Matthew 1 25

[Mousey]

I have. It’s called a Greek concordance. I would encourage you to examine EVERY ONE of the two dozen verses in Matthew where “heos” is used, & you’ll find that all of them mean that once an event ends, so does the activity.

Again you are applying your own definition. The standard definition on EVERY ONE ot the versus that use heos means up to the time and nothing more.

So, no I didn’t ignore your last post. My point was that since Matthew 1:25 is the ONLY one that’s in question, then believing “heos” doesn’t mean that is arguing by exception, & not consistent with the rest of the way Matthew uses “heos” in the other two dozen verses in his Gospel.

Only by using your definition and not the standard. The Greek concordance is

2193 heos {heh’-oce} of uncertain affinity;; conj 1) till, until

It doesn’t contain your definition nor will any standard dictionary.

Plus, there would be no point for Matthew to ADD “until she gave birth to a son.”

Of course not since that is the meaning o until.

If Mary remained a perpetual virgin, Matthew would not have needed to “add” these words. It’s unnecessarily redundant.

It would be redundant as until already means that up to the time of Jesus birth but it doesn’t say anything about what occurred after that time.

So, I agree with you, “The Scripture only proves she was virgin at the time of Jesus birth” - not after.

That is correct and neither does Scripture say anything about after either. Her virginity is not mentioned again. However, it can be inferred through the fact that the brothers mentioned treat Jesus as a younger brother, that the brothers mentioned can be traced to other parents, and that John was appointed to take care of her. We also know that the term brother is used for other relationships besides blood brothers.

 

[Mousey]

This is most definitely ADDING TO Scripture.

There is not a single verse, in the entirety of Scripture, that states that the reason why Jesus didn’t place Mary in the care of his younger biological half-brothers is because they mocked him.

Not. A. Single. Verse.

His brothers mocking Him would be further evidence that they were older than Jesus. Jesus was Mary’s first born so they couldn’t have been her children

 

[Cathoholic]

thetazlord said in post 93:

I have. It’s called a Greek concordance. I would encourage you to examine EVERY ONE of the two dozen verses in Matthew where “heos” is used, & you’ll find that all of them mean that once an event ends, so does the activity.

THIS IS FALSE!

I feel bad rebutting thetazlord as I see he is now banned (I am not surprised but I am disappointed in thetazlord) and cannot defend himself.

But I would feel worse seeing this shenanigans and not speaking out in a situation such as this.

Thetazlord has already been shown elsewhere that this “heos” assertion of his is NOT TRUE.

And thetazlord was given numerous examples WHY this “heos” assertion is phony.

And it was backed up by a native Greek-speaking Church Father too!

thetazlord may have merely forgotten this, so I wouldn’t give him “pinocchio points” on this incorrect theory of his . . . but I wouldn’t accept it blindly either.

I’ll try to get back here with the appropriate links soon.

God bless.

Cathoholic

 

[Porknpie]

thetazlord said in post 93:

THIS IS FALSE!

I feel bad rebutting thetazlord …

Thetazlord has already been shown elsewhere that this “heos” assertion of his is NOT TRUE.

And thetazlord was given numerous examples WHY this “heos” assertion is phony.

And it was backed up by a native Greek-speaking Church Father too!

Interesting how he could at times, come up with doctrine not found in the early Church and not believed by essentially anyone including the major reformers … all based on a man-made invention of sola scriptura. But really, he was a solo scripturist for what the Church has taught - handed down from the apostles matters not.

His interpretation of scripture… is at variance with the other 40,000 denominations…not one agrees with him on the reading and interpretation of the same book.

That he trusts that Catholic Bishops infallibly discerned the canon of scripture yet rejects the same Church on faith and morals is most …

Inconsistent.

(( and his using early church quotes from another website C**M, to support his contention on the Eucharist … and having all of those quotes refuted … shows the untenable position that he has on the Real Presence. Scripture and Tradition shine the light on Truth ))

 

[PRmerger]

I feel bad rebutting thetazlord as I see he is now banned (I am not surprised but I am disappointed in thetazlord) and cannot defend himself.

You ought not feel bad at all, Cathoholic.

When you look at the statistics for this thread, compared to how few people actually post, you can see that we have an inordinate amount of lurkers.

It is for them that we ought to continue to post and refute thetazlord.

Also, we can hope that despite being banned, thetazlord is able to come to the CAFs and read our refutations…and another seed can be planted.

It is clear that thetazlord was poorly catechized, and it is my hope that we were able to show him that he ought to investigate the faith he left a bit more.

We have the Eucharist! Imagine leaving your spouse, where you enjoy the marital embrace–the One Flesh Union!, the most intimate way to be close to Someone!–to be with someone who you can only hold hands with, at most.

Why, oh, why, would anyone choose holding hands over the marital embrace!

 

[Cathoholic]

In post 93 thetazlord stated:

I have. It’s called a Greek concordance. I would encourage you to examine EVERY ONE of the two dozen verses in Matthew where “heos” is used, & you’ll find that all of them mean that once an event ends, so does the activity.

I already showed him he was wrong here.

I also showed him a native Greek-speaking father (St. John Chrysostom) using heos and heos hou interchangeably (here).

His response?

He said he didn’t think it mattered and asked me to show an ancient Church Father’s statement on the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

The native Greek-speaking St. Epiphanius in the 300’s A.D. must not have known thetazlord’s invented rule about how heos ALWAYS necessitates a change in status (but ONLY in St. Matthew’s Gospel).

And poor St. Epiphanius.

Am I to think it is a good thing thetazlord finally came along in 2015 (mis)using his Greek lexicon and inventing rules that aren’t there, almost 1700 years LATER so now we can REALLY know the Scriptural fine points?

Am I to think thetazlord can really teach men like St. John Chrysostom and St. Epiphanius the Scriptural nuances of their own ancient Greek?

Can I really take such objections (and inventions) of thetazlord seriously?

ST. EPIPHANIUS We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit.
— St. Epiphanius The Man Well-Anchored 120 A.D. 374

This isn’t a sola Scriptura thread and I won’t expound on this, but since thetazlord INVENTED a new Scriptural exegetical rule that needs to be rebutted too, as it pertains to this thread.

Therefore in the next post I will give patristic evidence that thetazlord’s supposed Greek objection is irrelevant.

Basically here is the INVENTION of thetazlord Status Change Rule (that is NOT found or implied in Scripture). . . What I call thetazlord Change Rule of Matthew’s Gospel.

thetazlord Change Rule of St. Matthew’s Gospel

(thetazlord invention of) If “heos” is in the Gospel of Matthew, it necessitates a change but ONLY in St. Matthew’s Gospel.

I’ve shown WHY this is a bogus claim (here).

Elsewhere thetazlord cited Matthew 5:26 as necessitating a change in status.

MATTHEW 5:26 26 truly, I say to you, you will never get out till you have paid the last penny.

Thanks thetazlord for implicitly asserting the doctrine of Purgatory here in Matthew 5:26 (the guy gets out of “prison”).

He was just plain wrong on some other assertions of heos = “change in status” in St. Matthew’s Gospel (he cited verses explicitly in another thread so I know which verses he was alluding to–and he misinterpreted some of them too).

I also reminded thetazlord elsewhere that all of the patristic evidence suggests St. Matthew’s Gospel was originally written in Hebrew and not Greek (he ignored that too as far as I can see).

St. Matthew’s Gospel being originally written in Hebrew, makes thetazlord’s whole argument fall like a house of cards on a windy day.

I asked him to produce one ancient Father who said St. Matthew’s Gospel was originally written in Greek. As I said, he ignored it. I’ll support my point on the next post . . .

 

[Cathoholic]

Below is from our local Men’s Catholic Bible study group (there we were focusing on the sham of the petros/petra objection).

The Ancient Church Fathers on St. Matthew’s Original Gospel Text

Scholars agree that most of the New Testament was written in Greek originally. Matthew’s Gospel is the exception though.

St. Matthew’s Gospel was originally written in a Hebrew language variant called Aramaic. This is the language that Jesus and His Apostles would have spoken from day to day commonly. Let’s look at some ancient Church Fathers writings to get more insight into this issue.

We will see that St. Matthew’s Gospel was originally written in Hebrew and not the new-fangled tradition of an original Greek composition as the petros/petra proponents have tried to invent.

St. Hippolytus of Rome, writing in the 200’s A.D., tells us St. Matthew died in the town of Parthia, but also tells us what the original language of St. Matthew’s gospel was. Let’s read on and find out. . . .

St. Hippolytus of Rome . . . . Peter preached the Gospel in Pontus, and Galatia, and Cappadocia, and Betania, and Italy, and Asia, and was afterwards crucified by Nero in Rome with his head downward, as he had himself desired to suffer in that manner. Andrew preached to the Scythians and Thracians, and was crucified, suspended on an olive tree, at Patrae, a town of Achaia; and there too he was buried. John, again, in Asia, was banished by Domitian the king to the isle of Patmos, in which also he wrote his Gospel and saw the apocalyptic vision; and in Trajan’s time he fell asleep at Ephesus, where his remains were sought for, but could not be found. James, his brother, when preaching in Judea, was cut off with the sword by Herod the tetrarch, and was buried there. Philip preached in Phrygia, and was crucified in Hierapolis with his head downward in the time of Domitian, and was buried there. Bartholomew, again, preached to the Indians, to whom he also gave the Gospel according to Matthew, and was crucified with his head downward, and was buried in Allanum, a town of the great Armenia.
And Matthew wrote the Gospel in the Hebrew tongue, and published it at Jerusalem, and fell asleep at Hierees, a town of Parthia. . . .

— St. Hippolytus of Rome
St. Hippolytus of Rome Died in 235 A.D. Again very ancient writings!

Let’s listen to Origen writing on this topic in the 200’s A.D. . . .

Origen . . . . Concerning the four Gospels which alone are uncontroverted in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the Gospel according to Matthew, who was at one time a publican and afterwards an Apostle of Jesus Christ,
was written first; and that he composed it in the Hebrew tongue and published it for the converts from Judaism. The second written was that according to Mark, who wrote it according to the instruction of Peter, who, in his General Epistle, acknowledged him as a son, saying, “The church that is in Babylon, elect together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Mark my son.” And third, was that according to Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, which he composed for the converts from the Gentiles. Last of all, that according to John.
— Origen. “The Unity and Harmony of Scripture; Second Book.”
Origen Died in 253 A.D. These are ancient writings.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem is appealing here to unbelieving Hebrews . . .

St. Cyril of Jerusalem . . . “They were Hebrews who wrote that history; so were all the Apostles Hebrews: why then do ye disbelieve the Jews? Matthew who wrote the Gospel wrote it in the Hebrew tongue; and Paul the preacher was a Hebrew of the Hebrews; and the twelve Apostles were all of Hebrew race: then fifteen Bishops of Jerusalem were appointed in succession from among the Hebrews. What then is your reason for allowing your own accounts, and rejecting ours, though these also are written by Hebrews from among yourselves.” . . .
—St. Cyril of Jerusalem. Catechetical Lectures #14
St. Cyril of Jerusalem Died in 386 A.D.

St. Papias of Hierapolis—Consider the early Church historian Eusebius writing in the 300’s and quoting Bishop and Saint Papias of Hierapolis (Papias’ writings are no longer available except in quotes from other ancient Church Fathers and fragments). Papias wrote in the about 120 A.D.​

continued . . . .

 

[Cathoholic]

St. Irenaeus called Papias “a hearer of John and a companion to Polycarp, a man of old time.” Polycarp himself incidentally, was ordained by the beloved disciple John. What did Papias himself think was the original language of St. Matthew’s Gospel? Let’s find out . . .

St. Papias of Hierapolis . . . “So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one of them interpreted them as he was able.” And the same writer uses testimonies from the first Epistle of John and from that of Peter likewise. And he relates another story of a woman, who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. These things we have thought it necessary to observe in addition to what has already been stated . . . .
—St. Papias of Hierapolis; writing in approximately 120 A.D.!

(Ancient Historian Eusebius of Caesarea quoting St. Papias in Eusebius’ “Church History,” Book III, Chapter XXXIX “The Writings of Papias.” Eusebius himself died in 341 A.D.)​

Listen now to St. Jerome.

St. Jerome . . . Matthew, also called Levi, apostle and aforetimes publican,
composed a gospel of Christ at first published in Judea in Hebrew for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed, but this was afterwards translated into Greek though by what author is uncertain. The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at Caesarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having the volume described to me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, a city of Syria, who use it. . . . .

— St. Jerome. “The Lives of Illustrious Men. Chapter 3.”
St. Jerome Died in 420 A.D.​

**There is NOT ONE ancient Church Father that asserts St. Matthew’s Gospel was originally written in Greek! ** There are no ancient manuscripts that suggest this either.​

---

Irrelevant

So thetazlord “Always Necessitates A Change But Only In The Gospel Of Matthew” INVENTION is utterly irrelevant.

Even if it were TRUE (which it isn’t) his argument is irrelevant.

Even if it were "Scriptural (which it isn’t) his argument is irrelevant.

You cannot invent rules like this, throw a little pixie-dust on them, and think you can dispense with 2000 years of Church teaching.

 

[Cathoholic]

There are a lot of thetazlord errors here on this thread to clean up.

thetazlord said in post 5 . . .

Also, using 2 Samuel 6:23 to use “until” to mean an ongoing action (or inaction) doesn’t work, because 2 Samuel was originally written in Hebrew. Matthew was written in Greek, & only the original language Scripture was written in are Inspired, not the translations, because translations can be translated differently, even in English translated Catholic & Protestant Bibles.

Hope this helps.

thetazlord stated:

2 Samuel was originally written in Hebrew. Matthew was written in Greek

thetazlord may have picked this Matthew/“original Greek” invention up from his ministers who try to cook up reasons to make a phony petros/petra objection elsewhere in St. Matthew’s Gospel (which also doesn’t work).

thetazlord gave no evidence for his original-Greek/Gospel-of-Matthew concoction.

I gave several patristic sources to contradict this invention.

thetazlord said:

only the original language Scripture was written in are Inspired, not the translations, because translations can be translated differently

Thanks thetazlord for helping to assert Catholic doctrine.

With this statement of yours, you just undermined your own argument as St. Matthew’s Gospel was originally written in Hebrew.

Again St. Jerome . . . .

ST. JEROME . . . Matthew, also called Levi, apostle and aforetimes publican, composed a gospel of Christ at first published in Judea in Hebrew for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed, but this was afterwards translated into Greek though by what author is uncertain. The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at Caesarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having the volume described to me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, a city of Syria, who use it. . . . .

    — St. Jerome. “The Lives of Illustrious Men. Chapter 3.”
    St. Jerome Died in 420 A.D.

Denying the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary is a tradition of men that makes void the Commandments of God. (In this case, a violation of the commandment to believe ALL that God taught)

 

[Cathoholic]

Thetazlord boasted:

EVERY ONE of the two dozen verses in Matthew where “heos” is used, & you’ll find that all of them mean that once an event ends, so does the activity.

Mystophilus appropriately answered (here):

‘The Lord said to my lord, “Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies under your feet”’?–Matt 22:44

Saying earlier in the post (emphasis mine):

Do you believe that the Lord stops being seated at the right hand of the Father?

And later in the same post Mystophilus also asked thetazlord . . .

Once God has placed his enemies under his feet, Jesus ceases to sit at the right hand?

Thetazlord didn’t answer the question (you can see for your self here).

thetazlord claimed he already answered that counter-objection . . . . citing for his “evidence”, a dead link as his “rebuttal” (here).

Everybody reading this knew heos didn’t necessitate a change in status there in St. Matthew’s Gospel (even pretending it WAS originally written in Greek to allow for thetazlord’s false foundation).

**Why not just have the humility to say (?) . . . . **

“You know. I was wrong. Heos does NOT NECESSITATE a change as evidenced in St. Matthew’s Gospel”.

This is so difficult for thetazlord to just admit what everybody can see is the truth.

