), so does heõs hou, heõs hotou, or heõs an. The decision on whether heõs terminates or continues the action of the main verb depends on several factors, including whether one or the other makes logical sense; agrees with the context; agrees with the grammatical construction of the passage; does not contradict other known facts; etc. In conclusion, two things can be asserted regarding heõs and heõs hou:
INDENT that heõs and heõs hou do not always terminate the action in the main clause;
and
(2) that heõs and heõs hou are not used differently in Greek grammar.
Therefore, Svendsen’s proposition regarding the necessary grammatical exclusion of heõs hou as a continuation of the action in the main clause must be summarily rejected.
In short, Mary’s virginity is not compromised by the use of heõs hou in Matthew 1:25.
Eric Svendsen must recant his position. It is wholly untenable and not worthy of authentic scholarship.
John Pacheco
The Catholic Legate
October 16, 2003
Feast of Mary’s Virginity
[/INDENT]
By John Pacheco
catholic-legate.com/Apologetics/MaryAndTheSaints/HeosHouPolemic/HeosHouAndProtestantPolemic.aspx
After 14 pages of very careful research, Pacheco writes:
Conclusion
The evidence presented here on heõs hou is decisively against the thesis proposed by Svendsen. We have examined the lexicons and we have conducted a survey of contemporary scholarly opinion on the matter. We have studied the usage of hou to determine if there was something intrinsic in the use of the word which would necessarily restrict the meaning of a phrase which used it. We have also examined the synonyms of heõs when used with hou. The textual issue surrounding the question were also considered. We have also discussed the statistical significance of the number of instances of heõs hou both in the Septuagint and in the New Testament. Finally, we have examined specific occurrences of heõs hou in the Greek Old and New Testaments and the literature outside of the New Testament but contemporaneous with it, including non-biblical and Greek patristic evidence.
All of these sources strongly reinforce the conclusion that this phrase does not imply a limit of duration, much less a cessation of the main clause. Some times the usage of the phrase in question is a cessation or continuation of the main clause; other times it is contemporaneous; and many other times it is unclear. The context of the passage is all-important in deciphering what is meant, but even then the context may not be a conclusive mechanism at times.
Indeed, no determination of the meaning of heõs, heõs hou, heõs hotou, or heõs an can be made without the context of the passage being involved. As heõs can be used either to terminate or to continue the action of the main verb (as its linguistic equivalent ‘until’ does in English and many other languages, including Hebrew), so does heõs hou, heõs hotou, or heõs an. The decision on whether heõs terminates or continues the action of the main verb depends on several factors, including whether one or the other makes logical sense; agrees with the context; agrees with the grammatical construction of the passage; does not contradict other known facts; etc. In conclusion, two things can be asserted regarding heõs and heõs hou:
INDENT that heõs and heõs hou do not always terminate the action in the main clause;
and
(2) that heõs and heõs hou are not used differently in Greek grammar.
Therefore, Svendsen’s proposition regarding the necessary grammatical exclusion of heõs hou as a continuation of the action in the main clause must be summarily rejected.
In short, Mary’s virginity is not compromised by the use of heõs hou in Matthew 1:25.
Eric Svendsen must recant his position. It is wholly untenable and not worthy of authentic scholarship.
John Pacheco
The Catholic Legate
October 16, 2003
Feast of Mary’s Virginity
[/INDENT]
M
Mystophilus
Guest
I am mostly just quoting this so that it gets repeated, since it is the self-evident conclusion from reading the Bible in Greek.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
By the way, The Catholic Legate has developed an entire web page which contains extensive lengths to articles destroying the heos/heos hou argument against Mary’s Perpetual Virginity.
I won’t recreate the links to every article, but you can access them easily enough here:
Heõs Hou Central
catholic-legate.com/articles/heosindex.html
I won’t recreate the links to every article, but you can access them easily enough here:
Heõs Hou Central
catholic-legate.com/articles/heosindex.html
- The Non-Rule of Mr. Svendsen (Palm - 50KB - Feb.25.04)
- Another Scholar’s Opinion on Heõs Hou (Owen - 11KB - Jan.12.04)
- Farewell to Heõs Hou (Pacheco - 49KB - Jan.6.04)
- Svendsen’s Rule: Boot your opponent off of your “discussion board” (Pacheco - 67KB - Dec.19.03)
- More Obfuscation from Svendsen (Pacheco - 12KB - Dec.12.03)
- Sungenis & Michael’s Discovery on 4 Maccabees 7:3 (Sungenis/Michael)
- James, Jack, and the Beanstalk (Pacheco - 7KB - Dec.8.03)
- David Palm’s Exposition of Eric Svendsen’s Compounding Errors (Palm - 22KB - Dec.8.03)
- The Revenge of the Munchkin (Pacheco - 46KB - Dec.8.03)
- A Short Review of the White-Svendsen-Matatics Pow-Wow (Pacheco - 22KB - Dec.8.03)
- Robert Sungenis’ Rebuttal to Svendsen’s “Report” (Sungenis)
- Robert Sungenis’ Exposition on the White-Svendsen-Matatics Webcast Interview (Sungenis)
- Eric’s Top Ten Errors (Pacheco - 19KB - Oct.16.03)
- Survey Says!? (Pacheco - 14KB - Oct.16.03)
M
Mousey
Guest
I hope you can find it and share it. Until then this post from another thread will have to do.
- Status