Why would Mary remain a virgin...after marriage?

[YADA]

I understand what you “believe” but we’re discussing if whether Scripture supports that Mary had other children, which it does. So, since Scripture is God-breathed, & God cannot be wrong, then neither can His Word. Therefore, any “belief,” even if it comes from the Church, that contradicts what God-breathed Scripture supports can’t be right. Even Paul warned about the possibility of people teaching false “gospels” - even among THEMSELVES (Galatians 1:6-9), which is why we MUST compare even the Church’s “beliefs” TO Scripture, which is why GOD gave us His Word. Otherwise, it’s like saying God is wrong & the Church is right. Are you taking that that position?

That same scripture - clearly and unreservedly - even directly calls Jesus the son of Joseph - that would be natural son of Joseph … in the exact same sentence these brothers are named and the sisters referred to …

Now theta - that sentence clearly states Jesus is the child of Joseph … now where are these other children listed as being children of Mary …

Is Joseph the natural father of Jesus? Because using your scripture alone rendition of passages would have to say “yes”

If you say “No- Joseph is not the natural father of Jesus” - then you have to admit that the children listed after equally might not be the natural children of Mary and or perhaps even Joseph. Because if Jesus is not - then it leaves open the possibility that they are not either …

It is possible they are Josephs but not Mary’s …

 

[ericc]

. Correct. For nine months and the 30 days plus for purification

That’s your assumption too.

You assume for me. Thank you. Your reasoning should not put words in my mouth, (that Joesph feared not the Holy Spirit). Your reasoning is worthy of better demeanor.

I finally see your reasoning that Mary was not only a holy vessel for and during the gestation, but also thereafter. Kind of like the chalice that Jesus used during the last supper should never be used again out of reverence to it’s once use.

For sure we all agree that Mary’s womb was holy during her pregnancy.

For sure Joseph was obedient and touched her not .

For sure that is what he was told-touch her not until His birth and I suppose for a period of purification afterwards per the Law.

Do you have any evidence that abstinence was to be continued after the birth of our Lord ?

What evidence do you have that Joseph would have been disobeying the Holy Spirit and defiling a holy thing (Mary), with another holy thing (the marriage bed) ?

Protestants hold that Bible is the only source for your beliefs. Then demonstrate that Joseph have marital relations with Mary from your Bible. You can’t . So if you can’t then you shouldn’t sprout your conjecture as fact when it is not.

Catholics relied on Holy Tradition in addition to Holy Scriptures for our beliefs. We hold that Mary remained EV through these beliefs. Our beliefs are backed by Tradition which is in the Bible. Your beliefs are not backed by the Bible. Period. At best you can argue from silence or ambiguity.

You do agree that Holy objects do not automatically lose its holiness after 10 months+ right? If you don’t, then prove it from your Bible.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The same living tradition has evidences to the contrary of ever virgin . Shall we also join in Ignatius citing no pope in Rome or Origen in the pre-existence of souls ?

ben-

Over the course of 2,000 years, the Catholic Church has listened carefully to all of her sons, and led by the Spirit into all truth, she has invariably chose correctly among their many and varied opinions.

I’m sure you know that Origen has not been designated a saint of the Church nor a Father of the Church. Doctrinal issues are the reason, of course. Origen is an important early witness to the faith of the Church, but as with other Fathers, he had some things right and some things wrong.

As for Ignatius, your post is written a little too vaguely for me to grasp what you’re trying to say. If you have a passage from Ignatius that you wish to share, please do.

Thanks.

 

[PRmerger]

No, because it’s not “MY” interpretation of Scripture. In order for it to be “MY” interpretation, I would have to ADD something into Scripture that’s not there. That’s why you’re confused. Simply going strictly by Scripture - which is what I’m doing - avoids that. However, Christians who don’t believe in sola scriptura are the ones who actually “add” these man-made traditions into Scripture that’s not there. For example, since Scripture never states that Mary “remained” a virgin, the “interpretation” of Scripture that she did is tradition that is “added” into Scripture. That’s what Jesus & the writers of the Bible were against. Remember, accurate Biblical hermeneutics is based on a proper TRANSLATION of Scripture. In fact, the Greek word for “hermeneutics” specifically means “translation,” which is USED in the NT. When you “add” anything from a literal translation of the text, you are adding “YOUR” interpretation to Scripture. By me not doing that, I’m not adding “MY” interpretation to Scripture, since I’m not “adding” anything to it.

