Yes, sometimes “until” has the modern connotation–sometimes it does not.
Can you give me where it says in Scripture that she was the mother of the human Jesus, but not the divine Jesus? Chapter and verse, please.
Indeed. But it was fitting for Him, was it not, to be borne in a perfect vessel?
Indeed. And who did the will of His Father most perfectly but she who said, “Be it done unto me according to Thy Word.”
Indeed. She is a creature, no doubt. Not a deity.
So why is she asking “how shall this be”??? In your scenario, Mary would have said, “Yes, I will conceive as I’m going to have marital relations with my husband Joseph.”
Exactly!!
So, basically what you are saying is, “whatever I understand it means when I read it is how I know that my interpretation is the right one?”Okay, the title of this thread, is “Non-catholics(or protestants), how do you know that your interpretation of the Bible is the right one?”. So I was reading Matthew 1:25 recently, and saw where scripture says,“But he did not have sexual relations with her(Mary) until after the baby was born. And Joseph named Him Jesus.” I may be a bit slow, but I do understand that when people have sex, they are no longer virgins; which if anybody else on this thread agrees, would invalidate the theory about Mary being a perpetual virgin!
The phrase is a reference to the virginity of Mary prior to the birth of Christ. It does not equate to having relations afterward.My Bible, the Holy Word of God, says,"he did not have sexual relations, until after the baby was born! Besides, isn’t pleasing sexual union, a part of Godly marriage?
I guess you didn’t understand PRmerger’s question.
Let me try to clarify this a little bit …
I agree that Christ taught about other forms of baptism,a nd I agree they are signficant. They are not separate, though. There is only one baptism. The are aspects of the One.
In answer to the OP, I guess what you are saying is that your “common sense” is what tells you that your interpretation is the correct one?
heiscoming, if you are using your “common sense”, try applying it here. The Catholic Church wrote compiled, protected, canonized and promulgated the whole NT. There is nothing in it that is not Catholic. Part of the criteria for inclusion in the NT was that nothing written contradicted Church teaching. The Church teaches that Mary continued to be a virgin because that is what we received from the Apostles. Don’t you think they would have known if Jesus had sibs?
Joseph was chosen and consecrated by the God to be the foster father of the Second Person of the Trinity. How does having sex make that role “less”? I think such a suggestion devalues the great value of Josephs task and role.JRKH: Nothing could be farther from the truth! I simply read this verse, and then said to myself," I thought Mary was a perpetual virgin?So after Jesus was born, the obedient Joseph had sexual relations with her
“But he did not have sexual relations with her(Mary) until her son was born”.Why do we want to lessen Joseph’s part in this whole plan?
I am not sure what this means.Sure are a lot of could have beens, probablys, and that is what the church teaches
Are you saying then, that the correct interpretation of scripture depends upon where you “lean”?I am leaning more and more towards these willing servants enjoying well deserved and loving relationsNot really sure whether Joseph had other children, but if he did, they would have been Jesus’s step brothers, not half brothers as the Bible states:thumbsup:
I fail to see what your insulting innuendo about the Pope’s attire has to do with the topic of the thread. However, if it is an issue that prevents you from being in full communion with the Church founded by Christ, I recommend that you start another thread.In post#676, MDK answered my post, but forgot to answer the question about dress codes for church service
No, I don’t think Jesus was unaware of her important role as queen of heaven. (I mean this is Jesus we’re talking about.
) On the other hand, he was also aware of our fallen human nature. More specifically, he was aware that we human beings have a tendency to take a good idea (e.g. Marian devotion), get over-zealous about it, and end up perverting it into something it was never meant to be.So we are in agreement that there are times when the use of the word “until” has no reference to what happens afterward?What if you tell your son, "You can’t drive until you’re 18; does mean he can’t drive before 18, can he drive after 18?
So, what you believe is what determines how you know that your interpretation of Scripture is the correct one? I think this is a very accurate description of the evangelical position.And I am sure that Joseph, who from the beginning(although he had some doubts)was obedient to God, understood the gravity of his situation! I for one do not believe that he had sexual relations with Mary, immediately following the birth of Christ
Many of intelligent people reject the revelation of God. In fact, divine revelation is often perceived as “foolishness” by the world.
So the correct interpretation of scripture rests upon hwa tyou are able to dismiss, or not?I understand what you mean by “until”. You’re going to get a cramp, patting yourself on the back! I know what catholics believe and teach, but I cannot summarily dismiss Joseph and Mary’s physical relationship as non-existent
Where did you get that Paul is the 13th Apostle? Talk about reading into the text!