Which reminds me of another quote in St. Matthew’s Gospel.

MATTHEW 23:12 12 whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

 

[rstrats]

Mousey,
re: “Why He choses John is not stated.”

Nor is it stated that John was the person that the Messiah chose.

 

[Cathoholic]

Now as I am reading more of the thread I see thetazlord ALSO later appealed to the Rapture to deny Jesus continually sits at the right hand of the Father (here).

Remember, Jesus is with us “Always. Lo, even to the end of the age.” (see Mt. 28:20)

MATTHEW 28:20b (NIV) . . . . And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Using thetazlord “reasoning”, Jesus NEVER sits at the right hand of the Father!

(He wouldn’t put it that way, but that is the conclusion drawn from his newfangled ideas)

But of course Jesus DOES sit at the right hand of the Father!

Then thetazlord appealed to . . . (wouldn’t you know it) . . . THE RAPTURE to deny Jesus remaining at the right hand of the Father.

thetazlord appealing to invented doctrines, to support other invented doctrines.

traditions of men that NULLIFY the commandments of God.

---

I suppose using this thetazlord type of “reasoning”, one would have to say at the Second Coming of Jesus (notice there is not “three comings” as in “Rapture”), when Jesus makes His Second Coming immediately known throughout the world . . .

. . . . that Jesus is going to have to start in the Pacific time-zones, then work His way west because after all, Jesus couldn’t be in ALL time zones at the same time! (with thetazlord theory carried to its logical conclusion)

Which really illustrates what some of the issues are with thetazlord theology.

It is a theology that not only denies Marian doctrine, but ALSO this theology
implicitly metastasizes to deny Jesus as God as well!

Thetazlord wouldn’t put it that way, but that is what occurs when these ideas of his, are taken to their logical conclusions.

Which is WHY this terrible theology is so dangerous.

As Tim Staples likes to say: "All Marian doctrines have Christologic implications!"

I will continue to read the thread and try to summarize the baloney that has been put forth. Many others have already exposed it too, so I may just re-iterate what has already been said.

 

[Mousey]

Mousey,
re: “Why He choses John is not stated.”

Nor is it stated that John was the person that the Messiah chose.

You referring I believe that it is not stated John but the disciple that Jesus loved.

Who was this disciple that Jesus loved

The Gospel of John is the only Gospel which mentions “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” John 13:23 tells us, “One of them, the disciple whom Jesus loved, was reclining next to Him.” John 19:26 declares, “When Jesus saw His mother there, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to His mother, ‘Dear woman, here is your son.’” John 21:7 says, “Then the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, ‘It is the Lord!’” This disciple is never specifically identified, but the identity of the disciple whom Jesus loved is clear. The disciple whom Jesus loved is John, the son of Zebedee and brother of James.

First, only the Gospel of John mentions the “disciple whom Jesus loved.” Second, John 21:2 lets us know who was fishing with Peter: “Simon Peter, Thomas (called Didymus), Nathanael from Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zebedee, and two other disciples were together…” The apostle John was a son of Zebedee (Matthew 4:21). Third, there were three disciples who were especially close to Jesus: Peter, James, and John (Matthew 17:1; Mark 5:37; 14:33; Luke 8:51). The “disciple whom Jesus loved” could not be Peter, as Peter asks Jesus a question in regards to this disciple (John 21:20-21). That leaves us with James or John. Jesus made a statement about the possible “longevity” of the life of the disciple whom He loved in John 21:22. James was the first of the apostles to die (Acts 12:2). While Jesus did not promise the disciple whom He loved long life, it would be highly unusual for Jesus to say, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?” if the disciple whom He loved was going to be the first disciple to die.

So while I agree with you why He chose John is not stated it is not true that it is not stated that John was the person that the Messiah chose.
We know the society that Jesus lived. We know that it would not have been necessary to provide for His mother if she had had other sons. We know that the sons mentioned had other parents. We know that when there was interaction between those called His brothers that Jesus was treated as a younger person. The fact we don’t know why John was chosen is not important but I would offer the reason being of all the apostles she was safest with John but as you say Scripture does not state why.