That’s exactly what the Jehovah’s Witness says to you.

And yet you believe he is wrong.

How is it that you get to say that he is wrong, but the Church cannot do this to you?

Why do you reserve for yourself what you deny for others?

 

[PRmerger]

Agreed. Will have to remember this next time a P argument is negatively suggested to be restrictively either /or or a too liberal “and/both”.

Best is to use the law of non-contradiction for discerning whether something is either/or or both/and. That is, when one is creating a false dichotomy.

For example, there is no violation of the law of non-contradiction when one says we should use Faith And Reason. Scripture AND Tradition. Faith AND works.

And the CC embraces all of the above.
Your pastor seems to be declaring an either/or.
There is no need to do this.

However, these things do violate the law of non-contradiction: one cannot be both right and wrong at the same time. So, for example the CC is either right about the 27 book canon of the NT, or she is wrong.

She cannot be both/and.

Because that would violate the law of non-contradiction here.

Another example: either Mary remained a virgin in perpetuity, or she did not. There is no either/or here.

So that’s a good rule of thumb for embracing or rejecting the Catholic both/and paradigm, ben.

 

[Randy_Carson]

No, because it’s not “MY” interpretation of Scripture. In order for it to be “MY” interpretation, I would have to ADD something into Scripture that’s not there. That’s why you’re confused. Simply going strictly by Scripture - which is what I’m doing - avoids that. However, Christians who don’t believe in sola scriptura are the ones who actually “add” these man-made traditions into Scripture that’s not there. For example, since Scripture never states that Mary “remained” a virgin, the “interpretation” of Scripture that she did is tradition that is “added” into Scripture. That’s what Jesus & the writers of the Bible were against. Remember, accurate Biblical hermeneutics is based on a proper TRANSLATION of Scripture. In fact, the Greek word for “hermeneutics” specifically means “translation,” which is USED in the NT. When you “add” anything from a literal translation of the text, you are adding “YOUR” interpretation to Scripture. By me not doing that, I’m not adding “MY” interpretation to Scripture, since I’m not “adding” anything to it.

The scriptures say “brothers”, so by golly, Mary had other kids!

That’s your position, eh?

Catholics interpret the Bible in a “literal” sense, while many fundamentalists, Evangelicals, and others interpret the Bible in a literalist sense. You seem to be a literalist.

The “literal” meaning of a passage of Scripture is the meaning that the author of that passage of Scripture intended to convey. The “literalist” interpretation of a passage of Scripture is: “that’s what it says, that’s what it means.”

Let me give you an example to illustrate the difference. If you were to read a passage in a book that said it was “raining cats and dogs outside”, how would you interpret that? As Americans, in the 21st Century, you would know that the author was intending to convey the idea that it was raining pretty doggone hard outside. That would be the “literal” interpretation…the interpretation the author intended to convey.

The “literalist” interpretation would be that, were you to walk outside, you would actually see cats and dogs falling from the sky like rain. No taking into account the popularly accepted meaning of this phrase. No taking into account the author’s intentions. The words say it was raining cats and dogs, so, by golly, it was raining cats and dogs! That is the literalist, or fundamentalist, way of interpretation.

If someone 2000 years in the future picked up that same book and read, “It was raining cats and dogs outside,” in order to properly understand that passage in the book, they would need a “literal” interpretation, not a “literalist” interpretation. Now, think about that in the context of interpreting the Bible 2000-3000 years after it was written.

No verse of scripture, understood in the literal sense, says that Mary had more than one child.

 

[Cathoholic]

thetazlord stated (here):

QUOTE:
No, because it’s not “MY” interpretation of Scripture. In order for it to be “MY” interpretation, I would have to ADD something into Scripture that’s not there.

Now let’s look at the reality . . .

MARK 6:3a 3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary . .

PHANTOM VERSE using thetazlord addition that is “NOT addition” principle 3 Is not this the carpenter, one of the sons of Mary . . .

MATTHEW 13:55a 55 Is not this the carpenter’s son?

PHANTOM VERSE using thetazlord addition that is “NOT addition” principle 55 “Is not this ONE OF the carpenter’s SONS?”

Don’t ADD anything to Scripture huh?

Not “MY” interpretation huh?

Not ADDING something into Scripture huh?

Once again . . . .

NINE DIFFERENT WAYS “BROTHERS” (Adelphos ) IS USED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

1. Children of the same parents (Mt. 1:2, 14:3)
2. Male descendants of the same parents (Acts 7:23, 7:26, Heb. 7:5)
3. People of the same nationality (Acts 3:17, 3:22, Rom. 9:3)
4. Any man, a neighbor (Lk. 10:29, Mt. 5:22, Mt. 7:3)
5. Persons united by a common interest (Mt. 5:47)
6. Persons united by a common calling (Rev. 22:9)
7. All mankind (Mt. 25:40, Heb. 2:17)
8. The disciples (Mt. 28:10, Jn. 20:17)
9. Believers (Mt. 23:8, Acts 1:15, Rom. 1:13, 1st Thes. 1:4, Rev. 19:10)

---

ALL MARIAN DOCTRINES HAVE CHRISTOLOGIC IMPLICATIONS

As Tim Staples and so many others have said. All Marian doctrines have Christologic implications.

Your Bible additions in your mind thetazlord, skews who Jesus is.

It distorts who the Blessed Virgin Mary is too. But make no mistake about it, you are grotesquely misrepresenting the Person of Jesus also.

The Person of Jesus who is so special, that nobody else enters or exits by the “gate” that the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords Jesus came into this world by.

I told you these topics are sublime or spiritually lofty. We don’t get all of the details thetazlord.

We are not “spiritual peeping toms” thetazlord.

EZEKIEL 44:1-2 1 Then he brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary, which faces east; and it was shut. 2 And he said to me, "This gate shall remain shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it; for the LORD, the God of Israel, has entered by it; therefore it shall remain shut.

ST. AMBROSE “Who is this gate (Ezekiel 44:1-4), if not Mary? Is it not closed because she is a virgin? Mary is the gate through which Christ entered this world, when He was brought forth in the virginal birth and the manner of His birth did not break the seals of virginity.” - Saint Ambrose of Milan (ca AD 390)

ST. AUGUSTINE “It is written (Ezekiel 44, 2): ‘This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it. Because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it…’ What means this closed gate in the house of the Lord, except that Mary is to be ever inviolate? What does it mean that ‘no man shall pass through it,’ save that Joseph shall not know her? And what is this - ‘The Lord alone enters in and goeth out by it,’ except that the Holy Ghost shall impregnate her, and that the Lord of Angels shall be born of her? And what means this - ‘It shall be shut for evermore,’ but that Mary is a Virgin before His birth, a Virgin in His birth, and a Virgin after His birth.” - Saint Augustine (ca AD 430)

ST. JEROME In short, what I want to know is why Joseph refrained until the day of her delivery? Helvidius will of course reply, because he heard the angel say, (Matthew 1:20) “that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.” And in turn we rejoin that he had certainly heard him say, (Matthew 1:20) “Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto you Mary your wife.” The reason why he was forbidden to forsake his wife was that he might not think her an adulteress. Is it true then, that he was ordered not to have intercourse with his wife? Is it not plain that the warning was given him that he might not be separated from her? And could the just man (St. Joseph) dare, he says, to think of approaching her, when he heard that the Son of God was in her womb? Excellent! We are to believe then that the same man who gave so much credit to a dream that he did not dare to touch his wife, yet afterwards . . . . Helvidius, I say, would have us believe that Joseph, though well acquainted with such surprising wonders, dared to touch the temple of God, the abode of the Holy Ghost, the mother of his Lord?

– St. Jerome against Helvidius section 8

(Above Scripture, and historical quotes, with parenthetical addition, bold, and ul mine).

---

YOUR PERSONAL INTERPRETATION

The DENIAL of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary IS YOUR interpretation of Scripture thetazlord.

In order for it to be “YOUR” interpretation, YOU would have to ADD something into Scripture that’s not there . . . and unfortunately, you have.

JOHN 5:39-40 39 You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me; 40 yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.

 

[clem456]

JOHN 5:39-40 39 You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me; 40 yet you refuse to come **to me **that you may have life.

“To Me”
Christ calling attention to his personhood, * as remembered by his community, and written down in Scripture*.
Christ, who was born with full human nature and walked the earth in time and space, and who interacted with humanity, really, truly, and substantially. Christ who is the word made flesh and dwelling among us. **This interaction with humanity is called a community, or Church. **
Is this community durable? Is it authoritative over time? Or is it only durable through the apostles, or up until Constantine etc…or Luther etc?
The answer to that question is the Resurrection. Christ is risen. Our God lives. Our God is not a statue, and is certainly not a book. He is a risen living person who has breathed his living Spirit into his community.

Anyone who thinks His community is not living in continuity through time must have a very low estimation of the power of the living God

At some point a Christian must decide
“do I believe in Christianity, or am* I* god?”
Which leads us to the answer to the thread’s question, which can only seem unsatisfying, and servile, and foolish to an unbeliever:
“It is so, because the Church says it is so.”
It is so because Christ breathed life into this Church, and he lives in and through it. His life is no less vital now than it was in the year 33AD.

Once a person overcomes his own demand for rebellion, belief can set in. Isn’t Christ our best example for obedience, trust, and faith?
It is good to remember that before the book, Christ lived in a community, and he died, without leaving a book. He trusted his community to tell his story. Even after he rose, he gave his mission to his community. If Christ can trust his community to the point of death, who are we to pick it apart?

 

[wmscott]

That’s because you really don’t understand what sola scriptura means. A particular “word” that describes a Biblical truth doesn’t have to literally be in the Bible for the concept of it to be true, nor does the absence of this word violate sola scriptura.

And that’s because Scripture doesn’t support that. If so, show me in Sacred Scripture that it states that Mary REMAINED a virgin after the birth of Jesus - not just that she was a virgin DURING her pregnancy & AT Jesus’ birth.

Please, I’m not “anti-catholic” anymore than you are “anti-protestant.” In order for me to be anti-catholic, I’ve have to be anti-everything the Catholic church teaches, which I’m not. Only those things that conflict with Scripture. So, enough with the infantile name-calling, & get back to the OP!

The only “rules” I espouse to are those taught by Jesus & His apostles spelled out in Scripture. If Mary’s virginity were to be perpetual, God would have stated so in His Word, just as He did with Mary being a virgin DURING her pregnancy & AT the birth of Jesus. The fact there is ZERO evidence from Scripture that she “remained” a virgin, then that man-made “tradition” are the “precepts the doctrines of men” (Matthew 15:9). So, you can “defer” to the magisterium, but I’m going to “defer” to God’s Word, like the first century Christian Church did.

From what I have observed from so many that take your position on the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mother is that you say “The only “rules” I espouse to are those taught by Jesus & His apostles spelled out in Scripture” what you have done is limited your scope and understanding. You have limited yourself to an unscriptural position of Scripture alone. Where in the Bible does it say that the sole rule of faith is in the Bible alone? Where does it say that anything not in Scripture is un-Christian? Where does it say in Scripture that the Bible is an instruction manual to be Christian and not to believe anything else?

The problem is that you limit God and His ability and say what He can and can’t do. You try and box him in. Christ spent 40 days with the apostles after the resurrection and all that He said and did was not recorded. So even after His resurrection, is it that anything He said and did of no significance and is irrelevant? Yes we do not know what He said and did, however we have Sacred Tradition to fall back on.

All of that said do you think that Jesus never discussed His mother and her future? How we are to treat Her? You say you only believe what is in the Bible yet for the most part whenever you refer to the Mother of God you only refer to Her as “Mary” I do not see where you refer to her as “Blessed”. Why is that? The Bible says that all generations will call Her Blessed. Yet you do not, are you picking and choosing what you believe?

 

[PRmerger]

From what I have observed from so many that take your position on the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mother is that you say “The only “rules” I espouse to are those taught by Jesus & His apostles spelled out in Scripture” what you have done is limited your scope and understanding.

And this is a self-refuting paradigm because Jesus never spelled out this “rule”.

If taz is following this “rule” he’s going to have to limn where Jesus lays out this “rule” in Scripture.

And one can search Genesis through Revelation and will never find this “rule” in a single verse.

 

[clem456]

A fundamental misunderstanding of “inspiration” is at work.

Inspiration is not a purely spiritual endeavor disconnected from human elements. While God is pure spirit, he reveals himself in the flesh of Jesus Christ. He reveals himself in Scripture. He reveals himself in nature. The inspiration of humanity assumes a human being, does it not? Who is it that God is supposedly breathing on, if not human beings?

Human beings living in Christ write scripture. It does not appear out of thin air, disconnected from the inspired persons who remember and pass on a living story (Tradition).
“Do this in remembrance of me” requires a living, breathing, community of persons, alive in Christ through all times and places.

 

[wmscott]

And this is a self-refuting paradigm because Jesus never spelled out this “rule”.

If taz is following this “rule” he’s going to have to limn where Jesus lays out this “rule” in Scripture.

And one can search Genesis through Revelation and will never find this “rule” in a single verse.

This is true, but what I find frustrating is that even when you and others who has taken extensive and painstaking time to provide the explanations on the errors in their understanding, they disregard it and represent it just phrased a different way, all the while refusing to even try to see the possibilities of something other than what they think is the truth. As I asked earlier; what theological degrees do they possess that surpasses the ECF’s, not to mention the Bishops of the Church, and the College of Cardinals? It was silence to this question. In the end it is their own errant and flawed personal interpretations of cherry picked Scripture that they put forth and expect everyone to accept them as having the “Authority”, which Christ gave the Church, to interpret Sacred Scripture.

As a convert (Southern Baptist) I remember those days, but as I grew in my understanding of the Christian Church and marrying a great Catholic lady, my eyes were opened and I left my immature and erroneous understandings and perceptions behind. It is sad to say that I used to attack the Catholic Church in those days the same way, thank God for the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

 

[perpetual200]

The death of only one of the 12 apostles is recorded in Scripture, James, the brother of John. (And, yes, Judas). SO it cannot be said that the death of the apostles is a subject unworthy of Scripture or that it has “nothing to do with Jesus”. Yet, many times Protestant preachers and authors refer to the martyrdom of Christ’s apostles. THey do not derive these stories from Roman archives, but from the early tradition of the Church. Yet their brethren seldom attack them for passing on these tales (which, be it noted, I accept), certainly not on the basis of their not being related in Scripture. Only when Catholics mention the martyrdom of Peter IN ROME does it seem that objections are raised by some. Yet, when we turn to Mary, the blessed mother of our Lord and GOd, nothing is to be accepted which is not written expressly in Scripture, they say, and further, what is written in Scripture must always be interpreted in the most bare fashion, whichever way diminishes the blessed Mary and detracts from her honors the most.

 

[eddie_too]

this may or may not help.

we can be confident that the people who lived at the time of Jesus and Mary knew for certain whether or not Mary bore other children.

what we cannot be confident about is that (as some non-Catholic Christians assert), if she bore other children, the followers of Jesus would keep such knowledge obscure and allow instead a false tradition to develop about Mary’s Perpetual Virginity.

the facts were known at the time.

I am not that knowledgeable about the historical and theological development of the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity. but, based on what I do know, I know of no good reason to believe that the Church transmitted knowledge that it knew to be factually false.

while we know our faith is not scientifically provable, we also know that it is utterly reasonable and quite supportable.

 

[eddie_too]

are there protestant sects that do not understand that God elevated Mary to a position of glory that exceeds the glory He intended for any other of His human creatures?

whatever glorious facts we believe about Mary, they only skim the surface of the glory God has given to His Holy and Inviolate Mother. only in heave, God willing we all get there, will we begin to comprehend the full glory of the Mother of God, Mary Immaculate.

 

[pablope]

I understand what you “believe” but we’re discussing if whether Scripture

supports that Mary had other children, which it does. So, since Scripture is God-breathed, & God cannot be wrong, then neither can His Word. Therefore, any “belief,” even if it comes from the Church, that contradicts what God-breathed Scripture supports can’t be right.

Maybe you have not realized it yet…but it is your “INTEPRETATION” that is conflict.

Have you come to realize that you may be in error?

Even Paul warned about the possibility of people teaching false “gospels” - even among THEMSELVES (Galatians 1:6-9),

 

[thetazlord]

You have still reached a conclusion based upon your fallible opinion. Again, the Scriptures may be inerrant but your personal interpretation of them, as well as mine, is not.

In any case, as Randy Carson has “proven” from Scripture, those mentioned as brothers of Jesus have been shown not to be children of Mary. Did you miss this:

First, RandyCarson has not “proven” that they aren’t Jesus’ half-brothers. As you stated, he has only provided his “opinion” which is the based on a combination of what “select” ECF’s have believed (while ignoring others, like St. Melito, etc), as well as his misinterpretation of how many women were at the cross (FOUR, instead of the THREE he incorrect “believes.”)

Now, can you please name some of the other brothers or sisters of Jesus whom you believe to be children of Mary, per the Scriptures?

The half-brothers of Jesus are: James, Joses, Simon, & Judas, & at least 2 half-sisters. Below are the Scripture verses to back that up:

“Many women were there looking on from a distance, who had followed Jesus from Galilee while ministering to Him. Among them was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.” (Matthew 27:55-56)

“There were also some women looking on from a distance, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the Less and Joseph, and Salome.” (Mark 15:40)

“Therefore the soldiers did these things. But standing by the cross of Jesus were His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.” (John 19:25)

Matthew & Mark are two of the ‘Synoptic Gospels’ – meaning they tell some of the exact same events, just slightly different, because they are written by different writers. Both Matthew & Mark, say that the women were ‘looking on from a distance’ after the death of Jesus. Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James (the Less) & Joseph are mentioned in both accounts. Matthew names the ‘third woman’ as ‘the mother of Zebedee’s sons (which we know are James & John – Matthew 4:21), while Mark names her as ‘Salome.’ Therefore, since Matthew & Mark are recording the exact same events, ‘the mother of Zebedee’s sons (James & John)’ IS ‘Salome.’ Therefore, Zebedee, Salome, James, & John are one blood-related, family unit.

In John’s account, Jesus is still alive on the cross, so there are FOUR women at the cross at this time: Mary the mother of Jesus, her sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, & Mary Magdalene. ‘Jesus’ mothers’ sister’ is Salome (Mark 15:40), not Mary, the wife of Clopas, because that would mean that MARY, the mother of Jesus had a sister named ‘MARY’!] ‘Clopas’ (‘Klōpas’ – ‘my exchanges’) is the same person as ‘Alphaeus’ (‘Alphaios’ – ‘changing’). So, Mary, the wife of Clopas IS Mary, the mother of James (the Less) & Joseph. So, since James (the Less) is the ‘son of Alphaeus’ (Matthew 10:3), then Mary, the wife of ‘Clopas’ IS also Mary, the wife of ‘Alphaeus.’ Therefore, Alphaeus (aka: Clopas), the ‘other’ Mary, James (the Less), & Joseph are also one blood-related, family unit.

So, if we compare these two blood-related, family units, to the family unit of Mary (Jesus’ mother), Joseph (Jesus’ step-father), & Jesus, who are with the ‘brothers’ (‘adelphos’) & ‘sisters’ (‘adelphē’) of Jesus in His ‘own household’ (Mark 6:4), we discover that these ‘brothers’ & ‘sisters’ of Jesus are His actual, blood-related, half-brothers & half-sisters, & not Jesus’ cousins, disciples, believing ‘spiritual’ brothers & sisters, or children from a previous marriage of Joseph.

 

[thetazlord]

You sure about that?

5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.

The law will not cease or be abolished at the Second Coming. Sin will still be sinful.

Once I’ve addressed your questions, can we get off the Red Herring & get back to the OP?

Heaven & earth won’t “pass away” at the Second Coming, therefore, sin won’t be abolished then. Heaven & earth (& therefore sin) will be abolished at the end of the “1,000 year” reign of Christ on earth, when Jesus ushers in the “eternal state” when Satan is cast permanently into the lake of fire. I understand that as a Catholic you are “amillennial” but since this thread isn’t about eschatology, let’s not violate forum rules & create a Red Herring. I only bring this up to point out that Matthew’s use of “heos” in Matthew 5:18 does still mean the end of an activity when an event ends, just like it does the other TWO DOZEN times he uses it in his Gospel, including Matthew 1:25.

10:23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.

This CLEARLY does not represent a change, as once the Son of Man comes, there will not be more going into towns to preach.

Again, this is talking about eschatology & people fleeing into towns to escape persecution during the Tribulation Period. This “fleeing” that will end (which will also end persecution) occurs when Christ returns. Again, Matthew’s use of “heos” does mean the activity of “fleeing” ends when the event of Christ returning occurs, just as the event of Christ’s birth “ended” the “activity” of Joseph keeping Mary a virgin in Matthew 1:25.

11:12 From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force.

Proven wrong again here Taz. The violence to the kingdom of heaven still continues to this day.

The time period & specific type of “violence” that Jesus was talking about was the time period of John the Baptist when the Baptist’s preaching invoked strong reactions, such as his condemnation of the Pharisees (see Matthew Ch.3) & his condemnation of Herod Antipas for illegally marrying his brother’s wife that led to his imprisonment (recounted in Matthew 14:3). So, although violence in the kingdom continued “beyond” John the Baptist’s imprisonment & execution, Jesus was referring to the specific “type” of “violence” that was incurring during his time that ended once John was imprisoned & executed, because the Baptist’s preaching “ended” that “type” of violence. Plus, you ignore the fact that in the very next verse (v.13) uses “heo” for “until” (“For all the prophets & the Law prophesized UNTIL (heos) John”) proving he was the “END”-time Elijah (v.14), “ending” the “violence” of the prophets who Israel also murdered.

12:20 He will not break a bruised reed
or quench a smoldering wick
until he brings justice to victory.

This also proves you wrong Taz. Jesus didn’t bruise a reed or quench a wick as He went to the Cross. So there was no change when He brought justice to victory.

This is in reference to Isaiah 4:1-4, which v.1a,2,3 was filled in Jesus’ First Coming, but v.1b,4 will be fulfilled at His Second Coming, when He “rules with a rod of iron.”

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

I’m curious Taz, are you saying that Jesus will no longer sit at the right hand of the Father after the Second Coming???

Again, this is about eschatology when Jesus returns TO EARTH for His “1,000 year” reign. “Until” (heos) then, Jesus stands at the right hand of God (Acts 7:55-56). So, although Jesus is Omnipresent, Matthew 22:44 is speaking about Jesus being not on earth, physically, like He was during His First Coming.

24:21 For at that time there will be great suffering, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be

This proves you wrong again. Once the suffering happens, will there be a suffering greater? Answer: no. So there is no change. There has never and will never be greater suffering than at the suffering Jesus is describing. That doesn’t change when the suffering arrives.

Once again, Jesus is talking about eschatology when during the Tribulation Period, when the intensity & level of suffering that the world has already seen will be exponentially greater during this yet future period of time, when the world is ruled maliciously during the tyrannical reign of Antichrist (see Revelation Ch.6-19). Again, since this post isn’t about eschatology, once I’ve addressed your responses, let’s get off the rabbit trail, & get back to the OP.

(CONTINUED…)

 

[thetazlord]

28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen

Are you saying that Jesus will leave us once the world ends Taz???

First, the better translation is “end of the age” not “end of the world.” Second, Jesus is addressing His true believers (those who become the soon-to-be future Church) who He will be “with” (spiritually) until the “end of the age,” which will occur at His Second Coming. “Until” then, He’ll be “with” (heos) the Church “in Spirit” either while we are on earth, or “in Spirit” in Heaven when we die. But Christ won’t be ON EARTH during this time, because He will be “sitting at the right hand of God” UNTIL (heos) His Second Coming TO EARTH.

Seems you trusted some Protestant source for your “facts” about “until”, and you didn’t actually check them out yourself. You’ve been proven wrong again.

Do you now acknowledge you were wrong about this claim?

So, as you can see I have “checked them out myself.” I didn’t “trust some Protestant source.” It sounds more like “you” are the one who “trusted” a source for your misunderstanding of these verses without “checking them out for YOURself.”

 

[thetazlord]

Didn’t Jesus also have a father named Joseph? Since the Bible talks about Joseph as the father of Jesus, often at the same time as it talks of the brothers, does that make Joseph the biological father of Jesus?

No, because Scripture makes it clear that Joseph isn’t Jesus’ natural father (Luke 3:23), just as it does that Jesus’ brothers are His half-brothers, but requires more than a SINGLE verse to realize this.