In general, yes, but just like everything else, there are exceptions. There were some communities in Jesus’ day that entered celibate marriages. Consecrated virgins were customarily given to older men who already had their families, and were able to act as guardians.
May God bless your efforts to heal the wounds of division in the Body.
Good for you! You have been introduced to some of the history of your faith with which have not been acquainted!
Perhaps you would have a less difficult time if you understood that the Scripture does not reveal any plain truth about Mary that contradicts what the Catholic Church teaches. There were some writings that did, and the Catholic Church did not include them in the Canon as a result.
No, this is not the “reasoning”. The doctrine is taught by the Church because this is what God revealed to the Church. I agree, basing doctrine on what one can “reason” from the Scripture is a faulty premise, and does often produce faulty results. This method is that hallmark of Protestantism, and was necessary because they felt the authority appointed by Christ to teach was corrupt. A decision was made to try to replace this authority with the scriptures. Faulty premises continue to yield faulty results.
No. It means that he did not have relations with her prior to the birth of her son. It is a testimony that the father of her child was the Holy Spirit, not Joseph.
The angel instructed him to take her apart from the usual sexual relations that would occur during marriage.
I think I already answered that, christian1…sometimes Scripture uses the modern connotation–that is, as we understand the word “until” today–and sometimes it doesn’t.
Why do you say this verse is most closely related to the scripture in question?
. We all know that she was a virgin(immaculate conception).What we are doing, is raising the very real possibility that Joseph and his wife, enjoyed a physical relationship AFTER Jesus was born I have heard, from more than one person, that in Jewish custom, when a man and woman were betrothed, in essence, “married”, that they were required to live separately for one year, until the formal ceremony! It was probably during this time, that Mary was visited by the angel, and conceived, by way of the Holy Spirit! It is not too much of a stretch, to believe that, by the power of the Almighty, living God, that her womb was sanctified and prepared for the birth of Our Saviour! Romans 5:12, tells us,that through one man, sin entered the world, and that ALL were affected! But don’t sell God short; He is ALL THAT, and more, and is capable of anything, and everything:thumbsup: While the debate will rage on, as to whether Mary was born a virgin and died a virgin, it is not too inconceivable to think, that she and Joseph consummated their marriage! I know it doesn’t fit with certain religion’s doctrine, but, oh well So with all due respect to those who believe, and teach that Mary was a virgin her whole life, I submit that, even though I can’t prove it, just as you can’t prove your version, she had relations with Joseph:thumbsup:With all due respect, the term “immaculate conception” is a Catholic term, so we get to define it. When you say, "my interpretation of immaculage conception is____’ it’s like me telling a Jewish person, “Well, I think Hanukkah should be in September.”When you find the Biblical reference to, who is it, St Anne, whom I would assume was Marys’ mother, could you post it please! My interpretation of immaculate conception, is that because Jesus was born spotless, without any sin, that this is what was immaculate about the conception, which is beyond the “normal” means of conception,i.e., egg+sperm! If Mary were herself, the product of an immaculate conception, then Anne, and all relatives on both sides of the family would have to be free of sin also, right! Any hiccup in the lineage, would change everything
The name of Mary’s mother is not in Scripture. You do not have to believe her name was Anne. I as a Catholic do not have to believe her name was Anne. It comes from tradition (again, with a small “t”).
Then why did you say this: We all know that she was a virgin(immaculate conception) which was explictly a reference to the fact that she conceived Jesus without sexual relations.
Again, the term “immaculate conception” has nothing to do with the manner (that is, sexual act) in which someone was conceived. It simply means that when Mary was conceived–at the moment sperm and egg met–she was immaculate–clean, pure, free from original sin.
I’m not sure what you mean. God can do anything, yes? He could save Mary from sin in a unique way in preparation for the Incarnation of His Son. Again, it wasn’t absolutely necessary that God do it this way, but is it not fitting?then Anne, and all relatives on both sides of the family would have to be free of sin also, right! Any hiccup in the lineage, would change everything
Ah, but 1beleevr, then you are contradicting your own standard. Your tradition is that everything you believe must be stated explictly in Scripture. Thus, you absolutely cannot believe that Joseph and Mary had relations, AS IT IS NOT IN THE BIBLE!!even though I can’t prove it, just as you can’t prove your version, she had relations with Joseph:thumbsup: